Clinton thread
- Started
- Last post
- 442 Responses
- ********0
- TheBlueOne0
METAPHOR: The ground is her campaign and it's relative state of doneness, the giant fork is her fate, and the smiling fat guy is the American Public.
- mg330
I just had an interesting thought on this issue of elitism claims on Obama.
Isn't it Hillary Clinton who has said in so many words that the small states don't count; that the big states are what's important; that Obama's small state wins don't matter as much; etc. etc.??
In my opinion, you can't get much more elitist than that. Think about that for a second. To my memory, she's never been called out on that by the MSM to the degree Obama has been called out over "elitist" comments about small town people.
If anyone should be labeled as elitist, it should be Hillary for her outrageous assertions that only big states matter. Could a person be more obvious about disregarding the little guy?
Obama cares about that little guy, and this is why he will win.
- monkeyshine0
Hill, You've Got $100 Million; Show Some Class
Trey Ellis, Apr 16, 2008 17:12:36 GMT
She had her chance at being part of the Dream Team, although not at the top of the ticket as she had hoped, however her Swiftboating of Obama with her "bitter" new ad campaign sank any hope she might have had of rescuing her campaign from abject defeat. I'm not a Hillary hater and have defended her against months of unfair and often misogynistic ad hominem attacks but this latest round of ugliness from her side has proven that she is unfit to lead the Democratic party.
Yes, Obama's gaffe was a big one and as his opponent she has every right to go after him but she never coupled that with an even more devastating critique of McCain. She is the weakest link in a three-way-race right now so her labeling Obama "elitist" carries much more water for McCain than it does for her slim-to-none chance at victory. An opponent who understood the larger goal of electing a Democrat to the White House would have said to rural Pennsylvanians, "Obama doesn't get it, McCain certainly doesn't get it. However I understand your pain and promise to fight to bring jobs back to America's industrial heartland."
Of course this is not the first time she's played nasty. Saying that only she and McCain were ready on day one was her second strike in my book. Her first came earlier, when 60 Minutes asked her if she thought Obama was a Muslim. Her crack that he wasn't, "as far as I know," made me originally suspect her integrity.
Look, Obama is going to have real problems with this snob issue during the general election. (Note to HuffPost editors, try to avoid using any more of those photos of him with his nose in the air. They make him look like Louis XIV's love child.) This "elitism" is a narrative that began with his "You're likable enough," crack which may have helped him lose New Hampshire, to the gutter ball (please, sir, never again bowl in a tie), to "bittergate." In the short run polls show he's already recovered from the comment and the 24-hour news networks' orgiastic fixation with it seems to have already backfired on Tricky Hill.
Obama can win over enough of the rural and the rustbelters by being his authentic, down-home self. I remember years ago seeing him at a fundraiser in LA for his Senate campaign and he said that the whites of southern Illinois were flocking to his rallies. His state is not all that different from PA. Voters just need to be assured that he is regular folks. When they offer him chocolates he's gotta eat them. Drink the beer. He needs to be less professorial and more cool high school science teacher/basketball coach ("Hey, Mr. O! Mr. O! My frog's legs are still kicking.") They need to see him, tie off, jacket off, shooting free throws with a rural Pennsylvania high school basketball team. Obama needs to run for president as if he was running for the mayor of Altoona, PA.
And Hillary needs to go on a long vacation.
- Rand, you should love me for this addition. :)monkeyshine
- mwah!********
- ********0
"Philadelphia Daily News:
VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMATHE CHOICE in Tuesday's Democratic presidential primary is not only the one between a white woman and a black man. It's a choice between the past and the future.
So begins The Philadelphia Daily News endorsement of Barack Obama The Daily News more than the Inquirer is the paper of the working and lower middle class people of the city and its immediate surroundings. Obviously the editorial was written before last night's "debate". IMHO, it addresses far more the concerns of the voters of the Keystone State than the vast majority of the questions offered in the televised forum with which so many of us wasted our time. I want to begin my diary today with the contents of the editorial, but also go a bit further, if you will indulge me by continuing to read.
