FORUMS > Gay News & Events Forum Rules

It's completely over for Hillary. The fact that her and her supporters do not understand math is not my problem,
unless I want to feel guilty for our poor state of education in this country - which in the end is all our faults, as American citizens.

I watched this skit all day and laughed because it is spot on. I just do not understand how someone who proclaims to love this country and party continues to drive a wedge into the party she is a part of. It truly sucks for her and her supporters that she will most likely not be the nominee because it is a dream that is going to die for this round but it is what it is. Be a person with class and step aside and work to now unite your party, not divide it. EGO is mans downfall.

Actually I think Hillary is a very inteligent woman, but she has really been hurting herself of late by not just accepting the inevitable, and switching into the uniting the party mode. Do you guys think she'll put this race behind soon and work to unite the party for the sake of getting OBAMA elected? GOD I HOPE SHE DOES IT SOON !!! If she keeps this up, she could ruin her chances, and influence for her future political activities.

I agree, i do think she is intelligent, i just do not think that she is showing that side of her at the moment. I dont know if she will work hard to unite the party if the nomination becomes Obama's but I sure hope she does.

Hillary does have some valid points in why Obama won't do as well as she would during the elections. I just think they were raised too late in the cycle for them to have much of an impact on the primaries. I do find it interesting that Obama hasn't been able to win very many big states.

I am not a fan of any of those running for office. I may be voting for a third party.

ksguy saidHillary does have some valid points in why Obama won't do as well as she would during the elections. I just think they were raised too late in the cycle for them to have much of an impact on the primaries. I do find it interesting that Obama hasn't been able to win very many big states.

I am not a fan of any of those running for office. I may be voting for a third party.

Those concerns have been raised from the very beginning, its called the Bradley effect, and tons of pundits have spoken to it. She just is being very bold about it now, which i think is completely fair for her to be because lets face it, he is going to have issues. My problem with how she is doing it though is that it is clear that Obama will be the nominee. It would be wise of her and good for the party if she showed her support for him and campaigned for him and positively pushed him amongst her supporters. Instead she is exploiting the issue for her benefit, trying to get the nomination which if these exploitations would work it would be a different story, but its not going to, and she will still lose. Because of this she should be encouraging her voters to vote democratic, not continung to divide the party. just my thoughts...

my vote has been and always will be for hillary. gimme someone who has already BEEN in the white house for 8 yrs as opposed to someone who has barely served in public office. i mean come on already.

liftordie saidmy vote has been and always will be for hillary. gimme someone who has already BEEN in the white house for 8 yrs as opposed to someone who has barely served in public office. i mean come on already.

If she doesnt win?

I really don't think Obama got much negative press until March and April when the Rev Wright got national exposure on ABC News. Until then the media focused on Obama's message, which was then very broad and abstract even for a politician. It wasn't till Wright's comments from the pulpit were brought up that he had to answer tough questions. He only is now able to start getting to talk about nothing all the time, which he does very effectively.

the country will continue it's 8 year downward sprial. this time headed up by an inexperienced democrat as opposed to a war mongering republican.

liftordie saidthe country will continue it's 8 year downward sprial. this time headed up by an inexperienced democrat as opposed to a war mongering republican.

LOL ok. Ill take my chances.

I am not stunned often, but Hillary's comments last week about how she was a better candidate with white voters was just sort of staggering.

with Hillary virtually as close as Obama is to securing the nomination, it would be a grave injustice to democrats everywhere for her to just drop out when the vote is nearly 50/50 between them give or take the day of the week, and the fact that she has been winning big states that will be necessary to win in november. yeah he's ahead of her by a little bit, but not by such a large margin that she should drop out. this so called wedge is nothing more than media framing the election, and since the media has the memory of a drunk goldfish, when the nominee is decided, they will have forgetten all about this "wedge" and the democratic party will be united.

so whoever you support, just be patient and remember that it ain't over till it's over.

I agree with Raptor, I see the media in this. Of all people to kick it off it was John Stewart on the Daily show who first suggested that the Democratic nomination process is taking too long.

The American media, (print, TV and radio)is first and formost a business. They have to measure what they spend to what they gain to satisfy the stockholders.
Maintaining the expense of keeping journalists with each candidate is costly and is yielding little return on the investment. This I think is a very negative aspect of American journalism.

On the bright side, I think the long drawn out primaries may have a positive effect for the Democratic party. States that vote later usually rarely count in the nomination process. Democrats in these states are getting to participate. They get to count. Fellow Republicans aren't getting this advantage. This is something for Political Scientists to keep an eye on as this unfolds.

I certainly hope the Democratic party and the nominees
ignore the media hype. The media has had too much hand in the American electoral and political process.

She's a good politician and has run a decent campaign. This is a different kind of year.
Any assertions to the contrary (per this thread)
really ignore any sense of reality.

I don't know the meaning of her present assertions about white voters and Obama. That she and many people think she'll be a better President than Obama is irrelevant if she has basically lost. Of course the loser thinks he's the better candidate.


Close race, but it's over.


I hope she realizes it.

I don't think people would be saying a lot of things about Hillary if she was a man. They would see her staying in the race as being strong etc. I think there has been so much negative pr about the Clintons, from the right, that it begins to stick. People forget that when Bill Clinton was in office it was some of the best years this country had. If it hadn't been for the right wing nuts, constantly trying to get the Clintons, it probably would have been an even better time. Unfortunately Bill handed them his dick on a platter!

Obama gives a good speech, and offers hope for a change, but I am just concerned about his lack of experience. Look at the whack job we have in office now, and his lack of experience.

