Why Hillary Clinton's Slash-and-Burn Politics May Hurt Her More Than Obama
The only way for Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic nomination would be a precipitous collapse in Barack Obama's candidacy. Obama's pledged-delegate lead is virtually insurmountable. And Super Delegates seem increasingly inclined to go with the pledged-delegate winner.
Rather than respect the outcome of the primaries, the Clintons have decided to do everything they can to make Obama appear to be a risky general election choice to the remaining Super Delegates and the media. But Clinton's negative tactics may actually hurt her candidacy more than they hurt Obama's. There are three reasons:
First, a negative attack has to ring true to the people you are attempting to persuade. Initial polls seem to indicate that most of the people who are receptive to the "Obama-is-a-condescending-'elitist'-argument" already supported Hillary in the primary before the attacks began. Clinton's attacks may rally some of her troops, but the argument doesn't seem to be that persuasive to actual undecided voters.
Of course one reason may have to do with the credibility of the messenger. It's tough to attack someone else for "elitism" if you've spent the last 16 years in Washington as First Lady and Senator, and your family brought in $107 million over the last seven years. Assuming an eight-hour workday, that means that Bill and Hillary made as much every two hours as Barack Obama made each full year that he organized out-of-work steelworkers for a coalition of church groups.
Second, the fact of a negative attack itself can backwash on the candidate who makes it. Making negative attacks makes people look mean and unlikable. That is a particular problem when the audience for your attacks includes Democratic primary voters and Super Delegates who really want to win the White House in November.
Clinton's negative attacks on Obama have especially begun to backfire with Super Delegates. I've talked to a number of undecided Super Delegate Members of Congress who are furious at her willingness to attack the candidate who they consider almost certain to be the Democratic nominee.
Most think that Clinton has no more than a 10% chance of winning the nomination, so the odds are great that she is doing nothing now but legitimating the Republican narrative for the general election. The story line that Democrats are "elitists" who look down on middle class people is taken right out of Karl Rove's playbook. It's been used for decades to convince everyday Americans to re-elect Republicans that outsource their jobs, destroy their unions and lower their wages. Many Democratic Super Delegates are apoplectic that Clinton would give credibility to that Republican line of attack on their likely standard-bearer.
We've already seen examples of high profile Super Delegates (like Bill Richardson) who have gone with Obama partially because of Clinton's negativism. We'll likely see many more.
Finally, her attacks have allowed the Obama campaign - and the media - to parody her desperate attempts to appear "working class." When Obama conjured up images of Hillary Clinton sitting in a duck blind it called to mind those unforgettable pictures of Michael Dukakis in a tank.
People want leaders who are self-confident, who are comfortable in their own skin. Candidates need to connect with voters by demonstrating the things that they really share, not pretending to be someone they are not. Hillary Clinton is a long time advocate for gun control - not "Annie Oakley." Shooting back Crown Royal with a beer chaser in a neighborhood tap just isn't Hillary Clinton.
The Clintons may have viewed Obama's "bitterness" remark as the opportunity they'd been looking for to throw a long "Hail Mary" pass in the closing minutes of the primary battle. I'm betting Barack Obama picks it off and runs it back for a touch down.
Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist, and author of the recent book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on amazon.com.
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
I bet you're right. Obama's going to survive this and win the nomination.
And then the Reagan Democrats will defect en masse and vote McCain into office. Obama cannot win OH, PA, MI, FL, and possibly even NJ and NY. McCain is leading him in New York state--a HUGE electoral loss for the Dems if that trend continues through November.
Obama's going to win the nomination, but there is no way in hell he'll win the election. There just aren't enough latte liberals and African Americans to put him over the top in key battleground states. All this bitter fighting will have been for nothing--except a demoralized and decimated party and a President McCain.
"Latte liberals and African Americans". What party are you in , again?
He's in the DLC/Lieber
The Dems have many very compelling arguments against McCain. Problem is they can't focus on him because they are too busy fighting and Hillary is the one that threw the kitchen sink and is now throwing the toilet. As soon as we can move on the numbers will vastly improve.
