Not Until the Fat Lady Sings
As an ardent Obama supporter, I am calling on the Senator from New York to stay in the race for as long as she can stand it. Longer even. I think the calls for her withdrawal are deeply troubling, and even hysterical. Anti-democratic even. This is how an election works. And even though this particular one seems to be poorly designed at best, we are in the midst of the process. Voting: A right, may I remind Mr. Leahy, et al -- for which people have fought hard and died.
Let me be clear: I believe that the Clinton campaign has been simply tragic. It is an object lesson in failed promise and panicked, unstable, virulent war-game tactics. It has been marked by shallowness of the first order, and by the relentlessly divisive behavior of a cynical staff. She is fatally compromised in her stature as a credible voice, even perhaps in the senate, and her husband, an ex-president of the United States, is in danger of squandering what is left of his tattered reputation. The utter absence of statesmanship from the Clintons actually is painful to watch. There are lies about being under fire, there are semi-secret conduits to Matt Drudge, there are methods worthy of the Nixon playbook, in terms of sheer cynical zero-sum brinksmanship. There is an endless contempt for Obama's brilliant oratory, his ability to speak to adults like adults, which makes the Clintons suddenly seem like Bushesque boors, frankly. The sneering at his ability to connect reeks of school yard pique. It need not have been this way. There were early signs of a different kind of race, and they evaporated a long time ago. One day, we may live to see such a race. I doubt it.
However, I utterly disagree with those who cynically are calling for her to go quietly into the good night. I think that would be deadly for the fragile unity of the party, a party that should be on the brink of reclaiming control of the White House, and all that goes with it. A huge percentage of Clinton believers would be turned off. I think any Democrat alive knows what it is like to feel disenfranchised after the chaos of the last few elections.
And as any reader of the Huffington Post knows, she has fervent and patriotic supporters. (They will be writing angry letters even before they finish reading these words.) Supporters who still see more of what's good and great about her, who see her brilliance, her stamina, her staggering capacity for survival, as purely admirable, and even vital to whomever is going to be our next chief executive. I do not disagree with the need for a powerhouse in the Oval Office, I just think we need the purging energy of Barack Obama more. Senator Clinton has people who believe in her just as passionately as I believe in Senator Obama. Those supporters deserve to see their nominee fight for as long as she can, as long as she needs to. Well past the point of reasonable hope. That is America. It's in our sports, it's in our business, it's in our blood. And frankly, there is something admirable about the indefatigable Clinton appetite for power. I find it morally vacuous, not to mention shallow as hell when Bill remarks that if you can't take the hits, you shouldn't run. Really, Bill? Did you love your ongoing and disgusting hazing at the hands of right wing zealots so much that you think those tactics are a reasonable litmus test for the presidency, rather than say, oh, profound and inspirational moral force and an utterly unifying presence? Just asking. And as stomach turning as is the new college campus mini-trend of questioning of the Clinton's daughter about Ms. Lewinsky, well, so long as the Clintons are willing to put her out there to play that particular game of tennis, well then, who are we to stop 'em? Go. Go. Go. Go to town.
Maybe there's something purging about it for them. More than anything else, for purely selfish reasons, I do not, for one, think this race should end until William Jefferson Clinton is asked, and exhaustively and comprehensively answers each and every last question pertaining to the unconscionable pardoning of the crooked financier Marc Rich. Because, he too will be in the White House again, powerful, cynical, and hungry. Who knows what favors would be traded in exchange for God only knows what?
No, Hillary should remain in the race. As Frank Rich pointed out last Sunday, she knowingly fabricated the details of her landing in Bosnia, and she did so repeatedly, shamelessly, even after she was entirely revealed as a fabulator worthy of the hoariest backlot Hollywood schlockmeister. So -- Let it go on and on and on and on. The truth, as it did in the case of her trip to the "war zone", will come out. It always does. the last aria has not been sung, and the Valkyrie has yet to exhaust her lungs. And as the race continues to the bitterest end, I hope that Senator Clinton's many supporters are entirely satisfied that she did this to herself. That she exhausted her every chance.
It could have been different. As I have said before, character is fate, and that is what we are witnessing, as her campaign falters. Let it go on until all hope is exhausted. Those of us who look at the Clintons and see the full dimensions of the failure of their promise to America will also feel some sense of loss when she withdraws. She shied away from greatness, so as to hold on to power. Character is fate.