Whoever gets nominated, it will be far better for us, and the country, than the disaster we have in place now.

I love Hillary, but she thought she had it in the bag.

Such hubris never sustains itself.

Frank Rich's column the other day about 2008 not being 1968 or 1988 really touched a lot of relevant points about this entire election cycle. The media - corporate controlled, population by baby boomer talking heads - just doesn't see that the world has, well, moved on from their self-importance.

And Obama, born in 1961, same as Douglas Copeland, author of Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture, is decidedly post-boomer in his approach to many things.

Even as a Hillary supporter, I did find the skit to be funny...even if it makes me a racist. I think the worst part of this campaign has been the overall demonization of Hillary Clinton. The Clintons play rough but thats the enviroment they have come from, look at the campaigns, the scandals and the impeachment. Honestly this primary has not been that bad, Obama supporters need to stop whining...hate to see you all crumble when the Republicans start.

People don't seem to get why she is still running, but it makes sense if you actually look at her life and what she has dealt with. She fights through her problems and doesn't give in, she is being besieged from all sides and continues to rally. They have gone through the dark times and this is possibly the last campaign they will run, so I don't see a reason for them to give up.

That quote has been turned into something way beyond its context and meaning, but why am I surprised since this is the same people who declared she intentionally darkened an ad to make Obama darker. The intention was clear: Obama has been losing support from lower income and white demographics, and this is shown in his losses in Ohio, TX, Penn and IN. Thats not racist, thats the truth. It should be troubling that he has been losing whites by double digits, it should be an issue that dems take into consideration for their nominee. He isn't helping his case by not going into WV and campaigning like JFK did, he should work on a message that resonates with those demographics.

I still don't understand why gay people have such a hardon for Hillary. Sure, she's got the theoretical 8 years of experience in the white house, but is nobody looking at what actually happened during those 8 years?

After we contributed millions of dollars and hours of effort to support Bill, he turned around and sold us up the river. We wound up with Don't Ask, Don't tell. He signed the Federal DOMA.

Not to mention the fact that his presidency was rocked with so many scandals that the public knocked the democrats out of control of the legislature and replaced them with republicans.

Would he be losing white votes if the Republicans and Hillary's campaign weren't spreading fear about this or that and trumping up the entire Wright controversy?

While I still think much of America is sadly racist, I also question things like the 3AM ad used here in Ohio, which employed such disgusting pandering and subliminal xenophobia/racism...it made me ashamed to be in a state where people fell for it. And ashamed to consider Hillary a person worthy of the Presidency of the United States.

How was the 3am ad racist? Thats a new one and would like some proof of that rather blunt statement. Considering the entire ad is just about security and experience, I would like to know how it in anyway makes an agrument to treat black people in a worse way than whites.

That ad was about fear of the other. Racism is much more than white people against black people.

I'll let Kenyon Farrow explain it, as he does a much better job than I ever will.

http://kenyonfarrow.com/2008/03/01/hillary-clinton-ready-at-3am-to-blow-up-some-people-of-color/

I think the 3 am ad was legit. I was supposed to focus us on the question: whom do we want running things at the moment of truth? One could interpret it as xenophobic or racist, but the innocent interpretation works for me. The Clinton campaign was highlighting Obama's inexperience. Many people asked the same question about her: what has she ever run? It's a fair question in both cases.

Accusing the other side of ******ism is a strategy that both campaigns have used. The implication since PA in much of the media is that there is something wrong with the white voters who don't vote for Obama. Or that there is something wrong with the blacks who do. Or the women who prefer Hillary. This way of thinking presumes that voters don't care about the issues, and reduces them to their basest motives. But there are good reasons to vote for BOTH candidates, and the actual problem is probably overstated.

I admire Hillary Clinton. I like that she doesn't back down from a fight. I voted for her in the primary. But I can't see how she can win at this point. And I am worried that her supporters (and Obama's as well) see the other side as the enemy. After last week, it's pretty clear she cannot win. So it's tough to see why she should continue her negative campaign against Obama when he has got it all but locked up.

Maybe her tone is softening as the inevitable catches up with her. I hope so.

liftordie saidthe country will continue it's 8 year downward sprial. this time headed up by an inexperienced democrat as opposed to a war mongering republican.

Personally, I think attitudes like this are what are hurting our country. How about trying a little optimism on for size? Hey, I'm supporting McCain 100% because I sincerely feel in my heart that he is the most deserving, and the most qualified, to be President. That being said, if the election doesn't go the way I would hope, and Obama or Hillary were to be the new President, as an American I would get behind the President and give them a chance 100%. If people just throw up their hands and say "Oh God, we're going to hell in a hand basket" right from the get-go, it will do nothing to help bring this country together. Sadly, it appears the only kind of things that seem to bring us together are tragedies like 9/11. All Americans should make a commitment that who ever is our next President, that we are going to give them a chance to be a great President. We need to stand united if we are truly going to hold on to our place in the world that other countries look up to.

I am an independent voter. Although I am a registered Republican - I am more of a green libertarian than anything else. I voted for Al Gore in 2000 ; voted & worked for John Kerry in 2004. I voted & worked for Nader in 1996.
Somehow I never trusted Hillary Clinton,
now I understand more clearly why.

I like McCain and Obama the best - I want the contest to be between the two best people who want to be president.
In the primaries, I wanted McCain and Richardson to win each party's nomination, but now that I have heard Obama speak & reply more and read his writings -
I love him too ! He speaks, thinks, and writes like the awesome founders of our country of which I sometimes wonder if we are actually worthy.


