We've already had eight years of a president who throws entire populations under the bus. Why in the hell would we want another president who'd do the same? And then cannibalize the remains? All to win, win, win?
Yecch.
With every passing minute, Hillary demonstrates more overt desperation than experience, a twisted disconnect from the citizenry she is striving at all costs to represent.
What is it about an election that brings out the maniacal in certain people, both in the candidates themselves and in their goggle-eyed followers. Once again, the Repuglicans do it better: unity über alles. While they are fairly certain about losing the executive office, they are cocksure as hell about the Demodorks inability to remain cohesive for too long, like a clumsily pasted kite being blown to shreds.
They have reckoned on Hillary's nascent vulnerability combined with an all-consuming sense of entitlement, their caustic and maddening attacks having successfully impregnated her long ago and now starting to detonate, revealing her tragically ugly armature. She is or has surrounded herself with the mean and the mad, motivated by enough rancor and resentment to dissolve any hope her candidacy may have originally generated and to tarnish Bill's once unimpeachable genius, to say nothing of her blinkered acolytes, blinded by the very hysteria they observed for years in the right-leaning enablers of the neo-conning, nation-and-soul-destroying Cheney/Bush policy-putsch. And responding to the hypnotic suggestion "Yes, elect Hillary. Elect her. Please..." and not really knowing that they are playing perfectly into the same hands that have been clenched 'round their engorged joystick for eight years, pushed all the way forward, the ground coming up fast. It's the Manchurian Candidate in a pants suit.
The woman from Hope is crushing Hope. Can we afford that?
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
Eloquent post, Mr. Weber.
Clinton has got to go, haven't we had enough Clintons and Bushes?? 20 years of it, ugh!!!
I also agree. its about her eyes on the prize of the White House.
For more of the real Hillary, read on:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Colbert_Pass_Protect_America_Act_with_0307.html
i couldn't agree more. Enough is enough and the 90's are history. Time for change!
Yeah, it's getting ugly- the media, the pundits, definitely radio- I think we're all gonna burn out and hope will no longer be possible because we still have the world to change if/after we change ourselves.
"WE BECOME OUR ENEMIES"
(Hillary's summer blockbuster, coming to a convention near you)
As I read the comments on this site and the other articles that Huffpo has linked to it occured to me that at the end of this mess the Clintons WILL play the "he's black card" again in one final climactic moment of desperation and shame.
They are relying on the superdelegates to believe that if one subtracts the black voters from Obama's total then he trails her badly in the popular vote.
Now I want to projectile vomit on this Rovian family of conservative sellouts.
The Clintons did not inject race into this election, Obama did that when he leaked a memo calling the Clintons racists. The CLintons have never played that card and for you to suggest they will play it again is misleading and false.
No, when the only other person Bill Clinton could think to compare Barack Obama - the Senator from Illinois - to was the never elected Jesse Jackson, that's when race was injected into the race
The comparison made by President Clinton was not racially based. He chose Jesse Jackson because it was Jackson who won SC, twice, and then went on to fail to win the nomination. That Jesse is black had nothing to do with the statement. And only a racist would think that it did. So, it was not President Clinton's racism, but the racism of those accusing him.
I think men who called Hillary ruthless are just in a state of shock that women could be as competitive as they are. Yes Hillary wants to win. Yes she does what it takes to get it done. She is not doing anything unusual. Calling her ruthless for doing things that have being done in politics since the sport was invented all over the world is a bit much. I am not going to say sexist.
Thank you for not calling it sexism, because it's not. Being surprised that the Clintons could be so ruthless is suprising because it's surprising that someone who has been admirable in the past can be so willing to stoop to anything now.
I am a woman, a feminist, and an Obama supporter.
Obama'08
Maybe if all of Hillary's supporters were woman, you'd have a point. Obviously there a men supporting her as well, just like there's women supporting Obama. The bizarro world you seem to be inhabiting, were there's a conspiracy of men to go after Clinton doesn't seem to hold up to even the lightest of scrutiny.
Perhaps you should consider saying reverse sexism.
"I am not going to say sexist." Well goodie gumdrops for you. Actually, were you to do so, it would be incredibly shallow and stupid. Does it not dawn on you that many of us have abhorred the competitiveness, the win-at-all-costs attitude that has permeated our political system for so long. That we are disgusted by Ms. Clinton's use of the same tactics isn't sexist (unless you think our disappointment that a woman would stoop to the same level as men do is sexist).
As a 60-year-old man, I have to tell you there is nothing a women can do that will shock me. I am, however, incredibly disappointed that Ms. Clinton has taken the low road and chosen to as much as ally herself with John McCain rather than risk losing what she (now obviously) sees as an entitlement to the Presidency. I really wanted to vote for her but, based on the tactics she has chosen to use in her battle against the loyal opposition (meaning another Democrat), I have come to the conclusion I cannot vote for her under any circumstance. This is contrary to my position of a couple of weeks ago.
