Clinton wants Obama to lose the nomination, not the election
The fact that Hillary Clinton continues to fight on, despite practical hurdles that appear insurmountable, has led some to argue that she’s intentionally trying to undermine Barack Obama’s general-election prospects, possibly to improve her own chances in 2012, or to maintain the Clintons’ collective role as the leaders of the Democratic Party. Either way, the argument goes, if Clinton can’t be the nominee, she intends to make sure Obama can’t be president.
Matt Yglesias has made the case for this argument, at least twice, over the last couple of weeks. Kevin Drum entered the fray over the weekend, calling the argument “crazy,” adding, “Hillary has a long, long history as a partisan animal. She’d no more root for a McCain victory than she would for another attack by al-Qaeda…. And if she gave even a hint of not supporting Obama wholeheartedly during the fall campaign? Not only would she have no future presidential prospects, she’d be lucky to escape being tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail.”
Jonathan Chait weighed in today and changed the question a bit.
An easier question to answer is, How much does Clinton value her own interests versus those of the Democratic Party? And here the answer is very clear: Clinton is acting as if she doesn’t care about the Democratic Party’s interests at all, except insofar as they coincide with her own. Her continued campaign is significantly damaging Obama’s general election prospects, and this would perhaps be defensible if she had a strong chance at the nomination, but she doesn’t. As Politico recently reported, “One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives.”
To inflict serious damage on the likely nominee in order to pursue a one-in-ten chance of securing the nomination is, ipso facto, an act of extreme selfishness. Whether she sees the damage to Obama’s prospects as a feature or a bug is interesting but beside the point.
Let’s take a minute to unwrap this a bit.
On the first question, I think Kevin’s right and Matt’s wrong. I was deeply frustrated when Clinton started praising John McCain’s experience and commander-in-chief qualifications a couple of weeks ago, but it’s a stretch to look at those unhelpful and counter-productive remarks as evidence of her actually wanting a Republican president in 2009.
As far as I can tell, based on all available evidence, Clinton loves her country and loves her party. She’s been playing hardball for a few months against Obama, and has engaged in some campaign tactics I found more than a little troublesome, but I consider this more evidence of her willingness to do what it takes to get the nomination, not evidence of her trying to sabotage U.S. interests by helping McCain’s candidacy.
As for Chait, I think he may be assuming certain motivations that may or may not exist. He argues, “Clinton is acting as if she doesn’t care about the Democratic Party’s interests at all, except insofar as they coincide with her own.” That very well may be — I’m not in a position to say for sure — but here’s a different angle to consider: isn’t it at least possible that Clinton is acting in such a way to help the Democratic Party as she sees it?
In other words, at Clinton HQ right now, a team of advisors are likely thinking, “If Obama’s the nominee, Democrats lose. We may be the only ones who realize it, and we may only have a 10% shot, but we need to keep fighting, keep tearing Obama down, and keep this damaging process going in order to save the party and protect the party’s interests.”
This isn’t to say this perspective is right — indeed, I’m pretty sure it’s ridiculous — but it’s also likely a mistake to assume nefarious motives. Clinton thinks she’s the only candidate standing between us and a third term of Bush policies. From her perspective, her interests and the party’s interests are one and the same.
Given the landscape, I’m fairly certain she’s mistaken. But if there’s solid evidence that she’s actively working towards helping Republicans, I haven’t seen it. The Clinton campaign is probably working under faulty assumptions, not disloyal ones.
Well, the Clintons’ collective record as party champions is not the greatest. Even putting aside the grievous congressional losses on Bad Bad Billy’s watch, and the well-documented greater emphasis placed within the White House on her 2000 Senate campaign compared to Gore’s presidential run, Hillary has become notorious for her all-take, no-give approach to local and state Democratic Party-building activities. At this point it should be clear that they’re the America-for-Clintons Party
Obama, by contrast, has been a very active surrogate and speaker for Democratic candidates pretty much everywhere. This, in combination with how crapped-upon many Dems felt by the Clintons over the last 16 years, probably explains the surprisingly high level of institutional support he’s enjoyed against the once-prohibitive favorite for the nomination.
Hillary does not have a hope in hell of becoming the nominee. Why don’t the Senior Democrats put an end to this?
It may also be that everything the Clinton Campaign has done to promote the electibility issue in favor of their candidate is simply taken as tearing down Senator Obama by his campaign.
I think Hillary Clinton has worked pretty hard over the last sixteen years to be ready to run for President, studying hard as a Senator and applying herself in ways other Senators, who regard the Senate has nothing more than a big private club, haven’t. Not everybody agrees that she’s ready, to be sure.
But I don’t think that is any reason she should replace her opinion on the subject with theirs.
So the argument is that the Clinton’s have no sense of reality and that is OK? It’s very reassuring that the Clinton’s know what’s best for the rest of us, I’ll sleep well tonight. The fact that they believe Obama will loose the election is tantamount to supporting McCain and thus undermining their Democratic Party.
As someone who was neutral about HRC - insofar as not hating her or being a fan - I am now completely turned off by both Clintons’ behavior in recent months. I had concluded she was a Bush enabler in the Senate, and disagreed with her positions on the war and related matters, but her dirty wrestling match with Obama marks her as contemptible in my book. It’s easy to convince oneself that only “I” can save the world, especially if you read your own press releases and believe them. Who in the Clinton campaign is going to tell her, “You know, Hill, you could do the country a great service and drop out of the race, and campaign like hell for Obama.” She feels entitled and can rationalize that entitlement into “I am the savior the country needs” quite easily.
That’s what I think is happening. And that’s why McSame will be our next president.
shillary is just ANOTHER LYING LIAR and the clintons are just another public face for the criminal cabal that brought us dur chimpfurhrer.
Well, of course from Hillary’s perspective, she’s going to view it as her doing the best thing for the Democratic Party. I am an Obama supporter, but even if I wasn’t, I’d be bothered by her statements, those of President Clinton and those of her surrogates. I don’t exactly want to ascribe nefarious motives to Hillary, but the actions coming out of her camp aren’t exactly doing much to help her image and dissuade people from making those assumptions.
I would bet that in Dec. 95% of Dems would have said they would vote for whichever one wins the nomination against any of the Rep candidates. Now many are saying they would only vote for one of them. I don’t know how anyone can argue that the Clinton campaign isn’t largely responsible for alienating them one way or the other, especially women. I blame the media more for alienating blacks, who prior to Iowa were largely supporting Clinton, but her campaign has fed the beast.
I also question the motives of some of her supporters, such as Carville, Ickes, and Penn, but especially three of her Florida moneymen who threatened to demand refunds of contributions from the DNC is Florida delegates are not seated. And just as an aside, one of them, Christopher Korge, has a history as shady as Rezko’s.
I’m with Yglesias on this one. I think the mantra at HQ now is more like “There’s always 2012!”
I wouldn’t hold that viewpoint but for the campaign’s persistent and repeated praise of the Republican opponent, especially in the same breath as denigration of the Democratic opponent.
Up to that point, it was campaigning. This crossed the line.
Bill Clinton talks about what good friends McCain and Hillary are, and recently insinuates that Obama is not patriotic.
Hillary says McCain has a lifetime of experience as opposed to the empty suit that is Obama, and McCain has passed a mythical CIC test (apparently they didn’t ask any questions about the differences between Sunni and Shia), but Obama hasn’t.