I could care less about political parties - people should care about who has the most honest character and better ideas to move our country forward in the best direction.

GobB saidI agree, i do think she is intelligent, i just do not think that she is showing that side of her at the moment. I dont know if she will work hard to unite the party if the nomination becomes Obama's but I sure hope she does.

Of course she will. Hillary is as hard core a partisan Democrat as they come. It puzzles me that people doubt that sometimes. Sure she is unnaturally ambitious, anyone with the stones to run for President has to be. She won't destroy the party to make it happen though, I can promise you that.

My question, would Obama have been able to do the same if things were different? I think not.

jarhead5536 said[quote][cite]GobB said[/cite]I agree, i do think she is intelligent, i just do not think that she is showing that side of her at the moment. I dont know if she will work hard to unite the party if the nomination becomes Obama's but I sure hope she does.

Of course she will. Hillary is as hard core a partisan Democrat as they come. It puzzles me that people doubt that sometimes. Sure she is unnaturally ambitious, anyone with the stones to run for President has to be. She won't destroy the party to make it happen though, I can promise you that.

My question, would Obama have been able to do the same if things were different? I think not.[/quote]

Ill go ahead and disagree with you on that point. Obama has always showed her support and respect. There were several nights where she won and he congratulated her and gave her praise for a hard fight in his speech (unifier). I can think of several nights where he won and she never mentioned him or congratulated him (as the posted skit says "sore loser").

Furhtermore, msot of Obamas supprot would stil vote democrat in the fall but hers has a chance of fleeing to the otherside or not voting at all. That is why it is so important to for her to support because it is her voters that will play a big role in deciding the election. Regardless of what either of us believe though, again, I jstu hope that the party pulls together.

I don't doubt that he will try, I just doubt his supporter's ability to vote for anyone but him if they had to. Obama didn't create the cult of personality around himself, but his fans are some really scary people. Seriously, screaming, fainting, delirous people make me very nervous. And the way the AA community has all but said, either it's Obama or we're staying home, is not healthy.

jarhead5536 saidI don't doubt that he will try, I just doubt his supporter's ability to vote for anyone but him if they had to. Obama didn't create the cult of personality around himself, but his fans are some really scary people. Seriously, screaming, fainting, delirous people make me very nervous. And the way the AA community has all but said, either it's Obama or we're staying home, is not healthy.

Yes but the AA community has been democratic since the Kennedy years. they will vote for him or clinton period. Clintons voters on the other hand usually vote republican and without her there is a good chance they will do it again, hence her support is so needed. Plus if you read the political articles and listen to pundits they will tell u, Obamas coalition is the basic democratic party, so believe me, most of them will still vote democratic. Its hillary's that are the swing voters. and where has obama shown that he would not support clinton? if memory serves me right, when it was clear there was a divide i think he was the first to state that he would work to unify the party, clinton followed. and lastly obmama has reached out to all people, clinton all but forgot the educated, the blacks, those who make over 50,000 etc.. and all those other people that were not white working class voters. those are facts, not opinions and the fact is her actions show that she is not about unifying, at least not right now. regardless i will vote for whoever is the nominee.

peterstrong said


It's completely over for Hillary. The fact that her and her supporters do not understand math is not my problem,
unless I want to feel guilty for our poor state of education in this country - which in the end is all our faults, as American citizens.

Interesting analysis or lack thereof. General insults of her supporters and a comedy skit are definitely not the "intelligent" way to convince people to see things your way.

Let's have educated discourse rather than critical soundbites. maybe that way we can see positive changes in politics.

liftordie saidmy vote has been and always will be for hillary. gimme someone who has already BEEN in the white house for 8 yrs as opposed to someone who has barely served in public office. i mean come on already.

Bush has been there for 8 years...

In December of 2007, Hillary was leading in all national polls, had more money, had a large majority of black support, had a staggering 200+ committed superdelegates, and somehow, she blew it.

She's had 48 chances to date to convince primary voters to vote for her and she has come up short in 32 of those states.

And as for big states...WTF? She can't win Western states. She can't win Midwestern states. She can't win Southern states. She can't win educated people. And dammit, since when was it a bad thing to have an education?

And as for experience, Cheney and Rumsfeld have nearly a century of experience and figured out a way to fuck things up. Experience only means so much. And by the way, Obama has more years of elected experience than Clinton does.

Frankly, Obama has run a flawless campaign. I've been disappointed by the way Hillary has handled hers, and now she's $20 million in debt while Obama has raised nearly $200 million.

I can keep going on and on...

And how is 8 years as First Lady any kind of experience? Its just a title giving to the wife of a President. First Ladies aren't elected lawmakers, they're spouses.

bigbluefanindc saidIn December of 2007, Hillary was leading in all national polls, had more money, had a large majority of black support, had a staggering 200+ committed superdelegates, and somehow, she blew it.

She's had 48 chances to date to convince primary voters to vote for her and she has come up short in 32 of those states.

And as for big states...WTF? She can't win Western states. She can't win Midwestern states. She can't win Southern states. She can't win educated people. And dammit, since when was it a bad thing to have an education?

And as for experience, Cheney and Rumsfeld have nearly a century of experience and figured out a way to fuck things up. Experience only means so much. And by the way, Obama has more years of elected experience than Clinton does.

Frankly, Obama has run a flawless campaign. I've been disappointed by the way Hillary has handled hers, and now she's $20 million in debt while Obama has raised nearly $200 million.

I can keep going on and on...

Written very nicely

She wasn't simply Bill's wife those eight years. Her itinerary, released a month ago shows she was very active in forming and implementing policy.

