Hillary Clinton just won't quit!

[Texas]

So just to watch ConspiRaider's head explode, I'm an Obama supporter who thinks Clinton should stay in the race as long as she likes. Doesn't bother me a bit. I notice that it doesn't bother Obama either.

In fact, I don't think Clinton could back down now even if she wanted to. It's an interesting position for her to be in. They will work out a graceful way for her to exit the stage. After all, she would have been a great president and we would have been lucky to have her. Who knows? We still might.

Here's the thing that I'm surprised that our Republican and right-wing friends here at JREF haven't picked up on yet (or if they have, I've not read it). I've been taking my peculiar vantage point in the Great Clinton-Obama Supporters War to reflect on the nature of Bush Derangement Syndrome. It seems to me that this vicious demonizing of the candidate you don't support is just the mindset of BDS carried forward. The parallels are just inescapable.

And ConspiRaider, the behavior I've seen you exhibit in this forum make you Exhibit A.

Nah, I don't don't see Hillary being accused of treason or any assassination "wishes" so it isn't a direct corollary to BDS yet. I think it is more like "our" side's reaction to Bill when it comes to Hillary with Obama supporters. We were as prone to hyperbole with Bubba as ya'll are with Hillary. I do have a question though. If Obama can't get above his present 15% support of Hispanics to McCain's present 40+% not to mention his problems with blue collar whites and older women how does he plan on winning the swing states Hillary has done so well in?

 

[ConspiRaider]

Hangin' in there.

That's a little different. Ronnie really was unstoppable. Frankly, I think that's why they nominated Ferraro for VP. They knew they couldn't win anyway, so they were building up some points for future elections. Also, if you are in a state that is never in doubt (as Texas has been for many years) then you can vote for whoever you like, since the electoral system will make your vote meaningless if you don't vote for the winner.

Maybe that's the case with you this year, but this is going to be pretty close, I think. It's a bad time to be "making a statement".

Well I feel just the opposite. I think Hillary is the one who is more likely to flub things up and lose to a Republican. Frankly, I think she'd make a better president than Obama, but she would be less likely to get the chance. There are too many Clinton haters in this country. A lot of them are in my family.

Hey Trick -

Exactly my view on the Ferraro VP nom back there in the 80s, it was done just to get it on the board. Saint Ronald's halo was cracklin' and smokin' at full power - he wasn't going anywhere but back to the Office.

Probably, I'll have the luxury of voting for whomever I want - probably California will go Blue in November. But even so. McCain as Prez or Obama as Prez - I'm unable to discern the advantages / disadvantages.

Two things hit home with me recently: Obama's links to Bill Ayers / Bernardine Dohrn (just imagine the fun the Repubs will have with that, in their political spots) and this implied "threat" of trouble or violence if Obama doesn't get the nomination. That latter one, for me, is an absolute showstopper. NOBODY intimidates me into a vote. And yet - I just read another Democratic political column, stating that the Dem superdelegates might actually feel intimidated to go with Obama, even though he has a good chance of losing. That's madness. That puts us right down into third world politics. We're the USA for chrissakes!

My family, for the most part, are Bush supporters if you can believe that. I love 'em, but sheez! "President" SlobberSlurryStupidFace?!?

 

[boloboffin]

First of all - why do you think I care what "Exhibit" you think I am? I got your exhibit.

Secondly, I'm "viciously demonizing" Obama? Oh I am, am I? When and where did I call him a devil? Want to point that out to me? You won't be able to because it never happened. But of course that didn't stop you from accusing me of demonizing Obama.

No, you know what I'm doing? I'm supporting Hillary Clinton. PERIOD. But you cannot handle that - you'd rather accuse anyone who does not share your Obamania affliction of being a "demonizer". Pathetic.

I rest my case.

 

[boloboffin]

Nah, I don't don't see Hillary being accused of treason or any assassination "wishes" so it isn't a direct corollary to BDS yet. I think it is more like "our" side's reaction to Bill when it comes to Hillary with Obama supporters. We were as prone to hyperbole with Bubba as ya'll are with Hillary. I do have a question though. If Obama can't get above his present 15% support of Hispanics to McCain's present 40+% not to mention his problems with blue collar whites and older women how does he plan on winning the swing states Hillary has done so well in?

You obviously haven't been reading Democratic Underground's General Discussion - Primaries Forum. It gets insanely brutal down in there, and it goes both ways. I've seen awful things published about both candidates AND their supporters.

Obama is suffering his low numbers right now against Hillary. I have no doubt at all that his numbers in the constituencies you mention will improve after he gains the nomination. If they do not, he's in trouble. Of course he is. But I've seen this guy surmount obstacles again and again. I'm thinking that Obama is more than ready for another challenge, one in which he has a lot more freedom in how he attacks and defends himself.

 

[Texas]

Hangin' in there.

