HRC thread II
- Started
- Last post
- 6 Responses
- ********
sorry, everyone
"Wes Clark: Hillary Will Take Fight to Convention
I was just watching Verdict with Dan Abrams. They were discussing the recent opinion of DNC lawyers which said that the Rules and Bylaws Committee does not have the power to restore 100% of the Michigan and Florida delegates. They can, at most, restore 50%. Wes Clark was on, and Abrams asked Clark if Hillary would take this to the convention if she didn't get 100% of what she was demanding. He said she would. And then, he said it again. For all of you who ever thought that Hillary was going to give up, you are about to be in for a rude awakening. There will be no "compromise" with Hillary. Any "compromise" will mean her defeat. Again, we may end up snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Hillary Clinton's hubris may take the entire party down.
The Clintons have made a career of putting their interests above the party. Despite presiding over the worst congressional defeat we had suffered in decades, Bill Clinton did little to try to win congress back. He simply capitulated, signing election-year laws like the 'Defense of Marriage Act' or the Telecommunications (deregulation) Act. And then, when Al Gore was getting ready to prevent George Bush from becoming president, Bill Clinton was getting oral sex. Had he not had that scandal, Al Gore may be finishing his second term.
Hillary Clinton has never been restrained by things like rules or facts or logic or reality. Hillary Clinton is, and has always been, in it for Hillary Clinton. She will take the party down, if it doesn't give her that to which she is entitled. The overconfidence of everyone, that she would get out just because it had become hopeless, is about to be exposed as having been naive. It has been hopeless for her for months. Did she get out then? No. Is she going to get out after June 3? No. Is she going to get out when Obama reaches 2,210 delegates (after the rush of superdelegates)? No.
Hillary Clinton doesn't have anything to lose. She may take the party down, but she will still be in office in 2012. And so what if the party leaders hate her for blowing the opportunity of a lifetime, and ensuring a 50 year conservative Supreme Court? They can't stop her in 2012, and she can bet that she won’t face another strong candidate. She can count on the masses of uninformed voters, like she did this time.
This was never about Michigan and Florida. And it was never about meeting her demands. First she demanded that some of the delegates be seated. When Obama's lead grew, she demanded that 100% be seated. When Obama's lead continued to grow, she demanded that the "uncommitted" vote in Michigan be assigned uncommitted delegates (like the "uncommitted" pro-Hillary delegate that was reported in the Politico the other day).
The party can't stop her, only the voters can stop her. We got lucky this time, in having a candidate who was just barely able to beat her. We won't be as lucky next time. And then she can take her revenge against all of those who wronged her this time. Remember, this is about the Clintons.
- ********0
"That Clinton has impassioned supporters, many of whom link her candidacy to the feminist cause, hardly qualifies as news. And it's certainly true that along the campaign trail Clinton has encountered some outrageously sexist treatment, just as Barack Obama has been on the receiving end of bigoted treatment. (Obama has even been subjected to anti-Muslim bigotry despite the fact that he's not Muslim.) But somehow, a number of Clinton supporters have come to identify the seating of Michigan and Florida not merely with Clinton's prospects but with the causes of democracy and feminism -- an equation that makes a mockery of democracy and feminism.
No doubt.
Remember, Clinton supported the Michigan and Florida sanctions when she thought she'd coast to the nomination. And her main advisor, Harold Ickes, actually voted for those sanctions as a member of the DNC committee that levied them. But of course, neither Ickes nor Hillary could be bothered to uphold whatever democratic and feminist principles have magically appeared now that Clinton is desperately grasping at straws for the nomination.
People were freaking out over the RFK stuff, but really, the most infuriating part of this campaign is Clinton's lack of intellectual honesty. The shifting rationales. The constantly moving goal posts. The disrespect for rules and the intelligence of the public. Its rank dishonesty and purposefully flawed readings of history.
In short, the bullshit we've been subjected to the past four months. Had there been some intellectual consistency, then fine. But the "against it before it was politically necessary to be for it" bullshit has been unbearable.
Last August, when the DNC Rules Committee voted to strip Florida (and Michigan, if it persisted in clinging to its date) of its delegates, the Clinton delegates on the committee backed those sanctions. All 12 Clinton supporters on the committee supported the penalties. (The only member of the committee to vote against them was an Obama supporter from Florida.) Harold Ickes, a committee member, leading Clinton strategist and acknowledged master of the political game, said, "This committee feels very strongly that the rules ought to be enforced." Patty Solis Doyle, then Clinton's campaign manager, further affirmed the decision. "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process," she said, referring to the four states that the committee authorized to hold the first contests. "And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC-approved nominating calendar."
You get that? Every Clinton supporter on the committee voted for the sanctions. The dissenting vote came from an Obama supporter. Clinton's campaign manager celebrated the decision.
