- ‹ previous
- 3076 of 8793
- next ›
Is Clinton Staying In To Say, "I Told You So"?
Why is Hillary Clinton still in the race?
Ever since she failed to cream Barack Obama in Indiana, pundits and analysts have been chewing this over--and now that the West Virginia primary is done, even though she won by a more than two-to-one margin, the question still hovers. After all, Obama has racked up an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates and has pulled ahead in the superdelegate count, meaning the race is essentially complete. Clinton and her campaign advisers have argued that she can still win the nomination if she does well in the last few primaries and then persuades superdelegates she is the better candidate to do battle with John McCain. But the superdelegates don't seem receptive to her case. And the fact that she has throttled back on the anti-Obama rhetoric in recent days--she barely criticized him in her not-so-jubilant West Virginia victory speech--is a signal that she may not believe her own spin and is merely halfheartedly trudging toward the last primaries (Montana and South Dakota) on June 3.
Yet there she is--an active and hard-working candidate. And the commentators have come up with several obvious explanations:
* She wants to remain in the hunt just in case something happens. (A video appears of Wright calling for armed revolution? Fox News produces Obama's Secret Muslim Membership card?)
* She is staying in for one last round of fundraising. (Her campaign is $20 million in debt and owes her $11 million.)
* She wants to end her historic campaign with a string of victories: West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico. (Puerto Rico? She is a senator from New York.)
* And the most obvious of them all: she's not yet ready to face the music.
No doubt, a combo of these rationales is fueling Clinton's impossible ride. But let me add one more to the mix: Clinton is setting up the biggest I-told-you-so in recent American political history.
Assume Obama is the nominee and imagine that he loses to McCain in the fall. Where would that leave Clinton? She would be able to wag her finger at her party, and she wouldn't even have to say those haughty words. She and her die-hard confederates would be able to note simply and smugly, We did try to warn you. In the following four years, they would remind reporters, party leaders, Democratic voters, and everyone else, over and over, that they had said that Obama was unelectable, that they had said he could not win blue-collar (that is, white) voters. This Clinton chorus would not cease singing this song for a nanosecond. Can't you just see Bill Clinton and Terry McAuliffe lecturing cable news hosts on this point? Hiding their schadenfreude--just barely--they would note that they had won the fundamental argument of 2008: who understands American voters the best? And in this scenario, Hillary Clinton would be well-positioned for 2012. In fact, she would have such bragging rights as to be able to question any other Democrat's entry into the presidential contest. She might even expect the party this time to hand her the nomination on a platter--accompanied with one big apology.
This is not to say that Hillary Clinton is wishing for an Obama defeat in November. And there's little doubt that she will campaign fiercely and enthusiastically for Obama--if only to preserve her standing in the party and to earn good will among his devotees. But like any good politician, she now has to consider all the possibilities, all the angles. And as she determines what to do here and now, she must consider what an Obama loss would mean for her own political future.
Under the most reasonable set of assumptions, the 60-year-old Clinton's presidential ambitions can only survive if Obama falls to McCain. (She can run again in 2012, but seeking the presidency in 2016--when she would be 69 by the general election--would be rather tough.) Consequently, she must factor into her current decisionmaking what actions would best serve her should Obama fail in November.
By staying in the race, Clinton has been--and will be--able to pocket more of those blue-collar voters. And with a decisive win in Puerto Rico on June 1, she could cut into Obama's edge in the popular vote. Even if she has no shot at coaxing superdelegates with her blue-collar argument, she will be bolstering her you-should've-listened-to-me argument, in case the voters in the general election send Obama packing.
The final third of the Democratic primary contest has been dominated by questions related to blue-collar voters. Can Obama win them? If not in the primaries, then in the fall? Will white working-class Americans vote for a black Democrat? How important are they to the Democrats' prospects in the general election? Can a Democrat win without most of them? Are the Obama strategists correct when they assert their candidate can expand the Democrats' electorate--which would render white working-class voters not as important for the Democratic nominee as they have been in the past?
