iamshack

Well, I'm no Hillary supporter, but let's not pretend like candidates or politicians have never changed their minds to suit their best interests in campaigns. And don't you think the whole "her word is no good" thing is a bit over dramatic? Obama does not need the mudslinging to win this thing... And yes, I do think another debate or two would be helpful, because quite honestly, they are very similar policy-wise, and two, now that we have just the two frontrunners left, it might be best for the public to be able to concentrate on just the two of them, rather than them filtering-out some of what might have been said in earlier debates because they might have been in favor of another candidate who has since dropped out.

Well, he and Hillary have only had one 1-on-1 debate thus far. And I'm not saying anything negative about either position. Just trying to be fair.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 7, 2008 -> 04:31 PM) Reason 7830 I dislike Hillary... http://tinyurl.com/2fl7eg Well, did you read the update to the article, which discusses that Obama once was the one looking for more debate time during his Illinois Senatorial Campaign...

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Feb 7, 2008 -> 12:47 PM) Can I ask an honest question here? How exactly would the situation have changed if all of residents were just given a rebuilt neighborhood? My understanding was that the residents could move to communities which would give their family greater opportunity educationally if moved to Tinley/Orland/Villa Park/Gurnee as oppossed to living in the Robert Taylor Homes. The housing projects as I understand them were not a socially viable commune for long term success for those living there. What jobs were the inhabitants of the Robert Taylor homes and Cabrini Green displaced from that were inaccessible from their new location? I am not naive enough to think there was no personal gain due to this process and the "rich got richer". I unfortunatly view this as a way of life for those with political power. I also do not see how the people living in these housing projects were unjustly treated unless you are telling me they were removed from their homes and not given another living arrangement as I was lead ot beleive the environment they were living in was not at all desirable. Well the personal gain is that City property has become so much more valuable than it was previously. Especially when you consider the Cabrini-Green area, which happened to be located in between two of the more wealthy areas of the City in the Gold Coast and Lincoln Park. It's going to be nearly impossible to keep an area like that away from developers in a rapidly gentrifying city. It's not so much a matter of corruption as it is simply the basics of capitalism. Believe it or not, there is also personal gain to be made by developers in creating homes or buildings for the poor or the elderly, through federal and other tax credits, which is why I am sure Rezko was involved in those properties to begin with. So it works both ways.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 7, 2008 -> 11:32 AM) Now that you refered to FDR by his initials, and of course JFK was widely used, it reminded me that LBJ was supposed to have some dalliances as well. What's Obama's middle name again? LBJ would NEVER cheat on Ladybird!

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 7, 2008 -> 11:29 AM) Another great example of why hate Hillary, how many other candidates do we judge by their spouses? The one's who's spouses used to be President of the United States?

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 7, 2008 -> 11:22 AM) Infidelity in the White House. Roosevelt. Kennedy. Clinton. Maybe I should switch parties! Well, at least FDR and Kennedy knew the press would protect them...Clinton had just a BIT more reason to keep it in his pants...

