Comments on: Edwards Takes Side in Clinton-MLK Controversy

By: David Webb

David Webb — Sun, 11 May 2008 12:23:56 +0000

Hello, nice blog you have! Check out mine, i have a website with quotes!

By: The Beanstockd Project

The Beanstockd Project — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 00:24:09 +0000

[...] that Obama is misrepresenting her words. John Edwards has picked his side on the issue, openly criticizing Clinton about the [...]

By: independent

independent — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:48:59 +0000

So, we need senators and ex-senators instead? At least he’s calling out the absurdity of the “change” slogan.

By: Same old Clintons

Same old Clintons — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:33:24 +0000

And yet again the comments continue about how Hillary’s comments were taken out of context. I wanted to post this earlier but lost my train of thought so here goes.

When she makes the statements about Obama flip floping on the war because he voted for funding in 2005, 2006 and 2007, are her comments genuine or are they pure spin?

His position was very clear in 2002 that we would be exactly where we are at now in IRAQ if we went to war there. He also said there was no reason to. The fact that later as a senator, he voted to fund the troops has nothing to do with his position on the war and any intelligent person knows that. When the troops are in harms way, you provide them the tools necessary to protect themselves, whether you approve of the war or not.

For Clinton to now, during the election campaign to suggest that his view is contradicted because of his votes on funding, is disingenuous.

Statements like that are why others view every one of her statements with distrust, even if they are technically correct SOME OF THE TIME.

I seem to recall many Democrats at the time, and I believe she did as well, stating when questioned. They all stated on several talk shows, they had to fund the troops no matter what.

And this issue of experience. Come on now. What experience did Bill Clinton have in international affairs when he ran for office? What experience did George Bush have? They were state politicians up until the time they ran and won the presidency.

By: Rae

Rae — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:20:57 +0000

John Edwards was the one candidate that I really liked and part of the reason was he wasn’t bashing the others really and he wasn’t always carrying a child around in his arms or recruiting movie stars or talk show hosts to endorse him publicly. To bad he stuck his nose into someone else’s business. As if anyone cares about his opinion on this particular subject and secondly, it’s not as if it took his making a public statement about it for it to be public knowledge.

By: Bianka

Bianka — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:58:40 +0000

opal take a breath no need to scream your ” opinion “, we need a CLOSER for this debate and for our country someone who will be the deal maker. I wonder if superman or spidermar are busy, hell even Xena will work.

By: lynn

lynn — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:02:24 +0000

bravo, Rose la, you win for the most intelligent response thusfar. The Civil Rights Movement was nothing if it was not a grassroots movement that gained momentum from the hard work and dedication of Martin Luther King Jr. and others who were deeply committed to end the racial division within this country. And, yes, Kennedy, Humphrey and Johnson were initially skeptical about how far they wanted to go with the government’s support. It was, in fact, Bobby Kennedy who urged his brother to take Dr. King seriously. That it took legislation to impress upon the masses that the government had finally gotten serious about ending segregation does not, in any way, negate the fact that this could not have been accomplished without the groundswell of support for Dr. King and many other courageous individuals who came together across the racial and religious divisions that have existed within our country. Were we able to do this today, we would perhaps, be able to see change in our time. We seem more committed to rhetoric than to action and we have brought into this world a generation that is perhaps the least socially conscious in history. You are quite correct that, as a nation, we have become woefully complacent to the point of abdicating our basic rights. How is it that we have not taken to the streets to protest an administration that promotes nothing but ignorance and arrogance? Wouldn’t it be heartening if we could put aside the rhetoric and really try to elect someone who had the ability to make us a ‘whole’ nation once again?

I am personally bored by the nonsense that is characterizing this campaign and feel depressed that there continues to be an American penchant for mudslinging and backstabbing in the political arena. We need a strong, intelligent, well-informed candidate, one who can address serious issues and begin to restore respect for America around the globe. One can only hope that we will not repeat the debacle of the last eight years.

By: opal johnson

opal johnson — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:54:36 +0000

DON’T YOU FRAUDS KNOW THAT WE SEE THROUGH YOUR OPPORTUNISTIC POLITICS. ALL OF YOU LIBERALS MAKE THE REST OF US SO SICK WE COULD ACTUALLY VOMIT. PLEASE JUST GO AWAY AND DON’T SHOW THOSE FALSE TEETH AGAIN - PLEASE. THIS IS OUR COUNTRY TOO - NOT JUST THOSE SPECIAL GROUPS WHO VOTE FOR YOU. YOU COULD CARE LESS ABOUT THIS COUNTRY. IT IS JUST YOUR OWN SELFISH INTERESTS YOU HAVE IN MIND. HILLARIOUS HILLARY TALKS ABOUT MR. BUSH SPENDING TOO MUCH MONEY. SHE WANTS TO SPEND ON THOSE GROUPS WHO VOTE FOR HER AND NOT THE REMAINDER OF THE AMERICAN CITIZENS. AT LEAST MR BUSH HAS SPENT MONEY ON TRYING TO PROTECT ALL THE CITIZENS AND NOT JUST FOR THOSE WHO VOTED FOR HIM. BRAVO MR. BUSH. I AM SO HAPPY THAT HE WAS OUR COMMANDER AND CHIEF DURING THIS. I DON’T THINK MR. BUSH IS A SOCIALIST AND THAT HE IS A TRADITIONAL AMERICAN.

By: Leonard Sadorf

Leonard Sadorf — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:41:11 +0000

The consumate politicians of an earlier age, Johnson in particular, did indeed press legislative changes. Don’t believe for a second that they didn’t do it for electorate gain. Without the likes of Evers, King, Malcom X and a plethora of other civil rights activists, no change would have occurred. It took men willing to give up their lives, like Evers, King, X, to demonstrate the rightness and immediacy of their cause and stir the political pot to the point where the likes of Lyndon Johnson saw the political benefit in pressing the civil rights issues.

The difference is simple. King fought for intrinsic reasons and Johnson for the extrinsic.

By: mark christopher

mark christopher — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:32:54 +0000

This is hilarious. These fetid “politically correct” liberals are now getting caught up in the cobwebs of their thoughtcrime philosophy. Let’s get this straight: The US in entangled militarily in the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan, the border situation is a mess, there are crises in healthcare and the mortgage markets, American jobs are going overseas, and all the stupid Democrats can do is attack each other for allegedly “racist” remarks concerning two liberals who, last time I looked, have been dead for over 20 years. Democrats are simply too immature to govern this country. Perhaps the Democrats can find a Cotton Mather, a Torquemada or a Stalin to set up a network for detecting and punishing “impure thought” . Clearly, thoughtcrime is their primary concern.