Go to Hell, Hillary

Email Print posted by hazmat 05/17/2008 03:41:19 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
This is partly a response to sunsawed's post. Sometimes I get so agitated that it seems worth airing to my newfound turk friends at large, as a full-blown blog post. I got some four-letter words for your perusal here. I don't use'em often. Apologies to sunsawed.

fuck her.

I'm sorry, but if the SCORCHED EARTH politics that she's rolled out since the Indiana primary is merely to payback her self-loan to the tune of 10% of her worth, to win the presidency, damn she's cheap. She apparently thinks the little people should pay for her misguided adventure.

I don't know where to begin with this. It makes my blood boil. My family actually struggles to make ends meet. How dare she perpetrate this fraud on the American people. She has gold coins dripping from her flag-lapel pin designer suits. FUCK.

You wanna talk about ELITISTS? You want me to be conciliatory?

I might be empathetic if she would get behind the nominee, but she's still talking about burning the house down in august.

Barack Obama has a million volunteers.

A cold million.

I'm one of them. 

Doesn't she get it? At long last doesn't this phony, fake, panderer finally get it?

She is personally responsible for the invasion of Iraq.

She spent so much time calculating her position that she forgot to listen to the people. She ended up arguing that the smartest and most educated of the electorate are impressionable, and have been duped. That we should cast our lot with racists, because it's our only chance.

How sad.

From all accounts I've seen, Hillary is fully responsible for her debt. She didn't start seriously campaigning until it became doubtful that she was the nominee. Just look at the testimonials. When it was clear that she was beaten she kicked in "loans" to herself to keep the dream alive. After all is said and done, she's in good shape financially, even if she takes the loss.

I work damn hard for my money. I'm white.

Let her recoupe her money from some other HARD WORKING WHITE PEOPLE. Sheeeeit.

< Why Hillary is still in the race. | Some lemmings pause at the cliff >

Poll

I love black people.
All of the above. 100%

Votes: 6
Results | Other Polls
 Display:
Go to Hell, Hillary | 50 comments (50 topical, 0 hidden)
I don't know (none / 0)
Scorched earth?

Who cried bradley effect in NH? Who claimed that Hillary's tears were racist? I could go on ad naseum but....I might be accused of racism

She has gold coins, fair enough, and Obama is poor right? Michelle alone make 5x more than I do (closer to 10x more than the average joe) and she is not proud to be an american?.

Last time I checked the vote count (nationwide) is roughly 51 to 49%


I wonder did you vote for Obama or against Hillary?

Reality suggests that the party is pretty much evenly divided between the 2.

Were you one of the ones who bitched when Kerry quit 4 years ago? Were you angry that he would not fight to the bitter end?

Or are you afraid something else will get "leaked" to the media before he is coronated?

by LORD FOUL on 05/17/2008 11:11:06 AM EST

Let's see... (none / 0)
Speaking in questions to imply Obama did things he didn't do.

Tearing down an Obama is poor strawman.

Pointing out select numbers and "reality" when the whole of the numbers and reality show Hillary is done.

Tearing down a voting against Hillary strawman. (In question form bonus points)

Repeat for Kerry plus comparing someone who had a chance to someone who doesn't.

Using imaginary, unnamed scandals to slander your opponent.

Hey, LF, the GOP called they want their tactics back.

by richardshort2001 on 05/17/2008 11:22:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Let's be fair (none / 0)
Will you concede that Hillary isn't racist?

Last time I checked anything anyone said from Hillarys side was her responsibility. You do not hold him to that standard?

Hillary may be done but let us see, has Obama reached the magic number or not? NO

Will he reach the Magic number without SDs? NO

Can SDs change their minds? Yes.

Can the SDs nominate Hillary? Yes

The one thing you guys convienently ignore is the purpose of the SDs. The SDs aren't supposed to just coronate the "delegate" leader. Their responsibility in this situation is to pick the person best capable to defeat the Pubs in Nov.


So she does have a chance and I should get bonus points for honesty.


Unnamed scandals, Wright wasn't an unnamed scandal. The media was aware of it, they simply chose not to inform the people until an opprotune moment. As will the next fiasco. (I wonder if "Wright" was exposed in Iowa, what the results would have been? Especially considering what has happened since. Losses in TX,OH,PA,IN,WV and 1 big victory in NC).

Can you explain to me why, since Hill & Bill are racists, they didn't bright out Wright themselves? much sooner when it could have helped them? Why haven't they exposed other "issues" that would help them but hurt Obama?

