Clinton thread
- Started
- Last post
- 442 Responses
- ukit0
^ is a take off on this BTW, the main Hillary supporter site
- flashbender0
IF you factor out the republican skewing the polls in Hillary's favor, Obama would have taken Indiana too. But still it looks like she is hell bent on doing as much damage to him as she can before the curtain falls.
- ukit0
Except now everyone think it really is over...NC and IN were her last chance to close the popular vote gap in a meaningful way. The party will begin to come together now to beat McCain.
- mrdobolina0
I can't wait for the puerto rican primary!!!!
viva la raza!
- ********0
McCainnnnnnn!!!!!!
- MrOneHundred0
They Government-funded TV and radio network in Australia is reporting that “the only person who won’t yet admit that Obama is the democratic nominee is Clinton”
- flashbender0
for mg33 - just a quickie, could be better, but still kinda funny
- ********0
"Here is what I have learned about the Clintons through this race (and now in retrospect, about them in the past):
They plan from one immediate need to the next, and no farther. They lurch from petty political goal to the next political goal. Sometimes those goals don't last a week.
I used to think that she was squandering the black vote because, in her arrogance, she figured they'd just fall in line like any good machine candidate would think. But I've nuanced that opinion: she didn't think that far ahead. She'd figure she'd worry about it later. She'd pander to blacks later. she'd make promises later. She'd forget what offenses she had caused, and swat those pesky offenses away like flies.
The Clintons are psychologically incapable of strategizing, assessing consequences, weighing choices that might offend or set off anyone who isn't in their immediate sights.
Do we want a Commander-in-Chief who thinks like that? Oh, wait -- we have one now........
The Republican meme -- the Clintons will do anything to win. Man, I defended the Clintons against such a horrendous attack for 16 God damn years. If you people would just stop picking on them, they'd do great things.
Well, in light of this campaign, I get it now. Anything. Offend, demean, insult anyone -- even an obviously good man who is your Democratic rival and all of his supporters. I'm a traitor, by the way: I'm white, 58 years old and a feminist, so I must be a traitor because I don't blindly follow the candidate who is using the most egregious affirmative action there is: the Clinton name.
It's lizard-brain-ish: just attack what's in front of you and get that threat out of the way, by any means necessary.
I've lived through 8 nightmarish years of Bush. I won't accept that from a Democrat. And I certainly won't accept it from a Clinton. "
- ********0
"Cokie Roberts was on This Week with George Stephanopolous - as usual - but this week she was saying how unfair the media has been to Hillary, calling for her to drop-out and that it surely must be for sexist reasons. Then she muttered something to the effect of "and I don't even read the blogs, I can't even begin to imagine what their saying." Oh--- how awful it must be to have to suffer through the voice of actual voters, Cokie. I've got news for you sweetheart -- it can't be any harder than listening to you and George Will bloviate on and on, all the while feeding each other's smug sense of entitlement on an otherwise pleasant Sunday morning.
- ********0
"In the Memphis Daily News on Friday, an article was published which gives deep insight into just why some Superdelegates are not backing Hillary Clinton and a possible reason why a lot of them are, and maybe why some are noncommittal.
Supposedly, Congressman Lincoln Davis of Tennessee, an uncommitted superdelegate, was contacted by the Clinton campaign in hopes that they could woo him to commit to her campaign. The story posted on the front page of The Hill newspaper said that Davis had turned down an invitation to meet with her team.
"He says that's not true," U.S. Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., told The Daily News about Davis' refusal to meet with Clinton. "But that's on the front page of The Hill. I told him he might as well go ahead and endorse Barack (Obama), because once Hillary sees that he's a dead man anyway."
We all know the story of how in 1993, Hillary Clinton was tasked with bringing about health care reform. She says she worked with Congress to get a bill passed, but I'd never heard this story before. Apparently, Congressman Cooper had already written a health care bill.
"They turned up their nose at my bill, and that's fine. But then they constructed this secret 500-person task force to draft a whole new bill - and I knew it would go nowhere," Cooper said. "So I went privately to the White House to warn (Hillary Clinton). No publicity. No nothing.
