Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
RedditIt's perhaps a bit premature to write Hillary Clinton's political obituary, but that hasn't stopped members of the media from doing so. Yesterday Time magazine's Karen Tumulty published a pretty thorough list of "The Five Mistakes Clinton Made."
Analyses like Tumulty's tend to focus on the tactical errors committed by camp Clinton: they didn't devote enough resources to caucus states, didn't plan beyond Super Tuesday, didn't build a small donor fundraising base. All true, but focusing on the tactical errors alone obscures the substantive reasons why many Democrats turned away from Clinton's campaign.
The biggest factor that doomed Clinton, from day one, was Iraq. Her vote for the war and subsequent lack of apology cost her the support of a huge segment of the party that flocked to Obama (and, early on, Edwards) and tarnished her brand from the very beginning. That vote, more than any other, reflected the hawkishness, caution and calculation that soured many Democrats on Clinton and hurt her with young voters, new voters, independent voters, etc.
Her vote for the Kyl-Lieberman resolution on Iran, back in late September, further complicated matters for Clinton and redirected attention toward her original war vote. Obama was able to convincingly argue, "When I'm your nominee, my opponent won't be able to say that I supported this war in Iraq; or that I gave George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran." In Iowa, in particular, that line frequently drew the loudest cheers during Obama's stump speech. Even as the election turned primarily to domestic issues, Iraq remained an albatross around Clinton's neck.
We still don't know quite why she voted the way she did. Like many in the Clinton Administration, she may have really believed that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs and posed a clear and present danger that only military force could right. But no doubt there was an element of politics at play as well. Mark Penn and others believed that, as a woman, Clinton needed to look "tough" in order to pass the commander-in-chief threshold. In the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski, Clinton positioned herself as a "quasi-Margaret Thatcher." As the war grew ever more unpopular, foreign policy advisers like Richard Holbrooke bizarrely claimed that Clinton had voted to "to empower the President to avoid war."
The reasons for the vote kept changing. But the net effect remained the same. Had she broken with the political tide and opposed the war from the beginning--as Obama did--Clinton would very likely be the Democratic nominee.
TAKE BACK AMERICA. MAKE SOME PHONE CALLS. SPREAD THE WORD. You can also find this information at http://democratz.org
Call Republican contributor Rite Aid Pharmacies at 800 325 3737 and tell the person that you want the Rite Aid CEO to get the congress and the President to enact HR 676 single payer universal health care and repeal Medicare Part D and place the drug benefit in Medicare Part B covering 80% of the cost of drugs with no extra premiums, no extra deductibles, no means tests, no coverage gaps, and remove the means test for Medicare Part B and until that happens, you won't buy ANYTHING from Rite Aid.
Call Republican contributor Wendy's restaurants at 614 764 3553 and tell the person in that you want their CEO to get the congress and the President to enact a $10/HR MIN. WAGE into law and until this happens you will not go to a Wendy's Restaurant.
Call your local Exxon/Mobil gas station and tell the manager that you will not get your car repaired there, nor will you buy gasoline there until their parent company sets their price so that they can sell you gasoline for $1.75 a gallon. Then only do business with other gas stations. We will no longer stand for $3 a gallon gasoline.
Call GOP contributor and war contractor General Electric Corporation at 800 386 1215 and tell the person, that you want the GE CEO to get Bush to end the war in Iraq and then Bush resign with Cheney and until that happens you will not buy any GE products and that you will tell your friends. Then call a local appliance store that sells GE products and tell the person you will not buy any GE products from their store until they can convince the GE CEO to convince George W Bush to end the war.
Posted by www.democratz.org at 05/9/2008
Perhaps, I just hope that this isn't another Ned Lamont moment - winning the nomination (Obama that is) and losing the election. The morons at Daily Kos and Moveon.org are nothing if not political disasters.
Posted by Euler at 05/9/2008
So I take it that it would have been better to vote against the war (for political reasons) rather than support it (for policy reasons)? I do hope that the Democrats move beyond one-issue (anti-war) voters, because that's a recipe for another McGovern.
Posted by Euler at 05/9/2008
Not to mention that the American people would like to see change in the DC politics, probably not possible. But surely not possible if you have bush-clinton-bush-clinton. I also think that her blatent lies to gain political favor were a big blunder and show the American people that she is just telling them what she thinks they want to hear. Sure the uneducated believe it and that is one reason she has more support from that demographic.
