Hillary: Divisive. Obama: Audacious

[preservanation]

Obama Calls Clinton Divisive Figure

Jan 30, 6:50 PM (ET)

By NEDRA PICKLER and MIKE GLOVER

DENVER (AP) - Democratic Sen. Barack Obama said Wednesday a Hillary Rodham Clinton presidency would be a step back to the past, turning her husband's image of a bridge to the future against her. The former first lady decried the tenor of his comments in an interview with The Associated Press.

"I know it is tempting - after another presidency by a man named George Bush - to simply turn back the clock, and to build a bridge back to the 20th century," the Illinois senator said in Denver.

"... It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One - you have to be right from Day One," he added in unmistakable criticisms of Clinton, who often claims she's better prepared to govern, and her husband, who pledged during his own presidency to build a bridge to the 21st century.

Within hours, Hillary Clinton pushed back in an interview with the AP - and got in her own dig.

"That certainly sounds audacious, but not hopeful," said Clinton, in a play on the title of Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope.""It's not hopeful and it's not what we should be talking about in this campaign," said Clinton, suggesting Obama was abandoning the core of his campaign.

"I would certainly, through you, hope we could get back to talking about the issues, drawing the contrasts that are based in fact that have a connection to the American people," Clinton said.

In his speech, Obama depicted Clinton as a calculating, poll-tested divisive figure who will only inspire greater partisan divisions as she sides with Republicans on issues such as trade, the role of lobbyists in politics and national security.http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080130/D8UGGRN00.html

In Hillary's words..."Now the fun part starts".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9G80GOkNTo

[Alonzo]

In his speech, Obama depicted Clinton as a calculating, poll-tested divisive figure who will only inspire greater partisan divisions as she sides with Republicans on issues such as trade, the role of lobbyists in politics and national security.

She'll inspire greater partisan divisions by working with the opposing side?

Did Obama recently move to Bizarro Land?

[preservanation]

Well, from many libs I hear that she'll just be more of the same...and Obama seems to agree.
That is why the concept of change is more palpable in his campaign rather than hers.

[Alonzo]

Well, from many libs I hear that she'll just be more of the same...and Obama seems to agree.


That doesn't rule out that it could have been a mass excodus from Sane City to Bizzaro Land.

[preservanation]

http://www.hillcity-comics.com/graphic_novels/new_graphic_novel289.jpg

[preservanation]

"That certainly sounds audacious, but not hopeful," said ClintonThis word was used purposely.
You tell me if this doesn't smack at demeaning and racially charged language...

Audacious:
assuming, arrogant,, biggety, bossy, bragging, cheeky, cocky, conceited, contemptuous, defiant, disrespectful, egotistic, haughty, high-handed, imperious, impudent, insolent, lordly, nervy, overbearing, peremptory, pompous, presuming, presumptuous, pretentious, proud, scornful, self-important, smarty, smug, snippy, superior, swaggering,

and my favorite. Drum roll please... UPPITY.

Put all those choice words together, and use them to describe any black who remembers the days of segregation and is familiar with the plantation mentality, and see if it doesn't get a rise out of them.

This is code for that Mr. Obama just doesn't know his place.!
Disgusting.

[ViolaLee]

This is exactly why I prefer Obama (one of the many reasons actually). Just see preserva's smear, this LOOOOONG stretch he's making, to say Hillary is a racist. This is what we can expect from the right wing talkers if Hillary is elected. Just inane bashing, for 4 long years.
No offense preserva, you're just brainwashed by them, you've been listening to that crap for too long.

[Alonzo]

Ummmmm........ viola, go here:

http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=11134

Kind of throws a wrench in that argument.

[Truth_and_Power]

Well, from many libs I hear that she'll just be more of the same...and Obama seems to agree.
That is why the concept of change is more palpable in his campaign rather than hers.


I see no change available from either.

