Hillary Clinton for President - 2008

Jonathan Chait wrote:

Okay, now that they've admitted it, can we re-vote Ohio and Texas?

Heh!

nimh wrote:

Camp Hillary is truly a fount of BS these days. It wasnt anywhere this bad last year.

March 4th locked them into kitchen sink mode. I think that'll help sink them, and is the silver-est lining of the wins.

0 Replies

Quote:

0 Replies

BBB
I don't like what is happening in Hillary Clinton's campaign. By alienating African-American voters, she is destroying any chance of winning the national election if she should become the Democratic nominee.

I'm so very sad that these two wonderful candidates are competing at the same time. The time is right for Barack Obama based on voters' desire for political reform. He realized the public's mood and acted. Hillary Clinton's best time would probably have been the 2004 election. She could have saved us from a Bush second term and she would have been a much better candidate than John Kerry.

Who knew?

BBB

0 Replies

I think I agree with everything you just said BBB.

0 Replies

BBB said

Quote:

I don't like what is happening in Hillary Clinton's campaign. By alienating African-American voters, she is destroying any chance of winning the national election if she should become the Democratic nominee.

I don't like it either. I'm also ill at ease regarding her fit within the institutional machinations of DC politics and corporate/lobbying. But I don't think that your fear regarding a national electoral response is at all certain, at least, not as regards the events of this candidacy battle. It's only a very few citizens who attend to political matters the way we here do and both candidates are still creating huge and unprecedented primary/caucus numbers and activist engagement. Further, i don't think her campaign is that short-sighted. If, as many (including me) hold to it be the case that the lady has a zestful desire for the presidency, then that end will be ever in view. It seems to me that the campaign is presently operating on Bill's stated strategy in campaigning that you take on the fight you are presently engaged in and seek to win it as the necessary primary goal.

0 Replies

Blatham
I partially agree with you. However, I think disappointed African-Americans might not vote for Hillary Clinton if Barack Obama is not the nominee. They wouldn't vote for John McCain. They may just stay home to express their disappointment.

I think that most women, on the other hand, would vote for Barack Obama if Hillary Clinton is not the nominee. I would despite my disappointment. I certainly would not stay home and would vote to avoid having another Republican Bush clone for president.

If Hillary does not become the Democratic nominee, I think she has a very good chance of replacing Harry Reid as the Senate Majority Leader, which would be a satisfying move up for her. She would be very effective in that position.

BBB

0 Replies

BBB

On that point (the potential loss of enthusiasm/activism/votes from the african american community) I'm worried too. But I don't see that as significantly a consequence of her campaign. If Obama is beaten by another, I don't think it really matters who that other might have been or how the winning campaign had operated (outside of extremisms greater than I think her campaign has been guilty of), rather I think the significant factor will simply be that an african american (of such talent and charisma) did not manage to win. That would be, to my mind, a completely reasonable cause for emotional let-down and cynicism.

I think your other point is correct too, in that women seem likely to remain activist and engaged if Barack wins. These are two of the reasons I respond positively to the prospect of Barack winning this.

But I also have see some serious positives with Clinton in the office for the next four or eight years. I still don't know who I'd vote for if I had a vote.

0 Replies

Re: Blatham

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

If Hillary does not become the Democratic nominee, I think she has a very good chance of replacing Harry Reid as the Senate Majority Leader, which would be a satisfying move up for her. She would be very effective in that position.

BBB

I think she would be effective there as well, but I also think that taking on that role precludes being President in the future. You make too many enemies and take too many very public stands on controversial issues.

0 Replies

Re: Blatham

engineer wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
If Hillary does not become the Democratic nominee, I think she has a very good chance of replacing Harry Reid as the Senate Majority Leader, which would be a satisfying move up for her. She would be very effective in that position.

BBB

I think she would be effective there as well, but I also think that taking on that role precludes being President in the future. You make too many enemies and take too many very public stands on controversial issues.

I seriously doubt another attempt by Clinton if this one fails to gain the nomination or if she doesn't wind up as VP candidate.

0 Replies

Re: Blatham

engineer wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
If Hillary does not become the Democratic nominee, I think she has a very good chance of replacing Harry Reid as the Senate Majority Leader, which would be a satisfying move up for her. She would be very effective in that position.

BBB

I think she would be effective there as well, but I also think that taking on that role precludes being President in the future. You make too many enemies and take too many very public stands on controversial issues.

Hillary Clinton has never backed off because she had enemies. She's very good at winning some of them to her side. That's one of the reasons I like her.

BBB

0 Replies

Adding that I agree she could be extremely effective in the role BBB proposes. Actually, that isn't something I'd considered previously and it is very interesting.

In my imaginings of ideal consequences for the next four years, a fundamental wish is to see the structural bastardizations of governance which the republicans have engineered (the politicization of the justice department being merely one example of what they've done throughout government...all to the end of strengthening or maintaining power) eviscerated. That will take not merely a lot of unrelenting work and lots of very good personnel who properly understand this problem, but it will also take a leader very familiar with government as it is in the US now and an utterly realistic and even vicious mindset to get these things cleaned up.

For this project, Hillary looks to be the right sort of person and that's been one of the serious positives in her candidacy from my viewpoint.

But...in the role BBB suggests, she could go a long ways to achieving those goals of mine. We'd need her to be the sort who really wishes to be a valuable civil servant rather than the sort who wishes high position for less laudable reasons. I suppose many here consider that question up in the air (if it ever got off the ground).

0 Replies

Re: Blatham

blatham wrote:

I seriously doubt another attempt by Clinton if this one fails to gain the nomination or if she doesn't wind up as VP candidate.

i could see her running again before i see her take a VP position.

0 Replies

Re: Blatham

Jonsey wrote:

blatham wrote:
I seriously doubt another attempt by Clinton if this one fails to gain the nomination or if she doesn't wind up as VP candidate.

i could see her running again before i see her take a VP position.

Being vice president would be a waste of Clinton's considerable talent.

Did I ever express my opinion that I think Hillary Clinton is smarter than Bill Clinton?

BBB

0 Replies

Re: Blatham

Jonsey wrote:

blatham wrote:
I seriously doubt another attempt by Clinton if this one fails to gain the nomination or if she doesn't wind up as VP candidate.

i could see her running again before i see her take a VP position.

Well, I suppose you presume a monomaniacal quality in her character which will be unsatisfied outside of supreme power. Your entirely welcome to that personal opinion of course but I I see no reason why anyone else ought to grant it credence.

But if you are really thinking about his question (as opposed to just tossing in a derogation) then imagine what circumstances would have to prevail four years up the road for her to run again.

0 Replies

Re: BBB

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

I don't like what is happening in Hillary Clinton's campaign. By alienating African-American voters, she is destroying any chance of winning the national election if she should become the Democratic nominee.

My concern, especially after the current administration, is that Clinton is failing the integrity test. Her statements about her foreign policy experience can at best be called exaggerations and at worse, outright lies. Even if it works against Obama, how does she think she can possibly beat McCain with this stuff? She's already said that "I meet the Commander and Chief requirement. McCain meets the requirement, Obama has a speech in 2004." I'm waiting for a reporter to ask her if that means she will vote McCain in a McCain/Obama match-up. I don't see how this type of campaign advances her agenda or that of her party.

0 Replies

Clinton campaign wants Texas to postpone party conventions

03/15/2008

By PAUL J. WEBER / Associated Press

As final results from the Texas Democratic caucus remain unknown, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign wants signatures from the March 4 contest verified before party conventions are held around the state later this month.

In a letter sent to the state Democratic Party late Friday, the Clinton campaign requests the March 29 count and state Senate district conventions be postponed until the eligibility of an estimated 1 million caucus-goers are double checked.

The Clinton campaign wrote they received more than 2,000 complaints of violations following the historic Texas turnout, which was perhaps the nation's largest caucus ever.

With about 41 percent of precinct caucuses reported, rival Barack Obama was ahead with 56 percent to Clinton's 44 percent.

"It is the Party's responsibility to ensure the integrity of the precinct convention process by making sure that the Rules were followed," the letter states.

The letter came after the Clinton campaign said party officials told them this week it would not verify the eligibility of all caucus-goers before March 29. The county and district caucuses will whittle down the delegates before the state convention in June, when the final delegate count for the Texas caucus will be known.

Texas Democratic Party spokesman Hector Nieto said Saturday the party has not yet had the opportunity to make any decisions on the Clinton campaign's request.

"We're not surprised Senator Clinton's campaign has engaged with their attorney, but right now the TDP remains extremely pleased by the record-breaking turnout," Nieto said.

Nieto said state party officials had not received a similar request from Obama's campaign. A message left to the Obama campaign Saturday was not immediately returned.

Clinton campaign spokeswoman Adrienne Elrod, when asked if a lawsuit would be filed or considered if state party officials did not postpone their conventions, said Saturday that, "We believe that we can work with the party to find a resolution that protects the wishes of every Texas voter and ensures that no one was disenfranchised."

In the letter, the Clinton campaign lists 10 instances in which party rules were violated during precinct caucusing. They include caucuses starting before precinct polling closed, and results being taken from head or hand counts instead of a written roll.

So far, precinct caucuses report electing 23,918 delegates for Obama and 18,620 for Clinton. In the Texas primary also held March 4, Clinton won the popular vote with 51 percent to Obama's 47 percent. That earned her 65 delegates to his 61.

The turnout for the Texas caucuses was more than four times the estimated 220,000 who attended Iowa's first-in-the nation presidential contest.

The turnout stymied a state Democratic party that has had a shadow of its once mighty influence since a Republican takeover of state politics in the 1990s

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8VE3NDO0.html

0 Replies

Re: BBB

engineer wrote:

My concern, especially after the current administration, is that Clinton is failing the integrity test. Her statements about her foreign policy experience can at best be called exaggerations and at worse, outright lies. Even if it works against Obama, how does she think she can possibly beat McCain with this stuff?

Talking about exaggerations, at best:

Quote:

CLINTON AND S-CHIP.

Ezra Klein @ The American Prospect

So far as Clinton's role in S-CHIP goes, there's no doubt that, from the White House, she was supportive of the key legislators and a proponent of the bill. But her continual attempts to take credit for the program expose the fundamental incoherence of her experience argument. When she says "I helped to start [S-CHIP],"you have to wonder how that could possibly be true. She wasn't a legislator, and so she didn't write the bill, pass it out of committee, or cast a decisive vote. She wasn't the president, and so didn't sign the bill into law, or direct government agencies to study the program's feasibility and lay the groundwork for the legislation. At best, she could have asked her husband to do these things, or used her access to advocate that they be done. But she couldn't have "started" the program. She just didn't have that sort of power.

That's the most grating part of the spin coming from her camp: the sheer transparency of it. Does she really think we're that stupid?

It's like: well, now with Obama, when he's saying that it only "came to his attention" that Wright made the statements now circulating on video when he started his run for the election, and thats why he only said something about it at that time. Thats just kind of equally, um, yeah, right. But it's the first time I've seen such transparent fudging from Obama's side.

Hillary pulls stuff like this all the time, with her stories of being "under sniper fire" during her visit to Bosnia with Cheryl Crow and Sinbad, her claims of having started S-CHIP, her assertion that she played a major role in the Northern Ireland peace agreement -- and her chief strategist Mr. Penn is much worse still. To me it just comes across like an insult to our intelligence.

0 Replies

Like this:

mysteryman wrote:

How can she be president when she doesnt even remember what she wrote in her own book?
She contradicts what she wrote, so was she lying then or is she lying now?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080317/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_fact_check_1

Quote:
WASHINGTON - As first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton traveled to Bosnia in March 1996 with her daughter and several celebrities to boost troop morale and thank soldiers stationed there.

Clinton cites the goodwill trip as a part of her foreign policy experience, describing a dangerous landing where she was ordered to the armored front of the plane because of possible ground fire. She also now reports landing under sniper fire and contradicts her previous written account of a shortened welcoming ceremony at the airport.

But according to accounts at the time, she was placed under no extraordinary risks on that trip. And one of her companions on it said he has no recollection either of the threat or reality of gunfire.

Does she really think that people didnt read her book, or does she not care?

(From one of the parallel threads)

That's what I'm talking about. Being treated for fools like that.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

That's what I'm talking about. Being treated for fools like that.

I've had that exact reaction. I just can't believe her campaign thinks I am that stupid. Yes, I know there are people out there who will believe it, but it still grinds on my nerves.

0 Replies

There is the First Gentleman who will be at hand for consultation and advice as he has presidential experience. Two heads are better than one.

0 Replies

Hillary Clinton for President - 2008

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know