I have had it with the McCain/Clinton '08 BS threads

[cbayer]

It is insulting not only to the Clinton supporters here but to those of us who support both candidates. To state that McCain and Clinton represent the same thing and therefore should run together speaks volumes about your ignorance and massive lack of critical thinking skills.

Hate her all you want. Your hate is a testament to your own immaturity and lack of confidence in your chosen candidate. The only reason I care about your hatred at all is because, by displaying it, you hurt one of our candidates - Obama.

There is so little difference in the platforms of our two candidates that substantive debates on the issues are laughable. So that leaves us differences in style and personality. That's about it.

On the other hand, the differences in policy platforms between our candidates and McCain are startling and should be scaring the daylights out of you.

So what's more important to you? Personality and style or policy?

I am a democrat. I have issues with both of our candidates and their platforms, in that they don't go far enough on many issues for my liking. But I recognize one thing very clearly - they are both members of the democratic party and they both share my ideals.

If you are too lazy or too stupid to actually come up with something of substance to say, just be quiet. I am really sick of a lot you.

Dump on this all you want. I no longer care about the group I am addressing in this post.

[Bonobo]

1. "I no longer care about the group I am addressing in this post."

I suggest that no one should bother responding since you don't care what we say.

[sniffa]

6. Good point

Let's reach out to him.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5481700

[JoFerret]

34. No one should care about those

who cheerfully trash either candidate by smearing them as soulmates of McCain.

[cbayer]

38. Thanks for chiming in!

It's nice to know that I am not the only one.

[dkf]

2. Hey, they are saying exactly the same thing.

If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck...

[Connie_Corleone]

3. If you don't care, then why write it? You're wasting your time.

I'm sick of Hillary Clinton.

[guyanakoolaid]

4. Too bad for you Clinton has affirmed her ties to McCain with her own BS words

Care to try and remember? She's ready, McCain's ready, Obama's not ready. REMEMBER?!?

[SoCalDem]

5. Hillary '20, then?

[KingFlorez]

7. Well said

It is so ridiculous how some people try and stretch things to make Hillary appear to be the same as McCain, it doesn't even make sense.

[cbayer]

13. Thank you KingFlorez.

I just had to get it off my chest. I am so insulted by some of the posters here that just repeat the same nonsense over and over again. That goes for the Clinton supporters that are so hostile as well. However, I have never heard anyone suggest that Obama join up with McCain. It's just ludicrous.

[guyanakoolaid]

16. I know! Using her own words against her and everything

:banghead:

These comparisons are her own. She said she and McCain were ready to be President, Obama was not.

Did she "mis-speak"?

[sniffa]

17. Hey, she's 60, she was sleep deprived, and it was late at night

Not to mention she immediately apologized for it, and even General Wesley Clark agreed with her.

[nichomachus]

25. And she'd had a couple of boilermakers

and was cleaning her gun while reading her bible

[JoFerret]

35. It's pathetic that the more successful Obama is

...the more whiny such obama folk become, the angrier they get, and nastier the trash they toss.

[snooper2]

41. the sad part is..

it's not a stretch...

Hillary, McSame, more of the same...

[book_worm]

8. well then she shouldn't have said that McCain is ready to be president and Obama isn't

and commander in chief is the same thing as president. That is an endorsement of McCain over her Democratic rival. Sorry, but it is.

[catcher]

9. I agree with the general sentiment

but alot of people are pissed off with how she is acting as of late

[cbayer]

14. Pissed off is not what I am offended by.

People can be as pissed off as they want. It is the accusation that she is somehow engaged with McCain to defeat Obama that really offends me. People can support whomever they want, but this is just ignorant.

[TahitiNut]

10. It's traditional for the VP candidate to play the heavy ... to go negative. Hillary's auditioning.

:shrug: It's that "Goddess of Peace" thing, I guess.

[Drunken Irishman]

11. They both believe the economy is working for working-class Americans.

And those same Americans don't have anything to be bitter and angry over.

[John Q. Citizen]

12. When Clinton endorsed McCain over Obama, she disqualified herself for the nomination

She also disqualified herself as a Democrat.

Hillary is the new Lieberman. And you know who he's working for.

[biggerfishsmallpond]

15. McCainClinton.com and McCainClinton2008.com have been registered

not that this information means anything.
and no I did not register them.
just saying,

[FrenchieCat]

18. Why? What did anyone say?

[OzarkDem]

19. Many of these posters are NOT Democrats

Not sure why they ostensibly support Obama, but its clear their overall mission is to hurt the chances of any Democrat getting elected to the WH.

[cbayer]

21. I don't know if they are democrats or not.

They certainly are not what I have always considered democrats. I am becoming increasingly disillusioned. I was brought up to see the democratic party as the party of tolerance, acceptance, social justice, understanding, peace, love. Much of what I see around here these days is the polar opposite of that. I don't know what to make of it all.

I do know that whenever I see one of our candidates on the TV or hear them talk on the radio, I wonder if some people here are seeing the same person.