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 7, 2008 -> 11:01 AM) I see you point, but you are missing mine. You have an opinion about their marriage. Do you have an equally strong opinion about any other candidates marriage? It is not as much what someone's opinion is to my point, but the fact that people have such strong opinions about Bill and Hillary's marriage. You are not the only one that talks about it. People fault her vigorously yet give Rudy G and three wives a pass. That is one of the questions that NSS was getting to in this thread. Why Hillary? and by extension, why Hillary and not the other candidates. BTW, I noticed that in the ten plus years since Monica-gate, there have not been any more whispers of cheating. Do you consider that at all? Perhaps they have repaired their relationship? You find fault that they are committed to helping each other succeed. Perhaps that is a bit old fashioned but I like seeing the spouses support the candidate. It's a rough job as President and having family support, I believe is important. I've been pointing out the double standard that people seem to have with the Clintons. Imagine if the Clintons adopted an African baby. I bet it would get much different treatment than McCain. There would be whispers of it actually being Bill's kid. Reporters tracking his travel schedule during the conception time frame, etc. And that one is easy to answer why Clinton and not the other candidates And as far as looking for Bin-Laden I think we employ people much better at this than the President. They work at agencies like the CIA, FBI, NSA, various branches of the military. So I don't think our efforts to track down Bin Laden were seriously impaired. And which candidate is not making decision on what is best for their career? No, I don't have an equally strong opinion about anyone else's marriage. But then again, none of the other candidates have been in the White House already, dragging the country through one member's infidelity, have they? Have any of the other candidates or their spouses already harmed the integrity of the office of the President? Have any of the other candidates or their spouses told us that whether he or she was involved in sexual activity with another person depended on what the "meaning of 'is' is"? And obviously, to your points about Rudy- had he ever become a real candidate in this race- someone with an actual chance- his relationship history certainly would have been far more scrutinized. I think the main reason he was given somewhat of a pass was because no one ever really considered him a threat to win. The same with Ron Paul- you don't think had he become a viable candidate that his connections to racially charged literature wouldn't have been scrutinized 100 times greater? Hilary has been anointed "the" Democratic nominee for basically 5 years. Thus, she has been under the microscope much more than some other candidates. Add the fact that Bill was the President 8 years ago, and it makes the spotlight even more intense. As for the fault I find in them being committed to them helping one another succeed- I find nothing wrong in that in genuine relationships. But I don't believe theirs is. And yet, they parade around in the spotlight together, appearing that they are truly devoted to one another, trying to appear to be something they are not for the sake of their political careers. Well, they fooled America once already- when Bill was running the first time these stories of his trysts were flying all over. And they denied, denied, denied. Hillary acted as if her husband would never do such a thing...and then, guess what? He did it again, in the White House of all places, with an EMPLOYEE! He's already ruined her life. I can only imagine how difficult this has all been for Chelsea, let alone Hillary. And yet here they are again, playing the same charade on the American public once again that they did 16 years ago and 12 years ago. The Clinton's have nothing but sincere love for one another- it's really a great marriage...well, sorry, I'm not buying it. Finally, obviously I understand that the President is not out there leading the charge to catch terrorists. But to claim that this distraction, that basically went on for an entire year, did not affect things that should have been being accomplished during his second term is absolute nonsense. A good percentage of his daily life in the White House was devoted to dealing with the Lewinsky scandal, which was unfair to the American people and it's still affecting us to this day.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 7, 2008 -> 03:24 AM) Your point is, and it gets to the heart of why some people hate Hillary. You *know* why they are married. Name other candidates that you *know* that well? There are many reasons that couples stay together after affairs, and not all of them are running for President. You also have added the quality of the marriage as a reason to vote for or possibly not for someone. At least in the Clinton's case. Within a healthy marriage the partners should be working to help each others career. So at least in this case, they have a very good marriage, even using your theory. Yet, you find fault in that. Perhaps they do have a crappy marriage in some aspects, but even the area that they do well, you're comfortable labeling a negative. And you are not alone in that. As you mentioned other people share that opinion. And repeated enough, it becomes another "fact" about the Clintons that "everybody knows". It's as if she is the only woman in America that has stayed with a husband who cheats. We accept other reasons in ordinary people's lives but in this case it's because she's a lesbian who wants to be President. It's amazing in this race the Family Values GOP had a many times divorced candidate in Rudy G and the Dems have a candidate that kept her marriage together. The candidate that received the most negative about it is the one that chose marriage over divorce. Now it seems the preferred value is divorce. This may signal a major turning point in our attitudes. Why do you keep refusing to see the point I'm making? I didn't say I "knew" anything. I said I "believed" or that it was my "opinion." Secondly, "my theory" is not based on the fact that they have a marriage at all. I've repeatedly stated I believe it's a sham. I don't believe it was before, but I believe it is now. Basically an arrangement to stay together to benefit their political careers, not to work together for the sake of their MARRIAGE. So all comments about whether it is good for them or not don't matter, because they aren't making ANY decisions based on what is best for their marriage. They are making decisions based on what is best for their own political careers. And of course, sometimes that comes in the collective version- not just singularly. Why can't you seem to grasp that? To be perfectly honest, I don't usually give a damned what candidates are doing in their personal lives. But for one thing, their sh*tty relationship already put our country through enough, in my opinion. Instead of tracking down Osama Bin Laden, Bill is trying to figure out how best to lie to the American public through semantics. Instead of performing whatever responsibilities she had as first lady, Hillary has people chasing her around trying to ask her constantly about what she is going to do with Bill. Now of course, everything is wonderful again, on the campaign trail. They're all one big happy family again! Well, I don't believe it. I'm tired of it. I don't want them in the White House again, and that's my opinion. Whether you agree with it or not, I don't really care.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Feb 7, 2008 -> 12:14 AM) VERY well said. That, in essence, is why I could never vote for her. And to all the people (including Hillary), that say she is a different person than Bill.......... . I don't think people realize just how much of the terrorist problems that led to 9/11 and the Bush presidency disaster were caused by ignorance/ignoring problems by the Clinton. In fact, I think the Republican party would be smarter to focus on THAT than focus on the "we've been safe since 9/11" crap. And your thoughts on them failing to lead are also dead on. Bush doesn't deserve to have blame shifted off him for the disasterous last 8 years, but the previous administration set the stage for it to happen. And no more was there a better example of this than on August 21, 1998 when we bombed factories in the Sudan, that were linked to Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist training facilities in Afghanistan. This was just a few days after an August 17, 1998 hearing regarding the Monica Lewinsky scandal, when Bill gave his infamous "that depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" statement. I remember many people thinking "he's doing this to deflect attention" from the Lewinsky scandal- this is absolute bs. And while part of it may not have been bs, and part of it may have been, it makes it absolutely clear the magnitude of the events that were happening then and where his state of mind probably was. This is probably actually my numero uno problem with the Clinton's, even before the issues I have with their "marriage."