If she wins the nomination of the Democratic Party, regardless (at this point) of how it happens, I will either write in Barack Obama's name, or I will vote for Cynthia McKinney . . . and you can take your charges of sexism and shove 'em somewhere the sun don't shine.
We are not electing a King but a LEADER who as the ability to create a team of people who will work together. If you observe the Hillary team there is constant turmoil and tension which does not seem evident in the Obama camp. She could never have helped a democrat in a republican district like Hasert's to win. Now Hillary wants a do-over in Florida and Michigan but will not ACCEPT a caucus.
The venum that they spey will only help elect McCain. The upside of Obama is enormous, but the upside of Hillary is zero.
I don't know if you've ever been to a caucus, but it's a scam and not a model for the US to promote when they try to spread democracy around the world. Attend a caucus and you'll understand why it's not a viable standard to represent the popular voice.
BTW- While calling Wyoming on Friday, we told a lady where her caucus location was and she said that she was confused because her local paper said that it was the location for Obama supporters only! SCAM, SCAM, SCAM!!!!!
Sorry, Hilleluiah, but if you want to hear about "SCAM, SCAM, SCAM", then do some research on the Clinton campaign's activities during the Nevada caucuses. I was THERE, (not getting some secondhand info) and the lying, misdirection and pre-filled-out ballots for Hillary by her caucus staffers were REAL! It was some of the most blatantly disgusting partisanship I'd ever witnessed.
While her overall campaign organization and planning has been lacking on most every count, at cheating and dirty tricks.....well, they got that sewn up.
The Clintons deserve to be disposed of on the dung-heap of Politics-as-usual history!
Right, because there's only one true Hillary Clinton approved way of conducting elections.
A recent Gallup poll finds that nearly 70% of Democrats believe Clinton should continue to campaign if she were to win either TX or OH. Why do you disagree?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/104800/State-Election-After-Tuesdays-Voting.aspx
she didn't really win Texas ....Obama got more delegates. And would she have won Ohio without lying about Obama's position on NAFTA? I doubt it. Not to mention that my sister lives in Ohio & she told me that a lot of Republicans in her polling place were voting for Hillary. I doubt that they'll do the same in the general.
Ms. Clinton received more votes in the TX primary than Obama. Obama did better in the caucus part of the primary, which had substantially fewer participants. Is it fair for the will of the majority to be subverted by a hostile minority? No.
No, we can't afford it.
The democratic nominee should be the person with the most pledged delegates. Period. It shouldn"t matter if those delegates are from New York or South Dakota ... Vermont or California. Delegates from Ohio and Texas should not count more in the process, and yet Clinton is acting exactly like they should. Does this mean that the democrats no longer need to have presidential primaries in every state? I mean, let"s just pick the seven or so that matter and relieve the rest of the country from the burden of voting.
The super delegates need to get behind the leader of the pledged delegates. Obama isn't some kind of fringe candidate that is leading in a 5 way race. There is no need for the party leadership to step in and over ride the will of the voters.
Didn't the democrats learn anything from 2000?
It's fun to watch Hillary campaigning. In Mississippi she had a slight southern twang and talked a lot about her mother (black people relate to family) and how her family wanted to give her more than they had. Last time in front of a black audience, she talked about church. And before that, of course, was her infamous comment about slavery, "'an you know what ah'm talkin' about!"
Today I saw a clip of her in Wyoming, talking a bit tougher, a bit more Western. She was "talkin'" about "workin'" in Alaska, saying something like, "one of the best experiences I could have for my career". What was her job? "I was sliming fish."
Really? Hillary had a job (real job) sliming fish? For how long?
I'd love to see a video montage of her campaign. It seems that she has a special pandering "encyclopedia" of accents and life experiences to use in each of the 50 states. (And did she really want to get us thinking from "sliming fish to sliming your political opponents"?)
Impressive!
Also noticed the southern accent. Wonder if she ran across any true southern
magnolias. Most of us can flay the skin off someone with leaving
the bounds of good manners...or raising our voices. Our mothers taught
us how to do it. Hillary would never understand it.
I, too, noticed the different slang in her voice in Wyoming and Mississippi. This just seems to be so deceptive a performance.
I agree that she is surrounded by the mean and the mad like an evil queen ruling over her minions. I'm hoping this so-called fairy tale has a happy ending and she and her ilk are banished.
After this election, don't worry I'm done with the democratic party because I realize how different I am from them.. I'm not weak and I have conviction and fight for what I believe in. As a black woman, I was born into the democratic party and have always voted that way, but this election has shown me how different I am from them. They are always so ready to appease and compromise so that they don't hurt anyone's feelings. The one thing I can respect about republicans is that if they believe in someting, they stand up for it and no one can distract them from what their core values are. The way that the primary is proportional is a prime example of not wanting to hurt anyone's feelings, so everyone gets a piece. But in life, there are winners and there are losers, and you cannot please everyone. I don't know if I can be a part of this party, because I don't know what it is that they stand for. I am more in the center, which is why I think Senator Clinton or JFK appeals to me. I don't want someone who is irriational, but I also want to know that I can depend on you to fight for me when it's necessary.