[guyanakoolaid]

22. What color is the sky on your planet?

Here on blue Earth, Clinton is the only ego doing everything possible to win, regardless of whether or not it rips the party apart.

And it is beyond ironic to talk about non-Democratic party infiltrators while supporting a warmongering candidate using tactics straight from the Rove playbook.

[OzarkDem]

24. Welcome to DU

What a bizarre name you have.

Your arguments are weak.

[guyanakoolaid]

30. Thanks, been here for over a year. Still don't understand how Obama is the one "splitting the party"

[DearAbby]

20. Oh yes,

Hillary insults us, then expects us to vote for her anyway? NOT ME. Luckily I won't have too.

[JVS]

23. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh!

Maybe if she stopped acting like that's the ticket she wants, people would quit saying it.

[smiley_glad_hands]

26. They sure do like to use the same talking points.

I am starting to think she has more in common with mcsame than Obama.

[cbayer]

27. Oh yeah, I'm sick of this BS, too.

McCain and Clinton say exactly the same thing.

Clinton and McCain are tied together.

Clinton endorsed McCain.

Hillary is auditioning to be McCain's VP.

McCain and Clinton believe the same things.

Clinton is only running because of her ego.

Clinton is ripping the party apart.

Clinton is a warmonger.

Clinton is using Rovian tactics.

Clinton and McCain use the same talking points.

Clinton has more in common with McCain than Obama.

What a load.

[Straight Shooter]

28. I have learned in this campaign that Democrats are as hateful as Republicans.

Not just on DU, all across the Internet.

I had always believed that Democrats were the ones who approached campaigns with logic, reasoning, and based on issues. How else to explain a lackluster candidate like Kerry? I never dreamed there would be a candidate who "inspired" hero worship in a Democrat as the Republicans showed in their slavish devotion to bush, and I'm witnessing hatred towards Hillary by members of her own party which is a mirror image of the hatred that GWB followers spewed at Kerry. At least there was a plausible reason for it, as Kerry was not a Republican. He was, however, in GWB's way.

It probably doesn't matter that it's Hillary; I believe his supporters would denigrate Edwards, Dodd, Biden, anyone who would rise to the level of getting in Obama's way, or anyone who doesn't agree that he is the chosen one for our time.

All this fury because Clinton impugned that Obama is an elitist, yet absolutely no compunction whatsoever in calling Hillary a Republican, as if her voting history and all her work on behalf of Democrats have been wiped clean on the Obama supporter's slate.

[cbayer]

29. Thanks for your response, SS.

I always like reading what you post.

Was it always this way? Maybe I was naive, but I just don't remember it being like this. In my recollection, we had thoughtful debates about our candidates - how they differed on the issues or why one was more electable. I just don't recall this kind of hatred.

I agree that this is very reminiscent of the Bush campaign. No one asked questions. No one seemed to really understand this man or where he might take us. There was indeed a blind devotion to him and an absolute dismissal of anyone who disagreed.

Don't get me wrong. I like Obama and will vote for him in a minute, but some of his supporters are really frightening.

[Straight Shooter]

32. Hey, cbayer

Sorry it's taken so long to respond, I've been doing drudgery.

Was it always this way? Not in my memory. Even in 2004, when it got very heated at times, there was no sense of hatred against another candidate. My choice was Dean, and although others on GDP have expressed that they were lambasted for supporting Dean, that was not my experience at all. As for the devotion to Obama which I see here (and on other forums on the 'Net), I used to view bush supporters with total disdain for their blind allegiance. Now I'm witnessing that same behavior by Democrats, and it simply bothers me. Obama is no more and no less than a political candidate. That's all he is. Heaven knows I can see Hillary's faults, too, but I simply prefer her to Obama, by far.

I'm glad you like Obama. When I hear that sort of sentiment from a reasonable DU'er, or any reasonable person for that matter, it sets my mind at ease that perhaps he will not be as bad as I anticipate if in fact he becomes the nominee and/or POTUS.

By the way, I always enjoy your posts, as well. :hi:

[Bigleaf]

31. We know, we know. You want Clinton at the top of that ticket, so here you go: Clinton/McCain 08

;-)

[grantcart]

33. Since Lanny Davis started this on January 14th 2007 will you start a movement

calling on Hillary Clinton to immediately fire him for starting all the speculation about it?



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/12/AR2007011201956.html


McCain-Clinton '08? Obama-Hagel? That's the Ticket

By Lanny J. Davis
Sunday, January 14, 2007; Page B03

Imagine this scenario: The country is so deeply divided that the media have color-coded the map of the United States to indicate the partisan chasm -- one color covers the South and most of the border states, the other drenches the North.

As the presidential election year nears, one candidate, a shoo-in for his party's nomination, has an obvious choice for running mate. Yet he also senses the uniqueness of the moment. So he makes a risky decision: He asks a leader of the opposition to run for vice president alongside him, forming the first bipartisan presidential ticket in U.S. history.

clip

This is no fantasy.

clip
Today's national unease and rabid partisanship -- so similar to the circumstances of 1864 -- raise the challenge for someone to form a bipartisan ticket in 2008. The lingering trauma of 9/11, the war in Iraq and the fight against terrorism call for an administration open to bipartisan solutions to the crises that confront the country.

