BlogaBarbara

Santa Barbara Politics, Media & Culture

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Chelsea to Visit SBCC

This from one of our readers:

Former First Daughter Chelsea Clinton is appearing tomorrow, Friday February 1st at 2:15pm at Santa Barbara City College. The appearance is part of her Our Voice, Our Future Tour of college campuses across the country.

The forum will be held at SBCC on the main campus.

For more information please contact William Bairamian at 818-632-2250 or send an email to sbhillary@gmail.com.

Labels: ,

55 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

How can the Clinton mute "speak" at a rally? Will all 8 year olds and up continue to be prohibited from asking questions?

1/31/2008 10:17 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

Allowing first comments is often tough -- especially with a rather partisan not from an open space.

I think most of you can figure out by now that Hillary isn't my favorite candidate -- but comments like this make me realize why we don't get very far with politics in America.

I also wonder whether my tendency to promote free speech is abused when I get comments like this. Can't we aspire to a higher level of conversation?

1/31/2008 10:49 PM  
Anonymous Garry Owen said...

Don't worry 10:17, even if they do limit questions to children under 8your remark is proof enough you make the cut. Just print it out and show it to an adult when you get there.

1/31/2008 11:28 PM  
Anonymous enough Surrogates said...

The point is that the Hillary campaign is hurting and they had to enlist Chelsea just to look good but stay silent, even to age-9 reporters in Iowa.

Still hurting, now they have Chelsea speaking about how she likes her mom. What is happening that the vow of silence has been broken?

1/31/2008 11:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Invite says "main campus" at SBCC- where on the main campus, please? West main campus or east maincampus? Indoors, outdoors? Bad start.

2/01/2008 1:03 AM  
Anonymous SB NIck said...

Hillary has not been doing so well with younger voters, this is designed to get younger voters to vote for Hillary.

2/01/2008 1:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rally will be held outside the Campus Center (cafeteria) on the East campus. Looking good and Hillary does have a lot of appeal for younger voters. She delivers.

2/01/2008 9:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Never trust anyone under 35.

2/01/2008 9:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did Chelsea's mom debate last night in L.A. against Oprah's favorite?? I looked all through Wendy's paper this morning and couldn't find an inch about the California Democratic Presidential Debate. Maybe I just missed it. Didn't the Republican debate the night before at the Reagan library receive nice ink from the Nippermeister? Ban the bias?

2/01/2008 9:50 AM  
Anonymous Garry Owen said...

"Enough Surrogates said" aka 10:17

Surrogates are a part of the political fabric regardless of party: McCain has Arnold and Rocky; Huckabee has Chuck Norris and Ron Paul has the Coyote Ranch. Each has supporters who advocate for the client of their choice at all levels, private and public. So before you get all wound up over semantics, there is little difference between surrogates and supporters.

You haven't been real clear about this "vow of silence" thing, so I'll go against my better judgment and assume you're talking about the Clinton's protection of Chelsea's privacy during and after Bill's Presidency (which by the way was a smart, practical move any thoughtful parent should appreciate).

The difference between then and now is pretty clear...she was an adolescent then and isn't now. Yep, that would make her an adult, ES 10:17, and capable of speaking her own mind. And I don't really see why you have an issue over Chelsea liking her mother; that's kind of a good thing, eh? I still like my mother, I hope you like yours. I'd like to think neither one of us would mind saying so publicly.

2/01/2008 11:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Event was well-attended.

Chelsea was lovely, poised and articulate. Any mother would be proud and she was genuine describing her affection towards her mother, in response to a specific question.

Almost got another now legendary Clinton "tear", when she talked personally about Hillary.

Chelsea was on top of all the substantive issues and listened carefully to each question.

Obama supporters were there, and she playfully acknowledged them. They betrayed their cause asking a redundant and mean-spirited question, that had already been answered. They were not listening. They were there for an agenda and not for an education.

2/01/2008 4:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So far two Clintons have come to town to answer questions and ask for our votes. Obama came to town once to ask Oprah for money.

You decide.

2/01/2008 5:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

9:50, Don't know about the NP but the LA Times today had good coverage of the Obama/Clinton discussion.