Posted by Extraneous at 05/9/2008
The "uneducated"? In light of your writing above, that would be you? Wonderful isn't it to determine who is and who isn't educated. With those like extraneous (what an apt name) supporting the Democrats, perhaps its time to rethink a third party.
Posted by Euler at 05/9/2008
Ari, why not wait until after June 3rd to make that assessment? The dems may very well allow her to seat those delegates she won in MI and FL and there won't be a thing Obama can do about it. Also, I thought it very foolish on the part of TIME magazine to assume the presumptive nominee is Obama.
Posted by ACook at 05/9/2008
"perhaps its time to rethink a third party."
Posted by Euler at 05/9/2008
Won't hurt.
Posted by ACook at 05/9/2008
yeah - thats pretty much it. her consistantly, cowardly rubber stamping of the crypto-fascist neocons' stupid, evil, path tp perdition is reason number one for her difficulties.
sure, her arrogance, pandering, self promotion...all ugly qualities...but...
its her voting record that has hurt her - and the result of that was a situation in which the american people rejected her self appointed royal status. her pathetic, destructive reaction to this rejection simply served to highlight serious personality, judgement, and character flaws which further damaged her.
she consistantly zigged when she should have zagged, showed retrenched arrogance when honest humility was called for, resorted to precisely the dirty tricks the american people are sick and tired of, and was consistantly incapable of appearing genuine in any way other than meanness, smallness, and self aggrandizing.
but sure - it all started with her cowardice in voting...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/9/2008
Posted by Euler
uneducated: Adjective-not educated well or at all. (if you don't think it is a word maybe you need to work on your vocabulary)
The point I was eluding to, that Euler can't seem to grasp(Maybe Euler has not seen any of the exit polls) is that Obama has the support of more of the college educated demographic than does Hillary. My mistake I thought that was obvious in my previous post.
Posted by Extraneous at 05/9/2008
I think the term he was looking for was non-college educated. Which now-a-days is considered to be uneducated because it is hard to get too far in most profitable industries without a college education. Generally people with some form of higher education percentage wise have higher IQ's. Again these are just percentages not my opinion, I personally don't think you need a college education to be intelligent. There are things college DOES help to teach you that highschool doesn't. For instance it teaches you to analyze things in depth and logically. A skill that can be learned outside of school easily but is more readily cultivated in an environment like a classroom. So his point even though you chose to dismiss it is that those who are not college educated are more susceptible to political spin because they have not had the benefit of a college education to teach them to more accurately and readily look through the rhetoric to the truth. Also the "uneducated" tend to pay less attention to politics in general. So they may believe what a person tells them for simple lack of facts.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/9/2008
"The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated." (Some dead white dude)
Well, it IS too soon to write the obituary for this particular campaign. Folks at The Nation act like they've never seen "Friday the 13th." Remember when everyone thinks that Betsy Palmer is dead and finished & they're all laughing and relived? But BACK UP she rises to wreak her havoc again.
Same with HRC. Just picture her with a big butcher knife in hand when she pretends to greet Obama and accept the VEEP nomination.
Posted by goyadad at 05/9/2008
In retrospect, how disasterous would it have been for the Senator from NY, ground zero for the 9/11 atack, to vote against the war resolution and then to have found out later that there was WMD in Iraq or that Saddam had been somehow connected? We now know just how trumped up the intelligence related to Iraq really was by BushCheney.
And, don't forget that Hans Blix himself stated after the fact that Saddam would never had allowed the weapons inspectors into the country had not the threat of military attack been hanging over his head.
I never thought that Obama's "position" against the war from the safe confines of the Illinois legislature, who does not declare war nor commit any resources to it, showed particular courage.
But, hindsight is always 20/20.
Posted by Desert Son at 05/9/2008
the Clinton campaign has been moribund for some time. think Terri Schiavo or Ariel Sharon.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/9/2008
Posted by Euler at 05/9/2008
So I take it that it would have been better to vote against the war (for political reasons) rather than support it (for policy reasons)?
