Clinton thread
- Started
- Last post
- 442 Responses
- vrmbr0
can someone summarize this whole thread pls?
i assume it has something to do with the fact that Hillary is a self-righteous opportunistic lying old cunt, no?
- more or less, although in this case i would forego the word "cunt", as it will be misinterpreted that her gender has something to do with it********
- has something to do with it********
- thought so. sorry for the sexism.vrmbr
- more or less, although in this case i would forego the word "cunt", as it will be misinterpreted that her gender has something to do with it
- ********0
"The polls, the finances and the conventional wisdom are all pointing in the same direction: it's almost impossible for Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic Presidential nomination.
First, the polls. The Wright controversy hurt Barack Obama, and it may in the long run be a problem. But he appears to have recovered from the dip in the polls that coincided with the height of negative attention over Obama's former pastor. He's recovered the lead over Clinton in the Gallup daily tracking poll that he lost during the Wright affair; the day of his Philadelphia speech, Clinton had opened up a 49% to 42% lead. Three days later, Obama has regained the lead, 48% to 45%.
The CBS/NYT poll (pdf) asked questions about Obama's Tuesday speech on race. 71% of voters following the story thought Obama did a good job of explaining Wright. 73% of Democrats polled agree with Obama's views on race relations in the US, against only 14% who disagreed. Among independents, it was 65% agreeing, and only 25% disagreeing. When asked if his speech would make voters more likely to vote for Obama, less likely, or wouldn't make a difference, the net movement was zero.
Obama would need to be severely damaged by the Wright controversy for it to benefit Hillary Clinton. The polls suggest that the damage, at least within the Democratic primary electorate, may be minimal.
Obama's strong standing in the polls and his likely insurmountable delegate lead is starting to shape conventional wisdom. What some of us have known for a month is finally dawning on the traditional media and the DC and NYC gatekeepers of traditional media narratives. Yesterday it was the Politico exposing the dirty little secret that traditional media hasn't been reporting that it's damn near impossible for Hillary Clinton to win the nomination because reporters love the drama and the media companies love the profits generated by the viewers and readers lured by their breathless misreporting.
We know there's reluctance to tell Hillary Clinton bad news, so today we have another gatekeeper and creator of media narratives, Time senior political analyst Mark Halperin, providing a list of painful things Hillary Clinton knows—or should know. Here are a few of his bullet-points:
She can’t win the nomination without overturning the will of the elected delegates, which will alienate many Democrats.
She can’t win the nomination without a bloody convention battle — after which, even if she won, history and many Democrats would cast her as a villain.
Nancy Pelosi and other leading members of Congress don’t think she can win and want her to give up. Same with superdelegate-to-the-stars Donna Brazile.
Many of her supporters — and even some of her staffers — would be relieved (and even delighted) if she quit the race; none of his supporters or staff feel that way. Some think she just might throw in the towel in June if it appears efforts to fight on would hurt Obama’s general election chances.
The Rev. Wright story notwithstanding, the media still wants Obama to be the nominee — and that has an impact every day.
Many of the remaining prominent superdelegates want to be for Obama and she (and Harold Ickes) are just barely keeping them from making public commitments to him.
This is a change election, and Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton can never truly be change.
Even though her campaign staff is having more fun than it has for a long time, there’s hardly anyone there who, given half a chance, wouldn’t slit Mark Penn’s throat — and such internal dissension won’t help her in the home stretch.
The NYT has two stories today about Clinton's fundraising. In the first, longer and more prominent story, much is made of her improved online fundraising in February. Clinton did see a dramatic up-tick in money coming in over the internet last month. But the harsh realities that the Clinton campaign has largely kept from the media until very recently are laid bare in the second article:Of all the candidates, Democratic or Republican, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, is in the strongest financial shape. Of the $38.8 million in cash on hand, a total of $31.5 million is earmarked for the primary race, with only $7.3 million set aside for the general campaign. This primary war chest is more than Mrs. Clinton’s and Mr. McCain’s combined.
On top of that, Mr. Obama’s campaign is almost debt-free. He ended the month owing only $625,059. Over all, Mr. Obama has raised $190 million since he began his campaign, and spent $158 million — the most of any candidate.
Mrs. Clinton, of New York, spent less in February — $31.8 million, or $1 million a day — in the weeks leading up to her March 4 victories in Texas and Ohio, than Mr. Obama — who spent $43 million, or nearly $1.5 million a day.
Still, at the end of February, Mrs. Clinton owed $8.7 million to campaign vendors. The month earlier, she had lent her campaign $5 million. While she has $33.2 million in cash on hand, only $11.7 million can be used for her primary effort, with the rest set aside, by federal regulations, for the general election.
Once the outstanding campaign debt of $8.7 million is factored in, Mrs. Clinton has only $3 million in free cash for the battles ahead — one-tenth of the $31 million the Obama campaign has in primary cash.
