Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion
In a time of the spring, old paths are obscured and new growth begins.
Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit DiscussionIn a time of the spring, old paths are obscured and new growth begins.
Given the considerable dominance of Bill and Hillary Clinton in New York State Democratic party politics, it was never a question that Hillary Clinton would get the largest share of presidential convention delegates in the 2008 primary. What is surprising, however, is that she had to work so hard in New York State to maintain her victory.
Barack Obama made a surprisingly showing in the New York State Democratic presidential primary yesterday. Hillary Clinton got 91 congressional district delegates, with Barack Obama not far behind at 60 delegates.
The solid wrap-up of New York’s large number of delegates wasn’t delivered. That will make it all-the-more challenging for Hillary Clinton to get the presidential nomination, and leads to the question of how much New York State Democrats really approve of the job Hillary Clinton is doing for them in the U.S. Senate.
(98 votes, average: 2.72 out of 5)
Irregular Times
New Button Designs
66 queries. 0.846 seconds
Top Article Last Week
February 6th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
You might also consider how Clinton took a third of the delegates in Obama’s home state of Illinois:
Obama 103
Clinton 42
Is this a commentary on how little Illinois approves of the job Obama is doing for them? Not good, especially when you consider how the state has a reputation for dead people voting.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
The ratios are nowhere near close, Iroquois. Let me just ask you, because there are things that I don’t like about Barack Obama - is there anything you’re willing to admit that you don’t like about Hillary Clinton?
February 6th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
I think what you are trying to say, Frank, is that YOU don’t approve of Hillary’s record. It’s a bit of a leap to go from there to reading the minds of all New York Democrats. You really need a poll if you’re going to make those kind of claims.
But of course it’s much more fun just to make irresponsible high-flown claims without anything to back them up.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:25 am
So, then, Iroquois, you’re not willing to admit that there’s even one thing that you don’t like about Hillary Clinton?
February 7th, 2008 at 8:46 am
CLINTON LENDING 5 MILLIONS TO HER CAMPAIGN
Is just amazing how people dont get the tricks of politics… do you really believe she doen’t have money ? that her campaign can’t raise 5 millions? Do you honestly believe that her organization and fundraising teams are that bad ??? Come on !!…
Here is what’s happening: She WANTS to look like the underdog !!! She wants the Obama’s camp to think she is losing steam… She wants Obama look like he is the master money taker and she is the poor candidate here….
It is just politics… and in politics PERCEPTION is everything. Whe she needed to look more human, more candid, she started to cry after a voter’s question and that worked. Now she wants to look like the poor girl… and unless people see what’s really going on, that will work too.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Ah. So she raised less than half of what Obama raised in January on purpose. I see… it was an agreement with her supporters so they could surprise Obama!
Nice trick. She’s a clever one. Clinton supporters are the most blindly subservient followers I’ve ever seen.
For the most part, Obama supporters are willing to consider his weak points. Not so, Clinton supporters. Hillary is just flawless.
One reason the Illinois comparison does not work is that Illinois is Clinton’s home state. “What?” I can hear you yell, “Her home state is New York.” Well, she currently lives in New York, it’s true. But she was born in Chicago and grew up in Park Ridge.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:08 am
As America lies here at a major crossroads, between collapse and ushering in a new era; we have a choice between the corrupt politics of yesterday and welcoming a new future.I feel that this is this is the worst possible time to put the Clintons back in the White House. Hillary as president would be an absolute disaster for America because she is ready and willing to sell the United States of America out to her corporate puppet-masters. She has not been “vetted” in the least as she claims, and we as voters need to start the vetting process because there are some major skeletons in the Clinton closet. Read on to learn who and what are behind the Hillary curtain.
To begin, lets identify the Clinton façade before we expose the true Hillary. Mrs.Clinton is portraying herself as someone who will fight for everyday middle class American workers and women against the economic pressures they face. She touts her “experience” with flair. Unfortunately, the very experience she flaunts runs contrary to ideals that would benefit the Americans she is pandering herself to.
Lets look into the most prominent example of Hillary becoming a corporate puppet for hire. From 1986 to 1992 an unqualified Hillary sat as an executive on the board of a very large Arkansas company for millions of dollars. In turn, while her husband was governor of Arkansas, he gave said company special treatment as governor. Not only is this blatant nepotism bad enough, but this very company has also become notorious for its long-standing anti-female, anti-worker culture that has resulted in paying out millions of dollars in recent years to settle lawsuits. Hillary sat on the board of this company and promoted this corporations backward culture, because she was paid enough to throw her alleged principles to the wind. When Hillary’s husband won the presidency, she resigned from the board of directors and immediately used Bill’s position to secure trade deals with China that enabled her former employer to expand across the country, shutting down small businesses and leaching off communities. If you haven’t figured it out by now, the company in question is Wal-mart. She has said “I’m always proud of Wal-Mart and what we do and the way we do it is better than anybody else” To this day she has not had to answer ANY questions by the mainstream media about her role in shaping and doling handouts to one of the most predatory companies in America.
What we can expect from another Clinton white house? More of the same pandering to special interests, and use of political dirty tricks in their all-consuming quest for power and money. We can see her Wal-Mart character manifested again by the fact that this time around pharmaceutical companies have enthusiastically reached into their pockets and funded the Clinton campaign. Her “health care mandate” would force everyone in America to pay the pharmaceutical companies for overpriced medicine whether they want to or not. The Clintons and their corporate friends will decide what is affordable for you and what is not. As far as political dirty tricks, famous corporate neo-con Rupert Murdoch of FOX news has held fund raisers for her campaign, and helped her smear Senator Obama with disgusting, racist lies. These heartless lies, spread over email, have been traced back directly to her campaign.