Aren't these the sorts of forced choice fallacies that Limbaugh uses all day. The ol' when did you stop beating your wife? Which translated into a forced choice is "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
Reasonable people can disagree on the variables without this sort of artificial dichotomy. For ex., I can argue that candidate X voted Y way based on Z reason, with all these being independent variables. The latter, the "reason" for their vote would have any number of possibilities, not just two, and some of these are not mutually exclusive.
Posted by winyahn at 05/9/2008
Same with HRC. Just picture her with a big butcher knife in hand when she pretends to greet Obama and accept the VEEP nomination.
Posted by goyadad at 05/9
well...she shows every indication of a lingering political death in this race...
no graceful concession...just power political self aggrandizement til the bitter end and welfare of the party be damned!
if there is any possibility of her showing any other quality than galling selfishness and sour grapes destructiveness...
well...i'll believe it when i see it.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/9/2008
i don't agree with the vote deal.
i think it's just her.
and her nastiness.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/9/2008
Posted by Desert Son at 05/9/2008
Can you prove that those voting against the resolution claimed that no WMDs would ever be found or that Saddam would never be shown to have some Al Quaida/911 connections?
Can you prove that they were not preferring further diplomatic efforts, and further efforts to determine the existence of either WMDs or Saddam-Al Quaida connections over voting yes to the resolution??
It is another thing, and a thing you are clearly NOT doing, to assert this is what they preferred and you disagree with this preference. That's certainly something reasonable people can disagree on.
Posted by winyahn at 05/9/2008
Posted by Desert Son at 05/9/2008 | ignore this person
twenty one dem US senators voted against the war.
126 dem congress persons voted against the war.
six repub congress members voted against war, one repub senator voted against the war. one independent of each house voted against the war.
to their everlasting credit,
and to their everlasting shame for the ones who voted for it
Posted by emile duBois at 05/9/2008
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/9/2008
What are the chances that she sees the writing on the wall and is switching gears to graciously concede, appear to take the high road and look like a good person now in order to improve her public perception and to set her up for a 2012 run, all the while she privately hopes for Obama's defeat? That sounds like the Hillary I know.
Posted by Benchrest at 05/9/2008
Of course reasonable people can, and do, disagree. But, it is one thing to take positions and vote on things when there is no risk involved. It is quite another to take a position when you know there is a high risk involved and may suffer severe consequences if you're wrong.
It's like being a spectator rather than a player in a contact sport.
Posted by Desert Son at 05/9/2008
Despite the Hillary Cultists or possibly GOP operatives (EU know who you are)...
Her Nibs had a "way out" on her Iraq vote WAY before Obama could have hurt her with it. Namely....
APOLOGIZE for it.
By atleast late 2005, she could have seen the hand-writing on the wall and dropped her still-enthusiastic support for the war...
by early 2007, she could have REALLY seen where things were going and forcifully and HONESTLY apologized for her vote, said it was a mistake, and that if she could she'd never have done it.
She did neither.
Not because she wanted to "look tough and Presidential", as much as she didn't want to look FLAWED. She had learned TOO well, the supposed lesson that "If they EVER get to see you make a mistake, you will always have that hanging over you."
So...she waited and waited and waited and waited....until Iowa was looming, and THEN started to talk like Obama and Edwards.
But by then it was too late. THEN it looked like "pandering to the Democratic base who firmly oppose the war" and not a heartfelt rejection of it.
She did a political calculation (likely as she had when she initially voted for the war...expecting it to be "Gulf War-One Redux")...and it failed. And it was a calculation that involves numbers now over 4000 and over 3/4s of a TRILLION.
So maybe THAT is proof enough that she never deserved to be President.
Posted by Mask at 05/9/2008
How many of those who voted against the war resolution were from the state that was attacked? How did Chuck Shumer vote?
I feel a Ned Lamont moment coming for B.O., unfortunately. Win the primary, lose the GE.
Posted by Desert Son at 05/9/2008
Posted by Benchrest at 05/9/2008 | ignore this person
man...every time i impute some decency onto that woman she almost immediately say/does something small and cynical to throw my attempt to find some decency in her square in my face.
like lucy sadistically jerking the football out from charlie brown every year.
sorry, hilly. sick of landing on my back every time i give you the benefit of the doubt. i got me my college ejumucayshun and you've shown your true colors - you cant fool me anymore...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/9/2008
Posted by Desert Son at 05/9/2008
That you FRANK?...or FRANK, JR.?