And if you think those mad old feminists are going to let McCain get in office so he can reverse roe vs wade, the most important feminist legislation in US history, either you are sorely mistaken or they are so blinded by bitterness that they are willing to ruin that which they are supposed to stand for. Hmmm, wait a minute, that sounds familiar..
You forgot one point - that most people in this country do not want a war monger for president. John McBush is a one trick pony with a poor memory.
By the time November gets here, he may not remember who HE is!
Gosh, I think you may be right. Basically we democrats suck. It is up to Obama to surrender from a position of strength to this she-devil for the sake of party unity. Hell, she may even pat him on the head and let him run for VP. Maybe he could even carry her suitcases for her. He would lose all respect from the party and effectively end his political career, after McCain's 45-state win, but no matter. At least Hillary could careen into oblivion without having a total nervous breakdown.
aren't you late for your job at kinkos???
Another positive for Obama is that it definitively has put to rest the 'can he take a punch?' question. He absolutely can but his fighting style is more like Steven Segal than Rocky. He can adeptly deflect it and focus the negative energy behind it back at the aggressor.
As to Obama’s style, I think that Aikido is a better metaphor than boxing.
OMG; did I say Aikido? I must be an elitist.
That is exactly right by the way--I wish I'd thought of it myself. Remember the debate, when she said he couldn't just denounce Farrakhan but had to reject him? Reminded me exactly of that Aikido move where the the guy punches at you and you grab his wrist and take him IN THE DIRECTION OF HIS PUNCH until you, you know, throw him (or break his arm.)
Beautiful metaphor. Beautiful politician!!
We need to remind all of the Hillary shills on this site that HRC had her own "elitist" moment back in the early 90s. She was criticized for being a professional woman and said that she could have "stayed home and baked cookies." The Republicans excoriated her as condescending to women who were stay-at-home moms. At the time, I defended her (and still would) because I thought that the attack was unfair and opportunistic and a distortion of what she meant. It's sad to see that she's now taken that page out of the Republican playbook.
That said, let's recap where her campaign stands. She's demonized African-Americans who dare to express grievances over racism in America. She's slandered liberals as elitist and condescending. I guess she's forgotten that African-Americans are the party's most loyal constituency and the liberals are one of the most reliable parts of the Democratic base, because she's now kissed us off. If she gets the nomination, I look forward to seeing her campaign for votes at the annual meetings of the NRA and the Council of Concerned Citizens. We liberals and African-Americans will be staying home.
"We liberals and African-Americans will be staying home."
Then I guess you are not nearly as *loyal* as you claim.
The Loyalty is to the Democratic Party. Hillary is hardly acting like a Democrat lately.
After Obama secures the nomination, and if Clinton shows her party loyalty by asking all her supporters to rally round Obama, will you support him?
I'm not staying at home; I'm voting for McCain!!!!
Why is it that some people think that just because you are poor or different, you don't love your children or your family as much or as profoundly as someone who has always been privileged (white)? That bombing women and children and innocents is fine as long as it's not happening to them. What is wrong with America? Can't those people see that the "chikens are coming home to roost?"
We will soon find out what the rest of the world really thinks of us when Mr Mc Cain gets in and I don't think it's going to be very pretty.
The Ugly Americans
I hope that makes you so happy. Because I can tell that you want to be very happy with it. The deepening poverty should be contentment in itself.
Demonized people for speaking out about grievances? Wherever do you come up with that one?
If what you say is true, and since it is on the HuffingtonforObama site, I suspect there is some embellishment, then they are hypocrites. Why weren't they angry when the Obama campaign was playing "She's a racist....
Do you people have souls? Can you not see how your sanctimony is repulsing so many. Obama's words were mistimed, poorly conceived and left room for misinterpretation. Good people assume he may not be an elitist but see the political issues involved as being a part of the competition. But do you really think calling Senator Obama an elitis is a worse attack than implying over and over and over that Senator Clinton is a racist?
Richardson, Kennedy and Kerry are all playing the game......
No decent human being would believe even a third of the nasty crap the Obama campaign has put out.
Sigh. I am truly disenchanted with the mob mentality here. Liberals are truly more open minded than this site. The sexism here, the ageism and the plain old personal vitriol from the right is being employed here at Huff. What a sad time for democracy.
