Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditHillary Clinton knocked it out of the park Tuesday night.
It was a speech defined by grace, feistiness, sly wit, generosity toward her former rival and by a powerful nod to the history her forewoman/bearers made --and which she carried forward with her unprecedented run for the presidency, winning more primaries and caucuses (23) than any woman in history.
On the 88th anniversary of women winning the right to vote, Hillary Clinton powerfully linked the fight for women's rights and civil rights, and spoke for those who have been invisible--and for an America whose women, of all races, have defied the odds and fought for a fairer and freer world.
Clinton appealed, with heart and head, to the raw emotions of her supporters, asking them to to join her and "unite as a single party with a single purpose." She asked her "sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits" --a clever and moving reference to the beloved young adult series, "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants" which my 17 year old adores--to welcome Obama as their candidate.
Yet her speech was more of a political --and less of a personal --speech. That is not to say there wasn't strong emotion in her delivery and in the hall. And she spoke as a woman and a mother. But she came, above all, as a Democrat and a Senator and a citizen--who has seen her country's promise squandered under ruinous Republican rule. She saluted the widow and son of two good Democrats--the chair of the Arkansas Party, who was assassinated this month, and Ohio Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs-Jones who died suddenly last week. She spoke as the team captain of 18 million (voters): "None of us can afford to be on the sidelines." And she spoke as a woman and a candidate who too rarely on the long march through the primaries had been given the space (did Mark Penn advise against?) to deploy a sly wit. Tonight , Clinton had her sights set on McCain. "No way. No How. No McCain." She did what was needed --to ensure that no one leaves Denver or their tv sets, radio and computers after this convention unhappy that John McBush isn't challenged and exposed for the Bush foot soldier that he is. "We don't need four more years of the last eight years. McCain and Bush--makes perfect sense they'll be in the Twin Cities. Awfully hard to tell them apart." Hillary Clinton came to persuade --to be a team player in taking back the country she loves. She did the job.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
"Tonight , Clinton had her sights set on McCain."
posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel on 08/27/2008 @ 12:06am
And soon, Mr. Harry Reid.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/27/2008 @ 12:14am
"As a Repub, HRC also convinced me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, she IS the better Demo candidate.....I can only imagine, how her core supporters feel let down by the `system' that favored an InExperienced, but clean & articulate black man, over their favorite!"
You must have a massive collection of Brooklyn Bridges. She would be the same candidate.
Posted by onthehelm at 08/27/2008 @ 12:28am
This shows Obama mind narrowness. He wants to avenge and he leveled his avenge when a chance came by.
-----------
Clinton Knew She Was Unlikely VP Pick MOLINE, Ill., Aug. 26, 2008
Anne E. Kornblut.
In a private meeting with Sen. Barack Obama after she conceded the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton made a request: that he consider her for his vice presidential running mate, but not put her through the charade of being vetted if he was not serious.
Obama told Clinton then it was unlikely he would choose her, people familiar with the conversation said. Obama did not want to lead her on and, after campaigning against her for more than a year, already had a sense that their pairing would not be the right fit.
Posted by HelenDAO at 08/27/2008 @ 12:38am
2HAPPY at 08/27/2008 @ 12:16am...
O.K... consider my leg pulled...;^)
Howsoever... you'll have to admit that your 'issues' with Hillary are finally fit for the shredder... and thus ends a searing smearing chapter in the right wing playbook...
The 'scheme' that wouldn't die just disappeared.
"Poof"
Posted by ttr at 08/27/2008 @ 12:43am
Posted by HelenDAO at 08/27/2008 @ 12:38am
Good. He was smart about it and he didn't string her along. I consider that a positive not a negative.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/27/2008 @ 12:54am
Posted by ttr at 08/27/2008 @ 12:43am
Don't be deceived. Happy only says something positive about a Democrat if it is hurtful to someone else. He is only saying something positive about Hillary because he feels it could be hurtful to Obama.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/27/2008 @ 12:55am
"Hillary Clinton knocked it out of the park Tuesday night."
Not if you watched the Fox "News" analysis of her speech --truly remarkable.....and, frankly, laughable was the Krauthammer and Krew's view.