I've seen more hatred and vitriolic bile spewed over the Clintons these past number of months than i've ever seen directed towards BushCo. At least with neocons you know what you're getting. Progressives have historically chosen the role of the opposition. They love to sit back and wag fingers, judgmental bunch of cowards. The minute anyone wants to change that status quo out come the knives. It's why BushCo won twice and will continue to win.
Really good piece Steven...and dead on...sadly Hillary is Narcisstic- I am sure all the Hillaryland People will be here en masse correcting you....but narcisstic and that is dangerous...because she is only thinking about her at this point- not WE THE PEOPLE or the Voters and not the DNC...Obama shows that he is calm, and thoughtful and will not sink to the gutter tactics that she has already been sliming him with since Iowa.....stop by http://watergatesummer.blogspot.com/, and I have a post up about Hill's Kitchen Sink that is along the same lines...would love your input...Leadership is about Having Dignity, Grace under Fire and having Integrity when Crisis arrive- Obama has Continued to be more Presidential than Hill can even Imagine...Shame on her..as a woman I am embarrassed by her antics....I was hoping for a Woman to run Someday...but NOT this woman and her 30 personalities and poor judgement.....WE THE PEOPLE deserve better......
Senator Obama will say anything to win as well. He gave a speech that spins his lack of experience in the Senate as being a good thing because "he hasn't stewed until all the hope is boiled away." I guess all the politicians he's supposed to be uniting are hopeless?. This is not a great way to begin a presidency by alienating yourself with speeches that insult your Legislative branch before even getting elected. It's junior mistakes like this that make his candidacy a high risk gamble.
Haven't you attended an Obama rally? The politicians aren't just hopeless. Washington is broken, the entire government is corrupt and the "establishment" (read anyone not voting for Obama) is evil. You can either vote for Obama and demonize anyone who's even considering another candidate or you are obviously part of the axis of evil. This is not a new strategy, it just hasn't been used so successfully in the political arena, at least not in recent times. It creeps me out!
Look who has experience in White house? Dick Cheney. Departed Rumsfield , Karl Rove.. McCain for the past 7 years what Right decision they had made? Name one. Have you heard "Old Fool?" Bill gate start his Microsoft had no experinces. How about google founder, youtube and etc.. It is the vision the deceisions that count. Old fool has a lot of experience yet still make same mistakes again and again. Please when you are older it does not mean you are wiser.
For every Bill Gates there are millions of failed start-up entrepreneurs regardless of "vision".
I'm not sure why it's credible to cherry pick the exceptions and attempt to make them the rule...
Quite simply, because Obama is exceptional. And people with far greater minds than my own agree.
Yes, he may, what he says aren't lies. Or the most contorted palaver like "well it depends on what the meaning of is is."
Only someone with no knowledge of the legal system and the complete testimony President Clinton gave to the grand jury would mock his words in such an infantile manner.
It is time to stop getting mad at Hillary for her being her. Everyone knows what to expect, more scorched earth so she can win, win or win.
It is time to start calling out the lame super delegates that think waiting is the best option. In the super delegates we are seeing the very reason that Bush took the white house twice.
The voters have spoken in several ways. More states won, popular vote, pledged delegates and don't forget that Hillary was excited about 35 mil in one month, til the $55mil hammer came down on that. All of that leads to only one conclusion, the peolpe want Obama more than Clinton.
Now the Supers need to stop thinking they are going to unite the party after the impending blood bath and save the party while the November election is still the Dems for the taking.
Obama isn't the one who should leave early. He has all of the mentioned reasons for staying. Not to mention that every thing that it would take for her to catch him requires divine intervention.
I blame the supers at this point. Hillary has already lost. They are the ones with the influence to end this before the streets turn red. Hearing the Dem leadership say that this is a good thing makes me cringe. They are showing the same stupidity that let Bush beat them twice.
You Obama cultists are so soft and wimpish. Ooh, ouch, don't, no, stop - you're so mean. The GOP is gonna rip you apart.
Like they know how.
If she had an ounce of patriotism, an ounce of concern for wha is best for not onlyher party but the nation she would have already conceeded.(conceited?)
She must come to grips that no matter wha the Corps promised her, we've caught on to the game- we have surpassed the Shock doctrine we are now into th epay backs a bitch doctrine. Starting with the Executive branch , and working our way through every last branch and agency within this Gov't .
consider Decades of court TV, We Could even put cameras at GITMO - Survivor. In fact we can vote on punishment like American idol. Shit I gotta get a big screen TV- I want to see them sweat!Honestly this woman shouldn't be running for Prs she (and Mac) should be getting their defense teams together - before the Bushies get them all booked up - youmight get stuck with Gonzales-LOL. Oh and we will graandfather in that 'suspension' of habius Corpus for enemy combatants- just for you all!!!
Posted March 8, 2008 | 09:46 AM (EST)