This debt puts additional pressure on Mrs. Clinton: If she wins her party’s nomination, this $8.7 million can be paid off with money raised for her general campaign. If not, she will either have to raise more money to pay off the bills for her primary effort or pay for it out of her own pocket.
Clinton has had a built-in advantage in just about every state except Illinois, in that polls regularly show she's started with an often substantial lead. It's less expensive to protect a lead than to overcome one. All things being equal, she doesn't need to spend as much as Obama. (Although all things aren't equal; for instance, her FEC report shows that she owes Mark Penn about $2.5 million.) However, she can't continue to get outspent and win races by the margins that would be required for her to even narrow the delegate gap between her and Obama.
Yesterday, when he endorsed Barack Obama, Bill Richardson danced close to calling on Clinton to step aside and acknowledge that Barack Obama will be our nominee. He pulled back from that position later in the day, but only a tiny bit:
"I’m not going to advise any other candidate when to get in and out of the race," Mr. Richardson said after appearing in Portland with Mr. Obama. "Senator Clinton has a right to stay in the race, but eventually we don’t want to go into the Democratic convention bloodied. This was another reason for my getting in and endorsing, the need to perhaps send a message that we need unity."
Richardson may not call directly for Clinton to step aside. But she's headed in that direction. The facts of delegate math are finally dawning on the traditional media. Donors aren't filling her coffers with money at a rate that she can be competitive with Obama. As the media narrative catches up with the delegate math, the donors will be even less likely to give to her, further exacerbating her financial problems. With the delegate numbers nearly insurmountable, with the media declaring her candidacy nearing it's end, with money running tight, and with more and more prominent Democratic leaders likely to join Richardson in calling for Democrats to unify and turn attention to defeating John McCain, the question becomes more urgent: when will Hillary Clinton admit that Barack Obama will be our Presidential nominee?"
- ********0
"I met Barack Obama today. Today was the 10th anniversary of our marriage, and rather than go out to a fancy restaurant for dinner, we decided to take our kids to witness history in the making. My family (Husband, Daughter-16, Daughter-14) and I attended the event in Salem, OR today, arriving at about 8:30A for the announced 11:30 doors open time.
The wind blew a cold 40 degrees, and it threatened to rain. We watched the TSA screeners arrive, along with bomb-sniffing dogs that were taken up and down the now long line into the Salem Armory. From the front of the line, a cheer rose as the gates were finally opened at 11:30A, as promised.
The TSA searched us thoroughly. I was even wanded. Into the Armory we went, searching out the closest seats we could. We ended up several rows back, but within 50 feet of the stage. Finally, Earl Blumenauer, our beloved bow-tie wearing US Representative came out to introduce Obama. Earl gave a very nice speech, the details of which I can’t recall due to what came next.
Obama took the stage to a cheering, hooting and hollering standing ovation. He spoke on every topic- the economy, Iraq, foreign diplomatic policy, education, health care, energy, jobs, veteran’s affairs, etc. He was clear, unwavering and gave specifics for achieving these goals. Obama then took questions from the audience for about 30 minutes. At one point, and 74 year-old man stood up to tell Barack that he was now blind- color blind, specifically due to the speech he gave this week. Another woman asked him to give her talking points for her Democratic friends still on the fence about Obama v. Clinton. He gladly obliged.
"Senator Clinton is smart, she is capable and she is tenacious. She would be a vast improvement over the status quo... she’s gotten caught up in the conventional thinking in Washington. When I get that phone call at 3 in the morning, do what a good president should do, which is to get the facts, to talk with your advisers, to gather good intelligence and then to exercise good judgment. Senator Clinton, all too often I think, all too often over the last five years on foreign policy debates, has calibrated her responses based on politics instead of good judgment. That’s what happened on Iraq.
Now, here’s the condensed version of the difference on both domestic and foreign policy. It’s a question of leadership. I believe that it’s not enough just to change political parties. We have to change the culture, and part of changing the culture is recognizing that the special interests, the lobbyists, the insurance companies, the banks, the drug companies, HMO’s, they have come to dictate the agenda in Washington. The only way you break out of that so that ordinary people’s voices are heard is if you stop taking money from PACs and lobbyists like I have- she still does- and you recognize that they’re a problem- she doesn’t.
If you believe in transparency and accountability, which is why I passed the toughest ethics reform legislation since Watergate last year- this is not an issue she’s ever worked on because she doesn’t think it’s a priority- I passed laws to post on the internet a searchable database of every dollar of federal spending out there. Your tax money will continue to be wasted until you know when a "Bridge to Nowhere" is being built. She doesn’t believe in transparency and hasn’t even released her earmarks just like she hasn’t released her income tax returns. She doesn’t believe, I think, in bottom-up democracy, and if you don’t believe in that, then you’re not going to change Washington. You’ll tinker around the edges, but you’re not going to bring about the kind of changes the American people are desperate for. That’s why you should vote for Barack Obama."
