cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 2 Apr, 2008 08:59 pm
What Hillary has learned (her only lesson) in her 35 years is to gain power no matter how.
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Wed 2 Apr, 2008 09:08 pm
You know, c.i. -- I never understood the hatred for Hillary that existed on the right. I even kinda' supported her early in the campaign just because I knew it would get republicans all bent out of shape, which I thought they deserved after giving us two terms of W. It truly was her negative and dishonest style that turned me off to her. I still don't know if the critics on the right had good reason to hate her, but I do.
Why do you think she wants to be president, anyway? Is it pure ego? That's hard to believe.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Wed 2 Apr, 2008 09:28 pm
Quote:

"If you spend eight years around Alan Greenspan, you're going to learn something," Prado said, referring to the former Federal Reserve chairman who served during the longest period of sustained economic growth in U.S. history during Clinton's administration.


Nimh, the irony of this is definitely worth pointing out!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Wed 2 Apr, 2008 09:33 pm
echi wrote:
You know, c.i. -- I never understood the hatred for Hillary that existed on the right. I even kinda' supported her early in the campaign just because I knew it would get republicans all bent out of shape, which I thought they deserved after giving us two terms of W. It truly was her negative and dishonest style that turned me off to her. I still don't know if the critics on the right had good reason to hate her, but I do.
Why do you think she wants to be president, anyway? Is it pure ego? That's hard to believe.


Hillary has always wanted to be president. She wanted very much to count, to be recognized, to be appreciated, to be adored. She and Bill share that desire if they don't share all that much else. She had waited patiently, done all the wifely duties, and stood by her man when most women wouldn't have done that. She couldn't risk running in 2004 against an incumbant who still had reasonably high approval ratings in wartime; and anyway she had to fulfill her obligations as Senator of New York and build up at least an illusion of a track record. (I think you can take it to the bank that she was really REALLY glad that Bush, and not Kerry won in 2004 though; otherwise she would have had to wait to 2012 to run.)

But now it was her turn. She was the presumptive nominee and the presumptive winner in 2008. She was supposed to be crowned queen early on and carried by a great groundswell of adoration right into the White House and history making glory.

But she didn't count on Obama. He didn't follow the script. And those who have really paid attention all these years know that a thwarted Clinton brings out a quite unattractive side in both. Obama, by contrast, handles controversy with much more calm, class, and poise. And that hasn't helped Hillary either.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 2 Apr, 2008 09:43 pm
Fox, At least I can agree with you once. LOL Good post, BTW.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Wed 2 Apr, 2008 09:51 pm
Quote:

"If you spend eight years around Alan Greenspan, you're going to learn something," Prado said, referring to the former Federal Reserve chairman who served during the longest period of sustained economic growth in U.S. history during Clinton's administration.


Ummmm....then what happened to Andrea Mitchell?
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Wed 2 Apr, 2008 10:31 pm
This is REALLY crossing the line!

Quote:
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and former President Bill Clinton are making very direct arguments to Democratic superdelegates, starkly insisting Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., cannot win a general election against presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Sources with direct knowledge of the conversation between Sen. Clinton and Governer Bill Richardson, D-N.M., prior to the Governor's endorsement of Obama say she told him flatly, "He cannot win, Bill. He cannot win."


Video

0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 2 Apr, 2008 10:40 pm
Save that quote, Roxxxanne, so we can make a huge sign after Hillary losses, and send it to her; c/o Senate.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Wed 2 Apr, 2008 11:49 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
echi wrote:
You know, c.i. -- I never understood the hatred for Hillary that existed on the right. I even kinda' supported her early in the campaign just because I knew it would get republicans all bent out of shape, which I thought they deserved after giving us two terms of W. It truly was her negative and dishonest style that turned me off to her. I still don't know if the critics on the right had good reason to hate her, but I do.
Why do you think she wants to be president, anyway? Is it pure ego? That's hard to believe.


Hillary has always wanted to be president. She wanted very much to count, to be recognized, to be appreciated, to be adored. She and Bill share that desire if they don't share all that much else. She had waited patiently, done all the wifely duties, and stood by her man when most women wouldn't have done that. She couldn't risk running in 2004 against an incumbant who still had reasonably high approval ratings in wartime; and anyway she had to fulfill her obligations as Senator of New York and build up at least an illusion of a track record. (I think you can take it to the bank that she was really REALLY glad that Bush, and not Kerry won in 2004 though; otherwise she would have had to wait to 2012 to run.)

