Hillary Clinton and my hatred for her

ghostdancer

Roundtower2 wrote: »

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.

he would say that. he's keeping the voters who don't realise how this is going to end up onside.
himself, Pelosi and Reid, among others, have basically been making all the noises for the rest of the super delegates to line up behind the pledged-delegate leader come June 3rd (which will be Obama). Dean and Reid have both said that this will be over before the convention. it doesn't take a genius to figure out how it's going to go....

Manic Moran

I'll wager there's a bunch of independents and even some Republicans signing on for the Democratic vote now that McCain has been selected: If you're going to vote, may as well vote in something which still matters.

Though defininitely only a minority, there will be a number of people particularly voting in these late primaries, who might vote McCain over whoever wins the Democratic nomination. However, I would not attribute this to the after-effects of fracturing, just saying that the numbers will be slightly skewed because of this effect.

NTM

Manic Moran

ghostdancer wrote: »

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...

I think it's extremely reasonable to make a policy statement along the lines of "We will respond to an attack against one of our friends, using equivalent weapons." This has nothing to do with 'peace-loving-Israel', it's simply a case of global real-politik that the US considers Israel an ally. It's the same policy which managed to avoid us all getting nuked or slimed in the Cold War. Arguably it also prevented Coalition forces being slimed in 1991.

If Iran indeed has no weapons plan, no weapons ambition, and no weapons capability, then I see no reason for them to be worried about being obliterated in a retaliatory strike, do you?

NTM

Tricity Bendix

ghostdancer wrote: »

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.

On the balance of probabilities, this is the most likely outcome. But it is by no means certain. The Super Delegates might think they have a duty to follow the wishes of the party and go for Obama, or they might decide they have a duty to ensure the party is in with the best chance possible of obtaining the presidency and vote for the candidate who has the most support in the key battle-ground states, which would be Clinton.

snow scorpion

Yes, it's sad that a horse was killed, but this made me laugh out loud.

JESUS, WHERE TO BEGIN: Hillary Clinton's pick to win horse racing's Kentucky Derby, Eight Belles — the only female horse in the race — finished second, broke both front ankles, and subsequently was put to death on the track. The first place horse was "Big Brown." Go nuts.

Lots of funny comments in the thread:
http://wonkette.com/386888/#viewcomments

is_that_so

ghostdancer wrote: »

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.

If that were true yes, but I am not sure that it is.
With recent figures suggesting the draining away of the white vote towards Clinton it does raise questions about his widespread appeal.

If it was Bush then yes I think it would be true but McCain is a likeable type of candidate that some of the constituency who support Clinton could relate to.

However up to 25% of Clinton supporters claim that they will not support him and 13% or so of Obama supporters will not support her. And then we have the potential ire of the African-American community to take into account.

Even reactionary(IMO) Andrew " I really, really hate the Clintons and everything they stand for" Sullivan is proposing the "dream ticket". Much as I disagree with a lot of what he tends to write, he argues well on this point and it may be the only thing that can save the Democrats from themselves. If nothing else this campaign proves to me that they have confused the "need for party democracy" with the far more pressing need to select a candidate quickly and efficiently.

It is for many in the Obama camp an unthinkable thought. But politics is sometimes the art of adjusting today to what seemed inconceivable yesterday. I'm talking about the possibility — and the powerful logic — of a unity Obama-Clinton ticket for the Democrats. ...

Full story

Manic Moran

Yeah, but who gets to be on top?

The fighting over that would be just as bad as 'who gets the nomination'

NTM

Podge_irl

is_that_so wrote: »

However up to 25% of Clinton supporters claim that they will not support him and 13% or so of Obama supporters will not support her. And then we have the potential ire of the African-American community to take into account.

They say that now, but I doubt such sentiment will follow through til November. Emotions are running high at the moment and its a pretty fiercely contested race. Once things move to concentrating on the general election I imagine the majority of democrats will revert to disliking the republican agenda more then a democratic candidate with ever so slightly different views from the one they wanted.
Also can't see a "dream ticket" happening. With the amount of crap they've thrown at each other at this stage it would possibly be a fairly strained ticket and would certainly have people questioning who was in command.

David@Bayard.co

That and the fact that he promises change - stating that Hillary is the type of thing that needs to be done away with!!

He'd look like a bit of a hypocrite if he decided to make her VP!

FatherTed

David@Bayard.co wrote: »

That and the fact that he promises change - stating that Hillary is the type of thing that needs to be done away with!!

He'd look like a bit of a hypocrite if he decided to make her VP!