The editorial is clearly framed by the concerns the paper things should be driving the decision, the aspects of our nations worsening financial situation - dropping home prices, weak financial markets and rising joblessness - and the impact of our continued debacle in Iraq - with its costs obvious over there and back in our military and veterans' hospitals. And then the editorial poses the key question:Should Democrats choose someone who will employ hard-won - even bitter - experiences gained in a past Democratic administration, or reach beyond political truisms toward a new (and untried) model of governing?
The paper notes that the choice is not obvious, which is why this contest has been so extended. Then it offers its answer:
But the long slog through 44 primaries and caucuses has confirmed for us that Sen. Barack Obama's vision of change - and the way he plans to pursue it - is what we need right now. Badly.
Let me repeat the key part, that Obama's vision of change - and the way he plans to pursue it - is what we need right now. Badly.
The paper offers its editorial as based on the needs of this nation after the attacks in 2001, noting that the nation is still suffering from PTSD:
That day and its aftermath cried out for a revolution of values: a clear-eyed shared vision, a cooperative effort, a unified purpose. It cried out for a recognition that conventional warfare and conventional responses to domestic challenges in an era of globalization were not enough.
That cry was not answered.
And how do they view the candidates with respect to the nation's needs?
Contrary to Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign slogan, we believe Barack Obama is more likely to be "ready on Day One" to lead us in a new direction. Because of his experience.
They are somewhat dismissive of Clinton's claim of more "experience", noting that it is largely a product of simply aving lived 14 years longer. And they are also bothered by the possible role of her husband. But they bring it down to something quite basic:
THERE IS a way to match Clinton's and Obama's performances on a relatively equal playing field: their campaigns.
A candidate's campaign may be the best indicator of how she or he will govern. If so, an Obama administration would be well-managed, inclusive and astonishingly broad-based. It would make good use of technology and communicate a message of unity and, yes, hope.
It would not be content with eking out slim victories by playing to the narrow interests of the swing voters of the moment while leaving the rest of the country as deeply divided as ever. Instead, an Obama administration would seek to expand the number of Americans who believe that they have a personal stake in our collective future - and that they have the power to change things.
When I read what I have just quoted, I felt is if someone in the media had finally had the appropriate epiphany. The Daily News has recognized the importance of the 50 state strategy, that it is representational of the ideal of the Obama campaign of reaching out across traditional political and culture divides, and that it is the only way we can truly bring the nation together. And - yes - expanding those tied to a belief in our collective future will be the way we make the significant change this nation needs, and it will be driven much less top down and much more bottom up.
The editorial goes on to hit other key points:
... the approach would motivate the people to hold their representatives accountable, which is how we will get the meaningful change we need in things like health care, energy and education
... an Obama administration would be far more free of the influence of big money interests (and here they note the huge number of small donors funding the campaign)
... appropriately describing the campaign as a quarter-billion dollar enterprise, the paper concludes Obama would have a well-organized administration that works together as a team.
He would be steady and calm, given neither to irrational exuberance or outbursts of anger. He would make mistakes, that's for sure, but he could be expected to recognize them, adjust, and move forward.
He would adjust his views to reality rather than trying to adjust reality to his views.
Oh, how much the nation needs what that sentence says, in contrast to what we have received from the Bush administration: Obama would adjust his views to reality rather than trying to adjust reality to his views. Imagine, policy making based on reality rather than wishful interpretation of ideology.
The praise Obama for his inspiring of young people, noting his willingness to be free from being dominated by the views of my generation, the baby boomers - and yes, there are many of us even here and we have our needs, but our voices should not drown out those of others with concerns different than ours (sorry, Meteor Blades, Jim Webb and all of us who are fellow '46ers - and this is NOT a callout, since the other two offer much in accord with this).
The editorial notes something quite clear from the event in Philadelphia last night, that Obama would
lower the tone of the rhetoric that separates us.
Then after quoting with admiration Bill Richardon's description of Obama as a once-in-a-lifetime candidate who can take us beyond the normal ways in which we are divided to a shared destiny, even despite our "well-founded fears" the editorial concludes very simply:
Most candidates claim that they will change the way business is done in Washington. Barack Obama has made us believe that, yes, he can.
