Election 2008: So is Hillary Clinton finished?

mr. met wrote: yea, i mean, it's unfortunate that politics sometimes get ugly. does hillary get points for verbalizing the possiblity of the two of them running together? or is that a calculated move on her part, suggested to her by her evil paid ninja assassins?

My judgement tells me that Hillary hints at the 'dream ticket' as a way to position herself as a 2-for-1 vote; vote for me, and Obama can be my VP. It's a disingenous claim, but a smart political move. In a nutshell, she's gotten desperate and will do or say anything to be on the top of the ticket.

mr. met wrote:

Your vote will decide who answers that call, whether it's someone who already knows the world's leaders, knows the military - someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world.

is this a lie?

Again, this is all just so very short-sighted.

McCain pwns her on all of this, by decades more experience.

She needs a different message, something else other than "we both have very little relevant experience, but I claim more."

The fact that one candidate is older than the other does not mean more relevant experience, despite claims made to the contrary.

Also, honestly speaking here, can someone please explain how people are angry at one health care plan versus another here?

I am hoping this isn't just invective injected to draw out perceived differences and outrage.

The two plans are extremely similar, with the main difference that one candidate thinks it's realistic that theirs will realistically work a certain way, and the other candidate thinks that theirs will realistically work another way.

Both plans have the same aim of universal healthcare, and are only separated by different experts' interpretations of what happens when theory hits actual practice.

I don't see either candidate as having an advantage in the conversation going in, as neither candidate had any successful cred in this area beforehand.

It's all about what their experts have recommended to them, based on two different interpretations of what happens in reality.

Both are huge priority issues for each candidate, so any claims about any candidate being against a core party value such as universal healthcare are questionable (in many ways...) at best.

So why the outrage here?

She needs a different message, something else other than "we both have very little relevant experience, but I claim more."

you know, she can change her strategy when her opponent changes.

the animosity on my part is totally personal. after everyone harping about how this guy is so fuckin' perfect and running such a clean campaign,

this really annoys me too.

also, regarding hillary's recent "dirty" tactics, she was kind of forced to use these measures because of the american public/the press's irrational hatred towards her. like we're all saying, the two of them are pretty much identical when it comes to the issues. most people here are saying that hillary has resorted to using dirty tactics in recent weeks and that she was fine before that. if this is true, then why were people turning on her? what does barack obama have that she doesnt besides a nice smile and a good personality? if you ask the average person why he supports obama, they will say something using the words "hope" and "change," as if hillary is against both of those things. it makes no sense.

She's already changed her position numerous times thus far. Another reason she's not as attractive of a candidate.

i said change strategy, not change position. it makes perfect sense to use different strategies to defeat different opponents.

Democratic phenom who rallys support, money and crowds like no politician in our lifetime.

wow

For you or Hillary or anyone to dismiss the intangible, charismatic quality that Obama has and Clinton lacks is to fool yourself. You said it yourself, their positions are very similar, so naturally other traits will make the difference.

so because obama knows how to rile people up and run a campaign he will be a good president? just because you are good at becoming the president does not mean that you will be a good president.

The point here is that while she's repositioning herself, from the experienced candidate, to the change candidate, to the "actions-not-words" candidate, to the 3am phone call candidate, to the fighter candidaet

do these conflict? it seems to me that an experienced candidate can want change, and that to do so, that candidate would use "actions-not-words," would know what do to in an emergency situation.

If you don't agree, and since you've stated the two candidates essentially have the same platform, why don't you outline something that shows Hillary will make a good president, instead of trying to dismiss Obama's obvious talents. Is the manner in which you run an intense, unpredictable, do-or-die campaign not somewhat indicative of how you'd lead a team, a staff, an administration?

that's the thing, i think hillary and obama would both be good presidents. i like barack obama and i will gladly vote for him if he is nominated. i just happen to like hillary a little bit more, and i like the idea that she spent a significant amount of time in the white house. i also like the idea of bill clinton back in the white house with her.

what i do not understand is the rabid obama supporter that trashes hillary as if she represents positions that are so radically different than obama. if you want obama in the white house, fine -- that doesn't mean you have to paint hillary as some snake-in-the-grass bitch and obama as king arthur.

what gets me a little upset is the obama supporter that

alafairnadia wrote: the animosity on my part is totally personal. after everyone harping about how this guy is so fuckin' perfect and running such a clean campaign, it was nice to see him take a solid hit.

mr. met wrote: this really annoys me too.

By the way, you all do have a very good point with these comments.

The whole NAFTA thing did come as a bit of a stun to him, especially since he had no idea what they were talking about at first, and assumed that it should be simply denied (instead of saying he had no personal knowledge, but would investigate...).