But they're policitians, they're allowed to be hypocrites

LuckyLloyd

Her political end drew closer last night.

is_that_so

In a report on Morning Ireland , her camp was quoted as saying "She can't get nominated and he can't get elected". Therein lies the Dem problem so no wonder the dream ticket is being floated.
There's also some type of Dem committee meeting on 31st May to address the two rule breakers Michigan and Florida.

Amazotheamazing

is_that_so wrote: »

In a report on Morning Ireland , her camp was quoted as saying "She can't get nominated and he can't get elected". Therein lies the Dem problem so no wonder the dream ticket is being floated.
There's also some type of Dem committee meeting on 31st May to address the two rule breakers Michigan and Florida.

Her camp have to say that, it's her best chance of getting to the White House.

That being said, I don't trust Clinton and won't fully write her off until Obama has the nomination.

is_that_so

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Her camp have to say that, it's her best chance of getting to the White House.

That being said, I don't trust Clinton and won't fully write her off until Obama has the nomination.

Whatever things her camp may say he has had serious problems killing off this race and has shown himself unable to win big states, an obvious drawback come the real election. I agree with their reasoning but really don't see either as electable at this stage.

If she does get nominated the democrats will never again be able to bring up the topic of stolen elections...

whatawaster

is_that_so wrote: »

Whatever things her camp may say he has had serious problems killing off this race and has shown himself unable to win big states, an obvious drawback come the real election. I agree with their reasoning but really don't see either as electable at this stage.

Absolute nonsense. Of the ten largest states in America, Hillary won 5, Obama 3 (Michigan and Florida don't count) so it's not as if he did terribly in all large states. And in a general election he'd be a certainty to win some of the ones he lost like New York, New Jersey and California. Then there is his strength in large southern states with high african-american populations like Georgia and South/North Carolina where he'd have a great chance and Hillary might not.

Manic Moran

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Her political end drew closer last night.

She did win Indiana. NC was never really up for grabs.

NTM

is_that_so

whatawaster wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. Of the ten largest states in America, Hillary won 5, Obama 3 (Michigan and Florida don't count) so it's not as if he did terribly in all large states. And in a general election he'd be a certainty to win some of the ones he lost like New York, New Jersey and California. Then there is his strength in large southern states with high african-american populations like Georgia and South/North Carolina where he'd have a great chance and Hillary might not.

You've also highlighted his weakness. Remember his performance to date has been based on votes from his own party.
These are "big" states you would expect him to do well in anyway. He can't carry the South IMO and if McCain opts for someone like Huckabee then he may only win those with bigger African-American populations.

He also has really big problems attracting the type of blue-collar workers that McCain will pick up in Ohio, Pennsylvania and other swing states and which will decide the vote there.

He may be in with a shout in California but McCain is also strong there and in places like Massachusetts but he will not win the dreaded Florida and I doubt if he can take Texas. And these are places where elections are won and lost.

So maybe I should rephrase to say that he can't win big states that count.

mike65

Manic Moran wrote: »

She did win Indiana. NC was never really up for grabs.

NTM

But only by 2%, hardly a ringing endorsement.

Mike.

BJC

I agree that Clinton is pure unadulturated demon-spawn but the issue is that neither her nor o bama are ready to be president, they're too inexperienced .

I don't think it's really an issue anyway, while they battle it out, taking postshots at eachother, trying to gain an inch, McCain is sweeping through the country with publicity campaigns that are spurring America's gigantic population of born again Chritstians (just like Bush) to vote for him....like they weren't going to vote republican anyway...

RickyHatton

RickyHatton wrote: »

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.

The first comment is a bit harsh. You cannot second guess why she stays with Bill. Maybe she hates him, maybe Obama hates his wife and whacks off over a Victoria's Secret catalogue every day, who is to know?

Hilary stands between many Americans and the potential of McCain as President. Because if you think that she has been negative about Obama, you aint seen nothing yet. I don't even think McCain will have to come up with a slogan to win if Barack gets the nod, he can base his campaign solely on what Obama has said and done, the drugs, the contempt for small town 'bitter' America, the lunatic Pastor friend...it's a shoo in.

Amazotheamazing

I really hate the way Hillary supporters concede she is evil, only a better sort of evil than a Republican. Such negative viewpoints, such negative politics. C'mon people, Believe in Hope.

CivilServant

She is a spiteful, inconsistent, power hungry, bandwagon hopping, sore loser and her laugh scares me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9qd-P2bIiY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OF9uZqAlGM

RedPlanet

is_that_so wrote: »

You've also highlighted his weakness. Remember his performance to date has been based on votes from his own party.
These are "big" states you would expect him to do well in anyway. He can't carry the South IMO and if McCain opts for someone like Huckabee then he may only win those with bigger African-American populations.

He also has really big problems attracting the type of blue-collar workers that McCain will pick up in Ohio, Pennsylvania and other swing states and which will decide the vote there.

