She doesn't give a damn about the party! And this alone means that she is not the best candidate. She will do and say anything to get nominated and if she has to destroy the party to do so, then it appears that she will.
And your assessment that she knows how to get things done is a load of crap. What happened to Universal Health Care? She had eight years to get that done and sixteen years later we still don't have it. But amazingly, she had more healthcare lobbyist "hush money" than any other candidate. And now she is running on Universal Health Care? That is like Benedict Arnold running on a platform of National Security.
What she knows how to do is get elected! I believe she is even better at this than her husband. Do you remember the Clinton reelection in '96? It was called "The Clinton Win Ugly strategy" for a reason. Bill got the White House, but up and down the ticket, the DEM got their asses handed to them. And let me remind you that it was that Republican controlled Congress and State governments that gerrymandered the congressional districts, elected two additional right wing Supreme Court justices (ensuring a GOP victory for 'W') and facilitated every despicable policy that has come from the current administration for the last eight years. So yeah, let's all vote for the "fighter" and not for the party! Let's choose the candidate instead of supporting the DEM on every level of the ticket. Let's prove once again that we are the dumber side of the two party side of system.
And lets be clear and not misquote your "nameless source". That person said that it was "suggested to him" that Obama should drop out of the race because Hillary isn't big enough to do it and that she would rather destroy the party's chances than give up. That person said that he didn't like it, but he agreed that Obama was the only one, who he could see doing that for the good of the party. That unnamed supporter is loyal to his party first and his candidate second. It would be great if the entire party felt this way. However, from your taking of that statement of party loyalty in order to construct a weak argument for Hillary, it appears this is obviously not the case.
If by some cataclysm of political fortunes, Barack has to take the backseat, I hope will give a full throated support for Hillary, as the Democratic party nominee. I somehow doubt that her endorsement of him will be as genuine. In the end, it is not the person at the top of the ticket that matters as much as the party and the down ticket results that come from the movement lead by the person at the top of the ticket. More and more it sounds like a lot of the Hillary supporters are convinced the getting her in office is the end result and that nothing after her matters. This is unfortunate.
There is a biblical story about two mothers, who are both claiming an infant as their own. The case is take to a judge who says, "Okay, we will split the baby in two and give each of you half." One mother agrees to this while the second agrees to relinquish her half as not to harm the child. The judge then gives the baby to the second mother as she has shown more concern for the child.
If Barack were to bow out for the good of the party (despite leading in states, delegates, and popular vote,) I would vote for Hillary because it would be a vote for my party. Nevertheless, it would be like giving the baby to the mother, who agreed to split it in two. I sincerely hope our party is better than that.
OK, I take it back: The unnamed Obama supporter is ... drumroll ... Tony Jackson. It was you, my good friend, who said Obama should drop out. And you gave a nice line of reasoning for it, only some of which I put in my post above.
Now to your points here:
1. How is Hilary destroying the party again? I don't quite see that part. Is the OBLIGED to drop out of the race because she's narrowly behind Obama? Is it her duty to not see this through until the end?
Moreover, how can you say a woman who has been championing Democratic causes for 30+ years doesn't care about the party? Remember, this is a woman who didn't run for any political office until she was in her mid-50s. So to say she is out for power at all costs is ... unreasonable. And disingenuous to boot.
2. Hilary wasn't President, numnuts. She was the First Lady, a fact that stirred up plenty of resentment. Oh, right, and she was facing a Republican-dominated Congress. So that she didn't get Universal Healthcare then is no sign that she couldn't do it now as PRESIDENT.
3. What evidence do you have, exactly, that nominating Clinton will ensure Democratic losses down ticket? I might argue that putting up Obama against McCain would be more likely to hurt Democrats.
4. You unveiled yourself, Benedict, as the Obama traitor. Bravo. That takes nuts. And balls. Also: I didn't quote you, let alone misquote you.
5. You have bought into the same stereotype of Clinton that fuels Republican rage: that she is mean to her core and uncaring about anyone but herself. Yet when asked to cite instances of this, you're left staring dumbly at your blog. Don't buy the hype. Clinton is as genuine and kind as anyone who's nuts enough to run for President can be.
In the end, the arrogance of Obama fanatics is ... disheartening. They think that because they have a SLIGHT lead in these metrics that Clinton should bow out, despite a lack of evidence that it's "hurting the party" against McCain. It's hubris to the Nth degree. Obama is a milquetoast presidential candidate who can give a great speech, but who, upon closer inspection, shows spectacularly bad judgment and a failure to grasp the intricacies of all the issues.