I look forward to the Daily Show/ Colbert take on the Fox spin.
As much as I've been flatly disillusioned by Obama's hubcap liberating rightward squeal since the clinching on June 3rd, I was pleasantly surprised and impressed by what was likely the best speech of Hillary's political career.
Well done, Hill.
But I still don't quite trust her sad to say.
My money's on intrigue down the road.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 08/27/2008 @ 01:41am
Following is a link to a fascinating interview on with the publisher of Harpers magazine, Rick MacArthur, who has a new book out, "You Can't Be President: The Outrageous Barriers to Democracy in America".
www.democracynow.org/2008/8/25/ rick_macarthur_you_cant_be_president
The interview is just the first 30 minutes or so of the link.
He relays some fine dope on Obama's past in Chicago and rise via the Daley political machine as well as a delicious scoop on some of the Clintonista's nefarious activities in Iowa in 2004 to derail Howard Dean's campaign.
Engaging stuff.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 08/27/2008 @ 02:08am
Vandenheuvel is a clueless white lady. First, Clinton did not make a case for Obama as commander in chief. She raised the specter of Russia in Georgia and Iran in Iraq, and Clinton clearly did not think Obama was tough enough to do what she believes is in the American interest. So she did absolutely nothing to attenuate the most important criticism she made of Obama. Second, Clinton's invocation of Harriet Tubman would rub anybody but a clueless white lady the wrong way. How can one not feel sorry for Harriet Tubman now that her transcendent struggle has been coopted for every American out to become a petit boss over a few teenage employees and every family struggling with the interest payments on their flat screen television, Viking range or SUV. Hillary Clinton reminded me today of our American genius for degrading everything transcendent and sublime into the self-indulgent fantasies of power and consumption. Poor Harriet Tubman. There is still one candidate who will not cheapen her name. And that is one of the biggest reasons I voted for him. Do remember Clinton last year:
"There may be some bumps along the road! You know this reminds me of one of my favorite American heroines, Harriet Tubman. For when she made it to freedom after having been a slave and she got to New York and she could have been so happy to just stay at home and just breathe a big sigh of relief but she kept going"
So Clinton compared her four star hotel and $100 million dollar life to Harriet Tubman. Outrageous. White Americans have become self indulgent to the point of obscenity. It's like McCain and Clinton trying to paint Obama as an elitist. Please hand The Nation over to Gary Younge.
Posted by hartal at 08/27/2008 @ 03:36am
Posted by hartal at 08/27/2008 @ 03:36am
Excellent post, thanks.
The Clintons' capacity for self-pity is surpassed only by their belief in self-entitlement.
God only knows what sabotaging they'll be up to over the next 10 weeks, rhetoric notwithstanding.
Posted by sloper at 08/27/2008 @ 05:13am
I also agree that last night's speech was her best so far. I was a little put off by her reference to Harriet Tubman. I didn't know where she was gonna go but I wasn't offended. That particular quote can be applied to many situations of not giving up but whether or not you agree with her usage is up to you. I was pleased, however, with her tribute to the fallen congresspeople. That was nice. She did a really good job. She laid it out there to her supporters. If you were in it for her then keep bitching. If your goals were loftier than truly support me in supporting Obama. I think she swayed some people. Not all but some.
Posted by k330k at 08/27/2008 @ 07:40am
My money's on intrigue down the road.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 08/27/2008 @ 01:41am
I'll second that!!
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/27/2008 @ 07:45am
I would like to point out two things. Hillary isn't the evil person people make her out to be, and Obama is not the saint people make him out to be. Both are people probably doing the best they can. If you paid any attention to the debates, there wasn't too much difference in their platforms.
This is just a news story in an attempt to take the focus off the real issues. The real issues are McCain (Wealthy people) versus Obama (the rest of us). Keep that in mind through all of the B.S. we see through November, but don't take your eye off the ball because the rethugs love to throw a lot of yackers. Think about it, what does McCain have to run on besides he said she said? Permanent tax cuts for the wealthy? Neveer ending wars in multiple countries? Cutting money for education, health insurance and offshoring jobs while giving tax cuts to the likes of Exxon while making record profits?
