Clinton thread
- Started
- Last post
- 442 Responses
- Jaline0
Anyway, forget about that. I'm definitely going to comment about something if it is biased. I can't help it.
- It's because your attention span is about 5 seconds these days. Your brain is shutting off.********
- It's because your attention span is about 5 seconds these days. Your brain is shutting off.
- mg330
i saw a clip last night of yet another Hillary speech with some witticism like "We need a commander in chief who is more than just speeches..."
But seriously, isn't that all that both of them are doing? I favor Obama tremendously and can't picture Hillary winning the general election at all. But what validity does she have in calling him out over and over and over on giving speeches when they both give very few details at this point about how they would actually accomplish the most pressing issues in this campaign.
It's seriously uncanny how frequently she tries to paint Obama as all talk and no chance of actually accomplishing anything. All her "we need a president who can go beyond speeches and get the work done" is some of the most idiotic rhetoric of the campaign.
As far as I'm concerned, they both have equal chance of stepping in as President and having the opportunity to do what they say they will. The difference is what they want to accomplish. She says just as little as he does in terms of specifics, yet in her warped mind she has all the answers and solutions "just because."
- she attacks the speeches because they represent what he is and she is not--a leader with a soul********
- she attacks the speeches because they represent what he is and she is not--a leader with a soul
- Jaline0
Because that's the only thing she can use against him. He seriously has no other mark on himself.
Just saying it like it is...I support both and don't support either one at this point.
- mrdobolina0
I don't want a divisive character like clinton as president.
- she's a republican at heart********
- I would agree that she is more republican than Obama, and more republican in general.Jaline
- she's a republican at heart
- Drno0
Randd you tried at least,
i don't even know why someone will bust his own ass to become president of the U.S.
the next president must be suicidal at least, because he/she's going to find himself/herself (lets hope hillary wins so I can rejoice) in a very bad political/economic/social situationthe major part of the US citizen where crying that OSAMA ooops Obama was a muslim, now they're complaining because he's a christian.
I quote you man
"Randd
you deserve the bullshit you live within "they really do
- monkeyshine0
"you deserve the bullshit you live within"
Because I'm concerned with Obama's ability to take his leadership beyong a pulpit??? Um...okay.
I like the idea of him but I am concerned once we get into a general election that McCain will plow him over. Do I think Hillary will do any better? No. I question that she could ever overcome the disdain she seems to evoke.
- TheBlueOne0
- she has a broom?********
- Wow, and I thought people took American Idol too seriously. This is going TOO far.********
- *throws up in mouth*ukit
- Just think if she wins. These boobs will somehow feel empowered. It must stop.TheBlueOne
- she has a broom?
- ********0
"I spent the last five hours in my woodshop with a lathe and sandpaper and an awl, carving this beautiful oak chair that I now present to you.
I did it because you will need something to sit down on when the full measure of what Ambinder wrote crashes upon you like all the heavens and the stars above.
Let me repeat it.
Because it bears repeating.
That speech today? The one that has pundits--from the liberal David Corn at The Nation ("This is as sophisticated a discussion of race as any American politician has sought to present to the public") to the conservative Charles Murray, of National Review Online ("it is just plain flat out brilliant—rhetorically, but also in capturing a lot of nuance about race in America. It is so far above the standard we're used to from our pols."), and those inbetween--noting the brilliance, sophistication, sincerity and candor of the words spoken by Obama? That speech?
He wrote it himself.
Once more, with feeling:
He wrote it. Himself.
Barack Obama did. He wrote it.
Now, if you are like me, and I pray for your soul you are not, you had the normal reaction to finding out this piece of information. You rushed right to the Library of Congress to determine exactly the last time that a President or a presidential candidate wrote a major speech alone, by himself or herself.
And, of course, what you discover is that other than the speeches Obama has written for himself, the last time a major speech was written without the aid of a speechwriter by a president or presidential candidate was Nixon's "Great Silent Majority" speech delivered on October 13, 1969.
