- BIG NEWS:
- Barack Obama
- |
- GOP
- |
- Bill Clinton
- |
- Joe Lieberman
- |
Is Hillary Positioning for 2012?
Read More:
2012 Election, Barack Obama, Democratic Primary, General Election, Hillary Clinton, John McCain,
Politics News
The Politico laid it out very clearly yesterday - and solidified what we've known for weeks - this race is over. Obama has the nomination.
Even Hillary Clinton's own campaign admits it! Politico reports, "One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives. In other words: The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe."
It's somewhat hilarious to watch the media eat up the campaign spin on the record, that she's got a great shot to win this and win the Presidency. Of course, the race gets a whole lot more boring with lower ratings when it's Obama vs. McCain, probably with a huge lull in the campaign, where - God forbid - the news media will actually have to go out and find and report news, and not just campaign talking points sent to them.
I've been trying to figure out for weeks why Hillary Clinton is still in this campaign because the math has been obvious for quite some time now. Even Mitt Romney had the - what would you call it, decency, wisdom, common sense - to drop out after he realized it was mathematically impossible (or next to impossible) for him to win.
There is one possibility as to why Senator Clinton might still be in this race, inflicting heavy damage on the presumptive Democratic nominee. That reason is Hillary 2012.
Now that's a heavy charge. I can't read her mind, so I don't know what her true intentions are. We can only judge based on her actions. Her staff understands and agrees that she has a very, very small chance of winning, but she is still willing to go after front-runner of her own party in the strongest possible words.
Look at what she has said about the man she privately believes will be the Democratic nominee for President:
He has not crossed the "Commander in Chief threshold" like John McCain has.
He cannot be trusted to answer the phone at 3am.
His only experience is a speech from 2002.
That he is disenfranchising voters in Michigan and Florida (even though she agreed to the same rules he did when those states stepped out of line in the primary process).
And, as Bill Clinton intimated yesterday, he doesn't love our country, like Hillary and McCain do.
Those are some serious blows against someone in your own party and might seriously hurt his chances of winning the general election. In fact, every day that Senator Clinton stays in the race is another day she spends money damaging Senator Obama. And every dollar she spends is a dollar in John McCain's pocket.
It almost makes you ask - does she want him to lose?
If Obama wins, then Senator Clinton couldn't run again until at least 2016 (unless something goes terribly wrong). At which point, she would be almost as old as John McCain is now. If she's ever going to become president, she has this narrow window.
On the other hand, if Senator Obama sustains serious political wounds going into the general election and winds up losing, then Hillary Clinton is sitting pretty in 2012.
In four years, John McCain will be 209 years old, and coming off a disastrous first term. We will still be in Iraq and the country will be dying for change. If you thought the voters wanted change now, imagine what the situation will be in 2012. Imagine how starved the electorate will be for a Democrat if McCain just spent four years replicating George W. Bush's policies - as he is adamantly promising to do on the campaign trail.
At that point, Senator Clinton would be able to swoop in and say, "See, you went with Obama last time and he lost, just like I told you. Now, nominate me, and I will take this White House back like we should have four years ago!"
Having narrowly lost to Obama in the primary, she would be in a great position to say "It's my turn! Let's get this right!"
Is she that cynical? Does she care that little about her own party or her own principles? Remember, a McCain win signs us up for more years in Iraq, a possible new war with Iran, an untold number of conservative judges on the Supreme Court, a probable overturn of Roe v. Wade, four more years of economic pain for the lower and middle class and ... no healthcare reform for another four years.
Is anyone that politically craven? To risk all that so they have a better chance of winning in 2012? I hope not. I hope she is just being delusional and thrashing about in misguided desperation as she continues to wound Obama going into the general election.
But if she is doing this on purpose - and she wants Obama to lose this time around so she has a better chance of winning in 2012 - she better make damn sure that news doesn't leak. Because that kind of political crime would be unforgivable. Unforgivable.
Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks
Loading comments…
Most Popular on HuffingtonPost
YcEZqNbEW6P%2FYOU7yFpk2x1%2FDEX1ULbbUPpuu7DwOXGJzCe50N2agJj97XfLgyGghcQViwvv8jx6rvT4LV7Mjw%3D%3D
8SMLFPU%2BpqRzJmkmthGEFPqPZSnCG%2FCPYcHrqkX0n5GMHqr5gNAJ73Au%2FlwDb%2BS3o2uyD86B61yocUms%2BABZ5g%3D%3D
1 of 2
HuffingtonPost Reporters
uoHtJlzrDrrAcHe3lmYpPY6AHzAMfHVL
RCL94wVTBDX5xvYsR269GG9evtek5NIN
1 of 2
Don't Miss HuffPost Bloggers
1 of 2
Huffington Post Apps and Feeds
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"Because that kind of political crime would be unforgivable. Unforgivab
Whoa! This is a very dramatic ending! Have you been taking classes from Olbermann? When John Kerry offered the vice presidency to John McCain four years ago where was your outrage then? (or were you about 12 at the time?) THAT would qualify as unforgivable. But no, the party yawned. John Kerry campaigns for Obama, and we applaud him like brain dead zombies. When we reminisce about Kerry's flaws we all say, "oh, the guy was swiftboated, he should have spoke up sooner." Yeah, well how, for the love of all things democratic, was THAT a bigger problem than offering the VICE PRESIDENCY to McCain?! When Ted Kennedy fractured the party at the 1980 convention under the feet of Jimmy Carter, was this cause to jump on your hyperbole soapbox and chant "Unforgivable!"?? Kennedy, (hold on to your hat) didn't want Carter to win either. (I'm guessing you don't remember that one either.)
As a democrat who supports Hillary but will vote for Obama if he is the nominee, you could really show a little restraint in your ridiculous demonizaton. She wants to win. This isn't "unforgivable". This is what every other ambitious candidate has ever wanted. If your candidate takes a hit in the process, well welcome to reality. All inspirational rhetoric aside, your candidate doesn't "transcend" reality.
Right on Bernie!
By the way, all of that stuff that Cenk attributed to Hillary...
The Obamites are listening to the Obama team and the press to tell them what Hillary said, rather finding out for themselves. The Obama team is working some good politics, that's why this race is so fun to watch.
And, Hillary is not going just rollover and quit. She is not a quitter. She would be disappointing virturally half of the democratic voters if she did. She needs to hang around just in case Obama gets "caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy" just before the convention!
beaves35: "By the way, all of that stuff that Cenk attributed to Hillary...
Actually she did. It was played ad nauseum on TV so you must not have been paying attention. She also said that (and I'm paraphrasi
I know she has said this and things like this numerous times because I've seen the clips of her and she's in different locations and different clothes. If you want to be blind to that fact that's your problem. I'm sure these are on YouTube.
And now Bill trots out and says that Hillary and McCain love America and Obama doesn't. Nice. I used to be a die-hard Bill Clinton fan (although I was young and admittedly didn't pay that much attention to politics in the 90s), but during this campaign I have lost almost all respect for Bill.
Cenk - My husband zeroed in on this Hillary 2012 theory after the first sound bite of HRC likening herself to McCain while dissing Obama in the same breath. You're the first one to finally voice this that I can find. Thank you.
I am all for doing what it takes to win. The problem with Hillary is that she'll STOOP to anything to win. It may sound like semantics but there's a big difference. She'll sacrifice the party, the good of the country, and the future deaths of soldiers in Iraq and Afganistan just so she can say, "I told you so!" in 2012. It's disgusting.
I hope I can vote for the first woman president in my lifetime. The good thing is I'm still young and there;s time because I will not vote for HRC. Obama wasn't my first choice either, I'll vote for him. If it's HRC, it looks like Nader 08 for me.
Here is my worry—we always seem to forgive and forget with the Clintons. What is this? Sorry to say, I’m guilty, too. I was pleased to see Hillary in the race last December. I thought she would be as good or better than anyone else in the race, and weren’t we all better off in the good old days before W?
I became interested and more impressed with Obama during the early part of the primary. I was puzzled by the gullible reaction to Hillary’s tears in New Hampshire, which instantly struck me as orchestrated. Then I saw the post S.C. interview with Bill Clinton. Excuse him all you want, but as I watched him, less time-varnished memories of the past flooded back to me. I had joined fellow Democrats in endlessly defending the Clintons against the onslaught from that inexplicable vast right-wing conspiracy. As time and dirty, sleazy tactics continued, I saw HRC more clearly. If you get in their way they vilify you. You become part of a vast conspiracy. Look at what they are doing to damage a fellow Democrat. Jesse Jackson won S.C., too; not as Muslim “as fas as I know”; not qualified to be commander in chief; not qualified to answer the red phone; wants to disenfranchise voters in critical states; not patriotic—will bring all those other things into the campaign that are distractions (never mind that BC and HRC are creating those distractions). This is unprecedented!