Anyone who would vote for McCain in this economy has to have their friggin head examined.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/27/2008 @ 07:53am
My choice? Not to vote for either one of the bastards.
Posted by madlib at 08/27/2008 @ 08:08am
madlib, I hear you, but not voting may very well place McIdiot into office. He's George W Bush II, but even less intelligent than the original.
I don't think Obama will do all of the things he has promised and has ever increasingly edged his position to the right, but if we get McCain as president, you might as well turn off the lights because the party will be over.
I know your position and feel the same way. Both Obama and McCain are owned by lobbyists, but at least one of the lobby groups, AARP, backs Obama while the pharmaceutical, oil, insurance, and of course defense lobbyists back McCain. I fear that both of them are owned by the wall street lobbyists and AIPAC already, but that's something that will never change.
I am voting for the lesser of two evils so to speak. The system sucks, but what other recourse do we have? Not voting further empowers the extreme right who have already effed things up to the nth degree. Any change in direction would be better than the status quo don't you think?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/27/2008 @ 08:36am
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/27/2008 @ 08:36am
Ya know. I've been thinking about this. I don't think McCain would be that bad an option. Now don't get me wrong I'm not saying that because I think he would make a good leader, let me put that out there now. If McCain got into office and he either didn't fix anything or made things worse for this country. That would be the nail in the coffin for the Republican party for the next 12 years or so.
Think about it. The baby boomers are retiring and there are a lot of fresh faces in politics. This is a critical moment for the Republican party. They need to assert that their party can actually get something right and so far the nation thinks they are a bunch of bunglers, war profiteers and hoarders. If they don't assert without a doubt that they can get something right, they will be fall into disrepair in the next 4-8 years. Unlike the last 8 years they will no longer have Clinton to blame for the state of the economy. Whether we are in a recession or not 12 years of almost no growth is bad for a country. People will quickly start to resent them more than they do now.
So as much as I don't look forward to a McCain Presidency, at the same time barring him doing irreparable damage to the country, this could put the nail in the coffin of the neo-cons. What would Rush talk about if McCain got elected?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/27/2008 @ 09:08am
McCain and Co are smiling. Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/27/2008 @ 09:00am
Doubt it. Her speech is plastic and tepid to us. Most people don't analyze politics. Most people take things at face value. Which means most people listened to her and believed her.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/27/2008 @ 09:09am
MAASCH's view is a bit...subjective, shall we say.
One of the only hopes (yes, there's that darn word again) that the GOP has is a divided Democratic Party...that's why Rush, Sean, and Fox kept acting like the "PUMAs" were bigger than they were.....or that folks like FRANKGRITS and HELENDAO are more than a handful.
Irony of ironies, that after years of loathing Hillary Clinton....the Right now NEEDS her (or her supporters)!
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/27/2008 @ 09:17am
Katrina . . . you're right on target, as usual! I'm a strong Hillary supporter, but her name won't be on the ticket in November, so . . . reality bites . . . I'll be defaulting to Obama.
Why do some "critics" give so much attention to a miniscule number of contrary people, as if these people were a huge power block? Do they have nothing else to talk about?
Posted by mtcove at 08/27/2008 @ 09:26am
most are predicting a collapse harder than Carter..
Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/27/2008 @ 09:30am | ignore this person | warn this person
.
"Most"? "Most" what John? "Most" who?
Do you mean "most" of your family?
"Most" of your customers?
"Most" of your fellow wing-nuts?
Because "most" economists take a much differnt view. "Most" economic experts agree that ending the war will free up considerable capital for improving domestic investment and hence, improving the overall domestic economy. "Most" agree that creating a tax base more equitable to the middle class puts more money into the hands of the people "most" likely to spend it within the domestic economy.
Sounds like your "most" is...
..."mostly" pathetically uninformed!
Posted by Lillian at 08/27/2008 @ 10:16am
Gee I guess that makes me a racist.