Main point of substantive difference apparently was that she voted in favor of the Iraq motion - he did not because he was not in the Senate at that time. She also voted in favor of the Iran motion - he did not, preferring to be in New Hampshire rather than be in the Senate for that vote, a refusal to go on record something he did frequently in the Illinois senate. (As it is apparent that SDLG does not support Clinton, it may be apparent that I do. :))

Clinton also was on Tavis Smiley tonight, rerun at 11pm. Both that interview and one with Obama are available on kcet.org.

2/01/2008 7:33 PM  
Blogger Vigilante said...

Sara, the best thing can do to upgrade the level of discussion in your pages is to disallow anonymous posters. Any commenter would then have to have at least a pseudonym and can be addressed in the discussion by name. Without that, you get what you have. CR*P.

2/01/2008 7:42 PM  
Blogger TOR Hershman said...

My parody "Hey! Hey! We're The Humans" sums we.....nicely.

You have a most informative blog.

2/02/2008 1:07 AM  
Anonymous Chelsea is just another surrogate who says anything said...

For those not following along, until Hillary got whipped in Iowa, Chelsea was just used to look good but was not allowed to say anything in Iowa, even to the point of denying a comment to a "reporter" who was nine years old. The Clinton campaign is hurting badly with younger voters, so Chelsea is doing what she is doing to mitigate that.

Read the news account at the Santa Barbara Independent web site today. Chelsea blew off tough questions about why her beloved Mom voted for the Iraq war just like all the Clinton Surrogates are doing.

The whole Clinton package, all three of them, are a great bridge to the 20th Century.

BTW, Obama indeed visited to meet up with Oprah, but only after leading a rally of about 8000 enthusiastic people earlier in the day at City College. Hillary came to UCSB earlier in January but was afraid to appear in a large venue like that because it would look too empty.

2/02/2008 7:39 AM  
Anonymous Vote Obama! said...

A vote for Hilary is a vote for war mongering, the military industrial complex, the banking industry, no-federal mandate for aiding the poor, the death penalty, and the list goes on. It is also a vote for continued divisive politics - Rush Limbaugh would throw back a handful of vicadin and a cigar in celebration of all the easy material having the Clinton's back in office would provide his ditto heads. Her record supports these factions, as does her husband's. And she can't have it both ways - if she is to take credit for all the "experience" she gained during Bill's eight years, than she has to take credit for his near complete lack of moral character, politically triangulated boondoggles, failed policies, dividing presence, and right of center sell-outs.

If you are truly liberal, which I am, a vote for Hilary is a vote against that which you believe. And while no politician is squeeky clean by the time they get this level, Obama is about as close as they come. He is a progressive liberal who simply does not carry around nearly the number of bags and bags of right wing obligations. A vote for Obama is the closest thing to hitting the reset button this country could do right now, and we need it. Vote Obama!

2/02/2008 8:07 AM  
Anonymous Don Jose de la Guerra y Noriega said...

Don Jose de la Guerra y Noriega representing the Hispanic vote is casting his vote for that breath of FRESH air OBAMA.

For what it's worth.

2/02/2008 8:59 AM  
Anonymous Same old tired negative campaigning said...

sad that the "PRO OBAMA" segment of SB is choosing to attack Hillary....but what else CAN they do? If you look back in Blogabarbara "history" these same folks have attacked female officeholders for the past two years....again, what else CAN they do. They tend to support candidates who oppose women with lots of experience.......and their candidates are generally male with far less experience--- ergo: attack the women with more experience! go back to the 2005 City Council race blogs, and/or the 2006 2nd District primary comments. Same drivel. YAWN.
and, oh wait, who won those races?

2/02/2008 9:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is disingenuous for Obama or his supporters to claim "he voted against the war in Iraq". He was not in the Senate when that vote was taken. He voted for nothing and he should not foster the impression that he did.

His voting record on Iraq parallels Hillary's once he got into the Senate. Which shows he too bows to the pressure of public scrutiny on this vote.

No one knows what Obama would have actually done had he actually been in the Senate and in the national public spotlight when that original Iraq vote was taken.

He is a phony and a fraud to hide behind his faux position on this question at that time and under those circumstances.

Lois Capps voted against the war because she knew this was as much the position of her Santa Barbara constituents as it was also the bold and courageous thing to do. She cannot get credit for "voting against the war" in public and risking public condemnation.

But Obama hawking his views outside of government with no real consequences on a national level earned no right to claim a superior ability or character on this issue.

To continue to present himself falsely to the mass audience on this matter shows he is even more exploitive of the public arena than anything used against the collective Clintons.