Not sure if this has been posted, but the Clinton's loaned Hillary's campaign $5 million today. http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008...er-campaign-5m/

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 10:40 PM) I dislike the Clintons quite a bit, but even I would have to guess that their marriage may have stayed together at least in part for Chelsea. Especially when she was younger, and when Bill was off filandering. I'm as fairly certain they both care for Chelsea quite a bit. I don't disagree that they both care for their daughter. Any parents would. But when was Bill thinking of his daughter when he decided to mess around with an intern as probably the most scrutinized and powerful person on the face of the earth? What could he have possibly been thinking? Now I'm not going to be naive and suggest that other Presidents haven't done the same, that other powerful men and women haven't done the same. We all make mistakes. And we all don't always consider the true implications of our actions prior to doing them. I also certainly don't expect the Clinton's to air all their dirty laundry for the American public to see, either. But the way she's using Bill...they way they behave in public together, and attempt to paint this picture of themselves as the Cleavers or the Brady's, well, I just find it disgusting. And that's just my personal opinion. Nothing else.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 10:18 PM) A marriage as a team helping each other out. Wow, that is terrible. Marriage should be about hurting each other's careers. Dumping him would have appealed to more voters. To believe your theory, you have to believe that the majority of voters think she did the right thing staying together. I don't think that was the case. Ok, if you want to talk semantics, even though you know exactly what my point is, fine. I'll be extremely careful in every word I type just to prevent you from taking my words out of context or distorting the obvious meaning of my post. I believe- just me- I'm not saying you should, or you do, or that anyone else should or does, but I believe that the two of them are working as a team to further their political careers. NOT their marriage. But their political careers. I believe their marriage is a sham- something put forth to appease the conservative voters who would struggle to vote for a divorced or separated woman (whose ex-husband happened to be an ex-President). I think they have basically agreed to stay together formally for each other's best interests, not for love or because they believe they can work it out, or anything else. Not even for Chelsea. I could be wrong. I could be entirely off base and nothing could be farther from the truth. But this thread was started as a question asking us to explain why we dislike Hillary Clinton, and those are my reasons.

QUOTE(Misplaced_Sox @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 10:18 PM) You are missing the point. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand. Of the 100% of resident of both Cabrini and the Robert Taylor homes that signed off on Daly's plan to turn the projects area into mixed income for both a new living standard only 15% are living in those mixed use homes. The majority live no where near Chicago, their jobs lost, relocated against their will when they have SIGNED contracts to right of property. How is that acceptable? Are we going back to Old father Daly's plan to ride around in fire trucks spraying down the homeless to get them to leave now. You and iamshack are speaking as if they dont have an entitlement to their homes because they are section 8 funded, or on welfare. That is a pretty piss poor mentality to have. So I dont care remove me. Because if you obviously cannot stand or understand the plight of the poor and only think of your numbers or the tax write off it is then maybe we are better off silencing every poor person out there. He did make an ignorant assumption. Whether you see it is not the case, because I am offended. Because that was my life, filled of broken promises. I am done with this thread. We have piss-poor attitudes? You've walked into this thread and by now, probably offended nearly everyone in here with your closed-mindedness. It's either "see it my way" or don't bother debating the point. Now I understand you have a really hands-on experience with this particular issue, but that doesn't mean if others don't agree with you they are simply ignorant or they are in favor of hosing down poor people with firehoses. I worked for the City of Chicago in the Mayor's Office, and I did a lot of work with Section 8 housing as well as programs for ex-offenders (many of which are poverty-stricken). Now the systems aren't perfect by any means, and certainly never will be, but certain poor people have a sense of entitlement that I find somewhat repugnant myself. You keep on telling us that "we" don't understand, but maybe you don't understand either. I can't just live wherever I want to live either. I have to live with the laws of supply and demand and by the housing market and the general economy as well. I can't just demand that I be allowed to live in housing in areas where I cannot afford, whether that means I can't live by my family, or by my job. There are plenty of people you would not assume are experiencing similar symptoms of poverty that you may have experienced or witnessed, simply because they are not involved in many of the government programs or because they are in the suburbs as opposed to urban areas or wherever. But believe me, they do exist, and they face similar issues, and they aren't allowed to demand to live in a certain area or in a certain building either. They get evicted, and have to go elsewhere. Why should those that live in government subsidized housing be any different? What rights do they have to live in the same area where the Cabrini-Green projects once stood?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 10:13 PM) $5.7 million in the last 24 hours for Obama. Unbelievable...