You say that HRC's supporters are disheartening? I think HRC's, and her supporter's, that she "deserves" the nomination is repulsive. Seriously, that is the argument. Not that she is a better candidate, not that she is smarter (debatable at best), and not that she will bring better change. But that she has been in politics enough, and has gone through enough shit that she deserves it. I have heard on many occasions that was "the default VP" during Bill Clinton's presidency. After the health care fiasco that she couldn't push through, I see no sign of that.
You are right, she has been in politics a long time. But I don't see her senate work--and really, this is all we can go on, aside from her legal work--being anything which even holds a candle to Obama's. If she has a genius, it is that she knows to hang with the powerful until it's safe to bare her fangs.
Read carefully, David, your post from the unashamedly pro-Obam site, DailyKos (which I used to read regularly, but since they became campaigners for Obama, only occassionally). Read again, my friend. That diary entry focuses on one year of their Senate history, 2007. Yes, the year he was beginning his run for President, Obama started introducing (not passing all of) the bills he thought would look ... helpful ... in a campaign.
But go back a year, two years, or three, and you'll see that Clinton was more active than Obama. Not only was she more active, she tended to have more bipartisan sponsors for her bills.
I don't think Clinton deserves the nomination because she's been in politics longer. I've never heard a pro-Clinton person utter those words, in person or in the media. So not sure where that's coming from (except Obama's surrogates).
She deserves it, however, because when it comes to policy and the ins and outs of DC politics, Clinton IS smarter. She has a caucus to turn to, while Obama just ... well, doesn't. And if you don't have a caucus, and you don't know from DAY ONE how things get done, it's gonna be a long four years.
Look, Obama would be infinitely better than McCain. Obviously. And he's whip-crack smart. I just don't think he can deliver on the grandiose pronouncements he's made. I know you want him to. I know all Obama fans wanna believe. But this is the time for a pragmatic look, a clean-up. This is not the time for Obama. Come back again in 8 years.
Oh, and calling her 30+ year marriage a "hanging out" to eventually win the presidency is just ... lame.
>> Oh, and calling her 30+ year marriage a "hanging out" to eventually win the presidency is just ... lame.
That's not at all what I said. I said that people claim that that is experience. Which it is not.
As for "being in politics longer"? Uh.. she said it herself in the comment that McCain has a lifetime of experience, she has a lifetime of experience, and Obama "has a speech". So, know your candidate.
I don't think she's smarter. It's a judgment call. I think she's craftier, but I don't trust her.
Quote: "If she has a genius, it is that she knows to hang with the powerful until it's safe to bare her fangs."
Also: I said that she was in politics longer AND had a more distinguished record of moving things forward. Obama ... well, he has a speech. A dozen speeches. And some election-year bills introduced.
I don't know how someone can listen to Clinton and Obama answer the same question --- on, say, nuclear proliferation ---- and not conclude that Hilary is simpyl more knowledgeable about most pressing national issues than Obama.
Perhaps "smarter" wasn't the precise word. But " "knowledgeable" is.
Remember, also, that "your girl" is a liar, who claimed that she ran through sniper fire in Bosnia, which is true, if you consider an eight-year-old girl reading poetry to be sniper fire.
This is also a candidate who bragged four months before Super Tuesday that the race would be over by the magic day, has blown through $100 million, is currently stiffing a number of small businesses who helped her with campaign, and had to publicly fire top-level campaign managers and strategists -- picked for loyalty's sake rather than competence and vision -- midway through the campaign.
This is your genius? God help us if she steals the nomination.
The sniper fire thing was ... regrettable. And disheartening to me, a Hilary fan. I can't argue with that. (Though I could point out that Obama has told his fair share of whoppers recently, not the least of which is this notion that he was unaware of Rev. Wright's cuckoo politics until he saw them on the news a few weeks ago.)
So Hilary dumped campaign advisors. That happens ALL THE TIME in politics, and it's not a sign that she's a bad candidate, merely that her strategists weren't up to par, given this election at this time.
Also, define "the end." If she's still down in pledged delegates, the popular vote, and Obama has enough superdelegates to hit 2024 ... does she THEN give up -- or does she go with the nuclear option at the convention? I think that'll be the supreme test of whether she's in it for the party or for herself and her Lady Macbeth-level ambition.