Some defend the Clintons, saying Bill’s and Hillary’s comments are being taken out of context or misunderstood. If you believe that, you have never understood the Clintons. These people could, with a straight face, argue about the definition of “is”. Words are the smoke and mirrors of their magical political act. So, Obama is a naive, inexperienced, unpatriotic child. Oh, and now Bill Richardson is Judas. They needed Carville to lob that grenade, but does ANYONE doubt the Clinton campaign unleashed their hound to shut down the possibility that other superdelegates will follow suit? Warning to superdelegates: support Obama and you will be Hitler, Satan, or Judas. Since it appears the majority of superdelegates do not have the strength of character to take a stand anyway; tragically, a threat like this is likely to work.
Cenk, the scenario you describe is a frightening possibility. I am not sure I can share your suggestion that the truth will be understood and will be deemed unforgiveable. The question I have is how can we be sure that THIS TIME we do not forget?
Jesse Jackson did win in South Carolina, - what is racist about pointing that fact out?
Interestin
I do believe it was positioned to raise questions in the minds of people who view the world in terms of simplistic color-coding. My contention is that it was an attempt to equate Obama--a genuine threat to the Clinton's dynastic ambitions--with an undeniably fringe candidate Jackson.
In case you are a genuinely interested person who seeks to understand what lies underneath the superficial--I refer you to Bob Franken's excellent post today about passive-aggressive campaigning. I realize this is and will forever be lost on a great number of people.
It's racist because they are making the assumption that the ONLY reason Jesse Jackson or Obama can win SC is because of the black vote.
It paints the black voters as stupid, mindless lemmings that only vote for the black guy because he's black.
The point that both may have won SC more easily because black people may have found a candidate that actually understand their concerns more than their usual white guy choices may be valid, but that doesn't make Bill's comments any less insulting. I thought he was a better man than that.
Reading through this blog is like watching people get into a fist fight over which is better: Coke or Pepsi (and then there are the Republicans advocating Ginger Ale).
We are all still Americans and should have the right to choose which candidate to support and people shouldn’t get nasty about it.
I think the Obama supporters should stop trying to force Clinton out of the race. Huckabee stayed in until McCain reached 1,191. Why shouldn’t Clinton stay in too?
I think the Clinton supporters should stop trying to convince people that Clinton is somehow in the lead by using a contrived measurement system. Obama has the most delegates at this point in time, which is the only measurement that counts, so he is clearly in the lead.
On the one hand, I think it’s beneficial for this primary race to continue and proceed through all the states. This gets everyone in the country involved and could ultimately improve the Democratic Party’s chances in November. The donations keep rolling in and there is certainly lots of free media coverage.
On the other hand, the Democrats have to stop giving Republicans ammunition for the general election. It is one thing for a Democrat to say “I’m better than the other Democratic candidate for xyz reason” or to point out the other candidate’s flaws, but it’s another thing to say “The Republican candidate and I are better than the other Democratic candidate for xyz reason.” Both Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton have done this.
Hillary Clinton said that she and John McCain have crossed the "Commander in Chief threshold" and that Obama hasn’t. This was no accident and she could have just said that she has crossed the “Commander in Chief” threshold and left McCain out of it.
Bill Clinton said that she and John McCain are patriotic and love our country and clearly implied that might not be true of Obama. This was also no accident. Clinton supporters are saying that Obama supporters are reading too much into this statement, but if this weren’t a jab against Obama, why was Bill Clinton even talking about which people love our country and are patriotic? There would be no other purpose to bring this up.
Obama supporters say that if Obama wins the nomination but loses the general, it will be Clinton’s fault.
Clinton supporters say that if Obama wins the nomination and loses the general, he’ll have no one to blame but himself.
Well, if Obama wins the nomination and the Republicans plaster clips all over the media of the Clintons saying that McCain would be a better president than Obama, then I think the Obama supporters will have a reason to blame the Clintons, because the Clintons should not have said those things in the first place.
Huckabee never said that Clinton or Obama would be a better president than McCain.
If Obama loses in the General it will be because of the Wright Obama connection. Get real people!
OH MY GOD!!!!!!!
The election is STILL IN PROCESS AND EITHER ONE CAN WIN.
I know this is hard for the obamatized to accept but SHE HAS A RIGHT TO CRITICIZE HIM DURING AN AN ELECTION.
There are only 750,000 votes between them out of 25,000,000 with MILLIONS OF PEOPLE still to vote.