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
Mr. Baitz, you refer to Clinton supporters writing "angry" letter to Huff Post. Apparently you haven't been paying much attention. The Obama supporter have been the angry ones; whether their candidate was ahead or not. They are equally angry as winners or as losers. It makes me wonder why? It does lend credence to the argument that there is an Obama cult.
As an Clinton supporter, I appreciate your posisiton that the race should continue. I only wish Obama and his campaign felt the same way and would stop trying to disenfranchise Democratic voters for short term gain as this will surely hurt the Democratic nominee in the general election.
There have been angry letters on both sides - any non-biased reading of the comments on Huffpo will show that.
Your talking point about Obama Supporters "disenfranchising" voters is insulting. I wish you could see and talk face to face with the people whose intelligence you insult with such rhetoric. Look at the history of Florida and Michigan - who they players were, how the decisions came to be and what Hillary said at the time. Now that she is behind and needs the votes, she is trying to change the rules. Those are facts, and not being delivered/conveyed in "anger," although it does create a huge sense of disappointment that someone I admired so much is willing to do things like this to secure the nomination. I'm not angry at her - just disappointed.
Totally disagree here - the Clintonistas are the new Bushies - they support a candidate who lies on a regular basis, is married to someone who is completely happy with the dirtiest of campaigning tactics. These people always aim and head for the bottom of the barrel. I've been struck by their total lack of dignity, their willingness to wallow in the mud. HillBillary have big problems - the Repubs will make much of her many lies and fabrications. At least Mr. Obama isn't a bald faced liar.
Remember, Hillary had no problem "disenfranchising" the voters of Florida and Michigan - that is, when she thought she would surely win and not need them. She, like the other candidates, agreed that they wouldn't count - but, of course, if she can derive any benefit and she needs them, she'll flip flop on the issue.
What about all the voters who would have voted and didn't because they thought it wouldn't count. Hillery has no problem disenfranchise them in Fla and claiming victory there. Or the fact that Obama's name wasn't on the ballot in MI but that doesn't seem to matter to her either.
I believe she will lose and the primary process will have worked just fine. She will have less delegates, less votes, less states and yes, less super delegates. rules are rules and math is math.
I am hereby renaming the Obama cult the fact cult. While I appreciate the reserved tone of this post, my experience with these threats is it is the Clinton supporters who usually engage in the invective, angry speech you accuse the Obama supporters of. If anything, there is a certain frustration that arises when confronted with people for whom the truth is an obstacle.
At the beginning of the primaries, I liked Clinton and Obama, with a slight preference for the latter. However, the way that Clinton has waged her campaign are thoroughly disenchanted me. That being said, I would still vote for Hillary over McCain, not because I'm a committed Democrat who would vote the party across the board, but because I support universal health care and don't want to be bombing Iran come this time next year.
With Obama's policies generally paralleling Hillary's, it is insane that she would endorse someone (McCain) whose policies are diametrically opposed to hers (and Obama's).
The problem the Clinton's have is they see the page turning and the next page does not have their name on the top of the page . The loss of power is almost unbearable for some people so they will fight with every resource to the very end .
It doesn't help that as you are losing that power, others are coming in and relieving themselves all over your hard work. I don't think President Clinton would be concerning himself one bit with the current presidency if it weren't for the trashing of our government that has taken place over the last 8-10 years.
Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar. The end. If she lies about nothing, what will she say when she is backed into a corner? More lies, no doubt.
Oh, for cripes sake, this relentless dissection of the Clinton's motives and parsing of their words is beyond overkill. You see what you see even if you have to skew reality to see it apparently.
An example would be the uproar (among Obama supporters) about Hillary's fish story embellishment of her Bosnia trip. Completely ignoring or even discussing Obama's autobiography where he uses composite characters, altered timelines and made up dialogues. That is a fish story of epic proportions. His autobiography is based on a true story? That's just one thing. How about it if Hillary had said, "typical black person"? Most of the bloggers here would have peed themselves getting to their keyboards fast enough. Yeah, Jon is right. We see the Obamas the way you see the Clintons and whose fault is that? The candidates or the media?
I find it difficult to understand why Obama's James Frey handling of his memoir hasn't been at least MENTIONED by the media. If Hillary had done the same thing, Keith Olberman's head would have exploded.
Hillery is NOT half black and from what I know doesn't have any black parents or grandparents. Her saying "typical black person" would have a different meaning simply because she is not mixed race.