Posted by Mask at 05/9/2008
BTW....
"With those like extraneous (what an apt name) supporting the Democrats, perhaps its time to rethink a third party."-----Posted by Euler at 05/9/2008
A suspicion and a prediction based on that suspicion....
be on the look-out in the next few weeks, for EULER to start talking up....Ralph Nader. AND encouraging "all REAL progressives here at 'TN' to re-consider Obama, who is no real progressive."
Maybe I'll be proven wrong (certainly I just gave EULIE a heads-up)....but I detect a strange movement from our rather new "Hillary supporter"...one more indictative of a different kind of poster from a different side of the Spectrum!
Posted by Mask at 05/9/2008
i think she IS jockeying for a VP slot. she knows obama does not want her on his ticket and that no amount of contrition on her part will earn her a spot sooo....
in classic galling hillary style she is going to try to cynically strong arm herself into a blackmailing position to force obama to have to "ask" her to join him...
i tell you - there is one overriding motivation in that woman's heart - self aggrandizement and personal ambition.
what she realizes is that should obama get elected and have a successful 8 years...whoever is #2 will have the best shot at being the next nominee/president...
so...therefore ipso facto ergo elk...she's up to her usual semi sociopathic power games...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/9/2008
At the time we were preparing to invade, the majority of Americans believed Saddam had WMDs (we all trusted Colin Powell), however there were some of us who were still opposed to the war. I opposed it, as I was adamantly opposed to pre-emptive war, especially considering the fact that Saddam had not attacked or supported attacks against the US (excepting the occasional threat to our aircraft flying in Iraq's airspace, which we had been responding by localized air strikes, the appropriate response). I also feared that if we distracted ourselves with Saddam, we would fail to achieve our goals in Afghanistan; and where is Bin Laden?
The fact that Hillary supported the notion of pre-emptive war, and voted for it deeply concerns me, and I feel is also a problem for many democratic voters.
The fact that Hillary supported the notion of pre-emptive war, and voted for it deeply concerns me, and I feel is also a problem for many democratic voters.
Posted by Extraneous at 05/9/2008
Oops, trying to spell check after Euler gave me grief, sorry about the repeated paragraph.
Posted by Extraneous at 05/9/2008
Posted by Mask at 05/9/2008
Nope. Not Frank. Never joined a cult. Certainly not a GOP plant. Despise the chickenhawk twins, Georgie and Dickie. Supported Edwards til he dropped out. Will work for B.O as hard as I can.
Just asking tough questions for thoughtful people to ponder without hysteria or fanaticism. Sometimes the perspective changes when you put yourself in the other person's position.
Posted by Desert Son at 05/9/2008
Posted by Desert Son at 05/9/2008
okay, take your word for that.
And of course Obama was in no position to vote for or against the war from Springfield....but he DID speak out against it, when many Dems were still in the "rah rah" corner of Bush and Cheney.
And Her Nibs still was supporting the war as late as 2006, and HER shift on it was blatent and transparent, mostly because it WAS so gradual and slow....indicating not a "moral choice", but more political calculations.
That is, when she thought she would be the nominee, and she needed to appear "just slightly more doveish than McCain or Romney, but not TOO much so".
Only when Obama really threatened her "inevitability", did she move strongly against the war....again, a calculation and a LATE one.
Posted by Mask at 05/9/2008
BTW, can I also say again....
I don't think FRANKGRITS (as FG maybe) will be returning to "TN".
Again, no, not trying to "flush him out" as he "keeps reading the blog, just chooses not to post".
I really think he won't come back now that She-Who-Isn't-Going-To-Be-Obeyed is toast.
If he does, he'll HAVE to sound like PONTI, RIO, MARYBRET, LVLIB, etc. And even if he was a real liberal, just cultishly devoted to Her Nibs, he'd get accused of being a Republican/con/neo-con...and any former "liberal credits" wiped away.
Plus, he could no longer egotistically claim to be some "expert on politics"...given he continually predicted her getting the nomination, Obama folding, and how "whoever" the nominee was, stomping the Republican (a Republican he now has said he'd SUPPORT!).
