Hillary's Ignominious Finale
All in all, it was a rather ignominious, belittling way to almost certainly close out the Clinton Era. Hillary would have done much better to spend the 90 minutes of Tuesday night's Ohio debate by repeatedly reading and re-reading her valedictory, closing remarks from last week's Texas match-up during which -- for a few shining moments -- a Good Hillary seemed to radiate with the grandeur of an honored First Lady and potential president of the United States.
But with her national poll numbers now slipping into a double digit lag behind Obama, with her last-ditch firewalls in Ohio and Texas rapidly crumbling, her political future quickly eroding, it was the Bad Hillary who dominated in what could very well be the final presidential debate of the season.
Thirty-five years of selfless public service, if we are to believe her campaign rhetoric, deserved more than this tin-pan finale. Clinton, in her best moments, is certainly capable of something more than a torrent of peevish, petty, picayune, and intellectually dishonest bickering and parsing.
Instead, Senator Clinton chose to remind us why she is losing the nomination that she was once so very sure would inevitably be hers. The smell of a loser permeated the entire low-energy event as Clinton tried to pick apart this or that phrase uttered one time or another by her rival.
Obama's been on a wild tear, continuing to surge and streak and -- to dip into the conventional wisdom -- it's hard to see anything that Clinton did Tuesday to stem his rising tide.
You'd think that Clinton could leave the national political stage with some larger, meaningful gesture. But, unfortunately, the only memorable line that she spoke tonight was a poorly constructed joke, surely written by a staffer.
It's taken me a decade and I'm still stumped trying to figure out what the meaning of "is" might really be. And yet Hillary tossed us the latest Clintonesque head-scratcher during the debate when she asked me -- and the millions watching -- to ponder the "difference between denouncing and rejecting."
I'm not sure which one of these acts of contrition her rival Barack Obama engaged in when asked by the moderators his view on the Reverend Louis Farrakhan. But whichever one it was, it was apparently the wrong one -- according to Senator Clinton.
Likewise, when it came to universal health care. Though Obama has adamantly campaigned on that promise from his first day on the stump, he was actually opposed to universal health care. At least, according to Hillary who belabored the point (to not say she beat it to death) for the first, torturous sixteen minutes of the debate.
And after repeatedly ignoring pleas from moderator Brian Williams to curtail her health care harangue, after extending and re-extending her remarks, Clinton then portrayed herself as a hapless victim of media bias by comparing Williams' questioning to a satirical sketch that aired over the weekend. "Well, could I just point out that in the last several debates, I seem to get the first question all the time? And I don't mind," she said with a grimace. "You know, I'll be happy to field them but I do find it curious. And if anybody saw Saturday Night Live, maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow."
Rimshot!
Or was that a car crash?
Either way, time to bring in the mop-up crews. It's over.
Loading comments…
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
It started in 1820 as woman stood up for equal rights. 1972 Black Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm run for President with move then enough experience. 2008 Hillary Clinton has more experience then all the male candidates in both parties and woman who have fought for 188 years to reach the top now see what the woman of today did. Yes those years of struggle now set back to 1820. What does it take to reach the top if your a woman, as American woman complain but when the chance comes to show action they fold. Look for the Supreme Court to overturn Rove vs Wade and the Woman's Rights Bill. Yes American woman have seen other countries now have female Presidents as we go backward. When woman and the chance to stand up and get equality they didn't, and all those woman who struggle for the rights woman have today got slapped in the face. Senator Obama will be another George W. Bush if he becomes President. Yes Bush is just the figure head as will be Obama. John Kerry didn't get to be President but now he will be as he runs the White House and Obama is the front man and gives great speeches. Even Black Leaders who marched with the Clintons for Civil Rights are going where the money and kick backs are, that's Obama. Democrats will be just like the Republicans were for 7 years. But Americans knew that when they voted for Obama.
"Hillary Clinton has more experience then all the male candidates in both parties"?????