Obama then got a question on immigration reform from the farm worker's union, PCUN, and stuck to his guns, not pandering to a much-needed demographic:
From the Statesman-Journal:
"He pledged that if elected president, he would seek a comprehensive approach to resolving immigration issues by insisting on secure borders and cracking down on employers who hire undocumented workers. "We have used this issue as a political football instead of solving the problem," he said in response to a question by a farmworker. He said undocumented immigrants should learn English, pay penalties, and be part of a path to legal presence and citizenship."
At the close of the questions, Obama made a few final remarks and closed the show to resounding applause and shouts of support. I made a beeline for the state barrier with my daughters, hoping for a handshake. I got a lot more.
As Obama worked his way down the line, he efficiently glad-handed, smiled and thanked supporters for coming. When he got to us, my youngest shook his hand and thanked him for running. He said, "You’re very welcome." I was next- I reached out to shake his hand saying, "Senator Obama, please talk more about the economy and the mortgage crisis. My mother is losing her home to foreclosure." Obama stopped in front of me, still holding my hand. "What is the situation, how did it happen?" he asked. "She is moving in with us," I responded, "She got into a bad loan, high rates, and couldn’t keep going when the economy tanked." He asked, "Have you been able to get any help locally?" "No." I said. Obama then talked about a number of non-profit organizations that could assist with the situation, and wished us luck in getting things settled. And he thanked me for coming out today. All the while, he held my hand, looked me right in the eye, and really listened. It was really amazing. I was teary-eyed and a bit shell-shocked when it was over.
My oldest was next. She shook his hand, and asked, "Senator Obama, what do you plan to do about the situation in Darfur and the refugees in Chad?" His response was immediate and unwavering. "We need to get conflagration troops on the ground, and a no-fly zone over the camps in Chad." Then he shook her hand again. I was so proud of my girls! They officially granted Obama "Rock Star" status on the spot.
We were delighted, giddy and in awe of what just happened. We ran back to the others in our group and recounted the exchanges. We’d just talked with and shook the hand of our next president! Our group made plans to meet at a local restaurant for a late lunch, and after buying a few campaign buttons, off we went.
At the restaurant, we all talked about the rally, our personal encounter with Obama, and were overheard by a table of diners nearby. Two elderly men came up to us to talk about what we’d witnessed. One told us, "He made me see that his being black doesn’t matter. After his speech this week, I see that now. And that’s not a small thing- I’m a redneck, and proud of it. And a republican too, but he’s got my vote. He reminds me of John F. Kennedy." He recalled McCain’s involvement in the Keating Five scandal, saying he could never forgive McCain for violating seniors like him during that time. "Anybody who tells you to vote for McCain, you remind them of the Keating Five. He can’t be trusted." The other gentleman said he was also a republican, but was considering changing his registration to vote for Obama in the primary.
I’ve never witnessed the kind of excitement and energy about a candidate from so many people- to the point that strangers stop to join the discussion with you. We are thrilled to have the experience we did today as a family with Barack. We will never forget it."
- ********0
"My theory on the campaign is that the Clintons cannot limp all the way to April 22nd when the logic/narrative puts them strictly in the role of party wreckers. The poison that will eventually erode Clinton's poll advantage is the cold hard truth that she cannot win a brokered convention. But, before that poison can work its way through the body electorate, the media must begin reporting the truth. This started yesterday when Ben Smith of The Politico reported that members of Clinton's staff privately acknowledge that she has no more than a 10% chance of winning the nomination. Mark Halperin continued the trend today when he listed Fourteen Painful Things Hillary Clinton Knows — Or Should Know. Tomorrow is Maureen Dowd's turn to push the narrative.
"It is a tribute to Hillary Clinton that even though, rationally, political soothsayers think she can no longer win, irrationally, they wonder how she will pull it off.
It’s impossible to imagine The Terminator, as a former aide calls her, giving up. Unless every circuit is out, she’ll regenerate enough to claw her way out of the grave, crawl through the Rezko Memorial Lawn and up Obama’s wall, hurl her torso into the house and brutally haunt his dreams.
"It’s like one of those movies where you think you know the end, but then you watch with your fingers over your eyes," said one leading Democrat."
That's a typical Dowd construction and ordinarily it wouldn't be worth the paper it is printed on. But she closes her column with a valuable insight.
If Jimmy Carter, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi are the dealmakers, it won’t take Hercule Poirot to figure out who had knives out for Hillary in this "Murder on the Orient Express."
Carter, who felt he was not treated with a lot of respect by the Clintons when they were in the White House, favors Obama.
