Hillary Clinton and my hatred for her

Size=everything

Is it just me or does Clinton seem obsessed with power and power alone?

Instead of dropping out now when it is highly likely that Obama will gain the nomination and avoiding damaging the Democrats further she stubbornly refuses to the detriment of the party holding onto an ever fading glimmer of hope that maybe, just maybe she will get the nomination

why?
Because Hillary doesn't care about the democratic party all she cares about is getting into a powerful position.

She stuck with Bill Clinton after his affair not because she still loved him but because she knew he was her ticket to power.



Her campaign has, instead of concentrating it's efforts on addressing the public's issues and meeting with locals, concentrated on a campaign of negativity smearing her opponent.

why?

Because Clinton doesn't care about the public she is solely interested in destroying her rival and threat to her dream of power.


Clinton has lied numerous times to the public, she has claimed she was a key factor in the Northern Ireland peace process and landed in the Balkans under heavy sniper fire and had to sprint into an armoured vehicle for her own safety. She has claimed that as first lady she has foreign policy experience which is absolute bull she is only 2-3 years more experienced than Obama. Her close aide even recently claimed that Obama's experience was akin to a local county councillor in the UK running for Prime Minister


God I hate Clinton I would take Obama or even McCain over her any day. I really, really hope her campaign is over by tomorrow.

/RANT

mike65

Her close aide even recently claimed that Obama's experience was akin to a local county councillor in the UK running for Prime Minister

Not far off. Clinton knows this is her one and only chance so she won't drop out until she is beaten. She is full of hogwash but Obama is not filling me with any great expectation I must say.

Mike.

is_that_so

RickyHatton wrote: »

Is it just me or does Clinton seem obsessed with power and power alone?

Instead of dropping out now when it is highly likely that Obama will gain the nomination and avoiding damaging the Democrats further she stubbornly refuses to the detriment of the party holding onto an ever fading glimmer of hope that maybe, just maybe she will get the nomination

why?
Because Hillary doesn't care about the democratic party all she cares about is getting into a powerful position.

She stuck with Bill Clinton after his affair not because she still loved him but because she knew he was her ticket to power.



Her campaign has, instead of concentrating it's efforts on addressing the public's issues and meeting with locals, concentrated on a campaign of negativity smearing her opponent.

why?

Because Clinton doesn't care about the public she is solely interested in destroying her rival and threat to her dream of power.


Clinton has lied numerous times to the public, she has claimed she was a key factor in the Northern Ireland peace process and landed in the Balkans under heavy sniper fire and had to sprint into an armoured vehicle for her own safety. She has claimed that as first lady she has foreign policy experience which is absolute bull she is only 2-3 years more experienced than Obama. Her close aide even recently claimed that Obama's experience was akin to a local county councillor in the UK running for Prime Minister


God I hate Clinton I would take Obama or even McCain over her any day. I really, really hope her campaign is over by tomorrow.

/RANT

Feel better now She's still there because she can and the party's rules allow her to be there. She may not care about the party but the party has only got itself to blame for this debacle. They had the chance to have the first woman or the first black president and may end up with neither.

As for negativity, well it's part and parcel of US elections these days and Obama's comments and attitude recently have invited some serious questions.

For me McCain is really looking like the only option. The net effect of the negativity is that Clinton is starting to look unelectable and Obama is not the knight in shining armour he set out to claiming he was. The GOP will be even nastier once the Dem candidate is clear.

DeVore

Come on, lets face it... there arent many people who wouldn't think Obama hit the nail on the head about hick gun wielding religious nutjobs in Penn.

He's on The Daily Show tonight , should be a giggle

DeV.

mike65

Did anyone see the WWE promo? Christ.

http://www.wwe.com/content/media/video/vms/raw/2008/april15-21/6913858?zone=_index

Mike.

David@Bayard.co

Personnally I think Obama may have shot him self in the foot saying that if the priest didn't retire he would have left that chruch.......... Won't sit well with the deep south!!!

That and the fact that he defended himself remaining there for ages . It seems like he basically said "f*** it, I give up, I'd have left anyway" .........

That and the whole NAFTA thing - talk about being shot from behind!!!

I dunno, there is just something that doesn't sit well for me with Obama... I wouldn't vote for him anyway.

I still prefer Clinton!!

Like come on, Obamas heamth plan would cost way to much for what it is vs.s Clintons!!!

leninbenjamin

mike65 wrote: »

Did anyone see the WWE promo? Christ.

http://www.wwe.com/content/media/video/vms/raw/2008/april15-21/6913858?zone=_index

Mike.

what the f... ?

Podge_irl

The main thing that bothers me about Clinton is her seeming complete lack of sincerity. She'll pretend to be whatever she thinks people want her to be at that point in time.

davyjose

RickyHatton wrote: »

Instead of dropping out now when it is highly likely that Obama will gain the nomination

She's just won Pennsylvania, so clearly much of the US voters still think she has a shot! We should she drop out?

flogen

I think she proved (yet again) just how disingeuous she is when she attacked Obama for saying McCain would be a better president that GWB, saying he was bigging up the opposition.

