57andfemale

She didn't shy away. She exploited progressive ideals of greatness for petty ambition. The Clintons just used progressive frames to get power. They never lived it. They have always been moderate Republicans, using progressive issues to set themselves apart and to get the attention they needed to seize power. They are frauds. If you would have told me six months ago that this is what I would believe, I would have said you were insane. But here we are. And the Clintons did this.

Any Democrat, or certainly any honest progressive who thinks otherwise needs to read this:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/1/32648/03532/101/488061

Hillary supporters, please try to look at her with objective eyes. She is not what you think you see. posted 04/01/2008 at 09:30:02

Funny it took Carville an entire week to come up with this rationalization. posted 03/28/2008 at 09:52:04

Thank you! These numbers are b.s. All of this depends on the old voting models, which have been obliterated by Obama's campaign strategy. Very good point. posted 03/28/2008 at 09:46:44

I'm not being facetious -- what has she done? What has she accomplished on her own, against political will? If her years as First Lady make her ready to be president, then what were her opinions on the deregulation of the financial industry, repealing Glass-Steagall that contributed (did not CAUSE, but contributed) to the mortgage/credit mess we're in now?

Hillary does not get asked these hard questions, yet she gets to say her years as First Lady make her presidential material. Then I'm afraid she needs to answer to for everything. Give credit where credit is due, of course. But she needs to answer the hard questions.

That no one ever asks. While Obama is branded with everything said by his pastor. posted 03/28/2008 at 09:45:16

Hey, Ari -- talk to your brother! I live in his district and he just isn't answering my emails. Actually, I don't need a personal answer. I need a public endorsement of Obama. I know it's hard for him, but join the 21st century, Rahm. posted 03/27/2008 at 08:47:33

EXCELLENT! posted 03/25/2008 at 18:20:02

Hey, not if hate and Rovian attacks work. How the hell can we elect this woman? posted 03/25/2008 at 18:08:22

A "misstatement" with such detail. The utter gaul of her! "I took her stuff and left", speaking of the little girl. I'm so glad your safety was important -- let's leave the kids to the "sniper fire".

Of course she made sure she defined "patriotism" today, just as the polls were showing Obama get past this nonsense.

But let's remember --

Johnson saying, "I don't know what he was doing on the streets of Chicago"; I don't remember Hillary chastising him.

The ravings of that union guy who introduced her the night Obama won Wisconsin and Hawaii. I don't remember her walking off the stage in protest.

"shuck and Jive" from Cuomo;

sending the picture of Obama in Somali garb;

"He's not a Muslim, as far as I know"

Circulating the hate email, directly from her campaign manager in New Hampshire;

Ferraro's affirmative action smear. When really, aren't Hillary and George Bush the quintessential affirmative action politicians?

Bill's repeated conflagration of race, fear.

The pattern of "hate speech" emanating from the Hillary campaign is breathtaking. But it's worth a two-day news cycle to question Obama using the word "periodically".

I'm assuming Hillary will disclose the beliefs of David Coe and the members of her prayer meetings with The Family. We have a right to know.

But she's the "patriot" and Obama is not.

Some democrat.

That's off the top of my head of "hate speech" that has come from posted 03/25/2008 at 18:07:17

After her home loan speech yesterday, Obama released a letter he'd written a year ago to Bernanke and Paulson. Then, there was a reference to a speech HIllary gave on the subject a week before Obama's letter. Tit for tat? Maybe, but there's more: Hillary did produce legislation on home loans. It received NOT ONE co-sponsor. Why she cannot get co-sponsors for her bills is really, really weird. posted 03/25/2008 at 10:58:57

My favorite part of her account that never gets mentioned: she said how she was moved to the cockpit for safety. But NOT your 16 year old daughter?

She had great detail in her accounts of this harrowing event -- details that clearly never happened.

Her mendacity is breathtaking. What does half the party see in her?

Oh, yeah -- health mandates. As if she's going to fight for them against Republican will. She's never fought against Republican will. posted 03/24/2008 at 13:43:48

THAT's what's so scary. Often, however, it takes them about three days to pick up on stuff lke this.

Or not. If they have decided what the narrative will be and won't let any pesky facts get in their way. posted 03/24/2008 at 12:46:25

So "tort reform" is part of her answer? She's no longer the Manchurian Neocon -- she's a flat out neocon.