"She brought in a camera to record the meeting. And she has not released the memos on this meeting. She immediately declared war on me. I warned her we didn't even have the votes (for her bill) in our subcommittee. She said, 'We're going to (politically) cut your legs off.' I've never gotten such a cold reception as I got from her."
Team Clinton then set up a war room to go against him and defeat his Senate bid in 1994. He says they hired a former Nashville reporter to head the war room. But during this time, President Clinton was as nice as he could be to Rep. Cooper, playing golf with him, running with him, and asking him to hang out at the White House.
Cooper is the state chairman of Obama's campaign in Tennessee. He's also my Representative and was nice enough to send me a letter thanking me for registering to vote in Tennessee this year. I thought that was a nice touch. Of course if he'd known I'd voted for Obama, he may have even signed the letter personally. [Update 4: Wasn't him. I found the letter and discovered it was sent by my State Senator Joe Haynes instead.]
But I digress. Here's what he says about Hillary's supporters:
"I respect Hillary supporters because they haven't had the chance to get to know her like I have. She does not have the political skills of her husband. Or Barack. You need somebody who can bring people together. She criticized my health care bill because it wouldn't achieve universal coverage until 1998. Well, today we'd be celebrating the 10th anniversary of having every American with insurance." (emphasis mine)
So, ladies and gentlemen, be sure to thank Senator Clinton for killing Cooper's bill. Amazing."
- TheBlueOne0
"Today, the Rude Pundit's thinking about Hillary Clinton's campaign metaphorically, as in:
1. The guy who's fucking his girlfriend and, even though he came and his dick has gone flaccid, he's gonna keep fucking away with that soft, shrunken cock, trying desperately to make her orgasm as she just gets annoyed, distracted, cold, and sticky.
2. The dog that got hit by the car trying to cross the highway before that semi bearing down on it finishes the job. Much yelping, limping, and internal bleeding would, of course, be part of the scene.
3. The soldier who is surrounded by the enemy, his head filled with cinematic images of Rambo and Chuck Norris and others who have blasted their way out of such situations, when, in reality, he's about to become a colander.
4. The little match girl.
5. The college student hoping that the roaches and buds left in her baggie will be enough for a few decent bong hits before the big World Civ final, when, really, any high she gets will be all in her head."
- subversve0
"LET'S SAY Hillary Clinton's remaining primary rival were not Barack Obama but a white male. Suppose she were ahead in pledged delegates, led in the popular vote in DNC-approved contests, had raised the most money, and had attracted the most contributors.
Let's further suppose that her rival had responded to her success by suggesting he might pick her as his vice-presidential nominee. And that, as she gained more momentum, he asserted that superdelegates should nevertheless make him the nominee because he could attract the working-class voters the party needed to win in the fall.
Clinton supporters would likely find those suggestions sexist.
And yet Clinton and her camp have made the same suggestions in this campaign. Clinton's political arguments have found a broad acceptance among her backers - an acceptance that's hard to imagine if a similar case were made by a lagging rival in a race Clinton led.
And even as those arguments are offered, some of Clinton's backers, as well as some commentators, seem convinced that sexism and double standards are among the principal reasons she has fallen dauntingly behind Obama.
Now, I wouldn't assert for a second that sexism is extinct. It, like racism, is real, and one would have to be purposely oblivious not to notice it in our culture. Further, there are plenty of unhinged Hillary haters out there. And whatever the motivation, we've also seen some exceedingly silly media stories about Clinton. High among them rank the deconstruction of her laugh and the attention focused on a Clinton outfit that showed a bit of cleavage on the Senate floor. (How that must have shocked the chaste and ascetic monks who have long inhabited that storied chamber!)
People are right to decry boorish anti-Clinton comments, offensive jokes, and the bilge, bile, and billings-gate of the talk-radio blowhards, as well as occasional over-the-top utterances from cable commentators.
But let's not mistake the Bruegelian sideshow for the political mainstream. Even allowing for all that stupidity, the notion that sexism is primarily to blame for Clinton's woes doesn't pass logical muster.
Consider: Last fall, Clinton was widely judged the prohibitive front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. In early October, she led Obama by a staggering 53 percent to 20 percent in the Washington Post/ABC News poll. At that point, her average lead in national polls was 20 percentage points.