The Clinton camp has contended that white, lunch-pail voters are essential to Democratic victory in critical states, such as Ohio and Pennsylvania. And Clinton has promised that she will win West Virginia in the general election if she is her party's nominee, noting that no Democrat in recent decades has won the White House without bagging the Mountain State. (As if she can make such a promise.) But by winning West Virginia and Kentucky (which holds its primary on May 20), she can solidify her standing as the Dem preferred by white, blue-collar voters. And if Obama falls short on November 4, she will have all those voters standing behind her when she says....well, you know.
So remaining in the race may be more than just a matter of pride, money, or desire. It may be a calculation that looks past 2008 and to Hillary Clinton's next big thing.
Photo by flickr user Angela Radulescu used under a Creative Commons license.
More important than the red phone is the golden phone?the one used by lobbyists, major campaign contributors and other high rollers to influence policy. And we can be sure that all three of the candidates would be quick to answer cheerfully, but none more than Hillary Clinton, who shamelessly sold pardons to criminals through her brother.
It also matters not just who wins, but how he or she wins. I don't think Hillary is a racist in the conventional sense, but it's clear that she's willing to pander to and inculcate racist sentiments to win, and in this she reminds us of George HW Bush and his Willie Horton advertisements. We don't need, at this time of unprecedented economic, military, foriegn relations, environmental, healthcare and constitutional crises, a divisive, polarizing and zero-sum-paradigm driven chief executive. We need not only someone who can offer plausible solutions (as both Democrats can and McCain manifestly cannot), but someone who can unite, inspire and conciliate. And of the major candidates in the contest, only Obama can do that.
Group pushing Clinton as VP choice secretly
tied to her campaign
Article By Margaret Talev McClatchy Newspapers
A group called VoteBoth has been leading the charge for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to team up on the Democratic ticket.
But the people behind it come from just one of those camps ? Clinton's ? and one of their goals may be keeping Clinton's White House prospects alive.
The group's founder, Adam Parkhomenko, until recently worked as an assistant to Patti Solis Doyle, who was Clinton's campaign manager until February. Parkhomenko in 2003 founded the Draft Hillary for President Committee.
VoteBoth's spokesman is Sam Arora. He's a law school student who in recent years worked for Clinton and for former Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, Clinton's presidential campaign chairman.
VoteBoth's Facebook page lists three others as administrators, all with Clinton connections.
One is a Richmond-based Democratic technology consultant, who was quoted in a New York Times story about the Iowa Democratic Party's 2006 Jefferson-Jackson dinner, where he was passing out "Hillary for President" stickers.VoteBoth first filed with the Federal Election Commission on April 8, two weeks before the Pennsylvania primary that Clinton won and that was considered a crucial window for her comeback.
As Obama's strong showing made him all but certain to clinch the nomination, VoteBoth leaders began putting themselves in the spotlight, sending regular press releases, posting blogs and appearing in interviews.
Visit: Blacks4Barack.org
A Multi-Racial, Grassroots Org...Dedicated To Truth !
More important than the red phone is the golden phone?the one used by lobbyists, major campaign contributors and other high rollers to influence policy. And we can be sure that all three of the candidates would be quick to answer cheerfully, but none more than Hillary Clinton, who shamelessly sold pardons to criminals through her brother.
It also matters not just who wins, but how he or she wins. I don't think Hillary is a racist in the conventional sense, but it's clear that she's willing to pander to and inculcate racist sentiments to win, and in this she reminds us of George HW Bush and his Willie Horton advertisements. We don't need, at this time of unprecedented economic, military, foriegn relations, environmental, healthcare and constitutional crises, a divisive, polarizing and zero-sum-paradigm driven chief executive. We need not only someone who can offer plausible solutions (as both Democrats can and McCain manifestly cannot), but someone who can unite, inspire and conciliate. And of the major candidates in the contest, only Obama can do that.
Group pushing Clinton as VP choice secretly
tied to her campaign
Article By Margaret Talev McClatchy Newspapers
A group called VoteBoth has been leading the charge for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to team up on the Democratic ticket.