So, with some assuredness myself, I think we have seen the last of FRANKGRITS, "expert in politics", predictor extrordinaire (once said 'No way' Joe Lieberman could get re-elected in 2006!...Ref: BLOG | Posted 08/04/2006 @ 5:32pm -- DELAY, COULTER, KRISTOL DEFEND LIEBERMAN)
So...So long, FRANCIS....I mean PSYCHO ("Stripes")....we hardly respected ye.
Posted by Mask at 05/9/2008
So, okay. She IS dead.
What are those Kubler-Ross stages again? Lemme see . . . Number One was . . .
DENIAL?
Yeah, mebbe that was it. Let's go with that:
"But I'm SO ready to be President. Can't they SEE that? It's history in the making. First Woman. And I have the resume. I'm senator from New York--TWICE. And before that, I . . . I . . . baked cookies in the White House? Stood by my man like some little Tammy Wynette? Dodged sniper fire? Headed up a failed health care reform? . . . Oh, who cares. I'm SO ready! This cannot be happening. God will not permit this to happen. Her will be done. Amen."
Posted by goyadad at 05/9/2008
Posted by goyadad at 05/9/2008
Like Homer in that real early season of "The Simpsons"....
Hillary needs to go through the stages in about a minute and a half!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 05/9/2008
Yup. Very bad strategic thinking. The Clinton's have always been a bit too clever at slicing and dicing positions down to the nth degree. Clinton's fear of being seen as a "weak" female overrode her instincts for admitting faults. Just apologize, admit you made a mistake and move on! Everybody makes mistakes. It's OK to be contrite once in a while. It actually makes you more human and likable. She didn't learn anything from the master (W and Dick) about the harm that can be caused by addictive, unrepentant, self-destructive ego.
I also heard stories from some friends who worked in DC around the time of Bill's Presidency that they (the White House) really treated the hired help shabbily. They expected undying loyalty from their staff but don't reciprocate it.
The residual effects of those insider rumors, the relentless GOP legal assault of the 90s (unwarranted, IMHO) and the poor way the campaign has been run so far this year all finally took their toll. How you run your campaign, however, does say alot about how you'd run the country. You have to be nice to the people that work for you or you're doomed! Nobody ever does it on their own, despite what they tell you.
Doesn't excuse it, but helps to explain it.
So, how did Chuck Shumer vote on the Iraq war resolution?
Posted by Desert Son at 05/9/2008
it's friday.
where's mattman?
one, two, three.......
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/9/2008
.....four, five, six.....
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/9/2008
So, how did Chuck Shumer vote on the Iraq war resolution?
Posted by Desert Son at 05/9/2008 | ignore this person
why don't you look it up. I've heard about this new thing, the internets. maybe you can try that and get back to us.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/9/2008
Posted by emile duBois
Why don't you enlighten us? You seem to already be the smartest guy in the room with the vote count and all.
Posted by Desert Son at 05/9/2008
<i>the fishernets
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/9/2008
"So, how did Chuck Shumer vote on the Iraq war resolution?"
<Posted by Desert Son at 05/9/2008>
Yeah, but he's not running for president. At least not US president.
HRC's real problem? She's just not very high on the "likeability" scale. Early on she tried to jeer at this factor: "You don't like me? That hurts my feelings." (What feelings, Snowwoman?) Whenever she opens her mouth she sounds like that 2nd grade teacher everyone had--you know, the one who never had to consider what the right answer was because she had them all written down in her answer key. It's just a matter of getting the dummies to learn it. Now some people really bond with that. ("Euler? Euler? Paris Euler?") The rest of us react to it with Pavlovian revulsion.
That's why Bill is so frustrated. It's was always so easy for him. Why can't she do it too?
(BTW, I'm still not giving up on her. I think she'll hang in there to the bitter end, all the way to Denver. In fact, we'll go there together, she and I--"BFF." Maybe we'll even get a ticket for Euler, too.)
Posted by goyadad at 05/9/2008
Why don't you enlighten us? You seem to already be the smartest guy in the room with the vote count and all.
Posted by Desert Son at 05/9/2008 | ignore this person
snide and snarky, are you?