Therefore, if gender bias really were the cause of her primary problem, one would have to posit that a epidemic of resurgent sexism suddenly infected the country late last year.
Further, as Clinton herself has pointed out, she has emerged as the favorite of working-class white men, a cohort sometimes viewed as resistant to women politicians.
A better explanation of her misfortune? Running against a candidate whose talents they underestimated, Clinton and her campaign simply missed the boat. They badly misconceptualized the race, casting her as the prohibitive front-runner and inevitable winner. (Remember when CBS's Katie Couric asked Clinton how disappointed she would be if she didn't become the nominee, only to have Clinton insist, "Well, it will be me"?) Running that way creates a predictable backlash. Convinced she would prevail, Clinton ran a cautious, calculating campaign, emphasizing her Washington experience and attempting to finesse difficult issues, at a time when Democrats were hungry for change and eager for something bolder.
Team Clinton's other failings are well documented. They didn't pay enough attention to the caucus states. Expecting to wrap the nomination up on Super Tuesday, they failed to plan adequately for the contests beyond. While Obama used the Internet to build a huge base of smaller donors, Clinton's team relied for too long on big contributors. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton's finger-wagging outbursts and his dismissive comments about Obama's South Carolina victory thrust him into the forefront, sparking renewed Clinton fatigue and alienating black voters.
Bluntly put, it wasn't sexism that has brought Clinton to her current plight. Rather, Obama and his team have out-thought, out-sought, and out-fought Clinton and hers. As a candidate, Clinton is smart and tough - but Obama has proved the one who better met the moment."
Scot Lehigh can be reached at .
- ********0
interesting how hillary inspires fuxtapes: remixed movies... there was 'Downfall" and now "sunset Blvd"
curious ( and funny too)
- los0
- ********0
"I have a confession to make. I've gotten complacent. For the past week and a half, I have not made many phone calls, and I laughed off Obama's 41-point loss in West Virginia. I have been telling Obama supporters in the blogosphere to lay off of Clinton, figuring she was just staying in until Tuesday or until the end of the primaries and then would bow out gracefully. I did not think we needed to worry much about what she says or does anymore.
Last night, I got a wake-up call. I listened to the audio of her conference call with bloggers, which a DUer was kind enough to partially transcribe, and I realized that while she may bow out on June 4 and endorse Obama and encourage her supporters to vote for him, there's more to her strategy than meets the eye. I don't think she is planning to take this to the Convention, and she could be angling for the VP slot. But there's a far more troubling possibility here. From the sound of what she encouraged her bloggers to push last night, it sounds like she is trying to delegitimize him or cloud his legitimacy when he eventually clinches the nomination, as part of a stealth campaign for 2012.
On the call last night, she reiterated her claim that she is ahead in the popular vote, which is only true if you give her her votes from Michigan but give Obama 0 AND don't count the four caucus states that don't release vote totals. This would mean ignoring 4 states when she claims it would be a travesty to ignore 2. In addition, she encouraged bloggers to push the idea that caucuses are undemocratic, and she continues to talk about Michigan and Florida, both on the conference call and in her public appearances.
She said that if Michigan and Florida are not seated, "it will undermine the legitimacy of our nominee". She knows that Michigan and Florida will not put her ahead in the delegate count, and that the only chance of them helping her with the popular vote is if the will of Michigan voters is misconstrued by giving Obama no votes despite thousands of people there who wanted to vote for him. But by continuing to harp on Michigan and Florida, she can continue to, as she said, undermine the legitimacy of our nominee.
Her continued focus on Michigan and Florida, as well as her complaints about caucuses being undemocratic and her very dubious claim that she leads in the popular vote are troubling because they seem designed to create doubt that Obama has earned the nomination fair and square. She knows that if she tried to go to the convention, the superdelegates would come out for Obama to give him the majority, and she would look like a saboteur dragging it out in hopes that they change their mind. But by confusing the facts and casting doubt on his legitimacy, she can encourage resentment among her supporters that will persist even if she drops out after June 4 and endorses Obama. If they feel that she was pushed out illegitimately, at least some of her supporters may decide to sit it out or vote for McCain in hopes of giving her another chance in 2012.