Those are not the words or actions of a Democrat.
C.B. The way you have phrased this post i.e. Clinton wants Obama to lose the nomination not the election make little sense. At this point in time in the primary’s the only way the Clinton campaign can possibly win the nomination is for the campaign to create the impression that Obama is damaged goods. If this is correct then that will effectively depress any chances for Obama winning the election.
I think it is a BIG stretch to argue that either of the Clintons have the interests of the entire Democratic party at the center of their worldview - it’s the DLC branch that they care about. We know that the DLC has tried to sideline and disempower progressive Democrats since it was founded. And now there is some evidence that the DLC is fostering its own “Southern Strategy” to regain its control of the party:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/22/11161/0526/930/482139 This is a diary of mine by the way, lest anyone argue that I shouldn’t cite anything from Daily Kos to prove an argument against the Clinton machine.
So I will grant that Steve may be right that in their own bunker-mentality way the Clinton machine might think it has the best interests of the Party at heart - it’s just not the same Democratic party that the rest of us are upholding.
I think that Steve’s assessment is the kindest, best-case scenario, “let’s hope that’s what they’re thinking” conclusion, whereas Yglesias is assuming the worst, and Drum has proven too naive and trusting…
I think it’s somewhere in the middle. They truly believe they are the only ones who can save the party, and they’re willing to burn the village to save it.
All scenarios are bad news and she needs to be stopped.
To little bear at #6 - while you are arguing more or less on my side of the fence, I’ve gotta say that your rhetoric sounds just as offensive as that of any Publican troll, and is probably every bit as effective. You are certainly not helping Senator Obama, or even working in the spirit that he represents, when you sound off like that.
Hillary Clinton may not have any reason to try to tear down Obama, but Mark Penn surely does. A Clinton-McCain general election is a win-win deal for Penn, given his own association with the Clintons and the fact that Charlie Black, McCain’s top adviser, is an employee of Penn’s PR firm and the head of their Republican lobbying firm.
If it’s Clinton-McCain, Penn is making money from both sides of the race and ends up with White House connections in either case. If it’s Obama-McCain, Penn no longer gets to bill Hillary’s campaign ridiculous amounts of money for bad advice, and in the event of an Obama presidency, he loses his White House connections.
Regardless of where Clinton falls on the issue, it’s pretty safe to say Penn is more worried about himself.
Um, do any of you Hillaryhaters see a measure of irony arising from the vitriolic screeds you post on here about her allegedly negative campaign tactics? Do you think you are converting anyone to your side with those comments?
Glad you’re all so sure the primaries are over. If she follows up Texas and Ohio with a good showing the rest of the way, check back with us then about the inevitability of the result. In the meantime the rest of us can let the primaries play out the way they were scheduled.
When Obama lost Ohio she had every right to stay in the race. You cannot compare this to the McCain Huckabee race. Huckabee didn’t concede until McCain reach the necessary number to win the nomination. Neither the Obama or Clinton have the delegate numbers either.
Don’t blame this on Hillary, blame it on the ridiculous way the Democrats run their primaries and caucuses. The Texas two-step is a farce. Obama won Mississippi with close to 70 pct of the vote yet he only got 4 more delegates than she did. Hillary won Nevada and got one less delegate. Blows your mind!!! And now we have to be concerned about the “super delegates” and how they may play in this election.
On the other hand, the Republicans did it right. “Winner takes all” in most states. Primaries were closed to Republicans only. Their primaries were efficient, fair and civil. With the way the democrats hold their primaries, I am not sure I want them to run the country.
By the way re post 14, I can’t think of a single thing Penn has said that has ever helped the Clinton campaign, and for the life of me cannot figure why reporters even report statements by people like him, except that they are routinely so politically tone-deaf and overreaching that they are unintentionally amusing. He’s our version of Baghdad Bob, the Information Ministry guy on the palace roof telling reporters how Americans are being routed at the border while tanks are rolling in the background the picture.
@pfgr She could win out the rest of the way and still be behind in delegates.
It’s over. She needed to turn this around after Super Tuesday, but like GWB, she doesn’t make contingency plans for when plan A (in her case an inevitable nomination) doesn’t work out.
She needs to win PA 70-30 to have any kind of shot here. She won’t.
She also won’t win NC and that’s the real nail in her coffin.
It’s over.
Ditto on Stephen @13.
To #1, on why the supers don’t want to take action: They risk pissing off a large portion of their constituents, and risk taking a large portion of the blame if something disastrous happens and McCain wins the nomination. They also sort of risk taking blame if the Obama presidency is a bust.
This, “I want the voters to decide,” seems to be more of an “I’m covering my own ass” kinda thing…
The race is close.
Obama supporters either want HRC out of the race now because they are afraid she’ll eventually get the nomination, or they think it is unseemly for a woman to be competitive.
The race is close and there are several states that have not yet voted and two swing states that will (probably) not been seated.
Oh, and did I mention that the race was close? Who’d want a president that caved when the chips were slightly down? Hell, I want a president who never gives up and never gives in.
if memory serves, in one of the primary debates richardson was asked a question and perhaps he was lost in his own reverie at that moment, and obama leaned over and whispered something to get him back on track.
i think richardson didn’t forget that when endorsing obama. for all his years of service to the clintons it was all about making them look good. with obama it’s about making everyone look good.
and not unlike the mccain ‘misspeaks’, both hillary and bill continue to praise mccain’s CIC worthiness. there’s no mistaking it — they are about consolidating power, not dispersing it, and will force the poison pill down the democrats’ throat if they don’t get it.
should these hijinx continue and the clintons somehow manage to wrest the nomination via dubious methods, i’m pretty sure i’ll sit out the generals this time around, even tho, as the famous south park episode points out, almost all elections are between a douche bag and a turd sandwich.
Clinton thinks she’s the only candidate standing between us a third term of Bush policies. — CB
It’s very kind and very gentlemanly of you Steve, to put that interpretation on the campaign’s behaviour.. What about the “I don’t care about collateral damage” attitude? How would you talk that away?
Anyway… At this point, I’m wondering if there’s any kind of thinking at all still going on in that campaign. It begins to look more like trismus - an involuntary lockjaw. She got hold of an idea and can’t let go, even if she wanted to.
Hell, I want a president who never gives up and never gives in.
That’s why John McCain will never leave Iraq.
Be careful what you wish for.
I find the Clinton’s campaigns’ actions over the past few months to be akin to those of a spurned lover. I’m trying to keep it gender-neutral, because Lord knows there are plenty of bat-sh*t crazy husbands AND wives to go around, and petty possessiveness isn’t the domain of either sex. But if the Democratic Party were Hillary’s husband, the prevailing dysfunctional sentiment would be “I love you, but don’t disappoint me and don’t reject me. If I can’t have you, no one will.” It’s not healthy, and the person in question (in this case, Hillary) is essentially holding their spouse (in this case, the Dems) hostage. And one way to mind-f*** with a spouse is to focus attention on the spouse’s rival (in this case, the GOP, and specifically McCain). Why John is so much better than Obama could ever hope to be, don’t we make a nice couple, John? Don’t you think we’d look marvelous together at post-debate photo ops, John? oops, I fell in your arms, John, what will Obama think?