I looked it up. so can you.
interesting that you should bring up Shumer and New York. the vote was to attack a country which had nothing to do with the attack on NY and Wash.
one more thing. it was MY kid who was in school downtown that day. and it was my kid who went back to school down there, when the gov't lied to us, declaring the air safe.
the reputed mastermind of the attack is sniggering and celebrating a success beyond his wildest dreams. instead of bringing him to justice, as we did with the perps of the first, inept attack, we attacked Iraq. Iraq. Iraq. Bush should be in front of the tribunal at the Hague and only my opposition to the death penalty prevents me from calling for his head on a pike.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/9/2008
"why don't you look it up. I've heard about this new thing, the internets. maybe you can try that and get back to us."
Posted by emile duBois at 05/9/2008 |
Snark responds to snide.
Posted by Desert Son at 05/9/2008
Her NAFTA and sniper fire tall tales also hurt her by reminding voters of why they can't trust the Clintons!
Posted by Metteyya at 05/9/2008
Posted by Metteyya at 05/9/2008
How about claiming you opposed Colombia Free Trade, while your Campaign Manager was helpig Colombia get it passed???
Posted by Mask at 05/9/2008
Bush should be in front of the tribunal at the Hague
Posted by emile duBois at 05/9/2008
That is not as far fetched an idea as you may think.
Posted by jackwells at 05/9/2008
Here's a headline from the BBC website from a couple of hours ago:
End of the road
Hillary Clinton will quit within days, predicts pollster John Zogby
and the link:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7387919.stm>
Posted by jackwells at 05/9/2008
Nice to see the site's fixed.
I think her biggest mistake was not realizing W changed America.
Posted by johnny canuck at 05/9/2008
I think HRC just looks ridiculous and deperate, clinging to the last shreds of her lifelong dream to rule the world with Binky Bill at her side (snarf). It doesn't matter how hard she tries, the math isn't going to work. If she wins the nomination by seating Fl and MI, voters will see her as illegitimate (redux of the 2000 Supreme Court throning of G.B. but this time it'll be Howard Dean and the DNC doing the crowning). Independents and voters who are disenfranchised with the 'old politics' will abandon the Dems for the GOP or simply fall back into apathy. If HRC continues this farce it is in her own self-interest not that of the party or the nation which is exactly the reason she should not be the nominee.
Posted by jane3246 at 05/9/2008
Senator Barack Obama plans to push Senator Hillary Clinton out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination in 10 days' time, his aides have said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/1941844/US-ele ctions-Barack-Obama-plans-to-declare-victory.html
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/10/2008
Sen. Barack Obama moved into the lead today in the last category that Sen. Hillary Clinton had claimed to have an edge -- support among the Democratic Party's superdelegates.
The Illinois Democrat grabbed the superdelegate lead thanks to a switch by New Jersey Rep. Donald Payne and an endorsement from previously uncommitted Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon.
Those two votes gave Obama a 267-266 lead over Clinton. That is a huge shift since the days when Clinton boasted about a 60-plus vote lead among the party's pros back on Super Tuesday.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/10/2008
Meanwhile, Billary try to extort from Obama the money to repay their campaign debt, mainly the $11.5 million plus they've lent the campaign (mainly to pay Mark Penn's firms).
Obama donors, don't let it happen. We don't support the Obama campaign to have our cash handed over to Billary so they'll go away.
Mr. Obama, don't let Billary bluff & bully you. Stand fast, stay loose, let them fade away in disgrace if that's what they choose. You can beat McCain without them, he's as weak as Dole, if not weaker.
All that stands between you & the White House now is a war against Iran.
Posted by sloper at 05/10/2008
oh lord, please don't let hillary strong-arm her way into the veep slot with barry o! i would rather watch an entire season of "big brother" than have to listen to her pandering and jockeying for the next turn at the #1 slot 4 to 8 years from now...
if you agree with me, lord, please send no sign whatsoever!
amen...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/10/2008
obama does not need her on his ticket.
besides, her evil, manipulative, sociopathy is probably best used as speaker of the senate, replacing harry "casper milktoast" reid...
you have to be evil to be effective in that job...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/10/2008
Clinton chose to serve the narrow constituency consisting of neocon pro-Israel hawks and defense contractors that were largely responsible for her senate seat in NY. Yeah, she knows she voted for a god awful mess that would suck the life blood out of America, but that narrow constituency she serves and panders to could care less because they are more concerned with the security of Israel and maintaining and increasing the share of the military industrial complex. It is heartening that the Amercian public by in large did not buy into her chameleon like attempt to portray herself as "liberal and progressive" and the American voters had every right to question Clinton on "what have you done for me lately." Clinton has done nothing in the Senate of note except set records for pork barrel politics, and she has shown a remarkable lack of leadership for someone who claims that "I am sooooo ready to be President."