[preservanation]

This is exactly why I prefer Obama (one of the many reasons actually). Just see preserva's smear, this LOOOOONG stretch he's making, to say Hillary is a racist. This is what we can expect from the right wing talkers if Hillary is elected. Just inane bashing, for 4 long years.
No offense preserva, you're just brainwashed by them, you've been listening to that crap for too long.
Worrying about how the GOP will react is a bit premature.
How the Dems will react, especially Obama supporters, when Hillary attempts (or worse yet, succeeds) in stealing the nomination from him, should be of a much greater concern to you VoilaLee.
Clinton is in danger of tearing your party apart at the seams.
Right now Hillary's campaign is trying to pit white Dems who have racist tendencies (yes they do exist!) against the audacious or "uppity" black man.

My long-standing prediction is that she will fight tooth and nail to seat those delegates from Mich and Fla , against previously agreed upon rules, in order to ace Obama out of the nomination.
If this happens riots are a distinct possibility.

[Alonzo]

Pres, does it make sense to accuse democrats of racism and then say that if Obama doesn't get the nomination then people (I assume you mean blacks) will riot? As if that's their natural response?

[preservanation]

Pres, does it make sense to accuse democrats of racism and then say that if Obama doesn't get the nomination then people (I assume you mean blacks) will riot? As if that's their natural response?

I knew that would be the response. Predictable.
You can assume all you want but it's not what I said.
Worrying about how the GOP will react is a bit premature.
How the Dems will react, especially Obama supporters, when Hillary attempts (or worse yet, succeeds) in stealing the nomination from him, should be of a much greater concern to you VoilaLee.
Clinton is in danger of tearing your party apart at the seams.
Right now Hillary's campaign is trying to pit white Dems who have racist tendencies (yes they do exist!) against the audacious or "uppity" black man.

My long-standing prediction is that she will fight tooth and nail to seat those delegates from Mich and Fla , against previously agreed upon rules, in order to ace Obama out of the nomination.
If this happens riots are a distinct possibility.
Read it, I never mentioned blacks in any way except for the fact that Clinton is using race to leverage support from some Dems who might be hesitant voting for a black man.
You automatically assumed I was refering to blacks when I mentioned riots because of your preconceived perceptions...not mine.
Zo, you are the one who instinctively made the connection.
Thank you, I feel my point has been made through your help.


Nonetheless, thanks for bringing it up.
Let’s discuss this.

Let me ask you this...were the riots in Chicago, Atlanta, Detroit, Newark, Mississippi, Louisiana etc, unjustified even though human rights were being violated?
I don’t think so.
They were being cheated.
Are you saying blacks should have just stopped being audacious and taken the injustice dealt to them by the powerful in society ?
I don't think you would say that Zo.
Neither would I.
I would fight for my rights and freedom as well, just as I’m sure you would.

If the DNC behaves in much the same fascist, cheating and rights denying manner, they should be called on it. as some like Bull Connor and others have done in our history, they should be called on it.
Reinstating previously disallowed delegates in Hillary’s favor to unfairly win the nomination would IMO be a miscarriage of justice.
If Hillary steals the nomination from Obama supporters, that would be a violation of their rights, no matter what their race and they might not just sit back and take it like the Clintons would want them to.

This will tear the Dems apart, no matter what their races are and a riot of defiance or an ideological revolt is most likely.
You can refer to violent riots if you want and that is a distinct possibility as well,
but either of these results will be brought on by Obama supporters of all races, not just blacks as you implied.
As you know more of his supporters are white rather than black. For you to jump so hastily to the racial angle was indicative of the mentality I have been trying to illustrate.

[Alonzo]

I get the feeling that's roundabout way of calling me racist. Problem is that the accusation of supporters rioting is not used with any candidate other than Obama, and it's not even something that has really come up in recent elections. As if there's something different about his supporters.