This is after she said McCain had passed the 'Commander in Chief' test but Obama had not, and that McCain was a patriot but she wasn't sure if Obama was.

mike65

I said a few months back I thought I knew who would win, now I think McCain is a shoe-in. The Democrats are splitting, with a huge % of Clinton voters saying they would not vote Obama, if nominated. While if she gets the nod, every Republican will turn out to make sure to stop Clinton.

Mike.

bonkey

is_that_so wrote: »

She's still there because she can and the party's rules allow her to be there.

She's still there because she can still win.

I don't get it....in Ireland some years ago, there was outrage that only one candidate was put forward for the Presidential election.

Now, many people in Ireland seem outraged that the Democrats haven't reduced a two-horse-race to a single candidate, even though it would mean that some states would have ended up getting no say in things.

Size=everything

bonkey wrote: »

She's still there because she can still win.

I don't get it....in Ireland some years ago, there was outrage that only one candidate was put forward for the Presidential election.

Now, many people in Ireland seem outraged that the Democrats haven't reduced a two-horse-race to a single candidate, even though it would mean that some states would have ended up getting no say in things.

Because this battle is to the detriment of the democratic party. It is highly unlikely even after her win last night that Clinton will get the nomination. If she had any dignity or respect for the democratic party she would drop out now and support Obama before she ruins any chance the democrats have of getting back in power.

To be honest I think it might even be too late. If I was a betting man I would go for McCain hes looking more and more likely to get the presidency. Clinton's malicious attacks on Obama have damaged him whilst Clinton is Clinton and there are many people who will do everything in their power to ENSURE that Clinton doesnt become president.

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

RickyHatton wrote: »

Because this battle is to the detriment of the democratic party.

Howard Dean said the opposite on the news yesterday. He said it was great for the democrats to have such high profile primaries so close to the elections. And also so many people signing up to the democratic party in order to be part of the campaign.

drunkmonkey

I'm with you Ricky


That woman is evil.....If you were Bill would you put your ***k in that mouth....:eek:

davyjose

RickyHatton wrote: »

It is highly unlikely even after her win last night that Clinton will get the nomination.

It's not highly unlikely enough for someone to just quit IMO. Would you quit? If Obama was 100-ish delegates behind (out of a couple of thousand), with 10 states to go would you expect him to quit.
Give her a break. Why should she quit just because she's not the one slightly in front?

FatherTed

Not much of a victory for her yesterday as she gained only 12 delegates and is still over 150 pledged delegates behind.

namloc1980

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7361509.stm

clinton is a lunatic....she would "obliterate Iran"....kill millions of people!! she is obsessed with power. it's a disgrace that someone in her position should even say such a thing as she did in the interview.

David@Bayard.co

You really are a bit of a sensationalist - Let me take a leaf from your book!!

Hows about we give a Terrorist state some Nukes - you know for use on the Western countries.

(But we all know its just for Nuclear Power ie. electricity) - give me a break dude......... a tough line is needed in Iran!!!

David@Bayard.co

mike65 wrote: »

I said a few months back I thought I knew who would win, now I think McCain is a shoe-in. The Democrats are splitting, with a huge % of Clinton voters saying they would not vote Obama, if nominated. While if she gets the nod, every Republican will turn out to make sure to stop Clinton.

Mike.

You know it will be interesting to see if there will be a climb down on the tone of the competition over the next few weeks.

Because, if it does it could lead to the so called Dream Ticket

Clinton (Pres)/Obama (First) - My pref
or
the opposite

It will be interesting to see!!!

namloc1980

David@Bayard.co wrote: »

You really are a bit of a sensationalist - Let me take a leaf from your book!!

Hows about we give a Terrorist state some Nukes - you know for use on the Western countries.

(But we all know its just for Nuclear Power ie. electricity) - give me a break dude......... a tough line is needed in Iran!!!

"Obliterate" 70 million people sounds just a tad more than a tough line to me. Clinton would say anything to get a few votes

bonkey

David@Bayard.co wrote: »

You really are a bit of a sensationalist
...
(But we all know its just for Nuclear Power ie. electricity) - give me a break dude......... a tough line is needed in Iran!!!

Here's how you judge whether such a statement is reasonable or not...

Replace the name of the person who said it, with the name of the leader of the country referred to.
Replace the name of the country referred to, to the country the person who said it is from.

So....if you had Ahmadinejad saying that he would obliterate America....would you see that as him arguing that a tough line should be taken?

No, I didn't think so.

Das Kitty

Oh how I wish I had sound on my work computer.

Manic Moran

bonkey wrote: »

So....if you had Ahmadinejad saying that he would obliterate America....would you see that as him arguing that a tough line should be taken?

I think it's a case of the caveat of "If"

The Hillary didn't say "I'll obliterate Iran on a whim", it was "I'll obliterate Iran if it tries to nuke our friend", which is pretty reasonable, if a bit sensationalist. Ahadinejad has not, to my knowledge, made any such caveats of response-in-kind.