Did ya ever think OBAMA IS HURTING HER CHANCES AGAINS MCCAIN.
And so are you?
Grow up. Its like someone attacked your child. There have been NO PERSONAL SMEARS from Clinton and PLENTY toward her from you people.
We know your caps lock works and you've got internet access. Now, please link to us the "smears" directed at Clinton from Obama? And let's go with the candidates themselves and not their subordinates. Last time I checked, neither candidate was going the overt personal smears route so lets make sure we keep this thing honest yes? And I think we've all got quite a bit of growing up to do looking at the bulk of these comments..
McPeak's comments about how Bill Clinton was Joe McCarthy redux is a good start; even after the Obama "disassociated" from him when he basically called HRC a shrill crybaby, he's still right there by Obama's side and Obama jokes about how McPeak looks like Clint Eastwood. Bill Clinton was not, I repeat, was not referring to Obama when he was railing about all this patriotism crap. Obama's name dropped out of Bill Clinton's speech paragraphs before ... but the Obama campaign is essentially running on the idea that the Clintons are out to get them with underhanded tricks. Obama has had a horrible week. He's shown he's all in favour of voter disenfranchisement and the restriction of choice to ensure his name is the only name with a D beside it; he's had a history of it (*cough* Alice Palmer *cough*) and he's clever enough to get surrogates to do his dirty work making him an even worse version of Hillary. Obamabots are so blinded but Obama's bullcrap they don't see they're just a kindler, gentler version of the Republican Hate Machine.
thank you, cellardoor. I think that Hillary and her camp are squandering their opportunities. At this rate, she is making it hard for herself to ever become the President.
http://the
Right on, northeast73!!
As an Edwards supporter, I was failry neutral between Hillary and Obama.
"Was" is the key word here. Three things changed that:
First, Hillary started running a Lee Attwater/Karl Rove style campaign with all the lothsome appeals to fear and hate that means. It has been as despicable as any Rovian campaign.
Second, Obama did not resort to that kind of filth -- he responded to her charges, but he didn't raise a lot of dirt he could have -- he didn't resort to the Republican playbook.
Third , he showed himself to be a vastly superior leader and manager. A campaign is a hundred million dollar plus enterprise. Hillary had been running hers for years, and yet Obama out-organized, out-hustled, out-earned and out-maneuvered her at every turn.
So to you and MaineMike and the other defenders of Hillary, I ask you -- look at the campaign she's running and tell me: what is the difference between Hillary and Bush/cheney? If you're honest with yourself you'll have to admit, not much -- she's got a higher IQ, but in the end that's it. She's a conservative centrist running from her record and trying to sink her rival with dirt, innuendo, race-baiting, and all manner of perfidy.
Now that's bad enough, but why would she and Hubby talk up McCain -- a man who wants 100 more years of war and doesn't even know the difference between Shiite and Sunnis?
Why? Because she doesn't give a damn about America, principles, values or anything, other than her own naked lust for power. Period.
And that's how this Edwards boy became an Obama supporter.
jbatch -- Just because I believe that Clinton has the right to stay in the primary until it's over, does not make me a "defender of Hillary".
HuffPost's Pick
Well said. Sounds as though my husband and I trod the same path as you. We supported the Clintons through thick and thin, even when it was the Clintons who provided the fodder for the far-right's atempts to stage a coup d'etat to remove them from office. We ignored BC's recklessness and his flippant behavior when it came to faithfulness in his marriage, even though a tiny corner of doubt was beginning to creep in.....som
Then Hillary lied for him AGAIN to wallpaper over his infidelities. Even this wasn't enough to turn us against the Clintons. Yet.
We took their side against anybody who criticized them. We wrote letters to the newspapers and made phone calls to our elected representatives. And we did very little self examination about the reasons for our loyalty...
Maybe the Clintons were always this way....arr
In this race, we were not actively opposing her....(we too supported Edwards, but Clinton or any of the other candidates were acceptable as second choices). It was when she brought out the Bushrovian slime tricks that she lost us. And it is hard to see what she could do to regain our trust and admiration. The behavior of the Clintons' is not (as some people think) an "adorable" way to show people that she is a "fighter." It is the worst kind of slime spewing...
Thank you jbatch.
My husband and I debated over Edwards and Kucinich (electability vs. policies) and are only on Obama's "side" because of the sickening campaign run by the Clintons and his more ADULT way of handling it all.