You are dreaming. She doesn't come close to the years of experience McCain has in congress. She is a two term senator. NEVER held any other office or even much of a job in her past. Obama has only a few years experience although a much better candidate for president than Hillary.
Mike
http://mta
Being incredibly old doesn't count as experience. What is important is character anyway and mccain has proven that he has none.
AirJackie's response is especially ill-advised.
In fact, every President relies on his cabinet
and advisors.
Obama will not be a George Bush. This is absurd.
Unless his views of Israel's right to exterminate
the parliamentary election in 2006 of the
resistance to their occupation, we will get
nowhere. HAMAS is no threat. The client-state
which the US built up and made the 4th largest
military nation in the world is the threat.
Yes, Israel has nuclear bombs. Yes, they
have missles. Yes, they torture, discriminate (land,water use, work). And nothing is said
by the US in public.
In this morning's BBC report of only the latest
Israeli assinations, Palestinians were" called
by the Israeli's 'terrorists'. "Should they lie
down and be murdered?
I support proposals that the IAEA of the UN
monitor the entire Mid-East creating a
nuclear-free zone with random monitoring
by the IAEA and sanctions for non-compliance.
This prosposal is consistently opposed by:
Israel
The US
Instead we manufacture frearof an Iranian
"capacity" sometime in the future.
These problems are not simple. We have a long,
long way to go in diplomacy with all the
relevent parties (including the elected
representatives of the GAZA strip), with the UN,
and with the European Community.
Correction: The African-American community did
not join the Clintons in the battle for civil
rights. That is backwards entirely.
airjackie - i couldn't agree with you more. i have been a feminist for 30 years, but i actually hope that roe v. wade is overturned.
today's young women have no appreciation for what the past generations of women did to ensure they have the rights they now take for granted.
senator bubble gum will undoubtedly get the nod. yet another penis running the show - the second consecutive one lacking the experience and intellect to do the job. just listen to him stammer as he speaks off the cuff. he is only inspirational with speechwriter material and a teleprompter.
i cannot in good conscience cast a vote for him. i would rather see someone with mccain's experience in charge.
sickofhypocrisy, winning friends, influencing people: doesn't want another penis running the show but would rather see someone with mccain's experience in charge. conclusion: experienced penis is preferable.
"yet another penis running the show" Suppose the candidate was Dianne Feinstein instead of Hillary. Would you vote for her over Obama? My significant other has been a feminist since the 1960s and she can't stand Hillary nor can my other feminist friends. Your comments about Obama's off the cuff delivery are just plain delusional.
Yeah, that's right. Her bad judgement doesn't count (the war, her campaign) - she just has to be a woman. And she just has to have more experience, it doesn't matter if it is bad experience. By your logic you should have nominated Liz Dole. Lot's of experience, ran the Red Cross, a woman, ...
Of course you know the criteria you lay out makes no sense. Cheney has more experience - want him? How about Condie Rice? Would you vote for her - she's a woman, black, experience
The part you are conveniently leaving out is that they also have to be a GOOD candidate. More experience being wrong (especially on the most important question this century) is BAD. Yes, we need something other than a white male for a change, but not just anybody. Obama has plans that are, frankly, not all that different from Hillary's. But he's also got a better (if shorter) record, he's a nicer person in most people's opinion, and he represents not only the possibility of change in our politics, but in our politicians. Do you realize that for many of the young people voting for the first time, they've only known 2 families running this country - like a 3rd world situation.
The possibilty of a woman president is exciting, but you just don't vote for anybody to get that woman, you vote for the RIGHT woman.
Hillary is the right woman. Our patriarchal society marches on in total denial now that an excellent, strong candidate has been thoroughly trashed by the broadcast media for two reasons: she's a woman, and she's a Clinton.
I would bet my life that Rove planted the evil seed that sprouted into all this media wave, beginning in South Carolina, which built momentum through Rush-Limbaugh wannabe radio commentators (Air America, etc.) and pompous cable news analysts (MSNBC, etc.). Once all that crap hit the airwaves, it was much too late to effectively reverse it. That's how the Swift Boat attack played out on Kerry, and Hillary has been successfully swiftboated by the American broadcast and Internet media.