That said, her big win tonight in WV is pretty insignificant. She is going to pick up 8-10 pledged delegates tonight, but Obama has picked up more Supers than that in the last two days. Why, even pledged delegates are switching their support. Why she is still in the race is bewildering.

Y'all stop claiming Hillary has eight years of White House experience. None of it was spent in the oval office. After the failed health care initiative, the most important thing she did was pick out china. Stop deluding yourselves.

Obama has been lifting up entire communities all his life. It's natural for him to take on a community that is hurting right now...the USA. He'll hire smart folks, and we'll return to peace and prosperity.

The very fair system of superdelegates will surely do what's right, and realize that she's more electable in November than Obama is, and she will end up with the nomination in Denver. That's what the superdelegates are there for: to do the right thing--because the masses don't have the party's best interest at heart.

(I hope you can hear my sarcasm). The superdelegate system is the most un-democratic (small "d") system I've ever heard of! I think it's worse than the Electoral College by a mile!

XRuggerATX saidY'all stop claiming Hillary has eight years of White House experience. None of it was spent in the oval office. After the failed health care initiative, the most important thing she did was pick out china. Stop deluding yourselves.

Obama has been lifting up entire communities all his life. It's natural for him to take on a community that is hurting right now...the USA. He'll hire smart folks, and we'll return to peace and prosperity.

In addition to the china, she also helped pick out Christmas ornaments.

But in all seriousness, if she's so electable, why isn't she winning?

Hey, I gotta say that the venom being spewed at HRC here is pretty uncalled for. I agree that she should withdraw because it's over. But she has put up a fair fight and has the right to continue if she wishes.

I think the "train wreck" metaphor is ridiculous.

When all is said and done, Hillary Clinton will be remembered for running a tough campaign that she lost because she miscalculated, focusing too heavily on Democrat-majority states (which she won and the Dem will need in the election). She is up against a brilliant, charismatic candidate who has outsmarted her. No doubt. He has won fair and square, and, to his credit, has emerged without having discredited his idea of a "new politics" too much.

Obama deserves to win.

But stop trying to burn Hillary as a witch. It reeks of misogyny and has nothing to do with reality at all.

I saw this sketch on SNL Saturday night and I thought it was hilarious.

I don't really care if she refuses to give in or not. In the long run I am sure she will do herself more damage, which means she will have a harder time to win in 2012. Her chances of winning this yr went through the window along time ago and almost everyone I knew (a few of her former supporters) is slowly becoming very disgusted with her too.

Can't wait for WV primaries tonight. Although she is the projected winner by a landslide, I would love to see an upset.

I don't understand why you're taking the blame and the rest of us for the failure of the education system. If anything it's every politicians fault. I think, no... I believe that all politicians are exactly the swine, just in differents political parties and states. They all screw each other, they screw us, they manipulate each other and they manipulate us. Aside from that video being laugh my ass off funny, there was a point in there that can't be emphasized enough. And that point is: that the popular vote isn't THE VOTE that nominates OUR President.

It's with that fact that I most distrust politicians overall, and that which led me to wonder why they even bother to run a campaign, when obviously it's only a matter of doing a series of favors and convincing the right people with money to vote for them. The only conclusion I came up with is that the whole campaign trial is meant to be a psychological and emotional road that we all travel, that both divides us against one another and inevitably "convinces" us that we're making a well thought out "choice" of our next President. Though it's really us filling out a national survey on the pulse of the nation and we really don't have a choice in the matter at all. Doesn't even one remember, for lack of a better example, John Kerry winning the Popular Vote, and George Bush winning the Electorial Vote?

No, we're not to blame for the problems in this country. We shout in protest, sit in silent protests, and sign many petitions to pass laws that would better favor our county, but if all the difference any us fortunate citizens makes just becomes another bill sitting in a desk ignore or going through and endless processing that will never gaurantee our needs and desires as citizens of this country.

Oh poor Politicians got a hard job; sitting in a luxurious office, living off of hard earned tax dollars, going to fancy balls and functions, and having to answer to the voice of a people whose needs contradict his own. There's no pity for who play bloodsport with our money, lives and the lives of the U.S. Military. If anybody should have pity, and I'm sure they do; it's the rich and the wealthy politicians who sit in the lap of luxury and go on screwing us over 'because [we] just don't understand' what it means to be [them].

Nevertheless, I'm voting for Hilary. All politics aside, I wouldn't mind seeing what difference gender can make in running this complex proud country of Ours. Not that I know what it's like to have a President of any other 'card' in office, but it's all the same.

boiwunderkind1984 said All politics aside, I wouldn't mind seeing what difference gender can make in running this complex proud country of Ours. Not that I know what it's like to have a President of any other 'card' in office, but it's all the same.

I wouldn't mind seeing that difference either, boi. But not with THIS woman. We'll have a woman president in our lifetime, I predict (for me, that gives us about 32 more years, according to the actuarial tables!)

NNJfitandbi saidHey, I gotta say that the venom being spewed at HRC here is pretty uncalled for. I agree that she should withdraw because it's over. But she has put up a fair fight and has the right to continue if she wishes.

I think the "train wreck" metaphor is ridiculous.

When all is said and done, Hillary Clinton will be remembered for running a tough campaign that she lost because she miscalculated, focusing too heavily on Democrat-majority states (which she won and the Dem will need in the election). She is up against a brilliant, charismatic candidate who has outsmarted her. No doubt. He has won fair and square, and, to his credit, has emerged without having discredited his idea of a "new politics" too much.

Obama deserves to win.

