Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technoratin the wake of ten straight losses, Clinton's going to need some miracles to win, and Mike Huckabee's already ahead of her in line for divine intervention. But the question is how much damage she'll do to Obama and the Democratic chances before she quits.
If the fight goes to the convention, we know the answer: Unless she totally routs Obama in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, her sole remaining path to the nomination depends on convincing the superdelegates to overturn the will of the voters, and convincing the credentials committee to honor the problematic Michigan and Florida elections. So she'll have to practically destroy the party to save it, or more accurately to save herself. Assuming a possible breaking sex scandal doesn't bring down McCain, he already beats Clinton by 12 points in the latest poll, while Obama defeats him by 7. If the young voters, independents, and African Americans who Obama's enlisted in droves stay home in November because they feel they've been betrayed, Clinton's chances would be slim to none.
But she still can do real damage to Obama with her negative attacks in the remaining primaries, particularly in swing states like Ohio. Recent match-ups show Obama a solid victor in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Virginia, and Oregon, and dead even in Ohio, while Clinton goes down to defeat in all of them. But depending on how negative she gets and how long the primary battle continues, she could cost the Democrats the election by forcing Obama to spend his time responding to an endless succession of petty attacks, and by giving the Republicans ready-made talking points, like Hillary's comment that only "one of us is ready to be commander in chief."
The potential damage is magnified if you count Clinton's surrogates. At the Youngstown, Ohio rally following Clinton's Wisconsin defeat, International Association of Machinists President Tom Buffenbarger called Obama supporters "latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies." That's despicable rhetoric, echoing the worst Limbaugh/Fox myths about limousine liberals, while it dismisses the majority of union members who just backed Obama in the Wisconsin and Virginia primaries, or the members of unions like SEIU, The Teamsters, and the United Food and Commercial Workers, who just endorsed him. It also happens to totally steal its language from the sleazy "latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading" anti-Howard Dean ads of the right-wing Club For Growth, that helped give us the disastrous candidacy of John Kerry.
If repeated enough, though, those myths have the potential to stick. Clinton supporters have just created a new "527" political committee, which while technically independent and issue-oriented, is explicitly designed to allow Hillary supporters to evade the standard $2300 donation limits. The group aims to get contributions of $100,000 or more from as many as 100 Hillary donors, so they can pour $10 million in ads into the next round of critical races. Whether or not this is legal, and that's arguable, no other candidate has done anything remotely similar in this election. And since the ads have no checks of accountability, they'll be as nasty as their backers decide.
Between Clinton's actions and those of her surrogates, they might just stigmatize Obama so much that some of her supporters stay home in November, instead of voting for him. They'll also encourage Republicans and independents who've been crossing over to support Obama do the same, or even vote for McCain despite his embrace of Bush's disastrous policies. I think Obama will still win, so long as his supporters do everything possible to make that happen. But Hillary's attacks will plant the seeds of doubts. And these will diminish the magnitude of Obama's likely victory just enough to make far harder for him to pass the major changes we need.
Clinton's attacks could also make a difference in down-ticket races. Right now, Obama mobilizes huge new constituencies that could elect a wave of new Democratic Senators, Congressional representatives, governors and legislators. But if Clinton manages to damage his appeal sufficiently, he will become far less of an asset even if he still wins. Plus the longer she remains in the race, the more he has to spend money responding to petty attack ads like one in Wisconsin where she accused him of avoiding debates, although he'd already participated in 18 and had two more coming up. It also means, as Tom Edsdall has pointed out, that the Democratic National Committee risks getting so starved of cash because it's all getting diverted to the nomination fights, that the DNC can't develop the critical grassroots infrastructure to implement its 50-state strategy.
Hillary may give up if she fares poorly in Ohio and Texas. Bill intimated recently that she had to win both or she was likely done. But she's talked of fighting all the way to the convention, as have her key strategists, so it's at least possible that she could keep the race in limbo until less than 10 weeks before the November election, making it far harder for Obama to focus on defeating McCain.
One solution, ironically, could come from the superdelegates. They were established originally as a conservative force in the Democratic Party, a bulwark against grassroots insurgencies like McGovern. In 1984, they actually handed the nomination to Walter Mondale, for his disastrous candidacy, despite Gary Hart's lead in elected delegates. But they also have an ostensible mandate to consider the Party's greater good, and if they acted in this fashion, they could play a key constructive role.
Suppose a critical mass of superdelegates did what 400,000 petition-signers just asked them to do in a MoveOn/Democracy for America ad that ran in USA Today-and pledged to honor the will of the voters? Suppose they announced in advance that they'd support whichever candidate had more elected delegates going into the late August convention? Suppose they also came up with a joint solution to the Michigan and Florida mess, where these states lost their delegates by violating a Democratic Party agreement on when states could hold their primaries? It would be a travesty to validate their sham elections given that the candidates couldn't even campaign in Florida, that Obama and Edwards had pulled their names from Michigan ballot, and that Clinton herself told New Hampshire Public Radio that her staying on the Michigan ballot was irrelevant because Michigan's vote "is not going to count for anything."
But what if the superdelegates acted now, to make clear that they will not validate those two elections as they stand, and that they'll encourage their colleagues on the Credentials Committee to do the same? As an alternative, they could urge those two states to do what the DNC has already suggested, and rerun their elections as caucuses. Yes, this would cost some money and effort, but if the experience of the states that have held them is any guide, it would also offer a major chance for the party to mobilize and engage new supporters, and it would bring participants together in a way that reminded them of the values they shared in common. If the two state parties, both dominated by Clinton supporters, still refused to go along, the superdelegates could also offer the alternative of simply seating Clinton-Obama delegates 50-50, to make it a dead wash. But they need to make clear that Clinton won't be able to pull out a last-minute victory by gaming the rules.
Facing a relatively united bloc of precisely those superdelegates that Clinton still hopes to win, I suspect she'd be far more likely to quit, and do far less damage while still in the race. Key party elders like Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi are already working to ensure a convention process that pulls the Party together, rather than splitting it apart. They and others might play an additional role by speaking out against destructive negative campaigning (whether by Clinton or her surrogates), and making clear that if this goes too far, she will lose their support.
Were Hillary running less of a scorched-earth campaign, it could continue onto the convention without major damage. But she's pursued this approach from the moment Obama emerged as a serious challenger, and seems only to be reaffirming it more in recent weeks. That means that if Democrats really want to avoid a divisive fight, they'd do well to unite around Obama now. He just got the endorsement of the 6-million member Change to Win Coalition (and individual member unions like SEIU, the United Food and Commercial Workers, UNITE/HERE, and the Teamsters). The United Steel Workers, a national social justice leader, initially endorsed John Edwards, and will make a decision at their next board meeting. It's time for the other major industrial unions and progressive organizations to commit too, or to reconsider their earlier support for Clinton.