The "super" delegates switching sides has got to be the most pathetic thing to watch. Those people have only confirmed their weaknesses. What a bunch of losers!
As for Obama being a "nicer" person, that's quite an assessment to make at this point. If you haven't met the man personally and spent time with him, you really don't know enough to say that. Politicians are very good at what they do, especially when they have the skills of a Baptist revival preacher. And, remember, everybody LOVED George!
Unfortunately, we're supposed to be smart enough and informed enough to choose a leader that's strong enough to handle just about any possibility. Well, the media has made damn sure we won't be informed enough.
But, Obama's proved one thing to me: He can read the masses and get them whipped up into a frenzy. He has happened into a time in America where desperation and suffering set the stage for a Pied Piper to work his magic.
Obama is not my first choice as Democratic nominee, but he is my favorite now. I've been on the anybody-but-Clinton bandwagon since she announced her candidacy. Not because I'm anti-woman -- I'm a woman and a feminist myself.
Why? Because I want a Democrat to win in November. Hillary has too much baggage, primarily her husband - the IMPEACHED former president! Plus Hillary's own sorry story that she was duped into voting for the Iraq War and her colossal failure in health care, the one big project she led while in the national spotlight. I'm truly amazed that she and her advisers ever seriously thought she could win the general election. I wish that she had chosen not to run.
I have not seen Hillary's run as a feminist triumph. When a woman becomes President, I don't want it to be a woman who has attained power by being the first lady.
In the early days of women winning public office, the first female senator or governor was sometimes referred to as 'the first to win in her own right'. Other women had held the position, when appointed to it after the death of their husbands while in office.
If Senator Barbara Mikulski were running and a serious contender, she would be running (and winning!) 100% 'in her own right'. I would indeed see her run as a feminist milestone. Not so much when it comes to Hillary. Though I want to make it clear, I'm not a Hillary hater and think she should be treated fairly.
In the harsh and brutal world of politics, I think she pretty much has been. People have said lots of harsh things -- politics ain't beanbag. I think she's had a harder time because she's a Clinton than because she's a woman.
Senators Clinton and Obama have about the same experience holding public office -- Clinton's years as a U.S. senator and Obama's years as an Illinois state senator/U.
I recognize she has seen and heard a lot by being in the White House and meeting all the world's leaders. But when it comes to experience holding public office and leading the people of a state or nation, she and Obama are pretty similar.
Obama and Clinton have very similar positions on the issues -- both are too pro-milita
I am starting to get enthused about supporting Obama because he does seem to inspire people to get up and do something -- he has had impressive grassroots volunteer support. Which will certainly be a big help in winning the general election. If he can inspire more and more people to become active, he can precipitate a wave of real change in this country. That's the promise I see of an Obama administration.
you are not a feminist. a true feminist would see the injustice of holding hillary responsible for bill's indiscretions. a true feminist would be fighting for hillary - not just because she's a woman, but because she is more than qualified for the job. a true feminist wouldn't need this explained to her.
shame on you.
Who made you dictator on what a feminist is? Voting for someone because they have a vagina is just as sexist as voting for someone because they don't!
I would have more respect for Hillery as a feminist if she would have dumped the guy, taken half of his assets and then ran for office.
One does not have to be female to work towards gender equality, nor does one have to be black to work towards racial equality. I don't think most people like Obama better because he is a man and Hillery is not but rather because he has better judgment, ideas and would be a better president.
I'm a pro-Obama feminist. I wanted to support her, but again and again I find her to be the lesser candidate.
Obama has more years in elected office than she does. He is cooler under pressure, less endebted to special interests, I agree with his policies over hers (health care, meeting with world leaders, gov't transparency, etc.) I am encouraged by his appeal to people across party lines, both in and out of government. I am heartened by his refusal (most of the time) to engage in the mud-slinging Hillary has started resorting to in desperation.
It is possible for someone to be a feminist and have an opinion other than yours.
Whatever the end result, I give Hillary credit for courage and humanity to withstand the cruel opposition from the media, the envious females and the male gender bigots.
Should Obama be nominated and elected, may I prove wrong in believing that he would be at a total loss on how he will carry out his promises, particularly because he is incapable of handling the job.
I will vote for Hillary directly or by write-in.
If you vote for Hillary as a write-in should she lose the nomination, then you'll be voting for the GOP to retain control. It's as simple as that.
here's a shocker for you - some of us would rather see mccain in office than senator bubble gum. at least mccain has some experience.
i'm sure you don't find that offensive given that mrs. bubble gum wasn't exactly on board to support hillary if she got the nod.
"envious females"? wow. being a woman & feminist, i don't know any woman who's actually envious of hillary. she has a philandering husband and a paranoia that causes her to self-destruct under any kind of adverse pressure. this campaign is only the most recent example of her inability to direct her own team effectively and strategically.
as for obama being incapable.
plus, look at obama's campaign -- it's the most efficient, effective machine to date, in history. 1 million small, individual donors. appeals to Independents and moderate Republicans and progressive Democrats by presenting progressive ideal as fundamental American ideals.
he's the smartest politician we've had going in the Democratic competition in a long time.
let's remind ourselves something here: hillary had the support of the vast majority of Democrats heading into this contest, including especially men. men - white men especially - have been really late swingers for Obama.
it's time to think about something other than the media as the source of Hillary's problem. recall: before Iowa, they all thought and practically crowned her as the Dem candidate. that things shifted so quickly against her was a sign of her team's lack of strategy against a formidable opponent.
Hillary played the gender card and the race card (a few times); she allowed her campaign to bleed her money away; she followed Mark Penn's strategy even though it's proven to be an outright failure. These are all errors in judgment.
Let it go. A woman will be president one day. But right now, it's more important just to elect the right person first - regardless of gender or race.
haha - control loose nukes. that was pretty funny. that bill was watered down to the point where it serves virtually no purpose. i'm sure it's just a coincidence that he receives HUGE donations from the nuclear industry.
yeah. he's different.
I'm interested in more info on the following: "landmark ethics reform [and] spearhead immigration reform"...
The way I understand it, the ethics reform has a few big loopholes to drive a truck through.. all the way to the parties the lobbyists hold in their residences now (with no money limits).
Does the Obama immigration reform involve the he-was-for
Yes, the cruel opposition of the same media, who, for at least a year prior to the Iowa primary, had her practically coronated as the heir to the throne.
Hillary is a smart, dedicated public servant and I would much rather see her in office than John McCain. But she clearly has her issues and it seems that she feels that she has been robbed of something she deserved. Her frustration should serve as a reminder to all that the presidency belongs to...the voters.
good thing senator bubble gum doesn't have any issues...
- rezko
- no foreign policy experience
- liberal voting record (that's great in this crowd, but not in the GE)
- history of not showing up for difficult votes
- history of cowtowing to big business (nukes)
yeah, it'll be a cakewalk for him.
if you guys were capable of intelligent thought, you'd have backed the more centrist of the two. instead you went with captian ego. bravo!
Settle Down Nellie! What's with all the hostility? There are so many capable women in government, Sickofhyp. 16 US Senators 8 Govenors. We WILL have a woman president one day who is truly competent. HRC is a stuffed pantsuit. She cries when her back is agaisnt the wall and is a horrible judge of people. She got a 5 mile head start in a marathon and has failed. What proof do you need that electing her would be a mistake. This isn't anti-woman. It's reality.
- The Chicago Sun Times, which broke the Rezko story, has said that Obama is accused of no wrongdoing in the Rezko case - which is why it has gotten no national traction.
- He is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He has more international travel under his belt than Bush does after 8 years as President. And his position on matters of foreign relations are better than Hillary's.
- Polls by every major news organization show that Obama will perform better against McCain than HRC would. http://www
- The votes he's missed have largely been during campaign season, and he has the second lowest percentage of missed votes among the Democratic candidates.
