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
HC "isn't dead yet and she's still standing"
what planet is this happening on? are you watching the same race? Florida should count now after they all agreed not to campaign there? Please.
It's over
It's old
Nobody listens to techno
go home Hil and work on your marriage and making sure Nafta keeps working great for NY.
From your lips to God's ear.... three things last nite:
1) Obama finally explained why he thinks it is necessary to inspire and mobilize. He said that HRC's 1993 health care plan and others had failed because there was no popular mobilization to back up proposals for reform. He is right.
2) HRC stamped herself fully and finally as Senator Wonk, without the leadership qualities a president must have to succeed.
3) The Democratic campaign passed the point of diminishing returns. It descended to, and is stuck in an
acrimonious quarrel unlikely to shift any more votes from here to there. All it can do is to harden fixed positions and make it more difficult to conduct a successful campaign. It is time for the "super delegates"/party leaders to step in and bring this catastrophe to a halt. The problem is that they may come to the wrong conclusion and lose the White House for at least another four years.
The fact is that Clinton can't beat McCain, but Obama may be able to bring this off. If he does, he can sweep many other candidates into the House and Senate to bring about a Democratic majority in Congress.
But will the party hacks understand this? Or will they rubberstamp Hillary and walk off the pier behind her?
I so agree... I am a strong Obama supporter but I have primary fatigue. Obama will need the same level of enthusiam or more for the general and if this goes on much longer, I'm afraid it will wane.
I wouldn't read too much into those early match up polls. Dukakis led Bush by 20 points at this point in '88 and Bush led Clinton by 30 at this point in '92. Obama may lead McCain now but we'll if that changes when the fracture within the Democratic party becomes more evident. McCain can pick up a lot of ex Hillary supporters.
Wow, with friends like you, Marc Cooper, how could anyone succeed.
Why is this the end of a national political career? And why was it so "ignominious" a term generally associated with lawbreaking or moral decline? Sounds more than a bit hyperbolic to me. And frankly, I'm more than a little sick of the media frenzy to dump on Hillary.
There's no question that there's a gigantic style difference between Hillary and Obama, to her immense disadvantage. Nothing new there.
ANd clearly the public has decided it's ready for the supposedly "new," though Obama's tactics seem pretty much the tried and true of politics. It seems pretty clear to me that the only reason he thinks it's new is because HE's the guy who's new to the national political stage. We've seen this all before - he's the new JFK, remember?
And regardless the spin, the issues really are more on style than substance - so if, as seems likely, Democrats (peopled by lots of independents and even Republicans, since we Democrats don't seem to care too much who picks our candidate) go for Obama, they'll be getting pretty much the same policies. That's the good news.
The bad news is that experience does actually count. Most of us going for a job get totally passed over if we don't have the experience the hiring organization is looking for. Obama has a little, but it's small. We're making a pretty big bet on his ability to ace it on the run. Bill Clinton didn't do that - remember Don't Ask DOn't Tell, choosing cabinet members who had problems with having hired illegal aliens, Travelgate, and, of course, that major nonentity that led to an impeachment, Whitewater. At that point we hadn't had 9/11, Osama bin Laden, or an Iraq war.
So be careful what you condemn, Marc Cooper, and what you wish for, Democratic Party.
MARC COOPER -- YOUR MOTHER NEEDS TO GIVE YOU A THOUSAND LASHES--EVEN A TONGUE LASHING WOULD DO.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH HILLARY---WHAT IS WRONG ARE THE VOTERS WHO DO NOT KNOW HOW TO PICK WINNERS.
OBAMA IS WAFFLING---HE ATTENDS A CHURCH THAT HOLDS FARRAKHAN IN HIGH ESTEEM AND THE MEDIA IS EVEN AFRAID TO ASK HIM ABOUT THAT !!! TIM RUSSERT MILDLY ASKED IF HE ACCEPT ENDORSEMENT BY FARRAHKAN. WHAT I WOULD HAVE ASKED IS WHY DO YOU SHOW SUPPORT FOR FARRAKHAN BY ATTENDING A CHURCH WITH THE GROUP THAT LOVES HIM. ???