That's also true of prominent individuals, like Edwards, who I originally supported. It's now well overdue for him to encourage his supporters to back the legitimate inheritor of his quest for change. Maybe Clinton will still make an improbable comeback, but the longer she keeps campaigning, the more attacks and divisiveness we'll see. The more party leaders speak out to prevent this from happening, the less risk that she'll create lasting damage in her desperation to hold onto a prize that's now almost certainly slipped away.
Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, named the #3 political book of 2004 by the History Channel and the American Book Association. His previous books include Soul of a Citizen: Living with Conviction in a Cynical Time. See www.paulloeb.org
72 Comments so far
Show AllKathyodat, my friends who volunteered for Obama in Iowa said the Clinton campaign reps they met were very brusque and pushy, offending the locals with their rudeness. If politely asked a question on what Hillary's policy was on some issue, her people would dismiss the questioner as a pest. This snooty attitude was endemic in her campaign workers: "You yokels just line up and do as you're told and vote for Hillary," was the attitude. That's when they weren't loudly complaining about how 'backwards' Iowa was in front of the residents. Also, my friends met several people from different parts of the state who were PAID to attend Clinton rallies and hold signs. (Wonder where she spent all her money?) And her ground organization was chaotic -- her volunteers didn't know what they should be working on half the time. What permeated the entire Clinton campaign was a sense of upper middle-class entitlement -- Hillary deserves the nomination just because she's Hillary and she's famous.
Just yesterday I was told that, while Obama has had four offices open in Vermont for some time, Hillary has yet to open up even one -- with the primary two weeks away. It may be a small state with few delegates, but those delegates will be going to Obama.
Aside from Obama's appeals to hope and change and his innate charisma, this is why Hillary is losing -- her workers are offending voters and her organization is incompetently run, and I have yet to hear the Punditrocracy talk much about those two points.
lillulu, I don't think so. These addict-codependent relationships have pretty strong bonds. Especially for the codependents.
kathyodat
canuckchuck, you're right. What self-respecting woman would "stand by her man" after he left the White House when he behaved like a lecher and shamed not only her but the country. She wanted to be president is the reason behind it. Now she's all kissy-kissy with him for photo-ops. Give me a break. Watch what happens when she loses the nomination. Divorce will follow shortly.
RSJ, impressive diatribe. I often can't finish such long posts, but this one was great.
And I agree, I've seen a number of clues that Obama is a closet progressive. Of course, the Republicans willing to vote for him don't even care about that at this time. They are appalled at what their party has become and they are caught up with his message of let's work together. I like it too. I especially like his message that we have the power.
And everything you say about Hillary Clinton is true and then some. If this is an example of her "leadership" when the going gets rough, no thanks. It's also not encouraging how inefficiently she's spent her war chest especially when compared to how impressively Obama utilized his funds. Not to mention her disastrous campaign strategy decisions, such as her "big state" strategy. I like the fact that he's made effective strategy decisions. Overall I think he wins the leadership contest. And the people he's chosen as advisers sound better than the ones she's chosen, starting with her war hawks.
kathyodat
Mr. Loeb wrote: "At the Youngstown, Ohio rally following Clinton's Wisconsin defeat, International Association of Machinists President Tom Buffenbarger called Obama supporters 'latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies.'"
Yet she's accusing Obama of using Rovian tactics? And now she's so desperate she's coming off like an irritated mother telling the kids to turn that loud music down: "Shame on you, Barack Obama!" Does she really think this will win her many votes, especially among those under 30? If she won the nomination, would she be shaking her finger at McCain that he should also be ashamed of himself while he coasted to the White House? This is truly pathetic.
Going into this debate in Ohio on Feb. 26, you've got wonder which Hillary will show up? Now she's desperately accusing Obama of Rovian tactics, and she's basing that charge on two things – whether she once said NAFTA would be a "boon" to the American economy and whether or not her health care plan forces people to buy health insurance. Obama's campaign quoted the word "boon" from a Newsday article that the paper later corrected, but that doesn't invalidate the fact, although she hopes it will, that she has supported NAFTA, extremely unpopular in out-of-work Ohio. Remember the whole flap about Dan Rather's story on Bush's Texas Air Guard record and how it all came down to whether the documents were authentic? That was Rove's thing – cast suspicion on the minor point of whether the document copies were authentic and invalidate the whole story. The copies were never absolutely proven to be forgeries, and couldn't be, but the thing is, there was plenty of other evidence that Bush had skipped out on part of his Guard service that was ignored. Now Hillary's focusing on the single word "boon" and Obama is playing Rovian tricks? Please.
On the health care thing, George Stephanopoulos a couple of Sundays ago got Hillary to admit that she would have to develop some kind of "enforcement mechanism" to get people to sign up for her health care program. She didn't specify what "enforcement mechanism" she'd use, but the fact that you have one means you are planning to force people to pay for your health care plan whether they like it or not.
This all calls into question her judgment, which is a major part of good leadership: Last week she was "honored" to be on the stage with Obama, after calling him a plagiarist; this week she's calling him a liar and Rovian dirty trickster. Which of these reflect her good judgment? Why would she be honored to share the stage with the contemptible human being she's tried to make Obama out to be?
It's too late for her now, but she should have fired Mark Penn and her other high-priced staff months ago and gone with her instincts -- these days it's just gotten silly as the only real 'change' in her campaign is the message on her signs, which seem to be altered almost weekly: "Experienced Leadership" to "Ready" to "Ready for Change" to "Ready From Day One" to "Solutions" to the new one, which sounds like she's selling a butter substitute, "Smart Choice." Does she really think that a new message on her signage is going to catch on and make her the winner?
I can tell you at least three pieces of sleazy business Hillary has engaged in so far: After promising not to campaign in Florida and Michigan, Hillary showed up for some 'fundraising' events in Florida just before the primary there, getting free saturation coverage by the local media. In Michigan, her supporter Gov. Jennifer Granholm 'accidentally' left Hillary's name on the ballot, after Edwards and Obama had taken theirs off, as per their agreement with the DNC. No surprise, Hillary won Michigan by 55 percent, but 40 percent voted None of the Above. Now, Hillary wants all of the delegates from Michigan and Florida, and counts the two states in her 'win' column, although she earlier agreed not to accept those delegations. That's dirty pool and an indication that, as president, she'd have all the integrity and transparency of the current occupant of the Oval Office.