That old saw has never been truer "Democratic fall in love while Republicans fall in line."
My fellow Dems want the Hollywood story/ending. The dashing hero with the dazzling smile who comes in and saves the day. The one whose motives are pure. A hero pure of heart. A hero that is unsullied by the type of heavy lifting the Clintons had to do, the battles they have had to fight. Obama has never had to get down and dirty in the mud with the far right because Chicago is a bastion of Big City Dems, old ward healers and wine sipping northside liberals. Hillary IS sullied.. she HAS had to get her hands dirty... she has fought in the political trenches while Mr. Obama played go along get along here in Chicago. He voted present nearly 130 times as a state senator effectively sidestepping the issues that were potentially political trouble.
But... what you sow, so shall you reap. You wide eyed Obama-ites will get the candidate you want and he will be trounced in the fall.
Obama's fuzzy policies and general inexperience and lack of toughness will sink him (not to mention the huge racist vote that the 527s will gin up).
When Obama loses in the Fall I'm sure you all will blame Hillary or at the very least Olbermann will do his best to make sure she is to blame.
This is the kind of post I was talking about. The party is ripping itself in two. How sad. And despite all this stupid arguing and infighting, the two candidates are virtually identical in policies and experience - despite the whining of in-party partisans.
They are not identical in policies or experience. That myth needs to be stopped.
Why should Obama lose in November? Why should Clinton lose in November? How can any Democrat possibly lose in the general election? The fact that McCain has a good chance to win is the saddest commentary on American politics I can think of. Jack Abramoff should be able to run as a Democrat and win after the 8-year trainwreck the Cheney-Bush regime has been. Maybe if the Democrats nominated a REAL Democrat (Dennis Kucinich come readily to mind) they would truly energize those who feel politics has no place in their lives -- those damn-near 50 percent of American adults who never vote. No, the Democrats have done it again. Obama and Clinton should have been going medieval on McCain instead of the "Oh yeah, well you're a bigger one" that their race for the nomination has become.
I am amazed that people still think that Clinton has to find something on Obama and HE will crash and burn. Have we forgotten who we are talking about here? The Clintons. There is far more destructive information out there on them than any other "team" running for the Presidency. I think this is a clear effort on the part of the Clintons to put up the smoke and mirrors to distract from their own skeletons like their tax returns and Clinton Library donars. The repubs are waiting to talk about the blue dress stains, the pardons, the criminal associations and much more. There is no way Clinton will ever make it into the White House running against the repubs. They have not been vetted. Most of their worst stories happened on their way OUT of the White House. If you think the repubs have that short of a memory you are wrong. Clinton is not a "fighter" she is a divisive, self-serving, arrogant little woman who thinks playing the "White Woman" card will surely play on people's racist and sexist fears. She is wrong!
A perfect example of "the typical Obama" supporter here. Hate filled, rumor mongering and name calling. I suppose it serves it's purpose somewhere. Hey Jon! What do you think of this post?
Inspirational? Helps bridge the divide? For that matter, I didn't see a whole lot of hands across the water in the article above either.
There is one, and only one reason why HRC is still in the race and I haven't seen it reported yet. While she draws this out, her famous Clintonista cohorts are fevereshly trying to dig up something on Barry, I mean Barack Obama. She may already have it, but is holding on to it to see if she can pull this thing out without having to smear him, which she will at the drop of the hat if she has to. People don't realize that just because she can't win the nomination by delegate count, she could win it if Obama crashes and burns and is forced to drop out. We have seen what the Clinton's are capable of and believe it when I say that something huge will be coming out about Obama, whether true or fabricated, that will put the idea in the American peoples head that he shouldn't be president. That is when she will get the nomination.
If she were to do that, and I do not, at this point, put it past her... She would lose the general election in such embarrassingly huge numbers, and this country would continue down the path it has been on the last seven years.
I used to be a HRC supporter, up until a few months ago, when I noticed how she was running her campaign. Observing that, I realize she would run this country the same way... without regard to who she is screwing over...rut
This country needs a new direction and she is not it...perio
Well said. I believe Hillary fatigue has set in, and what we are seeing is rather disgusting.