In addition to creating questions about Obama's legitimacy as the nominee, she played the gender card yet again last night. She said that she "deeply regrets the vitriol and the mean-spiritedness and the terrible insults and rhetoric that has been thrown around at you for supporting me, at women in general, at many of those who support my campaign because of who they are and their stand based on principle." This is not the first time she has claimed that she is being treated differently because of her gender, and it appears to encourage women who feel she has been mistreated because she is a woman to keep feeling that way.
This, like the talking points designed to cloud Obama's legitimacy in terms of the math, could be part of a strategy to fan the flames of resentment among her supporters, particularly women. Yes, she may bow out gracefully after the primaries are over, but she wants to make sure her supporters are as disappointed and even angry when she does. She appears to want them to feel that she was wronged, making it harder for them to turn around and support Obama. She'll bow out eventually and give a speech that will probably tug at people's heartstrings and make them wistful, with some people perhaps hoping that she gets another chance in 4 years.
This may sound paranoid, but there are several factors that could exacerbate the temptation among her supporters to wait it out. McCain is 71 and may only serve 1 term, and unfortunately, many people still perceive him as moderate enough to tolerate for four years. The fact that the Democrats are likely to retain the majorities in Congress could make this worse, as people may feel more complacent about McCain being president because they think he'll be limited in what he can do by a Democratic Congress.
So if there really is a stealth campaign for 2012 going on already, what can we do about it? The answer is not to continue to spew hatred towards her here or anywhere else in the blogosphere, as we have unfortunately done too much of this season, helping to create this situation where many Clinton activists have hardened toward Obama. Please refrain from saying anything that could possibly be construed as sexist, as this will only exacerbate the problem. Instead, focus your energy on helping Obama run up the popular vote total, and stay vigilant. I have described a few steps for action below:
First, keep making calls to Kentucky and Oregon, especially Oregon. Clinton seems to be gaining in the polls there, and it's possible that Obama's supporters may be more complacent about returning their ballots because they think it's over. It's too late to mail the ballots and ensure that they will arrive in time, but the campaign is offering to pick up people's ballots and deliver them. We need to make phone calls to let people know that. It's important for Obama to run up as big of a popular vote margin there as possible to take away any claim she might have to it.
Second, we need to hold Clinton's feet to the fire. She will most likely do more town halls between now and June 4. She claims she is not afraid of tough questions, so people who live in Montana and South Dakota should go and ask her some. Don't go as Obama supporters...go as voters. Ask her why she claims it would be a travesty if Michigan and Florida were excluded but thinks it's okay to exclude the caucus results from Iowa, Maine, Nebraska and Washington in her popular vote count. Ask her why she praised caucuses and called them a "wonderful tradition" before Iowa, and now claims they are undemocratic. Most importantly, ask her if she plans to run in 2012 if she does not get the nomination this year, and whether she will rule out running against a sitting Democratic president. She will probably waffle and evade the question, but by at least asking the question, we can put it out there and hopefully get the media to question whether she is running for 2012 right now. If you see any news organizations planning to interview her and soliciting ideas for questions, post the question about 2012 on their blogs as well.
Third, we need to write to news organizations and blogs and refute this baloney about her being ahead in the popular vote. If she creates the impression that she is ahead in the popular vote, no matter how selective and misleading her metrics are, it will really damage Obama's legitimacy, especially among Democrats who remain bitter about Florida 2000. And we can help to debunk her caucus argument by pointing out that she called them a "wonderful tradition" on her website, and now claims they are undemocratic. Point out that many of the caucus states have laws that require employers to give time off to vote if voting is not available outside of their work hours, and that her campaign failed to inform people that they had the right to this time off. Encourage news organizations to stop reporting her ridiculous spin about caucuses, the popular vote, and Michigan and Florida that are clearly designed to delegitimize Obama as the nominee.
Fourth, in a bit of shameless promotion, help get this diary on the rec list, to help create awareness of the need to refute her spin and stay vigilant about the final primaries."
- Drno0
400