SO MANY INSULTS TOWARDS A WHITE WOMAN OF 60 YRS BUT NO---NOTHING EVEN FROM THE HIT-MEN LIKE BILL MAHER AS THEY ARE ALL AFRAID OF SAYING ANYTHING NEGATIVE OR NASTY ABOUT A BLACK MAN.
SCARED TO DEATH OF SAYING ANYTHING NEGATIVE AND THAT'S SCARY IN ITSELF.
You do realize that nobody else here is typing in all caps, right? I mean, you do realize that, don't you? Don't you?
Your comments are racist, sexist and highly offensive to the millions of Democrats who support Obama for reasons that have nothing to do with his race or his gender. You are not doing any favors for your candidate or yourself.
The truth hurts, eh?
The deep, dark secret of America: White guilt. Deal with it, people. Talk to your shrinks about it.
But, hey, it's OK to write ANYTHING AT ALL about an accomplished woman on these blogs, even a posting that says the best use of the SNL satire pillow is to place it over the face of the losing candidate?
THAT'S OK?
But we MUST NOT TALK about Farrakhan's endorsement and a church that may support his hateful positions because it involves an accomplished man of African descent? Is this a leftover of our patriarchal society, or just total hypocrisy?
Tell me what it is, dartagnan. I wanna know.
Feel free to quit shouting any time now.
And why are you perpetuating this idea of guilt by association???
Maybe Marc needs a pillow. The negative tone of this blog is typical of the supposed "Hope and Unity" Obama minion. Obama is against Universal Healthcare and for Universal Heathcare. He's against using force in the Middle East and for bombing countries in the Middle East. It is obvious by reading this blogette that your mind is full of more important stuff than substance and facts. Like, what kind of toothpaste do you use Senator? When did you learn that you were so smarter than everybody? Why don't the other candidates want change like you want change? Why would anyone want to talk to you on the record? Why are you so perfect and why can't Hillary Clinton see that and just go home? Why should we even bother with an election let's just will you as our president?
And Obama can't even make it to his own subcommittee meetings that he CHAIRS! That's responsible government for you. Way to go obama. Good job. Great example for my kids to look up to. Talk the talk, but ignore the idea of walking the walk. He wants better government, but just doesn't have the time to do it... man o' man. Are we gonna get what's coming to us....
"The negative tone of this blog is typical of the supposed "Hope and Unity" Obama minion."
Hilarious. So you've decided that because Obama wants to lead Americans to a more united and prosperous place as a nation, that precludes any criticism of anyone else whatsoever? You know when reasonable people run out of arguments, they just give up. They don't invent hypocrisy where there is none.
As much as you want to believe it, Hillary ain't no Bill. She is more like Gore. May be that's why Bill picked Al as a running mate? Something Freudian going on there!
Obama is not a JFK nor is he a MLK. when will akk of you wake up?
I would love to have Gore as a president.
Although I am an Obama supporter, I really do resent it Marc, when you say that Hillary's political life is essentially over. Hillary is still the United States Senator for New York. She continues to be influential and retains quite a bit of power. Who knows? She might even run for president again. But to belittle her accomplishments and to negate her current position as Senator by claiming if she loses the nomination it is all over for her, is just plain disrespectful and untrue.
He didn't say any of that. He said her time on the NATIONAL stage is over. He didn't belittle her accomplishments, he took great pains to mention her as an "honored First Lady" and brought up her 35 years of service. Why are we so squeamish about calling something for what it is? She acted petty and small, and with all of the grace of a child fighting their impending bedtime. That's no way for someone who claims to be the most experienced politician in the Democratic race to act.
Either you are presidential material or you aren't. She isn't.
Neither is Obama.
Nader 08
I am an Obama supporter but I, too, hope that Hillary's career is not over. She has a great deal to contribute in the Senate and perhaps in a Cabinet post, such as secretary of HHS, where I think she could be terrific. She may even be a presidential contender again, but she has some serious personality flaws to overcome first.
sullivan, get off the rag.