"The Clintons will be there when they need you," said a Carter friend.
Al Gore blames Bill Clinton’s trysts with Monica for losing him the White House. He resented sharing the vice presidency with Hillary and sharing the donors and attention with her when she ran for Senate as he ran for president.
"There’s no love between him and Hillary," said one former Clintonista. "It was like Mitterrand with his wife and girlfriend. They were always competing for the affection of the big guy."
Like Carter and Gore, Nancy Pelosi was appalled by Bill’s escapades with Monica. And, as The Times’s Carl Hulse wrote, the Speaker has been viewed as "putting her thumb on the scale for Mr. Obama" in recent weeks. As a leading China basher, the San Francisco pol tangled bitterly with President Clinton over his pursuit of a free-trade agreement with China, once charging him with papering over China’s horrible record on human rights. And she has been put off by the abrasive ways of some top Hillary people.
The Clintons are looking around and realizing that they don't have as many friends as they thought they had. But it isn't really important what Maureen Dowd says. What matters is that the media is now giving itself permission to write the Clintons' epitaph. There is no way for the Clintons to stop the momentum of this narrative once it catches on in the press. Once Tim Russert starts quoting Halperin and Dowd, then everyone will start echoing the new common wisdom. It was too long in coming, but it's too long to the Pennsylvania primary for the Clintons to maintain the fiction that they have a chance.
Now, one of the strongest articles of faith in the business is that the Clintons will never give up and they will do anything to win, even if it hands John McCain the White House on a silver platter. But even the Clintons need the support of a certain baseline percentage of the political establishment. There is no way that Hillary will be president or vice-president, but she might be able to negotiate something of value. Some people have suggested that she could be made Majority Leader of the Senate. I think that's a long shot, mainly because of logistics (how do you get 50-plus senators to agree in advance?). Others have suggested a seat on the Supreme Court. That would be possible if the Democrats pick up a few seats in the Senate (and maybe even without it). And it would be a priceless spectacle to watch the right-wing howl in agony as she took her place on the court.
A lesser prize could be attained if Teddy Kennedy would offer her his chairmanship of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. From that perch she could be instrumental in pushing through Obama's health care reform (although, they'd have to get the Rules Committee to give HELP jurisdiction over the bill).
I can't really think of another prize that Clinton might want. But cabinet positions could also be up for grabs. In any case, I hope that the Clintons are taking a moment over this Easter weekend to take a realistic appraisal of their prospects and options. The media narrative isn't going to get any friendlier, and any attacks on Obama from this point on are going to be met by increasing resistance from the party establishment (including superdelegates)."
- ********0
"Within the Democratic party, the President is the head of our party. That means something profound here in the netroots, especially when we think of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their opposition to the reform movement headed by Chairman Howard Dean.
In all fifty states, Bill and Hillary Clinton know the top donors and they know the people to talk to "get things done": the insiders, the poohbahs, the wheelers and the dealers. Through eight years in the office of the President, Bill and Hillary Clinton developed a powerful network of elected officials and friends.
If Democrats choose Hillary Clinton as our nominee, especially through back channel lobbying of Super Delegates by former President Bill Clinton, we are, in effect, reinforcing that network and choosing to make the Clinton network of influence the de facto machine within the Democratic party for the next generation as well. If that happens, party reform as conceived within the netroots will die. That's worth thinking about.
Our experience of the GOP version of this kind of concentrated power under President Bush should serve as a cautionary lesson in that regard. Is there any indication that Bill and Hillary Clinton will run the Democratic Party differently than they did in the 1990s? I would argue there is none whatsoever. Their campaign has been the antithesis of the reforms enunciated by Howard Dean and netroots activists. In fact, if anything is clear, Hillary Clinton is just as opposed to the 50 State Strategy and party reform as her husband was and has made that clear in the conduct of her campaign.
Terry McAuliffe is her campaign chair. Mark Penn runs her strategy. Harold Ickes is the Clinton backroom "arm twister." And James Carville is their public enforcer.
Do we want more of this? Is this what the Democratic Party stands for in 2008? Will we have any kind of "vital check" if we hand the Presidency and control of our party back to the hands of Bill and Hillary Clinton?
The answer is clear: no.
::
Bill Clinton and the 22nd Amendment
Bill Clinton opposes the 22nd Amendment:
"Shouldn't the people have the right to vote for someone as many times as they want to vote for him?"
Those aren't my words, Senator. They're Ronald Reagan's, who said in 1986 that the term limit on presidents was "a mistake." Now, I wouldn't go as far as President Reagan. I think presidents should be limited to two consecutive terms, then after a time out of office should be able to run again.
Don't worry. I know I won't be running for president again. It takes too long to change the Constitution, and I don't believe in human cloning! But in the future, our country might face a crisis that a former president is uniquely qualified to help solve. The American public should have that option.