Back to NY with Clinton where she will be comfortable pandering for her narrow constituency which hardly represents what is best for America. We thank God and the wisdom of many Americans, including young Americans, that a change is absolutely necessary for our survival.
Posted by OneVote at 05/10/2008
Hillary Clinton will quit within days, predicts pollster John Zogby----Posted by jackwells at 05/9/2008 |
MacAuliffe said she'd hold out until June 15th...but that date may be REALLY embarassing to wait for, if the bleed-off of her Supers continues.
Imagine waiting 4 more weeks...TELLING everybody you're going to wait 4 more weeks, and your SDs are abandoning you at a rate of 2-3 a day (average) and before you even get to June 15...
Obama has long passed 2025 and even Florida and Michigan wouldn't help!
Posted by Mask at 05/10/2008
Posted by Mask at 05/10/2008 | ignore this person
how the hell does she have 277.5 delegates? .5 delegates?
what am i missing?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/10/2008
Guam and the international primaries have half votes, and they split both. So it's not mathematically impossible.
Posted by yutsano at 05/10/2008
the script has changed. Hill is toast. she has overstayed her welcome.
as far as her NY career goes, she can most likely hold on to that senate seat if she so chooses. governor? if Bloomberg should want that job, she'll have a fight on her hands.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/10/2008
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/10/2008
Yeah, I think yuts is right...."half votes" from the territories.
Regardless, the defections yesterday aftenoon put Obama over her on Supers.
As they bleed off, even after she SWAMPS him in West Virginia (I've heard she may win by 20%)....it'll become more and more ridiculous and an obvious play for SOMETHING (Veep, pay off campaigns debts, etc.)
Posted by Mask at 05/10/2008
Is anyone even paying all that much attention to WVA? I saw an article on CNN that said that her winning there should give Obama pause. Funny, since the odds of a Dem taking that state are more than likely rather slim. Unless the governor there works his ass off for Obama.
Posted by yutsano at 05/10/2008
Posted by yutsano at 05/10/2008
WV will make Arkansas look "in doubt" as far as Hillary v. Obama goes.
If she wins by LESS than 20%, it'd be news.
Posted by Mask at 05/10/2008
I think if Obama worked the state REALLY hard (and had a bit more time) he could cut that. But I haven't seen any indication he's focusing there (or her for that matter, last I heard they were up whoring for votes this way) or in KY, which I find bad form.
Posted by yutsano at 05/10/2008
Not to worry, NYers, HRC won't be running for guv. Far too much work, far too much accountability, a terrible legislature, and far too little limelight.
The senate is far more her cruising speed. And the perks are better.
Posted by sloper at 05/10/2008
Not to worry, NYers, HRC won't be running for guv. Far too much work, far too much accountability, a terrible legislature, and far too little limelight.
The senate is far more her cruising speed. And the perks are better.
Posted by sloper at 05/10/2008 | ignore this person
the NY legislature is about to be dem control of both houses. that should help eliminate the gridlock up there.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/10/2008
from the territories.
Posted by Mask
it's an empire, i tells ya'!
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/10/2008
I think if Obama worked the state REALLY hard
Posted by yutsano at 05/10/2008
they could do a photo op in a coal mine.
oops, maybe not.
(apologies to mr. obama, you are definitely the least worst of the worst. good luck, sir.)
with much respect,
fz.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/10/2008
The senate is far more her cruising speed.
Posted by sloper at 05/10/2008
i hear she's got the world bank slot.......
bwahahahaha......
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/10/2008
Barry should pick Hill as VP, and then once in office freeze her out completely. the way it used to be done. that would serve her right.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/10/2008
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/10/2008
Ya'll should have grabbed Greenland when you had the chance!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 05/10/2008
I am not so sure focusing on Hillary's accedence to the Bush administration's 'war cry' makes sense. She has subsequently promoted a timely withdrawal from Iraq, and has touted bringing the war to a close.