But the people behind it come from just one of those camps ? Clinton's ? and one of their goals may be keeping Clinton's White House prospects alive.
The group's founder, Adam Parkhomenko, until recently worked as an assistant to Patti Solis Doyle, who was Clinton's campaign manager until February. Parkhomenko in 2003 founded the Draft Hillary for President Committee.
VoteBoth's spokesman is Sam Arora. He's a law school student who in recent years worked for Clinton and for former Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, Clinton's presidential campaign chairman.
VoteBoth's Facebook page lists three others as administrators, all with Clinton connections.
One is a Richmond-based Democratic technology consultant, who was quoted in a New York Times story about the Iowa Democratic Party's 2006 Jefferson-Jackson dinner, where he was passing out "Hillary for President" stickers.VoteBoth first filed with the Federal Election Commission on April 8, two weeks before the Pennsylvania primary that Clinton won and that was considered a crucial window for her comeback.
As Obama's strong showing made him all but certain to clinch the nomination, VoteBoth leaders began putting themselves in the spotlight, sending regular press releases, posting blogs and appearing in interviews.
Visit: Blacks4Barack.org
A Multi-Racial, Grassroots Org...Dedicated To Truth !
More important than the red phone is the golden phonethe one used by lobbyists, major campaign contributors and other high rollers to influence policy. And we can be sure that all three of the candidates would be quick to answer cheerfully, but none more than Hillary Clinton, who shamelessly sold pardons to criminals through her brother.
It also matters not just who wins, but how he or she wins. I don't think Hillary is a racist in the conventional sense, but it's clear that she's willing to pander to and inculcate racist sentiments to win, and in this she reminds us of George HW Bush and his Willie Horton advertisements. We don't need, at this time of unprecedented economic, military, foriegn relations, environmental, healthcare and constitutional crises, a divisive, polarizing and zero-sum-paradigm driven chief executive. We need not only someone who can offer plausible solutions (as both Democrats can and McCain manifestly cannot), but someone who can unite, inspire and conciliate. And of the major candidates in the contest, only Obama can do that.
IF McCain were to win in the fall, there will be no "I told you so" because HRC would be blamed because of her Rep like campaigning of smearing our candidate.
for what it's worth, i think the above two comments are right on the money.
She would have no chance in 2012. If Obama loses, I will not vote for her now--or ever. I can confidently say that the white working-class would have even more clout after an Obama loss. Because they would be the only ones left in the Democratic Party.
When are the Democratic party leaders going to quit pandering to white racists and make the moral case that the party will unite behind Obama and not choose Hillary just because racists like her better. Giving in to that would be worse than losing to McCain.
Hillary is a selfish selfcentered,egotistical woman. She doesn't give a damn about the democratic party. If she manages to somehow steal this nomination from Obama,I will not vote for her. I'll stay home.
How is it that Hillary can announce in a speech on national television that an 11 year old sold his bike and his video games to donate the proceeds to her campaign? I thought that federal law required a person to be a certain age before they could donate. What am I missing?
We all clearly know that a unified democratic party behind Obama will win in november. Clnton has run a poor, dispicable, disrespectful and nasty campaign from the beginning and more after Super Tuesday, she cannot win in november because almost half of our nation just don't like her, in the democratic party and beyond, so Obama is the only who can win: Democrats (if we're united behind him), almost all Independents and a lot of republicans, this is what's gonna happen in november if we have Obama, he'll win.
Clinton is dammadging Obama with her "kitchen sink" campaign, here in NY a lot of her supporters have switched to Obama because of her nasty behavior, so if Obama loses in november, it'll be because of her, because of what she did in this campaign and we'll never forget that, if she hopes for his defeat to have a free pass in order to run again in 2012, so she's the most stupid woman of our party, nobody will vote for her now or in 4 years from now, we'll have another nominee at that time, another more qualified woman than her. If she has a bit of good sense then she'd better do everything to elect Obama, his victory will be our country victory and we'll do extremely well, the contrary will destroy the party and she'll be hold responsible for.