Mob mentality. Common, who wouldnt want a self assured, well educated, intelligent president? So what if he's elitist? i would rather have Obama as commander in chief. He commands respect and that is what a president should be. But do you really want this woman as your commander in chief, truly? Click to see video below.
http://www
Unlike you, I don't need to slash and burn like some 12 year old with hate rhetoric.
I made my decision back at the beginning when I was supporting with work and money, my two first choices, Edwards and Clinton, that I would vote for and support whomever the nominee is. This includes Senator Obama. Just because I can easily see the hate tactics of Axlerod and his team, the rovian swift boating, does not mean I will throw a name calling temper tantrum at the Senator. His blinded, kool aid drinking supporters are the ones that scare me.
I guess I missed it. When did Obama call her a racist? I do recall a couple of times that he was asked and he said he didn't see her comments as racist. Please let me know as I have seen many claims here that he has either called her a racist or that he has said her comments were racist and I can't seem to find those.
Apparently you are VERY naive.
I think I missed it too!! Maybe if he/she can give just one example of Senator Obama calling Senator Clinton a racist, it would trigger my memory! Wow! It seems that this would have been pretty newsworthy, and it's amazing that the media must have missed it as well.
You can not find them because there are none.
Obama has shown restraint in his public comments regarding Clinton. To whit: when asked about Clinotn's repeated Tusla lies, Obama said that he would not comment on this.
Does anyone actuall think that if the roles were reversed and Obama had been caught telling outright wappers that Clinton whould has had no comment.
FYI there was never a public statement from anyone in the Obama camp to that effect. One of his staffers did prepare a list of "racist" comments allegedly made by Bill Clinton and others. It was sent around to some people in the press and the Obama camp then stated it was not authorized. Obama himself certainly has never said that. Today in Washington, PA Obama was asked a question about Clinton's charge of elitism and he refused to criticize her. Instead he took the high road and talked about himself and his wife and about how they did not come in to big money until the last few years because of his book.
Yes, Obama does all his smears under cover. Just because he doesn't articulate them, doesn't mean his campaign isn't behind them.
Sheesh....
Ditto. However, I take heart in that I have my vote. And this new style of Democratic party won't get my vote.
"IN DOUBT THERE IS TRUTH AND TRUTH THERE IS DOUBT". I really can't understand why the DNC is alloiwng the Clintons to dictate our party's destruction. One thing I do know is that "DUMB QUESTIONS AND DUMB ANSWERS ARE FREE AND REMAIN FREE" as long as the Clintons dictate the conservation. Honesty from them is like the next sound bite from all the talking heads that think they know what is really going on in small town America. I am one of those small town educated folk that is bitter and angry at all those professional politicans. They think we are so dumb to beleive that being HOPELESS" is the best thing going right now in time. HRC is about the last thing that we need at this time in the "GREAT SUM OF THINGS".
Robert Creamer: Making negative attacks makes people look mean and unlikable.
My guess is Hillary has VERY HIGH likeability ratings...
John McCain and Barack Obama both appeared before the nation's newspaper editors yesterday. The Republican presidential nominee was given a box of doughnuts and a standing ovation. Obama was likened to a terrorist.
At a luncheon for the editors hosted by the Associated Press, AP Chairman Dean Singleton quizzed Obama about whether he would send more troops to Afghanistan, where "Obama bin Laden is still at large?"
In her speech today, Hillary Clinton was repeatedly interrupted by applause.
So let me get this straight.
Obama can mock Hillary all he wants, but Hillary is not allowed to criticize Obama in any way?
Hillary is called sleazy and slimy for saying "Shame on you, Barack Oboama", but when Barack says "Shame on you" to Hillary it is justified and appropriate?
I thought progressives were more intelligent than to cling to such blatant double standards.
Obama only RESPONDS to Hillary's attacks. You never see him start these attacks.
At first he didn't respond to them at all and some saw him as weak when he didn't. The thing is...he CAN give as good as he gets but he would rather not.
But it appears Hillary supporters don't want him to respond in kind. I guess they would rather he not say anything so that he would appear - weak, and Hillary could win the primary.
Sorry, Obama has been attacking this entire campaign, it is what politicians do. I don't mind Obama firing back. What gets me is the double-standard which his supporters employ.
Can't take your own medicine, can you?
It is the double-standard that is hard to swallow.
It depends on whether the thing you are mocking deserves to be mocked. Hillary didn't mock her husband when he said the same thing that Barack did about why Kerry lost the '04 election. Then BC said that voters vote against their self-interest and on the basis of "God, guns and gays" When Obama says the same thing essentially she cannot help but attack him because she is like a wounded dog.
The point I think you are missing is that it has been Hillary who has lead this primary into increasingly murky waters. It was Hillary who first said “Shame on you Barack Obama.” It was Hillary who decided to follow the advice of Mark Penn and attack with everything they could imagine (the kitchen sink strategy). Why should Obama be blamed for counterpunching? Ask yourself this, would he be attacking her if she had maintained a positive campaign like she originally promised she would? He did not attack her until she came after him with everything they could muster. And for this he has been subtly accused of being sexist (I refer specifically to her comments on the Ellen Show).
Oh, and when you answer, please try to limit yourself to just three or four words as this seems to be the length of you abilities to communicate.
OMG!!! Did I just criticize you, and if you are a woman, does this mean I am a sexist?
The Obama campaign started the attacks when Michelle and JJ implied that Bill Clinton was a racist.
Your post is truth. Thanks. Clinton's negative attacks on Obama backfire with Super Delegates and Clinton has no more than a 10% chance of winning the nomination why does she continue to play this? Because its the only hand she has left, go after his credibility. But its a bad hand for her. Because as you point out her own credibility is shot, and everytime she goes after Obama for something, she exposes her own weaknesses, which are many. She's left with a bad hand. Another thing, she's not only running for herself, but she's running for history - the ground work has been laid, so, apparently in her mind, she cannot give up,or it will look bad for women. Lastly, I think she continues to run, because she's running for all the "Donors" she's made promises too. She's not standing there alone, there are a lot of true elitist behind her. She could have told her backers, listen - "i'll back Obama, and down the line, there will be an even greater chance for a Woman President, and yes backers you still might get what you want" but ego and arrogance drove them. And that is the sad part - but listen, she alone at the end of the day, is to blame for her malfeaseance. What's impressive about Obama is that he has a set narrative getting stronger whereas, Hillary has no narrative but just a past. So it's not only negativism at the end of the day,
It is fascinating how the Huffpo bloggers never link or actually document these so-called negative attacks.
They just lie and propagate in the name of Barack Obama, which really makes them no different than right-wing, just more delusional.
Here are the facts:
Hillary Clinton has never personally attacked Barack Obama.
Hillary Clinton has never run an ad like a Willie Horton, Swiftboat or John McCain has black babies ad.
Hillary Clinton has never run an ad or said anything that could be construed in the tradition of right-wing attack politics.
On ther other hand, the Obama surrogates here and elsewhere in the blogosphere have attacked HIllary Clinton in the most vile and disgusting personal terms, some of which I have never heard in 20 years of political activity.
Obama has run the most divisive and slimy primary campaign that I have seen in the 35 years that I have been a Democrat.
I agree. And I've been a Democrat for 32 years. Of course, the minute I cast my vote in the PA primary, I'm changing my registration to Independent. I'll vote for Obama if I must in the fall, but I won't be doing it as a Democrat. I've had it with these people.
What in the name of Gene McCarthy are you talking about? Did Obama raise the possibility that HRC dealt cocaine? Was HRC minimized by comparing her campaign to, let's say, Pat Schroeder? Did Obama leave open the possibility that HRC was a muslim?
For the life of me, the only reason I can see for the vitriol on the part of Clinton supporters is a sense that Obama jumped over her in line. It doesn't work that way; if it did, we'd be rallying around our nominee Chris Dodd.
That is purely a function of your subjective view and is based on nothing less than a self-reinforcing delusion. In the 90's I was deluded about the Clintons as well defending Bill for publicly embarrassing his wife and wasting the huge amount of political capital he had after the '96 election. He was still a good President but he never came close to his potential due to his mendacity and lack of respect for his country, his wife and daughter.
so, you are saying that a Clinton surrogate never called an Obama supporter "Judas" and you are saying that Hillary never called Obama elitist, further saying that the perception of elitism is why Gore and Kerry lost [remember that Gore won and Kerry was swift-boated on his military service]
Surrogates call people names. It goes both ways.