Sexist comments like yours have no place here ergoth.
Try being civil at least.
Since I pay Tina Fey the compliment of thinking her (based purely on her sarcastic and often self-mocking humour) an intelligent, informed, successful woman with a wicked wit, I cannot but view her pronouncement that "Bitch is the new black" as a deeply sarcastic comment on the present feminist fringe going well off the rails.
Ironically, it seems to have gone pretty much over everyone's head, including the poor candidate who keeps referring to it (indirectly, by referring to the "media bias" sketch) as if it were a justification of her insistence that women vote for a candidate on the basis of possessing ovaries, whether functional or not.
As far as this debate goes, the only glimmer of a hope for Hillary's soul is that she reluctantly, petulantly and in less than adequate terms, did admit she'd "like to take back" her vote on the war, without, however, going as far as admitting that is was naively stupid and morally wrong, and a cynical miscalculation towards enhancing her future electability. No mention of her wanting to "take back" the vote on cluster-bombing women and children, however, nor any admission that she knew perfectly well that the Levin was not, as she tried to explain, a subjugation of the POTUS' sovereign authority to the UN, but that she simply - again - cynically, amorally calculated that she should vote against it.
Last, she had no reply to Obama's gentle reminder that "in general, if you don't want a Bill to pass, you vote against it" (referring to the Bankruptcy Reform).
Hillary could (and should) have replied to Obama's statement "in general, if you don't want a Bill to pass, you vote against it.":
Barak, I thought you always voted PRESENT on those bills.
Hillary's "vote" "to go to war" is WAY over emphasized. It was not the deciding vote. Twenty-two other Democratic Senators voted for it. It would have passed without a single Democratic Vote. She was told by the White House that diplomancy would be used and force would be used "as a last resort." If you are interested (and I doubt that you are) you can find her speech on the floor of the Senate which said she was not voting to "go to war." She was voting to give leverage to the Bush administration to force Saddam Hussein (can I still use his last name without offending someone?) to dismantle his WMD. Even Colin Powell lied when he said there was irrefutable evidence. He resigned, you know, in disgust that he was forced to embarrass himself before the UN.)
7NoTrumpXX, you're not a very good Clinton apologist, I hope they don't pay you much.
When you say: "She was told by the White House that diplomancy would be used and force would be used "as a last resort." If you are interested (and I doubt that you are) you can find her speech on the floor of the Senate which said she was not voting to "go to war." She was voting to give leverage to the Bush administration to force Saddam Hussein (can I still use his last name without offending someone?) to dismantle his WMD." You know quite well that's a patented lie. The deep suspicion that Bush would never consider war "a last resort" and would engage in a sham pretense at diplomacy, was very much alive in the Senate, and that is PRECISELY WHY the Levin Amendment was proposed..
As a New Yorker, I listened to the news of Hilary's war vote, and her subsequent speech, on NPR with tremendous dismay. Many (many) of us were hoping for something better from her, even if it was only symbolic. Instead, she clearly opted to play the game with the people in control at the time. I can remember this feeling of betrayal as clear as day, and I am sure others can, too.
"It was not the deciding vote."
That's not the point. And the excuse that the White House bamboozled her doesn't wash either. Plenty of ordinary citizens were not fooled by the administration's lies about WMDs; somebody who supposedly has as much experience and savvy as Hillary should not have been either.
"Even Colin Powell lied when he said there was irrefutable evidence."
Yes, he lied his ass off. But how does that excuse Hillary?
Anyone here with functioning testicles? Can I vote for you?
As Joe Biden pointed out to Obama during an earlier debate, by voting against the 30 percent cap on credit interest rate because the interest cap was too high, Obama's vote eliminated any cap at all. Sometimes in the Senate - especially when in the minority - you take what you can get in a bill, or as Moynahan used to argue "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." Clinton voted yes, Obama voted no. Both voted as they saw it.