-Bill Clinton, 60 Minutes, 2003
This is not an infrequent subject for President Clinton, he's joked about it numerous times:
I remember about three years ago, President Clinton would frequently make jokes about the 22nd Amendment, which prohibits a president from being elected more than twice, and how much he resented its presence in the Constitution. There was probably a kernel of truth in his jokes, but no one seriously ever talks about repealing the 22nd Amendment, right?
In effect, Bill and Hillary Clinton, while within the letter of the law, are, in accord with Bill's oft-stated thinking, side-stepping the spirit of the 22nd Amendment.
They are side-stepping the "vital check" and the "two-term tradition" established by George Washington and running for the Presidency again. They are clearly a team. President Clinton makes news as many days as Senator Clinton does. They are both on the campaign trail and echo each other's points and attacks. Many voters have no problem with that. If you are a voter who perceives the Clinton years to have been in your economic interest, there is a natural appeal to a kind of "two for one" return to the Clinton years.
And that's exactly the kind of politics the 22nd Amendment and the "two-term tradition" was meant to combat. However appealing the prospect of a return to Clinton rule and Clintonian policies in the White House in some quarters, the American people have made our Constitution reflect that our values preclude keeping the White House in the control of any one person for an extended period of time.
We have good reasons to be wary of concentrated power within the Executive Branch.
::
There are significant unanswered questions regarding Bill and Hillary Clinton returning to the White House
Senator Clinton has not sufficiently answered legitimate questions about what Bill Clinton's role would be in a 2nd Clinton White House. We simply don't know what he would do or how he would conduct himself. We don't know if Bill Clinton would be a part of hiring and firing, regulatory policy, lobbying, law enforcement and whether he would be seen as "speaking for or as" the President of the United States. We don't have any indication of whether there's been legal preparation to answer questions about the role of an ex-President in the White House given the 22nd Amendment.
And there are a host of further legitimate and serious political questions that go beyond that specific lack of transparency about Bill Clinton's legal role in the executive branch.
Why should we return control of the Democratic Party to one political family? How can we be sure that the corruption, the lack of any "vital check" on the Bush Administration's conduct in the Executive Branch will not be replicated with the return of Bill and Hillary Clinton to the White House?
Have Bill and Hillary Clinton answered tough questions about transparency regarding their finances and their donors? No. Have they answered tough questions about how they would staff their White House and prevent a "return to power" of selected friends over the interests of our party and our nation? No. Have they given any indication that their mode of operation will represent a change from how they conducted their affairs in the 1990s or post-presidency? No, in fact, quite the opposite.
What we do know is that Bill and Hillary Clinton are just as secretive, just as reliant on their political machine and their network of powerful friends as ever; and they are just as insistent on the same cast of political characters playing the same destructive politics of spin.
At some point the Democratic Party has the right and responsibility to say enough is enough."
- TheBlueOne0
Chris Mathews converts to Obama, calls the Clinton's a "political sit-com that has to end.":
- EXCELLENT********
- Chris is finally fed up!********
- Did you see Chris almost start crying in that first vid...TheBlueOne
- EXCELLENT
- mg330
I'm getting really tired of the argument by Bill Clinton that Hillary is best suited to win the election in November because she has won bigger states than Obama.
So, you're telling me that Democratic voters that prefer Hillary in the primaries are not going to vote for Obama in November and instead vote Republican and vote for McCain? That's some seriously absurd logic. True, people prefer one or the other, but at the end of the day doesn't it come down to the fact that goal of the Dems is to make serious efforts towards turning Washington around and changing the direction from where we've gone in the past 7 years?
I just don't get his argument at all. They will stop at NOTHING to confuse voters and tip the scales their way.
Just read this:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/a…
From NBC/NJ’s Mike Memoli
Here are some interesting quotes from two small Bill Clinton events in South Bend, Ind., this morning. The first is from a Dyngus Day celebration at the West Side Democratic Club:"She can win this race, and we have got to win. And she will win in Florida. And I must say that this new strategy of denying and disempowering and disenfranchising the voters in Florida and Michigan is I believe a terrible mistake. Hillary believes their votes should be counted. And I don't know how we're gonna go to those people in the general election and say you gotta vote for us even though we dumped all over you in the primary. We let New Hampshire go out of turn. They had a Democratic Secretary of State. The Florida voters are totally innocent. They asked to vote on time. So for all those reasons I think she's the most electable.”
The second quote is from a Solidarity Day event at an Elks club:
"I think she can win the election. And I believe that she will win Ohio, Florida, West Virginia, and Arkansas -- four states that we have lost the last two times. If we win Ohio and Florida, it's inconceivable that we could lose the election. And I think that we are running the risk of throwing both Florida and Michigan away if she doesn't get nominated because of the events of the last few days where there has been a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise those voters. And don't you think there has not been a message there. Don't you think that they didn't get it?