The source and context of the claims were completely fuzzy and innuendo at best (and CBC additionally confirmed that they also has the same statement quoted from the Clinton camp, but the media only ran with the Obama side), but...

To be fair, it did knock him completely back on his heels at a very well-timed moment, and that cost him dearly.

And given the subsequent 3 states she won, who wouldn't be similarly psyched for their candidate.

Nothing personal, just personal.

Same will be the case for whatever camp wins the next ones.

mr. met wrote:

didn't think anyone was accusing Hillary of representing radically different positions.

i didnt say that anyone accused hillary of representing radically different positions. if there's one thing we can agree on, it's that obama and clinton share A LOT of the same views. i said that people attack hillary AS IF she were the polar opposite of obama in terms of issues and policy.

I simply disagree with you. Again. Hillary's taking shots now because of her campaign tactics, which you continually refuse to either acknowledge or dismiss. That is the reason for the attacks. No need to pretend the reason is "AS IF she had radically different positions." She obviously DOES have a radically different campaign style.

which you continually refuse to either acknowledge or dismiss.

read the obama thread

Uh, oh - while both Dems have been gloating about their fundraising prowess and while we've been studiously studying and arguing about the vicissitudes of the art of the come-back - this just in...

WASHINGTON — For all the success that Democratic presidential candidates have had in raising money — taking in a combined total of over $500 million in the current race — the Republicans are beating them in one crucial area of fund-raising: the money being raised by the parties themselves.

The Democratic National Committee ended 2007 nearly flat broke, with cash of $2.9 million and debts of $2.2 million. Since then it has raised some money, paid down debt and managed to put $3.7 million in its piggy bank. This compares, however, with $25 million that the Republican National Committee has in cash on hand, after having raised $97 million since the beginning of 2007.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/us/politics/07donate.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1204906171-Fyc0ZrcncxVsmBZHJnpExg

From DailyKos today:

Desperate Clinton crosses 'the Joe Lieberman threshold'
by Geekesque
Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:39:37 PM PST

In a turn of phrase no doubt authored by the poison Penn, Hillary Clinton is now peddling bull manure packaged inside more bull manure with bull manure labeling.

And, she's doing everything she can to get John McCain elected.

The pro-McCain talking points below the fold.

Today's new standard: "Crossing the Commander-in-chief threshold."

What's that, you ask?

Beats the hell out of me. Is it the secret entrance to the West Wing? A line in the sand somewhere? I got nothing.

You think I'm making this up?

I'm not.

"I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold," the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant’s bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.

"I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy," she said.


Calling McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee a good friend and a "distinguished man with a great history of service to our country," Clinton said, "Both of us will be on that stage having crossed that threshold. That is a critical criterion for the next Democratic nominee to deal with."

I will tell you what I know about this, though.

It's an attempt to poison the well for Barack Obama in 2008. Her goal is two-fold:

1. To make Obama appear as unelectable as possible to scare Superdelegates into voting for her at the convention; and

2. if that doesn't work, to make sure that McCain defeats Obama in November so she can run again in 2012 and scold the party with "I told you so."

"There are certain critical issues that voters always look to in a general election. National security experience (and) the qualifications to be commander-in-chief are front and center. They always have been. They always will be," she said.

She said she and McCain had traveled to Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan together as she repeated a line that surfaced from the campaign trail. She and McCain "bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign, Clinton said, while "Sen. Obama will bring a speech he gave in 2002," stating his opposition to the Iraq war as an Illinois state senator.

Folks, for 2008, Hillary Clinton has one overriding goal:

Prevent Barack Obama from winning the White House.

If that means she wins, great. But, if that means handing the White House to the Republican and John McCain, that's also acceptable. Because, after all, there's always 2012.

Her worst case scenario is Barack Obama defeating her close friend and ally, John McCain.

She has crossed a threshold.

Not the "Commander in chief threshold."

She's crossed the "Joe Lieberman Threshold" by campaigning on behalf of the Republican nominee for President.

Permission is granted to reproduce this diary in whole or in part with proper atrribution.

If you want to punish Senator Clinton or otherwise express your outrage, you know what to do. (Volunteer too!)

I will tell you what I know about this, though.

It's an attempt to poison the well for Barack Obama in 2008. Her goal is two-fold:

1. To make Obama appear as unelectable as possible to scare Superdelegates into voting for her at the convention; and

2. if that doesn't work, to make sure that McCain defeats Obama in November so she can run again in 2012 and scold the party with "I told you so."

why wouldn't she want to do #1? isn't the point to make yourself look electable and your opponent look unelectable? #2 is absurd.

Folks, for 2008, Hillary Clinton has one overriding goal:

Prevent Barack Obama from winning the White House.