Well, Obama thinks what so many in the party also think, that a very smart, shrewd, cunning person, who is qualified in so many ways to be President, has let her raw ambition, her desire for this gig outweigh her logic and her morality. People keep talking about how it’s ok to do or say anything to win, that it just proves you want it bad enough. Well, f*** all those people. Wanting something bad enough doesn’t mean you deserve it, and that’s an awful lesson to take away from a Presidential campaign. It’s self-destructive behavior, and party elders should’ve told her to put the kibosh on it long before now. Were I a superdelegate, I wouldn’t be able to imagine voting for her.
Amen to pfgr (15) as well!
The venom coming from a lot of Obama supporters is ridiculous. You’re not bringing anyone over to our side by putting their backs up.
While you’re screaming about how Hillary has already lost, she’s building leads in PA and WV… Since Clinton is clearly not going to drop out despite the odds against her, stop trying to scream her into submission. All this whining and name calling puts people’s backs up and makes them fight harder.
Focus, Focus, Focus on the task at hand: strengthening our base, winning primaries, and engaging Hillary (and her supporters) in intelligent and respectful discourse…
Um, do any of you Hillaryhaters see a measure of irony arising from the vitriolic screeds you post on here about her allegedly negative campaign tactics? -pfgr
Can we please (with sugar on top) declare a moratorium on equating blog commenters to campaigns?
All in agreement? Thanks.
What Kos says.
Now that’s very doubtful, Doubtful.
“From [Hillary’s] perspective, her interests and the party’s interests are one in the same.”
Perhaps so. But this would be a sign of delusional Hillary…not the rational person we need in the White house
No, I don’t believe she’s deliberately trying to hurt Obama in the general. Yes, I do believe that she’s just doing everything possible to win the nomination. Irrelevant.
Obama is our nominee, and she’s hurting him and the party. As previously stated, “Whether she sees the damage to Obama’s prospects as a feature or a bug is interesting but beside the point.”
The Clinton campaign is probably working under faulty assumptions, not disloyal ones.
Operating under faulty assumptions? Never! That would mean we’re stupid! You calling us stupid?
Oh yeah, we’re the people who bought Bush’s BS on Iraq AND Iran. And loyalty? who the hell thinks it’s loyal to the party to send an ex president out telling whoppers? Does that help us somehow?
IMO it almost doesn’t matter anymore what the psychopathic Clintons do. At this point the superdelegates need to do their job. Time to kill the Clintons’ 10% (at best) chance and move on to the general election. And here’s another thing to consider: We’ll know how hard the Clintons pull for Obama only after this ends.
to entheo @21:
Here is the description of the event you reference.
“I had just been asked a question — I don’t remember which one — and Obama was sitting right next to me. Then the moderator went across the room, I think to Chris Dodd, so I thought I was home free for a while. I wasn’t going to listen to the next question. I was about to say something to Obama when the moderator turned to me and said, ‘So, Gov. Richardson, what do you think of that?’ But I wasn’t paying any attention! I was about to say, ‘Could you repeat the question? I wasn’t listening.’ But I wasn’t about to say I wasn’t listening. I looked at Obama. I was just horrified. And Obama whispered, ‘Katrina. Katrina.’ The question was on Katrina! So I said, ‘On Katrina, my policy . . .’ Obama could have just thrown me under the bus. So I said, ‘Obama, that was good of you to do that.’”
The Clinton campaign is probably working under faulty assumptions, not disloyal ones.
So, once again, the choice is ’stupid or evil?’. CB seems to lean towards ’stupid’.
Stephen1947 - since when have you been ANNOINTED GOD of the REAL democrats. Neither of the clinton’s track records stand up to scrutiny - bill is directly responsible for dur chimpfurher because he gave the Iran/Contra criminal cabal a FREE PASS.
He then proceeded to take the party to the right, playing right into limbaugh’s and newt’s hands.
These are observations that YOU COULD LOOK UP YOURSELF - but you would rather play GOD.
ENOUGH SITTING ON OUR HANDS AND ACCOMODATING THE CLINTONS!
People like you that flame those that speak the truth are also part of the problem, you would rather spread lies and pretend to be on the “high ground”.
Geeee… come to think of it, that’s right out of SHILLARY’S playbook, isn’t it.
We should judge a person by their actions and not their words. The fact that Obama choose Mr. Wright as his spiritual teacher for 20 years and included Mr. Wright in his election staff speaks well for Mr. Obama’s thinking and actions. Words are easy to manipulate and it is UNLIKELY that Obama’s recent speech was written by Mr. Obama anyway. Mr. Obama has a powerful and power hungry staff including his wife that will do or say anything to get him elected to power.
But clearly this man Mr. Obama is not to be trusted with the future of our great country. And regardless that he is ‘fashionably black’ and that many of you have some desire to prove to yourself or to others that you are not prejudice and that you like ‘black people’ with an attitude of ‘See, I like black people, I’m voting for a black person,’ such an attitude of voting for a person because of their race is the definition of prejudice.
If Mr. Obama had a lighter skin tone, there is no way he would be tolerated in as much he is aligned with a violent religious group, and never says anything substantial. And not only that, consider today’s announcement that the Chief of the firm involved in the State Department’s passport breach is Obama adviser. And that Obama has been caught lying about Rezko, regarding the amount of money Rezko gave him, and he still hasn’t come clean about his Rezko land deal.
Just look at the kind of people Mr. Obama associates with. If Obama were to become president, what would stop Mr. Obama from appointing Mr. Wright to his cabinet? And if anyone complained about Mr. Wright’s appointment, no doubt they would be called racist, as this card is played daily by Mr. Obama and his clever campaign staff daily.
Out of all the 300 million people in America, is this really who you want for president?
Mr. Obama is partly running on ‘a premise of guilt’ that if you don’t vote for him, it is because you don’t like his race. A manipulative premise that is certain to have disastrous consequences for America and the world, for we should have as our country’s leader someone with wisdom and knowledge regardless of race, not someone hungry for power.
Think of it as boxing. Clinton is behind on points with only a round or so left. Naturally, her swings are going to get wilder and wilder as she tries for the knockout she needs. This makes the fight look closer, but it won’t win. It also increases the chances of low blows, accidental or otherwise.
This doesn’t bother me, an Obama supporter, too much. It’s only March. Sooner or later, the race will be two candidates instead of three, and Obama’s advantages will assert themselves.
Nell,
Obama supporters either want HRC out of the race now because they are afraid she’ll eventually get the nomination, or they think it is unseemly for a woman to be competitive.
There is a third option: Obama supporters are concerned that Clinton will drive Obama’s negatives up so high that it will make it harder for him to win in November.
But I suspect you knew that…
Do you think you are converting anyone to your side with those comments?
Hey, moron, in case you didn’t notice - none of us are running for president and none of us is arrogant enough to assume we are entitled to that office cuz, you know, we were married and slept with a president.
We should have the right to express our opinions about those that choose to make public spectacles out of themselves - especially the lying liars that think they can play both sides of the race card.
The clintons did not do much to stand up for progressive values and its time we TALKED ABOUT IT.
Elephant in Tent Scripted by Karl Rove. Obama won “Red States” because republican strategy involves G.O.P. crossover voting to take out Clinton, marketing newcomer Obama. Once Obama is Nominee, “SwiftBama” with Rezco, Wright, etc..!
