|
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||
 zasel says: Even though the New York Times has previously endorsed Hillary in her run for the Democratic presidential nomination, they now seem to be reconsidering due to her tactics. The editorial board is disgusted with her use of Rove-like tactics against Senator Obama, in a "win at all cost" campaign that is making both candidates look bad in the eyes of the voting public. I am not one of those folks clamoring for Hillary to drop out of the race. She certainly has the right to hang-in there up to the convention if she that is what she wishes to do. After all, these are called "nominating conventions" for a reason. They are NOT called "coronations." But if she continues in the race she should at least fight fair, and not throw the kitchen sink at Obama, and begin making the arguments McCain and his campaign will be adopting in the general election. For example on at least two occasions she has essentially said that McCain is better equipped to be president than is Obama. That is just a b Why is she suddently being held to a higher standard than all the other campaigners that came before her after all these years? Is it less attractive when a female does it? Or do we just notice it more because for once, another politician isn't doing it? Deb, I really do not believe Hillary is being held to a higher standard that other campaigners. I was originally a very strong Hillary supporter, but I found that she starting running a very dirty campaign, and went against all of the loft ideals she set for herself, as soon as she saw that Obama was actually going to be a formidable opponent. If she wants to fight Obama on the issues, I applaud that effort 110%. But Democrats should not fight each other using the Republican tactics they so revile. By claiming that she and Senator McCain are proven to have passed the line that makes them qualified to be Commander in Chief and saying Obama has not, is just plain wrong. She should never ele... |
View the Top Clips from April 24, 2008
|
|
