Graham I love Caroline Kennedy but she would add nothing but name recognition to that ticket.

I might agree with you about Bob Graham. He knows Foreign affairs and he is loved in Florida.

Nope, he's above criticism on this board. It's been that way since the beginning of the year -- maybe longer. CGCS members have posted negative threads about the Clintons for years, some have been able to get away with outright accusing them of rape and murder. But just try posting a news article that calls into question Obama's qualifications, and they start crying foul...moderators will pounce on you with both feet demanding that you prove the claim put forth in the article.

And no qualifications.

That is a very, very big insult to Caroline you know. I humbly disagree.

She is MORE qualified by far than Hillary.

Graham....what world do you live in? She is not more qualified than Hillary. She might make a much better candidate than Hillary...her personality and temperment might make her more "electable"...she's certainly very well educated and intelligent.

What are the qualifications to be President?

35 and older
USA born and citizen
No arrest record that makes you a felon with no voting rights

Where does it say you had to have won legislative office?

It doesn't.

Same as SCOTUS

Just because recently it is, does not mean anything.

And there have been many calls this year for people to pick someone NOT in office, but outside

Caroline is more than qualified business wise and in her charitable dealings

What qualifications did Ronald Reagan have before running for Gov? Or Arnold? Or Ventura?

My husband said, he heard that the three Carolyn Kennedy and two others were only on the committee to find candidates for VP position. They aren't being looked at for V.P.

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=7632

Caroline Kennedy for Vice President
Diary Entry by Lord Stirling
Caroline Kennedy would make a fantastic choice for Vice President.

::::::::

Eight years ago, former Bush Cabinet insider (from the administration of Bush I) Dick Cheney was selected to head up the vetting process of selecting a Vice President candidate to run with Governor George Bush. He ended up being the VP choice himself. We may be seeing a historic replete of this process with Caroline Bouvier Kennedy Schlossberg.

Many people are upset that the first serious woman candidate for president has failed, and just barely, to obtain the nomination. The Clintons badly want her to have the VP slot, however, as former President Carter has pointed out that would be a terrible choice. While she does well with working class voters and women, she has the highest negatives of any of the candidates who sought the Presidential nomination this year. The political history of Bill and Hillary is very "checkered" to say the least. After all, Bill Clinton was only the second President in American history to be voted an indictment of impeachment by the US House of Representatives.

Caroline Kennedy, on the other hand, would be a totally fantastic choice. She is both an outside Washington "change we can believe in" person, yet one linked to the Kennedy Camelot years. She is, in fact, the last of the Camelot children after her brother John's death. She would appeal to women, to young people, to working class voters (the "bread and butter" of the Kennedy political machines for over 40 years), to Catholics, to Jews (her husband Edwin is Jewish), to all of those of us 50 and above who remember the Camelot years. Caroline is a well educated attorney and editor with an American background linked to both far better times and to a America that has traditional high moral standards. She is Jack and Jackie's daughter and heir.

Her selection would be a totally fantastic choice that would electrify the coming election.

Stirling


Earl of Stirling, Hereditary Governor and Lord Lieutenant of Canada. Author of CASH FOR PEERAGES: THE SMOKING GUN (Lulu Press at www.lulu.com/content/953682). Web site: http://europebusines.blogspot.com/

Oh come on. There are an untold number of insulting remarks by a few (and sometimes all) Hillary supporters. We've been called names, derided as whackos, had our positions and our candidate defamed, and put up with the same sort of abuse (save for one poster who is in his own class). I've tried to be respectful and stick with facts... and not namecalling, not derogatory remarks and other such offensive stuff.

Obama has been criticized ad nauseum over Wright, Ayers, bittergate, and so on... and even subjected to wild speculation about things which are not even alleged... such as drug use and dealing and other unfounded deeds.

Would you all like me to find me a few (hundred) examples ?

and from last week
For Barack Obama's consideration, Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg for vice president
Submitted by Chad on Tue, 05/27/2008 - 10:13am. Be-Elected
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/election08/191

(Photo: Chitose Suzuki/AP Wide World)
Whether you are a supporter of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, the one idea associated with Obama is "Change." Obama supporters are looking for a new direction of leadership. Those who are tired of the infighting politics want something different from Washington. And Obama represents that for them.

