The Same Old Story: Discrediting Hillary
Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to the Pennsylvania Primary
Here we go again. Stomp on Hillary for winning.
Last night Hillary Clinton picked up the sixth big state out of the seven the Democrats need to win the fall presidential contest. Obama has only won one big state, Illinois -- and that is it. She has won California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio, Texas and now Pennsylvania (and, yes, Florida and Michigan). Yet in today's newspapers and partisan websites, the critics are downplaying Clinton's victory (even her erstwhile supporter the New York Times criticizes her in its lead editorial for running a dirty campaign), dismissing any triumph as meaningless because of Obama's lead in elected delegates, and suggest once again that she drop out so she does not further hurt the "inevitable" nominee, Barack Obama.
How many times have we heard these sorts of admonishments, starting back with the New Hampshire primary? But despite her stumbling start in the caucus states, Clinton has come on strong and has now created a solid coalition that Obama cannot, for all of his money and his eloquence, break into.
Let this drama play out now and let the Super Delegates make up their own minds in due course without interference from on-line critics or hot-headed columnists or TV prognosticators or panicky Democratic Party strategists. Let the delegates in Denver play their proper role in deciding the outcome of this contest. This is after all a democracy.
Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to the Pennsylvania Primary
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
"Clinton has come on strong and has now created a solid coalition that Obama cannot, for all of his money and his eloquence, break into."
And vice-versa. It's just a mess.
And what would this coalition look like? Money donors? No. Delegates? No. Popular vote? No. Ok I give, what is this coalition?
The coalition would be a unified Democratic Party, consciously _not_ going out of its way to destroy itself, and remembering that what matters is 1) restoring civil rights and appointing non-partisan Supreme Court judges to protect the next several generations of Americans, 2) getting out of Iraq, 3) creating universal health-care for all Americans, 4) trying to repair the massive damage the Bush Administration has done to the economy, 5) restoring America's reputation among our allies and the rest of the world, 6) trying to stem global warming by revisiting Kyoto, 7) working to thwart nuclear proliferation--and on and on and on.
Calling all Clinton supporters racist idiots does not a general election winner make--and it's the _country_ (and the world) which will suffer accordingly.
"This is after all a Democracy."
Which is all the more reason why 800 elite members of the party should overturn the decision of voters and caucus-goers.
If anything is elitist it is the caucus system. It is also anti-democratic. I like to vote for myself. To enter the voting booth and make my choice in a private, confidential setting. A caucus is the opposite of that. Here is the best argument against the caucus system. In Texas Ms. Clinton won the popular vote. Obama won the caucus which had fewer participants and is a good indicator of the big problem of the caucus system. It is anti-democratic.
Hillary wins and they say she loses.
Hillary stays in and they say she should leave.
While Obama may not be making the hateful statements, his minions are and he's not stopping them.
Obama's starting to slip in the polls because people are sick of the whining.
The GOP will be able to reduce him to tears if Hillary has been able to wig him out as much as she has.
He needs to Man-Up.
Please stop this nonsense!!!! Winning against another democrat in any state is irrelevant to the general election. You do not get a pass on this tortured, pointless, deserate attempt at reason. There is no discussion left to be had. She lost. It's over. Anything more is the Clinton out of control machine grinding away at any chance to win in November. And for WHAT?
"There is no discussion left to be had." How Bushian.
The choice for Dems comes down to whether they want a Manly Girl or a Girly Man. Yes,I know, the terms are offensive. But there's a reality beneath the rhetoric. Clinton is a tough, seasoned, been-through-the-wringer-and-survived leader. Obama is increasingly seen by many as an effete, aloof, snobbish elitist who has no track record to speak of and has accomplished little of note in his unremarkable career other than getting elected to the U.S. Senate. Given Obama's lack of a record, swing voters will vote for McCain over him in November even if they disagree with McCain on economics and the war. The media and coastal elites hate Hillary. But despite her so-called "baggage," the workers of this country like her--a lot. They perceive her as a fighter who doesn't give up. Her campaign is proving that day after day. So Dems would be smart to go with the "manly girl" over the "girly man." She can take McCain. He cannot.
Have you been hiding under a rock? You ain't seen the lack of economy in upstate new york Hillary own adopted state she will ruin the rest of the country like shermans march to the sea
And Hillary is to blame for upstate New York's "lack of economy"? Seems to me she was re-elected with support from all over the state. Seems to me she got pretty good support from all over the state in her first run as well.
Such drama...Sherman's March to the Sea...puhleeeze!
Another paid shill for Hillary.
Your terminologies "Manly girl & Girly man" are perfect and I dont think they are offensive. I prefer the "Manly girl" too. The Girly man seems to think that politics is a beauty contest. I know he will now be abandoning his message of hope and change since it has pegged into a corner that is not doing anything much for him lately. I "hope" that the voters will "change" their minds about the "Girly man".
What a pointless article. Let's see if my math is any good. Obama only won 1 "big" State, Illinois. Well, 1 "big" State and 30+ little States weigh a hell of a lot more than 6 "big" ones in my book. And I seriously doubt HRC would even win California or New York if their primaries were held today, after all of her baggage and negative campaigning. Quite frankly, I still am not sure she really did win NY, as I have been hearing some really ugly rumors about vote rigging by certain politicians in Harlem and such.
As soon as you claimed HRC "won" Florida and Michigan, you took a far left turn into Bizarro Land, Mr. Schlesinger. Sorry, I don't do 'coulda beens' when it comes to my future. But good luck peddling that one in Guam, Carolina, and Indiana.
And as per the so-called "solid coalition Obama cannot break into", ie: in Pennsylvania, yeah....it's called the Ku Klux Klan. I think I might have a wee bit difficulty breaking into that one myself...not that I would try. So, in a nutshell, if WWE watching, shotgun toting, Bible thumping rednecks want to vote Hillary/McCain 08, more power to them....maybe they'll get what they are asking for. I'm sure when a few hundred of their sons and daughters die over in Iraq/Iran, they can erect a nice statue in the middle of town commemorating the dead. Or film "Deer Hunter 2". Enjoy !
I do find it hard to believe not one single person in Harlem voted for Obama. Not 1. Not even one by mistake? Not even one "aw, what the heck, I'll give him a vote"? In Harlem????
This is what smart people think of the Clintons. This is a brief excerpt from Jerry and Joe. It is funny but serious. Nicely written too. Take a look:
The Clintons bathe in shit. It sustains them. And it sustains their hack mouthpieces. Witness Fast Eddie Rendell basically saying on Meet The Press that the Clinton campaign, unlike Obama's, never claimed to be honest. Watch in Indiana as Evan Bayh puts reality through a fun house mirror of vice presidential ambition. Name one officeholder supporting Obama who is even one tenth as vile?
To witness that quasi-human drone, to hear lie after lie after lie, all the while the head nodding up and down, up and down, is to truly know what faces Obama. He is Richard Benjamin in Westworld, fleeing the remorseless robot Yul Brynner
LMAO..now THAT was a hell of a fantastic post !!
And I seriously doubt HRC would even win California or New York if their primaries were held today, after all of her baggage and negative campaigning.
-------------------
Bingo! My daughter lives in California and she knows lots of people who are sooooo sorry they voted for Hillary. Another problem in California was also early voting. Many people voted for Hillary way before Obama ever even came to the state.
All the people my daughter knows (including herself) will be campaigning if Obama wins and staying home if he loses. They will probably vote for Hillary if they have to but they certainly won't be involved in the political process. That would be such a shame because this country certainly needs all the help it can get and having the help of the young would be a great benefit.
But they did vote for Hillary, Blanche. They did vote for Hillary.
And I hate to tell you this, but young people are notoriously unreliable when it comes to large numbers of them staying with the process. Hillary has her supporters in CA who will be loyal and work for her election should she win the nomination. It is indeed sad that people like your daughter might vote for Hillary but wouldn't work to help the campaign. But that is youth for you: a beautiful thing wasted on the young.
Maybe you shouldn't mention to Obama that you are endorsing him. I doubt he would be happy with a rant like that.
Stephen, to your little list of "Let"s at the end of your post you left the most important one out:
"Let Hillary Clinton continue her futile campaign all the way to a brokered convention, thereby ensuring the fracture of the Democratic party and a Republican victory in November."
How about Hillary Clinton keeping up the good work & bringing some revenues to all those Americans who are losing there job, homes and any income. At least by keeping the race going, these towns all over the country can get some badly needed income to put some gas in there car to try & get a job. Keep chugging those beers & flippin those pancakes Hillary, some folks just don't get it. The monies from just media crews being in town will keep some folks trying to make ends meet going another week, help them buy some time. What is the hurry.
If you think she is going to do that you have really drank the kool-aid. Hillary supported NAFTA and probably still does. Do yourself a favor and listen to an Obama speech or read his website and be truthful with yourself as to who might just really help our economy and even yourself.
And be careful what you wish for. Hillary Clinton has left a lot of small towns without paying her bills. Is that what you want for your town?
article and video:
http://www.peterfpaul.com/
Trial to come up Thursday, April 24 in CA.
Are you "swiftboating" Senator Clinton, bringing out alleged information
already 8 years old, in order to do that? Why now? Why not in 2000?
Does this author not recognize that by deliberately bringing up Michigan, where Hillary ran UNOPPOSED, and a host of other dishonest talking points, he only further irritates those of us who dislike both her and her policy prescriptions? This is not a good strategy for getting us to hold our noses come November. In fact, I forced my Wife, a lifelong Republican who has always hated her, to the admission that she would vote for Hillary were she the nominee a year ago. That pressure is now off.
I would have voted for her three months ago, but now It simply will. not. happen. If I wanted to vote for a Republican, I would have the good sense to vote for one with the courage of conviction to put an R after their name.
So, in your first paragraph you're talking about "getting us to hold our noses come November", but you end with a declaration that now you will not vote for Hillary.
I suggest you read John McCain's platform, then read Hillary Clinton's. If you can still put an R after her name in your mind, you and your wife should just stay true to your natures and vote for John McCain.
Well, Mike, you really didn't read what I said, did you?
Much of both Hillary's and Barack's platforms were lifted straight from Edwards' stated positions in response to his attack from the left. Positions, I might add, which were initiated and endorsed by Nader. Hillary's platform, therefore, is not the one she would have written herself had expediency not intervened. Comparing Clinton's and McCain's platforms has literally nothing to do with how they would govern. Just ask Hillary's Husband; he, too, ran as a liberal and governed as a conservative.
I am more of the Kucinich/Nader/Edwards persuasion than Obama...much less a Clinton or a McCain. I was prepared to hold my nose (and my Wife's) and vote for Hillary until she discovered the joys of campaigning as a Republican. This post does nothing to reverse my opinion of her candidacy or its' surrogates.
well, be fair, Hillary discredits herself nearly every time she opens her mouth these days.
Steve Schlesinger:
You are NOT a chip off the old block, that is for certain.
Along with Sean Wilentz, Steven Schlesinger incorporates a reason, perceptive analysis that places the current Democratic Party in historical context. His conclusions are, in my opinion, correct. The process must be allowed to proceed so that Obama can demonstrate that he can indeed assemble the coalition that have won Democrats elections since FDR.
Also, don't assume you would know how the great Arthur Schlesinger would view the current race than better than his son.
Hilary "R" Clinton... the "R" is for ROVE
Regards
R for Republican.
Obama has most certainly secured some of "her" bloc; if he hadn't, she'd be winning. She's losing.
She has no right to be triumphant over her win, secured as it was with the most base kinds of behavior. She has admitted that she's enjoying what she's doing. Rather than revel in her testosterone buzz, some of you who are enjoying the borrowed benefits of her transitory victory should get serious and ask yourself what kind of leadership we can expect from someone who's most happy when she's being destructive. She's already salivating over the obliteration of Iran; do we really want someone this unprincipled and fundamentally lightweight with her finger on the button? She doesn't seem to understand the components of statecraft and statesmanship; governance to her is politics and only politics. She knows how to fight and lie, but those two attributes are her areas of excellence and expertise. Otherwise, if you really examine the record, she is undistinguished. If you take Bill Clinton at his abject and duplicitous worst, remove what passed for charm and replace it with bossy mommy affect, add a big dose of Russell Crowe bullying, and put it all in a pantsuit, you'll have the best of Hillary Clinton.
She should drop out because she can't will the delegate votes. The super delegates should vote according to their constituent votes in their districts. That is a democracy!!!!
She is running is disgraceful campaign and is really unfit to serve in any public office.
IT IS BEAUTIFUL TO WATCH HER CAMPAIGN IMPLODING !!!!!!!!
According to your logic Obama and Ms. Clinton should drop out of the race since neither can win enough pledged delegates to win the nomination.
"The super delegates should vote according to their constituent votes in their districts". You mean like Ted Kennedy & John Kerry & Bill Richardson? If they voted according to their constituent votes, they would all be on Hillary's side.
She had a 20 pt leading going in, and only "won" by 8+ - the numbers didn't change. What exactly did she "win"? I guess you're still holding out hope she wins the remaining states by 65% - yeah, go ahead and hold your breath on that one. If she's the nominee, I'll write in Obama. I'd love to see a woman in the white house - but I want the right woman, and she's just not it. She could set the womans movement back 20 years. Go away hill, you're only in it for your ego - democratic party be damned, huh. Disgusting.
Notfooled - the primary. She won the primary.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
