Clinton goes too far; finally

[tripod]

Trinity you are insane.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Indeed. Like it or not it's over. She's a distraction now.

WHEN people one day look back at the remarkable implosion of the Hillary Clinton campaign, they may notice that it both began and ended in the long dark shadow of Iraq.

It’s not just that her candidacy’s central premise — the priceless value of “experience” — was fatally poisoned from the start by her still ill-explained vote to authorize the fiasco. Senator Clinton then compounded that 2002 misjudgment by pursuing a 2008 campaign strategy that uncannily mimicked the disastrous Bush Iraq war plan. After promising a cakewalk to the nomination — “It will be me,” Mrs. Clinton told Katie Couric in November — she was routed by an insurgency.

The Clinton camp was certain that its moneyed arsenal of political shock-and-awe would take out Barack Hussein Obama in a flash. The race would “be over by Feb. 5,” Mrs. Clinton assured George Stephanopoulos just before New Year’s. But once the Obama forces outwitted her, leaving her mission unaccomplished on Super Tuesday, there was no contingency plan. She had neither the boots on the ground nor the money to recoup.
- Frank Rich (NY Times)

Comparing Hillary's campaign to the likes of Iraq is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? For starters, 4000+ people didn't have to die in order for her to run. But that's a moot point. It's really funny to read this blurb from Frank Rich and see him use a projected win date as a reason to bash Clinton. We don't know how many times a person has been wrong with predicting the exact outcome of a contest, whether it be sporting or political. Of course, now that Hillary has done the same thing it has to become a talking point of her continued incompetence. Again, another stretch.

People scream at her for mud slinging at Obama, yet she's not said anything as bad as the Republicans will once this primary is over. And even if Republicans would come out in droves to vote against Hillary, they're going to do it against Obama as well. No Democrat really believes that he has a good chance at winning states like Mississippi, Alabama, Kansas or the majority of states in his victory column which usually vote Republican. Most of them voting for Bush TWICE. At the same time, hopefuls are just assuming that key states like California & New York will always go for the Democrat when there's recent instances that even these states went Republican at one time. Dangerous assumptions if you ask me.

I look back at this whole contest and wonder whether or not misogyny really played a role in her downfall, for I've never seen a candidate be viewed with such anger and detest before. Most of the arguments about Clinton are about her character, not her policy or what she stands for. They act as if the sooner they get rid of her, the better it's going to be for this country. I think otherwise. Even if she doesn't win the nomination, there are over 47 Million people in our country who believe she's worthy enough to be president. And if 1% of these people decided not to come out and vote for Obama because of all the hatred & bashing they've experienced throughout the Primary, it's still enough for Obama to lose in November. If she's so insignificant and irrelevant at this point, then why is everyone still talking about her? She's not the one splitting the party in half... right now, it's the haters that are doing it with their constant political spins and bashing. Isn't this the initial gameplan of the Republicans to begin with? And we're all falling for it. Hook, line & sinker.

 

[deleted15807]

Trinity you are insane.

I think she's actually Hillary. Can we get a DNA swab?

 

[Industrialsize]

You know, you and your cohorts need to worry about your own state of delusion...Obama delusion.

Obama hasn't run a better campaign. Thats not why he is leading by just shy of few hundred delegates. His campaign organization and Mr. Niceguy persona does account for something...but just very little. I believe Hillary Clinton's sheer drive, fighter mentality and depth of knowledge, leadership and experience counterbalanced that. I believe what has truly accounted for the Obama slight advantage, because they are separated by less than 2%, is bias - gender and media, and democratic unfairness...in the Democratic Party system.

On the fundraising issue and organization in the campaign...Obama's fundraising accomplishments are very impressive but they matter little to me. Obama has had lobbyists and Oil Company execs (which he misrepresents to the American People) and MoveOn.Org fundraising for him. Look at McCain. McCain was flat broke, unable to pay his staff and then they all jumped ship. McCain operated on a shoe-string budget with no staff to become the presumptive Republican nominee up against another money powerhouse Mitt Romney. So don't try to use money. McCain is still running behind both Democrats in fundraising.