Again, I don't buy into this notion that if Hilary sees this through to the convention and urges the superdelegates to lean her way that she is somehow destroying the Democratic party in this general election. In fact, I think we could choose our candidate in late October and Democrats would STILL come together, because they loathe Bush and McCain that much.
Lemme ask you this: If the tables were reversed --- that is, if Obama trailed Hilary in pledged delegates and popular vote by the same margin she currently trails him --- would you be advocating that Obama drop out? I have my doubts. Because Obama has somehow convinced you, through his speechifying, that he would be a better Chief Executive of the federal government.
You've drunk the Kool-aid, and in two years, when King Obama hasn't revolutionized Washington the way he promises to, I wonder what song you'll be singing then. Hrmmmm...
>> if Obama trailed Hilary in pledged delegates and popular vote by the same margin she currently trails him --- would you be advocating that Obama drop out?
Yes. Absolutely.
And ya know what? He would drop out. Don't roll your eyes. You know he would.
And your assessment that she knows how to get things done is a load of crap. What happened to Universal Health Care? She had eight years to get that done and sixteen years later we still don't have it. But amazingly, she had more healthcare lobbyist "hush money" than any other candidate. And now she is running on Universal Health Care? That is like Benedict Arnold running on a platform of National Security.
What she knows how to do is get elected! I believe she is even better at this than her husband. Do you remember the Clinton reelection in '96? It was called "The Clinton Win Ugly strategy" for a reason. Bill got the White House, but up and down the ticket, the DEM got their asses handed to them. And let me remind you that it was that Republican controlled Congress and State governments that gerrymandered the congressional districts, elected two additional right wing Supreme Court justices (ensuring a GOP victory for 'W') and facilitated every despicable policy that has come from the current administration for the last eight years. So yeah, let's all vote for the "fighter" and not for the party! Let's choose the candidate instead of supporting the DEM on every level of the ticket. Let's prove once again that we are the dumber side of the two party side of system.
And lets be clear and not misquote your "nameless source". That person said that it was "suggested to him" that Obama should drop out of the race because Hillary isn't big enough to do it and that she would rather destroy the party's chances than give up. That person said that he didn't like it, but he agreed that Obama was the only one, who he could see doing that for the good of the party. That unnamed supporter is loyal to his party first and his candidate second. It would be great if the entire party felt this way. However, from your taking of that statement of party loyalty in order to construct a weak argument for Hillary, it appears this is obviously not the case.
If by some cataclysm of political fortunes, Barack has to take the backseat, I hope will give a full throated support for Hillary, as the Democratic party nominee. I somehow doubt that her endorsement of him will be as genuine. In the end, it is not the person at the top of the ticket that matters as much as the party and the down ticket results that come from the movement lead by the person at the top of the ticket. More and more it sounds like a lot of the Hillary supporters are convinced the getting her in office is the end result and that nothing after her matters. This is unfortunate.
There is a biblical story about two mothers, who are both claiming an infant as their own. The case is take to a judge who says, "Okay, we will split the baby in two and give each of you half." One mother agrees to this while the second agrees to relinquish her half as not to harm the child. The judge then gives the baby to the second mother as she has shown more concern for the child.
If Barack were to bow out for the good of the party (despite leading in states, delegates, and popular vote,) I would vote for Hillary because it would be a vote for my party. Nevertheless, it would be like giving the baby to the mother, who agreed to split it in two. I sincerely hope our party is better than that.
Reply
Now to your points here:
1. How is Hilary destroying the party again? I don't quite see that part. Is the OBLIGED to drop out of the race because she's narrowly behind Obama? Is it her duty to not see this through until the end?
Moreover, how can you say a woman who has been championing Democratic causes for 30+ years doesn't care about the party? Remember, this is a woman who didn't run for any political office until she was in her mid-50s. So to say she is out for power at all costs is ... unreasonable. And disingenuous to boot.
2. Hilary wasn't President, numnuts. She was the First Lady, a fact that stirred up plenty of resentment. Oh, right, and she was facing a Republican-dominated Congress. So that she didn't get Universal Healthcare then is no sign that she couldn't do it now as PRESIDENT.
3. What evidence do you have, exactly, that nominating Clinton will ensure Democratic losses down ticket? I might argue that putting up Obama against McCain would be more likely to hurt Democrats.
4. You unveiled yourself, Benedict, as the Obama traitor. Bravo. That takes nuts. And balls. Also: I didn't quote you, let alone misquote you.