That's a little different. Ronnie really was unstoppable. Frankly, I think that's why they nominated Ferraro for VP. They knew they couldn't win anyway, so they were building up some points for future elections. Also, if you are in a state that is never in doubt (as Texas has been for many years) then you can vote for whoever you like, since the electoral system will make your vote meaningless if you don't vote for the winner.

Maybe that's the case with you this year, but this is going to be pretty close, I think. It's a bad time to be "making a statement".



Well I feel just the opposite. I think Hillary is the one who is more likely to flub things up and lose to a Republican. Frankly, I think she'd make a better president than Obama, but she would be less likely to get the chance. There are too many Clinton haters in this country. A lot of them are in my family.

You are forgetting the female factor in this. Look I know I am butting into family business on this thread but demographically Obama is facing a blowout if he is the nominee. He is being nominated by the ACTIVIST base of your party and you are forgetting that he can be the ACTIVIST choice and lose in a landslide in the GE. See Mondale and Stevenson. 25% of Hillary's supporters say they will vote for McCain over Obama. Obama will lose the Hispanic vote 2 to one to McCain, Bush won 40% of the Hispanics and that was his margin of victory over Gore and Kerry. Obama has REAL problems with "Reagan Democrats" and with the Florida and Michigan debacles he can kiss those 2 swing states goodbye right off the bat not to mention PA and Ohio. Clinton negates those problems high negatives or not because just like my "republican" wife she has let me know that she will vote for Hillary if she gets the chance.. Obama already has the black vote sewn up along with the upper income dems and youth but hell more young folks show up at his rock star rallies than at the polls. In PA only 17% IIRC showed up to vote.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Hillary quit? Never! You don't give up on your divine right to rule.

 

[Texas]

You obviously haven't been reading Democratic Underground's General Discussion - Primaries Forum. It gets insanely brutal down in there, and it goes both ways. I've seen awful things published about both candidates AND their supporters.

Obama is suffering his low numbers right now against Hillary. I have no doubt at all that his numbers in the constituencies you mention will improve after he gains the nomination. If they do not, he's in trouble. Of course he is. But I've seen this guy surmount obstacles again and again. I'm thinking that Obama is more than ready for another challenge, one in which he has a lot more freedom in how he attacks and defends himself.

Well I haven't seen him overcome anything in the primary. If you think the primary has been rough wait until the GOP 527's get through with him. Yes I have watched the train wreck on DU since the GOP is as exciting as my last belch but, especially with Hispanics and older women, if Obama gets the nod I predict they will flock to McCain.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Look I know I am butting into family business on this thread but demographically Obama is facing a blowout if he is the nominee. He is being nominated by the ACTIVIST base of your party and you are forgetting that he can be the ACTIVIST choice and lose in a landslide in the GE. See Mondale and Stevenson.

Yep. See McGovern too. And when we put nice guys into the ring - like Humphrey - they don't fare so well either.

I think we're overlooking a very basic fact: Going back at least 50 years, we Democrats aren't as likely to be what the American people want for the Presidency.

Since 1952, we've had 5 elected Republicans and 4 elected Democrats in the Oval Office. But of the 5 Republicans - 4 of them as two-termers (Ike, Nixon, Reagan, BushBoy). For us Dems? Just the one - Bill Clinton. The guy whose own party has recently turned on him with a vengeance.

Out of those 56 years: 36 for the Republicans, 20 for the Democrats.

So it seems the Republicans are simply more skilled at the attainment of the Oval Office, in recent history at least. Maybe it's temperament. Maybe the temperament of our divided, combative, debating Democratic Party is better suited for legislative roles in the House and Senate, and the temperament of the Republican Party is a better fit for the Presidency.

 

[Texas]

Yep. See McGovern too. And when we put nice guys into the ring - like Humphrey - they don't fare so well either.

I think we're overlooking a very basic fact: Going back at least 50 years, we Democrats aren't as likely to be what the American people want for the Presidency.

Since 1952, we've had 5 elected Republicans and 4 elected Democrats in the Oval Office. But of the 5 Republicans - 4 of them as two-termers (Ike, Nixon, Reagan, BushBoy). For us Dems? Just the one - Bill Clinton. The guy whose own party has recently turned on him with a vengeance.

Out of those 56 years: 36 for the Republicans, 20 for the Democrats.

So it seems the Republicans are simply more skilled at the attainment of the Oval Office, in recent history at least. Maybe it's temperament. Maybe the temperament of our divided, combative, debating Democratic Party is better suited for legislative roles in the House and Senate, and the temperament of the Republican Party is a better fit for the Presidency.

It's been my experience that "movement" candidates fizzle in the home stretch. Familiarity breeds contempt and If you believe the hype about Senator Obama he should be leading Senator McCain by 20 points by now instead of losing to him by 2 to 6 points especially given the national mood right now. Oh well.