Now that was a good speech. Evil, no doubt, to its very core, and designed to proliferate the feelings that allowed the great Southern Strategy success, but a good speech nevertheless.
In other words, not in my lifetime. And I am oldish. I have kids and wear dark socks with slippers and complain about the quality of my lawn and get hungover way too easily. But in the last 37 years there hasn't been a speech like this written by the man himself. Not like this.
Here is a chair. Regardless of who you support, or what you think of Obama, I want you to sit here, right here on this chair and consider something wonderful. To wit:
It is possible that we will have a President who not only will speak in full, complete sentences, but who will do so in a manner that is eloquent, and who will also be articulate and eloquent in delivering words he is intelligent enough to know, understand, and use in a speech he is capable of writing himself.
This chair, it is oak.
Sit and think about that.
After seven years of the worst crumble-bumblings of the nattering nabob from Crawford, think about that.
He wrote that speech. He wrote it. He, himself. "
- mg330
I thought this comment, from this web page, http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/a…, was pretty funny:
Let's see if we can make sense of this.....
McCain: Graduate of the navel academy
Clinton: Graduate of Wellesley collegeMcCain: fighter pilot of Vietnam
Clinton: fought against the war in VietnamMcCain: Shot down over north Vietnam
Clinton: About to be shot down by Barack ObamaMcCain: Tortured by North Vietnam
Clinton: Tortured by Bill ClintonMcCain: caught up in Keating five
Clinton: caught up in numerous scandalsMcCain: Can't get immigration right
Clinton: can't get her stories right about foreign policyMcCain: sings Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran
Clinton: Sings the star spangled banner off keyMcCain: Passed many bills in the Senate
Clinton: Still waitingMcCain: has the wisdom of being involved in war and terror
Clinton: Stood behind her husband at ceremoniesBarack is right...
Hillary has no experience whatsoever....
- ********0
"The Obama-Clinton primary is over. Obama is the nominee. His speech yesterday ended it. All that's left is to count the delegates.
With respect to pledged delegates,"barring an unlikely string of landslide victories by the former first lady in the remaining states," Obama will win the pledged delegate count when all the primaries and caucuses are done. Given the Democratic party's proportional delegate rules, Hillary is cooked on this one.
With respect to the overall popular vote, now that Florida and Michigan are off the table, experts say Obama's lead, currently at about 800,000, is insurmountable, barring (once again) an unprecedented string of Hillary landslides.
So Hillary's only chance of winning, as Markos has pointed out, is coup by superdelegate. Yesterday's speech by Obama ended that option for good.
People can reasonably debate whether Obama's speech will sway white working class voters in Pennsylvania. But no one can disagree that the speech has hit State-level Democratic leaders (who make up the superdelegate population) like a thunderclap. The speech reminded long time Democratic activists of why they got into politics in the first place, and even Hillary's supporters agree that it was a tour de force, and one of the greatest political speeches in modern times. There is simply no way that the superdelegates are going to move against Obama en masse in the wake of that earth shattering call to greatness. And it was a call to greatness, of the type no one under 60 has really heard from any political leader.
The game is ending. The Michigan Florida do-over option is dead. And now, the coup by superdelegate strategy is dead as well. Obama is the nominee, even if Hillary has not been mathematically eliminated. Simply put, Hillary has about as much chance of winning as Jerry Brown did in 1992, when he continued to fight Bill Clinton in April and May, before Bill had locked up a delegate majority.
It's going to be McCain vs. Obama. And it would be in everyone's interest to recognize that fact now, rather than letting Hillary and the media perpetuate the illusion for the next three months that this thing isn't over. McCain and the RNC will not wait three months. That's for sure."
- "McCain and the RNC will not wait three months. That's for sure."
Indeed.TheBlueOne
- "McCain and the RNC will not wait three months. That's for sure."
- mrdobolina0
Forgive me for waiting until the other shoe drops but I have been seriously fucking disappointed and shocked by political outcomes in the past.
- ********0
Where the fuck is randd?