Evidence of a covert campaign to undermine the presidential primaries is rife, so it’s curious that the Democractic Party and even some within the G.O.P. have ignored the actual elephant in the room this year. That would be Karl Rove. Long accused of rigging the two previous presidential elections, this master of deceit would have us believe that he’s gone off to sit in a corner and write op-eds.
Not so. According to an article in Time magazine published last November, Republicans have been organized in several states to throw their weight behind Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic rival of Hillary Clinton. At least three former fundraisers for President Bush flushed his coffers with cash early on in the race, something the deep pockets had not done for any candidate in their own party. With receipts topping $100 million in 2007, the first-term Illinois senator broke the record for contributions. It was a remarkable feat, considering that most Americans had not even heard of him before 2005.
The Time article went on to explain that rank and file Republicans were switching parties this spring to vote for Obama in the Democratic primaries. Though not mentioned in the piece, a group called Republicans for Obama formed in 2006 to expedite the strategy, and the Obama campaign launched its own “Be a Democrat For a Day” campaign in 2007.(An official video distributed in in Florida, Nevada and Vermont explains how this legal form of vote stacking is accomplished .) Many states have open primaries, allowing citizens to vote for any candidate, regardless of their party affiliation. In Nebraska, the mayor of Omaha publicly rallied Republicans to caucus for Obama on February 9th. The tactic, called crossover voting, appears to be part of a Rove-coordinated effort to deprive Clinton of the nomination.
http://thecityedition.com
Focus, Focus, Focus on the task at hand: strengthening our base, winning primaries, and engaging Hillary (and her supporters) in intelligent and respectful discourse…
Amazing - you hold the general public (actually just the Obama supporters) TO A HIGHER STANDARD THAN THE CLINTONS THEMSELVES.
What an idiot… and we should listen to your crap because….?
I don’t “assume nefarious motives” on the part of the Clintons. I assume unbridled ambition, no holds barred, bare knuckles, eye-gouging, chains and shivs. That’s what “the whole kitchen sink” implies. If Barack or the Party gets hurt in the process, screw them.
The needless praise for McAin’t does seem unnecessarily over the top to me. What does she (or he) have to gain by it en route to a possible nomination? Nothing that I can see, unless (put on tin foil hat) she’s thinking some kind of “unity ticket” with McAin’t after she loses? Our convention’s in August, and the enemy’s is in September, so a post-convention plot like that might work.
I say we stay on the upside, just worry about pushing Obama positively and attacking McAin’t whenever we can. Screw the Clintons (as in tit-for-tat). We might also start talking up a very short list whch would include Governors Janet Napolitano (AZ) and Kathleen Sebelius (KS), i.e, make it clear that we want a woman with real executive experience, not the debateable First Lady kind. What to do with Bill Richardson? Secretary of State. John Edwards? Attorney General. Either of them could go to the Supreme Court at the first or second opening.
Hillary made her bed, she can lie in it. Besides, Senator from NY is better than a bucket of warm piss (the original simile), isn’t it? You bet your sweet bippy it is.
Bill Clinton and the DLC won with 43% in 1992 by selling out progressives to moneyed interests against a read-my-lips confirmed liar.
Since then teh DLC has pounded the drum that only by selling out the progressives (formerly known as liberals), can the Democrats hope to win. They then proceeded to lose seats fairly consistently til’ that crazy wild-eyed hipple Howard Dean took the helm. The same gaggle of doofs were in charge for 2002 and 2004 and Bush wasn’t popular then. Dean was the only significantly new variable.
After desperate efforts to discredit the 50 state strategy that’s been netting governorships and red congressional seats since then, the DLC faces not just obscurity but historical ridicule. Is it so unreasonable to believe that Hil’s backup wishes ill on any Democratic party they don’t own, even if Hilary were, by some quirk of fate, entirely content with a progressive takeover of the party?
Rejection in this election is more proof their 15 minutes are up and I don’t find it outlandish that the DLC would like Obama to lose so they can claim Republican victories were inevitable and they aren’t to blame for the 14 years of decline from 92 to 06.
Nell : Hell, I want a president who never gives up and never gives in
We’ve got one. How’s that working out for ya? It hasn’t played out so well for about 4000 soldiers who’ve paid the price for “staying the course” i.e. “Being too thick to admit I screwed up royally and need to do the right thing for the country”. I don’t want that mentality in the White House again, ever. Especially not in my or my kid’s lifetime. And as for your apparent equation of support for Obama as misogynistic, I believe her behavior is going to make the next woman’s run for the presidency that much harder.
Hahaha… Yes, I tend to hold people who represent my views to a higher standard than those I disagree with. Not that my pov is totally rational, but hell, I’m human.
Anyways, I’m disgusted by Clinton’s tactics, that doesn’t mean I have to go yelling about “Shillary” and use my comments to put Clinton supporters’ backs up. All this sort of commentary does is undermine the possibility of actually using this blog to have an intelligent conversation.
I’m certainly not suggesting that we let people like Olandug, Comeback Bill, etc, just spew their idiotic rhetoric unchallenged. I just think we can refute their arguments without resorting to petty name-calling and the whole capslock thing.
to NB @ #31 - thanks.
to Olandug @ 34: i think you’re posting on the wrong blog. you want:
www.reallyreallydumbblogcomments.com
Obama supporters either want HRC out of the race now because they are afraid she’ll eventually get the nomination, or they think it is unseemly for a woman to be competitive.
Wow, that’s incredibly insulting, Nell. Can you point to a single comment here to back up your blanket accusation of sexism? A single one?
How can you crudely boil this down to that false either/or proposition when most of the Obama supporters here have consistently offered an explanation that I know for a fact you have seen over and over and over again here:
We think Clinton has no chance to wrap up the nomination, and now we know that even her campaign puts the odds at 1-in-10. Given those long odds, we think that all she’s doing now is damaging the party’s all-but-certain nominee.
At the same time, we think that the polling evidence out there shows that Obama would be a stronger general election nominee against John McCain and that he would have longer coattails for electing more and better Democrats to Congress in the fall.
And yet you insist it must be our deep abiding hatred of women.
We certainly didn’t learn anything from Lieberman, did we? I read earlier someone use the phrase ‘America for Clinton’ and that encapsulates succinctly exactly how I feel.
Hell, I want a president who never gives up and never gives in. -Nell
Instead you prefer a candidate blind to reality who will forge ahead based on their own will and presumption of correctness? I’ve had plenty of that, thanks.
I’ll take accountable and well grounded for a thousand, Alex.
Obama supporters either want HRC out of the race now because they are afraid… -Nell
It has nothing to do with fear. It has everything to do with preparing for, especially economically, the election. McCain will have a massive head start on Obama should this continue.
It’s time to pull the plug. Hillary’s campaign is brain dead.
I’ve never liked the fine line that we Americans draw between targeting civilians (terrorism) and our own indifference to civilian deaths (collateral damage). Targeting caused around 3,000 civilian deaths on 9-11. Our indifference has caused tens of thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq since 9-11.
Anyway (focus Diane, focus), that’s how Hillary seems to look at this campaign. I suspect she views any damage to Obama in the fall as necessary collateral damage…and that makes it all okay.
And so are all of her supporters (brain dead)
I see a lot of Clinton supporters saying “the race is close” and a lot of Obama supporters saying “no it is not.”