Kerry? truth hurts my friend and history repeats itself.
4 years ago you belittled Kerry for being a pussy (rightfully so). In the present you belittle the candidate who won't give up. 4 years ago you cried for a candidate who would fight back against the Pubs. In the present you belittle the 1 candidate that will fight back. In fact you champion the candidate who, in your words, will win with a new type of politics (the same turn the other cheek politics of 4 years ago).


Tactics? those are facts. I could give you a complete run down on what to expect come Nov. but since he is your candidate I am sure you already know what's coming.

by LORD FOUL on 05/17/2008 01:06:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
response? (none / 0)
Maybe you will understand if I end every sentence with a question mark?

More strawmen this time the I think Bill and Hillary are raciist strawman and the I belittled Kerry 4 years ago strawman?

Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall any regular here ever calling her racist?  Some have said (including me) that she has used racist tactics and is pandering to the racist vote, but that is not the same thing as BEING a racist? 

On that subject, I saw in another post how you claimed people on here said people like you should leave the Party and they don't need your vote?  Could you link me to that?  Maybe it was a one or two time poster, but again I don't see any regular posting that?  Unless, of course, you are a racist, which I don't believe you are?  If that is the case then, yes, I don't think the Dems are going to be pandering to you this time around?

Just for the record, Hillary is not a racist?

Apparently you missed Israel Anniversary-gate this week?  Obama showed he is capable of taking the offense?  He has scared me a little at times, but not enough to counter the obvious backlash that would occur if the SD's overturn the pledged delagates? 

Oh another strawman?  I don't "champion" Obama, I chose to back him when it seemed that he was A) the best choice, in my opinion among the remaining viable candidates and B) the presumptive nominee, again IMO?  You however seem even to encourage the swiftboating of the Democratic nominee just for the slight chance a mathematical miricle will occur?

As far as, "Why haven't they exposed other "issues" that would help them but hurt Obama?", did you miss bitter-gate?  Hillary was the first to jump all over that?  They HAVE tried to bring up issues to make Obama look bad, they just haven't worked well enough to give them the nomination?

Face it?  It's over?  You have said you would vote for Obama, but even when a VAST majority of political analysts say its over you continue to attack Obama and his supporters?

To sum things up:  You're not helping?

by richardshort2001 on 05/17/2008 05:44:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't think (none / 0)
I could have put it better.

by hazmat on 05/17/2008 06:05:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Here let me help you (none / 0)
On that subject, I saw in another post how you claimed people on here said people like you should leave the Party and they don't need your vote?  Could you link me to that?  Maybe it was a one or two time poster, but again I don't see any regular posting that? 

I'm a long time Democrat who has expressed some of the same concerns as LordFoul, I have never voted Republican, I was an Edwards guy and really don't want another four years of Republican rule but I was told

You want to vote for Ron Paul or Ralph Nader? go ahead, they're both great Americans.

Here's a link to the entire thread so you can see how it came about.

As to one or two time poster I'm not sure what catagory does Hazmat fall into by my count he has 250 post.

by Hubble on 05/17/2008 06:53:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
invite anyone (none / 0)
to read that thread, and stand by it. You were acting like an idiot. And if you're so pig-headed, as you appeared there, that Obama is so distasteful to you that you can't even laugh at a good joke, then my advice to you to find someone else to vote for was good. Its a free country after all.

by hazmat on 05/17/2008 09:11:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'll stand by it (none / 0)
If anyone was getting pig headed it was you.

I poked fun at Obama supporters and as LordFoul has pointed out how they call Hillary much worse than "The Christ" even if they do act like he is the messiah come to lead us to the Kingdom. You didn't get the joke, I didn't get yours. In fact you apparently couldn't even get your own joke straight in your head.

but I meant to say Barack instead of Hillary, obviously. A little freudian slip there, putting Hillary's name with Hillary's spin where it belongs.

Then
it was right the first time. damn I wish I could edit after posting

I made a bad joke you didn't find funny WAAH fucking WAAH.

I tried to engage in a conversation with a little humor  and was told to basically fuck off by a "Liberal Democrat".
There is nothing wrong with my sense of humor I'm still laughing, but yours and other Obama supporters humor level seems to only work when you are making fun of others but not when The ObamaChrist is made fun of.

I know being a "liberal Democrat" you undoubtedly are more witty, intelligent, knowledgeable, handsome, and articulate than a poor ole Southern boy like myself who has only been voting Democratic for the last 35 years, a guy who has campaigned and volunteered for numerous Democratic candidates including John Edwards this year and who worked as a volunteer for the 1988 Democratic Convention when it was here in Atlanta.