Now we know that this infighting started with Newt Gingrich and his cronies after Bill Clinton got elected, and how the MSM finally got tough on a president (funny how it was a Democrat, after all). But the people who are fresh onto the Obama bandwagon, the true independents of this country, and those who don't vote for president on party but on the person don't really care who started it and why. They just want it to stop.

I have argued that Obama needs to send a new message in picking a vice president, to go in a direction that truly symbolizes change. And I think I found someone.

Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg

After you have stopped laughing, consider these points. (As always, this is a creative exercise. This reflects my views and not those of BuzzFlash management. It's a suggestion.)

Yes, she doesn't have political experience, and has never been elected to public office. But she does have a track record as an attorney, editor, and writer. She and Ellen Alderman have written two books together on civil liberties, a topic that certainly needs to be addressed in an Obama administration. Kennedy Schlossberg is one of the founders of the Profiles in Courage Award. And she has represented her family on a number of occasions, a task vice presidents have traditionally had to do.

Also, she is a woman who didn't come out of nowhere. If Hillary Clinton isn't going to be on the ticket, and a woman ends up on that ticket, it will be difficult for Clinton supporters to say Kennedy Schlossberg doesn't deserve a shot. She is a name that voters know. And she is at an age (50) where her youth will be appealing standing next to 46-year-old Barack Obama.

Kennedy Schlossberg is also a fervent Obama supporter. Her January 27 essay in The New York Times spoke volumes of her feelings for Obama.
"Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible."

And that gets me to my next point: "put aside our plans." It is fair to say that she hasn't campaigned for higher office, but if Obama were to come to her, she might have to follow her father's own words, "Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country."

There is the Kennedy factor - pro and con. She is well respected for her stands and views. It will be difficult for Republicans to attack her personally, even if there will be attacks on her family. And there is the Ted Kennedy legacy. You can easily imagine Sen. Kennedy will give a speech in Denver during the convention in what might be his last Democratic National Convention. Imagine the joy and splendor of him speaking, knowing his niece will be on the Democratic ticket in the fall.

There have been some in her generation of Kennedys who have stepped into higher office: her cousins former Maryland Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), and former Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II (D-MA). But so far, Kennedy Schlossberg hasn't heard the calling. But Obama and 2008 may change her mind.
"There is a generation coming of age that is hopeful, hard-working, innovative and imaginative. But too many of them are also hopeless, defeated and disengaged. As parents, we have a responsibility to help our children to believe in themselves and in their power to shape their future."

There is an appeal to her not wanting a lot of power. She won't be swayed in a situation, unlike Dick Cheney, to abuse her power and trust. She can be trusted in great part because she isn't eager to be a part of the process.

And there is nothing that says she has to go on and be president. If she were the pick and served eight years, she might have something in common with Dick Cheney: she may not choose to run for president. And that could open the door for someone else to run in 2016, such as Sen. Hillary Clinton, among others.

Unlike Clinton or McCain, Obama has a chance to reshape the vice presidency. It would be a huge risk to pick someone out of the political process. But to those independents, those outside observers, picking an unconventional choice could have strong appeal. And as for Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, this may be her time to step up and be a part of the political process.

Bookmark/Search this post with:
buzzflash | delicious | digg | technorati
Technorati Tags: Be-Elected Chad Rubel 2008 race Barack Obama Hillary Clinton Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg Ted Kennedy vice president

I agree with you TRoU. I have no problem with Hillary's handling of things the last few days. Obama is giving her the space she wants...it' supporters and pundits creating the hoopla.

The section that I bolded..well, I'm not in agreement with you on your comments there. There's nothing wrong with a healthy ego (your consciousness of your own identity)...I would hope that all candidates would possess one. Yes, some are more arrogant than others, I suppose, but a robust ego is a good thing to have, in my book. Also, you too are guilty of inserting your Obama barbs whenever you can, evidenced by your Mac truck comment about Obama's ego.
You're free to express your opinions but comments like that do nothing to further a positive discussion with a member who holds a different opinion of the candidate being ridiculed.

What has this woman ever done to anyone to deserve such disrespect? Try to help women and children? Marry Bill? Have Chelsea? Be first lady? Try to bring us healthcare? Run and win the Senate twice? Run for president and come damn close? What? How did any of that hurt anyone who spews their venom all over this forum and those who spew it all over the internet, or on the TV and radio (even AAR)?

Of course you could find examples of that! That's because (see my most recent post) the whole board got out of control!! If people who didn't like the Clintons were going to get away with calling them rapists and murderers, did you think Clinton supporters would not fight back in kind? Hillary supporters were trying to win it for her, too!! It's not a fair contest when one side gets to throw all the punches and the other must hold back.
Of course he has! Why not? Those things are relevant IMO. A man is judged by the company he keeps.

All of the other allegations (drug use, drug dealing, etc.) can be easily disproven and then move on. Those things come up in every campaign. Whether these kind of issues come up about Obama, Clinton, McCain or whoever, they are relevant and not at all the sort of thing I am referring to when I speak about personal attacks.

Good question, TRoU. I'd like to hear the answer myself.

Oh come on. There are an untold number of insulting remarks by a few (and sometimes all) Hillary supporters. We've been called names, derided as whackos, had our positions and our candidate defamed, and put up with the same sort of abuse (save for one poster who is in his own class). I've tried to be respectful and stick with facts... and not namecalling, not derogatory remarks and other such offensive stuff.

Obama has been criticized ad nauseum over Wright, Ayers, bittergate, and so on... and even subjected to wild speculation about things which are not even alleged... such as drug use and dealing and other unfounded deeds.

Would you all like me to find me a few (hundred) examples ?

The "Obama supporters" are what I'm talking about amy. Not just here, (though that is all I'm dealing with regarding Betty's post), but in general. There seem to be a lot of people (pundits and talking heads, and Obama fans) who want to lecture Hillary about what she should do and when. I think everyone should stick a sock in it. Sorry to be blunt, but maybe if we had poured our heart and soul into something, and spent huge amounts of our own money, and had traveled the country, and had people open their deep feelings to us and supported us, maybe, just maybe we might look askance at the cheap shots, arm-chair psychoanalysis, and arrogant judgements about our soul, our loved ones, our life, and what it means. I know I'd have a handy one finger salute to that myself.

And it being "all about her" is unique I suppose to Hillary isn't it? We could never say it is "all about Obama"? Right? No! He's what? "Above it all"? Right? When it is his campaign and his wife and his supporters, it goes without saying it's all about the welfare of the party, and the country, and the world. Maybe we all need to chill out a bit and recognize that everyone who runs for president probably needs a 2 ton pick-up to carry around their ego. And before any smart remarks follow I'd say Obama's needs might be more in the Mac Truck range.

Just some thoughts.

Then I would politely recommend that in a supposed Obama Supporter's thread they stick with Obama support instead of let's bash Hillary some more. The inuenndos fly even when it is supposed to be support for Obama and "Uniting the Party". I think you know I am a strong Democrat amy, and I want us to win as you and CO say, but win at what cost (if we even can) if every damn little thing Hillary or Bill or Chelsea says is dissected and ascribed the motives of Rasputin or Caligula. Maybe some Obama supporters get their jollies that way. If they do, I who am chronically depressed have to say ironically "get a life". What has this woman ever done to anyone to deserve such disrespect? Try to help women and children? Marry Bill? Have Chelsea? Be first lady? Try to bring us healthcare? Run and win the Senate twice? Run for president and come damn close? What? How did any of that hurt anyone who spews their venom all over this forum and those who spew it all over the internet, or on the TV and radio (even AAR)? Tell me folks because if this keeps up Obama is toast! There are a lot of people who LIKE Hillary Clinton, and if you all alienate them with constant insulting remarks they are going to take it personally that that is what Obama represents! Fair or not people operate emotionally and most don't blog.

So IMHO we either chill the constant stomping on and spitting at her or just bow to McCain.

Yep. Sometimes I feel like there are two CGCS Boards.. one that I'm reading and one that others are reading. Anyway, lots of Obama supporter and Obama trashing...I could probably find more than a few hundred examples...but I won't.

It would be nice if we could move on...but truthfully, I don't see that happening with some members.

Why I stay here, god only knows. I guess it's because I really do enjoy hearing from some members..after all these years it hard to completely break the connections.

TROU...

Well, that is kind of what we do on forums --- we muse about things we generally have no control over -- suggesting what we believe our government and its leaders should do...

Has some of the rhetoric about Clinton been unfair --- absolutely.

Has some of the rhetoric about Obama been unfair --- absolutely.

------------

Then I would politely recommend that in a supposed Obama Supporter's thread they stick with Obama support instead of let's bash Hillary some more.