If she loses, she will be enemy #1 for the Democrats. Her baseless, vile lies attacking Obama have made it difficult for him to get his message out, while doing nothing for her.
I will never forgive either of the Clintons for playing to the ugliest side of the Democratic Party, and for reminding me why I only became a Democrat because of George W. Bush.
Your theory is borderline paranoia!How about if she believes that her argument will be accepted by a majority of the supers!
Hey People,
You democrat voters are soooo blind. Can't you see that if you DON"T vote for hrc, that you WILL loose in November..? Already most of the southern voters, who are not black, are NOT going to vote for bho in November. And in many states they have no problem in telling obama workers just that. And for every 1 who will say it outright, there are 2 who will think it in the voting booth.
Now you probably think this is racists to assert, but if 90% of blacks voting for obama are NOT racists then white doing the opposite is NOT racist..!!!
You forgot that when 90% of the blacks vote for obama, you think that is fine, but you NEVER thought that it might work the other way..HUH..?
If obama is the candidate in November, you will finally be OVER as a party, only the fringe will become a democrat, (gays, lefties, etc..)
How very sad and ending to such a grand party..:-(
Bill
You Obama cultists are just mad because Hillary whooped Obama's ass and owned him in West Virginia.
Love it.
All you big brained Star buck elitists have been experiencing a premature political ejaculation regarding who will be the parties nominee! Females, especially eschew premature ejaculations! But they always want to keep trucking!
I am not ugly and I am not racist. I even did community organizing in Ethiopia, India and Thailand. I came from a family where neither parent had a college degree and I got myself into the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown. I have affinities for both candidates and have personally, professionally (I track accountability on cleaning up one of our major ecosystems.) You insult me. I don't insult you or Obama's supporters. Get a grip on your sense of being infallbly correct. I hope Obama can win, I hope he can govern. But I think Hillary is a better bet, warts and all. Show me a little respect or I will struggle not to stay home in November.
I beg to differ with those who would say Hillary is not racist. It is just as ill willed to use
racism to win as it is to be a racist.
I will not vote for Barack Obama. If Clinton is not the nominee, I will most likely not vote.
Should Hillary get the nomination, I will vote for Ralph Nadar, even though I know he won't win, at least I will have placed my vote, but won't help get rid of the DLC. Obama actually could get rid of the DLC. Believe me folks, getting rid of the DLC is the main most prime objective. Apparently, white West Virginians aren't even aware of the DLC, much less know that Hillary Clinton is one of the traitorous cooperating leaders following the corporate REPUBLICAN DLC lobbyists that caused all the outsourcing and job losses with their N.A.F.T.A. plan to redo the United States.
Obama can win against McCain -- Yes, He Can --- McCain said he doesn't know anything about economics, so how good could he be? McCain would be just another Bush type puppet president, and I doubt if he would be as good even as Bush. If the REPUBLICAN side of the Democratic Party doesn't plan on fraud to get Hillary in, then Obama is going to be our next president. West Virginia hillbilly white folk just do not seem to me to be the deciding factor.
How about Nebraska? I haven't heard who led in Nebraska. I only get local channels and local channels are just not good at telling anything of interest in politics. Just the RIGHT WING leaning Sunday talk shows, so if I don't see the figures on the net, I guess I'll have to wait until Sunday to find out about Nebraska.
i come here and read a insightful article and then look at the comments and want to puke!i am 54 ,ive been a moderate democrat all my adult life.i am a proud contributor and supporter of HRC and will not vote for obama in novemeber.you can call me any name or lable me as you like and this is a small reason why we hillary supporters will not support obama.the main reason why i will not is he is a marxist and has stated this in his own booksw and by his associations.this country is not always right we make mistakes as people and our government makes mistakes but this is still the best nation on earth.also contray to you obamaites thought is this country is a centrist country not a peoples marxist society so grow up.