5. You have bought into the same stereotype of Clinton that fuels Republican rage: that she is mean to her core and uncaring about anyone but herself. Yet when asked to cite instances of this, you're left staring dumbly at your blog. Don't buy the hype. Clinton is as genuine and kind as anyone who's nuts enough to run for President can be.
In the end, the arrogance of Obama fanatics is ... disheartening. They think that because they have a SLIGHT lead in these metrics that Clinton should bow out, despite a lack of evidence that it's "hurting the party" against McCain. It's hubris to the Nth degree. Obama is a milquetoast presidential candidate who can give a great speech, but who, upon closer inspection, shows spectacularly bad judgment and a failure to grasp the intricacies of all the issues.
We need a genius right now. We need my girl.
7.
Reply
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633
You say that HRC's supporters are disheartening? I think HRC's, and her supporter's, that she "deserves" the nomination is repulsive. Seriously, that is the argument. Not that she is a better candidate, not that she is smarter (debatable at best), and not that she will bring better change. But that she has been in politics enough, and has gone through enough shit that she deserves it. I have heard on many occasions that was "the default VP" during Bill Clinton's presidency. After the health care fiasco that she couldn't push through, I see no sign of that.
You are right, she has been in politics a long time. But I don't see her senate work--and really, this is all we can go on, aside from her legal work--being anything which even holds a candle to Obama's. If she has a genius, it is that she knows to hang with the powerful until it's safe to bare her fangs.
Reply
But go back a year, two years, or three, and you'll see that Clinton was more active than Obama. Not only was she more active, she tended to have more bipartisan sponsors for her bills.
I don't think Clinton deserves the nomination because she's been in politics longer. I've never heard a pro-Clinton person utter those words, in person or in the media. So not sure where that's coming from (except Obama's surrogates).
She deserves it, however, because when it comes to policy and the ins and outs of DC politics, Clinton IS smarter. She has a caucus to turn to, while Obama just ... well, doesn't. And if you don't have a caucus, and you don't know from DAY ONE how things get done, it's gonna be a long four years.
Look, Obama would be infinitely better than McCain. Obviously. And he's whip-crack smart. I just don't think he can deliver on the grandiose pronouncements he's made. I know you want him to. I know all Obama fans wanna believe. But this is the time for a pragmatic look, a clean-up. This is not the time for Obama. Come back again in 8 years.
Oh, and calling her 30+ year marriage a "hanging out" to eventually win the presidency is just ... lame.
Reply
That's not at all what I said. I said that people claim that that is experience. Which it is not.
As for "being in politics longer"? Uh.. she said it herself in the comment that McCain has a lifetime of experience, she has a lifetime of experience, and Obama "has a speech". So, know your candidate.
I don't think she's smarter. It's a judgment call. I think she's craftier, but I don't trust her.
Reply
Also: I said that she was in politics longer AND had a more distinguished record of moving things forward. Obama ... well, he has a speech. A dozen speeches. And some election-year bills introduced.
I don't know how someone can listen to Clinton and Obama answer the same question --- on, say, nuclear proliferation ---- and not conclude that Hilary is simpyl more knowledgeable about most pressing national issues than Obama.
Perhaps "smarter" wasn't the precise word. But "
"knowledgeable" is.
Reply
Reply
This is also a candidate who bragged four months before Super Tuesday that the race would be over by the magic day, has blown through $100 million, is currently stiffing a number of small businesses who helped her with campaign, and had to publicly fire top-level campaign managers and strategists -- picked for loyalty's sake rather than competence and vision -- midway through the campaign.
This is your genius? God help us if she steals the nomination.
Reply
So Hilary dumped campaign advisors. That happens ALL THE TIME in politics, and it's not a sign that she's a bad candidate, merely that her strategists weren't up to par, given this election at this time.
Reply
Reply
Lemme ask you this: If the tables were reversed --- that is, if Obama trailed Hilary in pledged delegates and popular vote by the same margin she currently trails him --- would you be advocating that Obama drop out? I have my doubts. Because Obama has somehow convinced you, through his speechifying, that he would be a better Chief Executive of the federal government.
You've drunk the Kool-aid, and in two years, when King Obama hasn't revolutionized Washington the way he promises to, I wonder what song you'll be singing then. Hrmmmm...
Reply
Yes. Absolutely.
And ya know what? He would drop out. Don't roll your eyes. You know he would.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment