The Compassion Forum Tonight

[winthrop]

To be fair, neither Mr. or Ms. Clinton were born into wealth, and in fact their current situation was largely the result of their two best selling books, as well as speaking engagements. That they are rich now does not change the fact they are hardly "elitists" in the same way as silver spoonists such as George W.
The reference to Mr. Roosevelt being "the past" is irrelevant to the point being made. It is possible for the wealthy-from-birth to have compassion and interest in the lives of the less fortunate, as both Mr. Roosevelt and the Kennedy dynasty illustrate. It is also possible for those of more humble birth, such as Dick Cheney, to have none.
The wealth or lack thereof attached to a candidate is not necessarily the harbinger of how that candidate will address issues of poverty, or even if he/she will. It is the innate humanity in the individual, regardless of his/her financial background.

[Jonesy]

This is why politicians are dishonest. When they tell people what they really think, everyone hates them. Why not applaud their honesty, and if you consider them to be incorrect, challenge their thinking?

[jdanton]

Originally Posted by ericgtr

He nailed it. He was articulate, well spoken and spoke what he actually believes even to those that may not have wanted to hear it.

Hillary, pandered as usual and all the while threw both Al Gore and the democratic party under the bus at the same time. I'm sure the SD's are really going to appreciate that.

Seems to me they both pandered, and both were a little uncomfortable doing so.

Again, Obama talked of things we need to do, like get parents more involved with kids' school work, but didn't say how he plans to make that happen.

The question that was not asked of either, and should have been asked of both:

Can you make decisions based on the constitution when it is in conflict with your religious beliefs?

The strange thing about all of this, to me, is that in this country the more religious one seems to be, the LESS compassionate or telerant one is.

We just went through the Terri Schaivoe fiasco, driven by people who put their faith above our rights. Our president has blocked stem cell research based on religious grounds.

When you get past the biases you had when the show started, again the two gave extremely similar answers to most of the questions they were both asked.

Both, for example, said abortion should be kept legal, but we should do all we can to keep it rare.

What neither of them said, to that audience, was:

Isn't the very first right a child has a family who wants a child?

They both disappointed me, but the forum itself disappointed me.

Compassion and religion are two different things.

[jdanton]

Originally Posted by ericgtr

I do agree he's usually articulate, that is when he's not responding in kind to Hillary like he did in response to her accusation. Even though I always think he needs to hit back, now that I see it I don't like it.. LOL hypocritical of me?

As for the elitists, it's sort of hard to relate with working class people when you have 109 million bucks. Obama's net worth is nothing in comparison.

But not impossible. This is exactly the kind of inuendo that serves no good purpose but to anger people like myself.

Find me some votes where Hillary voted against the people and for the big corporations. Show me where her voting record has not been in touch with the middle class American.

[jdanton]

Originally Posted by ericgtr

I completely disagree, Hillary is not battle testing him, she is giving the 527's all they will ever need in the GE.

Clear and decisive speeches combined with good judgment far out weigh lies and accusations. I don't care how much experience one has, when they can't tell the truth or manage a simple campaign there is no way they can handle the country.

What is she giving them they don't already have, and why didn't you say anything along these lines when Edwards was giving athe GOP ad sound bites?

[jdanton]

Originally Posted by CosmicRocker

527's are part of the landscape. They will have their slime

Obama is giving it back, though more so with his surrogates as good as he gets. BOTH candidates are stronger for it.

The camapign is awful,i agree -but more so because of a failure of the managers to do there job.
Even the best managers are dependant on middle management.

Looking back, she needed to assert her views more into the campaign,
rather than rely on them coming up with platforms for her to use. It was a disconnect 0n both partys parts

This campaign hasn't been all that bad. I do think it's outlasted the attention span of the American voter, though, so it seems worse than it is; impatience does that.

[jdanton]

Originally Posted by CosmicRocker

well she is behind, so she has to attack to make up ground.
If she had run a better campaign, and at least contested the caucus states, she may have been closer.

And of course Florida and Michigan would have changed the ENTIRE PRIMARY.

But it is what it is, and she has to make up ground now, so she has to be on the offensive.

I disagree. I think she should spend more time talking about the differences between the dems and the repubs.

It's time for her to move towards uniting the party, which doesn't mean drop out.

I think we need to come to some kind of general agreement as to what is an "attack." If she points out, as Edwards did, that Obama's health plan does not cover everyone, is that an "attack?"

[jdanton]

Originally Posted by K2Flex

I'm gonna have to disagree with this part of your statement. People with money like Clintons, or anyone with million dollar plus incomes, have have way more means to accomplish things than someone making 25-75 grand a year. If a blue collar worker's child(ren) want to go to college, they are in debt and struggle for a while. Simple fact. The other end of the spectrum can just pay for it in full, or just about anything they want, and maybe even get a tax break for it if the cost is high enough.

IMO, they don't fight for the average guy's interests, because they are not average! They are on the higher end of the income spectrum. They don't wanna hear about how people are struggling to make ends meet. If you don't make money like wealthy people do, they are not "equal". This is the elitist attitude. Go ahead and try to twist it in any way, but deep down you know it's true.

Probably true of most, but not all by a long shot.

Again, show me some votes that she cast on behalf of corporations against the interests of the lower income people. That would be far more tangible than your inuendo.

[jdanton]

Originally Posted by K2Flex

I can agree with that. But look what the corporate types are doing now in this current administration. They have royally destroyed this country and have no shame about doing it, all in the name of profit. Do you really think Hillary would be any different having served on the Board of Directors at Walmart and a partner of the Rose Law Firm? I don't think so. The idea of capitalism is driven into their brains and warps the sense of reality.

It was a different Walmart.

Again, what's her voting record? She's been in the senate for a while.

She voted against the Medicare prescription drug bill because it didn't give the government the right to negotiate prices.

She voted against the energy bill that Obama voted for. You know why either voted as they did?

[jdanton]

Originally Posted by Jonesy

This is why politicians are dishonest. When they tell people what they really think, everyone hates them. Why not applaud their honesty, and if you consider them to be incorrect, challenge their thinking?

I agree. Remember four years ago when Dean got castrated for saying that catching Saddam wouldn't change anything?