But, nevertheless, you're attempt at labeling me a racist is ridiculous. Maybe you can use that as evidence that I'm quicker to assume a conservative is racist, or at least making a racist assumption, but that's it. After all the comment is directed at the person making it, you in this case, not the people you were referring to.

[preservanation]

Zo, you typed this.Pres, does it make sense to accuse democrats of racism and then say that if Obama doesn't get the nomination then people (I assume you mean blacks) will riot? As if that's their natural response? Assuming things falsely and implying falsely that I am somehow a racist.
Then this...I get the feeling that's roundabout way of calling me racist.So you are accusing me of the things you did in the first post.
Still scratching my head I read this... Maybe you can use that as evidence that I'm quicker to assume a conservative is racist, or at least making a racist assumption, but that's it.you admit bias against conservatives.

Re read my last post. Attempt to understand my point without assuming things which are not there or prejudging my party affiliation.

I know that accusing your opponent of the identical thing you are guilty of, (in this case the accusation of the other person accusing another of racism), is a common debate tactic and might work on some...but remember, this is *presrva* you are typing at.

I have more to say but I think it only fair to give you a chance to rethink your line of debate before you get in too deep.

[PostmodernProphet]

This is exactly why I prefer Obama (one of the many reasons actually). Just see preserva's smear, this LOOOOONG stretch he's making, to say Hillary is a racist. This is what we can expect from the right wing talkers if Hillary is elected. Just inane bashing, for 4 long years.
No offense preserva, you're just brainwashed by them, you've been listening to that crap for too long.


I wouldn't consider it a stretch at all.....if you look at the history of the Democratic Party, while they are certainly happy to let the blacks vote for them, they have no intention of permitting them to move into party leadership uncontrolled.....crap they don't even let their black congressmen be known by name.....they just lump them together as the "Black Leadership Caucus"....

Obama isn't the first to escape restriction....he's just the first they haven't dared throw out of the party for trying it......

[preservanation]

This is exactly why I prefer Obama (one of the many reasons actually). Just see preserva's smear, this LOOOOONG stretch he's making, to say Hillary is a racist. This is what we can expect from the right wing talkers if Hillary is elected. Just inane bashing, for 4 long years.
No offense preserva, you're just brainwashed by them, you've been listening to that crap for too long.


I wouldn't consider it a stretch at all.....if you look at the history of the Democratic Party, while they are certainly happy to let the blacks vote for them, they have no intention of permitting them to move into party leadership uncontrolled.....crap they don't even let their black congressmen be known by name.....they just lump them together as the "Black Leadership Caucus"....

Obama isn't the first to escape restriction....he's just the first they haven't dared throw out of the party for trying it......
Exactly correct!
My point is that some lib/dems are the ones who look at people as groups, be it race, gender, or whatever.
These people are hypocrites and IMO their lib social policies are most responsible for their economic and social condition of which they most loudly complain about and blame others for.
I've seen this first hand all my life.

Talk about a glass ceiling! It is the classic plantation mentality.
Deliver the black vote and we will let you in the room, and may give you a chairmanship and get you reelected...but that's it.
They are always talking about affirmative action and blacks not being given what they deserve for whatever reason.

If they were true to that credo Obama should not by contended for the nomination. IMO a black president would be the ultimate ring for racial progress. They demand it of everyone else but when it's their turn to walk the walk, they balk and start attacking Obama and using racist innuendo to dissuade the electorate from voting for a black man.

But what's happening?
The party Clinton elites are smacking him down, using divisive political tactics and calling him Audacious, which is a synonym for uppity.
This just proves what I have long known is true.

My hope is that blacks will finally see through this hypocrisy and break the chains that have bound them to the DNC for so many decades.
I always knew that day would come...maybe it just will take the Clintons to tip the scales and actually finally give them real emancipation.

The Clinton straw that breaks the camel's back may actually be what finally breaks the chains of lib/dem bondage.
Oh, the irony.

[Elrathin]

The party Clinton elites are smacking him down, using divisive political tactics and calling him Audacious, which is a synonym for uppity.
This just proves what I have long known is true.