Are you suggesting that Hillary hasn't been smeared at all in this campaign?
Really?
James Carville called Bill Richardon a Judas.
Guess what? Neither of those people are named Hillary or Barack. Neither one is officially part of either campaign.
Further, calling Barack Obama elitist for saying elitist shit is not "slash and burn" right wing politics.
Lastly, saying that Gore and Kerry ran as elitists has nothing to do with Barack Obama, and you'd have to be a complete moron to consider that "slash and burn" right wing politics.
"Hillary Clinton has never personally attacked Barack Obama."
I can't give you a link right off hand but surely you have seen how Hillary told us that she and McCain bring years of experience and Obama brings a speech; that she and McCain have passed the commander in chief test and Obama flunked it.
A few days later, in spite of a flunking Obama, she wants him as VP in her "dream team"; all this while she is behind him in popular vote and delegates count.
Such incredible presumption, arrogance, sense of entitlement and disrespect for her opponent!
So I guess when Hillary was asked if Obama was a Muslim and even though she has been to church with him and knows his history of being a devout Christian her response of "At least not that I know of" wasn't a completely disgusting attack jumping on the lowest of right-wing false propaganda that he is a Muslim. She lost a lot of votes with that one. People aren't stupid and her comment was less than nuanced.
Hillary being asked if Obama is a Muslim by a dumbass MSM reporter a right-wing attack against Barack Obama?
Damn, you Obamanistas are frackin lame.
People certain ARE stupid if that is their reason for not voting for her.
From the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes:
KROFT: You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?
CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, that's -- you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.
KROFT: And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim.
CLINTON: Right. Right.
KROFT: You don't believe that he's a Muslim --
CLINTON: No. No. Why would I? There's no --
KROFT: -- or implying, right?
CLINTON: No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.
KROFT: It's just scurrilous --
CLINTON: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time.
If by attack, you mean came at him with a baseball bat, tire iron, or one of the guns that she is all of a sudden such a big fan of -- then no she has not attacked him. If however, we are talking about charges of "elitism," her husband who implied that Hillary and McCain are the candidates who love this country, her assertion that only she and MCCAIN are ready to govern on day one while Obama is just a good speech giver or her and her husband and Ferrraro's subtle (and not so subtle) race baiting -- then yeah she attacked him. And she did it in a cynical way designed to force the Super Delegates to give her the nomination that she could not win by coming out ahead in the popular vote or pledged delegate count. Her approach is to try to burn Obama so badly that he is unelectable so as to force the Super Delegates to reward her despicable behavior with a nomination by default. Unfortunately, for Hillary, Obama seems to be so damn likeable tand the process is further raising her unfavorable numbers (who even knew that was possible) that it's just not working as she planned. Unfortunately, for us, although Obama will still be the better choice because we can't go with a candidate with a 37 favorability rating like Hillary has, she may hurt him enough to decrease his chances of winning in November.
So Obama can campaign against her..... but she's not allowed to campaign against him?
I don't understand your logic. Neither candidate can get to 2024 without the superdelegates.
I agree standforpeace. And what's worse is that Hillary doesn't care that she's doing this. Her strategy is to win the nomination, by any means necessary, and to destroy her opponent in the process ... unfortunately, her opponent is another Democrat and the likely Democratic nominee, which means that she doesn't care about the general election (if she's not the nominee herself), and therefore she doesn't care about the Party she represents. Senator Obama has tried to run a strong but respectful campaign on the issues; but almost every time he is sidetracked, it's because he's had to either respond to Hillary's personal attacks or to the Republican's personal attacks, which lately seems to be coming from the same source. Hillary may still win the nomination, but she will never, ever win the election, and her political career will never be the same again either. Both her legacy and Bill's legacy have been destroyed; but they have done this to themselves ... pulling the Party down with them.
Extremely well stated.
So...
Obama makes a racially insensitive and offensive statement. HRC calls him out for it. Obama says he isn't sorry for it. People start to get mad at Obama. Obama says he is sorry if anyone was offended by what he said, but never actually apologizes for what he said, only if anyone was offended by it. HRC points this out. Obama compares HRC to Rove (although she has done nothing but call Obama out for racially insensitive and offensive remarks that he has refused to apologize for). HuffPo runs big banner article supporting Obama comparing HRC to Rove.
Wow. HuffPo is far more of a propaganda machine for Obama than Foxnews or Drudge or Rush or Malkin are for the far right. This is an absolute joke.
Holding someone responsible for the words that come out of their own mouth is out of the Rove playbook? How reprehensible of Obama and of HuffPo for letting him get away with that garbage!
The only ones being racially insensitive are those who think only white people live in small towns...
Here, Here!
The question Obama was answering was not about small towns. The question was why he was having difficulty attracting white, blue collar voters (who are voting for HRC).
Obama answered by saying "they cling to religion, guns and their antipathy to things different than they are...and they have a hard time voting for a black guy named Barack."
Obama is responsible for his own words. His fefusal to apologize for his remarks is insulting.
people did get mad: at Hillary [she was booed at a rally while doing her slam on the Obama comments]
I think you could both benefit from reading the excellent story on Huff Post below, "I was there; What Obama really said about Pennsylvania", written by David Coleman who heard exactly what Obama said. It's edifying to read his remarks within context and entirety, as opposed to the twisted excerpt desperate Annie-Get-
As dust settles, and more people read the whole text, vs. Hillary's nasty spin, the more the transparency of her mischief will come back to bite her and the more respect Obama will ultimately get for his sincerity and truthfullness.
http://www
Coleman's article is rubbish and nothing more than spin to help Obama pivot out of his problem. We have Obama's actual words. We don't need Coleman to "explain" to us what Obama actually meant. We aren't suffering from some sort of brain disease that prevents us from understanding Obama's use of english, but allows us to understand Coelman's use of english.
We have Obama's own words and they are racially insensitive and offensive and he has refused to apologize for them.
Coleman can go climb back into his Obama-bubble and "explain" things to people who don't want to hear the truth.
Sorry, it is wrong to psycho-analyze people behind their backs. That is what Obama did. Not a sin, but it does show a bit of his inexperience. And then he wanted it to be secret. Tsk, tsk.
I'm still trying to figure out what part of Obama's comments were racially insensitiv
Obama was asked why he was having difficulty attracting white, blue collar voters in PA and IN (they are supporting HRC). He answered with this:
"they cling to their religion, guns, their antipathy to things that are different than they are...and they have hard time voting for a black guy name Barack."
Now, HuffPo would go crazy if HRC said that black, blue collar workers cling to their religion, their guns, their antipathy to things that are different than they are...and they have a hard time voting for a white woman named Hillary."
Obama made racially insensitive and offensive remarks that he has refused to apologize for. This is not what the Democratic party stands for and he should be ahsamed of himself. HuffPo is supposed to be a progressive site, but they have spent the past 5 days spinning for Obama instead of calling him out for these reprehensible comments and that is just as insulting.
Please identify a single racially, insensitive remark he has made. I am not familiar with that.
Exactly Robert ... in fact her nomination has gone from "inevitable" in 2007 to "imaginative" in 2008. And during that time her persona went from respectable to despicable - http://the
These say it all.
http://www
Regardless of whatever else you can say about them, the people running the Republican Party at the national level are smart and skillful. As evidence, they have whipped the Democrats seven out of ten times over the last 40 years.
This time, they really, really want to run against Hillary. This should tell us something.
If Hillary wins the nomination, the country loses.
They certainly do not want to run against Hillary, that's silly.
The Clintons have beaten the Republicans in eight straight elections. Republicans have "knee-capped", and thrown the "kitchen sink" and STILL the Clintons have beaten the Republicans in eight straight elections. It is clear, the Republicans DON'T KNOW HOW to beat a Clinton.
Hillary is not Bill. Hell, even Bill isn't Bill anymoire.
you have no idea what you are talking about? They were dying to face Hillary. her negatives have been sky high and they get higher.
Who do you think is working for you ??? Just look at the votes on the Bankruptcy Bill written by Big Credit that was suppose to lower interest rates by the way, and voted on by all three of the presidential candidates.
McCain ......... Yea!
Clinton .......... Yea!
Obama.....
Pretty much says it all. Most americans in trouble with credit cards are so because they have had to turn to credit cards to survive. What a friggin mess.
Perhaps you should look into why Obama voted Nay.....co
Issues are not one extreme or the other, or can be resolved in a simplistic manner. Just because a Bill is presented does not mean it is complete.
You aren't familiar with the bill OrionGal. The bill makes it impossible to file bankruptcy without spending a lot of time and money. Also you must pay the credit card company even though they gave you the card knowing you were a risk or broke. This bill was pushed through by credit card companies and took away the little protection people had against agressive lenders.
I don't have to know why Obama voted against the bankruptcy bill, only that he did and it's a good thing.
Who cares...if "American" was too stupid to enroll in a variable a.p.r. and tried to be Carlton Sheets. then they can dig themselves out!
I am so sick of having to rescue dumbass' from their bad decisions. Yes that includes soldier for following the "stupid logic" and Banks that were lighting cigars with Benjamins. So much for accountability and personal responsibility.
If Obama is folding his arms and letting the bad DNA drizzle to the floor. So be it. Somebody has to be the adult and allow the lessons to be LEARNED.
Piquet:
I'm happy to hear that everything is going well for you. I only hope things continue to do so, because the lack of compassion you show is being reflected on a daily basis on a broad scale here in DC. Should things turn bad for you, I hope you won't mind it when the fat cats dismiss your suffering as the inevitable result of your own bad decisions. I hear there are still some spots left under the overpass south of the Capitol where you can bring your cardboard box.
It looks like Hillary isn't going to replace Harry Reid as the Senate's majority leader if she fails to be nominated to be POTUS #44 or doesn't get elected to become POTUS #44 on the 1st Tue in Mov '08 if you believe this blog & similar blogs on HP & other sites; most of the comments on the blogs HP publishes are also hypercritical of Sen Clinton. Her Hillaryship might become a Lieberman style independent when the Senate organizes itself in '09 She no longer has any future as a Democrat. That means that whatever remains of the DLC in '09 will need a name change since it no longer will be tolerated by the DNC & the DLC has been discredited. It can't pretend to provide leadership to any faction of the Democrats. The DLC's time has passed since it has chosen to self-destruct itself. The DLC's so-called centerist approach has been rejected by the DNC, Democrat office holders plus rank & file Democrats.
l lynch
She's my senator and I will work for ANYBODY of either party who runs against her. She sickens me.
You're being childish and pathetic.
HRC is a fine Senator and would make a fine President.
Obama, on the other hand, has no real record of accomplishment. While his presidency would be a far cry better than McCain's, he could end up being a total flop, with all his rhetoric being so much chatter without practical skill.
Being "sickened" by her is not rational.
Your ignorance of politics, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party is mind-numbing. If HRC doesn't get the nod, she will be an extremely influential player in the Senate and the Democratic Party for the next 20 years. Please come out of your Obama-bubble, stop using HuffPo as your only source for "news" and join the rest of us in reality. 50% of the Democratic party feels just as strongly about HRC as you do about Obama, so when you make such egregious statements that have absolutely zero facts supporting them ou show the world how little you really know about these issues.
Actually, you're using just as much speculation as the person you're criticizing. We have absolutely no idea what the fallout could be from this primary. I can't remember the last time a democratic race was this ugly. There is a chance that Sen. Clintons has alienated herself. Especially, if she is effectively blamed for the GOP winning the presidency again.
HRC will be an extremely influential player in the Senate and dem party for the next 20 years? No, I don't think so. Not any more.
Four or five months ago I would have agreed with you, Craig. But, I think her unscupulous presidential campaign has opened quite a few eyes, now. I had read prior to the primary season that many dems in the House and Senate did not want the Clintons back in the WH because of their treachery to the dem party. Now, I have seen it with my own eyes. I can only imagine that Hillary's popularity has taken a drastic hit in Congress, as it has with many previous Clinton supporters. Bill's legacy seems to be diminishing rapidly, too.
It really does matter HOW you play the game.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
