Yes. Like universal health care which Obama will forget about once he is elected and the big money people let him know how its going to be.
The stories that I saw indicated that Bill was trying to hold up Obama for paying of hillary's $25 million debt, $10 of which is Bill's earned income. It looks to me like Obama told Bill to go screw himself, but we don't know that yet. We do know that Bill does not like Obama much/at all, it is only a matter of time before the feeling is mutual.
Getting back to the original theme, Hillary never ran against Democrats as she was parachuted to the race against Republicans. She was always in general election mode appealing to Democrats, Independents and moderate Republicans. In a Democratic race you appeal to Democrats only as Independents and moderate Republicans do not vote.
I have only read the first and last page so someone may have covered it, but I think it the reason Hillary lost can be summed up in one word, IRAQ. I started getting way aggrivated with her when she started to sound just like 'them' and never really liked her much since and didn't buy her turn about. I really didn't know too much about Obama despite all his coverage and couldn't make up my mind between them, but in the end went against Hillary for that reason I stated.
Big article coming up in the Atlantic, "The Front-Runner's Fall," excerpts here:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12420.html
The fact that Hillary is a lousy manager is not news. Her need to ignore unpleasant reality in order to function hurts her, as no one in her inner circle is going to destroy their relationship with Hillary by trying to take her some place that she will not go. It also may be that taking the risk of a confrontation with Bill kept some in inaction when action was required.
Those who blame the media, or discrimination, for Hillary losing need to face the fact that Hillary brought a lot of her loss, if not all of it, upon herself. She and her "army" should not be allowed yet another round of "Clinton, the victim" We as a nation have lots of pressing problems, the Clinton's are history now, we don't have the time for more Clinton melodrama
I'm not sure if anyone has brought up the obvious, but all we need to do is look at who Obama is attracting; the young, women, Hispanics and blacks.
There are about a dozen or so nuances that answers why Hillary lost, but I'd opine that Hillary's negative shots at Obama was perceived as somebody willing to trash a candidate of her own party over trashing McCain.
Her assumptive statements like "when I'm president" was a big negative for her too!
That's my .02c worth why Hillary lost to Obama.
cicerone imposter wrote:
Her assumptive statements like "when I'm president" was a big negative for her too!
.
This is true, it reminded us all about the the Nasty sense of entitlement that the Clintons are full of. I think that the days of self defined victims getting handed to them what ever they want are over, these are not the Nineties any more, many of us are now sick of seeing this power play used and working.
talk72000 wrote:Getting back to the original theme, Hillary never ran against Democrats as she was parachuted to the race against Republicans. She was always in general election mode appealing to Democrats, Independents and moderate Republicans. In a Democratic race you appeal to Democrats only as Independents and moderate Republicans do not vote.
Exactly incorrect. Democrats are the only group that
did like Hillary better. The exit polls show, vividly, that it is precisely Independents and moderate Republicans that put Obama over the top. Where did you get such a silly idea?
Why did Clinton lose?
Edwards.
Quote:
Wolfson: Edwards' Cover-up Cost Clinton the Nomination
Aides Say She Would Have Won Iowa if Edwards Affair was Exposed
By BRIAN ROSS and JAKE TAPPER
August 11, 2008
Sen. Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic presidential nominee if John Edwards had been caught in his lie about an extramarital affair and forced out of the race last year, insists a top Clinton campaign aide, making a charge that could exacerbate previously existing tensions between the camps of Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama.
"I believe we would have won Iowa, and Clinton today would therefore have been the nominee," former Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson told ABCNews.com.
Clinton finished third in the Iowa caucuses barely behind Edwards in second place and Obama in first. The momentum of the insurgent Obama campaign beating two better-known candidates -- not to mention an African-American winning in such an overwhelmingly white state -- changed the dynamics of the race forever.
Obama won 37.6 per cent of the vote. Edwards won 29.7 per cent and Clinton won 29.5 per cent, according to results posted by the Iowa Democratic Party.