Call me crazy, but wasn't Greenspan a big part of the economic meltdown? And Rubin, who I thought did a decent job during Bill's administration, has some explaining to do: it was Bill and Rubin who cooked up the repeal of Glass-Steagall Act, in place since the New Deal. Rubin made a fortune because of it, and it contributed to the subprime crisis. Didn't cause all of it -- the repubs and Bushies get a good dose of credit for that. But that particular deregulation sure helped it all along.

So let's review: Hillary's going to fix the subprime crisis that the Clintons' administration contributed to creating. Does she take credit for the meetings that led to this deregulation?

Inquiring minds want to know, Hillary. posted 03/24/2008 at 13:28:03

It may be his only way to the presidency. That would be a very seductive pull that would be hard to resist. Suddenly, I'm not disappointed in him. I feel sorry for him. Seriously. The prospect of being HIllary's VP and then president -- hard to resist.

I think morally he has to know that Barack is the real deal. If John is as real as I think he is, there's no doubt. But he may have some illusions that he could bring out the good in her, etc. I'm afraid it would have the exact opposite effect.

But John, be the man we know you can be. Be moral. Be brave. It would be a privilege for Barack to have you in his administration, do good. posted 03/23/2008 at 15:57:24

For God's sake, Obama was saying that EVERYONE has some discrimination in them. EVERYONE. Are you all forgetting that he called out the blacks as well in that speech?

This parsing by you people who were looking for an excuse to not vote for him is getting pathetic. ONLY the white grandmother story, when he called all blacks to task for their bigotry as well. And frankly, they're behaving a whole lot better than whites in this discussion.

How in the world can you call Obama a bigot? Has there been anything in what he's written, what he's spoken in speech after speech, in how he's legislated, how he's worked in the community to think that he is a bigot? Because of what his pastor said? If anything, he developed a philosophy that turned away from that kind of division. Can't you see that?

So instead, you'll go with the bigots you know. You'll get the president you deserve. posted 03/22/2008 at 10:52:58

That's why this feminist started turning away from HIllary last January, big time. I knew her feminist credentials were a sham anyway: she threw feminist after feminist under the bus, and couldn't have cared less. But when the lied about Obama's pro-choice record in a (now totally debunked) mailer in New Hampshire and started using the fear card the Saturday before the NH primary (unnoticed by most people, but I heard it myself on c-span), and how she started playing the victim, as if the Clinton name had nothing to do with how she got where she was, well I'd had it. Before then I would have happily voted for any of our candidates -- I thought we had a great field. I loved Obama (I'm from Illinois), but if this wasn't going to be his turn, fine. Hillary, although I was wary of her baggage, was smart. Edwards was a populist (I've since been disappointed in him as well). But I would have been happy with any of them.

Her behavior is what has turned me against her. These are not the Clintons I loved and defended for a decade. WIth each passing day, I grow in my belief that she is unfit to be a Democratic president.

I'm thrilled I have a candidate I believe in. But Hillary has turned half the party against her. For once in her life, I'd like to see the CLintons take some responsiblity for the destruction they leave in their wake. posted 03/22/2008 at 10:47:33

Because McCain and Hillary will do such a bang-up job of rallying the country, right?

At least Obama values the concept. The other two have no clue or interest. posted 03/22/2008 at 15:23:27

But then she'd have to run all by herself, on all of her individual, personal accomplishments.

Oh. Wait......... posted 03/22/2008 at 15:21:49

Do we need an election if the two are running against each other? Let's just install them both.
Same foreign policy that's for sure. Same stand on flag burning amendments, Kyl/Lieberman, happy to use cluster bombs. McCain has no use for domestic policy and thinks reading Greenspan's book will make him an expert on the economy -- after 20+ years in the Senate. But I guess he has enough experience to pass Hillary's threshold test. Hillary's heathcare plan -- well, I don't know if she'll be able to wield her little hatchet and get all those pesky Republicans out of her way -- it seems to be her approach. Just smite down anyone in her way.

But then we're back to war -- the only prism through which either one of them views the world.

Maybe they are the Dream Ticket. I think she's a Manchurian Neocon anyway.

And after that, we won't even need pesky elections to get in the way of power, entitled.

posted 03/22/2008 at 15:20:21