We're not so naive to think that campaigns won't get a little dirty, but Clinton's "kitchen sink" strategy is a sink full of dirty, nasty, smelly, disgusting dishes just being flung all over the place in the hopes that something might stick.
I guess I was naive to think the Democratic party would be better than that.
No personal smears? What do you call it when she says he won't even know enough to answer a 3am phone call?
Dawlishgal
I've been saying this for weeks. It is virtually impossible for HRC to win the nomination this year, and she has to know that. It can only happen if she persuades large numbers of delegates currently pledged to Obama to switch their allegiance, and that simply isn't going to happen.
Yes. Hillary has decided that either she gets the nomination or she will see that Obama cannot win.
It's hard to imagine what could be done to make the Dems in this year, with an unpopular war and a tanking economy -- but Hillary is pulling out all the stops and it looks like she will do one thing the Clintons are good at: damaging the Democratic Party.
Obama is causing his own downfall - see Rev wright and Obama's 20 year love and devotion to Wright. Obama has been just as hard on Hillary as she has on him. Remember his campaign created a talking points memo suggesting that the Clintons were racists clear back in Nevada. What is amazing is that all the Obama supporters seem to have no concept that Hillary has millions and millions of supporters too.
It is indeed interesting to see how some people have already started blaming Senator Clinton for Senator Obama's possible defeat in the general elections, provided of course that he clinches (or should I say snatches) the democratic nomination. Keep up the good work 'my friends'!!!
How can someone who is leading in votes, pledged delegates, and number of states won "snatch" a nomination away from someone who is in the #2 position in all those categories.
If Hillary goes to the super delegates and strong arms them into overturning the will of the voters it will be the same thing as Bush going to the supreme court and taking the presidency from Al Gore.
We see how well that turned out, huh?
Perhaps one main reason (n addition to the disgusting Bushrovian slime they keep hurling) for people blaming Clinton if Obama is defeated is that she keeps sending her minions to places like Hufpost toTHREATEN TO NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA IF HE IS THE NOMINEE. Not such a big stretch from that to blaming them for an Obama loss IS THERE?
The opinion polls also show that many more Clinton supporters say that they won't vote for Obama than Obama supporters say they won't vote for Clinton. OF COURSE, Clintonistas assume that Obama supporters will be a lot more tolerant and generous than they are willing to be. The Clintons always assume that almost everybody (except their rabid archconservative tomentors) is nicer than they are, and that is what gets them (and us) into trouble whenever we make the mistake of trusting them about anything. When it comes to the narcissistic Clintons and their auto-intoxicated (with their own bullcrap) supporters, , NOTHING is ever supposed to work both ways...it is their way or the highway. In spite of their crocodile tears, neither of the Clintons is very good at empathy...
The Hillary people are already just incredibly unlikeable, and I can't imagine what good they think such threats will do....".TH
In order to get back support from people who used to respect her, Hillary and her supporters will now need three things"
l. an empathy transplant.
2. some therapy to beef up the performance of what Garrison Keillor called "the remorse bone"
3.some show of a becoming level of modesty.
This is why the Dems will loose in November. Obama supporters see any attempts to run against or criticize him as blasphemous. He says he is a uniter but actions speak louder than good speeches. Ask why he belonged to a Church teaching racial hatred and he says you need to look at the African American experience. Many are trying to make race relations better, but not a Church teaching separatism and hate. His base will never vote for Hillary whom they see as the devil and many independents will never vote for him.
Someone said, if a United States Senator (any Senator other than Obama) were inside a
church - any church hearing the statements Wright was making, that Senator would have to
walk out of that chuch, and if he or she contiuned to attend that chuch - he would have to leave
the Senate. Obama has been attending that church for almost 20 years, - why the pass for him,
why the double standard?
He is given pass after pass - the media's love affair with this guy is appalling.
Posted a related poll on Daily Kos? Care to vote?
http://www
a very nuanced and insightful point. Thank you.
I believe that this is sad, but all so true! The MSM would dare not uncover this strategy, although I wish they would.
THANK GOD that the dialogue about the Clinton's real agenda has begun. Remember how neither Clinton campaigned with any sincereity for either Gore or Kerry? They went to the conventions, sucked all of the air out of the hall, then disappeared and (presumably) sat on their hands while Democrats who should have followed them into the White House went down to defeat. It is as though they wanted Republicans to win to keep the seat warm for her.
They will say that Gore didn't want their help, and that makes a lot of sense, especially considering their bad behavior..