- ********0
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, America's only Hispanic governor, is endorsing Sen. Barack Obama for president, calling him a "once-in-a-lifetime leader" who can unite the nation and restore America's international leadership.
Gov. Richardson, who dropped out of the Democratic race in January, is to appear with Sen. Obama on Friday at a campaign event in Portland, Ore...
"I believe he is the kind of once-in-a-lifetime leader that can bring our nation together and restore America's moral leadership in the world," Gov. Richardson said in a statement. "As a presidential candidate, I know full well Sen. Obama's unique moral ability to inspire the American people to confront our urgent challenges at home and abroad in a spirit of bipartisanship and reconciliation."
The WSJ has a good initial analysis of the significance of Richardson's endorsement:
It is an important endorsement on at least three fronts. Mr. Richardson is an influential superdelegate for the party, whose declaration of support could draw the backing of other superdelegates needed to secure the nomination, since neither candidate seems likely to win it through delegates earned in the primaries and caucuses. He was a prominent second-tier candidate before the race narrowed to the two frontrunners, and as such has been courted by both campaigns since he dropped out. And he is the country's only Hispanic governor, and could thus help Sen. Obama with a key bloc of voters that has mostly leaned toward Sen. Clinton. Mr. Richardson, who praised Mr. Obama's national-security credentials to the AP, also brings the foreign-policy credibility that came with being ambassador to the United Nations, energy secretary, and global trouble-shooter for the presidential administration of Sen. Clinton's husband.
Mr. Richardson's endorsement comes at a sensitive time for Sens. Obama and Clinton. The Obama campaign is still waiting to see how much his standing with voters over the controversial remarks of his former pastor in Chicago will be affected by his speech this week on race. It drew praise from many nonpartisan critics who called it one of the most thoughtful and honest discussions of the subject in politics, but it was also tainted by the political expediency that prompted him to make the speech in the first place. Ms. Clinton, who trails Mr. Obama in the delegate count, in the popular vote this primary season and in the number of states won or lost, suffered a setback yesterday in her efforts to catch up when Michigan lawmakers failed to agree on a way to "do over" that state's primary, as the Detroit News reports. Party efforts to hold new votes in Michigan and Florida -- where Ms. Clinton won races and delegates the party currently won't count at the convention -- have gone nowhere.
The next primary is scheduled for April 22 in Pennsylvania, where Sen. Clinton has been leading in the polls. The significance of Mr. Richardson's decision might be read in whether the likes of John Edwards or other prominent Democrats follow his lead before then.
The Wright controversy hurt Obama, but his landmark speech on Tuesday may be a turning point in the campaign. The effect of the speech on the campaign is still unclear, but it's likely that it blunted the force of Clinton's attack on Obama's ties to Wright. Clinton has been hoping to use Michigan and Florida to prolong the campaign, but that's now harder. And prior to Texas and Ohio, Richardson was already suggesting it was about time to shut down the primary race and turn attention to defeating John McCain.
Richardson's endorsement may be the beginning of a concerted push to pressure Clinton to acknowledge that she has fought a tough campaign but has come up short, that the race is over, and that it's time for her to recognize that our nominee for President will be Barack Obama.
- Richardson's endorsement may be the beginning of a concerted push to pressure Clinton to acknowledge that she has fought a tough campaign but has come up short, that the race is over, and that it's time for her to recognize that our nominee for President will be Barack Obama.********
- she has fought a tough campaign but has come up short, that the race is over, and that it's time for her to recognize that our nominee for President will be Barack Obama.********
- that our nominee for President will be Barack Obama.********
- ...go.TheBlueOne
- Richardson is a canny operator and signals that Obama is someone who understands how horsetrading works in addition to inspiring.********
- to leading, inspiring, etc. Richardson as Sec of State?
So long Hillary!******** - wait, is Richardson hispanic enough?********
- HAHAHA********
- Richardson's endorsement may be the beginning of a concerted push to pressure Clinton to acknowledge that she has fought a tough campaign but has come up short, that the race is over, and that it's time for her to recognize that our nominee for President will be Barack Obama.