Resistance is futile . OBAMA 08
The only thing about all of this is that I hope that this dream that Obama is projecting and the public seams to be consuming is not another one like Bush was handing out when he ran the first time. At the time, I was telling everyone who would listen that I thought that Bush was the next best thing to the anti-christ and it seams I was right. Our country can not handle two dreamers in a row. The sense that I am getting about Obama is not the same but I am getting some twinges. Maybe it is that I think Obama will draw a line in time and let all of the monsters slip away without punishment. The only way we will get our pride and respect back is if there is accountability. The world is watching. I will still vote dem ticket across the board like I have for a decade now but I want to see some butts kicked. Bush and Cheney and that whole crew need some prison time. I want to see a lot of those billions recovered from their pals. We have bridges to build and kids to school and a whole lot of people need some quality health care. The majority of us want to have the rest of us concerned about the legal penalties for be lawless scum. When the top is lawless that sets the wrong example.
You were very naive if you fell for Smirky McChimp's "compassionate conservative" crap. "Compassionate conservative" is an oxymoron.
As for the differences between Smirky and Obama, they are too numerous to list in detail, but basically Smirky is an ignoramus, a dunce and a sadistic sociopath, and Obama is not. There are legitimate reasons to prefer Clinton to Obama, but the fear that Obama will be another Bush is misguided.
And if you want the Bush Mafia punished, an Obama administration is far more likely than a Clinton administration to do it. Clinton is too much a member of the Washington club, and members of the club do not send other members to jail -- it's bad form.
Seems. Seems.... Yeah, that's right.
You're completely correct in your assessment of Bush as a dreamer with disastrous consequences. But remember, George Bush was a lifelong delinquent with no major accomplishments save winning a Gubernatorial election in Texas (a state which saw significant decline by the end of his terms). Despite what that dope in CA failed to say, Barack Obama has come from a lower class, single mother household, to Columbia University and then Harvard Law where he became the first non-white President of Harvard Law Review. Contrary to popular belief, this is not an easy task for anyone to do, even if "Affirmative Action" were true. He could have taken the Hillary/Bush route and gone into private law and made an absolute fortune, but instead he came back to the worst neighborhoods of Chicago where he was a popular, dedicated civil rights attorney and community organizer. From there he spent 8 years in the Illinois state legislature, pushing and passing Illinois' health care reform bill (with the support of a Republican state house) which significantly helps those in need of health insurance. Compare this to a man who was born into a wealthy and powerful family (not just his dad, but his mom, Barbara Pierce Bush), got into Yale on a legacy admission, underperformed there as well as Harvard Business School, has a history of drunk-driving, ran three oil company ventures into bankruptcy, and couldn't even manage a Major League Baseball team.
And most importantly, Obama's beautifully managed a national campaign against a powerful, well-financed (initially), and well-established Clinton organization and orchestrated one of the most stunning upsets in Democrat primary recent history.
He is not Bush. They are about as different as two people can get, and the sharp contrasts in their history show that clear as day.
How do you respond to someone who calls you four eyes? John Kerry and the swiftboat attacks? I think Hillary seems to be in a real state of shock that her campaign is being held to such question by Obama in the eyes of the public, and a media desperately clinging to the possibility of a galvanizing re-birth of Kennedy. Considering the issues this president will inherit, the experience factor speaks a volume that any caucus speech couldn't come close to matching. Or does it? Flabbergasted, in a sense.
wake up and smell the kool aid, people...
please read this, from the new republic 2/27/08
http://www
As a Clinton supporter, are you seriously suggesting we go down the road of looking into the frontrunners' connections to persons of questionable integrity? I'm not so sure that would get you Ohio.
Yes, I'm saying exactly that.
The Republicans in our Federal Government went on a 67 million dollar witch-hunt on Bill & Hillary, and all they came up with was "lying about sex." Good Grief. If there was anything in the Clinton's past (except sex), it would have been discovered.
