Comments on: Hillary 1984

By: Cum Asian Cum Ass Cum

Cum Asian Cum Ass Cum — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 19:04:06 +0000

Cum Asian Cum Ass Cum…

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view…

By: Robin

Robin — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 23:19:33 +0000

Robin…

…Making treadmill weight loss workout a daily habit makes achieving weight loss ambitions more likely……

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:56:11 +0000

The Hillary 1984 video has caused enough interest to spike viewership of Hillary and Obamaâ€™s official videos, which is interesting because the Republicans had been gaining on and even surpassed the Dems in web video views just prior to the release of the 1984 video.

Iâ€™ve made a few charts of presidential candidate video groups on TubeMogul and posted them on the blog at http://www.tubemogul.com/blog/ – one comparing the top 3 candidates (by YouTube viewership) for Dems and Republicans, and one showing Barack vs. Hillary.

Iâ€™m a graduate student working with some friends who recently developed the site. The url is http://www.tubemogul.com. We’d love to hear what you think.

Mark

By: richard locicero

richard locicero — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 03:12:45 +0000

David has fell for the right wing crap that Gore is a “Hypocrite” on energy use. Not true as a visit to any site like TPM will show. Actually his electric bill is about $1000/month for his mansion and two offices (which presumably have staff) . Its crap like this that probably has made Gore reluctant to run and, thus, denied us all the best qualified candidate that the Dems could put up.

What a waste!

By: reg

reg — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:28:27 +0000

I don’t think working class people begrudge weatlh, but I guarantee that they’re much more admiring of a Warren Buffet, who is wealthy but lives a reasonably down-to-earth lifestyle than a guy who talks endlessly about “the little guy” at the same time he’s building what is truly a huge house. It doesn’t really matter to me, but I think it was ill-timed and will be exploited. Of course, “there’s always something…”

By: David

David — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:10:51 +0000

I agree with you on Gore, on the grounds that he is somewhat of a hypocrite when he talks about the need for energy conservation and has a house that uses as much energy as some of the entire towns I live near.

But working class people here in the midwest don’t begrudge a little wealth, in fact you are going to find in about every town that lottery ticket winner who’s treating everyone to drinks at the VFW or Eagles Club. And everyone clapping him on the shoulders.

In fact, even as a low earning public school teacher, I don’t have a problem with Edwards wealth; to be honest if I could take care of my family as well as he does I would do it as well. And, most importantly of all, I don’t think it makes Edwards a hypocrite to talk about the little guy and to at the same time have a sizable house (which, from what I’ve seen pictures of, is off of what looks like a highway; definitely not a house in a gated community). Edwards didn’t always live like that, in fact his loving yet working class upbringing is way different than a certain current president who, in the words of the late Molly Ivins, “was born with a silver foot in his mouth.” John Edwards upbringing and background was not as exotic like Obama, Clinton, and Bush’s; and his family (especially his wife, whom I admire a lot) seems very nice and down to earth. Grounded…that is the word I am looking for.

By: reg

reg — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:23:13 +0000

Good lord – Richardson was a congressman and a key member of the Clinton administration and chaired the 2004 DNC convention. Edwards has spent nearly his entire life as a trial lawyer. I don’t have any problem with that, but in a compaign these guys are going to be shown as deep in “the system”. Obama, under the spotlight, comes off as the least mired in stuff that turns people off. Also, I hate to sound petty and don’t care personally about this, but what’s up with Edwards building that huge house just when he’s running a populist campaign for President ? How stupid is that ? It’s like Gore’s electricity bill. I don’t much care, but frankily it makes even me wonder just what planet these multi-millionaires live on when they spout their “we care about the little guy” rhetoric and live in circumstances that are exceptional even for relatively wealthy people. Obama has, far and away, the most “midwestern values” image of any of the candidates when you look at his family life. The “scandal” stuff he’s been hit with is remarkably negligible.

By: David

David — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 04:29:08 +0000

People running on the Democratic ticket who are perceived here as not being mired in the system would include Gov. Richardson, obviously, and Edwards because he doesn’t currently hold any type of office.

By: David

David — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 04:25:36 +0000

Obama rightly or wrongly is seen as a part of the Washington establishment. I agree, he is no more so than anyone else.