Your last sentence reminds me of that scene in the matrix. When Agent Smith is fighting Neo for like twenty minutes in that epic battle in the rain and they are in the crater and Smith is beating Neo...and Smith puts his hand in Neo's chest and changes Neo into another Smith Agent...then he asks himself "Is it Over?"

You sound afraid Industrial. If you've won relax. If you did what you wanted to do and what you wanted to happen...happened
be at peace.

Who are you trying to convince? Me or you.

by the way...you only think it's over.

Nope I ain't afraid at all........The faults of the Clitnon campaign are well documented and have been written about ad nauseum. How did an unknow African American man with a funny name end up beating a memeber of a Political dynasty who was considered unbeatable and inevitable? Someone ran a good campaign.....and i'll echo tripod, you are insane.

 

[dong20]

You aren't getting what I am saying Dong... read this carefully because I am repeating what I just posted that you chose to ignore.

Republicans are the ultimate predators, they will win at ALL COSTS.

Do you get that Dong?

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, and my post was posed as a question! I didn't ignore the rest of your post, I merely responded to one part, and in large part I agree with you. That's partly what I meant by not entirely convinced.

Do ya get it Dong? And could you refrain from using phrases like "concernedly portentous". I mean honestly, could you have not come up with a more common phrase than that? I have never even heard someone say that and is pretty fucking elitist of you to use it.

Again, I'm largely in agreement with you, although again, not entirely. Because it's based on a generalisation as much as anything.

Finally, why use a sentence when two words will suffice? In fact, read in context portentous alone would have conveyed my meaning. It may not have been 'common' parlance, but elitist ... please. But let me respond to your suggestion in simple terms; I'll write any damn way I please. :tongue:

 

[deleted15807]

Republicans are the ultimate predators, they will win at ALL COSTS.

Do you get that Dong?

Republicans have an attack machine that usually defeats all in it's path.

Republicans usually vote out of hate. They HATED Al Gore and they HATED Kerry, and they were defeated. They absolutely HATE Hillary more than they hate just about anyone.

That's my biggest fear. In spite of all the crap about liberal bias in the media, the Republicans with the "liberal media's" help managed to gain control of all three branches of government. And in spite of their spectacular failures in all the branches they are still a very formidable force.

in his newest book, The Republican Noise Machine, Brock documents how right-wing groups pressure the media and spread misinformation to the public. It's easy to see how this is done. Fringe conspiracies and stories will be kept alive by outlets like Rush Limbaugh, the Washington Times, and the Drudge Report, until they finally break into the mainstream media. Well-funded think tanks like the Heritage Foundation overwhelm news reporters with distorted statistics and conservative spin. Mainstream cable news channels employ staunchly rightwing pundits -- like Pat Buchanan and Sean Hannity -- to twist facts and echo Republican talking points, all under the rubric of "balance." Meanwhile, media groups like Brent Bozell's Media Research Center have spent 30 years convincing the public that the media is, in fact, liberal. As Brock says, it's all a sham: "I have seen, and I know firsthand, indeed from my own pen, how the organized Right has sabotaged not only journalism but also democracy and truth."

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Warning, the following link may not be enjoyed by those who don't support Senator Obama. For those who do, ENJOY:
A pictorial of Senator Obama speaking at Wesleyan University for Senator kennedy:
Daily Kos: Obama's Emotional Tribute to Teddy - before 25,000

There's none like him just now.
Tnx for that, Indie.

You sound afraid Industrial. If you've won relax. If you did what you wanted to do and what you wanted to happen...happened
be at peace.
Who are you trying to convince? Me or you.
By the way...you only think it's over.

Trinity, if you've won, relax. If what you wanted to happen, happened ... be at peace.
Who are you trying to convince?
It's over.
Just do the math.

 

[Trinity]

When asked, "Do you plan to run for president?," once again we were greeted with that ol' river in Egypt. She protested time and again, stating she was very happy to stay a senator from her adoptive (carpetbagged) state.

And now she's running for president. She got where she has by stepping on everyone and anyone including her own supporters and the people of the state of New York who were stupid enough to elect her in the first place. Prior to her seating in the Senate, she had no experience as an elected official. Now, after less than two terms in the senate, she wants to be president. Many people think she hasn't earned a thing on her own; that she has relied on her husband and his political clout to get where she is. She appears to be less of a senator and more of a brand of odious-smelling cleaning fluid.

