It has come to this -- even the acidic Maureen Dowd is showing a sneaking admiration for Hillary Clinton. In a column in Wednesday's New York Times, Dowd recognizes for the first time the tenacity and indominability of Hillary Clinton in this year's presidential race. Calling her a "scrappy blue-collar mama" in contrast to a more "effete" Obama, Dowd writes that "one of the most valuable lessons the gritty Hillary can teach the languid Obama -- and the timid Democrats -- is that the whole point of a presidential race is to win. It's not to share power, or force the squabbling couple into an arranged marriage. The winner wins, even if it's only by a fraction of a percentage point or one Supreme Court justice." The only wonderment is that it has taken Dowd almost the entire Democratic contest of 2007-2008 to finally reach this conclusion. But better late than never.
The establishment will decide who will be the next president. The power is where the money is. They wanted Bush and Bush they got. If they want McCain we will get McCain., if they want Obama we will get Obama. Who ever it is will do what the powers that be want, black or white does not matter.
They did not want Bill Clinton and they do not want Hillary Clinton. Even Democrats are spitting the venom like the Republicans did last time around.
Obama bought a house next to someone and then got a cheap deal on a piece of land that expanded his property because he knew the neighbor. Whereas Clinton's platform for her "experience" is based on faulty and fabricated statements about her time in public service (i.e. Bosnia) refuses to release her schedule (and when she does she withholds portions) or her tax returns. which is worse, a shady land deal or a lying crook?
Oh well, assuming they were being up on the joke, yes, Hillary is less of a monster (how prescient) than the likes of Ahmadinejad, so she's doing Obama a 'favour' by being a remorseless, conscienceless obstacle that Obama has to defeat to show his learned skills and strength.
If you weren't being deadpan, than you are as clueless as Dowd is that toughening up your fellow Party member may be good, I find this a debateable point, but what's not debateable is that bloodying them and kneecapping has no value. And the latter seems to be Hillary's intent as of late. Of course someone who is so personally ambitious as to be tough and win at any cost as what Dowd is saying that Hillary is and that somehow Obama needed, isn't likely to bow out gracefully at any point. Regardless of what she has or hasn't 'helped' Obama with, regardless of how it affects the Party's chances in November. Regardless of what having someone like McCain and his 3rd Bush term would do to this country.
So while it's nice to pretend that Hillary will be as gracious as the alluded to fictional character, that really is nothing more than a pretty fantasy. With or without lovely Strauss music to accompany it.
And it really took a clean, ethical campaign like Obama's to go to town after New Hampshire and smear the Clintons as racists - two people the entire world know have long been highly regarded among the black community. But, yep! Your guy did it. And he managed to woo those AA votes from the Clintons. Now that's taking the high road, right?
It's the Obama slime machine that will do whatever it takes to win, and you and your fellow minions are not fooling any sensible American.
I've been saying this since the NH primary!!! It is the height of irony that the Clintons were accused of "playing the race card" when, in fact, Obama injected race from the outset, first with his "Punjab Hillary" remarks (which, rightfully, infuriated Bill before NH), then with Obama's distortion of Bill's "fairytale" quote (which referred to BO's voting record on Iraq, NOT to BO's campaign!).
If I had been willing initially to support either candidate as the Dem's nominee, Obama's unconscionable (sp?) and unforgivable race-card-tactics turned me off for good! His campaign has been, as you say, a bona fide slime machine! And in true form he has turned out to be quite a slippery fella, since he always speaks both sides of the issue, positioning himself in utter ambiguity. (The Rev. Wright controversy is just the latest example of his slipperiness--he denounces his words, not the man.)
In any case, I will not vote for Obama--period! I would rather vote for McCain, or better yet, I will write in Hillary's name on my ballot in November. (My husband, family, and some friends feel the same way!) As one who has always believed in and advocated for Civil Rights, I would be very happy to vote for an African American for president---just not this one! (Isn't this the way the Obamatans--especially the self-identified "feminist" Obamatans--put it when referring to Hillary's run for the presidency?
The Obama camp and its media groupies have now completely disgraced themselves by trying to force Hillary Clinton out of the race and disenfranchise millions of Democrats before the primary is over.
But before you slink away to think up more dirty tricks and scheming strategy, remember that Clinton supporters are setting aside a couple of dollars for every one of your slimey comments to send to her campaign.
I think most of us are saying "no" to gritty this time around.
And I can't help wondering how Obama has stayed so thin while in the process of quitting smoking. I'm betting he's still imbibing nicotine in one form or another.
You are right that he is very thin. A patch? Nicorettes?
And (finally) she is right. Hillary Clinton is an admirable person. So is Obama.
That might be true, but Hillary is even more cruelly UNDERSTOOD.
Her problem this time out isn't that too few voters understand her; it is that too many do.
Actually, Maureen Dowd's article does point to an underlying truth -- without Hillary, Obama would be an even weaker candidate. There is no denying, he has certainly learned and poached much from her throughout this campaign. And he has so much more to learn . . . .
Where I especially disagree with Maureen is on the point about Hillary's so-called "fib" about Bosnia. I feel this is such a non-issue (although, admittedly, great fodder for Hillary bashers at MS-NBC, Air America, CNN, etc.), especially when compared to the Rev. Wright scandal! Clinton's mischaracterization of the Bosnia landing is as harmless as Al Gore's so-called claim to "inventing the internet." The media is certainly treating Hillary the same way they treated Al Gore throughout his presidential campaign against Bush.
If Obama wants to be the champion of the Democratic Party he must stop dancing around the Dragon. He must step in and slay it by driving a sword through its heart. Then everyone will give him the respect he deserves.
No matter what Obama does, he realizes that he has to let Hillary's drama play itself out. Otherwise, he will vilified.