Own up Obama supporters and admit Obama never "voted against the war" and come clean about your Fools Golden Boy. We don't need someone with just their learners permit back in the Whitehouse.

Go stick it to the establishment some where else, but do not play your outsider games with cheap playing peaces with something as important as the White House.

2/02/2008 9:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama never had 8000 people attending his hastily put together outdoor rally at SBCC. Why do you need to lie about this? He only created this rally after the criticism of his Oprah rich people party reached such heights he had to do something.

He was cynical and creepy during that public speech, particularly when that woman fainted. He pretended he was a doctor and claimed to all present with no justification whatsoever that she was going to be all right.

He just wanted to get on with his stale stump speech and applause line triggers and get out of there. Probably to go have a smoke.

I was very close to him and I could see how unengaged he was as he rattled his way through this speech. And there sure were not 8000 people there. Stop lying about this.

2/02/2008 9:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama cannot push the re-set button for America. He has no broad based following.

He only has the anti-establishment lefties salivating that he will stick it to some groups they revile, while going through the motions supporting others that have their narrow approval. He supports only himself in the worst possible way.

He is a hollow evangelist and his religion is himself. That is what you will get if you continue to support your version of him.

There are already close to 50% of Americans who clearly do not want him. They are called Repbulicans. You only like him because he appeals to the extreme left of the Democratic party which makes him a minority candidate in the demographic sense of the word.

He is incapable of governing America because his view of it is so marginal and impractical. You have to be able to sleep with your enemies to govern America. You can not imperiously cut them out of the equation.

2/02/2008 9:15 AM  
Anonymous Garry Owen said...

Sara...

What's really cool about this election is folks are getting all opinioned up and throwing it out there on your blog. Thanks. And why shouldn't they...it's the first time in many, many elections we actually have a different, exciting contest to look forward to. We're watching history in the making here people: for the first time in America's history one party will have either a black man or a woman as their nominee for President. Though shameful that it's taken so long for America to get to this point, I'm grateful the time has arrived. So, it's cool to say for the first time: May the best man or woman win!

2/02/2008 12:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous! Quit impersonating me and misrepresenting my position!

OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008!!!

2/02/2008 12:56 PM  
Anonymous wineguy said...

It amazes me what a variety of experiences different people had while attending the same events, and how support for one candidate seems to translate into disdain and (sometimes) outright hatred for another.

2/02/2008 1:41 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

12:40 PM -- that is what is great about all this. This election seems to be about what the face of change looks like -- and no matter what their policy or where their heart is, it isn't going to be a white man.

For better or worse, this means we will have someone who at least looks different than anyone before in the White House and I guess that's a good thing.

2/02/2008 2:28 PM  
Blogger Vigilante said...

AGREED!

2/02/2008 2:36 PM  
Anonymous flyonthewall said...

Likely editorial board meeting at the Santa Barbara News-Press to decide who to support for president:

Wendy McCaw: I hate Hillary, I hate Obama, I hate McCain. When is a Libertarian going to enter the race?

Travis Armstrong: Well, I can write an editorial that a Libertarian is actually IN the race and leading all contenders, according to rumors I heard or made up, and then we can support him for president!

Arthur: Anyone thirsty, got plenty of bottled water here? Mmm, tastes good, not as good as champagne though.

Scott: All this talk about politics has made me hungry for fried chicken. Anyone else up for KFC? (Stomach growls and belch stifled). Or, chicken-flavored tofu for you, Wendy.

Wendy: OK, what a great newspaper management team! So, it's decided, we're going to create a Libertarian candidate in one of our investigative, rumor-based editorials, and announce our support of him for president!

[Door is flung open and hits the wall with a bang as Travis peels out of conference room to run to his office to start typing his editorial, eager to create a new controversy for the small cult of News-Press subscribers.]

After the editorial runs, a news story will be written supporting the candidate, and then a slew of like-minded letters to the editor will follow.

And y'all thought Chelsea Clinton was scary!

2/02/2008 2:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Electing a veto proof Democratic Congress is the only way anyone is going to get change, no matter who wins the White House. A veto proof Congress can even trump McCain, Rommey or Attila the Hun.

Obama is a dead duck if he does not also get the veto proof Congress. Because he sure ain't no consolidator on his own merits.

Obama's senate colleagues do not think much of him, so where is proof he can get things done and get everyone to get along.

It is simply not there when you get past his swarmy veneer.

2/02/2008 4:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Obama get the Dem nomination, you can bet there will be no change in the White House. Instead it will be occupied yet again by a white male, with another white male waiting in the wings.

Plus, McCain will sweep in a continued Republican Congress.

If you really want change, the last thing to do is support Obama. He is not electable.

2/02/2008 4:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, I like Hillary Clinton, Chelsea too... I even like Bill and Socks.

But I think Obama is even better. He does appeal to the better angels of our nature more effectively than the Clintons do. But if Obama loses in the primary, I'm happy to vote for Hillary.

Great that the Dems have two live wires. Gore was such a stiff when he was running for prez.

McCain-(Obama or Hillary)... a bit like Bob Dole v. Clinton.

My only fear: well, put it this way: I hope the security aroung Obama, should he be the nominee, is *FANTASTIC*. Am I the only one who remembers that Ron Brown died in a US Military plane? And why did McVeigh never talk? Chills down my spine. I hope the vast rightwing conspiracy really does not include our own trained specialists in the Military.

2/02/2008 5:00 PM  
Anonymous Plastic Surgeon said...

Why doesn't anyone talk about how weird it is that Chelsea had "work" done- plastic surgery- since her parents left the White House? It's just plain weird and creepy.

2/03/2008 2:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

At the forum one guy asked Chelsea out, and another stated right up front how great she looked before he asked his question.

Males in the audience were smitten. And she was so refined in the use of her hands when she talked.

She is a lovely, intelligent lady. Very bright and quickly got to the heart of issues, and into the audience's hearts as well.

2/03/2008 7:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Funny, 2:52 p.m., but as a point of fact there WILL be a Libertarian candidate for president. The Libertarian Party always puts up a national ticket.

In 2004, then-columnist (and NP finance guy) Randy Alcorn endorsed the Libertarian presidential candidate, Michael Badnarik, for president in his NP column. That was him; haven't found an editorial endorsement for 2004 in the archives. Your comment made me curious so I looked.

2/03/2008 9:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just read yesterday that Obama used drugs extensiveluy in the past.

Anyone else heard about this? Details please.

2/03/2008 12:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, that's such a lame effort at trying to appear disingenous 12:01. Obama's past youthful indiscretions have been vetted in the press and you know it. So have Bush's, which extended beyond youth actually, but still have nothing to do with why he's not a good president.
It's a nonissue. Try finding another nonissue to smear Obama with if you got nothin' else. I'm not sure I'm voting for him or Hillary, but it sure ain't about that.
And p.s., whoever gets the nomination, he or she is going to need the support of the mudslingers on the other side. Think about that?

2/03/2008 2:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

12:01,
Obama says in his first book that he used a few drugs occasionally. Pot and coke, I think.

If he wins, he would be the first president to admit to using ... and graduating, so to speak, to only nictotine and probably caffeine.

2/03/2008 3:00 PM  
Anonymous Just keeping up with the stupidy here... said...

Hey, I also heard that Hillary is a Lesbian and a Muslim, and injects heroin.

Or, my Kennedys are better than your Kennedys.

2/03/2008 3:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ronald Reagan had lots and lots of communist and gay friends when he was an actor, he had an affair or two, and he got divorced.

Obama's drug use is about as relevant as Reagan's transgressions, which is, not relevant at all.

2/03/2008 7:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is and shall remain relevant is Obama smoking two packs of cigarettes each day.

That is disgusting for anyone wanting a leadership role in America. No wonder his wife says he is "stinky" in the morning.

2/03/2008 10:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who friggin' cares if Obama smokes 2 packs a day of cigarettes. They are legal. No more relevant to his suitability for president than Bill Clinton's interest in cigars.

Now you want a real discussion? Try Health Care. Obama is kinda Republican there. Hillary is more for universal health coverage, which is the right way to go.

Just about every civilized country in the world has better health care than the US does, for 1/2 the price. The US has proven that privatized health care is a disaster, really a calamity.

End the Iraq War and spend the money on a national health care system in the US.

Now if Hillary said that, I'd switch from Obama. Obama's cruddy commitment to inefficient Republican health care has kept one of my feet out the door.

2/04/2008 8:27 AM  
Anonymous don't get fooled again said...

And now reports that Hillary cried again, while campaigning yesterday. Right on cue. She got away with it in New Hampshire; I sure hope she doesn't get away with it this time, too. She wants it both ways, but insults the entire electorate, particularly women, with this behavior.

2/04/2008 9:31 AM  
Anonymous eight santa barbara said...

This is hilarious.

It's like those stories in the PD about how, when Pres-Elect Clinton was in town, the Secret Service enlisted officers to find hot young women for Hillary the pant-suit wearing lesbian.

What the F**K?!

Do some of you really care about someone's family members, or what they did when they were young, or how they scratch their ass in the morning?

Seems like, if such is the case, the only person we'd elect is Boardroom Jesus: experience as an executive (oversight over like, the entire church and over a billion Christians and Catholics); probably looks good a business suit (and also fashion forward with the beard and hair that says "I'm not afraid to look like Tom Petty during the Super Bowl half-time show"); worthy of not just saint hood (I mean, he can un-saint a saint... that's power like moving backward in checkers) and has a clean record by all accounts; oh, and he's a man of faith.

C'mon, people. Wasn't it George who wrote on 'INOTBB' that the percentage of coverage dedicated to politics is many times the coverage dedicated to the policy platforms of the candidates? This is a bunch of crap.

Sara, you have a tough job trying to moderate, and Im sure there are many more stupid things that never get through. Hats off to you for a babysitting job you continue to do well.

Oh yeah, Obama for President. Bad economy, bad economic times for the bunch of us, ongoing war, clashes of culture, a sun seeming to be setting on American dominance, growing and worsening self-inflicted wounds to the Republic... I think we need someone who can unite, who can empower, who can inspire, and still do all of those other things that go with being Chief Executive.

Hillary is the Dems' Mitt Romney-- looks like she does it all just for the election she is in. She is a great person and likely a great executive. But she lacks the qualities of leadership the Republic needs now. To use a football analogy, she might be great at Xs and Os-- but she can't motivate the team. And right now, that's a lot of what we need.

2/04/2008 2:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, I also heard that Obama admitted to using Cocaine.

What's the big deal? Might be kind of refreshing to have a down to earth president who's a doper.

2/04/2008 3:41 PM  
Anonymous civics 101 said...

I remember leaving SBCC after Obama's speech. I was left with the impression that there was a lot of talk, a lot of spirit but I couldn't figure out how he was going to get all that done. Talk is cheap, especially when you're trying to sell yourself.

Ever since then, I've been wanting to vote for Obama but I can't find any substance behind his charisma.

I for one, would even like some details on his plan to get us out of Iraq. He said he's going to do it, but how is he going to do it? Same feeling I had when W got us into Iraq and I heard nothing on how we were getting out.

2/05/2008 12:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I also heard Obama too is a Lesbian.

Not much commentary about Chelsea Clinton talking about how her Mom is great and how Chelsea ducks the tough questions just like her Mom.

What is next? A coughing fit when the question is really tough to run out the time for the remote TV interview? See:
http://wonkette.com/352850/hillary-to-media-cough-cough-f-you-cough

2/05/2008 1:17 PM  
Anonymous We all used drugs too said...

Obama' previously heavy drug use is nobodies business but his own.

Just because he used a lot of drugs does not mean that he cant be a great president.

2/05/2008 1:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Talk about ducking tough questions, why does Obama still lie about "not voting for the Iraq war" when he was not even in the Senate when the vote was taken and voted for it every time thereafter when he was.

He is one big fraud milking a grand disillusion. Just the qualities we want ...again... in our next President.

Anyone who thinks Obama means change, had better redefine change. He is building his campaign on one huge disingenuous lie and it is about time he got called on it and answered why he let this happen.

2/06/2008 7:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What creeps me out the most about Obama are his chants he gets his adorning fans to perform at each rally.

He refused to tell his fans last night how badly he was doing in California and lied about it instead and then got them to perform some mindless chant, just like he did at SBCC.

This is change? Nope, it is scary. This is not going to do anything to help America.

We need substance, not cheap showmanship. He was downright boring in his rally last night. The next months will show how shallow he is, and has been.

Can Iowa Gov. Sebelius bail out his increasingly weak candidacy? She already sold out for the vice-presidency slot on his ticket. There is your dream team. A cocaine snorter proped up by a legitimate second banana.

Why does that sound so familiar. I thought he was all about change. Not.

2/06/2008 8:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So is all this crap what Chelsea Clinton was talking about?