Very very good synopsis! The Clintons moving to New York after living their entire lives in Arkansas was nothing but pure political strategy to get Hillary in the White House.

That was a bunch of garbage. Hillary Clinton was one of the most influential First Lady's of our time. There was never any doubt that she would run for public office after her vast contributions in the White House as First Lady.

Hillary Clinton ran the hardest run campaign ever in New York and WON. The exploratory committee came back and reported that a majority in the state said that they would never vote for Hillary Clinton. She actively campaigned to chang their minds and proved herself to be the candidate with the skills of leadership and savvy to hold that Senate seat.

Now in your last paragraph that I've put in bold...that describes Barack Obama. Obama is only in his third year as a Senator. That means he has two years in the Senate under his belt. Barely enough time to do anything. His eight years in the Illinois Senate which weren't note worthy, do not qualify him as highly qualified elected official...unless you think your state senator who votes present on a regular basis is qualified to be president.

Hillary Clinton has relied on hard work and determination in the face of adversity to get where she is. She has earned everything she has. Hillary Clinton has supported her husband and she had done more in service to this Nation than Barack Obama on his best day. To say otherwise is sexist and belittling particularly when Obama has done practically nothing.

You express the views that divide this party. Not just for sexist reasons, because I do feel what you said was sexist, but on the general principle of fairness. We used to disagree and but be fair...give credit where credit is do. We don't do that anymore.

 

[deleted15807]

Trinity you are weaving all over the road. I'm going to have to ask you to step out of the car please. Have you had anything to drink this morning?


YouTube - Funny DUI

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Hillary Clinton has relied on hard work and determination in the face of adversity to get where she is. She has earned everything she has.

I think that's largely true (though being married to a man who became president certainly gave her a substantial leg up).
Clinton could be a very good president, imo.

Hillary Clinton has supported her husband and she had done more in service to this Nation than Barack Obama on his best day. To say otherwise is sexist and belittling particularly when Obama has done practically nothing.

She probably has done more than Obama.
She's also proven quite divisive, for whatever reason ... and I find it a bit (but not totally) unaccountable.
Everyone knows the differences in their levels of achievement.
But when they're looking at potential, at what someone can do going forward, they're breaking, albeit by a narrow margin, for Obama.
Isn't that all that really counts?

 

[Trinity]

Trinity you are weaving all over the road. I'm going to have to ask you to step out of the car please. Have you had anything to drink this morning?

There's no weaving going on my part, Sargon. Just you being silly.

 

[bosatbk]

There's no weaving going on my part, Sargon. Just you being silly.

Yeah Sargon, she drank that Koolaid I mentioned a few days ago. It must be strong!

 

[deleted15807]

Clinton could be a very good president, imo.

When the vote to invade Iraq came before the Senate, Hillary Clinton could have read the intelligence reports herself, put her ambitions on hold, stood on principle and voted no. But she gamed the system, trying to position herself as tough as any Republican.

The press didn't undermine her candidacy. She did it herself, by showing a lack of political judgment and political courage when it mattered most.

It's a shame really. Hillary Clinton could have been a great president -- if only she hadn't wanted it so much.

 

[Industrialsize]

That was a bunch of garbage. Hillary Clinton was one of the most influential First Lady's of our time. There was never any doubt that she would run for public office after her vast contributions in the White House as First Lady.

Hillary Clinton ran the hardest run campaign ever in New York and WON. The exploratory committee came back and reported that a majority in the state said that they would never vote for Hillary Clinton. She actively campaigned to chang their minds and proved herself to be the candidate with the skills of leadership and savvy to hold that Senate seat.

Now in your last paragraph that I've put in bold...that describes Barack Obama. Obama is only in his third year as a Senator. That means he has two years in the Senate under his belt. Barely enough time to do anything. His eight years in the Illinois Senate which weren't note worthy, do not qualify him as highly qualified elected official...unless you think your state senator who votes present on a regular basis is qualified to be president.