“And Sen. McCain is not going to be easy to beat; he has always run well in Michigan. He will run pretty well in Florida. She can win. Look, if we win these four states we will win the White House; there is no point in doing this if we are not going to win."
- the argument is bullshit, meant to obscure the truth, like most of what the clinton campaign says********
- Clinton is proposing to win by the exact same way method that Gore and Kerry lost. Figure that one out.TheBlueOne
- the argument is bullshit, meant to obscure the truth, like most of what the clinton campaign says
- mg330
some of my post above may have been confusing, basically I'm trying to say:
Me, I'm for Obama, and can't dream of Hillary as president. But if he loses, and she's the nominee, aren't I kind of stuck with voting for her then? And wouldn't it be the othe way around for Clinton supporters - a strong tie to their party and the need to support whoever is nominated in an effort to get a Democrat president in there?
- kona0
When I hear of all this Clinton b.s., the shadiness, the lies, the backstabbing by both Hillary and Bill I can't help but think... this was the wife, of the President, and the President of the United States. These people ran our country? Fuck... I no longer would trust them to watch over a pack of my gum.
- well, she didn't really run shit.mrdobolina
- Well, I might trust them with a pack of gum. Cinnamon gum definitely. No one likes cinnamon gum.TheBlueOne
- ********0
"Hillary Clinton's bizarre -- and false -- sniper fire claim is starting to cause her campaign problems.
Howard Wolfson, Clinton's PR flack, now says she "misspoke" when claiming to have been under enemy sniper fire in Tuzla, Bosnia.
Bluntly: that's bull. Misspeaking is the act of saying something other than what you meant.
The truth is that the Clinton campaign is completely freaked out that this will sink her campaign.
As ABC News senior national correspondent Claire Shipman said on This Week with George Stephanopolous, Clinton's sniper claim claim will "get her into trouble."
On at least two different occasions -- one of them after being pressed by a reporter on her recollection, given Sinbad's different point of view -- Clinton deliberately said that there was no greeting ceremony due to the dangerous conditions and that she was rushed from the plane to waiting vehicles.
No such thing occurred. Why did she make her false statement? Poor memory? Confusion? A deliberate attempt to mislead? Who knows. Whatever the case, it's clear that she said what she meant to say.
This wasn't a just a simple slip of the tongue. Her initial speech and subsequent discussions with reporters clearly reflect an effort to make her mission seem dangerous.
She repeated her remarks, even when challenged by the media (and Sinbad).
In defending her tale, she arranged for third-party validation from both Togo West, the Clinton Administration Secretary of the Army, and Lissa Muscatine, a Clinton speechwriter.
Only after video emerged disproving her assertions and threatening a political firestorm did she start trying to pass her false claim off as simply "misspeaking."
- mg330
Randd,
I read a bit about that earlier this morning. There's misspeaking, and there's fabricating things. Then there's delusional insanity - something she must have to successfully confuse misspeaking and fabrications.
- rainman0
My irritation with the Clinton campaign is the fact that they "dish it but can't take it." Before the Ohio primaries Hillary made every attempt to destroy the reputation of the Obama campaign... and... to some degree it worked... and Obama recognized that. Ever since then it's been a fist fight and the Clinton campaign is saying the Obama campaign is playing dirty!? WTF...
Bully hits and hits... then gets hit back... goes crying to the media. Pretty freaking lame if you ask me.
The bad thing about my hatred for her and her campaigns tactics is that she's lost my vote if she makes it in. I think that is a complete failure on the part of their campaign.
- so who gets it, mccain?mrdobolina
- maybe no one. I also have a right not to vote.rainman
- might as well vote for mccain.mrdobolina
- so be it.. rather vote for neither and complain about both then pick a loser.rainman
- Hillary Clinton is Scut Farcas!Rodimus79
- mrdobolina0
this is how the republicans win.
- thanks to the Clintons. I can't forgive that, or vote for it********
- I will never vote for McCain either********
- this is how we are going to get mccain, can't you see?mrdobolina
- PA voter reg up 110,000+
too soon to be despondent********
- thanks to the Clintons. I can't forgive that, or vote for it
- emukid0
"Bill Clinton cannot possibly seriously believe Obama is not a patriot, and cannot possibly be said to be helping -- instead he is hurting -- his own party. B. Clinton should never be forgiven. Period. This is a stain on his legacy, much worse, much deeper, than the one on Monica's blue dress."
Fischer was referring to Bill Clinton's comments over the weekend that a race between Sen. John McCain and HillaryClinton would be a contest between two people who love their country. Some Obama supporters -- including former Air Force Gen. Tony McPeak -- have interpreted that statement as an attack on Obama's patriotism.