If that means she wins, great. But, if that means handing the White House to the Republican and John McCain, that's also acceptable. Because, after all, there's always 2012.

Her worst case scenario is Barack Obama defeating her close friend and ally, John McCain.

in other news, hillary clinton is responsible for global warming, homelessness, and all other terrible things in this world. i'm pretty sure she has horns, too; i just haven't figured out how she hides them.

The Clinton Campaign are sleazebags, can't be more clear on that and if a truer newspaper column has ever been written than today's by Bob Herbert, I don't know what it could be.

She would rather see McCain pres than Sen Obama -so that she could still have another shot in 4 years.

If it's Hillary than I go for the 3rd party person, or write one in - never will vote for her.

March 8, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Confronting the Kitchen Sink
By BOB HERBERT
The high anxiety in the Obama circles has thrown the campaign off its game.

Samantha Power, one of Senator Barack Obama’s senior foreign policy advisers, had to quit Friday after she lost her cool in an interview with a Scottish newspaper and called Senator Hillary Clinton a “monster.”

The campaign apologized for the flap. But Mr. Obama himself seems unsure of how to respond to the trash-and-thrash tactics that helped Senator Clinton defeat him in Ohio and Texas this week.

The anger that caused Ms. Power to blurt out the monster comment is widespread inside the Obama camp. But Senator Obama, for a variety of reasons — some of them self-imposed — is sharply constrained in the way that he can respond to provocations.

And if there is one thing the Clinton crowd knows how to do, it’s provoke.

On Thursday, Senator Clinton’s spokesman, Howard Wolfson, likened Senator Obama to Ken Starr, the independent prosecutor who hounded the Clintons in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Why the Clinton forces would want to inject that poisonous bit of business into the campaign is a mystery.

But there was Mr. Wolfson on Thursday, in response to a call from the Obama campaign for Mrs. Clinton to release her tax returns, asserting: “I, for one, do not believe that imitating Ken Starr is the way to win a Democratic primary election for president.”

More serious was Senator Clinton’s assertion that she was qualified to be commander in chief, and that John McCain had also “certainly” crossed that “threshold,” but that the jury was still out on Mr. Obama.

In other words, if a choice on national security had to be made today between Senators Obama and McCain, voters — according to Mrs. Clinton’s logic — should choose Senator McCain.

That is a low thing for a Democratic presidential candidate to do to a rival in a party primary. Can you imagine John McCain saying that Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney or even the guitar-strumming Mike Huckabee might be less qualified than Hillary Clinton to be commander in chief? It couldn’t happen.

But Senator Clinton never gave a second thought to opening the trap door beneath her fellow Democrat.

And then there was Mrs. Clinton on “60 Minutes,” being interviewed by Steve Kroft. He had shown a clip on the program of a voter in Ohio who said that he’d heard that Senator Obama didn’t know the national anthem, “wouldn’t use the Holy Bible,” and was a Muslim.

Mr. Kroft asked Senator Clinton if she believed that Senator Obama is a Muslim. In one of the sleaziest moments of the campaign to date, Senator Clinton replied: “No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.”

As far as I know.

If she had been asked if she thought President Bush was a Muslim, would her response have included the caveat “as far as I know”? What about Senator McCain? Why, then, with Senator Obama?

In the run-up to the crucial Texas and Ohio primaries, the plan in the Clinton camp, as The Times reported, was to unleash as many lines of attack as possible — a “kitchen sink” fusillade — in the hope that something would work. Senator Obama is still trying to figure out how to respond.

Whatever anger and frustration he may be feeling, he should stick to the high road. He can’t win wrestling in the mud with Hillary Clinton. That will not put Barack Obama in the White House.

Mr. Obama’s strength was his message of hope and healing, the idea that he could bring disparate groups together to work on the nation’s toughest problems. That has gotten him this far, which is much further than almost anyone expected.

He now needs an added dimension. He needs to articulate a vision. He needs to spell out to voters where he wants to take this country over the next few years, how he will alleviate the suffering of millions trapped in vicious economic circumstances and what he will do to restore the honor and prestige of the U.S. around the world.

Political campaigns are not about fairness, but they can often be about vision. Voters want more from Senator Obama.

He may not be able to close the deal with, say, working-class whites, but he more than anyone else has the eloquence to try and make a compelling case. He should go for it.

We have seen election after election in which candidates have won by fanning the anxieties of voters. Elect me, or something terrible will happen to you!

That is now the Clinton mantra, which is a measure of how grim our politics have become.

so did Bubba

And I'm too lazy at the moment to shop anyone's head in. But I would.

But then I'd have to add these Nurse Diesel ones in too, just to be "fair and balanced" (in the Faux News sense):




8)