Hillary Clinton has relied on hard work and determination in the face of adversity to get where she is. She has earned everything she has. Hillary Clinton has supported her husband and she had done more in service to this Nation than Barack Obama on his best day. To say otherwise is sexist and belittling particularly when Obama has done practically nothing.

You express the views that divide this party. Not just for sexist reasons, because I do feel what you said was sexist, but on the general principle of fairness. We used to disagree and but be fair...give credit where credit is do. We don't do that anymore.

So it's the hillary as "victim"??? that record is old and tired.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

So it's the hillary as "victim"??? that record is old and tired.

But considering how people are adamantly attacking a candidate that is supposed to be "out of the race" and irrelevant, the victim card does hold some kind of truth. In your eyes, she's already lost. So why keep kicking on a dead corpse? Obama has moved on to the general election, so why can't his fans?

 

[HazelGod]

Obama has moved on to the general election, so why can't his fans?

The vast majority of us did so weeks ago...but that doesn't mean we don't enjoy occasionally indulging in the perverse pleasure of poking stupid animals with sticks...

okey:

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

The vast majority of us did so weeks ago...but that doesn't mean we don't enjoy occasionally indulging in the perverse pleasure of poking stupid animals with sticks...

okey:

ShOoduNt tHis bE IN tHe SeX wiTh a LaRGe PEenUs thred?

 

[deleted15807]

It must be said though whether you are a Hillary fan or an Obama fan, McCain must be defeated in November. That is the far far bigger picture. It's not about celebrity. It's about policy.

If the poor vote rich again it will be another tragedy for the world. We don't need another headline like November 2004:

Nation's Poor Win Election For Nation's Rich


WASHINGTON, DC—The economically disadvantaged segment of the U.S. population provided the decisive factor in another presidential election last Tuesday, handing control of the government to the rich and powerful once again.

"The Republican party—the party of industrial mega-capitalists, corporate financiers, power brokers, and the moneyed elite—would like to thank the undereducated rural poor, the struggling blue-collar workers in Middle America, and the God-fearing underpriviledged minorities who voted George W. Bush back into office," Karl Rove, senior advisor to Bush, told reporters at a press conference Monday. "You have selflessly sacrificed your well-being and voted against your own economic interest. For this, we humbly thank you."

Added Rove: "You have acted beyond the call of duty—or, for that matter, good sense."

According to Rove, the Republicans found strong support in non-urban areas populated by the people who would have benefited most from the lower-income tax cuts and social-service programs championed by Kerry. Regardless of their own interests, these citizens turned out in record numbers to elect conservatives into office at all levels of the government.

Nation's Poor Win Election For Nation's Rich | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

 

[B_VinylBoy]

The vast majority of us did so weeks ago...but that doesn't mean we don't enjoy occasionally indulging in the perverse pleasure of poking stupid animals with sticks...

okey:

In other words, you still think she's a threat so you have to constantly remind those who may still support her about how "evil" she's supposed to be.

You'd think since your man has almost secured the nomination, Obama fans would try to win over any of the 47 million who don't share your ideas by talking about how Hillary & Obama's campaigns are similar.

Republicans played a similar card back in 2000 by telling Gore to not stand too close to Bill Clinton and it's one of the causes that lead to his defeat. It's great to see 8 year old Republican political games regurgitate itself with a twist, and affect a new election process. But keep on with the bashing, HazelGod. If you truly want Obama to win, you'd stop with aiding the further separation of the Democratic party.

 

[Skull Mason]

She's not the one splitting the party in half... right now, it's the haters that are doing it with their constant political spins and bashing. Isn't this the initial gameplan of the Republicans to begin with? And we're all falling for it. Hook, line & sinker.

Word. Mad haters hatin on hillary and mad gullible white people livin on a prayer for obama.

So how come no one talks about baracky as divisive? His two biggest issues thus far in his campaign, uncle reverend wright (and his subsequent lies about it) and his elitist comments, seem pretty fucking divisive if you ask me. A lot more divisive than alleged sniper fire and a made up connect to an assassination. Its not like his elitist comments were made up or taken out of context; they are what they are, and they are what he is. Elitist and arrogant. And there are a whoooole lot of democrats not voting for him because of it.