Fischer later removed the post from his blog and replaced it with an apology.
Don't Miss"I sincerely apologize for a tasteless and gratituous [sic] comment I made here about President Clinton. It was unnecessary and wrong," he wrote.
Fischer endorsed Obama last fall.
In a conference call with reporters Monday, Clinton aides said Fischer's decision to attack the New York senator in "starkly personal terms" reflected "gutter tactics that [the Obama] campaign is now deploying."
"It would appear to be that their high-minded rhetoric seems to be falling short," said spokesman Phil Singer.
"This is now the Obama campaign's primary message to the American people," said spokesman Howard Wolfson. "Not to build him up, but to tear Sen. Clinton down."
He also dismissed Fischer's apology. "That's all well and good. ... In my opinion the remarks of Gordon Fischer are very much in keeping with the campaign Sen. Obama is running. So I don't know why he would apologize."
They also distanced themselves from remarks this weekend made by Clinton supporter and CNN political analyst James Carville, who seemed to compare New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's decision to endorse Obama to Judas' betrayal of Jesus.
- can al gore endorse obama already and get this thing done with?emukid
- bet you a dollar al gore endorses no one.mrdobolina
- if this gets bad enough I'm hoping Gore, Pelosi, Carter and Edwards all will********
- i have a feeling pelosi is leaning toward obama. not sure about edwards yet. gore wants to work with whoever wins.emukid
- wins.emukid
- gore hates the clintons********
- pelosi has her finger on scales for obama, the shift is already happened: obama will be the nom.********
- ukit0
If only the election was being held on QBN, Obama would be elected with 99.999% of the vote.
- kind of weird how most of the people here tend to think a certain way. or the ones who don't are just scared or randd's wrath.emukid
- wrath.emukid
- there actually used to be more right wingers...but they seem to have left or just don't post anymoreukit
- this site is not a random sample. i need to read some michelle malkin to truly experience the american viewpoint.emukid
- viewpoint.emukid
- There are some republicans here but it's a shame that they are always run out of the site.Jaline
- mg330
I have a feeling that Obama tried to court Edwards as a potential VP choice back when he had that sneaky meeting at Edwards' home in January I think.
- I would like that, but Obama really needs a VP with foreign policy experience. Kinda rules out edwardsTheBlueOne
- unless protectionism counts********
- ********0
"Last week, an important Clinton adviser told Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen (also of Politico) that Clinton had no more than a 10 percent chance of getting the nomination. Now, she’s probably down to a 5 percent chance.
Five percent.
Let’s take a look at what she’s going to put her party through for the sake of that 5 percent chance: The Democratic Party is probably going to have to endure another three months of daily sniping. For another three months, we’ll have the Carvilles likening the Obamaites to Judas and former generals accusing Clintonites of McCarthyism. For three months, we’ll have the daily round of résumé padding and sulfurous conference calls. We’ll have campaign aides blurting “blue dress” and only-because-he’s-black references as they let slip their private contempt.
For three more months (maybe more!) the campaign will proceed along in its Verdun-like pattern. There will be a steady rifle fire of character assassination from the underlings, interrupted by the occasional firestorm of artillery when the contest touches upon race, gender or patriotism. The policy debates between the two have been long exhausted, so the only way to get the public really engaged is by poking some raw national wound.
For the sake of that 5 percent, this will be the sourest spring. About a fifth of Clinton and Obama supporters now say they wouldn’t vote for the other candidate in the general election. Meanwhile, on the other side, voters get an unobstructed view of the Republican nominee. John McCain’s approval ratings have soared 11 points. He is now viewed positively by 67 percent of Americans. A month ago, McCain was losing to Obama among independents by double digits in a general election matchup. Now McCain has a lead among this group.
For three more months, Clinton is likely to hurt Obama even more against McCain, without hurting him against herself. And all this is happening so she can preserve that 5 percent chance.
When you step back and think about it, she is amazing. She possesses the audacity of hopelessness.
Why does she go on like this? Does Clinton privately believe that Obama is so incompetent that only she can deliver the policies they both support? Is she simply selfish, and willing to put her party through agony for the sake of her slender chance? Are leading Democrats so narcissistic that they would create bitter stagnation even if they were granted one-party rule?
The better answer is that Clinton’s long rear-guard action is the logical extension of her relentlessly political life.
For nearly 20 years, she has been encased in the apparatus of political celebrity. Look at her schedule as first lady and ever since. Think of the thousands of staged events, the tens of thousands of times she has pretended to be delighted to see someone she doesn’t know, the hundreds of thousands times she has recited empty clichés and exhortatory banalities, the millions of photos she has posed for in which she is supposed to appear empathetic or tough, the billions of politically opportune half-truths that have bounced around her head.