But... as "One Vote" very astutely pointed out above... Hillary has been quite 'chameleonish' as she has developed her policy stance through the primaries... policies that have 'evolved' not out of her convictions, but from the 'good listening' of her opponents.
I think it has become apparent to many Americans that the potential for positive change in the US is at at an all time high right now... particularly because of the obviously dysfunctional political discourse... partly because of how it affects us, and then, how we react to it.
Hillary was blind-sided by the 'quantum leap' that fuels Obama's visionary stature. She just doesn't 'get it' at all. If this was 'just another election'... her extensive 'old schooling' in the brutal and wicked world of real-time Presidential 'influence pedaling' would have done the trick. She knows that route through the park. It's her daily run.
Obama, because he wishes to change the way Washington works... approaches politics from a completely different 'trail head'... he has formed his convictions by actually listening to and believing in 'regular people'... and he has developed an approach that is very similar to the adage "be the change you wish to see in the world".
Hillary, and much of the 'Washington establishment', were/are counting on 'more of the same dysfunctional stuff'... stuff that has made many of them extravagantly wealthy... and tone deaf... to the chorus of discontent being sung all over this country.
When given the option, many of us will 'just say no' to all of that.
Many of us here in America, would rather that these 'politicos' were simply honest, faithful, and hardworking... with the 'ordinary people'... who make up this grand experiment in Democracy... foremost in their minds, and the first consideration when drafting legislation.
"...by the people, for the people..."
Posted by ttr at 05/10/2008
Obama, because he wishes to change the way Washington works
Posted by ttr
are you sure?
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/10/2008
"...by the people, for the people..."
Posted by ttr
more like
"...behind the people, astride the people..."
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/10/2008
Sure I'm sure, Frosty....
You've never struck me as the pensive doubting type before, Frosty... Have you been hanging around with Mask too much?
;^)
Posted by ttr at 05/11/2008
ttr
<i>plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.........</i>
i'll believe it when i see it.
the wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round.....
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/11/2008
Ah... the skeptic's dialectics... How 'safe'.
Well then... enjoy the journey, and I'll be glad to shake your hand when we meet again!
Bon Joir...
Posted by ttr at 05/11/2008
don't worry
i'm a-hopin', too
;∞]
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/11/2008
Où avez-vous été de se cacher, vous véritable rire-o-thon affiche enfant, vous ... comment il est agréable de vous voir de nouveau!
Posted by ttr at 05/11/2008
At the time of the vote on Iraq..Hillary made the right calculated decision to give 'untrustworthy' George , the option to make the correct call. Howard Dean and MoveOn .org undermined Hillary's campaign. Let's hope Barack lives up to the high ideals set by HRC.
Posted by Glass-eye at 05/11/2008
To:ttr, The old adage "show me your friends and I will tell you who you are " ..applies to Barack and his wishful thinking of changing the folks who has endorsed him and those super-duper delegates who are stumbling to embrace him.
The President cannot change washington . Washington has to change Washington. In his campaign for change , I have never heard once, Obama calling for a sweep of the Congress by democrats to make his change dream come true .
In the next two and half years the Presidency will be focused on " fix and repair the damage caused by "untrustworth George". The change agenda will begin in 2012 if not later. Hillary would have been better as the "fix and repair the country" President. But Barack has to win first.
Posted by Glass-eye at 05/11/2008
Another mistake Clinton made after the Illinois and North Carolina primaries: she said that "working...uh...hard working" lower class whites would not vote for Obama. We know the obvious and the less obvious implications here. She is saying that if Obama is the Democratic Presidential Nominee, "hard working" lower class whites will not support Obama, they will support McCain. The less obvious implication is that lower class blacks, unlike the lower class whites, are not hard working. The phrase used to be a code employed by white politicians in the past to stereotype the character of lower class African Americans, that is, as lazy and not "hard-working."
Posted by genie_yoo at 05/11/2008
ass-eye at 05/11/2008 | ignite this person
To:ttr, The old adage "show me your friends and I will tell you who you are "
When you judge a book by it's cover, you have already lost interest in the wisdom it may contain...
Posted by ttr at 05/11/2008