I don't know what is in Senator Obama's past. The press has been virtually silent. Only a few news stories have surfaced, one from The Times in London says it best. I suggest you read it. Searh for TIMES.UK Obama Rezko
When a political contributor (Rezko) who is a Chicago developer and landlord who got 40 million dollars from our Government to renovate buildings for housing which soon fell into disrepair and were condemned, (and Obama was a lawyer in the firm that helped him get those government grants), and the political contributor buys a lot next door to Obama's new home so he can buy the home, that should be investigated.
When the money to buy the lot comes from a billionaire man born in Iraq who has traded with Saddam Hussein, that should be thoroughly investigated.
The New Republic is an AIPAC/DLC rag.
Wow, this is paper thin. There's actually a debate about the content of the mailer. An honest article about the subject, especially at this late stage in the game, would acknowledge and respond to those arguments. For you merely to claim deliberate, GOPesque deception by Obama, without providing any supporting argument, is journalism at it's least professional. I'm still reading. But thus far my impression is that this is a long exercise in intellectual dishonesty.
frenchie25 Re: New Republic Article:
It is sad to see a great American historian--and Sean Wilentz is a great historian of the 19th-century US--continue to employ his formidable and authoritative voice in support of Senator Clinton. It is sad not because he is a energized supporter, or, at the very least, a bitter Senator Obama detractor. That is his prerogative as an American citizen. It is sad, however, because he has used his historical voice in this and previous TNR articles to imply that somehow the lessons of twentieth-century US history--of which he is not a practitioner--amply demonstrate that the media and Sen. Obama have colluded to snow Americans, while the earnest and sincere Sen. Clinton alone stands aggrieved. In doing so, I must admit, Prof. Wilentz has written a top-notch screed. But the main complaint, at its essence, is that Senator Obama's campaign has not only outsmarted the celebrated Clinton campaign, but that it has done so in a way that uses race as an offensive weapon. Ok. Explain to me then Obama's wins in Idaho, Nebraska, Wisconsin, or any other heavily white state. How exactly is this the worst of racial politics? It seems to me that Professor Wilentz is most exercised by the fact that the Obama campaign, and dare I say it, Obama, are just better at reaching the nerve-center of 21st-century voters--white or black (Latino is still up in the air of course). As historians, we have a lot to say about the past--and none have done it better about 19th-century politics than Prof. Wilentz. But please spare us the patina of historical analysis on articles such as this. Finally, to end with "By any means necessary" elicits only a paraphrase from Sen. Clinton: Shame on you Sean Wilentz!
I just hope Hillary doesn't make a bigger fool out of herself when it comes to nomination. If she has any glimmer of hope in reviving her presidential ambitions in the future, she needs to gracefully bow out.
After this last debate, I seriously doubt a graceful exit will happen.
Want to make a bet? What about the Florida delegates? I'd bet anything IF Obama had won Florida, you would be writing a column that he should get the delegates. If Florida is disenfranchised, yet again, there WILL be a split of the Democratic party, and McCain will win. With the Florida delegates Hillary would be ahead.
5 Billion Dollars worth of negative advertising
against Hillary by THE MEDIA, and about 50 cents against Obama, and she's still standing, should tell you something.
When Hillary wins OHIO, will you change your tune?
I’m very concerned about the Obama connection to Syrian born Antoin (Tony) Rezko, Obama’s longtime Chicago patron who helped him finance his political campaigns. I’m very concerned about Rezko’s connection to Iraqi born Nadhmi Auchi, a billionaire who lives in Great Britain with all kinds of legal problems of his own.
Rezko is going to trial on March 3 (delayed a week, I wonder why?) in Chicago for fraud and extortion.
Auchi had dealing with Saddam Hussein’s regime prior to the 1991 war. He was the largest shareholder of the bank that trafficked the funds for the UN Oil-For-Food scandal.
Auchi admitted taking kickbacks from the French petroleum company TotalFinaElf in the 1990’s. He's been fined by the French Government more than a million pounds for his dirty dealings.
