Reply #137: Rebuttal of the Seven Reasons" [View All]

[TomClash]

1) On McClurkin - he's not exactly in the Obama inner circle. He participated in an event. Plus, Barack has a longstanding record of support for LGBT rights dating back to his days in the Illinois Senate. Other than his failure to support same-sex marriage - Hillary also takes this position - I find little objectionable on this issue. I don't know too many community organizers who don't support civil rights - but your corporate lawyer candidate (15 years) sat on the Board of the nonunion WalMart. What about your LGBT brothers and sisters in the labor movement? Don't they count?

Your new candidate was feted by a far more powerful figure, Rupert Murdoch, the dominant media personality of our time and an unabashed right-winger. Thank you no.

(2) More soldiers - do you know anyone serving in the military? Do you understand the strain on active duty forces? Do you want National Guard personnel serving instead? Here's a public service announcement: if we reduced our soldiers in Iraq by two divisions today and a war broke out with China, we'd lose - badly. If you want to rely on NG personnel or Blackwater private armies to fight in future wars, please explain how that works well because I don't see it.

(3) Rezko - Besides the fact that the Clintons have more sleazy friends than almost anyone not named Tony Soprano or George Bush, what exactly has Rezko been convicted of? Oh wait, he's of Lebanese descent and we all know the dirty arab must be guilty. Even assuming Rezko is guilty of some crime, can you tell me you are absolutely certain none of your friends has committed a serious crime? Even Al Gore has some questionable "friends." Guilt by association is not a reason to vote against someone.

(4) Actually, many world leaders are dolts. And this is the most ridiculous "reason" you give because it is not based on reason at all. You don't like the way he looks at her? I don't see it and I don't get it. Hillary has all the fashion sense of a dead squirrel but that's not a reason to vote against her.

(5) Hardly. He defends himself against attacks - it's the voters he wants to convince, not Hillary. That's what a campaign is all about - getting the most votes. You don't do that by reconciling with Hillary, but rather attracting voters, especially new ones.

(6) The problem in Iraq was NOT intel but how the WH "interpreted it." Presumably, Barack would do better than Bush because he would not be hot to go to war to increase money for defense cronies. I was under the buildings on 9/11 and I have alot of questions about how that happened and this Administration's contribution, but it seems pretty clear that Al Qaeda and ISI had some involvement and Pakistan is harboring Al Qaeda and ISI has some participation in the Government. If Hillary is not willing to attack targets in Pakistan to defend the US (and actually I'm sure she is willing to do so) then she has no business being President of the United States.

(7) You must have wanted George H.W. Bush in 1992 because he had far more foreign policy experience than Bill Clinton, A lot of foreign policy gurus supported the War - including McCain and Clinton - and how's that working out? Sometimes a fresh approach is better and maybe this is one of those times. And you might consider the reaction in much of the world if the US elects a person of color to lead it.

Note that not one of your reasons supports why Hillary should be President - all attack Barack. This looks and reads a lot like campaign talking points, not aperson who actually changed her mind about Barack and genuinely moved to Hillary.