Posted by madlib at 08/27/2008 @ 10:00am
No, it means you think for yourself!! The points you brought up aren't talking points for either party. Well done.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/27/2008 @ 10:30am
At last we Freedom Loving Americans can relax: For Hillary is History, and Gore is no More.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/27/2008 @ 10:31am
Sisterhood of the Traveling Pantsuits.
Well, That had to be about the most ridiculous five words to come out of any politician's ever in the history of this country. Thank GOD she's out of this!
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/27/2008 @ 10:35am
To spend on the scale Obama has mentioned will collapse the US faster and harder than during the Carter years..
Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/27/2008 @ 10:25am
JM, The Carter years were no worse than the Reagan years. Keep in mind that Carter was president only 4 years in between 16 years of rethugs.
The fact that Reagan sabatoged Carter's efforts of getting the hostages released in his final days of his presidency speaks volumes about Reagan and what an upstanding fellow he and his cabinet were.
One more thing about Ronnie. Nixon and Kissinger both though Reagan was a moron...it's in the tapes.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/27/2008 @ 10:38am
Now mind you, I could be wrong but the energy between Monday and Tues was shockingly different and it was all because of Hillary. Posted by frankgrits at 08/27/2008 @ 10:25am
Frank, It's all in the eyes of the beholder. So far, I think the two best speakers were Dennis Kucinich and Mrs Obama.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/27/2008 @ 10:40am
Ms.vanden Heuvel, thanks for the nice post and the kind words for Senator Clinton. Some pundits are picking apart her speech - enough!
Posted by PNolan at 08/27/2008 @ 10:44am
I had the convention on as background noise while I changed the oil in my tractor and then lubed the wood-chipper. Both the convention and the work generated the same amount of satisfaction,which is precisely zero. Two days of hollywood produced crap has not generated the slightest bit of confidence that these people will be able to do anything but pull the country down even further. I never realized that over 90% of the country were victims. The clowns will assure us to reach 100%. Voting for none of the above!
Posted by sntauri at 08/27/2008 @ 10:53am
Has anyone besides me noticed the surge of energy in the democrats since Hillary spoke. They were as glum as could be at the news that Mccain had pulled ahead. Then along came Hillary and wiped away their tears and sent them to battle.-------Posted by frankgrits at 08/27/2008 @ 10:11am
"Mt. Horeb", huh?
How "incredible" will FRANKGRITS say Hillary's speech will be?
A. Just "incredible"
B. "Marvelously incredible"
C. "Monumentally incredible"
D. "Super-duper double-secret incredible!"
E. "God speaking on Mt. Horeb"
LOL----Posted by Maskdelta at 08/26/2008 @ 9:50pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/27/2008 @ 11:01am
Come on Wolf..you just went off the cliff, again...Good Lord.
Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/27/2008 @ 10:52am
No JM, unfortunately, I didn't fall off the cliff because I brought up something that doesn't paint your hero Ronnie in a positive way.
I think it was 60 minutes that had an interview with ex-president Jimmy Carter. The had facts and evidence pointing to the very fact that the Reagan administration was hindering the release of the hostages so that when Ronnie became president, he would appear to be the one to have freed them. Petty to the bone, yes, and republican to the bone!
Take your argument up with the show if you will. I remember Jimmy Carter's reaction quite clearly. He said, "why would anyone do a thing like that?" I rarely feel sorry for politicians, but in this case, Jimmy Carter was blindsided by the inside information 60 minutes had access to.
Go ahead now JM and rant about the liberal media and how that show was the makings of liberal domination of the world and how the democrats want to rule the world through their...usually peaceful approaches versus the rethug rule of kill and ask questions later.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/27/2008 @ 11:02am
Posted by madlib at 08/27/2008 @ 10:30am
Actually, according to him, ML, if you attack FRANK...for cultish devotion to Hillary...
you're a sexist!
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/27/2008 @ 11:03am
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/27/2008 @ 11:01am
Crap.
The check's in the mail.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/27/2008 @ 11:07am
Hello Hartal,
Since you commented on Hillary Clinton invoking Harriet Tubman, you may be interested on my post this morning in one of the other threads, on that subject:
Hillary said yesterday:
======================
"By following the example of a brave New Yorker , a woman who risked her life to shepherd slaves along the Underground Railroad.