"Our voters and Edwards' voters were the same people," Wolfson said the Clinton polls showed. "They were older, pro-union. Not all, but maybe two-thirds of them would have been for us and we would have barely beaten Obama."
Two months earlier, Edwards had vociferously, but falsely, denied a story in the National Enquirer about the alleged affair last October, and few in the mainstream media even reported the denial.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5553013&page=1
But , lying about sex doesn't affect anyone , does it?
real wrote: But , lying about sex doesn't affect anyone , does it?
That's correct, but only when the two are consenting adults. But lying about WMDs and terrorist connections costs lives.
Quote:Why did Clinton lose?
Because she stood by her man
cicerone imposter wrote:real wrote: But , lying about sex doesn't affect anyone , does it?
That's correct, but only when the two are consenting adults. But lying about WMDs and terrorist connections costs lives.
Saddam's systematic deception about his WMD capability has caused horrible consequences. No doubt.
and btw since Rielle was Edwards' employee it's somewhat doubtful if the simple assumption of 'consent' fits into this scenario which suggest sexual harrassment.
And Edwards lies did affect the primary race, can you deny that?
Here's the full Atlantic article I referred to before:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200809/hillary-clinton-campaign
Quote:Two things struck me right away. The first was that, outward appearances notwithstanding, the campaign prepared a clear strategy and did considerable planning. It sweated the large themes (Clinton's late-in-the-game emergence as a blue-collar champion had been the idea all along) and the small details (campaign staffers in Portland, Oregon, kept tabs on Monica Lewinsky, who lived there, to avoid any surprise encounters). The second was the thought: Wow, it was even worse than I'd imagined!What is clear from the internal documents is that Clinton's loss derived not from any specific decision she made but rather from the preponderance of the many she did not make. Her hesitancy and habit of avoiding hard choices exacted a price that eventually sank her chances at the presidency. What follows is the inside account of how the campaign for the seemingly unstoppable Democratic nominee came into being, and then came apart.
(Italics in the original, bold-emphasis mine.)
real wrote: Saddam's systematic deception about his WMD capability has caused horrible consequences. No doubt.
"Deception" doesn't justify a preemptive war. If you really want to talk about deception, talk about what the Bush administration did to justify the Iraq war.
Saddam had a responsibility under the cease fire agreement to comply with certain conditions including ridding his nation of WMDs.
He not only failed to comply, he actively sought to have the world believe that he was hiding WMD programs.
Saddam lied, people died.
real wrote: Saddam had a responsibility under the cease fire agreement to comply with certain conditions including ridding his nation of WMDs.
You have what everybody can term "circular thinking," and what you say is most often wrong. UN Weapon's Inspectors were in Iraq to confirm that Saddam didn't have any WMDs, but Bush chased them out to start his illegal war. When there is "deception," it's contingent on the aggressor to make sure of what is being charged as fact. The UN inspectors had the freedom to inspect any place in Iraq including Saddam's palaces - for the very first time when Bush chased them out. The US military looked for those weapons for the next couple of years after Bush started his war, and found nothing. That ended up costing over 100,000 innocent Iraqi lives - based on "deception." Bush is a murder.
After 12 years of lying, systematic deceit and doubletalk, and the troops were on the doorstep, Saddam hollered 'Believe me'.
And nobody did.
And that's supposed to be our fault?
Those are words; not worth killing for.
Nice platitudes, CI.
It's very revealing that you can't seem to lay any blame for this on Saddam.
It's all Bush's fault, isn't it? Every bit, right?
Saddam's consistent brutalization of his populace, his aggression to neighbor states, his harboring and financing of terrorists, his history of having AND USING wmds, and his purposeful deception to project himself as a 'player' who STILL had and was willing to use them.................
.........none of this is to blame , right?
You're a pathetic partisan, playing politics with the war, pretending that you're 'agin it' while everyone else must be 'fer it'.
Most all Americans are against war and are not pleased when people die. But the liberal habit of making themselves look good by savaging America is despicable.