I suggest that some of you chaps and gals swallow a chill pill or alternatively like Carl Sagan inhale some good "kind bud"!Most Obama supporters are young folks! Relax you will have your time! You are the next American generation and have permission and leave to rule -someday!
It's sad to see such Faustian ambition. I fear that there are forces of darkness at work here.
M. Scott Peck speaks in his work "People of the Lie", about people who attack others instead of facing their own failures. These people wreak havoc in the lives of others, in this case perhaps, a whole nation. A whole world that is watching our nation, which, at this time, and because of the actions of other People of the Lie, is a fragile nation.
I pray that our Union will endure, and our Planet.
This election should be about beating Republicans, not destroying Democrats. Do we really want McCain selecting Supreme Court justices?
Hillary has managed to expose and underscore every fault-line in the Democratic Party. What she is savoring in West Virgina is not a victory, it is a Democratic Party defeat. She needs to stop now.
To Bill Nigh; I'm not sure where you live, but I live in the south. There are lots and lots and lots of us typical white people who have, and will will be happy to again vote for Obama. He didn't get 700,000 more votes than hrc just by getting the "black vote". Do the math.
Voting for someone of the same color / gender / state of origin / age group because you relate to them doesn't mean you're racist / sexist / etc. It's when you refuse to vote for them because of that trait that it becomes discriminatory. If I'm from West Virginia and I vote for you because you're also from WV, that's not Statist. But if I refuse to vote for you because you're from WV, then that would be discriminatory. If women vote for Hillary, that's not sexist. If they refuse to vote for John McCain for the single reason that he's male, that's sexist. So you see, it really doesn't work both ways. Sorry.
Oh please, if Obama loses it has nothing to do with Clinton at all....it has to do with him....sorry but the party is divided not becoz of her, but becoz of RACE....simple....its not her fault and its not his fault....the voters have their own opinions etc and this has been shown during the primaries....Sorry to say if he loses is Clintons fault is plain stupid....look at what is happening here, Obama getting 90% of black votes and Clinton 60+% of white votes....you trying to tell me thats Clinton's fault NO.....Obama is not experience enough to run America or even win the election....thats the end of the point....All Clinton is trying to do is tell the American people this....
I for won, will vote McCain in the fall over Obama...not becoz of color....but coz of experience....at a time that our country is in a HUGE mess, we need someone who has the experience to turn it around, especially the economy etc...All this about change etc, sorry thats not HOPE for me....there is a song that sums it up for me "Better The Devil You Know" and i know about McCain so would rather go for him then someone we know nothing about and how is a junior....
don tufts- I thought I was the only little brain that had out- thought the big brains! You figured out Obamas's intrinsic endemic political Achilles heal!His political malady is that he appears to be a communist and the republicans will swift boat him to death driving home this erroneous propaganda!In addition he appears to be a pansy that rebuffs gays like senator Craig!
The truth of the matter is that a Democrat will win the Presidency regardless. Nominate Mickey Mouse, he'll win. These flipped congressional seats show how fed up the country is of Republicans. Clinton is lobbying for the VP slot.
The Clinton machine is forever labeling groups of people. Well, where would you place me? A 60yo white conservative republican female who plans on voting for Obama! And I also have a twin sister that is doing the same. What category do we fit in? Silly, silly Clintonites. All for themselves with no concern for America.
May be that Hillary Clinton is looking ahead to 2008, but that is no excuse for discounting West Virginia. WV was overtime for the near tie in Indiana, and absolute devastation any way you cut it.
Just in case no one gets it, the Clintons are going all the way to the first ballot no matter what happens.
The end of the primaries on June 3 are the beginning of a second campaign, with ten weeks for the Clinton campaign to make Sen. Obama implode.
This is a battle which will be taken to the rank and file, not the leadership, with a new strategy and an outreach for every segment of the electorate.
Get ready, because it ain't over just quite yet!