Hillary is a corporate mole running for office in the same vein as Dick Cheney, only Hillary happens to claim the Democratic party. Don’t be fooled by the difference in parties, a vote for Hillary is a vote for the same kind of corporate special interests that hired Dick Cheney and Haliburton to rob our beloved country blind. Speaking of Haliburton, the ties between the Clintons and the Bushes beloved neo-con allies run deep. It was Dick Cheney himself who secured Haliburton contracts with Bill Clinton, and in subsequent years Hillary worked with Haliburton and Dick Cheney to authorize the disastrous invasion of Iraq. Now she wants to clear the way for invasion of Iran, by voting to give Bush authority to take unilateral action against the Iranian military. No matter what she says at the stump, her actions speak louder than words. She is a Republican wolf hidden behind a Democratic façade.
The actions of the Clintons and the Bushes have divided and hurt our country. It is time to move beyond the corrupt, lying politicians of old, and vote only for a candidate that brings fresh, positive, transformative change; whether that candidate is Congressman Ron Paul or Senator Barack Obama. With our huge deficits and struggling masses, America can not afford to vote more corporate raiders like the Clintons, Bushes, and Cheneys into the highest office of the land. It is time to move forward and leave the lying, scandalous, divisive politicians of the 20th century behind us. Please forward this urgent message to everyone you know, so together we can get the truth out about Clintons and send them a message that we will not take any more.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:17 am
You’re forgetting one thing, John. Hillary is a woman. That means she’s kind to small animals, loans sugar to her neighbors and would never do something crazy like support an attack on Iraq.
Are you sure about Cheney and Bill? That doesn’t sound like something my Hillary would allow to go on in the Whitehouse!!
February 7th, 2008 at 10:04 am
If you read correctly the article, she has 20 million set aside for the General election. She will NEVER lose her 5 millions… if she doesn’t win, she can get her money back from the saved 20 million. (and I wonder what happens with the other 15…)
She also explained that she is doing it because Obama’s campaign raised more money than her (again the victim…) and she wants to be competitive. Yes, she raised less, from Corporations and special interest groups…
She obviously is not telling anybody about the backroom deals with the superdelegates, etc. that I think will be the real winner on this election, after Obama wins the states contest, she will win the nomination on the delegate count… brilliant… I wonder if her campaign isn’t consulting Karl Rove…
If the financial trouble is real (which I doubt), she cannot be trusted anyway to manage our economy that is so close to recession, after years of Bush mismanagement and wild spending in wars.
February 7th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Here’s what I think.
I think Irregular Times has already chosen their candidate, but secretly and without saying so officially. Now they are trying to promote their candidate, Barack Obama, but through the back door, by having their regular writers write little anti-Hillary tirades and try to start little Obama-Hillary online squabbles for him under fake names.
I don’t think it’s very attractive.
Why don’t you do fishing for Ron Paul trout?
February 7th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Iroquois, that’s interesting, but it’s wrong. First of all, Irregular Times isn’t one person. Secondly, Irregular Times hasn’t chosen a candidate - and we haven’t even talked about doing so, except to say that we don’t feel able to do so.
We’re an independent web site - why would we support a candidate secretly, and without saying so? That wouldn’t be very effective, would it? It would be like a company trying to sell its products by denying that they have anything to sell.
I certainly don’t know who these C.N. and Nathan people are, but they’re representative of a lot of Democrats who feel very uneasy with Hillary Clinton’s record. Look around and you’ll find many people who feel that way - it doesn’t take a sock puppet.
We’ve been writing things pro-Clinton and con-Clinton, pro-Obama and con-Obama, for years. Just take a look. Just yesterday morning, Green man wrote a piece criticizing BOTH Obama and Clinton for ignoring the Chukchi Sea problem - http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2008/02/06/chukchi-reckoning/
If we had secretly agreed to become Obama boosters, would that have been written? Or, is it that you think that we’re engaged in some kind of sneaky writing criticisms against Obama so that we can promote Obama without seeming to promote Obama agenda? Really now - such a plan would be so devious as to be completely ineffective.
I do, however, think that Frank Liberal is on to something - you don’t seem able to accept any kind of nuanced interpretation of Hillary Clinton.
February 7th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
You’re the one bringing up Hillary, not me. Trying to start something?
If you’re not using this website to promote a secret political agenda, why does it take so much verbiage just to say “no”?
And who is Frank Liberal? Why do you defend him? Do you know him? And why don’t we ever see his photo?
February 7th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Ask Frank. Why haven’t we seen photos for so many people, like this odd SFo? What does SFo stand for? In life, there must be many mysteries.
As for verbage, I’ve always hated short statements. They’re the ones to conceal.
Take a second. Breathe deeply. Slowly, now. Feels better.
February 7th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
I’ll bite.
Frank, are you using this website to promote a political agenda in favor of a particular candidate? Who do you speak for?
February 8th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
An eloquent, deafening silence.
That would suggest that Frank and the Irregular Times are now in the pocket of the Obama campaign.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Oh, shush. It would suggest that I went to the zoo this afternoon, “Anonymous”.
I can’t speak for Irregular Times, though if they’re really “in the pocket of the Obama campaign”, why would they have written an article criticizing Barack Obama for not showing up for an essential vote. First article of the day. Yes, it criticizes Clinton and McCain too, but come off it.
As for myself, I write here to promote a political agenda, yes. MY political agenda. I speak for me.
February 8th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Then why don’t you stop trying to “shush” people or mind read them or start little passive-aggressive fights? Just speak for yourself straight out.