Yep you could probably give an idiot like me a real lesson on how smart people think, and how to strengthen the party by encouraging dialogue and healthy discussion. NO WAIT!!! You apparently don't care for that. You would rather tell loyal party members to vote for somebody else.

OHHHHH, I GET IT YOU WERE BEING FUNNY! GOOD ONE! Who woulda thunk it.

by Hubble on 05/17/2008 09:54:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
sounds like (none / 0)
you're the one who's still mad.

by hazmat on 05/17/2008 10:04:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Seems like (none / 0)
You still don't have a sense of humor.

by Hubble on 05/17/2008 10:10:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
If (none / 0)
this is all an effort to give me a happy ending, this has all been unnecessary. I told you before, I accept.

by hazmat on 05/17/2008 11:55:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
In case any one missed it (none / 0)

I didn't randomly invite this hubble character to vote outside the party. She threatened to do so. I don't understand the mentality here, but I merely pointed out that this is perfectly acceptable to me. I don't tell people how they should vote. If someone wants to hear me out on how I made my choice, I'm happy, and very open to listening to their point of view as well. This is what Hubble said:

"I won't vote for McCain but there are always a bunch of 3rd party candidates on the ballot, and I'm sure ObamaChrist won't miss my one little vote with the angels on high singing his praises."

The statement from me was not a provocation, simply a response. I didn't say that hubble should vote for someone else, just that (I guess) If you find Obama so detestable, the other choices are fine americans. Is this not true?

By the way, thank you for bringing that thread up again, Hubble. I schooled your ass up and down the internets. Its still a hillarious read. You should be embarrassed, but you're shameless apparently.

by hazmat on 05/18/2008 12:06:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
now, now boys (none / 0)
Please stop this arguing. You guys are just playing into the hands of Rush Limbaugh and Operation Chaos.

If this primary fight goes all the way to the Denver Convention, then Democrats will only have about 60 days to kiss and make up prior to Election Day.

McCain is trying to convince voters that he's a centrist Democrat, running around the country on the "I'm Not Bush" Tour. He might select a Democrat running mate, somebody like Jim Webb.

Then unhappy, disaffected, lifelong Democrats like Hubble might have an option. Independents will certainly have an option.   

by KenTX on 05/18/2008 12:34:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
It would amaze me (none / 0)
if Jim Webb were inclined to run with McCain, but McCain is in a fairly desperate situation. I'm sure he's going to come up with something to shake this race up in the next few months. He simply has to. That's what makes politics fun.

by hazmat on 05/18/2008 12:45:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh yes I feel so schooled (none / 0)
Once again, I bow to your superior wit and wisdom.

Why you continue to refer to me as a she is beyond me, but if it helps you in some way to feel better about yourself feel free to continue. Perhaps it's your attempt to somehow emasculate me thus proving your own manhood.

I realize a dumb Southern boy like myself may not be able to articulate in such a witty and scathing manner as someone of your obvious superior intellect and knowledge.

I was sure that all the cerebral, sophisticated ObamaChrist supporters like yourself would surely be able to understand that the continued bashing of Hillary by the presumptive nominee supporters would only alienate the willingness of many to support the Chosen One.

While I may not agree with Hillary continuing, for whatever reason, her campaign, it surely doesn't' do the party or Obama any great service to bash and name call one of our own. When you support a candidate even in a losing cause to have that person bashed by the winners minions,  as has been the case here on TYT and elsewhere tends to alienate the very people the party will need in November. Besides that, it's just piss poor sportsmanship. I was taught winners don't gloat and they don't antagonize. 

Instead of trying to reach out to those who didn't support Obama, his supporters have adopted the attitude of "our man won and if you don't like it fuck off." Perhaps not the most intelligent tactic, but again what do I know? 

When I speculated about third party candidates it was an attempt to demonstrate how easy is would be for someone who otherwise would surely vote for the Party nominee to be dissuaded by the very tactics being employed by Obama's supporters to decide to vote for someone else, thus repeating the 2000 debacle. I'm sorry if in my unlearned manner I didn't convey the example I was stiving for.

Yes I'm guilty of calling Obama Christ. Only because the way his disciples are so willing to attack otherwise allies who dare to ask questions about what even dumb Southerners like myself see will be coming from the REAL opponents in November.
 