But stop trying to burn Hillary as a witch. It reeks of misogyny and has nothing to do with reality at all.

Thanks for saying that. The malicious gleefulness at her loss is pure ugly and nothing else. Hillary is not a monster, and anyone who thinks she is drank the Arkansas Project/American Spectator koolaid decades ago.

NNJfitandbi saidHey, I gotta say that the venom being spewed at HRC here is pretty uncalled for. I agree that she should withdraw because it's over. But she has put up a fair fight and has the right to continue if she wishes.

I agree. I take back my comment about the Christmas ornaments.

But, I must say, I loved Bill Clinton as President and was proud to cast my first vote for him in 1996 and to defend him during impeachment. However, Hillary is not Bill - not even close. If anything, Obama far more resembles Bill of 1992 than Hillary does. In 1992, Bill exuded excitement, energy, vitality, and yes, change. When he spoke, you were mesmerized, awed, moved to action. He engaged you and made you care. That's the very same quality I see today in Obama.

redheaded_dude said[quote][cite]boiwunderkind1984 said[/cite] All politics aside, I wouldn't mind seeing what difference gender can make in running this complex proud country of Ours. Not that I know what it's like to have a President of any other 'card' in office, but it's all the same.

I wouldn't mind seeing that difference either, boi. But not with THIS woman. We'll have a woman president in our lifetime, I predict (for me, that gives us about 32 more years, according to the actuarial tables!)[/quote]

I understand your concerns, but honestly, if you can see the "evil" in one politician than you can see the evil in all them. It's when they start sounding like saints is when you know you've been hypnotized by the piper. Hell, I voted for Kerry because he appeared to be the lesser of two evils at the time. Until I learned more about sentence structure, than doubled back realizing he was almost as bad as Bush himself. Anyway, I knew he couldn't be that much of a better guy, but at least he wasn't Busch.

As for now, I think that Obama is, by comparison, like Kerry and McCain is like Butch, all those years ago. She's the only one whose a different stance so far. Not that I'm expecting her to follow through, than again I don't expect that of any of their Campaign Promises. The only hype I need is for the next Madonna album, not for the person whose supposed to be watching out for Our and my own wellbeing.

I apologize if it sounds like I'm being harsh and/or attacking you. I'm just dead serious about how I feel.

bigbluefanindc said[quote][cite]I loved Bill Clinton as President and was proud to cast my first vote for him in 1996 and to defend him during impeachment. However, Hillary is not Bill - not even close. If anything, Obama far more resembles Bill of 1992 than Hillary does. In 1992, Bill exuded excitement, energy, vitality, and yes, change. When he spoke, you were mesmerized, awed, moved to action. He engaged you and made you care. That's the very same quality I see today in Obama.

Hey, no argument from me that Hillary isn't Bill.

She lacks a lot of the things he has. And that's a good and a bad thing.

He is a master politician, with an unbelievable ability to mesmerize people.

I recall seeing him speak in '92 -- shook his hand -- and the excitement was palpable. It was truly thrilling to hear this man talk about the future when we had George "I've had it with Saddam Hussein" H.W. Bush as President. Those who remember his "kindler, gentler America" (which I'd take any day over his son's America) also must remember the promise the Man from Hope showed in 1992.

Hillary does not have his presence. Does any woman? (By the last statement, I mean to ask: is it only her, or is it us, too? Could a woman inspire us the way he did?)

But she has come into her own. I have been impressed with her as Senator from New York, and I was particularly impressed with her during the Kerry-Bush election. She is a formidable politician, cares deeply about the issues, and is under no illusions about what it will take to pass universal healthcare.

As for the Obama/Bill Clinton '92 connection, I see what you mean -- two brilliant, charismatic younger men ready to lead, who inspired the young. (Though Gerry Brown tried to get the youth vote in 1992.) Both impossibly charming.

But Obama has something that Clinton didn't have. He lacks Clinton's unbelievable mastery of detail, and his superhuman well-informedness; but he has an amazing rhetorical gift. He is eloquent in a way that Clinton never was. His speeches are intellectual, nuanced.

He also is like the young Clinton in a way that may not bode well for the future. Clinton was going to pass universal healthcare and underestimated the opposition. His first act -- trying to end the discrimination against gays in the military -- met with fierce resistance from within his own party (Sam Nunn the bigot). And his 1992 program went down, except for welfare reform, which was hardly a progressive idea. So much for "reinventing government."

Obama talks about a new style of politics. It remains to be seen whether he understands the forces that will mobilize against him as President. I for one believe that style is less important than the agenda. Which is why I supported Hillary in the primary.

Because, whatever you say about her, you can't deny that one person who understands the opposition to a progressive agenda is . . . Hillary Clinton. She knows how to fight, maybe even loves to fight. And people apparently hate her for it.

People need to stop throwing out all of those pre election notion that Hillary was going to be the nominee, thats just ignorance of the media and of people not really paying attention. Iowa polls were usually a tie or each canidate traded the lead...I personally thought Edwards would win it but didn't. Hardcore liberals didn't care for the Clintons, and were not happy about Hillary's Iraq vote. It was going to be a much tougher slog than they expected.

I also get irrated when people try to downplay what she has done as First Lady, yea she did get experience. Bill had her working on issues and policies since his days as a governer, like Rural Health Care and Education. Yea the Health Care Reform was a battle lost, but she has at least fought the battle and has learned from it. I rather have the battle tested solider than the naive idealist.

And she is quite electable, I don't think you can compare winning caucus of a few thousand to winning a state primary of millions. Obama also had rather demographically favorable places the entire month, and this race has been mostly built on demographics. Obama did have a winning coalition for a Democratic Primary...but so did McGovern, Mondale, and so on.

Although I doubt any candidate will bring actual, believable revolutionary change, Obama is closer to where I stand, if only an inch. I've never taken him for a "naive idealist". He knows exactly what he's doing. He and his campaign advisors realized the only way to stand above the fray in this election was idealism, and I think idealism is much needed now. I can only HOPE Obama, if elected, will lean more to the left than Clinton did back in the 90s. Now is perfect opportunity to do so.

And heres Howard Zinn's assessment of the Clinton presidency.

http://www.zpub.com/un/zinn12.html

liftordie saidmy vote has been and always will be for hillary. gimme someone who has already BEEN in the white house for 8 yrs as opposed to someone who has barely served in public office. i mean come on already.

Whatever, liftordie.

As if being the wife of a President can be counted as real experience. What a laugh.

Also, the superdelegates are now nearly rushing toward Obama. He is the nominee. Clinton has the right to continue her campaign but judging by her continuing Obama criticisms and demographic stirring in WV, I think she's decided to poison the well. By the look of it, there seems to be a cold war between the Clintons and the democratic party.

Hey NNJfitandbi - you also summed up why she did not win, I think - like u said because she is "such a fighter"
after eight yrs of such a fighter instead of a uniter in the whitehouse, I think we are all ready for an Obama or McCain presidency - we have had enough of fighters - we need a uniter and both these guys are just that - sometimes we get lucky as americans, now it looks like we are heading into another lucky phase with the right kind of leaders being offered from both parties, the kind we so desperately need.
If Hillary is not bad, then neither is Bush or Cheney.

peterstrong saidHey NNJfitandbi - you also summed up why she did not win, I think - like u said because she is "such a fighter"
after Eight yrs of such a fighter instead of a uniter in the whitehouse, I think we are all ready for an Obama or McCain presidency - we have had enough of fighters - we need a uniter and both these guys are just that -

I markedly disagree with this statement. The idea of calling McCain a "uniter" not a fighter is amazing to me based on his background. As far as Obama, the jury is still out....on everything with regards to him. I wonder what you will say in 4 years...


*** Toast to Hillary and her win tonight in W. Virginia......

I think Peterstrong is correct that Obama's appeal as a "uniter" resonated with the voters. Many feel that Hillary's bunker mentality is old politics. They want a more "enlightened" leader.

As for McCain being a uniter, I'm also inclined to agree with him a bit. He has been willing to reach across the aisle.

BUT he's a supply sider, wants us in Iraq for 100 years, and will put more partisan justices on the Supreme Court. And he has almost renounced his support for campaign finance reform. Not really sure how these policies will unite America.

OK, he is respectful of Democrats. He's not Karl Rove's kind of candidate.

But his ideas suck.

I'm wondering why, with all the shit tossed about over Obama's pastor, there's been no shit tossed about over Rod Parsley, McCain's "spiritual advisor".

McGay saidI'm wondering why, with all the shit tossed about over Obama's pastor, there's been no shit tossed about over Rod Parsley, McCain's "spiritual advisor".

because jesus only loves republicans. duh.

We'd hear a LOT about McCain's advisor if HRC were the nominee.


Time will tell if Obama will try the guilt
by association thing that hurt him pretty bad.

really Ryan?? it is experience. do u think she never attended official presidential visits with her husband. and he never discussed polices with her?? do you think he is the only 'husband' in america who never took his 'work' home with him and discussed it with his wife. i think u are NAIVE.

liftordie saidreally Ryan?? it is experience. do u think she never attended official presidential visits with her husband. and he never discussed polices with her?? do you think he is the only 'husband' in america who never took his 'work' home with him and discussed it with his wife. i think u are NAIVE.

I may be NAIIVE but at least I'm not a rascist... I don't see anything wrong with Obama's campaign. Hillary Clinton's attitude just does not appeal to me. I STILL feel that being married to a president constitutes as actual experience running a country.

If she ran the country half as much as she ran her campaign, you'd be worried about her so called "experience" to.

Yeah, I said rascist

liftordie saidreally Ryan?? it is experience. do u think she never attended official presidential visits with her husband. and he never discussed polices with her?? do you think he is the only 'husband' in america who never took his 'work' home with him and discussed it with his wife. i think u are NAIVE.

I don't buy this. If Obama was elected, and we had 8 years of amazing prosperity, and he filled Michelle Obama in on nearly every issue facing him, (and many presidents have done so with their wives) I still wouldn't count that as presidential experience...and I like Michelle Obama 10 times more than her husband.

...racist...



I couldn't help myself.

McCain has so many pastor problems. He is backed my John Hagee who has called the Catholic Church the "Great Whore" and other such wonderful things. The pressure is already building up on McCain who has refused to denounce Hagee in the way Obama has denounced Wright.

Expect this to become an issue now that Obama is the presumptive nominee. It will be a great pastor fest. At the rate McCain is going with this issue it is like he is trying to alienate the Hispanic vote.

And what's this! A new Gallup poll shows that Bush hurts McCain more than Wright hurts Obama.

...and one term in office i guess makes a great senator!!! not really

liftordie saidmy vote has been and always will be for hillary. gimme someone who has already BEEN in the white house for 8 yrs as opposed to someone who has barely served in public office. i mean come on already.

Yeah! There's nothing like riding the coat tails of an actual President in order to lay claim to "experience"!