NTM

bonkey

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think it's a case of the caveat of "If"

The Hillary didn't say "I'll obliterate Iran on a whim", it was "I'll obliterate Iran if it tries to nuke our friend", which is pretty reasonable, if a bit sensationalist.

I'd agree its sensationalist. I'm not sure its pretty reasonable, nor the type of thing I'd expect a world leader (or aspirant world leader) to say.

If, for example, China were to say they'd obliterate the US if the US attacked (say) N. Korea with nuclear weapons, or Iran were to say they'd do it if the US were to attack (say) Syria, I still don't think that many of hte people defending Hilary would be coming out saying "well, you know, its a bit sensationalist, but its not really all that unreasonable a position".

I guess what it boils down to is that there is a (human) tendency to see comments as being perfectly reasonable when made in defence of one's own ideals, and atrocious beyond reprehension when made against those same ideals, and in defence of ideals one opposees.

I would prefer a world leader (or aspirant) to take the stance that the correct answer is along the lines that they would do everything in their power to ensure that situation never occurred on their watch, and that they weren't going to get tied down in worst-case "what if" scenarios for someone looking for a sound-bite.

Jesus Wept

FatherTed wrote: »

Not much of a victory for her yesterday as she gained only 12 delegates and is still over 150 pledged delegates behind.

Hillary can still win the delegate race.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBGyuYKlxIg

ghostdancer

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think it's a case of the caveat of "If"

The Hillary didn't say "I'll obliterate Iran on a whim", it was "I'll obliterate Iran if it tries to nuke our friend", which is pretty reasonable, if a bit sensationalist. Ahadinejad has not, to my knowledge, made any such caveats of response-in-kind.

NTM

no, it's not remotely reasonable. maybe over there your judgement is clouded by the Israel=our peace-loving allies b.s. that the US loves to spew, but to most of the rest of the world, america's sole cheerleading of a terrorist state is absolutely abhorrent.
Iran is years away from having a nuclear weapon, if it even decides to seek one, which it isn't. this type of saber-rattling is exactly what causes so much trouble in the region.
i mean christ "if it tries"??? so if a country "tries" to attack another with some currently non-existent weapons*, then America will obliterate it? honestly...
Hillary Clinton should know better, but then again pretty much all of her political life has been one wrong step after another, so why am I surprised she comes out with this ****?
at least McCain had the sense to just make a joke of bombing Iran, and not talk of nuclear options from something that will never happen.
the thought of Iran ever using a nuclear weapon, if they ever developed one, on Israel is so far-fetched it's hilarious that people are even talking about it. they might as well just set it off in Tehran instead of bothering going at Israel and having the rest of the world level Iran within a matter of weeks.
*these would be the weapons that Iran doesn't possess and the technology for them that Iran stopped developing several years ago according to the IAEA. just a caveat of my own considering this has seemingly been completed ignored by pretty much all US media i've seen in the past few months, up to Republican politicians and mouthpieces still saying that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

ghostdancer

davyjose wrote: »

It's not highly unlikely enough for someone to just quit IMO. Would you quit? If Obama was 100-ish delegates behind (out of a couple of thousand), with 10 states to go would you expect him to quit.
Give her a break. Why should she quit just because she's not the one slightly in front?

there's 9 primaries left, and 130+ delegates of a difference.

she should quit because she hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of winning the Democratic nomination. this thing has been over since Wisconsin. anyone who doesn't realise this needs to sit down and cop themselves on.

barring some shocking gaffe or scandal on either side, on June the 3rd, Obama will have somewhere in the region of 90 delegate lead, the remaining super delegates will start to jump over to him, by the end of June Hillary Clinton will have dropped out "for the good of the party".
anyone with half a clue knows this is exactly what will happen.

ghostdancer

David@Bayard.co wrote: »

You really are a bit of a sensationalist - Let me take a leaf from your book!!

Hows about we give a Terrorist state some Nukes - you know for use on the Western countries.

(But we all know its just for Nuclear Power ie. electricity) - give me a break dude......... a tough line is needed in Iran!!!

was the hypocrisy of your reply deliberate or accidental, i'm a little confused....

ghostdancer

David@Bayard.co wrote: »

You know it will be interesting to see if there will be a climb down on the tone of the competition over the next few weeks.

Because, if it does it could lead to the so called Dream Ticket

Clinton (Pres)/Obama (First) - My pref
or
the opposite

It will be interesting to see!!!

yeah, the opposite won't happen.
and the former almost certainly won't happen because Hillary Clinton won't be the nominee bar some massive Obama scandal or gaffe which would leave him out of the running for VP.
not that he'd take it anyway, he seems to have morals. unlike Hillary Rodham Clinton.

ghostdancer

mike65 wrote: »

I said a few months back I thought I knew who would win, now I think McCain is a shoe-in. The Democrats are splitting, with a huge % of Clinton voters saying they would not vote Obama, if nominated. While if she gets the nod, every Republican will turn out to make sure to stop Clinton.

Mike.

you're smart enough to know that Clinton supporters will line up behind the democratic nominee, when their candidate drops out, and he's selected in a few months time.