I think you know I am a strong Democrat amy, and I want us to win as you and CO say, but win at what cost (if we even can) if every damn little thing Hillary or Bill or Chelsea says is dissected and ascribed the motives of Rasputin or Caligula

Maybe some Obama supporters get their jollies that way.If they do, I who am chronically depressed have to say ironically "get a life".

What has this woman ever done to anyone to deserve such disrespect? Try to help women and children? Marry Bill? Have Chelsea? Be first lady? Try to bring us healthcare? Run and win the Senate twice? Run for president and come damn close? What? How did any of that hurt anyone who spews their venom all over this forum and those who spew it all over the internet, or on the TV and radio (even AAR)? Tell me folks because if this keeps up Obama is toast! There are a lot of people who LIKE Hillary Clinton, and if you all alienate them with constant insulting remarks they are going to take it personally that that is what Obama represents! Fair or not people operate emotionally and most don't blog.

So IMHO we either chill the constant stomping on and spitting at her or just bow to McCain.

Yep. Sometimes I feel like there are two CGCS Boards.. one that I'm reading and one that others are reading.

Anyway, lots of Obama supporter and Obama trashing...I could probably find more than a few hundred examples...but I won't.

It would be nice if we could move on...but truthfully, I don't see that happening with some members.

Why I stay here, God only knows. I guess it's because I really do enjoy hearing from some members..after all these years it hard to completely break the connections.

Good insight, Taz

We may entertain ourselves by alternately bashing the other candidate and then having a snit of outrage when the other faction bashes our candidate------but are we learning anything new?

Might it be more meaningful to reset the board and debate new issues?

How Hillary Clinton failed feminism
Posted by Susan J. Demas | Capitol Chronicles | Analysis June 05, 2008 12:21PM
Hillary Clinton
For the first time in my life, I felt embarrassed to call myself a feminist.

I realized that as Hillary Clinton gave her narcissistic non-concession speech Tuesday, which should have marked the end of a historic campaign for women everywhere. But I want to send out my heartfelt thanks to her, Geraldine Ferraro, EMILY's List and New York NOW and Harriet Christian for doing what right-wing blowhards never could.

Lady Hillary sounded only slightly less sour and a smidge saner than dear Harriet, the Clinton supporter raving outside Saturday's Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting made instantly famous on YouTube.


"The Democrats are throwing the election away! And for what? An inadequate black male?" Christian cackled, adding on Fox News that "99 percent of blacks don't even know why they're voting for" Barack Obama.

That kind of racism, once jaw-dropping, is now par for the course for cutthroat Clintonistas.

Harriet was only one of a motley crew of bitter white women screaming that Obama was a "socialist" leading an "anti-woman cult." All the blind rage about "massive disenfranchisement" was over Clinton losing four whole delegates (two, since they were halved) from my state of Michigan.

I kid you not.

But it's easy to say sayonara to reality when your candidate has. Most days, Hillz lavishes more praise on John McCain that Obama, whom she again declared less qualified than herself after he clinched the nomination Tuesday. Not that she would gracefully concede, as she probably banished calculators, as well as TVs in the Baruch College bunker she holed herself up in.

How ironic is it for the wannabe feminist-in-chief to have adopted the persona of "Math is tough" Barbie?

Clinton seemed determined to string out her self-immolated campaign, make Obama sweat and ding him even more, until boatloads of her Capitol Hill colleagues told her to hit the road Wednesday. True to form, she was shocked, still expecting her loyal subjects to fuel a last-minute comeback, as is the Clinton birthright.

Hillary never could own up to her own failings in her campaign - the arrogance, absurdly bloated adviser salaries and lack of strategy after Super Tuesday. And she certainly could never acknowledge Baby Barack's strengths - superb organization, fundraising prowess and oratorical mastery.

No, it was sexism that got her in the end.

How is anyone buying this? Our heroine was the undisputed frontrunner as wife of a popular former two-term president who's run the party for 15 years, with a $109 million personal fortune to boot. The primary system was cannily crafted by cronies like the aptly monikered Harold Ickes to ensure a swift Clintonian coronation.

And when she started to lose, she viciously bludgeoned Obama, aided by surrogates like Gerry Ferraro whose race-baiting rhetoric resembled that of toothless Southern hicks in the Jim Crow era.

Perhaps even more disturbingly, Clinton's strategy came down to trying to nakedly engineer an Obama meltdown. She couldn't just pray for another Rev. Wright; she had to show all those "hardworking white Americans" the colossal error they were making to go with the Kenyan-Kansan (and mess with the queen).