I'm not angry or bitter, I'm concerned because I've seen this arrogance before. In fact four years ago Kerry supporters, many here on TYT forum had the same "our guy can't lose" attitude and yet.......Well we know how that worked out don't we, and the party was pretty much united behind Kerry without all the name calling and sniping that is the modus operandi of the Obama disciples. Anyone who believes that the Cons are going to roll over and play dead are even more doltish than this dense Southern boy.

But if it makes you feel better thinking you "schooled" me then you just keep on thinking that.

Yep, you really showed me, I'll lose sleep over how I was humiliated by a real "liberal Democrat".

by Hubble on 05/18/2008 01:20:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
out of curiosity (none / 0)

who did you support in '04?

by hazmat on 05/18/2008 01:32:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Curiosity killed the cat (none / 0)
But satisfaction brought him back.

As I've said repeatedly I have voted for the Democratic nominee in every election since I was old enough to vote.  I initially supported Edwards and campaigned for him but once Kerry won the nomination I supported him and if you had been around TYT forum then you would know that I was one of his most ardent defenders.

by Hubble on 05/18/2008 01:44:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
since you made a big deal about kerry (none / 0)

I was asking who you supported instead. I don't make a profession out of knowing your past history with posting so don't hold it against me for asking. If it makes you feel any better, I wasn't a Kerry supporter either.

Excuse me for getting your gender wrong. Honest mistake, really. stop hyperventilating. 

by hazmat on 05/18/2008 01:52:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
hazmat, good buddy... (none / 0)
Hey, bobo1 here - 

I have always sensed that you were a good guy who likes to discuss things and think them through. I have never had any issues with you here and have always enjoyed your conversation and contributions...

Now I dont want to seem like Im jumping in a a spat between you and our friends Hubble and Lord Foul. It is certainly not my place to mediate between parties here at TYT - but I felt that I had to interject in some small way maybe another point of view on your original posting here and your discussion with Hubble especially...

I think we can all agree that Obama will receive the nomination. I dont think that is any longer in dispute, mathmatically at least. I will also say that Obama has run a solid campaign and has earned the votes and the respect of millions of voters.

That being said - I dont think you understand the complexity of the situation that the Democratic paty has placed itself in with nominating Obama. I am seriously detecting the "Our guy won, so shut the fuck up and get in line" mentality from you and other Obama supporters here at TYT. Now you and I both know that it is much easier to get things done being nice and conciliatory, and not by being jerks who rub it in others faces... I think there is a certain amount of real pain and suffering on both sides, but screaming and telling others to go to hell isnt gonna solve the differences...

But I find that the Democrats never seem to realize at this point of the election cycle that their candidate (in this case, Senator Obama) in not invincible. When John Kerry and Al Gore reached this stage in their cycles, they were hailed as the saviors of the country and were estimated to beat their stodgy Republican counterpoints by as high as 10-20%. Remember what happened then...

I attribute a lt of this to plain old arrogance. Now this is the part where our friends ProfRich and Chinese Democracy will jump on and tell me to shut up and go to hell, but i'm gonna say it anyway - The foundation for Obama's personality, or more importantly the perception of his character has already been established - unfortunately, he is the Liberal elitist candidate... Sad but true. He has been pigeonholed by the establishment and by the media - and the stories will continue to build on this premise...
 
You can blame this phenomenon on the press, or Hillary and Bill Clinton or whomever, but Im gonna let you in on a little secret - its the Obama supporters that are driving this wedge between the 2 sides of the Democratc Party. Postings like yours and the perception of Obama supporters as being "inexperienced" and "Naive" have really negatively affected Obama's standing not only with the Hard Core Clinton devotees, but with Independents and other onlookers such as myself... I watch in amazement as you guys tear each other apart and accuse each other of hate and bigotry and racism and sexism - all the while, you are not making a very good case for anyone to support any democrat if they weren't already inclined to do so - at least with the Republicans, you know that they hate everyone but themselves and most people (unfortunately) are OK with that... It beats the Hell out of trying to decipher and decide on the Democrats mixed messages...

Now, Im not going to get into the name calling (I really just do that to incite aggrevation with some of our friends here), but the level and fervor of the Obama supporters is both astounding and very troubling. I really believe that some people (especially on the blogs) have taken their support for Obama so seriously that it borders on obsession and in some cases it clouds their sense of reality. I believe even some here at TYT secretly worship at little altars that they have built for this man. Can you ever remember someone so worshipped and adored by supporters in politics? I can only think of 1 in recent history - JFK - Classic cult of personality type - didnt have to say or do much, but the charisma propelled him to the White House (and unfortunately to his doom).