RichM and Gyptian, one comment on a third party: One of the reasons I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 was not because I thought he could win, but due to his assurance that he would help build the Green Party into a viable third party. Since then, I have hardly heard him mention the Greens as whenever I see him appear, he's flacking another of his books. I still like Ralph and he's done some great things, but in order to build a true third party, you need people with political savvy, organizational skills, ability to raise money and the commitment of a Nader to make it a reality that can, at least, qualify for federal matching funds for its presidential candidate. Ralph is, at the end of the day, a terrible politician, fundraiser and organizer, not to disparage his other good qualities and accomplishments.
Whatever you may think of Perot, his 1992 presidential campaign initiated a Reform Party that qualified for $12 million in federal matching funds in 2000 and was on the ballot in enough states to win the election. Unfortunately, Republican Party Reptile Pat Buchanan and his GOP henchmen, on behalf of the Bush family, took over the Reform Party, purged it of the reformers, and guaranteed it would not be a threat to Junior in the general election. Sadly, you need either someone with the billions of a Perot or the fame of a Robert Redford to start a third party that will make a difference, and that's lacking this year.
I also wouldn't count on a President Obama being a 'pretty Band-Aid' -- he might very well turn out to be as progressive as FDR was in the '30s.
RichM wrote: "Then, after 4 or 8 years, the Republicans are ready to come back again, refreshed & newly armed with the usual vicious attacks against "liberals" who are allegedly "soft" on one or another imaginary external threat. (The Democrats always agree on the existence of the external threat, and when the R's attack them for "being soft" on it, they just hang their stupid cowardly heads like schoolchildren, implicitly accepting the criticism. When was the last time any Democrat ever fought back - for any principled cause whatsover?)"
You need to reread your history, RichM. FDR was inaugurated in 1933 and remained in office until his death in 1945; then his VP Truman took over and was elected on his own in 1948, leaving office in 1953. By my calculations, that's 20 years of liberal Democratic rule. There have been many Dems, like Gene McCarthy, Robert F. Kennedy and George McGovern who have supported principled but unpopular positions, and I recall it was a sitting Dem president, Lyndon Johnson, who signed Civil Rights legislation ending segregation even though it meant his party would lose the south in future elections. There was also Sen. Frank Church, who established a commission in 1978 that investigated the CIA and governmental abuse of power, resulting in the Freedom of Information Act, the FISA laws, and the War Powers Act. I grant you that most of the current crop of Dems have the collective spine of a jellyfish, but that is not historically true.
Oh, and rickster469, thanks for that message to us 'brain dead' here -- I just hope it wasn't paid for by the RNC.
Ms. Ann, if your vote can be that easily swayed by a few comments on a website, well -- I have a bridge I'd like to sell you ...
Armybrat, you're right -- much of what conservatives fought for in the 1950s is what liberals are fighting for today -- an indication of how far right the government and the media in this nation have become, but I disagree on several other points, one of them being that Americans are not waking up to what the Bush extremists are doing to our country -- they have been, slowly, since Katrina.
Mrs. Clinton needs to return to her day job -- being the second most effective US Senator from New York.
I am so sick of hearing about how an attack on Hillary is an attack on women. What a stupid cry baby statement. I agree totally that she sets back both women and Democrats with her incredibly selfish campaign. Ted Kennedy never ran for president because he thought it unfair to ask us to carry the baggage of Chappaquiddick. Hillary has no such public spirit.
She will not only set back women, but Democrats as well. The Republicans are salivating over the chance to leap on us in a Hillary hate fest, the likely result of which will be a Republican president.
Whether that Republican will be McCain, or a hastily found replacement due to his slimy ways, or Hillary (who pretends she switched parties) is yet to be seen.
I already hate her and her devious deceitful ways and can't for the life of me understand how anyone could possibly support her - other then Republicans for whom she represents party salvation. The idea that the empty symbolism of having a woman president justifies electing this war monger makes me sick.
If you are a Democrat and support her, please take a little time to research her history of betrayal to us and her slavish support for power and wealth, plus her just general nastiness and greed, and ask yourself how much you want to fight so she can realize her personal ambitions.
This "Commander-in-chief" rhetoric is plain creepy...
" I think it will be a long time if ever before another woman will be brave enough to venture before the firing squad of the viciousness Hillary is enduring."
I dont think so. If Condi runs (she is not really that far to right of Hillary) she will be a shoe in for President. Its Hillary's entitlement issues and her im-more-manly-than-cheney stance that did her in. If only she had stayed away from those darned friggin war votes and if she hadnt kissed Republican butt these last 3 years she could have easily walked away with the Presidency.
Zunes seems absolutely obsessed by Hillary Clinton, no doubt for very personal even private reasons which as a psychiatrist I can guess at, even though it's clear that he along with the media misogynists have pretty well destroyed her. Now Loeb is already blaming her for Obama's future possible failure. With such blatant fear and hatred, it gives me hope that you two may know something I don't and that she may still prevail, though it sure isn't looking good. I agree with Gloria Steinem that there will probably never be a woman president in the US; it stands to reason that as women have been held responsible for all the world's evils for 3000 years stemming from the mythical Adam and Eve political lie that they harbor a deep feeling of "God-ordained" inferiority and a need to be second to men. Hillary has brought this to the surface to an amazing degree. I used to think it was mainly men who were terrified of powerful women, but it is the women who even more have bought into the blatant misogyny of our patriarchal culture, revealing their fear and hatred of a woman who has the courage to try to buck the prevailing dictum that men must rule. And to armybrat, if you think Hillary is the only woman on earth to stay with a cheating man that she happens to love, you should wake up! The excuses are so transparent; the witch-hunt is alive and well and for the same reasons; women shall not reveal that they can be smarter than men, and they are NEVER to be forgiven for doing the same things that men do. I think it will be a long time if ever before another woman will be brave enough to venture before the firing squad of the viciousness Hillary is enduring.
As a conservative (traditional) I'm in even worse of a bind - so once again, I'll have to cast a 'protest' vote - probably for Nader or McKinney. My first choice was Ron Paul - and yeah, I know he might make poor decisions regarding Supreme Court judges, but at least he has integrity. More than you can say for the rest of the mob. (He had respect for Kucinich, don't forget!)
I thought about not voting at all - but that's hard for a conservative to do. McCain is just plain nuts - either senile or corrupt or both. Disgusting lack of respect for the US military - Feingold does more to support a decent US military (and veterans) than he ever dreamed of doing. Hillary is a real witch, a regressive Republican in drag (just like Bill was - and just as corrupt) - and Obama showed his true colors regarding healthcare. Neither will try to rein in the bloated socially-destructive military monster - leaving us in good company with North Korea, Israel, and the defunct Nazis.