And on that path to freedom, Harriett Tubman had one piece of advice.
If you hear the dogs, keep going.
If you see the torches in the woods, keep going.
If they're shouting after you, keep going.
Don't ever stop. Keep going.
If you want a taste of freedom, keep going."
========================
Harriet Tubman did not wait for some Democrat or Liberal politician to make opportunities for her, she created them for herself and also for others.
If Harriet Tubman were alive today, I would think she would be a Conservative,
She would be quite angry at Hillary Clinton invoking her name in the process of Democrat electioneering, for the purpose of convincing people to vote Democrat because of all the help and government dependency that Democrats promise.
What is the purpose of a Democrat invoking Harriet Tubman's name?
Harriet Tubman lived her life opposite what Democrats advocate people do, she knew she had to help herself and others, because nobody else was going to help her - she did not wait for some Democrat to bail her out.
So she took matters in her own hands, and people benefitted as a result, and the rest is history.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/27/2008 @ 10:14am | ignore this person | warn this person
Posted by sjchermak at 08/27/2008 @ 11:10am
Was Kucinich off his meds? Very close to the Dean-scream. Very similar to film I've seen from some political leaders from the late 30's...
Posted by sntauri at 08/27/2008 @ 11:12am
Yeah, JOMAMMA, that comment about Reagan sabotaging Carters efforts to get the hostages out made me incredulous. Never heard THAT before.
Amazing how some will blame their enemies for their hero's incompetence.
WOLFGANG, you can't possible believe that. Reagan had nothing to do with it.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/27/2008 @ 11:27am
JM, Go ahead and read the article. I didn't make this up. Perhaps you can explain how a citizen of the United States was meddling in foreign countries affairs while a sitting president was trying to get the hostages released? What Ronnie was doing was borderline treason.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/01/18/iran/main265244.shtml
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/27/2008 @ 11:35am
JM, Didn't make this one up either. Maybe Ronnie wasn't directly involved, but his administration sure as hell was. Please explain how days after his presidency the hostages were released? He hadn't been president long enough to barely move into the White House.
Before you go on about what a great diplomat Ronnie was, remember that he was the president saying on a hot microphone that the missiles were flying toward Moscow as a joke. Point being that his international diplomacy was severly lacking and that any deal that must have been set up was done well in advance. Both of these articles support that.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/8/161940/682
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/27/2008 @ 11:47am
Hillary's speech was ALL ABOUT HILLARY. It was her stump speech into which she inserted Obama's name every 10th sentence or so. Basically, she said support Obama because you are a generic Democrat, not because of anything specific to him. She did not talk about Obama's character, his achievements, his judgement, his readiness to lead. She did not repudiate the shameful way the GOP is using her to attack Obama. She said that the Dems can restore American prosperity because her husband did it back in the 90s -- nothing about why Obama is uniquely positioned to lead this country now. It was STILL all about her. Even the Harriet Tubman image at the end -- keep fighting, keep running -- that's her mantra. She gave a kick off speech for her next campaign, and I believe that's what she is going to continue to do throughout the remainder of this election cycle.
The best speeches were by Kucinich (scheduled at 6:45 ET, 4:45 in Denver - why was that?) and Schweitzer. Neither has gotten any coverage.
Posted by burtnor at 08/27/2008 @ 11:51am
Posted by burtnor at 08/27/2008 @ 11:51am
Kucininch hit the nail directly on the head. I saw his speech and he was great. I didn't get to see the Schweitzer speech though.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/27/2008 @ 11:56am
WOLFGANG, you can't possible believe that. Reagan had nothing to do with it.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/27/2008 @ 11:27am
Chip, I never liked Reagan, but I had a hard time believing it myself. Keeping people held hostage longer so you can free them as president was a new low....at that time.
W has managed to supercede that low by making a mockery of everything this country is supposed to stand for. Democracy while the supreme court places him as president in a party line vote. Free market while the oil monopolies decide how much they will screw us for and there's no recourse. Torture of prisoners, stomping on the constitution, using his high office for profit of himself, his family and friends...that would be graft.
W has outdone Reagan in a big way, but I'm sure the hostages would have been happy to come home during Carter's presidency instead of waiting so Ronnie could be president to release them.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/27/2008 @ 12:04pm
No way. No how. Nobama.
Posted by teresawymore at 08/27/2008 @ 12:10pm
Two comments:
Hello Cccomfo1,
You said: "What would Rush talk about if McCain got elected?"
Since John McCain is a RINO (Republican in Name Only), there will be plenty for Rush to talk about when John McCain is President!
Also, when I was copying your comment I accidently clicked the link to "warn" you. I don't know what happens when you are "warned"
Hello frankgrits,
You said "....First, Joe Biden needs to keep his mouth shut...."
You can forget that, it is impossible! Unless somebody buys him a roll of duct tape to put over his mouth when he campaigns.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/27/2008 @ 12:10pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/27/2008 @ 11:20am
Wait until Bill's speech tonight, MAASCH.
FRANK will say it put the Sermon on the Mount to shame and that storm clouds, boiling over the Rockies towards Denver...miraculously dissipated upon the very utterance of words from his mouth.
BTW, any semblance of "the crowd was down and Hillary's melodious rhetoric 'fired them up'"...was probably due to Mark Warner's snoozer of a speech.
Although, FRANK, there might have been some lepers cured outside the Pepsi Center last night....I'd look into it!
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/27/2008 @ 12:10pm
Although, FRANK, there might have been some lepers cured outside the Pepsi Center last night....I'd look into it!
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/27/2008 @ 12:10pm
And Bill Clinton went before them and said, "let my people stay with Hillary" but still Obama's heart was hardened, and Bill said, if there is to be another plague on the people of the United States, it will be by your word Barrack.
Later,as Barrack was walking to the mens room he stumbled on a bucket the janitor had left in the doorway and jammed his pinky finger against the bathroom door. In doing this he yelled out, "Dammit, I wish the people here would pull their heads out of their asses and move this thing out of the way!" But God only heard the part where Obama said that he wished that the people here would pull their heads out of their asses and as soon as it was said, it was done. And the Hillary voters no longer had this mystical allegiance to Hillary and went ahead and voted for Obama. So let it be written, so let it be done. Amen Frank.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/27/2008 @ 12:48pm
Hello JOMAMMA,
You said "by not worshiping ..Hillary ...and they will be sent to the wilderness to wander for 4 or 8 years..."
If they are lucky they will be banished to the wilderness. Some who have been associated with the Clintons have met a different fate (example- Vince Foster).
Oh,boy, will I get crucified for making that comment by the people on this website who love and adore Hill and Bill!
So be it.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/27/2008 @ 1:08pm
Hey all after seeing the speech last night I definitely wanted to find a t-shirt and a bumper sticker with the slogan No Way. No How. No McCain.
I found a site with all my needs!
http://www.cafepress.com/nowaynohowshirt
It has cool colors and designs with this slogan! Check it out!
Posted by ryanshibbydude at 08/27/2008 @ 1:26pm
I am a strong supporter of both the Clinton's, worked on her campaign, and thought Hillary gave the best speech of her life last night.
I now will follow her guidance and focus on pressing forward to achieve her principles through the election of Barrack Obama.
In the long run, this isn't about personalities- it's about our future. This election is our last best chance to change the dangerous direction established by the Bush-Cheney mob which McCain has promised to follow.
Obama is on the right track.
No McCain.
Posted by V7i7c at 08/27/2008 @ 1:52pm
No McCain.
Posted by V7i7c at 08/27/2008 @ 1:52pm
Follow your own principles. Political leaders will come and go. Sometimes they lie and sometimes they tell the truth.
In 20 years, Hillary won't be there to tell you how to think. Think for yourself now.
P.S. I agree with you and Hillary on the no McCain.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/27/2008 @ 2:03pm
How does the saying go, No Pain, No gain?
How about No McCain, No Pain, Plenty of Gain.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/27/2008 @ 2:05pm
Posted by sjchermak at 08/27/2008 @ 12:10pm
BTW, SJCHER....IF McCain is a RINO to you...I'll feel a LITTLE less depressed if he wins.