I know Ive run long here (sorry to those with short attention spans) but please, hazmat, recognize that not everyone has boarded the Obama train yet - and also realize that many Democrats wont if this diviseness continues - I wont even get to the other main force that will keep even some loyal Democrats from voting for Obama - race - we'll save that for another discussion...

I appreciate your continued contribution Hazmat - just remember that Non Obama Supporters have feelings and power in this process too...

:)

by bobo1 on 05/18/2008 02:52:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
bobo gets it (none / 0)
In order for McCain to have a chance in a year custom made for Democrats, he will have to frame Barack Obama and his supporters as a bunch of maniacal lunatics. Fortunately, the Obama people are doing the work for him. All he needs to do is appear rational and reasonable, and contrast himself with the Messiah. The divide and conquer strategy will be tested when working class whites, and elderly whites, and white women, and Latinos enter the voting booth and flash back to the visual images of what Barack Obama and his supporters represent. There are Democrats who will refuse to swallow the Hale Bop coolaid for the sake of the party.

by KenTX on 05/18/2008 02:14:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hale-bop Kool-aid (none / 0)
We may think Obama's swell, but at least we don't think he's Jesus.

by hazmat on 05/19/2008 03:18:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I understand what you are saying, sort of... (none / 0)
but the reality is what it is and Obama is going to win the nomination.  The sooner we all come to that understanding, the sooner we can get away from these distractions and get on to exposing McCain. 

One point where you are wrong is where you said, "I think we can all agree that Obama will receive the nomination."  LordFoul has made it clear he still holds out hope that Hillary will win.  It's no accident.  Certainly, Hillary realizes that its next to impossible, but she still insists she believes she will be the nominee.  Whether its to raise money to get herself out of debt, to run in 2012, just because she can't stop being a politician, or because she really doesn't want to let her supporters down is irrelevant.  Until her dishonesty with her supporters ends, Obama will be fighting a two front war, and it DOES hurt the party.

Something to think about:

It is also no accident that, by far, conservative talking heads take the position that Hillary is still in it.  I doubt that is because Hillary is such a strong candidate that they don't think they can beat her.

by richardshort2001 on 05/18/2008 06:48:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
agree with much of this (none / 0)

but you misinterpret me re: the "shut the fuck up and get in line" mentality. I am specifically angry about Hillary's intense anti-Obama campaigning post-Indiana. Also I don't think its "the obama suppoters driving a wedge" between the two sides.

Hear me out on this. Hillary made a calculation some time ago that her best chance to win against Obama is to use wedge politics. I think that's fair game. I absolutely do. She figured that this was the best strategy for her. All's fair in love and war. And war is politics by other means.

What has become apparent over the last few days, to me at least, is that Obama has been fighting Hillary with his hands tied behind his back. Mostly ducking and weaving. Many people thought he might be paddy-cakes because he handled Hillary with kid-gloves. I was one of them. I don't think McCain should hope for the same light treatment. I know some people, perhaps LF and hubbs are among them, think Obama ran a dirty campaign, but most reasonable fair-minded democrats are of the view that it was Hillary that threw the kitchen sink, and never had to endure it in return.

Now some complain that the media was unfair to Hillary. I say let go of it. Really. Every one thinks the media is unfair to their candidate. Look at the contrast between Obama and Clinton on this issue. He never raised the bias issue once. Maybe some surrogates did, I don't know but I didn't see them. To my knowledge only his ardent supporters (rightly in my view), people not connected to the campaign complain about bias. Hillary on the other hand, has whined about it publicly, including during several national debates. She even got her friends at SNL to run a skit on it. Same with race and gender. This goes to the mentality of victimhood. Obama, leading by example, does not play the victim.

You say that Obama has been successfully painted as an elitist etc. There's a difference between Obama and past candidates that received this smear. He doesn't fit the bill. Nobody's buying it. I know some people in Appalachia might buy it, and he has some work to do up there, no question. But it just doesn't fit his story, or his actions. Did you see the quote from Clarke Reed in that Peggy Noonan column about Obama's picture being up in a local cafe he frequents? Besides, not to beat a dead horse, but if Hillary is nominated, they'll use the same smear against her, and to some extent, it will stick. She is not her husband.

And there's another difference. You may say that Obama doesn't inspire you and 49% of the party, but he does inspire the rest of us. In contrast, Al Gore and John Kerry didn't inspire anybody. I'm going to draw some hate from my compatriots on that one, but its my opinion, so there. 