So when she let fly her musing on Robert F. Kennedy's assassination, it was a telling glimpse into her Machiavellian psyche that seemed almost wistful, as though a bullet in Barack's brain was her only road to the White House.

It wasn't ideal, but she'd take it. Politics is a bloodsport, after all.

And somehow Obama, that "skinny black guy with big ears and a funny name," as he describes himself with the kind of self-deprecation Clinton is allergic to, defied all odds.

He went off script and beat her. Talk about historic.

As for Clinton, she mangled her moment in history. Feminism didn't fail her; she failed feminism.

The melodramatic hand-wringing ("Now we'll never have a woman president!") is ridiculous and an insult to talented female politicians across the country, many of whom pointedly backed Obama.

We will. It just won't be Hillary - not now.

Once upon a time, I counted Hillary Rodham Clinton a role model as a champion high school debater mulling law school. Having a first lady with a career was about three decades behind, I thought, never figuring out why she dropped the idea as quickly as her maiden name. In the end, I decided I hated money, hence my esteemed career as a writer.

And while I owe generations of women who came before me a debt of gratitude, I am profoundly tired of the identity politics wars that have decimated the left for a half-century. I am sophisticated enough to know the narrative of history is not gender (nor race); it is multifaceted and broad, terrible and triumphant.

If you don't get that, you don't get anything.

So when Clinton lauded herself Tuesday for launching a campaign that inspired parents to tell their daughters, "See, you can be anything you want to be," I tittered at her trademark vanity at first.

But she's right. May they grow up to be far more honorable leaders than she.

More Clinton backers rally around Obama

Associated Press - June 5, 2008 12:13 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AP) - Some of Hillary Rodham Clinton's biggest backers from New York are rallying around Barack Obama.

They are preparing a group endorsement of the likely Democratic presidential nominee this afternoon.

A few have already taken a stance. Congressmen Gregory Meeks and Edolphus Towns announced their backing of the Illinois senator last night, calling for party unity.

Clinton is signaling that her candidacy is ending. She told supporters in an e-mail that she'll be speaking Saturday on "how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama." She says the stakes are too high to do otherwise.

You're not the only one who shares that view, so I suppose common ground is reached after all.
Already been addressed in recent previous posts. Clinton trashing has been going on for about a year or more. Don't understand why it was allowed, but so it goes. When Obama emerged as the frontrunner, I don't see how his supporters could think he would not have to take what his supporters were dishing out. By now, you may find thousands of examples, but that's not the point. It should have been stopped even before Obama won Iowa.
On both sides.
I ask myself that same question every day.

Oh --- just as we have recommended similarly in the Hillary supporters thread that they stick with Obama support instead of Obama trashing? Well, I guess we have come full circle haven't we.

EXamine the posts --- there are many more posts in this thread praising Obama than there are posts attacking or trashing Hillary...

Now examine the Hillary supporters thread and you will find many more posts attacking Obama than praising Hillary...

And what does that tell you?

That we and our candidate are much more positive AND the Hillary supporters have done much more to rank on Obama than the Obama supporters have on Hillary...

The inuenndos fly even when it is supposed to be support for Obama and "Uniting the Party".

As I suggested --- you will see many more positive posts in this thread for Obama than negative posts regarding Hillary AND you will see many more positive posts in this thread than you will positive posts in the Hillary thread...because we are more positive...
I think this is a little over the top, but with one poster --- perhaps not too far over the top...

Why is it TROU that there were so many more Obama supporters willing to support Hillary than Hillary supporters willing to support Obama?
Maybe there were Obama supporters feeling their candidate was being treated as unfairly by the Clinton campaign and the media, as there were Clinton supporters being treated unfairly by the Obama campaign and the media.

And maybe you should respect the differing perspectives...
TROU --- you are a good, earnest and passionate person. This is to your credit. However, one of the problems many Obama supporters have had with Senator Clinton and her supporters is that they feel they are the only ones out there who ever suffer. This comes from the sense of entitlement that the Clinton campaign has acted with...overspending on luxury hotel rooms, have inevitability as a campaign strategy, expecting to wrap things up by March.

It has hurt Obama supporters that someone could be so arrogant and disrespectful to not only the Obama campaign, but also the Democrtatic voters.