I read the editorial. It so "gets" the Obama campaign, and the response to those willing to go beyond the traditional ways of looking at politics. It perhaps grasps in a way I had not yet seen how effectively Obama has addressed the mood of the nation.
I have no idea what influence this editorial will have, how many points difference in the margins on Tuesday. But the editorial board has been watching and listening closely for the past five weeks. If they can offer this, I have to believe that there may indeed be something going on that is not reflected in polling data, and the normal political analysis.
I think it is a superb editorial. I urge you to read the entire thing, then pass it on to any undecided and wavering voters you know, not only in Pennsylvania, but in Indiana and North Carolina, and to any uncommitted super delegates with which you have a connection.
The Daily News nailed it.
Most candidates claim that they will change the way business is done in Washington. Barack Obama has made us believe that, yes, he can."
- whut0
http://www.time.com/time/politic…
the american political debate has turned into a sissy fight. ^ that's good a breakdown of it...
- utopian0
If Hillary can some how beat out Obama as the Democratic nominee, I will swallow my pride and vote for her against McCain.
- monkeyshine0
I'm sorry but Obama should thank the commentators for asking him these questions because these are going to be pounded at him in the general election. You may think them silly but the religion one in particular is not going to die. He needs to get on top of this now.
At a time of foreign wars, economic collapse and environmental peril, the cringe-worthy first half of the debate focused on such crucial matters as Senator Obama's comments about rural bitterness, his former pastor, an obscure sixties radical with whom he was allegedly "friendly," and the burning constitutional question of why he doesn't wear an American flag pin on his lapel — with a single detour into Senator Hillary Clinton's yarn about sniper fire in Tuzla. Apparently, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos ran out of time before they could ask Obama why he's such a lousy bowler.
- ********0
"We all agree that last night's so-called debate was execrable. We all agree that the nation should collectively hold ABC's feet to the fire. We all agree that ABC and George Stephanapoulos and Charlie Gibson colluded to carry water for the other side, generally, and Sean Hannity in particular.
We all agree. But we're not talking about what actually happened last night. What it all means. What ABC's performance underscores in spades.
Last night? Last night was the collective establishment on both sides of the aisles telling we, the people, to go fuck ourselves.
Last night, the people who consider themselves to be the true "elites" of this nation began stepping up their game, showing us what Obama -- and we -- should start to expect if we keep pushing a candidacy that they can't control.
Last night, the corporate-controlled media and the right-wing noise machine and the RNC and the old Democratic party guard made it absolutely clear that they consider democracy, the netroots, and anybody who hopes for true change in America an anathema. The enemy. The other.
Last night, the people who've entrenched their control of this country and become fatter and happier during 24 years of the combined Bush and Clinton political dynasties said, "Not so fast."
Last night, people who truly believe they're better and more important than the rest of us told us to step the hell off.
Last night, they put us on notice that, once again, there's no bar below which they're not willing to crawl, no playing field they won't deliberately tilt off level, no lie they won't tell, no stunt they won't pull, no deck they won't stack, no dice they won't load to put the genie of an empowered U.S. public back in the bottle."
- power tends to rig, no news there.********
- fair shake in o8********
- power tends to rig, no news there.
- ********0
Robert Reich:
"I saw the ads" — the negative man-on-street commercials that the Clinton campaign put up in Pennsylvania in the wake of Obama's bitter/cling comments a week ago — "and I was appalled, frankly. I thought it represented the nadir of mean-spirited, negative politics. And also of the politics of distraction, of gotcha politics. It's the worst of all worlds. We have three terrible traditions that we've developed in American campaigns. One is outright meanness and negativity. The second is taking out of context something your opponent said, maybe inartfully, and blowing it up into something your opponent doesn't possibly believe and doesn't possibly represent. And third is a kind of tradition of distraction, of getting off the big subject with sideshows that have nothing to do with what matters. And these three aspects of the old politics I've seen growing in Hillary's campaign. And I've come to the point, after seeing those ads, where I can't in good conscience not say out loud what I believe about who should be president. Those ads are nothing but Republicanism. They're lending legitimacy to a Republican message that's wrong to begin with, and they harken back to the past 20 years of demagoguery on guns and religion. It's old politics at its worst — and old Republican politics, not even old Democratic politics. It's just so deeply cynical."