I'll reiterate here as I have a number of times, that I admire Hillary for her acheivements and as a party icon. I hope she plays a role in an Obama administration, if she prefers that over finishing her term out as a senator. I wish her husband could run again because he's a mac daddy. But he can't, so let's get past it.

Now with a little distance from that primary, Hillary is apparently toning down quite a bit. Her campaign in OR has been about 99% positive politics since WV. Her ads have been pro-Hillary, not anti-Obama. I'm not paying much attention to her speeches so I could be wrong about this. My point is, after meeting Chelsea this weekend (she made my weekend man, I'm still glowing from it), I'm going to say I've settled down since I wrote this diary. I was legitimately angry, but I think the times have caught up with me.

Thanks for the kind words, hope you see this. 

by hazmat on 05/19/2008 05:44:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
ummm, sorry don't see it. (none / 0)
since that was a direct response to this by you:

"...I won't vote for McCain but there are always a bunch of 3rd party candidates on the ballot, and I'm sure ObamaChrist won't miss my one little vote with the angels on high singing his praises."

It's pretty easy to conclude he was simply supporting your seemingly apparent decision to support a 3rd party candidate. 

by richardshort2001 on 05/18/2008 12:42:36 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Actually its right there... (none / 0)
You inserted the idea that Obama doesn't need your vote, not haz.

by richardshort2001 on 05/18/2008 12:44:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Are you confused? (none / 0)

After months of listening to Hillary's fake outrage, you see some genuine outrage from an Obama supporter and you're not sure what to do with it, so you serve up more talking points.

by hazmat on 05/17/2008 12:06:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Outrage? (none / 0)
What for?

According to you, you have won!

Bask in the glory

She can't possibly win right?

by LORD FOUL on 05/17/2008 01:10:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
My outrage (none / 0)
is about the fact that she is spending money she has yet to raise to slime the presumptive nominee. She is emboldened to do this by talk of Obama helping her out with fundraising to settle the campaign debt. Therefore her actions since Indiana are unforgivable. My complaint is fully justified. Click the link I provided for internal emails from the Hillary campaign. Its not just me that's saying she's done, they are saying so also.

by hazmat on 05/17/2008 01:15:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Save your rage (none / 0)
for Obama.

Think for 1 minute, what states has Obama won since Wright?

Do you see a problem, honestly from a pure political standpoint? While you are thinking about the results consider these choice morsels.

A) when the "wright" story broke Obama was already the presumptive nominee (the math, as Cenk would say. He did say numerous times it is over)
B) Obama has outspent Clinton 3-1 in each of those states
C) Clinton had her own Bosnia issues to deal with.
D) Dem primary voters are primarily liberal and represent the base of the party.

Do you see what I see? Shouldn't any Dem be concerned over these results? am I way off base here?

Are we simply assuming that any Dem will win due to the "current" political climate.

What happens when the economy suddenly improves in Aug? When oil prices start to fall? What happens when the media really turns on Obama?

Put another way what if Clinton was ahead? would the lead story be her victory, NO

The lead story would be how she has lost all but 1 state since the scandal, how she is a damaged candidate, how the SDs have to step in and save the Dems from her.

Take a whiff, can you smell the media rat at work?

You can think I am disgruntled, you can dismiss my concerns. In the back of your mind you here the truth in my words.

by LORD FOUL on 05/17/2008 03:02:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I think you're mistaken (none / 0)

you keep ascribing to me positions that I have never advocated. For example that I think Obama's going to be a shoe-in. I've been pretty clear in my view that I think McCain is a dangerous candidate. Your posts also drip with the assumption that I hate Hillary. I don't. I'm just pissed off, for good reason. The idea that I'm casting a vote against Hillary, and not for Obama is just, well, silly.

I wouldn't mind seeing her as president. In fact I think she would be pretty good. My reading of the situation is that Obama would be better. Way better. I've written at length about it elsewhere in the forum. Therefore this week as our primary comes up in the people's democratic republic of Portland, OR, I will cast my vote for him.

By the way, I just came back from the Beaverton Saturday market. Guess who I ran into? Chelsea clinton. How about that. She was sweet and greeted my children. Both Obama and Hillary had a huge presence there. I'd say > 50% of people were wearing some kind of campaign paraphenalia. A sizeable chunk were wearing buttons for both candidates. No McCain buttons. No republicans anywhere. You could feel the energy. I was proud to call myself a democrat today. As I was standing there telling Chelsea how much I admire her mother, I couldn't help but think how great it will be when we're on the same team again.

by hazmat on 05/17/2008 04:40:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Confusing the argument with facts (none / 1)

In general I don't care about this conversation since Obama has won and its irrelevant but I care about facts.