Much of the disrespect that has been heaped on Hillary is undeserved. Whether it comes from the media, or the Republican party that goes without saying. However, many of the problems that Hillary has endured have been of her own making in this campaign and perhaps this is the biggest problem --- her and her supporters inability to take responsibiolity for a contest that they should have won and did not because their campaign was premised on an easy primary victory --- and aimed at winning the general election campaign which is the height of arrogance IMHO.
I want us to stop being at each other's throats. I truly do.

But that is difficult --- so difficult to do with her not even being willing to concede yet -- and even if she does concede her stating that she is keeping her options open and suggetsing that she controls 18 million people and if Barack wants them she will dictate the hoops that he is to jump through.

You don't think this is the height of arrogance? For a contender for the Vice Presidency to dictate terms to the nominee?

So we want to heal -- but its hard when your candidate just will not let go...

if you don't think he needs Hillary you've got no political nose at all. She has earned the right to be a power in this election and if the Obama supporters think that trying to push her around is going to work? they better think again. Hillary will come around I am sure of it, and If I was Obama I would do what he's doing, and that is trying to soothe the hurt and resentful feelings many many people feel right now. One thing is for sure, being spiteful and smug about Obama's win won't get this show very far, and Obama himself knows it. And if I were an ardent Obama fan, I would take the hint from him.

Just my two cents.

Maybe you don't see it Taz, but for many Clinton supporters on this forum the poison started against Hillary long before any significant crap started being thrown Obama's way. At least that is my memory and perspective. I will not hash this over again with you as to who threw the race card into the ring first. We will never see eye to eye on it. So be it. But as to why so many more Hillary supporters are not willing to support Obama than visa versa you would have to ask them. I will specualte that you would find if they answered honestly, that for a large number it has to do with the very reasons I was against his running at this time. His race, his name, and his unknowness! That is just the way it is , despite the progress and despite our "Liberal Dreams"!

Any one of those reasons have been enough to doom candidates and potential candidates too numerous to name throughout American history. Are we in a new era now? Is there something new under the sun? He's got all three going against him and he's even admitted it himself. "A tall skinny guy with big ears and a funny name." if I am paraphrasing him correctly. Fine I laud him on seeing that, and I laud him on having the sincerity and idealism , and having the gifts of inspirational speaking and charisma to step up and want to participate. And I don't blame him for trying to and winning! Just as I don't blame Hillary for any of that nor do I blame her because she lost. She fought her heart out after she was sandbagged by the phenomena his campaign became.

But if we are not through now that he's the nominee, and if we want more than just to go down in history as the first Party who nominated the first "Black Man" for president and leave it at that. Then Obama and his campaign are going to have to deal with what they themselves view as a surprising upset victory. People don't like surprises Taz. Not in the general electorate. It is often the "devil" we know rather than the one we don't, and no matter that his supporters see him as a breath of fresh air and applaud his blowing his nose. He you and I have to realize the the former truisim. He is not known to most people and they are listening to and will listen to a portrait painted of him by god-cursed professional liars and cowardly "journalists" of the caliber that aided and abetted the lies that cost untold thousands of innocent lives!

Into this poisonous atmosphere steps a relative neophyte who beats Hillary Clinton. The haters of the Clintons rejoice and heap scorn upon her even just for losing even though she may have gotten more popular votes. The people ( many Independent or at least not calling themselves "liberal", and even some republicans) who remembered the Clinton years, and maybe prospered and felt comfortable with this all too human but pretty competent power couple, see this newcomer's supporters being aired heaping that scorn on them and their "legacy". Whether you believe it or not Taz, large numbers of Clinton supporters see the disrespect for her from what they associate with the Obama campaign and the Media.

And they don't like it. They don't know this guy from Adam, and if you don't think he needs Hillary you've got no political nose at all. She has earned the right to be a power in this election and if the Obama supporters think that trying to push her around is going to work? they better think again. Hillary will come around I am sure of it, and If I was Obama I would do what he's doing, and that is trying to soothe the hurt and resentful feelings many many people feel right now. One thing is for sure, being spiteful and smug about Obama's win won't get this show very far, and Obama himself knows it. And if I were an ardent Obama fan, I would take the hint from him.

Just my two cents.

Sandra...I just noticed what's in your signature. Now tell me, how is your signature a unifying factor for this board...how is it not provocative? I don't want to rehash all the concerns you have about how this board is moderated. It is what it is. It's a small board with very few members.....again and again I say, "If someone has a serious problem with a member's post then contact the mods". Sometimes they will agree with you sometimes not. That's been my experience and I'm okay with it.