The fact is somewhere in the middle. It is close, but not close enough for Clinton to have a realistic shot. The reality is that Clinton will probably win Pennsylvania 58/42 or thereabouts…and Obama will win somewhere in the neighborhood of 55/45 in North Carolina and probably the same in Oregon. And the rest will split at roughly 55/45 to one side or the other.
What this means is that when all the contests are done, neither candidate will have the delegates to claim this thing outright, but one of them will have more delegates and more of the popular vote. Being that that person is almost certainly Obama, this is why Obama supporters are calling for an end.
Now, I am rational enough to see why Clinton and her supporters want her to stay in. She is, after all, tantalizingly close. But the fact is, Obama is going to arrive at the convention with more pledged delegates and more popular vote. Sure, the supers could override that advantage, but I just don’t see that happening in this case.
Sorry Clinton supporters. It was a good fight, but your team came up short. This isn’t a dis on your chosen candidate, it’s just reality.
I just want to know why Obama is not being asked to step down? If any white candidate were found to be hanging around with a racist they would be run out of town never mind the fact he admits the reverand is his spiritual advisor and friend. I demand that racist step down. I and im sure hundreds of thousands of americans and i will not let this go. This is unexcusable and should be investigated further. Obama also lied to the american people when he said the reverand stepped down over a year ago. The reverand was preaching from the pulpit about recent matters and that proves Obama lied to our face. I will never acknowledge Obama as my leader. I will always consider him as a racist. He should have completely and utterly disavowed himself of the reverand when he had the chance. And further more im disturbed that the black community has chosen to side with Obama almost entirely. Replace Obama with a white candidate and then replace the reverand with David Dukes or someone like him and what would the black community be saying. I rest my case!!!!!!!!!!!!
While you’re screaming about how Hillary has already lost, she’s building leads in PA and WV…
Alright, let’s crunch the numbers. By Slate’s count, Obama currently has a delegate lead of 1698-1540, or 150 delegates.
In the last polls, Clinton had leads of 50-35 in PA and 55-30 in WVa, which are her best two states left. Those were each over a week ago — at the depths of the Wright story and before the speech or Richardson’s endorsement, both of which have shown rebounds nationally.
But let’s pretend the polls not only stay here at Clinton’s best moment, but she gets all the undecided voters too and gets blowouts. So make it 65-35 in PA and 70-30 in WVa. She’d get 103 delegates in PA; Obama 55. She’d get 20 delegates in WV; Obama 8. That’s 123 to 63, for a net gain of 60, closing the gap to 90 delegates.
Where does she go to make up that 90 delegate deficit? She’s trailing Obama in most of the other states by sizeable margins, but she’d need to come out ahead and win big across the board.
Seriously, please show me where the delegates come from.
http://www.pollster.com
http://www.slate.com/id/2185278/
to Olandug @ #34
I just don’t get it…what rev Wright did was to speak out about injustice in a forceful manner. I guest I want to ask “What did black people do to white people to cause such fear of what we think?”. See, I understand the root of my fears in this country as a AA, I feel the sometimes the “White social conciseness” wakes up and gets directed at some “group” and changes the rules to hurt the “group”. etc slavery, jim crow, Japanese internment camps in the 1940’s. What I dont get is what is it Obama is going to do reach some people and deal with the fears.
Clinton is acting as if she doesn’t care about the Democratic Party’s interests at all, except insofar as they coincide with her own.
Exactly right. This self-entitled Boomer Female Chauvinist is fully convinced that it’s her “turn” - which it might be after The Old Republic is overthrown and the Empire is proclaimed.
If she thinks this helps her for 2012, she’s even more delusional than Bloody Mary is.
I hear Hillary majored in miracles, not math.
SB says:
HRC has “engaged in some campaign tactics I found more than a little troublesome, but I consider this more evidence of her willing to do what it takes to get the nomination, not evidence of her trying to sabotage U.S. interests by helping McCain’s candidacy.”
The problem with this analysis is that it assumes that HRC shares SB’s viewpoint that “helping McCain’s candidacy” would constitute “trying to sabotage U.S. interests.” Yet, at this point (3 am add and all the rest), it’s pretty clear that she doesn’t see it that way. Quite the contrary, there’s substantial evidence that she really and truly believes that BO isn’t ready, and that McCain would do a better job as C in C. At some point, you have to conclude that she says these things because that’s how she feels.
And once you remove SB’s erroneous assumption from the analysis, you’re left with Chait’s conclusion: “whether she sees the damage to Obama’s prospects as a feature or a bug is interesting but beside the point.”
NB: Booo Hoooo - the people that don’t support my candidate shillarly are not being nice even though my candidate and her husband use racist divisionist rhetoric rhetoric and said that Obama is less qualified than a senile old man that flip-flops so often he makes a short-order cook seem like model of stability.
Boooo hooooo - the professionals at the clinton campaign sling mud and the people on blogs respond to it - NOT FAIR.
Booooo hooooo - if only all the actors on the stage would just do as I tell them to do and read their lines, everything would be perfect and my corporate-owned candidate would get the nomination and be able to continue supporting the war she voted for.
Boooo hooooo - only my side gets to say things that aren’t true or polite and everyone else should just shut up because….;
Booooo hoooooo - I said so….
And no one else is listening……. And I am so important - just like shillary….
But people aren’t listening to how BRILLIANT we are and are not following my orders.
Boooooo hoooooo - how dare people come to a blog and post their honest reactions to a dishonest campaign being run by the clintons…..
Boooo Hoooo… I hope no one is home when they call at 3 am - oh wait - that girl supports Obama….
Booooo Hooooo - that is so unfair and un-democratic of her. It just isn’t right…. BOOOOO HOOOO!
Speaking of lying liar lieberman - the clintons backed him, didn’t they…..
But shame on anyone that says anything about the clintons - its so unfair….
Matt, you moron - mclame, shillary, and dur chimpfurher AND VIRTUALLY EVERY WHITE CANDIDATE accepts support from racist white people that proclaim to speak for GOD.
But you want to single out Obama when even the clinton White House honored the man.
Just more of the dishonest rhetoric I expect from shillary proponents.
On March 24th, 2008 at 4:19 pm, Olandug said:
We should judge a person by their actions and not their words.
Well, in your case, the words are sufficient for a diagnosis of Clinton Derangement Syndrom and no-so-closet White Supremacy.
Seig Heil, Olandug!!
Now, how do I scrape you off the bottom of my shoe?
Hillary was a Goldwater Girl gone bad (over to the Dems), but now she’s back on track cheerleading for the Republican nominee, Senator John McWar. With her pro-Iraq war record and her pro-bombing Iran vote in the book, she and Bill are showing their racist, war-mongering Republican colors. All they need to work on are their smirks…
With all the talk of how many state primaries Obama has won, no one wants to quantify that. He is winning traditionally RED states, states he would not have a chance of winning in a national contest. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that open primaries are drawing Republicans to vote in Democratic primaries in an attempt to control who their candidate will face in November. Meanwhile, Hillary is winning the BIG states - states that are BLUE (or will go blue) in November. This is a critical point. Far from “brain dead” as one respondent called it, the Clinton campaign is going strong. Would people ask another male candidate who is only behind by a little over 100 delegates to drop out of the race? From the perspective of many women, this more of the sexism that no seems able to recognize in this campaign.