Foul claims Obama has melted down post Wright because has only won one state.  Here are the number using March 13th as D-Day for Wright.

States- Obama 1 (NC) + Guam, Clinton 3 (PA, IN, KY)

Notice Hillary won three states she was expected to win before the Wright scandal broke.  Two by narrower margins than had been expected pre-Wright.

Pledged Delegates- Obama has lost 9 off his lead since then.  Not quite a disaster.  If it is Hillary got Hiroshimaed and Nagasakied post-Super Tuesday.

SuperDs- Obama- 81, Clinton 29

Total Delegates- Obama +43

Lord Foul, I really don't want to fight with you but it feels like you are just posting the arguments you get in the Hillary campaign e-mails.  You should be a little more critical of this stuff.  This is a terrible argument when you look at the numbers. 

by ProfRich on 05/18/2008 01:54:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't know where Lord Foul is from, (none / 0)
but I'll bet it's a red state.

He understands the reasons behind the massive Hillary victory in WV. So do Hubble and bobo.

Liberal lunatics like Rich choose to ignore the West Virginia results. They don't like to think about OH and PA.

But I'll make this prediction right now. The candidate who carries Ohio in November will win the election. Take it to the bank.

I'm not saying that McCain will win Ohio, because its too early to say. But if Democrats lose Ohio, you better start getting used to the name President McCain.

At this point, I like McCain's chances against Obama much more than his chances with Hillary.

mccain

by KenTX on 05/18/2008 02:23:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Right church wrong pew (none / 0)
I am from a Purple state (PA)

You are probably right about Ohio

by LORD FOUL on 05/18/2008 07:15:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
question for Lord Foul (none / 0)
If McCain selects Tom Ridge as his VP running mate, what does that do to his chances in Pennsylvania?

by KenTX on 05/18/2008 02:28:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Strickland and Ridge (none / 0)

These two seem obvious potential choices.  The fact that no one in the media mentions them (I have heard Ridge mentioned a couple of times, Strickland not at all) leads me to believe there is something wrong with them.  Skeletons and whatnot.  I know nothing about PA and OH state politics, anyone have any insight?

Oh, and if McCain runs with Webb, Obama is going to run with Nancy Reagan.  Beat that! 

by ProfRich on 05/18/2008 09:03:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Depends (none / 0)
All the haters will have a fit but if Obama is the nominee than his VP must be Clinton.


There seems to be no real perspective here anymore.


Hillary hatred is the fever and almost everyone has it.


Common sense say you select the VP who will unite the party (she has roughly 49%).


Common sense says you select the VP who will help you most in the fall (let's see Hillary helps with women, moderates, seniors, whites and hispanics "polls say african americans support her for VP")

Common sense says you select a VP to balance your weakness. (Hillary is a policy wonk with plenty of insider experience. Further he can unleash the "B" to do the knife fighting that will be needed in the fall)

If she is the VP, PA is ours in the fall. end of story.

If he selects Richardson (as many here would like) PA would be open to McCain.

by LORD FOUL on 05/20/2008 04:35:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Agreed (none / 0)
I think Clinton will be the VP nominee and would be the smartest choice.  Maybe it doesn't "feel" right with the tooth and nail fight between the two, but its hard to see how any Repub combination can beat them.

by richardshort2001 on 05/22/2008 12:11:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Two words (none / 0)

Reagan/Bush

Primary "fights" are meaningless.  They are the equivalent of spring training starter battles. 

by ProfRich on 05/22/2008 12:25:02 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I have said before (none / 0)

McCain has to have OH, Obama can win without it but it obviously makes it a hell of a lot easier.

I suspect the winner will win OH because I think if McCain wins he has to have it by definition and if Obama wins he wins by a larger margin than we saw in 2000 and 2004 so that means he gets OH.

In a series of questions Ken failed to answer the last time we did this I pointed out OH does not even have the longest winning streak.  I am unclear as to why people are so locked into this mentality with OH.

I think its because Ken and his ilk can only comprehend the current election in terms of the last election.