Auchi has transferred over $16 million dollars to Rezko in Chicago. The most recent transfer was for $3.5 million on May 23, 2005. Three weeks later, Rezko’s wife bought the $675,000 lot next door to Obama’s home, which Obama purchased on the same day for $1.3 Million, $300,000 below the asking price. The lot went for the asking price! The seller of the home wouldn’t sell the home without the lot and the lot was only accessible through Obama’s property.
Obama has donated $150,000 to charity for his admitted, “bone-headed mistake.”
The MEDIA hasn't vetted Obama at all. For those interested, search for "Obama Rezko Auchi." It is an eye opener.
Anyone who votes for Obama is taking a risk I am not willing to take. I'm not willing to put our nuclear weapons in unknown hands.
I know Hillary Clinton. I trust her. I know what she will do. She is 100% qualified to be President. I'll sleep well when she is President.
Great analysis, ragingJersey
"Hillary put together a complicated, immensely bureaucratic plan and ignored any criticism. Instead of compromising, she and her adivsors had the arrogance to believe that they could push this through in its entirety, instead of practicing the art of negotiation"
Last night's debate showcased very well how she is tough headed, my way or the highway, she will never get anything done and will blame everyone else. Obama is the diplomat, the negotiator, the consensus guy.
I can't believe most network commentators are saying the debate was a tie. Far from it! It show very well all of hillary's fatal flaws and why she is losing!
Hillary is finished. Period. After March 4th, Obama can safely afford to say, "Include the delegates from FL and MI." because they won't make any difference. He will win TX or at least the lion's share of the delegates there and if Hillary manages to win OH, it will only be by 10-15%, scarcely enough to pose any threat. She will also win RI... whoppi! And lose in VT. She will be faced with a daunting decision..
She is a victim of her own arrogance and arrogance of her own campaign that believed that she was the heir apparent. If she ran the country the way she ran her campaign we'd be bankrupt before the end of her first year in office.
This kind of fear-based thinking is usually found in the Republican area. The whole logic is based on fear-mongering. If you look at the facts about the Rezko-Obama connection, you'd realize it is just another political hit job. You have to get over this fear-based reasoning and get the facts.
Good points, Donald. There's also a lot of corporate money behind him, which his supporters seem to want to just brush aside. But Hillary's money? Fuggeddabowdit -- bring out the microscope!
I'm a Florida voter who wondered how Obama got to break the party rules by running local TV ads before our primary, blanketing CNN and MSNBC during prime time, leading up to our election. His excuse? Oh, it was a packaged media buy. Hello! I worked in media for 25 years. You can get out of packages, you just end up paying a little more by splitting it all up. A wise use of money, BUT HE BROKE THE RULES, PEOPLE!
Florida votes should count. If the party decrees a redo, it should be a full-fledged election, just like the one we had on Jan. 29. Otherwise, the nearly 2 million Florida Dems who made the effort to go to the polls (unprecedented for a primary, by the way) will be disenfranchised. And a caucus ain't gonna speak for 2 million active, informed and involved voters.
I'm very concerned about Hillary Clinton's stonewalling on the release of her tax returns-All of the other candidates have released theirs, including Barack, John Edwards, McCain, even Bill Clinton in 1996-People have been respectfully requesting that she do the same for months now, to no avail-It really shouldn't be that big a deal, should it?-I mean, she doesn't need to hunt through her closet for it does she?-On last night's debate she said she didn't have the "time to get it together"-Come on-She's a multi-millionaire who would certainly have her taxes done by an accounting firm, which I'm sure would be happy to print a copy off their computer if she asked -She has a huge staff-Couldn't one of them take care of this little chore for her?-Couldn't Bill do it?-Why does she keep stalling on this?-What doesn't she want us to know?-This cannot be good
It certainly is over if people like you continue to write such biased clap trap before the people have voted. It is all in the eye of the beholder and my eyes see differently than yours!
not in "the eyes of the beholder" but in the numbers.
Marc has seen the handwriting on the wall....be
Nailed it, Marc Cooper.
The highlights of the night for me was Barack's Iraq/bus-i
Barack is true blue; a gnetleman and a statesman.
I think she did fine.Only people on the Obama is king bandwagon did not like her last night.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