So, I really have nothing more to add about moderating issues....I'm fine with how they handle the board.

I'm sure you are fine with how they handle the board!

Mods were always supposed to take a proactive approach to look for rule violations, and it doesn't always call for banning the individual who transgresses. It's no excuse to say the board is short-handed when mods are all over the topics where personal attacks are being made. No one should have to call a mod's attention to a blatant rule violation that is obvious to so many members.
As for my sig....you all misunderstand me (on purpose, I believe).

I don't care about unity. Unifying the Clinton and Obama camp is not my goal at all! Can you tell me how my sig is a personal attack on anyone in particular? The bumper sticker mentions no name, so it would be a stretch for anyone to see anything personal in that, and the quote from Senator Clinton speaks about a campaign issue, i.e., experience (or lack thereof).

You all don't see it, but there is an absolutely noxious hatred of Hillary, expressed by many, if not most, Obama supporters on this board and elsewhere, that just absolutely defies logic and which I find highly objectionable. Even now, Hillary haters won't let it go. There has NEVER to any remotely comparable degree, been such corresponding hate toward Obama.

The liberal/left really should learn that you don't have to HATE every opponent that you run against. So, let the vilification of John McCain begin. Give Hillary a rest.

I don't care about unity. Unifying the Clinton and Obama camp is not my goal at all! Can you tell me how my sig is a personal attack on anyone in particular? The bumper sticker mentions no name, so it would be a stretch for anyone to see anything personal in that, and the quote from Senator Clinton speaks about a campaign issue, i.e., experience (or lack thereof).

And that overexaggerated, unreasonable, biased, subjective measure of experience is what is insulting.

It would be akin to saying... well... Hillary has a lot of experience in the White House. She slept there.

You all don't see it, but there is an absolutely noxious hatred of Hillary, expressed by many, if not most, Obama supporters on this board and elsewhere, that just absolutely defies logic and which I find highly objectionable. Even now, Hillary haters won't let it go. There has NEVER to any remotely comparable degree, been such corresponding hate toward Obama.

The liberal/left really should learn that you don't have to HATE every opponent that you run against. So, let the vilification of John McCain begin. Give Hillary a rest.

You don't care about "unity" because you don't support enthusiastically support McCain or Obama.

I just want to see enough voters(Dems, Republicans, Independents, whoever)unify behind Obama to put him in the WH.

You really think that asking a President to have experience is unreasonable?

Throughout history there have been Congress members, Senators, Governors, who were succeeded by their spouses. Lindy Boggs comes to my mind, having taken over the Congressional seat of her husband Hale Boggs when he went missing in a plane crash in 1972. "Sleeping there" is better than nothing at all.

You all don't see it, but there is an absolutely noxious hatred of Hillary, expressed by many, if not most, Obama supporters on this board and elsewhere, that just absolutely defies logic and which I find highly objectionable. Even now, Hillary haters won't let it go.

You really think that asking a President to have experience is unreasonable?

Throughout history there have been Congress members, Senators, Governors, who were succeeded by their spouses. Lindy Boggs comes to my mind, having taken over the Congressional seat of her husband Hale Boggs when he went missing in a plane crash in 1972. "Sleeping there" is better than nothing at all.

You all don't see it, but there is an absolutely noxious hatred of Hillary, expressed by many, if not most, Obama supporters on this board and elsewhere, that just absolutely defies logic and which I find highly objectionable. Even now, Hillary haters won't let it go. There has NEVER to any remotely comparable degree, been such corresponding hate toward Obama.

The liberal/left really should learn that you don't have to HATE every opponent that you run against. So, let the vilification of John McCain begin. Give Hillary a rest.

That's fine, Amy. But I'm not going to remove my sig just because it doesn't help to unify everyone behind Obama. That may be your goal, but it is not mine. Mine is just the opposite in fact, so my sig line works for me.

It has NOTHING to do with Hillary at all. No matter how you say....

It has NOTHING at all to do with Hillary at all.

I hear you, DGG. But I don't expect the Obama supporters to hear you.

I agree with leaving Hillary alone (don't hold your breath) but why vilify McCain? I have a feeling there will be a couple of CGCS members who support McCain by the time this is all over. They deserve the same respect that Obama supporters want.

I don't see the widespread hatred on this board that you do,