Maintaining the Lincoln bedroom does have its priveleges, I guess.

liftordie said...and one term in office i guess makes a great senator!!! not really

Hillary Clinton was not an elected or appointed official. First Lady is not a paid position, and therefore she was not a federal employee. As such, she did not hold a Top Secret or even Secret level clearance. If Bill Clinton was sharing with her national security information, he was in violation of the law.

I don't buy this argument that they had pillow talk every night about issues of policy and national security which then constitutes eight years of experience. If that were the case, then, she must accept full responsibility for the failures of his presidency as well, such as DOMA, Don't Ask Don't Tell, and NAFTA.

MunchingZombie saidMcCain has so many pastor problems. He is backed my John Hagee who has called the Catholic Church the "Great Whore" and other such wonderful things. The pressure is already building up on McCain who has refused to denounce Hagee in the way Obama has denounced Wright.

Expect this to become an issue now that Obama is the presumptive nominee. It will be a great pastor fest. At the rate McCain is going with this issue it is like he is trying to alienate the Hispanic vote.

And what's this! A new Gallup poll shows that Bush hurts McCain more than Wright hurts Obama.

What's the population on this poll? West Virginia?

nicensmoothla said[quote][cite]McGay said[/cite]I'm wondering why, with all the shit tossed about over Obama's pastor, there's been no shit tossed about over Rod Parsley, McCain's "spiritual advisor".

because jesus only loves republicans. duh.[/quote]

Crackenmeup!!!

I think that's the best one-liner on realjock ever!

liftordie saidreally Ryan?? it is experience. do u think she never attended official presidential visits with her husband. and he never discussed polices with her?? do you think he is the only 'husband' in america who never took his 'work' home with him and discussed it with his wife. i think u are NAIVE.

Yeah, how many times has Laura Bush rolled her eyes at her husband, day in and day out with his homework.

George, finish that Iraq quiz!

George, learn your sentences and phrases!

George, you can't play with Rummy until you finish your game of Risk!

George, learn your multiplication table. All else is fuzzy math!

yada yada yada yada!

NNJfitandbi said

As for McCain being a uniter, I'm also inclined to agree with him a bit. He has been willing to reach across the aisle.

I'm glad Hillary has been able to reach across the aisle and work with GOP senators such as John McCain.
Both will readily admit respect for the other.
I'm glad Hillary has shown her detractors that she can work together with Republicans.

I will explain this as best as I can since it seems like it is too hard for some Obama supporters to get. You cannot not equate the experience of Obama and Clinton, she has more on any level that you look at it.

She has worked on law and policy issues since she was in college, she was part of the legal team that worked on the Impeachment case of Nixon.

She has been in a White House and worked for the Executive Branch on policy issues in AK and nationally. She helped developed health care and education reform for the state and then tasked health care reform nationally. Everyone likes to point out she lost the major battle, but she did get SCHIP past...so it was not a total lost.

Hillary has been in Senate longer than Obama, and has worked across party lines...even with the same people that worked to impeach her husband. Yes she does have some votes that might sit well with liberals and dems, but it happens when you get a record.

She has a unique position to have been working with various levels of government and its different sections. She has amazing breadth of policy and would fight for those policies with the same resilence.

Stop belitting her experience or what she has accomplished in her tenure as First Lady in AK and of the Nation. Maybe if you studied up on her, you wouldn't be as quick to spout off those talking points.

darkeyedresolve saidI
She has been in a White House and worked for the Executive Branch on policy issues in AK and nationally.

When was she in Alaska?

redheaded_dude saidWhen was she in Alaska?

perhaps this photo of her will jog your memory

nicensmoothla said
because jesus only loves republicans. duh.

ROFL

how true

or at least they think so.....

darkeyedresolve saidI will explain this as best as I can since it seems like it is too hard for some Obama supporters to get. You cannot not equate the experience of Obama and Clinton, she has more on any level that you look at it.

She has worked on law and policy issues since she was in college, she was part of the legal team that worked on the Impeachment case of Nixon.

She has been in a White House and worked for the Executive Branch on policy issues in AK and nationally. She helped developed health care and education reform for the state and then tasked health care reform nationally. Everyone likes to point out she lost the major battle, but she did get SCHIP past...so it was not a total lost.

Hillary has been in Senate longer than Obama, and has worked across party lines...even with the same people that worked to impeach her husband. Yes she does have some votes that might sit well with liberals and dems, but it happens when you get a record.

She has a unique position to have been working with various levels of government and its different sections. She has amazing breadth of policy and would fight for those policies with the same resilence.

Stop belitting her experience or what she has accomplished in her tenure as First Lady in AK and of the Nation. Maybe if you studied up on her, you wouldn't be as quick to spout off those talking points.

Sometime in 2003, I watched an interview with Hillary Clinton on PBS. She was defending her war vote. "No regrets" she said. And with that, my mind was made up. Everyone suspected she'd run soon, including me, and that night, I decided that I wouldn't vote for her if she did indeed run. I could see that she was pandering. With the war drums beating, she joined the rest of her bullshit opposition party called the democrats, to give Bush the power to go on a rampage. But few stayed strong. Flashfoward to 2008 and that vote comes back to haunt her. The most defining vote she'd probably ever have and she blew it. With all that experience she should have been suspicious of this administrations hasty call for war.

I see that many Clinton supporters like to either sweep that vote under the rug or downplay it but the reality remains, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, hundreds of Americans dead, a trillion dollars down the toilet, and the surge of anti-americanism across the globe.

Here, her experience is contrasted with a lack of dissent, a contempt for the truth as well as contempt for international law.

"Stop belitting her experience or what she has accomplished in her tenure as First Lady in AK and of the Nation. Maybe if you studied up on her, you wouldn't be as quick to spout off those talking points."

I should also note that its extremely easy to belittle a candidates experience and record when (by the looks of it) someone hasn't researched it.

In short, I want a highly intelligent, resilient, and for the most part, truthful person with as little Washington experience as possible for president.

Well, actually I want private property as well as government abolished and complete citizen democratic control...but I guess I'll have to wait.

Well I would like to make a point to all Hillary supporters that they seem to not get:

ACCURACY TRUMPS EXPERIENCE.

It doesn't take experience alone to accredit someone for the job. If GW Bush were running in this election, do you think he could trump his experience?

Just because you haven't heard of Barak Obama until the last few years as opposed to Hillary over the last decade and a half because her husband was the President, doesn't mean Obama is less qualified. Barak has been at the state and local levels just as long as Hillary has increased her visibility from the state and local levels to the federal level. That counts too!

Lastly, I would also like to point out that Hillary had a 20+ lead in polls and started with more campaign money than Obama did by the end of 2007. Now Obama has the delegate and superdelegate lead, has won most states and the popular vote. Why can't that remarkable turnabout for Obama count for him? Trends suggest reality, just the same as the trends of the economy since July has suggested the realities of a recession. GET A CLUE! and stop denying reality.

Hillary's "experience" includes a lot of corporate law including being on the board for wal-mart. sorry but that kinda took away a lot credibility in my book as she goes back and forth coast to coast saying she always defended working men and women since she didn't do anything to encourage change in the company when it came to their opposition to labor unions, their joke of a healthcare plan, or the workplace environment for women. she mostly remained silent and had her own pet projects like helping women in the company, but never really did anything. but then again, she wasn't running for office back then.

darkeyedresolve saidI will explain this as best as I can since it seems like it is too hard for some Obama supporters to get. You cannot not equate the experience of Obama and Clinton, she has more on any level that you look at it.

She has worked on law and policy issues since she was in college, she was part of the legal team that worked on the Impeachment case of Nixon.

She has been in a White House and worked for the Executive Branch on policy issues in AK and nationally. She helped developed health care and education reform for the state and then tasked health care reform nationally. Everyone likes to point out she lost the major battle, but she did get SCHIP past...so it was not a total lost.

Hillary has been in Senate longer than Obama, and has worked across party lines...even with the same people that worked to impeach her husband. Yes she does have some votes that might sit well with liberals and dems, but it happens when you get a record.

She has a unique position to have been working with various levels of government and its different sections. She has amazing breadth of policy and would fight for those policies with the same resilence.

Stop belitting her experience or what she has accomplished in her tenure as First Lady in AK and of the Nation. Maybe if you studied up on her, you wouldn't be as quick to spout off those talking points.

You forgot to do your research on Obama. Thanks for the one-sided argument.

Relax

Still think we need a Hilary/obama ticket

Hilary 2008 - 2016
Obama 2016 - 2024

DJBens77 said

Still think we need a Hilary/obama ticket

Hilary 2008 - 2016
Obama 2016 - 2024

I am not against a combined ticket either... dont know how well it would work but not against it. Only prob with your ticket is that Obama will probably win the nomination as he has earned it. Please do not suggest that he play second fiddle to someone he has beaten. This undermines the whole reason he ran.

I'll keep sticking my my girl until she decides she's done. She's has the right to stay in the race and stick it out until Obama reaches the 2,025 he needs to officially win the nomination. Her staying in and winning key states only continues to highlight major problems Obama could face come fall should he be the nominee.

Obama's message of unity and bipartisanship cuts no ice with me at all, none. I am no mood to be accomodating or conciliatory. I want to fight, not compromise. There is an awful lot of excellent social policy legislation stockpiled just waiting for this moment when we have a Democratic administration and a solidly Democratic Congress.

Hillary is a fighter, and I am sure ready to crush the Republicans into submission. They deserve it after what they have done to this country.

If we could all just step back for a moment to get some perspective.

Isn't it nice not hearing from the Ron Paul people as much?

for all you people supporting Obama (whom i do not dislike) since he's practically won the nomination (in your words) and will win anyway, i guess you have nothing to worry about by Hillary staying in the race now do you?

Here are some numbers that show just how close they STILL are.


OBAMA HILARY
POPULAR VOTE SO FAR
16,680,827 48.4% (O) 16,381,989 47.6% (H)


INCLUDING MI AND FL
16,680,827 47.6% (O) 16,710,298 47.7% (H)

Assuming it is over when it is still this close is insulting to everyone who has and who has yet to cast a vote.
They should allow a FL and MI do-over... Otherwise a whole lot of people are being ignored. When it is this close , that would be a shame. Democrats need to fight for the people to be heard if that is what our platform will be in November.

Pierrecadot saidHere are some numbers that show just how close they STILL are.


OBAMA HILARY
POPULAR VOTE SO FAR
16,680,827 48.4% (O) 16,381,989 47.6% (H)


INCLUDING MI AND FL
16,680,827 47.6% (O) 16,710,298 47.7% (H)

Assuming it is over when it is still this close is insulting to everyone who has and who has yet to cast a vote.
They should allow a FL and MI do-over... Otherwise a whole lot of people are being ignored. When it is this close , that would be a shame. Democrats need to fight for the people to be heard if that is what our platform will be in November.

Cant count michigan. he was not on the ballot. Furthermore rules are rules...its not based on pop vote but delegates... and all parties agreed to the rules. funny how when things dont go as expected, we want to rewrite rules. those pesky little things.