On March 24th, 2008 at 4:58 pm, Matt said:
I just want to know why Obama is not being asked to step down? If any white candidate were found to be hanging around with a racist they would be run out of town never mind the fact he admits the reverand is his spiritual advisor and friend. I demand that racist step down. I and im sure hundreds of thousands of americans and i will not let this go.
More Clinton Derangement Syndrome among the morons. Thanks for demonstrating that computers are so user-friendly a biped lacking frontal lobes and opposable thumbs can use them.
Here ya go, Matt, you’ll look like a genius among these folks:
www.littlegreenfootballs.com
or
www.freerepublic.com
Don’t let the door hit your fat little ass on the way out.
Shes a goldwater girl, her defection to the dems was due to convenience not any actual love of the dem party
Hillary is winning the BIG states - states that are BLUE (or will go blue) in November.
They’ll go blue if Hillary is the nominee, Obama is the nominee, or Kucinich is the nominee.
Do you seriously believe Obama would lose New York or Massachusetts or California?
I don’t care if she stays in, but sending Carville out to call the (very) likely nominee of the party a Judas is destructive to the democratic party.
VIETVET - nice try - you conveniently overlook the national numbers and state by state analysis that clearly show Obama to beat shillary and mclame.
I agree, Erik in Maine. Name calling is destructive, serves no real purpose, and on this blog seems to be the refuge of those who have no intellectual argument to put forth. I can’t say how NY, Mass or CA will go - but I would not underestimate the Republican party’s ability to drag up every questionable bit of info they can find. Michelle Obama’s BA thesis (rife with fodder for a charge of racism); Rev Wright; Rezko - who knows what they will spin, whether it is based in fact or manufactured. I’ll put money on Hillary to be able to withstand a Republican onslaught over Obama anyday. We’ve seen her come back from horrendous attacks in the 1990s to a respected career in the senate - respected by both sides of the aisle. In another time and place, SHE could have beaten Bill to the presidency. As bright as he is, she’s smarter.
Funny how the shillary supporters hear can cry FOUL at the opinions of the PUBLIC and what many think of the clinton tactics, BUT THEY GIVE HER A FREE PASS FOR LYING!
The most recent example is that she was in eminent danger when she went to Bosnia - they repeatedly pull this crap out of their a$$es and slime Obama, directly stating that somehow a senile man that changes his position every day is more “presidential.”
Perhaps if clinton did not want these types of comments being commonly posted in open comment boards, they would think twice about lying and slandering as their main campaign tactics.
The general election is decided by the independents. Obama has done significantly better amongst independent voters than Hillary.
In California (a blue state Hillary won), Obama beat her amongst (I) voters 58%-34%
Funny, VIETVET, for someone that is so smart - SHE SURE SCREWED UP HER STORY ON BOSNIA!!!!!!!!!!!!
If what you say is true, she surely was “smart” enough to know it was all a lie, right?
I think the point that needs to be made—the point that’s so sorely lacking in the numerous defenses of Clinton—is that she is, in all likelihood, the final candidate of “the old guard.” Her entire outlook on politics, campaigning, and governance is dependent on maintaining the status-quo of centralized power.
Hence the overzealous embracing of the “BigState/BlueState” mantra, and the quasi-overt rejection of Dean’s “50State” strategy. Her entire philosophy; her entire organization; her entire battle-plan and machination has been completely founded upon the generational thesis of fighting the campaign exactly the way her husband fought.
Which equates to fighting the same campaign in which Nixon, Reagan, Bush-1, and Bush-2 seized control of the Republic and demolished the hard-fought gains of Liberals, Progressives, and Moderates. The same campaign that gave GOPers the WH for 28 of the last 40 years.
Democrats cannot continue to repair the profiteering vagaries of Republicanism when they can only hold the executive branch of government for a whole, deliriously-whopping 30% of the time. It’s just not a do-able thing any more—especially with a treasury that’s been gutted, a military that’s been ground into “Mickey-D” hamburger meat, an economy that’s been the victim of “slash-n-burn” capitalism, a dollar that’s got all-but-terminal arthritis, and an employment mentality that’s exporting jobs faster than grain.
Clinton has exactly two chances of becoming president—either by beating Obama in the primaries, or by beating him in the general election. She knows this. Her husband knows this. Her staff, her media entourage, and her supporters all know this—right down to the last hucksters and harpies. An Obama presidency means the end of a political era—and the irreversible extinction-event for that “old guard” of the Party.
For not only Clinton, but for all those who embrace the political model that she embraces, this is the last stand; the final battle that will grant Clintonian thinking either a final glorious moment before the sunset—or the final sunset, uninterrupted and unchecked.
I would prefer that it be that final sunset, for a setting sun is a necessary prerequisite to a rising sun….
@VietVet
The GOP is sitting on years of oppo research on Hillary. She’ll win 5 states in the general (VT, MA, NY, CA, ARK). Nominate Hillary and we rip open all the festering sores of the 1990s. Nothing gets done.
Senator Clinton, we see your husband has benefited from consulting gigs sent his way by Mark Rich….
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/23/AR2008032301706.html?wpisrc=newsletter
Good story on how both candidates embellish their resumes - worth a read.
Right on Steve @70 - you can add to that here preposterous idea to round up Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin on a committee to figure out if Frank-Dodd legislation goes far enough to fix the housing mess. A) those two, especially Greenspan, are part of the problem, not the solution and B) what do you think the chance is that Greenspan (mister Ayn Rand libertarian wackadoo antiregulation man) would think regulation doesn’t go far enough? Absurd!
Hillary doesn’t get it. She is totally old school, and status quo. She can’t understand how we got into the messes we are currently in, and has no chance of understanding how to get us out.
Greenspan? Fricking greenspan as the SOLUTION to anything to do with the housing bust. Just unbelieveably ridiculous. By far the stupidest thing yet to come out of her mouth, but definitely proof positive that if she becomes president, we will make no progress on anything important to fixing the damage of the last 8 years.
But VietVet - not all candidates have to retract the outlandish statments they may have made to gin up their credentials.
“Embellishing” is one thing - you are equating OUTRIGHT FALSIFYING THE RECORD with embellishing - like somehow pulling made-up events out of your ass is the same thing as using rhetorical tactics to put yourself in the best light.
And you just said she was smarter than anyone else in the room - so she must have known that her statements on Bosnia were false, but she didn’t care, right?
And you want to justify that with your little linky and imply that Obama is “just as bad” cuz “they all do it?”
Please - you are a bigger idiot than I thought.
There is something else that comes into play - Clinton has had two terms in Washington as senator and had a chance to work both sides of the aisle. She also has time in Washington during Bill’s tenure - although there is a lot of dismissal of this time as inconsequential, you do get to know people when they’re having a few drinks at those official dinners. Obama - while bringing a fresh and sorely needed new perspective to politics - hasn’t been in Washington long enough to know who has what agenda, who can be trusted to keep their word, and who will feed him information that may be indicative of self-interest rather than national interest. He wants change, and I agree that change is needed. But can he make the entire Washington political machine change just because HE wants to? Anyone who’s written a congressional representative knows that they don’t always vote their constituents’ interests. We, as a people, may clamor for change, but we still have to depend on the old dogs in Washington until a new generation can replace the lot of them. And that is a gradual process which will take time.
