Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank Endorses Clinton
[Here's the quid...] The Clinton Campaign announced the endorsement of Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank and named him as an Economic Advisor to the Campaign.
[...and here's the pro quo...] "I have from the beginning of this campaign believed that Hillary Clinton was the candidate best qualified to serve as President,” Rep. Frank said. “I am convinced that once elected, the qualities she will bring to the job - commitment, intellect, and political skills - will make her an extremely effective [blah...blah...blah] is capable of appealing to the majority of our fellow citizens, and I believe that she is both politically and substantively the candidate best qualified to be our nominee.
Seriously? I am still waiting for somebody to actually explain why this is true. What is it exactly that makes her "most qualified" either "substantively" OR "politically."
If you want substance, a record and experience, Dodd (or even Biden) blow her away. And "politically?" She won based solely on name and reputation in a hand-picked carpetbagger race in a deep blue state. Though it is not entirely (or even mostly) her fault, she is easily the most polarizing political figure outside of George W Bush, and in my estimation actually stands the greatest chance of actually LOSING the election, and costing us dearly down-ticket as well either way.
Somebody please tell me why she is the person we should nominate. I mean somebody besides Hillary herself, a Republican or the retarded oddsmakers in the media.
[h/t: Sullivan]
4 comments:
Mr. F:
First and foremost, I have been remiss in thanking you for validating the Smitty Family decision to get a minivan. It just takes...getting used to.
Secondly, it may have sounded a bit in my last reply to one of your fine posts that I really like Hillary. I don't. My point there was more to show that at least I align more closely with a party that lauds their women rather than make them hold seminars on why they matter. We already *know* they matter, thanks very much.
Onward and forward: What is it exactly that makes her "most qualified" either "substantively" OR "politically."
See, this is it. I think you've hit it. The "retarded oddsmaker media" uses these phrases...and they get regurgitated enough to where it becomes the truth.
If you look in the mirror enough times every morning and say "I fucking suck" then in a few weeks...you'll believe it.
The guys who are "behind" aren't really behind. They just don't get the media attention. For Chrissake, the media just told us yesterday that whoever wins in Iowa is who will go on to the General election next November. When has that ever been the case? The election will be decided in Iowa?? Well fuck it, then, I might as well not turn out to vote.
Substance.
At least Edwards, this time around, had a plan. His campaign slogans came with plans, including funding mechanisms. That way, I at least know that I might or might not disagree with Edwards and why. I know what he stands for and I know what he'll try to do, very specifically.
My problem with both Obama and Clinton is that they are slogans, with no detail.
I'm with you. Go Biden. Go Dodd.
Whoa! I never said "Go Biden." I just meant he's got a record and can make a claim to being qualified.
I think he's a good talk show guest, and is sort of the mirror-image Dem version of McCain in some ways, but I hold him heavily responsible for the horrendous Bankruptcy Bill from 2005(?) and for that alone, he can whither and rot on the vine.
He has the best plan I've heard for Iraq, however—just split it up and get out.
I was perhaps hasty in wrapping up my much-too-long comment...I am not accusing you of endorsing Biden nor do I. My point, which I should have labored on as long as the rest of my comment went on, is exactly what you said in your first sentence; that at least those two can qualify the word "qualify." There's a record.
Sorry for the confusion.
No harm, no foul.
Hell, Joe Biden can appear on The Daiily Show weekly if he likes, and that's fine with me. I like having him be a vocal member of the party at times, but he's been on the wrong side of issues too often for my taste, and he hardly represents a change in the party's direction.
Post a Comment