The greatest problems we face today is the corporate-media-military-prison-healthcare-financial-industrial complex - only single-payer national healthcare, a truly defensive military (90% reduction), a reasonably fair justice system (end 'illegal' drug war), a fair and honest media, and getting rid of the Fed will allow us to survive. If that doesn't sound 'conservative' to you, I recommed you research conservative politics from the '50s and '60s - absolutely 'liberal' by today's standards!
We can't survive by killing the Goose that lays those Golden Eggs - and that's what's happening in contemporary politics, thanks to both the GOP and DFL leaning towards fascism for nearly 30 years. Fascism is a lose-lose proposition for everyone - every country that has embraced it has gone down with a spectacular implosion. Eisenhower warned us all - and now here we are!
I doubt if Obama has the kinds of connections necessary to pull enough strings to bring this country back from the brink of the abyss - let alone the will to do so. We already know what the Clintons will do - they screwed us once already and if we opt for them again, then we deserve what we will get. They just roll over and rake in the cash like any common prostitute - not a responsible bone in either of their bodies. Hillary made her bed when she stayed with Bill after his outrageous behavior - that truly rankles a traditional conservative with moral values!
American 'values' took a wrong turn after Eisenhower, and never looked back, let alone attempting a course-correction. We've spiralled downward ever since. We need a strong traditional conservative to set our country right - someone who values both social and fiscal conservative principles. But it seems that Americans are too ignorant, uninformed, disengaged, and apathetic to bother with demanding intelligent, honest, uncorruptible leadership - so don't get your hopes up. It's going to be a bumpy ride on the slide into hell - and we've no one to blame but ourselves. Emotion rules - reason takes a hit. And we all lose - again. Congress isn't 'out of touch' - they're 'untouchable' - and we allow this!
If all politically active Americans don't start reaching out to their neighbors soon, we won't have a country left to defend - preaching to the choir brought us to this point, and more of the same isn't going to cure the problem. The patient is critical. Maybe we should just let it die and start over... how can it be any worse? Well, I guess we're going to find out after the next election - fascists and fascist-lite are our current choices. So maybe instead of staying home, we should all try a 'protest vote' - it may be our best bet of real change.
forgive me if this has been said, but Hil, bring it on, it will only test Obama (although the race is still not over, remember, the Pats in the NFL finished 18-1 after it was all but assured they would win the Super Bowl) for the massive dirt that the repubs and their "outsourced" muck rakers will bring. Obama has shown to be inexperienced in handling this muck, so whatever Hillary can bring will only help him in Sept-Oct. Btw- what is the over/under for the Obama sex scandel- If a boring, crabby old man is facing one, what about the young, sex-symbol? Only a matter of time folks...
I can't stand Hillary's voice; however, if she wasn't such a hawk and actually was a good choice, her voice wouldn't matter so much. But she's not a good choice, and neither is Obama, and the Republican gangsters who choose war first over diplomacy --- the shoot-first and ask- questions-later thugs --- are most definitely not good choices.
We need a serious, viable 3rd (and 4th) party to choose from in this fascist country. As it is, we only have "two" --- two sides of the same coin, that is.
We need a multi-party system like they have in many other democracies around the world. At least we will haver more choices than what the media picks for us. Of course, in the end, without true representation no democracy is worth its salt.
Howard Zinns article is a must read for the elections-obsessed democrats ...
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/18/7261/
Vince Lawrence, Excellent post.
Let's make him want to.
WE, THE PEOPLE need to be active, yell and scream from the rooftops and wake up our lazy, out-of-touch congress critters.
One of two people will be president next year, assuming george does not follow the pattern of his direct philosophical ancsestor, adolf. Agreeing with most of the sentiment here that our progressive government is completely broken and overrun by wealth and influence, I will never-the-less vote for one of those two people. Possibly pointless, but no more ineffective than not voting.
I see Obama as being carried by events as well as riding them. Perhaps even a quicker demise of the democratic party will result if we find we've been duped again.
The war must end and most Americans truly realize this. Most of us fully recognize our oil dependancy and would embrace solutions that engaged us rather than exploited us and brutalized others.
I don't know who the hell Obama really is or will be, but I'm hoping that such a wave of ...activity... will be generated that the corrupt political class will be afraid to ignore it. And if the shoe fits, that goes for Barak also. Look in the closet of any professional politician and you'll find the dirty laundry and half-rotted skeletons from corporate black-ops (otherwise known as American politics.)
Will he generate the escape velocity needed to break free of the gravitational well of our current system? Only if he wants to. Let's make him want to. If the launch date were within a month, I'd say it is possible, but by November it's likely the media will play their part in weaving the fiction we are once again evenly split, enabling another stolen unchallenged election.
Hillary is beginning to become a joke. She criticized Obama for "plagiarizing" and then gave this teary closing to the last debate which turned out to be almost exactly the same thing that John Edwards said 'we're going to be ok', and almost verbatim what her hubby said - 'the hits I've taken are nothing compared to what the American people have suffered' - what a hypocrite! Now she is calling Obama's tactics Rovian, when she and her campaign have been using Carl Rove's playbook the whole campaign, fortunately it hasn't been working, and this latest outburst by her, looking haggard and tired and coming off as being kind of crazy, isn't going to work either. It's time for Billary to retire and go off and build houses or something.
Have to post before reading the comments.
The key is she would have to win decisively here in Ohio to make up any significant ground. The rumour of her demise will probably change some votes to Obama. It will be close.
Now to read the comments. Nader is directly above my input box. Not this time. To be any type of significant force, a ticket must have an organization and Nader has none and will find none. Sit this one out.
Nader in 2008. Go Nader go.
RichM -- "Democrats have historically served as capitalism's "B Team." They are permitted to take temporary power only when the Republicans have raped & looted the country so outrageously & for so long, that social anger reaches dangerous proportions"
As usual RichM gets it right. The Democratic Party needs to be gutted and spat out. The core is rotten. We need a true Progressive Party that can help us retain our sanity. After wilting repeatedly and unfailingly to the Republicans on issue after issue its clear to any observer (except the democrats !) that the Democratic Party is really made up of closet Republicans for the most part.
I actually met a couple of Republicans the other day (my first Republican sighting in a long time) and chatting with them revealed an astonishing fact .... they are so friggin similar to a lot of Democrats that I know ... amazing !!
After watching SNL tonight, she's at least got the NBC/Lorne Michaels establishment/GE & casts vote.
How ugly THAT was.
Yeechh!