By: David

David — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 04:22:43 +0000

Edwards incidently did some campaigning in Ohio last year for Sharrod Brown, and I heard that the crowds were fairly large. Don’t be surprised to see Brown endorse Edwards sometime this year.

By: David

David — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 04:17:17 +0000

I also differ with you on Ohio. That state has lost hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs since 1994 when Clinton and much of the Democratic Party abandoned them and pushed through the NAFTA agreement. Hillary Clinton and her husband’s views on free trade will drive many so-called independents to the other side, or they will stay home. Edwards with his populist, fair trade credentials clearly holds the edge in Ohio.

By: reg

reg — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 04:15:20 +0000

okay, you’re talking about recently “red” states in the midwest and west. The reality seems to be that if a Dem can hold the 2004 states and snag Ohio, he/she is in. I’d like to see a bigger sweep, but I’ll take just winning.

By: David

David — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 04:09:57 +0000

that first paranthesis should have stated “becoming less red? purple?)

By: David

David — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 04:08:37 +0000

By “west” red states (becoming…less blue? purple?)) I guess I meant the following states identified not long after the 2004 election by THE NATION as beginning to lean more in the Democrats column relative to previous years: Nevada, Montana, New Mexico, Colorado (California, Oregon, and Washingon aside, since they have always pretty much been safe for the Dems). Since 1980 those states were reliably Republican in presidential races, but some analysts see them more and more coming into play. By red states in midwest I meant my state of Kansas, along with Nebraska, Iowa, and Missouri. Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska are an uphill battle for any Democrat to take in a presidential race, but Iowa is becoming more and more of a toss up state.

In those states, I believe Edwards would have a better chance than the other candidates like Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama.

By: David

David — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 03:55:51 +0000

Obama is a natural communicator, reminds me a lot of Clinton but with far more sincerity and far less toxicity. I thought that Obama’s speech in 2004 at the convention was fantastic. A question I have is will he be able to keep his cool during a general election, when the Republican slimeball machine courtesy of Karl Rove will do everything they can to tear him and his good name apart?

By: reg

reg — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 03:48:55 +0000

I’m also confused by your definitions of “western” and “midwestern”. Clearly any Dem can snatch California, and Obama could carry states like Illinois and Minnesota. I also think the Dems – any one – will take Ohio. Also, I think Missouri is definitely in play and, with Kansas City and St. Louis growing turnout, Obama might have a better chance than Hillary.

By: reg

reg — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 03:44:49 +0000

How is Obama “too close to the Beltway” – he’s the only guy running who isn’t mired in “the system” (including Edwards, the dreaded “trial lawyer”). I’d go for a guy like Webb in a minute, but he’s not running. As for Edwards seeming “genuine”, he’s better than Hillary, but I actually fault him more than Hillary for his war vote and a rather disingenuous rejection of it, because I’m convinced he knew it was wrong when he did it. Hillary, I’m not so sure – given the Clintons’ penchant for hawkish pose.

By: reg

reg — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 03:40:12 +0000

I was joking about Ricardoson – I mean Richardson. I think Richardson is probably a decent guy, but do we have to settle for that ? Clinton (Bill) without the charm and political skills ?

I may be nuts, but I’m convinced that Obama is at least as electable as any of the others and has more potential to draw new and disaffected voters back into the process. The only candidate in my lifetime (which has been long) since Bobby K who has a chance to energize the the electorate and change some of the existing parameters. Otherwise, we’re just recycling…

By: David

David — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 02:41:01 +0000

Reg: I do believe that America is ready for a hispanic Vice President or President. Richardson is an ideal candidate in some ways (his ideas for renewable energy particularly), and as much as I hate to say it (since his liberalism is quite tepid), is probably more electable than Obama.

By: David

David — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 02:30:19 +0000

Although I had been a little exasperated in the past few weeks that Edwards was not getting the attention of Obama or Clinton, I am now somewhat happy that this is the case. There is a real good chance that there will be a burnout with both of those candidates, in much the same way that the 2003 frontrunner Dean burned out in early 2004 because of the bombardment against him from all directions. Edwards might be able to sneak in under the radar.