- TheBlueOne0
"As voters evaluate you as a potential Commander-in-Chief, do you think it’s legitimate for people to be concerned that you have traveled to only one NATO country, on a brief stopover trip in 2005, and have never traveled to Latin America?"
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/ne…
Now the question is, how did Hillary Clinton campaign know about the countries that Obama visited?
In the aftermath of the Obama passport breach something stinks in the Clinton camp.
- ********0
"Optimism has in recent years become cheapened, desecrated by the cakewalk-and-mission-accomplishe... crowd; perhaps without fully realizing I'd done so, I had gone the other way. (It is far easier, at times, to have no hope.)
Obama reminded me that it is by a fierce and demanding honesty -- and perhaps only by such honesty -- that optimism can be earned. It's an honesty which looks unflinchingly at the flaws of others, the flaws of ourselves. But once found, that honesty, that optimism, can transform a nation.
And must."
- There muct be more they have discovered in there opposition research. April surprises coming up.********
- There muct be more they have discovered in there opposition research. April surprises coming up.
- ********0
"It's been clear to some of us for over a month that the race was over. The Politico article covers some of what we've been talking about for some time, that by just about any measure the race is decided, and that the only way Clinton can win is for Obama to be destroyed and for her to benefit from his destruction.
When asked yesterday if her campaign was pushing the Wright story, Hillary Clinton herself wouldn't deny it, and didn't declare it off limits for her campaign staff. I've been told that the campaign's talking points for surrogate calls to superdelegates urges the callers to question Obama's electability by emphasizing the Wright controversy. And even in public, as Chris Bowers reported from his local Dem meeting, Clinton staffers are pushing the Wright story:
Well, I just returned from my ward meeting tonight in University City, Philadelphia, and two Clinton staffers made an appearance. When one spoke on behalf of Hillary Clinton, he specifically listed Jeremiah Wright as an example of why Obama would be less electable in the general election. The context of his argument was that the Wright story demonstrated that Obama had not gone through the rigors of a presidential election before, and it was possible that more damaging stories like that would come out as the campaign progressed. Aka, the Wright story is demonstrative of how Obama is less electable.
According to The Politico article, it's sort of a last gasp attempt to derail Obama's nomination, but it doesn't seem likely to succeed:
Her advisers say privately that the nominee will be clear by the end of June. At the same time, they recognize that the nominee probably is clear already.
So, you might be asking, why the heck won't the traditional media report what most of us see, that the nomination is settled and there's no way other than destroying Obama or dividing the party that Clinton can win the nomination?
The real question is why so many people are playing. The answer has more to do with media psychology than with practical politics.
Journalists, for instance, have become partners with the Clinton campaign in pretending that the contest is closer than it really is. Most coverage breathlessly portrays the race as a down-to-the-wire sprint between two well-matched candidates, one only slightly better situated than the other to win in August at the national convention in Denver.
One reason is fear of embarrassment. In its zeal to avoid predictive reporting of the sort that embarrassed journalists in New Hampshire, the media — including Politico — have tended to avoid zeroing in on the tough math Clinton faces.
Avoiding predictions based on polls even before voters cast their ballots is wise policy. But that's not the same as drawing sober and well-grounded conclusions about the current state of a race after millions of voters have registered their preferences.
The antidote to last winter's flawed predictions is not to promote a misleading narrative based on the desired but unlikely story line of one candidate.
There are other forces also working to preserve the notion of a contest that is still up for grabs.
One important, if subliminal, reason is self-interest. Reporters and editors love a close race — it’s more fun and it’s good for business.
That's right, reporters and editors are unable--or unwilling--to report the race accurately because they're having too much fun, and maybe even making too much money."
- what I mean is that there is a reason why she won't fold her tents and in must be because they have some shit that will********
- weaken Obama some kind of Kryptonite they control.