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 10:06 PM) So fighting to save a marriage and keeping the family together is a bad thing? I wonder if you have analyzed the other candidates marriages, which ones are the best, which couples are the most in love? Oh I didn't mean to say that at all. But don't pretend like this is just some theory I conjured up here. It's quite a common theory that these two work as a "team," and that most important is that they do so for the benefit of both of their political careers. And there is nothing wrong with fighting to save a marriage. But when the husband is out philandering all the time, it starts to appear that maybe he isn't too concerned about the marriage himself...there is a difference in fighting for something and being simply blind or stupid. And I don't think anyone will ever accuse Hillary of being blind or stupid...

QUOTE(Misplaced_Sox @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 09:41 PM) It is about making money off poor people, disenfranchising them of their home by promises of integration in a mixed income society, like as promised. You obviously will never understand and you sound like a real ignorant person. Live a day in a poor person's shoes. Go to work with them, listen to their problems, then go home with them. Understand the realities you are talking about. This was not vacant land. The inhabitants of said ghettos signed off a new proposal to rehab land for the chance to live in an integrated society and not one that bred more poor people. The ghetto was first designed as a social construct to keep people poor, it becomes a breeding ground for cheap workforce. Reference the Dr. Martin Luther King on those points about the systematic poverty. You don't promise people one thing and then turn your back and make a profit off them because they don't have a voice to speak out from. Obama also bought land for part of his house for a dollar, he was not rehabbing the land. I'm ignorant because I asked you a question? Why did you completely ignore the question? Secondly, the property was SUBSIDIZED HOUSING. How is that making a profit off of poor people? The poor inhabitants of these housing projects did not OWN the land. They were living there in a subsidized housing program run by the Chicago Housing Authority and the Federal Housing Authority at different times. They were given homes to live in at reduced rates which were subsidized by the tax dollars of ignorant taxpayers like me. In Housing developments, not their own homes that they were establishing equity in on land they themselves owned. Please don't accuse me of being ignorant simply because I have not walked in your shoes. I'm not representing to you that I have, I'm not judging you or anyone you know, and I am not telling you to do anything or not do anything. All I'm saying is the development and upkeep of subsidized housing is so much more complex than you seem to believe or are owning up to. It's an extremely difficult situation, governed by an extraordinarily complex set of real-world factors, including federal and other tax dollars, the fact that those living in subsidized housing are often not involved in the credit system, there is little accountability due to that and other factors, etc. Add that to the fact that the City has been experiencing gentrification at an absolutely phenomenal pace, which is necessary for economic development and the well-being of the populace as a whole, and this becomes a ridiculously complex issue.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 09:33 PM) I think a big, big part of it is the excitement that BO seems to generate. It sounds silly but it seems to be true...these huge crowds he is generating actually seem to count for something. So why is the voting so close then? That seems to suggest that those same crowds aren't doing the voting, or maybe they are going out to see him AND voting, whereas Hillary supporters are not going out to see him and donating, but just voting...

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 08:56 PM) She's really sinking. I think Obama beat them at their own game. they got schooled. This is really shocking to me...is it because of the demographics involved? Hilary has the older generations and Barack the younger generations that he is able to raise so much more money?