- TheBlueOne0
She fucking dump me.
- ********0
"Barber reports in his 2001 book that Hillary Clinton said "Screw 'em" about southern working class whites who did not support Bill Clinton. Two other scholar-particiants, Alan Wolfe and Harry Boyte, agree she said this. Reported demurrals (and not a clear denial) come from Clinton staffers Bruce Reed and Don Baer, not from the independent intellectuals in attendance. But independent witnesses who keep notes trump employees any day.
I have gone back to my 1995 notes to check my recollections of the event. My notes do not have any exact words, so I am not going to try to corroborate a particular phrase from Hillary Clinton or any other speaker.
But what is clear in both in my memory and my notes is that there was extensive, hard-nosed discussion about why masses of voters did not support Clinton or trust government or base their choices on economic as opposed to what people saw as peripheral life-style concerns. Hillary Clinton was among the most cold-blooded analysts in attendance. She spoke of ordinary voters as if they were a species apart, and showed interest only in the political usefulness of their choices -- usefulness to the Clinton administration, that is.
I vividly remember at the time finding it impressive that Bill Clinton (NOT Hillary Clinton) showed real empathy for the ordinary people whose motives and supposedly misguided choices were under analysis. Ironically, just as Barber reported, Bill Clinton was the one who combined analysis and empathy, much as Obama himself did in his full San Francisco remarks.
I think this whole angle of "gotcha" politics about snippets of speech transposed from one context to another is ridiculous and pathological for democracy in America -- and I cannot fathom why the Clintons or George Stephanopoulos are descending to this dirt, not to mention the guilt-by-association crap. It is particularly despicable of them to criticize Obama for the sort of observation/analysis that was routine in and around the 1990s Clinton White House. And I cannot help but feel there is a psychological edge of pure envy in Bill Clinton's attacks: Obama is empathetic and charismatic as well as smart, just like Bill was back then, in those so much better days!
Over and out. I am going to try to find a way to preserve in amber my better memories and feelings about the Clintons, so as not to lose altogether the sense of admiration I once felt, but can no longer."
- pom0
- TheBlueOne0
Pope says Americans are bitter & angry:
"Benedict examined American society, saying he detected anger and alienation, increasing violence and a "growing forgetfulness of God."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/…
I will sit and await Clinton and McCain to denounce the Pope and calling him "out of touch"...
- gay nazi********
- But he has fashionable hats & shoes you gotta admit.TheBlueOne
- gay nazi
- utopian0
It is not looking good for Hillary, her days are numbers as a candidate.
- TheBlueOne0
Here Hillary, enjoy a nice cup of stfu:
- ********0
The Democratic Presidential Primary in Pennsylvania is getting even closer. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state shows Hillary Clinton with 47% of the vote and Barack Obama with 44%. This election poll was conducted Thursday night, the night following a nationally televised debate between the candidates. Last Monday, Clinton was leading Obama 50% to 41%.
Obama’s support appears to be a bit softer than Clinton’s at this point in time. Six percent (6%) of Obama voters say there’s a good chance they could change their mind before voting. Only 2% of Clinton supporters say the same.
Overall, with less than a week to go, 9% of Pennsylvania voters remain undecided, 3% say there’s a good chance they will change their mind, and another 12% might change their mind. Among those who are certain how they will vote, Clinton leads 53% to 47%.
Perhaps the worst news in the survey for Clinton has nothing to do with the race getting closer. Fifty-seven percent (57%) say that the Superdelegates should honor the results of the primaries even if “something happens to convince Superdelegates that Hillary Clinton would have a better chance of beating John McCain.” If Clinton is deemed more electable, just 33% believe that the Superdelegates should select her over Obama. Clinton’s only viable path to the nomination is to convince the Superdelegates that they should vote for her despite Obama’s edge among pledged delegates.
- TheBlueOne0
"I helped rig a 4- by 10-foot sign in the restaurant. Chelsea Clinton would be here in 30 minutes.