I've been saying virtually the same thing, for weeks, but no one will listen to me---maybe they will listen to you. Timing is everything, especially in politics. Me, i think if she does have something on Obama, she will wait to use it until, when she does, he will not have time to recover. As he has, pretty much, with the Wright controversy. She will simply dump it on him. Or, as you suggest, she doesn't have anything quite yet but is hoping her minions will find it. Or she is hoping that just someone---
If she does have something now, I believe she will wait until just before the convention to use it, maybe even at the convention. Crash and burn.
Or maybe she has nothing and never will have anything, maybe she just goes on and on, like a gerbal on a wheel, unable to stop until total exhaustion sets in.
On e thing I know. Those who think she is finished, are wrong, she is just warming up. We will have to wait and see, and it's stressful. The one possibility that stresses me most is that it will just drag on and on and on, litigation, maybe, a messy fight on the floor of the convention, favors called in, threats, intimidati
She has nothing on Barack Obama. She is still running while her operatives keep trying to find something.
All one has to do is watch several of Obama's speeches before one notices a certain habit of his. It is quite common in certain people. That's all I have to say, but start paying attention.
This primary process sucks!
Isn't it a sign of insanity to expect a good result from a flawed system?
Does the primary process make any sense?
Is this a real democracy or is it a sham designed to allow the little people to believe we have a democracy with in reality it is the power holding elite representing special interests and big corporations who will decide this nomination.
Obama can not get enough pledged delegates to win the nomination he will need super delegates!
WHO are super delegates? Party hacks who were bought and sold by the special interests long ago. What will Senator Obama have to pay to get the support of these super delegates? How many jobs will have to be promised people who are more deserving to be someplace far from the sun breaking big rocks in to small rocks with a tiny hammer.
All of you Obama supporters are on something if you thing that this one man will have a chance to change the way business is done in Washington. Even before the Novemember election, he will have to sell his soul to the super delegates to get the nomination.
At least with Hillary, we know what we are getting. The party insiders and special interests are salivating at the thought of an Obama presidency because they KNOW THEY WILL EAT HIM ALIVE! Hillary has already been chewed up and digested.
THE NOMINATION PROCESS SHOULD BE CHANGED TO A NATIONAL PRIMARY ONLY!
I think you are right. Why do you think that the Democratic Party has superdelegates? The Republican Party doesn't. I will tell you why. They are there as a fail safe so when the Democrat elites decide that the 'people got it wrong' by nominating someone who they really don't want to be nominated, they can use the superdelegates to negate everyone's vote. Do you really think that these superdelegates are really voting their conscious? Please. The Democratic Party has shown that they do not think that the people of this country are smart enough to govern themselves, probably because their goal is to keep people stupid so that they don't know any better, i.e - the unholy alliance between the Democratic Party and the AFT (American Federation of Teachers Union).
And do you honestly think it's the "people" who choose the Republican nominee? If you do, than it's not just the Democratic Party that has a stake in keeping the electorate stupid -- the unholy alliance between the Republican Party and Wal-Mart.
"...Does the primary process make any sense?..."
Yes, it does. A candidate gets vetted, over the long haul, and, at the same time, he or she is exposed to the different interests and concerns of people living in the various regions of this country. One important question is "how does the candidate hold up, over the long haul, under sustained pressure?" Another is "what do we learn about that candidate's mettle that will recommend him to the office of President of the United States?" The arduous Primary process goes a long way in answering those questions.
The "party hacks" are there to see that the party doesn't hang itself with a too exotic candidate, as it did with McGovern, in 72. A debacle that resulted in Reps winning 3 of the next 4 presidential elections in the next 16 years. You can't affect change if your candidate is so far out of the mainstream that he can't get elected to bring change about. Both Obama and Clinton are electably mainstream (Hillary's sufficiently gnawed on obama to the point where the repubs will have nothing left to chew on, leading up to the Fall). We'll see how this plays out, in the days to come.
Mr. Baitz:
Beautifully written. I share your wish that Hillary be afforded every opportunity to reach the conclusion that is fast becoming apparent to a growing majority of the party - but within reason. I would love for her to compete in every contest, and exhaust all possibilities through the primary season, and to conclude at the end that she cannot win the nomination. Alas, based on her words and actions, I don't believe she will go quietly into the night come the last primary on June 3, but instead take her at her word that she intends to take the fight to the convention, and to spend the interim 3 months trying to destroy Obama. This cannot be permitted. Thus, along with a growing consensus of democrats, I think a steady stream of supers voicing their preference should make it clear to all by mid-to-late June, and no later than July 1, that they have chosen as their nominee the leader in delegates, votes, and states.