Means YOUR kind of conservatism is dying, when a "RINO" is the best you can come up with after Dubya!
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/27/2008 @ 2:25pm
Sometime between Barack Obama's concession speech and McCain's inaugural, Obama, Biden, Dean, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Daschle, and Kerry should form a circular firing squad and do their party and the country a great big favor. Hillary in 2012!
Posted by Spengler47 at 08/27/2008 @ 2:37pm
Wolf, I'm thinking any attempts to use the hostage situation just to make it better for Reagan would be par for the course, but I see no conspiracy from people who must have know months earlier that they would win. 1980 was a tide turner. People were sick of rising oil prices and 14.75% mortgage interest rates. They were sick of the spending. Many of the Reagan voters were the same guys, in some cases the sons and daughters of the guys, who put Roosevelt in office 50 years ago. It was a revolution in public thought, and the final tallies, I think, prove that.
Which is why this time I'm hoping we will have another revolution in thought: To look at the Pelosi's, Foleys, Delay's, Clintons, Bushes, Deans, McCains and all the rest and dump them as the incompetent BB politicians they are, and start early with the next generation.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/27/2008 @ 2:53pm
Sometime between Barack Obama's concession speech and McCain's inaugural, Obama, Biden, Dean, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Daschle, and Kerry should form a circular firing squad and do their party and the country a great big favor. Hillary in 2012!
Posted by Spengler47 at 08/27/2008 @ 2:37pm
Hillary? Is that you?
Posted by Benchrest at 08/27/2008 @ 3:53pm
Which is why this time I'm hoping we will have another revolution in thought: To look at the Pelosi's, Foleys, Delay's, Clintons, Bushes, Deans, McCains and all the rest and dump them as the incompetent BB politicians they are, and start early with the next generation.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/27/2008 @ 2:53pm
Couldn't agree more Mr CHip.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/27/2008 @ 4:11pm
OK, Here is the analysis,
I have posted in before as to why Obama would not (and did not) pick Hillary as his running mate.
Hill and Bill are a package, get one and you get the other.
And no way did Obama want Bill:
1. Prowling the White House scoping out interns.
2. Sticking his nose in where it would not have belonged and may not have been welcome.
Very shortly after the Obama inauguration (probably about 5 minutes), Bill Clinton would have view himself as the President.
This can be the only answer, given that otherwise there is no logical reason why Obama would have left Hillary off of the ticket and thus risk alienating Hillary supporters who may now vote for McCain instead.
So he made what is probably a politically unwise decision, because he could not tolerate the thought of having "Bubba" around.
By no means am I a supporter of Hillary Clinton either, with her you get behavior like what happened in the days after September 11, when Senator Chuck Schumer was working hard to have him or his staff provide as much help as possible to the relief effort, with Hillary then taking all the credit. (This was from a book by DICK MORRIS who worked for Slick Willie).
Originally "Bill" needed "Hill", to help him slick his way to the Democrat nomination in 1992 after his side activities became known and could have derailed that effort. (Like they did for Gary Hart). And "Hill" needed "Bill" in her efforts to establish herself as a viable politician and contender for President.
But now that Hillary has established herself in her own right, Slick Willie has become a liablity to her efforts, because she would have been the VP candidate if not for him.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/27/2008 @ 4:22pm
Hillary should have made a pledge that Slick Willie would not be allowed in the White House unless there was a function requiring the presence of former Presidents, and that his advice would not be welcome to her or to Obama, and then maybe Obama would have picked her.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/27/2008 @ 4:27pm
she did fine. i liked her speech. i was already committed to obama when i knew she was not going to win, and i knew they had such similar platforms it really would have been ok either way. i discounted all insults/or perceived insults either campaign threw out during the primary as what else were they supposed to do? attack each other on identical policies? so since both are intelligent and likeable and democrats, either make me happy. just not four more years of the same. ENOUGH. and the worst thing that could happen is mccain somehow winning, and then something happens and we have whatsername as president? she'd been mayor of a frickin town in alaska, population less than 7000. what? northern exposure? 'someone get the moose out of the town square'...
Posted by vertigo23 at 08/31/2008 @ 9:56pm