Pres, your own party that you support is at each others throat trying to dictate who is more conservative. Your party is no better and IF (I say if because I doubt your party anytime soon will get a black leader) they had a black candidate, theywould be doing the same thing to him or her.

Quit acting like the Republican party is such stand up guys that don't mudsling each other, you're only fooling yourself there.

[preservanation]

"There You Go Again..."
~Ronald Reagan.[hr]You have to look at this logically, El.
We are in the nomination process.
The ones who are pulling the stuff we are discussing are people in the Dem party.
Deal with that fact before you start accusing Conservatives of being racist, sexist, bigoted homophobes. There will be plenty of time for that later.
Focus...

[Elrathin]

You have to look at this logically, El.
We are in the nomination process.
The ones who are pulling the stuff you are complaining about are people in the Dem party.
Deal with that fact before you start accusing Conservatives of being racist, sexist, bigoted homophobes. There will be plenty of time for that later.
Focus...


I have looked at this logically, your party is at each others throats. And to claim that they wouldn't do it, is naive. It's ok pres, I know you have to put your party on a pedestal just so you can stomach to vote for one of them, but the facts speak for themselves.

Your party mud slings and eats their own and this is being shown. Your party is not above the tactics being used by the Dems. Just remember that.

[preservanation]

El, you have to pay more attention.
Remember...it's me.
you have to put your party on a pedestal just so you can stomach to vote for one of them, but the facts speak for themselves.
I have never done any such thing, I defend the Republicans when they deserve it and are unfairly attacked, and criticize them when I think they stray from their conservative roots. I have always done that.

I put my Conservative Ideology on a pedestal, if anything, not the Republican party.

We have been through this before,
but maybe a refresher course is in order.


Conservatism is an ideology.
Republican is a political party affiliation.

I can't believe we have to go through this again.
Please tell me you understand this now.

You know nothing about what I can stomach.
Just remember that.

[PostmodernProphet]

Pres, your own party that you support is at each others throat trying to dictate who is more conservative.

????...surprise....a political party is trying to pick a leader based on his politics.....makes a lot more sense than trying to choose between the first woman president and the first black president......

[preservanation]

Pres, your own party that you support is at each others throat trying to dictate who is more conservative.

????...surprise....a political party is trying to pick a leader based on his politics.....makes a lot more sense than trying to choose between the first woman president and the first black president......
Absolutely.
We, as conservatives are trying to pull the Republican party towards our ideology and away from liberalism.

Some conservatives support McCain because they believe, falsely, that he is the most electable.

IMO there's not a dimes bit of difference in policy between Hillary and Obama.
The Dems are campaigning on personality, like they always do, but a new twist is added and that is race and sex. They have set themselves up for this schism through their action and group based rhetoric and ideology in the past.

If their group-based-think ends up dividing the Dem party, it will certainly be poetic justice.
Almost a Shakesperian literary device with it's tragic components.

[Alonzo]

Zo, you typed this.Pres, does it make sense to accuse democrats of racism and then say that if Obama doesn't get the nomination then people (I assume you mean blacks) will riot? As if that's their natural response? Assuming things falsely and implying falsely that I am somehow a racist.
Then this...I get the feeling that's roundabout way of calling me racist.So you are accusing me of the things you did in the first post.

Pres, when you say this:

For you to jump so hastily to the racial angle was indicative of the mentality I have been trying to illustrate.

I have to wonder what that mentality is. So I look up a few posts and see this:

Right now Hillary's campaign is trying to pit white Dems who have racist tendencies (yes they do exist!) against the audacious or "uppity" black man.

What am I supposed to think?

Still scratching my head I read this... Maybe you can use that as evidence that I'm quicker to assume a conservative is racist, or at least making a racist assumption, but that's it.you admit bias against conservatives.