Predicated upon American tradition and meme's Hillary's rank and standing in the American democratic party is far superior to Obama's! Her contributions by Bill and her are endless and have earned substantial success and plaudits and econumums!He deservedly should join her ticket and agree to run for Vice President!He would not be "Driving Miss Daisy" but rather learning to take the ropes of America for his generation of Americans;in addition gaining "American Trust"!
The most important traits for an executive are the ability to hire good advisers and the judgment to know the best advice when you hear it. I think Obama has those traits. Clinton probably does too, though sometimes she seems a little stubborn and her gas tax proposal makes me wonder if she really does know what she's doing.
If Obama losses to McCain it well be Clinton's fault. She's wounding our chances for real change. McCain and the right's already starting to crucify Obama and Hilary's holding the nails. She is self serving and she's as crustie as McCain, I'll never vote for her. It's only white Alpha females that well, I don't know what they see in her?
Hillary won't be alone in saying, ''I told you so.''
She has garnered at least 55% - 60% of the Democratic vote during the primaries, once you exclude Republicans and independent voters. For example, in California (a semi-open primary), Clinton won by 8 points and 427,000 votes (this gave her a 204-166 lead in pledged delegates in the state).
But if you were to factor in the exit polls to estimate the registered-Democratic vote only, she would have won the state by a whopping 19 points and 770,000 votes. Her pledged delegate victory in California would have increased significantly as well.
Democratic leaders like Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid want this campaign over with yesterday, not only because they privately prefer Obama to Hillary, but because the funding has dried up for the DCCC and the DSCC, as $$$ is flowing to the presidential primary races instead. They, like Obama, have decided to take for granted the votes of the lower-income voters, the blue-collar working class and senior citizens and instead lust over a massive campaign contribution data list that Obama can provide them.
Potential Hillary-turned McCain-voters if Obama is the nominee are constantly told by the pundits how dare we consider voting against our supposed economic interests, as if national security, experience and values don't matter. Only the almighty buck.
Congressman Steve Cohen (D-TN 9th) insinuates that Hillary is obsessed and mentally unstable in a recent sexually-toned attack.
Hillary supporters are constantly branded racists by Obama's supporters and the press.
Lower-income whites who couldn't afford to attend college are constantly referred to as ''downscale voters'' or ''uneducated, low-income voters''.
If the elitist snobs in the press could get away with it, they'd say what they are really thinking: ''stupid, poor white people.''
When Obama rolled off a streak of wins after Super Tuesday that has as much electoral significance COMBINED as California, he was treated as if he was the Second Coming by the media.
Yet when Hillary won nearly all the primaries since (Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Rhode Island, West Virginia to Obama's Vermont and North Carolina), every day a handful of turncoats or previously undeclared supers announce for Obama.
The DNC will soon officially throw Hillary overboard (either in June with the supers to push Obama over the 2025 mark to make him the nominee-apparent before Florida and Michigan can be contested or at the Con with a floor fight, even though 2025 number means absolutely nothing until the delegates at the convention rule it so).
But with her, they are also tossing overboard many of the most loyal Democratic voters - in exchange for shacking up with the latte-lefties and the unreliable never-have-voted and first-time-voter crowd and will be in for a rude awakening come November.
There's a price to be paid for throwing Hillary over the side the way they are doing and it will be paid for in spades. Many longtime, loyal Democratic voters will rightfully feel betrayed by their party and will cross party lines in November and help send John McCain to the White House.
After the Potomac primaries certain surreptitious T.V. journalist became complicit with certain print press newsmen and women to attempt to influence the American presidential election!Until the American people spoke in West Virgina they were having their way with the process! This is an entirely different election now!In reality this was more of a fight for historic remembrance! what family name will be spread across future American textbooks? Clinton or Kennedy?
Obama is up by 20 points now in Oregon. Blacks make up only 1.5% of the Oregon population. And nevermind that he won a majority of white votes in numerous western states. Furthermore, he is up by anywhere from six to ten points nationwide among democrats.