We like winners in the USA.********
- what I mean is that there is a reason why she won't fold her tents and in must be because they have some shit that will
- mrdobolina0
The media wants a fight, I don't think they are in any one candidates corner, they want a long drawn out battle so we continue to watch their shows, buy their magazines and newspapers and visit their sites. So they can continue to make money off of advertisers. The media in this country is no different than any other television show.
- flood, fight, lies, scandal, sports the media will still be there whatever happens the days of the evening edition are over********
- flood, fight, lies, scandal, sports the media will still be there whatever happens the days of the evening edition are over
- Llyod0
I'd like to punch her in the tits
- my brother wrote "i really must punch her hard in the abdomen...another thing i want to do is, while she's nodding her head annoyingly
after making some false statement in a debate is to swing a really large, rotten fish by the tail and smack her
fully and really hard in the face with it...shhhmmmmackkk!"******** - her head annoyingly
after making some false statement in a debate is to swing a really large, rotten fish by the tail and smack her
fully and really hard in the face with it...shhhmmmmackkk!******** - by the tail and smack her
fully and really hard in the face with it...shhhmmmmackkk!******** - That's just stupid Llyod ffs********
- you can't handle the truthLlyod
- tell your mother********
- my brother wrote "i really must punch her hard in the abdomen...another thing i want to do is, while she's nodding her head annoyingly
- ********0
"In case you missed the NYTimes piece on the Richardson endorsement. They managed to get Mr Carville on the record expressing the Clinton campaign's true feeling about what former Clinton administration offical owe the Hillary for President campaign.
Mr. Clinton helped elevate Mr. Richardson to the national stage by naming him his energy secretary and ambassador to the United Nations. And Mr. Clinton left no doubt that he viewed Mr. Richardson’s support as important to his wife’s campaign: He even flew to New Mexico to watch the Super Bowl with Mr. Richardson as part of the Clintons’ high-profile courtship of him.
But Mr. Richardson stopped returning Mr. Clinton’s calls days ago, Mr. Clinton’s aides said. And as of Friday, Mr. Richardson said, he had yet to pick up the phone to tell Mr. Clinton of his decision.
The reaction of some of Mr. Clinton’s allies suggests that might have been a wise decision. "An act of betrayal," said James Carville, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton and a friend of Mr. Clinton.
"Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic," Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.
Mr. Richardson said he called Mrs. Clinton late on Thursday to inform her that he would be appearing with Mr. Obama on Friday to lend his support.
"It was cordial, but a little heated," Mr. Richardson said in an interview.
Now I think everyone is sick of the gotcha game with surrogate statements, and this is James Carville we're talking about, but those comments really are beyond the pale. They bespeak a sense of entitlement that is plainly undemocratic and a loyalty above all attitude that can only be described as Bushian. If this is what James Carville is saying to the paper of record I can only imagine the private appeals that are being made to all the superdelegates that the Clintons think owe them something.
Carville's comments have also made me reassess Richardson. At first I thought his prevaricating over whether or not to endorse right after his Super Tuesday comments lacked courage, but now I can see it would take a tremendous amount of political hutzpah to stand up to your benefactors within the party especially when they've demonstrated a willingness to threaten and connive their party connections.
My intuition is the Clintons are using similar tactics to prevent a lot of Superdelegates from publicly announcing for Obama, but the thing about threats is they only work if your in a position to carry them out. Once the delegate gap narrows to the point where a 50-100 supers can push Obama over the edge they'll move en masse."
- Carville evry night you spend with your wife is an act of accomodation and you talk of "betrayal/" There is no betrayal in politica only timig.********
- in politics only timing.********
- Carville evry night you spend with your wife is an act of accomodation and you talk of "betrayal/" There is no betrayal in politica only timig.
- ********0
Carville blasphemes which should concern the Clinton camp on a basic level. But what exactly is Carville saying? Hillary is Jesus? Obama is Herod? Carville has been largely incoherent since 1991 but he is way way off the reservation and probably his meds. He thinks he's helping the sinking ship?
- Bill and James, drifting into the twilight of delusion********
- Bill and James, drifting into the twilight of delusion