I admit that I think conservatives are more likely to believe racist statements. Just like I'm sure there's a whole host of statements and views you find more likely to come from liberals.


I know that accusing your opponent of the identical thing you are guilty of, (in this case the accusation of the other person accusing another of racism), is a common debate tactic and might work on some...but remember, this is *presrva* you are typing at.


I'm not the one who said that a lot of democrats have racist tendencies, and then claim that I'm illustrating that point.

[preservanation]

Zo, What am I supposed to think when I mention Obama supporters rioting if Hillary steals the nomination, and you automatically accuse me of racism, when you instinctively made a connection between blacks and rioting on your own...?Worrying about how the GOP will react is a bit premature.
How the Dems will react, especially Obama supporters, when Hillary attempts (or worse yet, succeeds) in stealing the nomination from him, should be of a much greater concern...If this happens riots are a distinct possibility.( I assume you mean blacks) will riot? As if that's their natural response?Are all Obama supporters Black?
The vast number of Obama supporters are white.
Why would YOU make that assumption?
Well, this sheds a little light on why you did...
Maybe you can use that as evidence that I'm quicker to assume a conservative is racist, or at least making a racist assumption, but that's it.
I think this is a loser for you.

[Alonzo]

Zo, What am I supposed to think when I mention Obama supporters rioting if Hillary steals the nomination, and you automatically accuse me of racism, when you instinctively made a connection between blacks and rioting on your own...?Worrying about how the GOP will react is a bit premature.
How the Dems will react, especially Obama supporters, when Hillary attempts (or worse yet, succeeds) in stealing the nomination from him, should be of a much greater concern...If this happens riots are a distinct possibility.( I assume you mean blacks) will riot? As if that's their natural response?Are all Obama supporters Black?
The vast number of Obama supporters are white.
Why would YOU make that assumption?
Well, this sheds a little light on why you did...

And why does no one suggest anyone else will riot if their candidate loses? Considering all the comments you hear lately how blacks will react if Obama loses, particularly coming from conservative nuts (the limbaugh, savage and free republic crowd, not you), it's not a ridiculous assumption.


Maybe you can use that as evidence that I'm quicker to assume a conservative is racist, or at least making a racist assumption, but that's it.
I think this is a loser for you.
[/quote]

As I said pres, there are certain things we tend to more often associate with certain groups. I'm pretty sure you're more likely to assume a comment is anti-american coming from me than a conservative like boogy, it's not intentional but it's the way people are. I'm not calling you a racist, never did, simply saying that the comment appeared to be a racist comment. It's the same way I can commit a violent act (I'm sure we all have) but that doesn't make everyone a violent person.

[preservanation]

At least you've admitted that my point is valid.
I'll take that as a concession.

[Alonzo]

Wasn't this your point?

Right now Hillary's campaign is trying to pit white Dems who have racist tendencies (yes they do exist!) against the audacious or "uppity" black man.

Then the riot thing.

[preservanation]

Right.
In that quote I didn't accuse Hillary or her campaign of being racist (Whether they are or not is not the point, I can't read their heart and soul). My point is that Hillary's campaign will use race in order to sway some Dems to turn out for her who might not be so keen on voting for a black man.
They have to be sly though and use surrogates so they can distance themselves or deny any involvement as to not turn off others who would not approve of those tactics.
Clayborn and others have pointed out the subtle code they have been employing. My unique example was the use of the word audacious.

BTW, there are racist Dems too *gasp*. We don't even have to go through history, policy or individuals for that to be accepted as true. Common sense and knowledge should suffice.


I put nothing past the Clintons.
To them the ends always justify the means.

[AnnEsthesia]

I must have missed the ad where they called Obama uppity and told people that is why we should vote against him. Can you link it, please?