Well, I don't know what she's looking for, but I'm looking for some of the "denouncing and rejection" that she dished out earlier. As in "I denounce and reject the racism blatantly displayed in West Virginia". And as in " I would not solicit or accept votes from racists." Come on, Hillary. Turn around is fair play. Step up. I and others are really disappointed in your lack of display of integrity on a really basic issue. I'm worried abut how low you will stoop to get votes. Do you really consider yourself the leader of white racists, or will you take the high road and publicly and widely reject and denounce these shameful expressions of racism? Exactly where do you stand on this issue? As an American, I'm embarrassed and sad that our first seriously-taken female candidate would build support based on racism and ignorance. Hoping you and Chelsea and Bill will stand up, reject and denounce. Your response?
don tufts:
dont forget to look for that socialist under your bed tonight.
it is called corp fascism brainwashing and with you it worked wonders.
and the dollar is doing what against the euro.
vote repub you will fit right in.
On 05/13/08 at 9:01 PM, James said:
----This election should be about beating Republicans, not destroying Democrats. Do we really want McCain selecting Supreme Court justices?----
Get real! It was a Democratic-controlled Senate that put Scalia (97-0, by the way) and Thomas on the bench. Yes, even Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy and John Kerry voted for Scalia.
Preceding that 1986 vote was one to make Rehnquist Chief Justice. You can thank recent Obama-endorsees Sam Nunn and David Boren for that one.
Furthermore, it was the fighting, PARTISAN Democrats (the kind Obama and his supporters constantly disparage), like the late Howard Metzenbaum, who helped spare us Robert Bork.
So, please. Spare us the crocodile tears about Supreme Court appointments.
After the election and the dust settles their will be a serious investigation by Congress regarding the standards of conduct of T.V. commentators! They will scream bloody murder that the proposed legislation attacks the first amendment but it will be demanded acquiescence!Their conduct and journalistic ethics will be myopically focused upon!
"There's a price to be paid for throwing Hillary over the side the way they are doing and it will be paid for in spades. Many longtime, loyal Democratic voters will rightfully feel betrayed by their party and will cross party lines in November and help send John McCain to the White House."
john mc cain deserves to be in the white house. after all he bombed women and children in that other illegal war and americans call him an american hero.
that is how warped the minds of americans has become. power corrupts and super power status has corrupted most of americans mind.
the white house should be painted red in memory of all the vietnamese we killed.
now we kill iraqis for their oil and not many americans lose a minute of sleep over that.
there is a name for people like that: war mongers.
Dean 2012!
Researcher,
The name for people like that is: American veterans who've protected our sorry asses while you go off on them for the decisions made by political leaders at the time. Democratic political leaders, unfortunately (JFK and LBJ).
When you insult John McCain, you insult every other Vietnam War vet. Be sure to pass on that advise to Barack Obama and see how many electoral votes he'd get if he made the same comment you just did.
No doubt you probably think fighting the Nazi's was morally wrong, too.
Gute Nacht!
Four years is forever in politics, and anything can, and usually does, happen. Hillary's campaign will be ancient history by then, and many other Dem candidates will be on the scene.
More to your point, though, Dem insiders/funders would have two easy comebacks to your hypothetical "I told you so" argument: 1) Hillary, you had massive leads in every state going into the primaries, a huge lead in early superdelegates, the Democratic Party establishment basically in lock step behind you, and YOU BLEW IT! No way we're going to back you again. 2) The GE polls showed Obama doing better electorally than you, Hillary, against McCain, late in the primaries, so it looks like you would have lost too.
@WomanOver50
Thanks so much for putting that into words. I'm not the best at expressing my thoughts in language and you did it better than I ever could.
@Mary Beth
I hear where you're coming from. The best I can say is that I know that of course not all Clinton supporters are the names that people call them - really the names and the insults usually generate from the extreme of one side directed toward the extreme of the other. Most democrats (and rational people) will vote for the democratic candidate.
ps. i would love to hear more about your life. very interesting.
She can't be too smug. She'll get quite a bit of the blame if Obama loses.