But now it was her turn. She was the presumptive nominee and the presumptive winner in 2008. She was supposed to be crowned queen early on and carried by a great groundswell of adoration right into the White House and history making glory.

But she didn't count on Obama. He didn't follow the script. And those who have really paid attention all these years know that a thwarted Clinton brings out a quite unattractive side in both. Obama, by contrast, handles controversy with much more calm, class, and poise. And that hasn't helped Hillary either.


Hillary has been vulnerable from the start.

Her negatives, even among her own party, are very high.

A challenger giving her a good run for the money was a matter of who, not if.

That doesn't mean she can't win the nomination, it just means it wasn't 'inevitable'.

It may be that neither will clinch the nomination before the convention and a compromise candidate will have to be sought.

Actually that's the best case scenario for the Dems now, but they don't know it.

If either Hilly or Barry get the nod, a large percentage of Dems will stay home or vote for McCain in November.

It's an absolutely huge problem and the party leadership is in big time denial.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Thu 3 Apr, 2008 05:57 am
Could be. Or it could be that the Dems have two candidates bringing record-breaking numbers of people to the polls, that when they finally get a nominee the aggregate support that goes to him/her will be bigger than McCain's even accounting for those saying disgruntled things right now, and that this is a "huge" problem only in the wishful minds of snarky rightwingers.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Thu 3 Apr, 2008 06:14 am
That's not so much raining on someone's parade as it is peeing on it.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Thu 3 Apr, 2008 06:39 am
snood wrote:
Could be. Or it could be that the Dems have two candidates bringing record-breaking numbers of people to the polls, that when they finally get a nominee the aggregate support that goes to him/her will be bigger than McCain's even accounting for those saying disgruntled things right now, and that this is a "huge" problem only in the wishful minds of snarky rightwingers.


At one point when both Obama's and Clinton's negatives were rising sharply I wondered if both would become unviable and a scenario of somebody else surfacing in a brokered convention could be possible. That would be great stuff for the media--I can imagine them salivating over the prospect--but not likely a good thing for the Dems.

Then I was wondering if the Clinton machine could pull it off and bribe or threaten or intimidate enough super delegates to prevail--they do know where all the figurative bodies are buried etc. But with the rats abandoning the Clinton ship as they seem to be doing, that is looking less likely all the time, but still not impossible. RL is right that Hillary's high negatives have always been a problem for her, but the Democrats still outnumber Republicans in the USA and at one time the smart money was on her being the next President.

I think here are people who hang in with Hillary out of a) loyalty/opportunism b)because she is a woman c) maybe even some who think she would be a good President, d) mostly because she is the Democrat.

I think there are people who support Obama out of a) attraction to his charisma b) because he is black c) they really do believe he would be a good President d) mostly because he is the Democrat.

In other words, a huge number of voters will be voting for a Democrat because he or she is the Democrat no matter who he is.

Another huge number will be voting for a Republican because he is the Republican no matter who he is.

And the swing voters who have no loyalty to either party will be the ones who will actually elect the President.

According to Rasmussen, Obama's negatives are hovering around 50%. McCain does better but he's nowhere near as charismatic as Obama and what negatives he has are biggies among conservative Republicans.

This may be one of the most interesting campaigns we've seen in a long time.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Thu 3 Apr, 2008 07:04 am
McCain wil lwin this election.... it sucks... but as usual no on to thank but ourselves...
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Thu 3 Apr, 2008 07:21 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
McCain wil lwin this election.... it sucks... but as usual no on to thank but ourselves...

So will you be voting for either McCain or Obama on election day?
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Thu 3 Apr, 2008 07:26 am
neither...
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Thu 3 Apr, 2008 07:30 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
neither...



Petulant child.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Thu 3 Apr, 2008 07:32 am
delusional life wrote:
f either Hilly or Barry get the nod, a large percentage of Dems will stay home or vote for McCain in November.



Barry = Obama, I assume, delusional?
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Thu 3 Apr, 2008 07:33 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
neither...

Then how can you complain about it? If we have no one to blame but ourselves...
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Thu 3 Apr, 2008 07:34 am
sexually confused, man made half a person... who's never had a good word to day about anyone.... Laughing
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Thu 3 Apr, 2008 07:35 am
engineer wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
neither...

Then how can you complain about it? If we have no one to blame but ourselves...



I'm writing in the candidate of my choice... america... land of the free and all....
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 724
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.2 seconds on 09/16/2024 at 03:43:50