Last year's congressional elections showed that voters are tired of the partisan gridlock in Washington. They want some solutions from liberals and others from conservatives. That's the new politics of our age, as exemplified by Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman's reelection in Connecticut as an "independent" Democrat. Though he has voted mostly with his fellow Democrats over the years, Lieberman is open to both liberal and conservative approaches.

The most important reason for a bipartisan presidency in 2008 is the need to find solutions to the war in Iraq and to avoid delaying the end of significant U.S. involvement over fear of partisan recriminations. Solving the dilemma of Iraq -- how to get U.S. troops out of harm's way in a civil war yet not leave behind a rogue state dominated by terrorists -- will require bipartisan effort and support.

A bipartisan administration is also essential for enacting new taxes. Most responsible political leaders in both parties know -- though few are willing to admit it publicly -- that there is no way to pay for the war in Iraq, even as it winds down, and reduce the deficit while also addressing health care, energy independence, global warming and Social Security other than by raising taxes. Only a bipartisan presidency pushing leaders on both sides of the aisle can make it possible to tackle that issue honestly.

clip

In this scenario, the vice president could be selected after the election by the Electoral College, which would presumably honor the president-elect's request to vote for the president or vice president of the defeated party. Or the selection could occur after the inauguration, with the newly sworn-in vice president resigning and the resulting vacancy filled, under the 25th Amendment, by a majority vote in both houses of Congress. The advantage of this latter method is that it would receive Congress's ratification of the concept of a bipartisan presidency.In forming his administration, the new president would continue to adhere to the ideal of bipartisanship, selecting a 50-50 Cabinet and choosing judicial nominees on the basis of merit rather than party.


There are any number of provocative possibilities for a bipartisan ticket in 2008. Imagine the buzz if Republican John McCain and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton committed to making the other vice president in the event that either won the election.
end of article



I am unaware of any Obama surrogates who hold a similar view. If you can point them out to me I will start a campaign to get them fired. Since you are so outraged at the idea I look forward to seeing your next thread calling on Senator Clinton to fire the man who started the speculation. Until then it is pretty hard to get angry at Obama supporters for suggesting something that some in the Clinton camp have such deep affection for.

[cbayer]

36. I appreciate your having taken the time to post such a thoughtful reply.

I was unaware of this article. While I find the article interesting, I do not see any comparison to what is happening here. The article talks about a bipartisan ticket as a theoretical solution to the deep political divide in this country. This is not a construct that I would reject out of hand. The people are indeed tired of partisan politics and there may be a case to be made for bipartisan solutions to some of our problems.

However, that is not what is happening here. The calls for a McCain/Clinton ticket are not being made as a positive solution to a problem. They are being made as a way of totally trashing Clinton by calling her the enemy and linking her with what most around here agree is evil.

In my mind, there is no comparison between this January, 2007 article by Lanny Davis and what many on DU are doing. Although I don't support the idea being submitted by Mr. Davis, I am not outraged by it. It is intellectually dishonest to say that he started the speculation that is now being touted on DU.

[grantcart]

39. You are correct. However it has resurfaced on HuffingtonPost

recently and he hasn't commented on it. At the very least he should update his position since he has gone on the record with it.

[grantcart]

40. Here is CNN talking about 'bittergate' when Blitzer brings the discussion

back saying that McCain has the same position as Clinton the panel reacts with laughter. My point is that the fact that the campaigns almost appear to be operating a coordinated attack on Obama it is not unreasonable for people to say why? Of course I do not believe the speculation of a joint to be credible. I just don't understand why she takes this position when there are others that would be more productive for her and less productive for McCain. She seems to want to help McCain establish the perfect attack on Obama and walk past the more effective attack on Obama (i.e. "Obama uses the wrong words to express a real frustration with Bush economics and I am the candidate who can get the words and the policies right. . . ).

http://www.bittervoters.org/2008/04/cnn-continues-to-twist.html

[cbayer]

43. It is difficult, to say the least, to defend some of her tactics.

She is in the unenviable position of still trying to win the nomination in an incredibly tight race. Of course she wants Obama to do or say something that will damage his chances and increase hers. That is how it should be if she want to win this. And yes, everything she says about Obama can then be used against him by the Republicans if he wins the nomination.

I don't think for a second that there is a coordinated effort between McCain and Clinton. They are both running against the same guy, so it is not surprising that they will jump on the same things in an effort to bring him down.

However, I agree with you that there appears to be a more effective approach she could take. It would be much more effective for her to distance herself from McCain while challenging Obama. But then perhaps it is McCain who parrots her, a VERY effective strategy on his part.

[SoonerPride]

37. Lighten up Francis.

Whiney.

[Buzz Clik]

42. It's meant to be insulting -- an insult that is very well deserved.