Just putting out some other facets of this issue to be considered.
G2000, is would be UNFREAKIN’ BELIEVABLE except that shillary has enabled the chimperor’s agenda since day 1 - actually, bill started it!
It is not just a misunderstanding or oversight that she proclaims that greenspan will somehow save us - these are the people and the interests that she represents.
It is time to take the Democratic Party back - the folks that she supports are WILDLY unpopular right now and so is everything they stand for.
If given an opportunity, shillary will just take us back to where we have already been.
All the posts about the Clintons splitting the party is true of Barry also. He was painted as a spotless candidate with good judgment; He has proven himself to have poor judgment repeatedly. And I am still trying to figure out how you talk to Wall Street isn’t the Secretary of the Treasury a more likely source to give an educated opinion on the state of the economy? I would think the street sign at Wall Street wouldn’t give a lot of information. also I would be leery of its ties to large corporations. Or is this another example of Barry’s rhetoric? He is also proven that his campaign can sink lower than the Clinton campaign. The blue dress comment is truly a sign of desperation and I believe poor judgment. If he can’t handle his own campaign how can he run the country? And if he thinks the Clinton campaign is throwing the kitchen sink, he needs to prepare himself for the house that the GOP is going to throw him. If he gets the nomination I will have to turn off the TV and stop reading the paper because I will not be able to tolerate all the whining.
VietVet - you are such a moron…..
“We may clamor for change” …. but we have to wait….
Because you would rather support the lying liars that are wholly bought and paid for by the political interests that have destroyed the US dollar, our military, and even the basic concepts of freedom that our founding fathers gave us.
Because you are too stupid to do anything but repeat the same lies.
Vice Versa, you make the same point - that the Republicans will swiftboat Obama with everything they’ve got.
It is also true that the polls are turning against him. He did regain some after the Philadelphia speech, but still averages less than McCain in the national contest. No doubt about it, this is a difficult time for voters of all persuasions.
It has been interesting, if not always enlightening, reading this blog. Lots of comments from all sides of the spectrum. Gotta run to another appointment.
Vote early!
You are just dishonest - I guess one of the “concern trolls” that thinks they can manufacture dissent by dropping republican talking points into the threads under the guise of giving a damn about the democratic party.
Obviously, your type doesn’t sway people here, but that don’t keep you from trying - either too dumb to notice or have too much time on your hands.
I will say this - I have to give shillary a lot of credit for not blowing bill and leaving that dirty work to that sow monica - that does say something positive about her judgement, but it doesn’t make her presidential.
I yield to nobody in my loathing of Hillary Clinton. However, she is giving Obama a gift beyond price– a dress rehearsal for the real campaign. Whatever she and her cadre of slugs can come up with to slime him, it’s bening-o-rama compared to what the Republican party will start flinging once Obama wins the nomination. This is his chance to develop a rapid response mechanism and learn how to handle, slander, libel, and vile accusations, and hopefully, to turn the tables. As bad as things are for him now, they will become much, much worse. He can use this time to learn.
82 above - bening-o-rama - I can’t spell. I meant benign-o-rama
Awwwww. And I thought Annette Bening was going to make an appearance….well, at least we’ve got this Benen guy.
I know this is a pro-Obama crowd and all but as I see it, Obama is the one ripping apart the Democratic party. He and his supporters are so busy calling Hillary and her supporters race-baiters and McCarthyites that they’ve completely destroyed the liberal brand the Democrats have been working on for decades. We are the party of inclusion but if you listen to the Obama folks tell it, we’re actually a party of closet racists. We are the pro-social reform party, but if you listen to the Obama folks, Bill Clinton is McCarthy’s second coming. Because of Obama and the things he’s been saying, Democrats are now seen as just as racist and facist as the Republicans. We can no longer claim the high road. The republicans will feel justified in believing that Democrats are America haters. Want proof? Just look at Obama and how he embraces and fails to disown Wright. Republicans have been trying to paint Democrats as racist hypocrites and America haters for the last 40 years. Obama did it for them in less than 12 months.
Usually the political discourse at The Carpetbagger is thoughtful and introspective, but I think your conclusions are naive and shortsighted this time. Even the freaking REPUBLICANS agree the current conflict is tearing the Democratic party apart; a “Republican strategist” on CNN this morning used exactly those words, and suggested it was beneficial to John McCain for the “food fight” to continue while he polished his image abroad and concentrated on fundraising for the General.
You can use all the sports analogies you like - calling the game when there’s still 3 minutes left to play, calling the series while there are still games left to play - whatever. All that would result from such a situation would be a game perhaps unfairly lost. The presidency is not a game, and handing victory to the Republicans simply because the two Dem candidates could not stop fighting until it was too late for the winner to switch gears would be inexcusable.
Many sources are now highlighting just how long are the odds of a Clinton victory. She’s hanging back, waiting and hoping some scandal like the Jeremiah Wright story will break and overwhelm Obama. Somebody with clout ought to spell out for her just what she must achieve, what breathtaking margins of victory would be necessary for her to win the nomination fairly. Then she should be asked if she thinks she has a realistic chance of making it happen. If she says “Yes”, and presses on to lose, and the Democrats lose to John McCain in the general, she should be driven out of politics, never to return.
She touts herself as a great leader; well, this isn’t how a leader behaves.
g8grl - try some context on for size and watch all the Wright videos…then come back. The guy has very legitimate points about this country - his delivery, and his anger, aren’t the kind of stuff that would play in political or diplomatic circles. But guess what? He’s isnt a politician. He is a preacher. He also preaches in a place with people that I’d say you know nothing about. Wake up!
Well, unfortunately it was the blue stained dress that forced Bill to finally tell the truth. Taking a jibe at that is not shameful: his behavior was. If you have sex with a White House intern and lie about it (as an unexperienced man, you did not know oral sex was sex), people will make jokes about it.
Actually, I liked the metaphor in that comment: Bill Clinton has stained his legacy by devoting himself to his racist comments and becoming a pawn for the ambitions of his power-grabbing wife more than he has due to that episode. I also agree that they are after destroying Obama just to get a chance at the White House in 2012… (they cannot do it this year).
Gosh, to think I liked and believed in them once. Incredible!
g8grl - so you just proved that you:
(1). Did not see/read/hear what he actually said
(2). Are still trying to make this an issue when most of America has already gone on
(3). Are just repeating repug talking points from the lying liars in the mainstream media - the only difference is you are proclaiming to do it in support of shillary.
And you have the audacity (or perhaps its just ignorance) to say that OBAMA is wrecking the party - its the likes of YOU that are “catapulting the propaganda”
Mark - you are also a moron - EVEN THE REPUBLICANS AGREE….
Like this is some type of objective standard - if the lying liars that “catapult the propaganda” and brought us a fraudulent AWOL alcoholic/cocaine addict “war pResident” say it, it has to be true.
There are many foolish, ignorant things in this thread from the shillary supporters, but this takes the cake….
Geee, they said it on FAUX - so it has to be true!