No wonder the Clinton campaign feels impersonal. It’s like a machine for the production of politics. It plows ahead from event to event following its own iron logic. The only question is whether Clinton herself can step outside the apparatus long enough to turn it off and withdraw voluntarily or whether she will force the rest of her party to intervene and jam the gears.
If she does the former, she would surprise everybody with a display of self-sacrifice. Her campaign would cruise along at a lower register until North Carolina, then use that as an occasion to withdraw. If she does not, she would soldier on doggedly, taking down as many allies as necessary."
- ********0
"Over the weekend, Senator Evan Bayh suggested we measure the success of the candidates not by delegates earned, but by the electoral votes of the states they’ve won. In the spirit of Senator Bayh, I present you with five additional metrics that I pulled out of my ass. As you’ll see, Hillary Clinton is either winning or tied with Obama in every case.
I should say at the outset that this study is highly scientific and my methods are rigorous. Except where otherwise noted, the data for this study is available here. I have excluded American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Democrats voting abroad, because their inclusion would be un-American. Similarly, I have excluded the District of Columbia, which isn’t even a state.
Total number of "yellow" states on Wikipedia’s map of the United States
CLINTON: 5
OBAMA: 4
By Barack Obama’s own admission, at the conclusion of his Iowa address, he noted, "we are not a collection of red states and blue states." He failed, however, to specifically identify the colors that should be assigned to the states. If anyone is to resolve this question, it is Wikipedia, the repository of all human knowledge, which makes clear that we are a nation of green, yellow, red, and pink states. It’s important of course that this study be conducted in a fair and nonarbitrary fashion, so I determined the color metric (yellow) by eliminating the states least frequently associated with submarines in Beatles songs. This yields a slight advantage to Hillary Clinton, 5 to 4.
Total number of Commonwealths
CLINTON: 1 (Massachusetts)
OBAMA: 1 (Virginia)
Here the race is neck and neck, but Clinton is expected to take Pennsylvania. As there are only four commonwealths total, it is virtually impossible for Obama to beat Clinton on the Commonwealth count. If Clinton beats Obama in Kentucky, his claim that he has won more states will be canceled out by her claim that she has won more Commonwealths.
Total number of "New" States
CLINTON: 4
OBAMA:0
Hilllary Clinton has won New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, and New York. By contrast, Obama has failed to win a single state with the word "New" in its name. Obama’s failure among self-proclaimed new states, raises serious questions about his supposed strength among young voters (new people) and his supposed message of change (new policies).
Average Highest Elevation
CLINTON: 6135 Feet
OBAMA: 6097 Feet
Frankly, I’m surprised that more attention hasn’t been drawn to this. Obama claims to want to elevate the level of discourse, but he has failed in states with the highest elevations. Clinton has won on Mount Whitney (California), Humphreys Peak (Arizona), Boundary Peak (Nevada), and Wheeler Peak (New Mexico). Perhaps more significantly, there are so few peaks left that despite the close margins, Obama has no hope of regaining the altitude vote. Clinton also leads among states with the highest average mean elevation: (Clinton: 1908.8 feet Obama: 1457.7 feet).
Average Official State Mixed Drink
CLINTON: Wine, Milk, Coffee, Cranberry Juice, Orange Juice, Tomato Juice
OBAMA: Kool-Aid, Beer, Conecuh Ridge Whiskey, Milk, Moxie, South Carolina Grown Tea
It’s a close call, but on balance, Clinton has the better tasting official state mixed drink. Here’s how this is tabulated: Most states have an official state beverage (Wikipedia State Beverage List). Using equal parts of each state beverage from each state that each candidate won, I was able to produce two mixed drinks. I don’t want to go into the judging details except to say that Obama’s combination of Whiskey and Kool-Aid left me questioning whether his coalition of voters can hold together beyond the late night taco bell run.
Conclusion
It’s clear that the time has come for Obama to drop out of the race. By almost any measure imaginable (excluding delegates, popular vote, primaries, or caucuses), Clinton is leading."
- Greeaaat.... I bet anything this either makes it on CNN or the Clinton campaign finds it and uses it in April. Good going Randd.rainman
- category: "damn lies"********
- TheBlueOne0
I'd make some sort of snarky remark here, but I am currently under heavy sniper fire. Have no fear though, Sinbad is here telling jokes keeping everyone lighthearted, Sheryl Crow is strumming some guitar keeping the mood from becoming to dire, and there's some sort of small Bosnian child standing out in the open reading poetry and drawing most of the fire away from us....I will check in when the firefight abates, meanwhile, I am racking up the experience!
- too dangerous for the president, but chelsea is a rock!********
- too dangerous for the president, but chelsea is a rock!
- TheBlueOne0
- Couldn't help myself.TheBlueOne
- bwahahaha********
- LOLOLOLukit
- awesome. you would have won with that!mg33