No one heard when it began, but we soon realized there was a background noise. We stopped to listen: It was a static-riddled voice, like someone was speaking into a megaphone.
'... words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage ...'
It was coming from the brownstone next to Cobre.
'... it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup ...'
On what looked like the fourth floor, someone had attached a small speaker to the building, and pointed it toward us. The voice picked up.
'... the press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization ...'
"Is that God?" asked an older volunteer.
"No," I said, standing near the brownstone, "that's Obama."
Someone was blasting Obama's speech on race, delivered nine days before at the National Constitution Center, on repeat. The brownstone door opened, and out came a guy who looked like a young Clint Eastwood. He had on wraparound sunglasses and a houndstooth fedora. He sat on the stoop, gazed into the distance.
"What's going on?" asked one of the staffers. We explained. "My god," she said, "I can't fucking stand Obama people."
This one person's show managed to draw attention away from Chelsea Clinton's event, which took hours to organize. It's simple, grassroots, startup ideas like this that have poked holes in the Clintons' carefully crafted messages."
- ********0
2pence supports Obama
- ********0
"As a moderate Democrat, I have supported HRC since the early days of the campaign. I think a review of the few diaries that I have written will confirm this.
It was a difficult decision--I agonized over the decision for quite some time. I liked both candidates. Nearly all of my friends are huge BO supporters.
Still, I questioned the experience factor and came down in favor of HRC just barely.
Now I say...
Enough is enough
I am thoroughly convinced that BO will be the Democratic nominee and that it is vital to put the interests of the American people first and foremost--certainly above the individual aspirations and ambitions of a candidate, whether that be HRC or anyone else for that matter.
With each passing week, HRC is simply laying out the groundwork that the GOP will be following. To those who argue the contrary, I would simply state: one way to win a political argument is to engage in the "Big Lie." History is replete with disingenuous political figures who were able to captivate the public with repeating a big lie multiple times over and over again until the lie permeates the conscience.
This is what is now occurring. By openly questioning and attacking the patriotism of BO, HRC is unwittingly stating arguments which can only be given strength by the neo cons who are surrounding JM. In fact--her arguments are providing the essence of the GOP and their 527's swift boat goons with sound bites.
Is BO the perfect candidate?
There is no such thing.
Is his campaign perfect?
There are flaws in every campaign.
The last straw--the one that broke the camel's back--was HRC's comments castigating Democratic activists.
Mrs. Clinton--I am one of those activists. I stood by your husband even at the height of his impeachment. I stood by when the GOP took over Congress during his first mid-term election.
And I stood by you even though the writing has been on the wall the past few months that BO was riding a tidal wave and this just was not in the cards for you.
I stood by you when President Clinton engaged in tactics which appeared to inject race into this campaign. I argued with my friends and others that this was simply magnified by the media and by a skilled BO campaign.
But now you have attacked my brothers and sisters--men and women who also stood by President Clinton. Men and women that made it possible for him to win two terms. Men and women who came forth with their hearts, their sweat and their pocket books to support him during the darkest days of his political career.
Perhaps this is only fitting.
I for one implore the people of Pennsylvania to end this charade. It is time for the Democratic Party to do everything possible to ensure that we do not face Bush's third term.
It is vital that we do everything to preserve the lives of our troops--to reunite them with their families.
It is vital that we punch back at the GOP and their 527's who are already getting their ads together to smear and tarnish the reputation of BO, whose only sin was to aspire to a political position that has been coveted also by a former first lady.
There are no coronations in America.
Being married to a president does not entitle one to take his role. This is not a monarchy. This is a democracy.
This is a land where a child whose father deserted can grow up to become the first AA editor of the Harvard Law Review and can become President of the United States.
Sorry for the rambling message.
I have a lot that has built up inside of me for the past several months.
I now feel like the weight of the world has been lifted from my shoulders.
Mrs. Clinton--please do your country the best service you could have ever imagined.
Work for the defeat of a Bush third term.
Stop smearing a truly decent man destined to be President of the United States.
This former HRC supporter says quite simply what my mother used to say to my brothers and sisters when we used to act up--
Enough is enough"