Going into this I never thought for a minute that Hillary wouldn't be the nominee. I was, at least, comforted by the fact that she knew what she was getting into and certainly knew the rules of the game. None the less, not overly thrilled with her and the having to make excuses for the things Republicans have been crying about the Clintons for years.
Now that I've seen her in action, and now what I consider to be the opponent, I understand completely. I would have a really hard time voting for this woman, should she become the nominee. And if not for she standing in the way of McCain and the next supreme court justice(s), I wouldn't.
Let's hope that Obama can loose the taint of the stench she's left behind in the wake of her horrible campaign.
Well, out here in Far Right Wing Orange County, Bill Clinton is considered by many Republicans to have been a "pretty good Republican president".
Now you have to abandon liberal/pr
Bill Clinton has paved the way for Hillary's candidacy, and don't be naive enough to think that she wouldn't be the same kind of "centrist" (translation: Wanna-be-R
The Clintons are so desperate to get back into the White House, that they are willing to destroy their own reputations. If she loses, it will be because she didn't show the "class" that Obama has shown.
The really fascinating thing is she's willing to risk everything: her relationship to a core constituency, her senate seat,* her personal reputation and the Clinton legacy to, out of pique, tear down the insurgent who's had the temerity to get in the way of her plans.
She seems blind to her and her apparatus's arrogance, sense of entitlement and resultant club-footedness that has allowed a smooth running Obama/Axelrod campaign to have just steam-rollered her during the meat of the Primary season. She could come back, of course, but either way you slice it, it's a terrible price to pay.
Take this to the bank: should she lose this nomination, she WILL be challenged in the 2012 senate primary race.
Anyway you slice it, Hillary's own undoing has been her own doing, from the choice of Axelrod and the other fools making foolish decisions, culminating in her fabrication of the "Tale of Kosovo," and her explanation/defense of same. She has made a fool of herself. She has done this to herself, and the question really, at this point, is: Has she taken things so far that the Democratic Party cannot recover in time for a good shot at the presidency?
My question for Pennsylvanians, North Carolinians, and Hoosiers is: Will you be so foolish as to vote for this woman who has now discredited herself as a viable and creditable candidate, and taken the Democratic Party down the road to an apparent no end in sight? You've been set up for falling into the trap of having to vote for her to show that you have the right to vote right on to lead her to the nomination on the convention floor. Disaster lies ahead, if so!
For sure, McCain has only to continue in her vein, and Obama will go from sitting duck to dead duck, a sad commentary, indeed, it is and all the more, will be. For McCain will further lead us down the path to obliivion.
Beware, Americans, of McCain's hidden agenda. It is the same agenda of his buddy, the senator from Connecticut.
Obama is the exact same Centerist. Look at his voting record. Look at his senior economic advisor Austen Goolsbee, for goodness sake. There is almost no difference in policy between Obama and Clinton. THe only difference is sex appeal and rhetoric. This isn't a fight between Wellstone and Wolfowitz. They are two tiny varying shades of the exact same color. You can argue points of character -- although I find both of them equally "political" as far as honesty goes -- but you just can't say that they are all that politically different. IF anything, Obama is willing to put right wingers in his cabinet. He praises Reagan. He is buds with BLoomberg. That should please all the folks in Orange County!
I read your commentaries and it's eerie to me how much what you write echoes so closely my thoughts. I actually felt teary-eyed with this sentence: "She shied away from greatness, so as to hold on to power." It serves no real purpose to go on speculating on what might have been, but I guess it's human nature to feel that sense of wonder and regret on others behalf. You are like the better angel to my, and others, knee-jerk reaction to Clinton's faltering campaign. If I'd been asked prior to reading what you've said here, I would have been for Clinton getting out of the race by the end of April, but there is wisdom in your words. In the end we ought to do what's best for all of us, not just for the victors. We need to play this out until the overwhelming majority of us are satisfied with its outcome. In the meantime, we can hope that the shame parade doesn't get much worse than her Bosnia blunder.
This is a weird sort of mixed message. I understand you're an Obama supporter and there's a cynical edge to your post, but gosh, make up your mind. In one breath you talk about the purging energy of Obama's campaign, which you believe is the right thing for America, but you didn't hesitate to trash the Clintons to no end.
That is the problem with you bloggers who think you know what's best for the rest of us peons. If you think the Clintons style and character are not good for us, then show some class and stop feeding writing your vitriol about them. You've confused me. Now I don't know if I should be looking for the purging spirit of Obama, or it's just quite okay to have someone who can trash another to no end.
Plus, the president has plenary power over pardons, and I don't know how this knowledge about things that happened 8 years ago, to which we cannot do a darn thing, is going to help us to pay for our gas, pay our mortgage, etc. etc. What is this obsession about the Clintons, anyway? My belief is that we shouldn't buy "puss in a bag." At least, we know what to expect from Hillary, only God knows what an Obama presidency will bring us. By the way, no one, well, except you, cares about Obama's oratory. Besides, is he using his own words nowadays, or is he still borrowing them?
So would rather have the candidate that you know will tell lies, sell us out to Republicans, and market pardons to felons because you are afraid Obama MIGHT do some of that stuff? What kind of sense does THAT make?
It's Clinton logic. Better the enemy you know than the enemy you don't. In other words, it's rabid fear of change.
MGW,
You're confused by Hilliary.P
to borrow a word from someone,(which by the way is available in all dictionaries as use
in the English language) or to sign a committment to run according to Party Rules,then
break them,as a results of breaking the rules you still loose,now you want to change
not only rules,but your stand again to your advantage?FLIP FLOP,just like CLINTONS-
blame everyone for your mistakes and lies,(OOPS! I forgot she misspoke).
has a lie become a mispoke?Only in Clinton world.
I'm sorry MGW,you're confused,but rules are rules, a liar is a liar,but words are universal,
and available to all.
I agree with your comments about Obama. He's an empty suit with a great charismatic charm. However, I was surprised to see Hillary basically creating an alliance with McCain in a weird sort of way by saying they were the ones with foreign policy experience. And to make such an incredibly naive mistake concerning dodging bullets in Bosnia.
Look, old John also isn't the sharpest pencil in the box but he has forgotten more than Obama will ever know and he is experienced in ways Hillary will never be.
"...old John...has forgotten more than Obama will ever know..."
That's the trouble. He's forgotten it all.
"...he is experienced in ways Hillary will never be."
Yeah, HRC hasn't sucked up to the right-wing faux "Christians" yet.
Until this newcomer Barack Obama showed up, The Clintons were the Democratic Party's proudest members. The party instantly pointed to Bill Clinton as the greatest U.S. President in the latter 20th century! Now that his wife is legally running for President on the ticket, the party is turning on the Clintons! This is disgraceful and disloyal behavior to two people who have raised an infinite amount of money for the party.
Go Hillary! Take the nomination away from Barack Obama!
You've got to be kidding...
And Obama's so pretty, pretty, pretty words.
You said it. So apparently we're not supposed to vote for the best person for the job, we're supposed to just fall in line with the dynastic candidate. And Bill Clinton was not thought of universally as the "greatest president of the latter 20th century". The original poster does not speak for me nor anyone else but him/herself
Yes, she should
I agree with your statement. And I'm also agreeing with the portion of this article that the truth will come out and I have just finished reading an interesting article about the records of these two candidates. The Obama people keep saying that he has a much better record than Hillary does but a fact finder finds that their e-mails are not accurate. Hillary has the better record. Truth does come out. This one tells how of the Illinois senate majority leader wrote Obama's name on every piece of important legislation that was passed in Illinois on the way for Obama trying for the senate seat.
http://dal
This one is the fact check on the e-mails that they are sending out telling the people how senator Obama's record and experience is more than senator Clinton's FALSE! Please read. Truth does come out Jon!
http://www
duh, this article swings both ways...BOT
umm... this isn't a monarchy. Hate to break it to ya.
Why are you people so frustrated, and so ifatuated with the Clintons? living vicariously thru someone elses experience is not living at all. No one has "turned" on the Clintons but the Clintons, and those of us who feel skeezie from being lied to and talked down to one too many times. Oh, and your "newcomer" has about a decade more of real, solid political experience than your "First Lady", so this newcomer label is ridiculous.
Here here!
The fact of the matter is that Hillary is not that competent, and that is why she is losing. Her executive ability in running her campaign has been sorely lacking. She lacks organizational skills, communication skills, financial skills.
She is also not nearly as intelligent as is assumed. (She flunked her bar exam, just for openers). She has been out-thought, out-planned, out-strategized, and out-maneuvered by a tenderfoot rookie running his first national campaign..