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 08:57 PM) Brits are better writers, better actors, and better comedians. They are the best. Well, at the very least, they are absolutely more dramatic.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 08:44 PM) You know? This kind of bothers me, because I for one have no way of getting in to their heads, so I honestly don't think this is any more than guesswork. Not only are we trying to guess her motivation without knowing her, we're trying to guess her motivation based on the persona that gets presented of her through the media. So I think it's really difficult to guess a person's motivation. You may believe that, but without knowing the person, I just feel like it's hard to say that with confidence. This is clearly why we premised our posts with the qualification of "I think..." No one can truly know, and she certainly is not going to come out and tell us. But we can evaluate everything we have seen of her in the press, in print, the actions of her husband and how she dealt with that, and make an educated guess of what we believe. Which is all these are...

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 08:08 PM) A Brit's perspective. http://tinyurl.com/333ux4 Wow, that's quite the article! No one can do it quite like the Brits, can they? I like how one paragraph begins with the phrase "In a profoundly ignorant country such as the US...," whereas another paragraph begins with the phrase "The reputation of this magnificent country..." It's an interesting read, nonetheless.

And what does it matter that the developers, which did not even include Obama, paid $1 for the property? I used to work for the Mayor's Office and the City sold vacant/abandoned/damaged properties all the time for $1. The City often can't afford to rehabilitate the property itself, so it transfers ownership to someone in the private sector who is eligible for federal tax credits and they make it happen that way....there's nothing shady about the fact that the land for that development was bought for $1.

QUOTE(Misplaced_Sox @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 07:02 PM) My disagreement with Obama was not with tearing down the projects, they needed to be torn down, but my disagreement was with the initial, and agreed upon by residents that they would have homes in these new mixed income building, at least a 75% mix of former project inhabitants, and the rest sold market to other non income capped buyers. This was a deal that Obama worked on as a lawyer, co brokered with Rezko holdings, and they changed that to 30% housing for them and 20% "workable income" houses. Workable income being loosely based upon 65,000 for single 120,00 for married, which no on at Cabrini Green made. they were brokered out on behalf of Obama and his law firm, and Rezko made much more money. How is this good politics? I lived in the Robert Taylor Homes, also a rezko holding which Obama's law firm brokered from under the inhabitants. He came to our little part of the woods and made a big speech how we wouldnt end up like Cabrini Green residents, but we did. The poor shuttled off to Tinley, Oak Lawn, Cottage Grove. Away from their jobs, their family, their friends, instead of in the planned new mix use income homes they promised. http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/4253...obama13.article You need to have lived it, to understand it. I made it out, not so many did. I'm not so ignorant to claim I can understand what went on/goes on in some of these areas as you do/did. Obviously, if you've lived it, you were there, I was not. But what I'm saying is things are quite a bit more complicated than what you're owning up to. Let me ask you this, Misplaced....since the rest of us are absolutely affected by the housing economy, why should those living in subsidized housing not be? If I want to live in certain areas, I need to be able to make a certain amount of income either to rent or own there. Why should those living in subsidized housing be immune to this economic reality?

QUOTE(Misplaced_Sox @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 06:28 PM) Another strong piece of anecdotal evidence of Hillary's strength and endeavors for others. http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/6/181048/8171#2 Where are the Obama anecdotes? Despite the ones he riffs from Martin Luther King, Langston Hughes, or Paul Laurence Dunbar. Better yet I say you Chicagoan go track down the Cabrini Green residents they moved around the state and ask them about Obama's "change." I am still in contact with ten people from there if you want an address.http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/6/181048/8171#2 You know, these are great and all...but honestly, I'm sure there are plenty of people who have had great experiences with all the candidates. The Clinton's are the masters of this technique, and it's been on display since Bill's campaigns and his SOTU addresses. Frankly, I think it's gotten quite old. As for your repeated references to Obama's role in tearing down the projects, don't you think you are oversimplifying things a bit? There are so many factors that have gone into whether to leave those projects in place or what to do with them that we could spend days discussing that issue. Yet you are trying to pin the entire thing on Obama, as if he just strolled in there, snapped his fingers, and the wrecking balls were let loose. I'm not sure what the answer is regarding what to do with those areas, but one thing is clear: they were replete with drugs, violence, and absolute poverty for a long period of time. Whether it was right for the residents to be displaced, I'm not sure. But those were certainly not areas where anything very positive could happen at all. The odds of anyone raised there of living a healthy, stable, and happy upbringing were quite minute.