- Care to back up your claim about Obama and nukes?
The presidency belongs to the fascists from what I have seen so far. The American public has heard very little to nothing of either Clinton or Obama's real plans, persona, character and otherwise. What we are seeing is a big stage play put on by big business designed to convince the public that we still live in a democracy while simultaneously passing the torch on to the next leader of the soul-less neo-conservative movement. Once the only white, male contender mysteriously pulled out of the race, we are left with the likely reality that mccain will be president. Go figure.
When the tides start shifting against you in politics a funny thing comes along too. Suddenly, many of your long time friends and political allies start heading for the exit doors aware their own survival can be brought into question otherwise. By all accounts, Hillary Rodham Clinton did not score the knock-out performance her campaign entourage and pundits wished yesterday. Instead, a balanced Barack Obama was the experience she met having dropped the gauntlet on her political trail a few days earlier stating - meet me in Ohio! Now the question remains - are we nearing the end of her presidential aspirations with John Lewis now jumping ship today too? Then again - he'd be left to reconcile his earlier support for her aware his Atlanta constituency voted three to one for Barack Obama in the recent Georgia Democratic primary election. Granted Bill Clinton is no longer anywhere in sight in his wife's campaign, but she's long since lost the golden political opportunity and a positive outcome from a bad campaign, poor messages, disingenuous experience claims, while accepting much bad political advice, and not exercising strong, principled judgment and leadership to achieve success. Last night she desperately fought for the right to lead the Democratic Party ticket in November 2008, but the performance was not only too little, too late, it was another view into a personality incapable of genuinely appreciating the mindsets and emotions of voters longing for a new politics of hope and honest, level, and enlightened political leadership. This, despite the fact, most voters are likely not warm to the idea of real changes forthcoming. It's the American political psyche on display in its many contradictory manifestations. A lesson Hillary Rodham Clinton and her handlers failed to understand with their strategy views limited through a prism of yesteryear's narrow political playbook.
Let's get one thing straight. Bombing Pakistan's northern regions is exactly what should have happened after the attack on Tora Bora failed to get Osama and his cronies. Obama is dead on when he said Pakistan should have been bombed. The last time I looked, we were attacked on September 11th by 15 Saudis and 4 Egyptians, and their Taliban and Al Qaueda supporters were in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not in Iraq.We should have taken all the troops committed to this insane unneccessary war in Iraq and got the Bast**ds that attacked us! Isn't it strange that people try to link Obama to Islam, but he's the only one that wanted to go after the guys that actually attacked us? I hope when he gets into office he shifts the troops to where they should have been from the very start. It's been 7 years and Osama is still on the looose. Does that really make sense to any rational person?
What is it with people in the U.S.? Every time you get smacked around like you do to the rest of the world, your first instinct is "Let's bomb em!" The problem with that is that bombs dropped from 30 thousand feet generally don't hit the target when it's one person. They kill a lot of innocents and it's only natural that they might take your lesson and decide to bomb you. If you're so in love with bombing then why not bomb Saudi Arabia? That's where the "terrorists" came from, or maybe we should call them soldiers, because they just did what we do every time some nervy country won't do what we tell them. They killed lots of people, our favorite foriegn policy instrument. What state was Tim McVeigh from? Why didn't we bomb it? So I guess you think that we're just killing the wrong civilians and should just move over and kill other ones that happen to live somewhere in the general area where one man might possibly be. Maybe he's in a mansion in Saudi Arabia, ever think of that? And maybe "our" government knows that and is just trying to save the petro dollar that Saddam rejected one month before we attacked Iraq. We are really at war with Europe and the Euro but killing white people is a no no, so lets kill a few more sand niggers, ragheads, towel heads or yet another "Hitler", the all time favorite comparison as a prelude to cruise missles, cluster bombs or the many fine fine killing machines that is all we seem to lead the world in anymore. And crown as "heros" the well paid technicians that just push a button from 30 thousand feet, safe in their overpriced cocoon and never forced to even see the thousands they murder with the excuse that it's a new, endless war on a noun, terrorism. Neither the present reality nor your "solution" makes sense to a rational, moral person. And it's also why it makes no difference whatever who or what party "wins" this upcoming so called election. It's not an election, it's a show where you get to choose which clone of the same beasts rhetoric appeals to you. The real rulers of the U.S. couldn't care less who 'wins', because all the candidates allowed exposure are already in their bag.
Your last three sentences are so true. The thought came to me yesterday, that the two political parties have set it up for the "free market" to completely swallow our political soul.
First, they totally bastardized the primary process, by allowing states to play with the dates and create all this false drama. Then, no national election reform was enacted so that we could establish a national standard whereby all this to-caucus-
Thus, we've ended up with a multi-bill
I honestly don't care what happens anymore in November. The only "change" we're going to get will be the name on the Oval Office door.
Hillary's hard edged de visive rhetoric is old school in the worst sense. Her desperation is an unattractive and solidifies the very cliches that will leave her legacy in question.
A PS: Should Obama get the Democratic Nomination, which seems likely, there are millions (millions) of Dem voters who supported other candidates (the largest number for Hillary Clinton). I have seen not one effort (except for a brilliant piece by Alex Baldwin, of all people)by any Obama supporters to show graciousness about Hillary Clinton's very obvious political strengths. We MUST come together in order to win. SHAME on all of you at this post who can't get beyond your own ego. Just because you support one candidate doesn't give you the right to treat those who supported other incredible Democratic contenders as not being able to see the light. Get Real. McCain already is ahead in some polls as beating both Barak and Hillary.
jbgnyc: Please name for me her political strengths and accomplishments in the Senate. As far as I am concerned her experience is what she has accomplished while in ELECTED office. She is not a dumb person but I would like for you to answer my questions.
I am so sick and tired of hearing "Shame on you". That kind of superior attitude doesn't work for anyone.
Hillary's woeful comment about Senator Obama's comfort sounded very familiar. Wasn't that a joke on SNL? Isn't that plagiarism? What's your take on that, Senator Obama? If she's going to put words out there; shouldn't they be her own words?
The White House said Wednesday the Clintons are responsible for delaying the release of documents.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — White House spokeswoman Dana Perino briefly waded into the presidential campaign on Wednesday, denying a suggestion by Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, that the Bush administration may be slowing down the release of more than 11,000 pages of documents related to her time as first lady.
Perino said the Bush administration has previously moved fast to release roughly 550,000 pages of documents from the Clinton administration. She said in this case the White House is waiting for a representative for former President Clinton, Bruce Lindsey, to approve the release of the new documents and then formally ask the Bush administration to do so.
"And if the Clinton representative approves the release of the records, we act as quickly as practical to get them out," Perino said, when a reporter asked about the controversy at the White House daily briefing. "And as I said, we don't have anything pending at the moment."
During a debate with Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, on Tuesday night, a journalist pressed Clinton on whether she will make sure the documents are released during the primary season to give voters a clearer view of her experience as first lady. "I have urged that our end of it move as expeditiously as we can," said Clinton. "Now, also, President Bush claims the right to look at anything that is released, and I would urge the Bush White House to move as quickly as possible.
So now you are willing to start believing Bush, huh? Interesting.
why would the Bush WH delay the release. They have no reason. This wasn't his Presidency that we are talking about its the Clintons. The Clinton need to tell what papers they want to be released - thats the law. So the WH is correct.
Call me superstitious, but I think it's a mistake to write her off before she quits. What sounds self-righteous and gratuitous in the East may sound very different in Texas and Ohio. I'm not sleeping well until Tuesday's vote is counted.
it's not superstitious- it's just realistic. I'm an Obama supporter, but I know you don't dance on the Clintons' political graves til you have separated the head from the body and killed it, which means when you have enough delegates. Hill won't quit even if she loses Texas, because she can't. She's wanted this for too long and she's long since gone past worrying about how it makes her look or how much it might ruin the Democratic Party's chances in November.