If shillary really cared about this country - SHE WOULD BLOW THE CHIMP so we could impeach the MF already. She failed in her duty to president clinton, the least she could do is make it up by getting in on with dur chimpfurher
Mark
You assume that the majority of people in the nomination process are for Barry. As of today the numbers are correct. However, Barry will be eaten alive in a GE. He does not have the experience or the judgment to win. This campaign is about hope but you have to have more than hope to run the country. I am voting for hope. The hope of someone that can operate in a political environment and create change. Barry is correct when he states that it takes people to create change. But I think you have to back up the words with action. He gave a speech about the war when he couldn’t even vote on it. I told everyone I knew the same thing. Do you think I should run for president? A poet is not a president.
I both saw and heard what Obama said but unlike you, I don’t believe everything a politician says just because he says it. I don’t believe most of America has already gone on. You can’t wish America has gone on just because it’s inconvenient of America to remember that Obama embraced Wright for 20 years. That doesn’t get erased by a 50 minute speech. I’m a realist. Obama is a guy who doesn’t appreciate the real steps that the Democrats have taken over the last 30 years toward racial reconciliation. His speech was lovely but between Obama and Wright you’d think we’re still asking black folks to move to the back of the bus. A lot of people in this country who think they’ve evolved and think that they are liberal will not appreciate being labeled “typical white folks” who carry around an underlying racism. Obama made a speech, the next day or two his campaign put out a picture of Rev. Wright shaking hands with Bill Clinton. That was a pathetic attempt at spreading the toxicity around and it doesn’t help Obama’s racial healing schtick. I would like to see more action and less words. Obama is “just words.”
V-V : WhoTF is Barry?
So, people are better off voting for a cheerleader, ex-drunk, failed businessman, because he is decidely straight-talkin and not a poet? Look where that got us.
BO will be eaten alive in a GE? How so? Does not have the experience or judgment? And McCain does? Have you listened to the things he has said? Think about his experience - he’s a POW for years, and then decides after all we’ve been through that torture is a good idea. Yeh, that’s judgment alright. It’s called senility, bitterness, vindictiveness, etc, but not good judgment.
What we need is competence, and a massive break with status quo. McCain would bring us more of the same misery, except possibility with an added dose of stupidity. He knows nothing of economics and his economics teams would be a bunch of shills that are more fit for spouting off on know-nothing CNBC. His foreign policy is more dangerous than Bush’s. And he can’t even get his facts straight.
It’s amazing that ANYONE with a working brain would even consider McCain as President.
You clearly don’t get what is going in this country if you think McCain has a chance in hell against Obama, and it doesnt matter what kind of smear campaign they pull off. In case you havent noticed, that is exactly what this country wants to get away from.
WAKE UP!
g8grl - right, you saw and heard it, don’t believe it, and would rather let your own racism be your guide.
Nice - in the absence of any real evidence that the statements that are being taken out of context represent Obama’s views, you have already made up your mind.
No wonder you support shillary - in fact, sound like birds-of-a-feather to me.
And shillary has shown us lots of “action”
*she enabled the chimp’s agenda EACH AND EVERY STEP OF THE WAY
*she was a leading advocate of the bankruptcy reform bill
*she wants to put the man most responsible for the financial meltdown we have seen, greenspan, in charge of a “commission” to fix it
*she backed joe lieberman
If that is the kind of “action” you want to see - hell - JUST VOTE MCLAME!
g8grl - oh my goodness…..when I say wake up, I dont mean listen to what Obama said. Clearly you wont ever recognize that as one of the most important and necessary political speeches of all time….you’re too busy feeling like it was insulting to you. What, did you need it to be pointed out that it wasn’t meant to be interpreted as we are all equally complicit? Some are, some are more than others, but none of us is free of being prejudiced in one manner or another. It’s a matter of the extent, and how that has accumulated in our political system and way of life over the years.
What we are saying to you is listen to Wright’s sermons. Uh,hullooooooooo???
To Mark
Is you’re brain working? I was referring to Hillary Clinton.
little bear - get your facts straight, and take off the CAPS LOCK.
Hillary did not vote on the bankruptcy bill. She was the only senator absent, as Bill was having surgery that day. Though the bill passed by a wide margin, she later came out against it.
However, I do have my suspicions that if in the chamber that day, she would have yelled, “Hell Yeah!”
[…] as for your apparent equation of support for Obama as misogynistic, I believe her behavior is going to make the next woman’s run for the presidency that much harder. — Chicago Pat, @42
Not only the next woman who runs for presidency; the ripple effect may be broader than that… I’ve stopped donating to Emily’s List — an organization which promotes Dem women and helps them run for various political offices, and which I’ve supported, wholeheartedly, for 5 yrs or more. It may not be much; I don’t have much to give. But, I don’t know where they’re likely to direct the little I can afford to give, and I’ll be damned if I see a penny of it going to Clinton.
Little bear… Could you, like, find something else to do? Go pound the streets for Ron Paul, maybe? Half of the comments on this thread are yours but they don’t add much to the discussion beyond “shillary this”, “you moron that”, etc, etc. And, since you obviously know how to use the Shift key, perhaps you could use it for capital letters in proper places, instead of all caps in the rest of your message?
to be a bit more fair, Hillary voted for a different version of the bill in 2001. However, it did not pass. In 2005, when the final bill did pass, she was not present. She says she would not have voted for this bill because of the important compromise positions of the former bill was stripped away.
This to me is a sketchy defense. The fact that it is not in there is almost irrelevant. If it were, the bill would still suck, and would still be a major giveaway to the banks. Had the 2001 bill passed, it would perhaps suck slightly more, but that means nothing. That she stumped for the original bill says a lot about whose interest’s she is really trying to serve.
Typically, she wants it both ways. It’s not easy being a Senator, especially in New York, but man, some principles you just have to stand up for. To me, whenever the really important votes are on the line, she votes with the Republicans, the hawks, and the moneyed interests. I for one am kind of tired of this, seeing as where it has taken us the past few years.
This is all just speculation. Nobody really knows what Clinton thinks.
My guess is that she is concentrating on 2008 and will do anything to try to win the nomination but I doubt she is pursuing a strategy based upon 2012. I suspect that she has no qualms about taking action which lessen Obama’s chances to win a general election if she thinks that this will give her a shot at the nomination this year, which gives the impression to some that she is actually working towards a McCain victory so she can challenger him in 2012.
While her chances of winning the 2008 nomination are small, it is still not impossible. I bet she realizes that if she loses the nomination in 2008 her chances in 2012 are very poor, and would be even poorer if she is perceived as being the reason the Democrats lose the general election in 2008.
“isn’t it at least possible that Clinton is acting in such a way to help the Democratic Party as she sees it?”
Yes, because the way she sees the Democratic Party is as basically a Clintonista Party. The question is whether she has any interest in how the party does should it become an Obama party.
To G2000
We keep forgetting Barry is the only one who can have it both ways.
“Clinton thinks she’s the only candidate standing between us a third term of Bush policies.”
Show me on (reliable) poll where Hillary has every been above 50% nationally. She’s dreaming if not down right delusional.
Hillary supporters aren’t going to roll over and die just because Obama supporters, Bill Richardson, Ted Kennedy, and the media expect them to. If and when a clear winner is established when the rest of the States get their chance to weigh in with their votes, then a decision will be made. For the time being, if the campaigns would both focus on the real issues, and not the media stirred up drama, people will see that both democratic candidates would be far better than the alternative candidate on the other side.
The Clintons need to go, and the blue will go into the pages of the failed Clinton presidency
Hillary is a lieing witch.
Go McCain
Does any one really want the Clintons in the white house