I also pointed out the GOP hasn't won an election since 1908 without CO and thinks don't look good there for McCain. 

by ProfRich on 05/18/2008 12:14:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Rich doesn't get it. (none / 0)
The reason you fail to grasp the importance of the state of Ohio is because you don't understand the demographic and electoral signficance of this all important bellweather. Ohio has been hammered by the economy worse than any other state. It is currently a Democrat state in terms of political control. The remaining inhabitants who have yet to flee are working class whites. If these people reject Obama, it means he will be rejected by working class whites nationwide. In terms of the math, if you spot me OH and FL, you are forced to thread the needle to get to 270. Obama cannot win without winning Ohio. This will become evident when he selects Strickland as his running mate. Then, he will have.a very good chance.

by KenTX on 05/18/2008 01:55:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
If Hillary steals the nomination, (none / 0)
You and the other "cool million" Obama volunteers will vote for her. Hillary supporters are not so inclined to vote for Obama. That's why I'm glad Obama is winning. (Plus, I can't stomach the thought of Bill back on Air Force One)

by KenTX on 05/17/2008 02:00:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hi Ken (none / 0)
What joy will there be in mudville if they kill the hill?

but we both know, she never dies.

I wonder what would be worse for you

Hill as President or Hill as Supreme court justice?

Maybe she can be the next janet reno

We all know how the FBI loves Texas

She's under your chair with a pair of scissors RUN

by LORD FOUL on 05/17/2008 03:08:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Let me make it simple. (none / 0)
If Barack Obama loses in 2008, Hillary is guaranteed the White House in 2012. If Obama wins, Hillary will never be president. How far is she willing to go?

by KenTX on 05/17/2008 03:18:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't know (none / 0)
Turn around and ask her

Seriously, you know what she is doing. She will win no matter what happens. The only way she loses is if she
A) wins the Dem nomination

and

B) loses in Nov.

by LORD FOUL on 05/17/2008 03:31:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The one thing that is sure (none / 0)
Is a conservative like McBush is not going to win. And isnt that what its all about?

by Chinese Democracy on 05/17/2008 08:39:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I wish (none / 0)
I had your confidence.

Kerry once had a big lead in the polls.

Have you noticed how certain economist are now saying how we survived the bubble bursting? What happens when the media portrays the "so-called" economic turn around? What happens when they claim the war is getting better an announce a troop withdraw in Sept. and a lowering of Oil prices

We always have the superior candidate, they always have superior propaganda. Not only is their propaganda superior but it is more precise in its message. Add to that fact the "MSM" is in their back pocket and that spells trouble.

I hope you are right.

by LORD FOUL on 05/20/2008 04:48:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Why do you care? (none / 0)

by Chinese Democracy on 05/18/2008 03:42:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I see where you're coming from, yet (none / 0)

I don't really feel that much animosity toward Hillary.  Maybe part of that is because I really do think it's over for her.  I was kind of pissed earlier with her tactics but now I don't care much.  What tore it for me with Hillary happened a long time ago with some of the votes she made in the senate.  I like the fact that she's tough, but that isn't all there is to it anymore.  Being tough in a campaign and making tough political decisions take different kinds of courage.  She has plenty of the first and is seriously deficient in the second.  I don't see a lot of difference politically between her and McCain.  I would still vote for her over McCain no matter what though, never doubt that.

The next president is going to have to exhibit extraordinary political courage or we are going to go belly up, it's as simple as that.  I do not think either McCain or Hillary have this type of courage, while I still have hope that Obama does.  He exhibited some of it in 2002 when he voted against the Iraq war when it was anything but popular to take that position. 

by bfaul on 05/17/2008 02:09:17 PM EST

dude (none / 0)
correct me if I am wrong but he didn't "vote" against the war. He wasn't in the U.S. Senate then. He was a state senator and it didn't take courage to take that position because of the district he was from was against the war.
Further he added a proviso (I don't have access to the intel) leaving himself the opportunity to change his mind if WMD were found. Which was the politically expedient thing to do.

Don't get me wrong I don't fault Obama for his position if I was from his district I would have done the same thing.

Courage? I wonder Kerry voted for the authorization too, then changed his mind (based solely on hindsight) Clinton stands by her vote. Who has more courage?
Clinton could have "changed her mind" too and that would also have been the politically expedent thing to do.

So, on this issue, who is more pure?

by LORD FOUL on 05/17/2008 03:23:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No, you're quite right (none / 0)
I meant "spoke out against the war".  Sorry, big difference.

by bfaul on 05/17/2008 08:00:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Go to Hell, Hillary | 50 comments (50 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: