Funny thing This politics

Bear
Bear, I seem to recall that it was the "educated class" who got us into the Iraq war, ruined our economy, put us in more danger, etc.

BBB

Re: Funny thing This politics


Quite a laugh indeed.




My favorite is that when people were saying that Obama should step aside for the good of the party, Obama supporters were pissed.

NOW...

Clinton has to step aside for the good of the party.

Re: Bear


well everywhere I turn people do not miss the chance to state that the "educated" class are the ones who support Obama and they seem damn proud of it and pleased with themselves. :wink:

I was poo-pooed for making the same point.

I thought about exactly that edgar as i was riding home in my truck just now. Now, tell me if I'm wrong but aren't you also a member of the great "uneducated class"?

Come on over here in the corner with me and put on this dunce cap... we'll throw back a few shots and when the edumacated class gets finished killing each other we'll haul off with their plasma tv's and latte machines :wink:

Re: Funny thing This politics


Example?

This was one of the earliest things that upset me about her tactics. Edwards said some reasonable, issues-based stuff in a debate and Hillary complained to Wolf Blitzer about personal attacks. She never, ever gave less than she got in any debate -- she just varied how much victimhood she claimed.

And, "which is EXACTLY how this started..." How WHAT started?



I'd really like you to point to what you're talking about. Ridiculed for the idea that everyone (prez candidates) has been mean to Hillary while she's been perfectly nice to them, yes.



None of the Democratic candidates have contributed as much to the nastiness as Hillary. Full stop.


maporsche, when were people saying that Obama should step aside for the good of the party?

What I remember was Lola saying that Obama never should have run, that it was Hillary's time -- my argument is that I have always thought that Obama was more electable than she in a general election, and polls keep showing that. (And that's a snapshot of NOW, not a snapshot of after the boxes of oppo research that was reluctantly stored away for 2008 after Hillary didn't run in 2004 have been deployed.)

Has anyone been saying that Obama should step aside NOW?

I don't really think Hillary should -- I'd like it, but I think it needs to be more obvious that there's no way she can win, for political reasons. I do think that the kitchen sink attack mode she's in now is bad for the party.

What possible good comes from her saying that she and McCain have both passed the "commander in chief threshold," whatever that is, while Obama hasn't?

I posted this somewhere:

Soz, I could almost ignore all the other stuff, but when she starts giving the opposition talking points, it belies all her claims to just wanting what's best for the party. This quote:

"I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience he'll bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

I thought was totally irresponsible - and a perfect example of why she cares more about personally coming to power than any of that stuff she has tried to sell about supporting the democratic nominee, uniting the party or being "honored" to campaign with Obama. McCain has already started using that quote, and if Obama gets the nomination, it promises to be one of McCains zingiest one-liners.

Hillary is like keeping a dog... beating it, berating it... feeding it black powder... and then being shocked when it turns into an attack dog....

I have to agree with snood o this one. Lady Diane is now 100% Obama.

I don't completely disagree that she's the result of many, many years of attacks, some of them unconscionable. I just also think that the person she's become as a result of those attacks weakens her as a candidate and raises a lot of concerns about what kind of a president she'd be.

"Hillary needs enemies."

the elephant in the room.... what she says is accurate IMO.... not a savvy political move however...

Accurate, eh? Here's an article for ya:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-experiencemar07,0,51719.story

Yeah, it's unfair. She's been hunted down for a decade by the rightwing smear machine. If it turned her into a mean, ruthless politico who will stop at nothing - an "attack dog" - it's only understandable, at some level.

Doesnt mean, however, that just to make up for it you then want to elect that embittered attack dog as President, tho.. not unless you're feeling very reckless.

People are seeing through her bullshit. It's the same grand old Washington okey-doke. And if she keeps up with this mode, attacking from all angles like she's doing, more and more people will see it because it's really very obvious. Clever, strategic, but obvious all the same. You don't want to believe that she would stoop to such levels but eventually, you can't overlook the reality. This is how bad she wants it. And it's got nothing to do with her desire to serve her country. That desire has nothing to do with you or me.

She plays the public cheap, like we're just too stupid to see through her smoke and mirrors, and no one appreciates being played. Hell, we're just coming out of eight years of smoke and mirrors. The last thing we want is four more years of it, disguised in an ill-fitting pantsuit and pumps.

How much longer does all this go on?

Until November. Too damn long IMO!

I think you guys have two reasonable and electable no-way-right candidates, election madness notwithstanding.


Basically, I can't watch.......and, although the result critically affects the rest of the world, I have no say.



Just don't fukk it up, all right??????


PS: How bad is McCain, really?


It gives me hope that the rightwing-nuts don't like him..........but hell, he could still be arsenic on toast. How bad is the him winning scenario?????

here's where we part company... I believe Hillary would leave that baggage at the door...

BPB's last post is reminiscent of this, from a blog by Seth Grahme-Smith:

She has no idea.

She has no idea how many times I defended her. How many right-leaning friends and relatives I battled with. How many times I played down her shady business deals and penchant for scandals -- whether it was Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster, Cattle Futures, Web Hubbell, or Norman Hsu. She has no idea how frequently I dismissed her husband's serial adultery as an unfortunate trait of an otherwise brilliant man. For sixteen years, I was a proud soldier in the legion of "Clinton apologists" -- who believed that peace and prosperity were more important than regrettable personality traits.

And then she ran for president.

After seven years of George W. Bush, America is hungry for change. Big change. And let's face it -- Hillary Clinton, the party standard-bearer and former White House denizen -- isn't it. But even after voters coalesced around Barack Obama, handing him eleven straight primaries (twelve, if you count Vermont), she refused to accept the possibility -though math, money and momentum were clearly against her -- that the Bush/Clinton Family Band might not be #1 on America's Billboard chart anymore.

So, rather than step aside and become the hero of her party, she made a strategy decision to go negative in advance of Ohio and Texas. Not just negative -- personal. She cynically chided Mr. Obama's message of hope. She played the victim card. The gender card. The Muslim card. She cried "shame on you, Barack Obama" for his campaign tactics, while (if we're to believe Matt Drudge) simultaneously floating a picture of him in Somali garb to stir up questions of his patriotism.

She accused Mr. Obama of his own shady business deals (the irony of which nearly ripped a hole in the fabric of space/time). She accused him of being two-faced on NAFTA, when it was her campaign that had winked at the Canadians. She demanded that he "reject" the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, but remained silent when Rush Limbaugh stirred up votes for her in Texas. And she crafted the now-infamous "3am" attack ad -- which used scare tactics to highlight Senator Obama's perceived lack of experience in foreign affairs. Straight out of the ol' Atwater/Rove playbook. Of course, all of this paled in comparison to her husband's patronizing, racially insensitive comments earlier in the primary season.

Was this the same Hillary Clinton whose husband ran on the idea that hope was more powerful than fear? The wife of a president who had less foreign policy experience than Barack Obama when he was elected? And exactly which crisis is she referring to when she claims to have more experience? And while we're at it, where the hell are those tax returns?

It's clear that Hillary's back in this thing, at least for the time being. But at what cost? Short of some cataclysmic event, there's no way either she or Mr. Obama can reach 2,025 delegates in the remaining contests. That means she's accepted the inevitability of a brokered convention. A convention she'll almost certainly enter with fewer delegates than her opponent. That raises some important questions:

Will she subvert the will of the voters? Will she turn Denver into a series of shady back-room deals and arm twisting? Will she dispatch her husband to pressure superdelegates into switching allegiances at the last minute? Are we in for, as one pundit put it, a good ol' fashioned "knife fight?"

And if she does manage to secure the nomination, what about the scores of disenfranchised Obama supporters (many of them young people with little loyalty to the Democratic Party)? How will she bring them back into the tent? Hillary seems confident that this can be remedied by offering Mr. Obama a spot on her ticket. Really? And what would his motivation be for accepting? Playing third-fiddle to Bill?

However, if Mr. Obama goes on to secure the nomination, she'll have handed his rival a treasure trove of sound bites. All John McCain has to do between August and November is play clips of Hillary questioning Obama's experience and belittling his platitudes. In a way, she'll have become Mr. McCain's second running mate.

She's proven that she cares more about "Hillary" than "unity." More about defeating Obama than defeating the Republicans. She's become a political suicide-bomber, happy to blow herself to bits -- as long as she takes everyone else with her.

On Friday, one of Barack Obama's foreign policy advisors, Samantha Power, resigned after calling Senator Clinton "a monster" during an off-the-record exchange. It was an unfortunate slip, but one that echoed the sentiments of many Clinton apologists like me -- who've watched Hillary's descent into pettiness and fear-mongering with the heartbreak of a child who grows up to realize that his beloved mother has been a terrible person all along.

Are the conservatives right about the Clintons? Will they do and say anything to get elected?

I don't know.

All I know is...I'm through apologizing.

Now, I don't know why anyone thinking clearly would believe that someone who has shown themselves to clearly be a person who would stop at nothing in order to grab the reins of power - throwing party and colleague under the bus and talking out of both sides of her mouth while doing it - would suddenly become someone motivated by positive intentions to help the country on inauguration day. But its a free country, and one can believe what one wants. Even while accusing Obama supporters of being irritating, blinded cult groupies, one can believe anything about Clinton that one wants. Just don't expect to go over looking very credible.