People who want Hillary out of the race are proof of the wisdom of Michigan and Florida wanting an early primary. People who want Hillary out of the race don't want all the votes or the primaries to count. Exactly why Michigan and Florida wanted their primaries switched to February.
"Is she that cynical? Does she care that little about her own party or her own principles? "
The same could be said of the 20% fringe pushing the unelectable Obama even though he can not win in November.
Ein,
Try 26%, aka more than the 24% that are pushing the unelectable Clinton.
If you want a Republican President AND a Republican Congress, by all means, push Clinton.
Nowhere near 26%. At best he has the AA vote, which accounts for about 9% of general electoral votes and the college stoners, who account for, at best another 10%. HRC gets more actual dem votes in virtually every state.
I have no real problem with Obama, except he was a lousy con law professor back when I was a 1L and his class was probably the worst I ever head. I just have an issue with the fact that the fringe have used the caucus system to effectively foist an unelectable albatross on us once again.
In what way is staying in the race because you hold a clear majority of delegates and are on track to winning your party's nomination a cynical act?
Now, staying in the race when you have no chance of losing, just so you can hurt your fellow Democrat, in the hope of boosting your own political future.... that *IS* cynical.
Yes, it is unfortunate for them that Clinton supporters -- like supporters of Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, Kucinich, etc. -- didn't have their candidate win. But you don't see them whining so incessantly, and you don't see Edwards supporters saying "I can't vote for Obama and Clinton... I'm going to vote for McCain instead!"
The fact is, either you should stand down, or you should 'fess up, and start calling yourself a Republican instead, if that's the party that your actions are currently supporting the most.
hold a clear majority of delegates and are on track to winning your party's nomination a cynical act?
============
MORON! A "clear majority" is 2025 delegates.
he needs SUPREDELEGATES TO WIN. JUST LIKE SHE DOES.
11 CONTESTS REMAINING. JUST CHILL THE F OUT.
It's important she stays in. The facts are simple: Obama can not win in a general election. He has got this far on aloyal base that represents less than 20% of the general voting population andwhich used methods that have strongly alienated the remaining 80%. if we are foolish enough to allow the vociferous few to appoint him, then we have another McGovern situation and 2012 becomes more important than ever as it represents our next chance to take back the White House. The wheels almost completely came off Obama's bus last week with the relatively minor Rev. Wright thing. And that was probably a 1 on a scale of 1-10 in terms of what the repubs are going to throw at him. He can win with Dems where his 20% base wield a disproportionate amount of influence because of caucus manipulation and careful selection of which early state votes are allowed to count and which are not. But his 20% base will not win him a general and there are no caucuses in November.
What "FACTS?" Opinion polls have repeatedly contradicted what you say....the
Polls over at least a dozen years have consistently shown that close to half of the American public won't vote for Hillary for anything. And look at the exit polls....e
To say that the Republicans can successfully slime Obama, when Hillary's sliming minions have pretty much failed, is disingenuous at best, deliberately misleading at worst.
Besides that, it is widely rumored that Rupert Murdoch has a dossier with photos of Hillary that THEY will say (and dopes will believe) confirms the ugly rumors about her that the supermarket tabloids have been hawking for years on their covers. Anybody who routinely stands in checkout lines knows what these rumors are. True or not, Hillary will have to defend against the ugliness.
And guess what......
Why would we want 8 more years of THAT when there is a viable alternataive without all of the Clintonesque baggage?
If Obama can't win the general election, Hillary certainly can't since he beat the pants off her. If Clinton were to get the nomination, we'd have to relive the whole lewinsky nightmare all over again.
"Caucus manipulation and careful selection of which early state votes are allowed to count and which are not"? So Obama cynically created the various state's primary structure, and then "chose" to have some states ignore party rules set up in the 1970's, and decreed the DNC's punishment of their loss of delegates at the convention?
If Barak Obama can pull that off, he's the most gifted politician, strategist, and tactician I've ever seen.
I used to like the Clintons and hated what the Rush Limbaughs did to them with endless made up lies and distortions. Now I have witnessed what they are doing to Sen. Obama and the only words I can use to describe them are gutter rats. These Clintons have no class whatsoever. This race has been over for a month. A tough person would have admitted it and got out. Clintons not tough, she's
weak for staying in this and corrupt on top of it for letting this illusion of her still having a good chance
to continue. If she is bloodying Obama for her own advantage in 2012 then she should be asked to
leave the Democratic Party.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