If all we get out of this election is to rein in and reverse the worst excesses of the Bush nightmare years-- and there are many, many-- I will be very grateful and relieved. If we don't even get that, then the pessimists on this thread (and you are very eloquent, and I agree with much of what you say) will be proven 100% correct and I will likely leave the country.
Quote of the day: Rich M: "Anyone who thinks it's important to say they're "proud" of their country — even when their country behaves immorally & disgracefully — is a moron."
RichM you are making me laugh out loud swatting those pesky flies away.
The Democrats are the 90%'s opiate. But it eventually wears off, and the reality of the "infected wound" emerges.
Proud to be an American??? Hell no. I do not take pride in mass murder, occupation, repression, torture, and genuine disregard to all things humane. My apologies to the "patriots" who said the pledge too many times in grade school.
Consider America since the advent of Reagan a generation ago - one grand economic and foreign policy fuck-up after another, brought to you by both Republicans and Democrats. America is no longer Sisyphus trying in vain to push the rock up the mountain; it is Wile E. Coyote of the Roadrunner cartoons having gone over the cliff, suspended in mid air a split second, looking down and now free falling to the floor of the canyon. Keep watching for the puff of dust way down at the bottom. That is our ultimate destination.
The author suggests "Suppose a critical mass of superdelegates did what 400,000 petition-signers just asked them to do in a MoveOn/Democracy for America ad that ran in USA Today-and pledged to honor the will of the voters? Suppose they announced in advance that they'd support whichever candidate had more elected delegates going into the late August convention?" The implication here being that they might do that for solely altruistic reasons. And perhaps they might but the author seems to have overlooked a very simple and time-honored way to get the superdelegates to support his candidate, buy them. Apparently, according to a recent report: http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=336
The Obama PAC is doing just that as it has contributed almost $700,000 in contributions to the superdelegates campaigns as compared to about $225,000 for Clinton's PAC.
I think that this information is pertinent to the article and should have been at least mentioned rather than this "Oh, wouldn't it be great if those superdelegates were to follow the wishes of the voters," piece of deceptive BS.
It's true the left is a wet noodle afraid of its shadow. The left is afraid of a revolution, and lacks the will to fight on the the class warfare front: a prime and leading example of cowardice. The right is amassing all the money-power as usual, shrinking the middle class and bloating the lower class -- this may be its temporary undoing vis a vis a depression, but the rich will rise up again and farm the poor, using politicians as their farm hands as they did throughout the 20th century.
Electing Obama or Clinton will just put this process in slow motion, and the power structure knows this -- that's fine with them: no matter when the tsunami waves crash, they will be riding on the surf board above the drowning masses. When the tides recede, they'll mop up the mess and set up shop once again, ready for another paddle out to the surf breaks for another great ride.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
RichM:
You just hit a homerun out of the ball park.
Look at the damage Obama has already done!
He voted for the misnamed Class Action Fairness of 2005 a hand over of citizen power to corporations. Hillary Clinton, Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy voted against. Obama was warned by states attorneys general, for example his own, and dozens of citizen's rights groups not to favor corporations against the poor and disadvantaged but that is what he did.
Could it be because he has a cozy relationship with lobbyists?
His top campaign contributors are lobbyists and why is the media letting him get away with his lie that they are not?
Pam Martems has the story here:
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16601
clyde paige (6:14 pm) -
"You say the best thing that could happen is for the democrat's to be destroyed."
- Yes indeedy.
The democrats haven't been in the White House or had the majority in the congress until nov. of 06."
- And what exactly did the Dems accomplish with their majority in Congress, besides funding the war & protecting Bush from impeachment?
" This republican administration is the most corrupt in history they are the ones who should be destroyed by being voted out of office. Bush/Cheney should be impeached and tried for crimes against humanity for their illegal war and lies they have told the people."
- I agree. And have you noticed the Democrats doing much in the way of impeaching? Do you notice either Dem candidate calling out the filthy Republicans for being the criminals they are?
You sound like the other Hillary hater's is it because she is a woman and smarter than you?,that's why most men hate Hillary they can't stand a brilliant woman."
- Don't make me laugh. Hillary's brains are vastly overrated. Don't confuse intelligence with merely being a ruthless hyperambitious conniving loudmouth. Many of the pigs in Washington are reasonably intelligent; Hillary is just one among many, in that regard.
"Obama is all mouth and no substance and his wife is a racist who hasn't been proud of her country until now when she thinks they can fool enough people to maybe get elected. "
- Here you unintentionally reveal your true colors. It's true that Obama is no great shakes, but there's nothing wrong with his wife. You've swallowed rightwing hype about her. Besides which, even if she really meant to say that she hadn't been "proud" of the US until now, that would be entirely reasonable. There hasn't been much reason to be "proud" of the United States for a long time. (Blacks might be expected to be generally more aware of this than whites.) Anyone who thinks it's important to say they're "proud" of their country -- even when their country behaves immorally & disgracefully -- is a moron.
{sigh} It's not just mainstream or Nader. There are actual registered Greens running for President. Yes, Cynthia McKinney is now registered Green. Ralph is not and never has been. If Hillary does what this author is worried about then the Dems who would decide to stay home should get out and vote Green.
Personally, I'm hoping Ralph decides not to run, but to lend his support to whomever comes out of the Green convention in July. That would be the best use of his talents.
http://gp.org
National polls show Obama winning and Hillary losing against McCain.
Those are the facts. The GOP knows it... Clinton knows it and she, is more important to her than we.
btw...clyde paige... "Obama is all mouth and no substance and his wife is a racist who hasn't been proud of her country until now when she thinks they can fool enough people to maybe get elected."
What effing SWIFT BOAT for slow learners did YOU fall out of? How dare you repeat such filth on this website.
Hillary supporters generally have much more class.... clearly you're a Repuglican provacateur.
On the Fifth Anniversary of the Iraq War, Peace or More War?
February 22, 2008
http://pdamerica.org/articles/news/2008-02-22-13-48-29-news.php
"Congress will take up Bush's supplemental Iraq war funding request in the upcoming weeks, which coincides with the fifth anniversary of the war (March 19). Most Americans never thought we would still be in Iraq at this time. Five years down the road, few of us thought that Bush and his cronies, with the aid of a Democratic Congress, would have ruined our economy, shredded our Bill of Rights, spoiled our moral standing in the world, destroyed the lives of millions of innocent Iraqis, killed 4000 and injured more than 30,000 U.S troops. Few of us would have believed Congress, at this date, would be authorizing more blood and treasure on this failed exercise in Iraq."
Anybody care to guess how Obama or Hillary will stand on this? I bet it won't be the way the American people want. We want the troops home as soon as possible. Congress should stop funding the Iraq war and start funding for bringing our troops home.
Chris Matthews is a racist bigot and a sexist and an anti-smart people person. He needs to go!!! And none to soon. I stopped watching his show a long time ago and often do not even pay attention to the show where his other "guests" also make an appearance.
Here's another lovely post-New Hampshire quote from Jesse Jackson Jr., who is the co-chair of Obama's campaign:
"...there were tears that melted the Granite State. And those are tears that Mrs. Clinton cried on that day, clearly moved voters. She somehow connected with those voters.
But those tears also have to be analyzed. They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina where 45% of African-Americans who participate in the Democratic contest, and they see real hope in Barack Obama."
And:
"We saw something very clever in the last week of this campaign coming out of Iowa, going into New Hampshire, we saw a sensitivity factor. Something that Mrs. Clinton has not been able to do with voters that she tried in New Hampshire.
Not in response to voters -- not in response to Katrina, not in response to other issues that have devastated the American people, the war in Iraq, we saw tears in response to her appearance. So her appearance brought her to tears, but not hurricane Katrina."
I have a few questions:
1. Why is Jackson asserting that Clinton cried when she actually didn't?
2. How does he know that she never cried about Hurricane Katrina, just because she didn't do it publicly?
3. Has Obama publicly cried for our soldiers in Iraq or the victims of Hurricane Katrina? If not, why?
4. Is trying to undermine the legitimacy of his opponent's victories consistent with Obama's "new politics" of unity?
5. Is it consistent with Obama's "new politics" of unity to send out his campaign co-chair to accuse his opponent of not caring a rat's ass about the victims of Hurricane Katrina?
I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton. She is the closest thing that we will get to the neocons out of the Democratic Party. However, this is some incredibly nasty and hypocritical stuff coming out of the Obama campaign, and it's coming straight from the top. Obama's air of being being 100% on the up-and-up 100% of the time is really looking pretty phony.
The idea that there is any real difference between Clinton and Oboma is ridiculous,they are both controled by the DLC zionist gangsters . I am waiting for the Dems to start whining about the Supreme court judges who will overturn Roe, but the DEms have already approved them even when they had the power to fillerbust them, I didn't see Hillory or Barack use their capitol to leed in that endevor,or perhaps I missed it?
The republicans are corrupt imoral war mongering gangsters who have no need for our constitution which they are destroying daily,while the Democrats help them,they manifest all the sins of the Republicans but add one more complete and utter HIPOCRACY>
If we're going to judge candidates by the words of their surrogates, let's take a look at what Chris Matthews of MSNBC, who has been shilling for Obama had to say about Clinton's win in New Hampshire:
JOE SCARBOROUGH: What the hell happened in New Hampshire?
MATTHEWS:"You remember the Lone Ranger and Tonto? I think paleface speak with forked tongue. You hear me? Forked tongue....
I thought this was over. I thought it ended with "macaca."...
"I thought white voters stopped being what they didn't want to be. You know what it tells me? People aren't proud of who they are. They aren't proud of who they are. If they want to vote for Hillary Clinton, fine. Why don't they say so?"
In other words, Clinton supporters voted for her instead of Obama because they are a bunch of lying bigots. Really classy.
Another naysayer has come out from under the rocks! Hillary, like all the rest of the candidates (male) can stay in the race as long as she has the money to fund her campaign and as long as she thinks she can stomach all the nastiness, sexist comments and dirty tricks from the Obama camp. Mr. Loeb would never have said those things in that tone, if Hilliary has been a Hilliard. He seems to think that when the going gets tought, girls just fold and go home - NOT HILLARY! Like the energizer bunny, she just keeps going and going - good for her. She is following her American Dreams. . .maybe the example will light the way for future women candidates. If the Obama camp can't handle the near kid-glove treatment from Hilliary, they won't be able to take on the Republicans, who entertain no such notions of fair-play as the race for the Presidency is all out war to them. Senator Obama has not been properly vetted by the media, but unless Senator Clinton lights this torch, then do we really know anything about him? The Republicans will find every speck of dirt and build it up to be a mountain. . .this race, no matter who the Democratic nominee is, will be down and dirty. If the kids don't like mud, then get out of the ring! Senator Clinton is up for the war as she has withstood the slings and arrows before and from much bigger and more ferocious people than Senator Obama; Senator Obama, who knows; he seems a little thinned-skin to me.
I am sick and tired of this misogyny. I'd have thought that we have arrived in the 21st century.
It's just nauseating. If this bloke had denounced a black or a Jew that way, no paper would have printed it.
Rich M:
I applaud your vision for a true mass party of the left. To believe the destruction of the Democratic party would clear the decks for a progressive 3d party is wishful thinking, just as hoping that electing better people may improve things may be wishful thinking. By not voting at all, you will indeed punish the Democrats, and you will, in the short term, help the Republicans solidify their power more and terrorize the American people more.
I don't "believe in" the Democratic Party at all. I don't care what party a person belongs to if they show some good judgment and the courage to stand up for their (people's)interest. I have a Democrat congressman who is a useless windbag, like most of them. But there are some good people getting elected and nominated as Democrats. I don't think it's the Democratic Party per se that's causing them to be spineless. I don't know-- maybe they are getting death threats. It wouldn't surprise me.
I think there need to be some changes that would allow viable 3d, 4th, etc, parties to develop, like public campaign financing and instant runoff voting, or just make everything nonpartisan. A really good (or popular) candidate can get elected as an Independent.
I recently retired from a transportation division of the International Association of Machinists. I was a dues paying member for almost 35 years and an elected official of my local.
I don't drink lattes, I drive a Jeep, not a Prius, don't wear Birkenstocks, and don't have a trust fund...and, like many of my labor brothers and sisters, am supporting Obama.(my ideal candidate is Gene Debs, but he died in 1925)
Buffenbarger is an example of the gulf between big labor leaders and the rank and file.The IAM issued a dual endorsement for President: Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee!!!!!If Obama wins the nomination what's the IAM going to do? Endorse McCain?
I just got my bill for my retiree's dues for the year. I may not pay, I am so mad...something I thought I would never even think of. AAARRRGGGHHH
"I'm doing my part to help this along."
Me too, I think I'm just going to stay home come this November. We really don't have any choice.
"he irony is that in the long term, this might actually be the best possible outcome. The best thing that could possibly happen to the Democratic Party would be that it should so discredit & disgrace itself in the eyes of those who still gullibly believe in it, that it would be irretrievably destroyed. And without a Democratic Party (aka "The Washington Generals" playing the foil to the Republicans' "Harlem Globetrotters"), there would be no 2-party system as we know it. The decks would be cleared for the emergence of a true mass party of the Left."