There is a great deal of emphasis placed on her character flaws, which are many and, I believe, harmful to her ambitions; but her lack of honesty and trustworthiness is not the whole story. Her lack of skill and smarts is the real why.
There is a place in politics for a person for a person with an unlimited capacity to absorb punishment and continue forward...
Thank you Jon Robin Baitz. What you have to say and how you said it are about the human phenominon called empathy in its most precise definition . No wonder you are an ardent supporter of Senator Obama.
As long as Hillary does not continue the personal and party damage she should stay in the race until she has paid back all of the bills she has not paid. She will not win and Senator Obama should continue with his reasoned, dignified approach to the problems facing us and the solutions he would like to try to implement.
The only promise I have heard from him is that each morning when he is our president, he will think of how he mnight help America and Americans. I have not heard any of the other candidates make promises of any kind. I thank them for this. Hillary will not win but we do not have to call for her to depart as long as she runs on the issues and not the fear and smear which her campaign can tend to do.
Welcome to the election Hillary, leave if and when you choose.
Lee Hamilton endorsed Barack Obama! For many of the reasons you note in your post which is why I was reminded of it. From the article
“I read his national security and foreign policy speeches," Hamilton told Bloomberg News today, "and he comes across to me as pragmatic, visionary and tough."
http://lat
The context in which Clinton's Bosnia trip took place - NYT 040108, link below:
(Clinton's party) flew in a C-17 cargo plane from Germany to Bosnia precisely because it was capable of steep descents and ascents into and out of areas of conflict.
We were issued flak jackets on the plane before landing in Tuzla and were told the tarmac ceremony might be canceled or curtailed due to sniper fire from the surrounding hillsides.
The first lady and Chelsea Clinton were moved to the armored cockpit for the landing.
Armored vehicles were placed around the tarmac, and Apache helicopters hovered overhead.
The planned welcoming ceremony was shortened, (Ejup Ganic, acting President of Bosnia at the time) said, but it still lasted a bit longer than expected because a nongovernment group brought along a little girl to sing to the first lady.
Later, Mrs. Clinton flew from Tuzla to two military outposts by helicopter, escorted by Apache gunships..
Would you also like to know the context of the Wright smears? No? Didn't think so.
It doesn't matter anyway because the Bosnia Fairy Tale is Hillary's own making. In desperation, opponents of Barack Obama, unable to tar him with anything, have gone after a former pastor instead. There's a difference. Obama already condemned the words but made mention that they were taken out of context; a 30 second snippet from over 30 years worth of sermons.
The kitchen sink fell flat.
Hillary's former pastor says:
"The pastor at the church that Clinton did once attend has recently expressed public support for Wright. He's even proclaimed it a "grave injustice" to make judgment on Wright based on "two or three sound bites," and criticized those who would "use a few of [Wright's] quotes to polarize."
Last week, Dean Snyder, the senior minister at the Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington D.C. ... released a little noticed statement offering a sympathetic defense of the totality of Wright's work.
"The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is an outstanding church leader whom I have heard speak a number of times," Snyder wrote. "He has served for decades as a profound voice for justice and inclusion in our society. To evaluate his dynamic ministry on the basis of two or three sound bites does a grave injustice to Dr. Wright, the members of his congregation, and the African-American church which has been the spiritual refuge of a people that has suffered from discrimination, disadvantage, and violence. Dr. Wright, a member of an integrated denomination, has been an agent of racial reconciliation while proclaiming perceptions and truths uncomfortable for some white people to hear. Those of us who are white Americans would do well to listen carefully to Dr. Wright rather than to use a few of his quotes to polarize."
Pastor Of Clinton's Former Church: Don't Use Wright To Polarize
http://www
Hmm....so what about the thing being canceled and "we were basically told to run to our cars...tha
High tolerance for bald faced lies, I guess?
JayJ, that bit about the movement to the cockpit - written by a Hillary aide, by the way - has already been debunked as false. Apparently, her staff shares her propensity to "embellish" (read: lie). Whether that's a qualification for the job, or simply a byproduct of working with the Clintons, we cannot say. Either way, you need to keep up with the most recent debunking of Hillary camp falsehoods to play this game; it's a lot of work, I know, but do your best to stay current.
Hillary Clinton's version of her trip has been totally discredited by others who were on the plane.
Think about this: the President gets detailed classified intellligence briefings daily. Would any President send his beloved wife and only child into an area into potentially mortal danger?
Not on your life!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