[preservanation]

"That certainly sounds audacious, but not hopeful," said Clinton,

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080130/D8UGGRN00.html


Audacious- Synonyms:
assuming, arrogant,, biggety, bossy, bragging, cheeky, cocky, conceited, contemptuous, defiant, disrespectful, egotistic, haughty, high-handed, imperious, impudent, insolent, lordly, nervy, overbearing, peremptory, pompous, presuming, presumptuous, pretentious, proud, scornful, self-important, smarty, smug, snippy, superior, swaggering,

and my favorite. Drum roll please... UPPITY.

She was playing off the title of Obama's book, but it was purposeful and fits right into what others, even in her own party, have been saying.

[AnnEsthesia]

Um... stretching much? So if I say that you are being ridiculous, does that mean you are also obscene? If so, I think your post should be FP'd. ;)

ridiculous

adjective

1. Deserving laughter: comic, comical, farcical, funny, laughable, laughing, ludicrous, risible. See laughter
2. Beyond all reason: obscene, outrageous, preposterous, shocking, unconscionable, unreasonable. Idioms: out of bounds, out of sight. See usual

[preservanation]

No I would use that adjective to describe Hillary's husband...;)

[AnnEsthesia]

Oh, leave Bill alone. Not everything is about Bill.

[Alonzo]

BTW, there are racist Dems too *gasp*. We don't even have to go through history, policy or individuals for that to be accepted as true. Common sense and knowledge should suffice.

I never said there weren't, but the idea that they hold any real power over elections is far fetched.


Audacious- Synonyms:
assuming, arrogant,, biggety, bossy, bragging, cheeky, cocky, conceited, contemptuous, defiant, disrespectful, egotistic, haughty, high-handed, imperious, impudent, insolent, lordly, nervy, overbearing, peremptory, pompous, presuming, presumptuous, pretentious, proud, scornful, self-important, smarty, smug, snippy, superior, swaggering,

and my favorite. Drum roll please... UPPITY.


Wow, that's really stretching it. With that logic Clinton praised Obama:

"That certainly sounds superior, but not hopeful," said Clinton,

[preservanation]

C'mon Zo, superior in that sense is different. "He acted superior" is different than "Ajax is a superior product over Bon-Ami".
Those are homonyms.
Who's stretching, now?

http://re3.yt-thm-a03.yimg.com/image/25/m8/4204654246

[preservanation]

Oh, leave Bill alone. Not everything is about Bill.
It is... if you ask him!

[Alonzo]

C'mon Zo, superior in that sense is different. "He acted superior" is different than "Ajax is a superior product over Bon-Ami".
Those are homonyms.
Who's stretching, now?

http://re3.yt-thm-a03.yimg.com/image/25/m8/4204654246


Hey, the words there. As you've shown it doesn't have to fit the context, just has to be listed as a synonym, even if they largely have different connotations.

seriously pres, you are making an obscene argument.

[preservanation]

Audacious, in context is synonymous with uppity...that's all I'm saying.[hr]As I said, obscene describes Bill better than Hillary... as long as she keeps her pants on.

[preservanation]

I just heard Keith Oberman say about the percentage of whites (43%) who voted for Obama in Georgia..."Not bad for a Black".
LOL.
These libs crack me up!

[Alonzo]

I've never like olberman, and I never watch him. It's like I'm watching a conservative nutcase, except laughing at him isn't fun because he's closer to me politically.

[preservanation]

I call him "puppet-boy"
Word around the camp-fire is that Mathews is a little ticked about sharing the headline with him and actually playing second chair to Olberman in some circumstances.
Understandably.[hr]I just lost a long witty post to the ether...your loss!
Suffice to say, Mathews is not happy playing second fiddle to "puppet-boy".

[AnnEsthesia]

Of course change is what Obama is running on. What else does he have?

[preservanation]

Of course change is what Obama is running on. What else does he have?
A few things.
He is not a member of the industrial military complex like Hillary is.
His cult of personality.
He is not bound by favors from lib special interest groups such as the the Black Caucus or NAACP.
Most importantly, he is not Bill or Hillary Clinton.