It's obvious voters have a mind of their own. Hillary has said Obama can win in November. She has also said it is essential that Democrats win the Presidency in 2008. But her supporters, who may be sore losers, don't seem to care about her priorities. She has the maturity level to play an all-out game, and in the end, if she loses, to get behind the winner. It doesn't seem like Clinton's support is really all that strong, because her supporters do not share her values. It's like they are just using her as a way to vote against the black, or the less experienced candidate. Who ever heard of choosing a Republican over an inexperienced Democrat? Is choosing a president really about something that simple, not the policy positions of the candidates? I went to a Hillary campaign event recently in which President Clinton spoke. He told the sudience why he thought Hillary would make a great President. He said nothing against Obama, and the subtext of his entire presentaton was that a Republican win in November would be a disaster, as there are stark differences between the two parties. Hillary's ideas are great, but she has no lock on them. They are probably supported by 90% of Democratic senators. There is no reason that Obama cannot adopt any of them, and as he is intelligent and in the Democratic mainstream, no doubt he will, as the sincerest form of flattery to his tenacious opponent. However, Obama has outmaneuvered her in the race for the nomination, and much of her necessary pursuit of a "comeback" was due to strategic errors in her own campaign. Does this mean the Democratic Party will have the "wrong" nominee? No, it has the one the rules delivered. And one can't change the rules after the fact, and insist on choosing the nominee some other way, because one's favored candidate did not prevail, unless one prefers anarchy. Obama's strategy for victory in November will be realistic. He is leaving nothing to chance, and if he loses some of the "traditional" vote, he aims to make it up by increasing turnout in the youth, Latino, and African American community. In other words, he plans a new sort of race, in which the patterns of past elections do not restrict the outcome. Certainly he will make every effort to connect with the white, working class, but if some of them are in love with McCain, and want McCain's policies to prevail, he will follow another strategy to victory. When true Democrats contemplate what a McCain presidency will mean, they will have a hard time voting for him, just because their candidate did not win the nomination. Many Hillary supporters insinuate that party elders who want the divisive primary campaign to win, are being unfair to Hillary. They must realize that had Obama faced the same odds, he could never have withstood the pressure to quit. Can you imagine Obama pressing on, pitching to the superdelegates that he'd better be the nominee because his black supporters won't vote for a white and his male supporters won't vote for a female, and his young supporters won't vote for an older person? Take the majority of the Democratic party out of her vote and of course she loses in November. What does she have against McCain? He's white, he's male, and he's experienced. All she has is her Democratic approach to the issues. But if Americans vote identity instead of party she's doomed in November, without the blacks, the young, and the liberals.
I don't see how anyone with a healthy skepticism of the corporate owned media can claim that it has been biased against Hillary: 1)they have utterly failed to vet Hillbill since the WH years (Bill's continued connection to Walmart--the most anti-union company ever, his millions earned from helping oil rich middle-eastern countries invest in U.S. banks, the saudi donors to the Clinton library, and their ties to fat-cat donors, ect.)2)they continue to pretend that the race is not over--even though it has been over since Feb.3)they spent weeks trotting out the Rev. J. Wright and even mentioned Ayers--a completely erroneous connection (do your homework--the media will not do it for you)3)they have failed to challenge the Clinton spin on Obama's money advantage going into Pennsylvania by failing to acknowledge that unlike her, his donations came from the people--not corporate interests.4)and now, as I write, they are touting the Clinton win as if it gives her a chance--nevermind that the only way she can win is if the super's subvert the will of the voters--and yes, seating Mich. and Florida as they voting would be a subversion of all those voters who did not vote because either Obama was not on the ballot (Mich), or they did not show up because they knew their vote wouldn't count (Mich. and Flor.)
There is no reason that makes complete sense. Except one:
Hillary is a neocon. She is pushing for VP. Obama is no neocon, and his none advisors are. Maybe one or two are sympathizers.
The war party wants to make sure it infiltrates the Whitehouse whether it is a Democrat or a Republican.
Hillary's job is to either ruin Barak's chances, or get in as VP to push the "more war" agenda of the neocons.