Ruin the Democratic Party? The Party is already ruined by the big division motivated by the hate generated by Obama's supporters against Hillary. Such division can only be explained using words like ignorance, envy, lack of respect, intolerance,and many others that I would not like to use, especially when they are too obvious. I admit that passion might generate controversy, but blindness is the worst of all. What would these people think if it weren't for CNN, Drugde Report, MSNBC, et all, well, I guess they would not have their own opinion, since I haven't seen any original thinking, just a plain repetition of what the media says. I only hope that we won't make another mistake and put someone in the presidency and then regret having done it. Time doesn't forgive, and it's sad to see how many people bark at Hillary without even knowing in the bottom of their souls why. YES WE CAN means a lot to me, it all depends on the verb we put after CAN....whi
You can't blame Hillary's apparent demise on anyone else but herself, her husband, and her extremely expensive campaign staff.
Does ANYONE here recall a candidate that lost eleven straight primaries and caucuses that hung around this long - and still enjoyed being considered a serious candidate by the media and others? This is not a bias AGAINST her, this is a bias BENEFITTING her.
Whoever wrote the "zingers" she's used that fell like lead balloons over and over again, should be exposed and relegated to local races for school board from now on. Total bush league.
Worse, is the fact that she actually USED some of these lines. And when one didn't work, she'd use another. Just amazingly incompetent. Stuff that might have worked and brought cackles over coffee and donuts with staff just didn't translate to the public, but they were so into themselves and their own choir they didn't pay attention to the rest of the public.
For a candidate who had years of preparation and was the presumptive nomineee, Hillary's campaign just reeked. It was a pitiful display of arrogance and mistakes only beginners would seemingly make.
With what appeared to be an insurmountable lead in the early going, she couldn't figure out how to stop the slide that started from day one. She was given more credit than she deserved after all.
Hillary & Bill have many mistakes in this campaign, so what they get, they deserve, end of story. Her first mistake was to hire a Neo-Con like Mark Penn to run for her campaign. They have pulled every possible dirty trick in the handbook to win this election. If Hillary got elected it would be 4 maybe 8 more years of the Clintons. Sorry, lets get past this and look forward to a new face in the White House. I don't mean John McCain.
I couldn't believe she made that SNL comment last night, I mean please, you are running for President of the United States. That is a commedy show and you don't take a skit from SNL and use it in a debate running for President. She is through and I am glad. Can't wait until Tuesday and pray to God she leaves with some dignity. Don't play with the Super Delegates, don't play with the votes people have cast, and don't collect any more money for your campaign. Leave gracefully and with some honor. The Clintons have done one thing in all of this, they have shown America what they are really made of.
How come Marc didn't mention the part of the debate which addressed the following:
"Doubts about Barack Obama's presidential credentials have crystallized during the past two weeks over his stewardship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on European Affairs, which has convened no policy hearings since he took over as its chairman last January." (Joe Conason, "Obama's European Problem," www.salon.
I don't think that this is a valid point considering he was appointed the stewardship right at the beginning of this campaign.
So, if you are about to begin a yearlong campaign, by all means you should just let a war zone go down the tubes.
Personally I felt genuinely bad for Hillary (I support Barack but would vote for Hillary). I tink she's probably gotten so many types of advice lately, and is genuinely exhausted on top of it, she barely knows her own name. I hope all those high priced lousy advisoes of hers enjoy their lucre. They have done what so many bad advisors have done to so many good people. Maybe there should be a limit on advisors along with a limit on big time lobbyists. They look out for no one but themselves!
Although I also sympathize with Hillary to a point, her problem has not beeen her advisors; her problem has been listening to her advisors and not having the judgment to recognize the pitfalls they were leading her into. I think Hillary has to take full responsibility for her campaign, beginning with the selection of her staff and advisors.
How do you get a job as a political advisor??? I could have driven her campaign into a ditch, and I would have only charged 100K.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