Not a single Clinton campaign official or DNC Rules Committee member, much less the candidate herself, said at the time that the sanctions imposed on Florida or Michigan were in any way a patriarchal plot or an affront to democratic values. The threat that these rules posed to our fundamental beliefs was discovered only ex post facto -- the facto in question being Clinton's current need to seat the delegations whose seatings she had opposed when she thought she'd cruise to the nomination.
Exactly.
Clinton's supporters have every right to demonstrate on Saturday, of course. But their larger cause is neither democracy nor feminism; it's situational ethics. To insist otherwise is to degrade democracy and turn feminism into the last refuge of scoundrels."
- ********0
At this point it doesn't cost very much. More to the point who gives a shit? Some people believe the earth is flat.
She will not be nominee nor VP.- "Hillary Clinton doesn't have anything to lose. She may take the party down, but she will still be in office in 2012. And so what if the party leaders hate her for blowing the opportunity of a lifetime, and ensuring a 50 year conservative Supreme Court? They can't stop her in 2012, and she can bet that she won’t face another strong candidate. She can count on the masses of uninformed voters, like she did this time."********
- see post #1********
- Maybe. but she may also end up a symbol of bygones days sort of like George Wallace: useful on the outside, yet reviled********
- reviled inside . A man who would not go away either.********
- At this point, the procedures kill her candidacy. Its very autoerotic for her. Slow, ecstatic, failure.********
- hahahaha********
- "Hillary Clinton doesn't have anything to lose. She may take the party down, but she will still be in office in 2012. And so what if the party leaders hate her for blowing the opportunity of a lifetime, and ensuring a 50 year conservative Supreme Court? They can't stop her in 2012, and she can bet that she won’t face another strong candidate. She can count on the masses of uninformed voters, like she did this time."
- ********0
- mg330
The new chaos she is spewing is really making me crazy.
The way she is trying to say that caucus states shouldn't matter, that Florida and Michigan, however, should count 100% even when Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan, etc. etc. etc. you know what I'm talking about.I think she and Bill Clinton are both totally insane. It's sad to see. He was a good president and now he's nothing more than the same guy who thought he could get away with foolin' around in the Oval Office with Monika Lewinsky.
- ********0
The results of a new Field Poll in California show Barack Obama with a huge double-digit lead over Hillary Clinton, and dispel the myth spread by Hillary that she's more electable. The poll also shoots a hole in Hillary's argument that only she can win big states, that she would do better than Obama against McCain, and that she does better with women voters. Yet more evidence to disprove Hillary's laughable claim that "every poll" shows that she would be the better candidate.
The results of the poll (taken May 16-27) show that Obama is now preferred as the party nominee by a landslide 51 to 38 percent among the state's Democrats. The poll also shows Obama doing just as well against McCain as Hillary in the state:
And in a head-to-head contest with presumed GOP nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Obama does as well as Clinton, both of them beating the Republican by 17 points among a cross section of voters likely to cast ballots in November. Obama also leads McCain 59 to 24 percent among critical decline-to-state or independent voters, who make up 20 percent of the California electorate, the poll showed.
This just proves what we've all been saying for a long time: in the general election Obama will do much better than Hillary in attracting independent voters away from John McCain. But even I am amazed that Obama leads McCain by 35 points among the state's indies.
The poll also dispels the myth that Obama has a problem attracting women voters.
Women, who have given Clinton a consistent edge in California, now support Obama by 49-41 percent, the poll shows.
"Women have pretty much come 'round to accepting Obama," said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll. He said the erosion of ground under Clinton in California is the result of Democrats' growing acceptance of the outcome of the primaries and the fact that Obama could have the required number of delegates for the party nomination by as early as next week.
Other notable findings:
- Obama ranks much higher than either Clinton or McCain in favorable-unfavorable ratings among likely state voters in November. He is seen favorably by 62 percent of California voters, compared with 29 percent who see him unfavorably. Clinton, by contrast has a 49-44 percent favorable-unfavorable rating, while McCain has a 46-45 percent favorable-unfavorable rating. Wow. Hillary and McSame can't crack a 50% favorable, while Obama is viewed favorably by nearly two-thirds of voters.
- Obama does better than Clinton in all age, educational groups and income levels except three: voters over 65, voters with a high school education or less, and voters earning less than $40,000 a year.
The Field Poll also shows that Democrats are tired of the primary fight and are ready to move on to the general election, with Obama as their nominee:"I think voters here and elsewhere have been viewing the events of the last two or three months as the nomination battle has unfolded, and Californians are coming to the conclusion that Obama is the delegate winner," DiCamillo said. "They seem to be satisfied with backing Obama as the nominee.
"Many California Democrats are probably anxious to get the general election started and to stop the intramural battle between Obama and Clinton," he said.