RichM,
Your irony isn't lost on me. After repeatedly seeing the complete unwillingness of hard core Dems to look in the mirror and affect change from within, I believe the best thing for them to do is to self-destruct so that a new party can be built. As long as the Democratic Party holds a totalitarian-like grip on politics, things will never change and progressives will be out in the cold.
I'm doing my part to help this along.
Here in NYC, Obama received "0" votes in some of the City's most progressive districts. Even, Mayor Bloomberg, suspected "Fraud". The corrupt, Board of Elections called it a "human error".
This election is far from over.
Rich M: You must have been in outer space for the past 7 years. You say the best thing that could happen is for the democrat's to be destroyed.The democrats haven't been in the White House or had the majority in the congress until nov. of 06. This republican administration is the most corrupt in history they are the ones who should be destroyed by being voted out of office. Bush/Cheney should be impeached and tried for crimes against humanity for their illegal war and lies they have told the people.You sound like the other Hillary hater's is it because she is a woman and smarter than you?,that's why most men hate Hillary they can't stand a brilliant woman. Obama is all mouth and no substance and his wife is a racist who hasn't been proud of her country until now when she thinks they can fool enough people to maybe get elected. Of all the people running in both parties Obama is the least qualified and the young people that are going to see him doesn't mean they will vote for him or anyone.H
If I were a woman, I'd be really mad at Hillary Clinton (I'm not exactly happy with her, anyway). She had a wonderful opportunity to run for President, and to take the high road while doing so, thereby showing America how a presidential campaign should be run --- and she blew it.
Now it will be harder for a woman to get elected President than it was before Hillary's run at the office.
This article was nothing but a piece of crap. Hillary has a perfect right to stay in the race as long as she wants, and will know if and when to quit herself, without all the hand-wringing about it.
If poor little Barack can`t stand up to big bad Hillary, how is he going to take the Repug swiftboat crew and everything they will discover about him?
The author of the article and some of you posters need to take a tranquilizer pill and relax. If we could survive the last seven years we will make it though this one.
DD: What's different about this primary is that those who have rallied around Obama have no patience with swiftboating or backroom political dealmaking. They want a new kind of politics, one that breaks with the mudslinging and manipulation of the past. They've realized that the way a person campaigns inevitiably reflects the way that they govern. If Hillary goes negative, or uses superdelegates and political maneuvering to cut Obama off at the pass when it's clear that he's the people's choice, the Democrats can kiss a whole generation of voters goodbye.
hamster ( 1:23 ) writes, "...Ultimately the irretrievable destruction of the Democratic Party might not be the best thing for this country– which would allow the Republicans an unfettered grip on American politics for another generation, and speed up their mad march toward irretrievable destruction of the earth..."
- There's unfortunately an inexhaustible supply of people who think just like Mr hamster. These people don't know 20th century history, & thus don't understand that voting for Democrats is not a way of getting rid of Republicans. What it leads to, rather, is a short period of Republican policies dressed up in less belligerent language, followed by more Republicans.
Democrats have historically served as capitalism's "B Team." They are permitted to take temporary power only when the Republicans have raped & looted the country so outrageously & for so long, that social anger reaches dangerous proportions. And when they come in, they never even attempt to reverse any Republican policies. Instead, they continue them, while merely toning down the ferocious language.
Then, after 4 or 8 years, the Republicans are ready to come back again, refreshed & newly armed with the usual vicious attacks against "liberals" who are allegedly "soft" on one or another imaginary external threat. (The Democrats always agree on the existence of the external threat, and when the R's attack them for "being soft" on it, they just hang their stupid cowardly heads like schoolchildren, implicitly accepting the criticism. When was the last time any Democrat ever fought back -- for any principled cause whatsover?)
If you like the results of this never-ending cycle -- which have brought us to where we are today -- by all means, keep voting for Democrats.
Let's do a quick assessment. How many times has Bush lied since taking office? How many of these lies have the Democrats called him on? When have the Democrats attacked Bush for the fact that there turned out to be no WMD after all? How many times have the Democrats attacked Bush for violating the Constitution, for "signing statements" (which make Congress powerless & thus destroy the separation of powers), or for putting the nation on a course of endless war? Can anyone name 2 issues on which the Democrats have stood up to Bush, since 2001? How many crimes has the Bush Mob committed? Is there a single one of them on which the Dems have not been complicit?
The leadership of large unions all make six figure salaries and some make more, so "latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies" are probably not living much different a lifestyle from most of them. I was in the teachers union in Seattle and on the executive board (volunteer work). One of the women on the board was married to the President of the Teamster's local and she used to get picked up from the meetings in a chauffeur driven white Cadillac limousine.
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
I think Hillary understands herself that she should concede. "I am honored to be on the stage with Barak Obama." That statement said to me that she is starting to recognize that he is already an historic figure, which is something she could never quite be because she will always be "the wife of."
If you read her autobiography you can see between the lines that she was manipulated by her husband into taking the lead, and hence the fall, over National Health Care in 1993. You can be sure that if Bill Clinton saw victory at the end of that he would not have let Hillary have that one. He saw that it was going to be a loss, and he let Hillary be the pigeon.
I believe that he is manipulating her into continuing this race in much the same way. He has nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Judging by what was in her autobiography, Hillary never figured out that she had been set up by Bill to take the fall in the health care fight of 1993. Does she now realize that the position she is in is one that will only get increasingly disastrous?
Since Bill has whored himself into hundreds of millions based upon his electoral success as a Trojan horse for Republican ideology, would it come as a surprise to learn that he doesn't really care what Hillary's decisions do to the Democratic Party or Hillary's reputation?
For a smart woman, she is really stupid when it comes to Bill.
"latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies." Wow, all those African Americans that are voting for Obama are better off than I thought.
International Association of Machinists President Tom Buffenbarger called Obama supporters "latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies."
The owners of the corporations whom Buffenbarger's machinists depend on for contract work are the same "latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies" that he is complaining about. Until Americans such as Buffenbarger face the demons inside their own selves the slow-motion ongoing train wreck will continue. Any day, Buffenbarger can start supporting the idea of dispersed small local enterprises that are independent from concentrated death/destruction capital. Any day now, Buffenbarger.
Did the Republican canidates not attack each other with as much ferocity as Clinton and Obama are, or is the media intentionally focusing on the Democrats?
Hillary hatred is as irrational and damaging to democracy in the US as Obama mania. The rest of us can do nothing but throw up our hands as the US electorate get it wrong again.
Well, Loeb, Clinton is doing no more damage by staying in the race, than you are being the eternal flack for the Democrats.
Hillary canceled her rally in Dallas out of respect for the death of a motorcycle officer in her
motorcade. Shouldn't she cancel the rest of her campaign out of respect for the 3000+ servicemen
and women who went to a war she voted for?
cribbed from a thread at another site: Obama is not so new here in Illinois where he helped kill real health care reform by changing the word "shall" to "may" in the Senate after the Health Care Justice Act passed the House. I was so hopeful but obviously SO naive when Democrats gained full control here (I think it's now seven) years ago. All they've proven is that they can rule just as corruptly as Republicans.
look out mama there's a white boat coming up the river......which one is not so power hungry as to repeal the patriot act? Or HR 1955? Or all those creepy executive orders? Mr. Bill ratified nafta, repealed the glass steagall....did Ms. Clinton think these were good things? Does Mr. Obama? Gosh, haven't heard........
Some of the things being said about Hillary make me think twice about Obama supporters. The race is far from over, it's exactly what it's supposed to be: a race. Blaming Hillary for staying in the race is a strange thing to do, and it seems to undermine democracy.
Hillary has made some wrong moves, and I've never given her my support. The sense of entitlement being shown by Obama supporters, though, turns me off. His rhetoric has been fluff for the most part, and I've yet to find it inspiring. He took Edward's words when it suited him, and yet has not made any real anti-poverty efforts. The one candidate who had a forceful agenda was pushed out, largely due to Obama. The race is now between two people with incredible egos. As for me, the one who pretends he doesn't have one (and oh yes, this ambitious man does), the incessant and insidious attacks on Hillary as a woman, and the snide, anti-democratic rhetoric of articles like this, makes me want to vote green party. Keep up this in-fighting, folks, it's only destroying the little faith I had left in the Democratic party.
if obama really does have connections to the nuclear power industry and advisers who want to end social security, shouldn't we find out BEFORE his nomination is inevitable?
the vetting that has not been done by the media yet is astonishing. what will we learn? if clinton's campaign is the means by which we learn his dirt, is it not better than learning it when the only alternative is john mccain?
Hillary will not go anywhere willingly.
The woman who "stood by her man" after the Lewinsky affair, for the simple expedient reason that leaving him would hurt her chances at a Presidential run, is going to go kicking and screaming.
It's becoming clear that Hillary cares only about herself and is willing to take the Democratic Party down in her effort to win the nomination. Yes, she's lied over and over, and her negative attacks do not bode well for any idea of her representing the US in international diplomacy. That's a nonevent anyway, she's unelectable. Her behavior is certainly living up to my opinion of her. And all you Hillary lovers, get real and look at what she's doing. Can't you see she doesn't care how much damage she inflicts to try to get what she wants? She's like a parent eating her young. So now she's setting up outsiders to swiftboat Obama? It's clear to everyone else that Obama is the voters' choice. At least Romney had the sense and grace to get out of the way - or maybe the Republican leadership had the cohones to put the squeeze on him. We never know what goes on behind closed doors.
The Democratic Party itself looks like the gang that can't shoot straight. Either that, or they hate the thought of winning. If the situation weren't so serious, I'd call it a comedy of errors.
I would be very disappointed with Obama if after her egregious behavior he chose her for Vice President. It would send me off to vote for Nader. I don't want to see her anywhere near the White House. A person has to have some standards for behavior.
kathyodat
It doesn't matter how much damage Hillary can do the damage is already done. Many liberals/progressives/independents aren't going to vote for either Obama or Hillary. If Nader doesn't get in the mix I just may stay at home in November. I don't think things can get much worst for me anyhow regardless of wither a democrat or a republican gets it.
Not only that it would serve you brain dead, led around by the nose, by the MSM democrats. If you wanted a democratic in office you should have supported the only person who represents your vies in words and actions, Dennis Kucinich. I hope he'll run again in 2012 but right now the best man who will actually help the American people is Ralph Nader and he's not in the mix yet. As far as I know.
You democrats need to quit buying into the MSM nonsense and get behind a man who will actually fight to do this country some good Ralph Nader. It's not too late.
I've been thinking like RichM for awhile.
Rich M:
"An Obama victory might be the very worst thing that could happen"... or it might not be.
Ultimately the irretrievable destruction of the Democratic Party might not be the best thing for this country-- which would allow the Republicans an unfettered grip on American politics for another generation, and speed up their mad march toward irretrievable destruction of the earth.
Please Hillary, go back to the Senate where you can really shine. I'm a feminist too, but all my senses tell me this is Barack's moment, and we do need a leader who embodies the qualities he so naturally expresses.
You can help tremendously by your vigorous role in the Senate, even ascending to Majority Leader, should you so desire.
Thank you for your willingness to campaign, and for your commitment to the much better nation we yet can be.
Hillary hasn't "folded" yet and she might not. If history hands her to us as a candidate, the most harmful thing we could do is gripe until she and Nader produce President John McCain.
Bashing Senator Clinton is counter-productive and unnecessary. We might yet need to turn around and support her.
Let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment:
A supremely ironic poetic justice might result if Hillary proceeds to play the hardest kind of hardball against Obama. Suppose she uses backroom methods & superdelegate machinery to steal the nomination, & that this splits the Dem Party, enrages & alienates the Dem base, & that she winds up losing the general election. (Needless to say, she wouldn't hesitate to use every dirty trick in the book, regardless of the effects on her party & country, if she thought she had the faintest chance of gaining the big job herself.)
The irony is that in the long term, this might actually be the best possible outcome. The best thing that could possibly happen to the Democratic Party would be that it should so discredit & disgrace itself in the eyes of those who still gullibly believe in it, that it would be irretrievably destroyed. And without a Democratic Party (aka "The Washington Generals" playing the foil to the Republicans' "Harlem Globetrotters"), there would be no 2-party system as we know it. The decks would be cleared for the emergence of a true mass party of the Left.
An Obama victory, on the other hand, might be the very worst thing that could happen (analagous to putting a pretty Band-aid on an already-infected wound). It might well put a temporarily more appealing face on US militarism & the 2-party system, enabling a terminally corrupt system to totter onwards for another few decades, changing only its face, but not its core operating imperatives. An illusory & cosmetic kind of "change" could well be more damaging, in the long run, than simply continuing with the increasingly visible & all-encompassing corruption that now passes for "normal."
Never Mind!
Old Troll
Do I hear a Nader?
Here is thee message that the people get...It is not rocket science
Hillary Vs Osama or
Obama Vs Osama
Which is the winner?
Ms. Clinton has turned toxic. She's completely dominated by her own craving for power and inflated ego. She has lied. She has voted contrary to the best interests of this country on any number of