He may be in with a shout in California but McCain is also strong there and in places like Massachusetts but he will not win the dreaded Florida and I doubt if he can take Texas. And these are places where elections are won and lost.

So maybe I should rephrase to say that he can't win big states that count.

No Democrat can win Texas and only southern dems can win the south.
These states turned red (Republican) since the Civil Rights Act.
Hillary as no chance at winning the south.
California has been voting for Democrat president for a fairly long time, there'll be no change there.
Cities vote for the Democrats in presidential elections, so i doubt McCain will win those "blue collar workers" you cite. (i presume you mean unions and industrial employment like manufacturing)
I'm pretty sure Mass will go Dems, isn't there an established tradition there?

LuckyLloyd

Manic Moran wrote: »

She did win Indiana. NC was never really up for grabs.

NTM

Indiana shouldn't have been up for grabs either! Look, this is all really simple. If any of the Clinton supporters can lay out a plausible scenario - given the current available information - where she manages to close the gap and win the battle for delegates / popular vote I would say ok and agree she still has a chance. But the reality is that any of the proposed ways for her to still win put forth by her supporters are powerful fuzzy on details.

Probably, she is hoping that if she stays in long enough some horrible revelation will appear to scupper Obama's credibillity (even though that has already been and gone), or that she can find a loophole or make some sort of new argument that can allow the super delegates or convention to overturn the results of pledged delegates.

It's all irresponsible and desperate politics now. I mean, I can understand the frustration she must feel. This was supposed to be her presidency. It was supposed to be the cementing of the Clinton's political legacy with her running for president in the most favorable political climate imaginable for her to run in.

And instead some young (in political terms) upstart who has decades of a career ahead of him sweeps in and just happens to be able to beat her hands down in terms of fundraising and oratory. And because it is Hilary and Bill Clinton and they are tough and hard as nails they aren't going to just give up and lie down. But lets call it what it is. Continuing with the campaign from this point on is nothing more than dogged personal determination and obdurance. I guess it is admirable in its own way, but she's not doing it for the good of the party or the nation - she's doing it for the good of her own ego.

In any case, if Obama doesn't win the presidency in 2008 he'll get other shots. She won't. Just get off the stage now love.

LuckyLloyd

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

In any case, if Obama doesn't win the presidency in 2008 he'll get other shots.

I'd be surprised. Dukakis, Gore, Dole, Kerry, Mondale, Ford, McGovern, Carter, Humphrey, Goldwater, Stevenson...was Nixon the last comeback kid?

LuckyLloyd

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd be surprised. Dukakis, Gore, Dole, Kerry, Mondale, Ford, McGovern, Carter, Humphrey, Goldwater, Stevenson...was Nixon the last comeback kid?

Obama is younger than all of them - and a few years younger than the average age of the above candidates. None of them sought a subsequent nomination either. Do you think Kerry would have won the primary four years ago if he was running against Gore?

Lirange

Manic Moran wrote: »

She did win Indiana. NC was never really up for grabs.

NTM

He outperformed the polling in both states. If this is the best she can muster after his worst two weeks of the campaign it shows her futility. She may have squeaked Indiana but it's the maths that count and it is virtually impossible for her to overtake Obama on any measure.

The Florida/Michigan charade only shows how low she is willing to go. She wants to seat votes from elections where there was no campaigning (Florida) and where his name didn't appear on the ballot (Michigan). Not to mention that many didn't bother to turn up for those "primaries" since they knew they would not count.

Lirange

RedPlanet wrote: »

No Democrat can win Texas and only southern dems can win the south.
These states turned red (Republican) since the Civil Rights Act.
Hillary as no chance at winning the south.
California has been voting for Democrat president for a fairly long time, there'll be no change there.
Cities vote for the Democrats in presidential elections, so i doubt McCain will win those "blue collar workers" you cite. (i presume you mean unions and industrial employment like manufacturing)
I'm pretty sure Mass will go Dems, isn't there an established tradition there?

The South is not in play for either of them. Not surprisingly it's where he polls the worst among whites.

Let us not forget that his campaign was jump started by a resounding victory in lily-white Iowa. The bulk of his votes this primary season are from whites despite the efforts of some to portray him as "the black candidate." He isn't. He has opportunities in states like Colorado, Missouri, Iowa, and Virginia where she has no chance.

Mr.Micro

Why does Clinton insist on carrying on and continuing to damage the democratic party? Thats really what its about now IMO if I can't have it neither will you. As long this Democratic campaign carries on it will play into the Republicans hands. Clinton could always join the Republicans as she behaves like one. Obliterate Iran comments show her true leanings, out of touch and out of date, time she left.