Obviously must be, as why would anyone enter such a comment?

2/07/2008 8:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now what trivial comments here. Criticize Obama for his cruddy health plan if you want.

But the war? Forgoodnessakes, Hillary Clinton got fooled really bad on that one... she had access to all the intel and still got fooled. She should have thought about WMD and Colin Powell for about as long as it takes to say `Gulf of Tonkin' and voted NO.

Obama really did get some serious stuff done in the Illinois Legislature.

But it is true that his health plan is half Republican, and if Hillary were not such a weirdo I'd vote for her in a heartbeat. I might vote for her anyways, she is OK. But she is just a weirdo. She and DiFi should make a geeky girls club.

2/07/2008 8:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hillary did not get "fooled" on her initial war powers vote anymore than everyone else who supported this flawed resolution did.

Hillary had a tough call on this one because herNew York constituency was rabid about supporting anything that would strike back and support Israel. Senators are elected representatives of their consitutents, like it or not.

We don't elect our representatives to vote against us. Hillary bowed to the majority in her constituency. Lighten up. Lois Capps got to also respond to her constituency. Hers was not a lone voice in the wildernss or higer moral calling. Hers was a shrewd political conclusion and honored her constituency.

And Obama was MIA on this vote so stop making it sound like something it was not. We don't buy this anymore.

Nor would her vote against the war even have mattered because everyone was "fooled" --polls up to 80-90% supported this stupid blunder.

Obama is the one fooling everyone into thinking he "voted" against the war when he never once did this. That is an out and out lie and that ranks as more than weird in my book.

Read the Chicago papers if you want to know what Obama did when he was in the Legislature. Not much except vote "absentee" an extraordinary number of times.

And he will have to account for doing absolutely nothing while on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee.

The blind zealotry behind Obama supporters is the weirdest thing of all and his worst liability. America is seeing more and more of this from his fans and it is scaring the bejezzus out of them. Chill. It is demogoguery at its worst.

Supporting Hillary is a sane, pratical alternative. Supporting Obama is a religious Childrens Crusade by the arrogant and dysfunctional.

If you want to all the sudden become the ruling and demanding political voice, show you know how to work for something. Not just demand something or else pout and leave the mess behind.

2/08/2008 10:35 AM  
Anonymous Augusto Den said...

I admit that it gets me when Obama points out that being right matters for something. I'm not aware that he ever claimed to have voted against the Iraq war, but he did speak out against it early. He was right. Hillary was wrong, and she should have knew better, since she was old enough in the 1960's to have remembered Vietnam.

Blind zealotry of Obama supporters? Pish and tosh. After all, he was editor of the Harvard Law Review. He is no dummy, a good speaker, and it impressed me that Caroline Kennedy decided to back him.

The Clintons' attacks on Obama were way too harsh, sorry. Getting surrogates to bring up drug use was infantile.

To me what causes me to doubt Obama is that he tries to please everyone, and that he has drifted too far to the right. Particularly on Health Care. But his early speeches against the excreble involvement in Iraq count for a lot in my opinion, and awful lot.

Sure Hillary was pleasing her constituents. But her constituents were dead wrong on this one. I'd rather the $1 trillion spent on Iraq were spent domestically. We've got awful healthcare and a cruddy educational system. Every time I think about that $1 trillion wasted in Iraq I fume, and Hillary was one of those who caused that $1 trillion waste. We don't need someone with such bad judgement in the White House.

2/09/2008 7:52 PM  
Blogger Vigilante said...

Augusto Den is correct.

Hillary did not vote with the majority of her Democrat senate colleagues on the Authorization Bill of oct 2002. Hillary may or may not have 'represented' her New York constituency of 2002. If she did, then the best we can say for her is that she is a good representative.

The record on Obama is clear, OTOH. He spoke out against an unprovoked attack on Iraq. The verdict of history establishes that he was correct to have done so. Clinton(s) - neither of them - did not. Gore did speak out early and often against the war. When someone goes against the majority's strain on critical questions, and is proven to have been correct, what do we call it? We call it LEADERSHIP.

2/10/2008 7:16 AM  
Anonymous Nick SB said...

Santa Barbrans voted for Obama over Hillary, I love this town.

Fortunately the rest of the country seems to be going the same way. Things are looking great for Obama and all of us, but don't forget to donate to Obama and keep the momentum, there is more to do.

2/14/2008 5:35 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home