 

[Texas]

Yep. See McGovern too. And when we put nice guys into the ring - like Humphrey - they don't fare so well either.

I think we're overlooking a very basic fact: Going back at least 50 years, we Democrats aren't as likely to be what the American people want for the Presidency.

Since 1952, we've had 5 elected Republicans and 4 elected Democrats in the Oval Office. But of the 5 Republicans - 4 of them as two-termers (Ike, Nixon, Reagan, BushBoy). For us Dems? Just the one - Bill Clinton. The guy whose own party has recently turned on him with a vengeance.

Out of those 56 years: 36 for the Republicans, 20 for the Democrats.

So it seems the Republicans are simply more skilled at the attainment of the Oval Office, in recent history at least. Maybe it's temperament. Maybe the temperament of our divided, combative, debating Democratic Party is better suited for legislative roles in the House and Senate, and the temperament of the Republican Party is a better fit for the Presidency.

It's been my experience that "movement" candidates fizzle in the home stretch. Familiarity breeds contempt and If you believe the hype about Senator Obama he should be leading Senator McCain by 20 points by now instead of losing to him by 2 to 6 points especially given the national mood right now. Oh well.

 

[T.A.M.]

Yet again, you are displaying your vast lack of political instinct concerning American presidential elections in general, and Hillary Clinton in particular.

Hillary Clinton is NOT going to run as a 3rd party candidate or as an indie, don't you know that? She is a dyed-in-the-wool U.S. Democrat. Didn't you hear her when she said she would be supporting Your Hero if he gets the nomination? Or did you conveniently tune that out because it didn't fit your justification for hating/bashing her?

While I appreciate your zeal and dedication to your candidate, is there a particular reason why you must be so condescending to me in particular?

My comment was that if she felt she could become president as a 3rd party candidate, she would likely do so. How do you know any different. Either side of this argument is speculation.

As for her support of Obama, I will believe it when I see it, and will publicly admit I was wrong about her when it happens. Words are cheap in politics, so Hillary will have us believe, so it will take more than WORDS of support from her to convince me.

Your anger on this issue is so extreme, so hate filled (at least it seems) that I do not see the point in discussing it with you further, particularly when you consider my opinion, as a nosy foreigner, to be worthless anyway.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Not worth it...forget it.

TAM

 

[timhau]

But of course: Obamaniacs are living a lie. Deep down in places they don't like to talk about at parties - they KNOW Hillary is the best choice to take the presidency in January 2009. Their insistence she quit is really a revelation of their underlying fears that she'll prevail.

Sorta like atheists, who all really deep down know Jehovah is real, but they're too afraid to admit it?

 

[ConspiRaider]

My comment was that if she felt she could become president as a 3rd party candidate, she would likely do so. How do you know any different. Either side of this argument is speculation.

How do I know any different? How about I've been following American politics - and living with its results - a lot longer than have you? How about I've been following the Clintons a lot longer than have you? Therefore either side of this argument is not equivalent speculation. My argument is on target. Yours is shooting from the hip. And that's kind of a strawman argument anyway, isn't it?

"If she felt she could become president as a 3rd party candidate, she would likely do so."

You'd have to be a mind reader to give a shred of credibility to that statement.

You know why I focus on you a bit, Doc? Because I expected more from you. I didn't expect you - a doctor - to be making reckless, willy-nilly statements concerning the Clintons. And I see things you don't. I see that Bill Clinton was, at the very least, a good President for his 2 terms. Some would say very good, some great. I'd go with very good. He left office with a nearly 70% approval rating. I see that the Republicans absolutely hate the very idea of his success and popularity, and have been chipping away at his legacy from the moment he left office. And I see that their relentless attack on the Clinton name has slowly changed the minds of many in the U.S. Democratic Party, and many minds of those looking in on our political history - such as you. The Republicans no longer have to mouth off about Bill Clinton - they finally have their former opponents doing it. It's a form of brainwashing - which I hate, big time. Same reason I'm not religious.

Also understand - and you'd know this if you actually knew me in real life - that I hold no one in lower regard because they are not Americans. I kid, I hyperbolize, and I am also never shy about skewering us Yanks when I feel like it. I look at the world as flat - we're all on the same level, regardless of country. I'm about as non-class-oriented a guy as you are ever likely to find. My ire is that you are not an American, yet are making extremely controversial statements about American politics. You have to expect to be taken to task for that.

 

[Kestrel]

It's been my experience that "movement" candidates fizzle in the home stretch. Familiarity breeds contempt and If you believe the hype about Senator Obama he should be leading Senator McCain by 20 points by now instead of losing to him by 2 to 6 points especially given the national mood right now. Oh well.

I expect that to change once the Democrats get back to reminding the public that McCain is promising to continue the policies of George W. Bush.

 

[T.A.M.]

You know why I focus on you a bit, Doc? Because I expected more from you. I didn't expect you - a doctor - to be making reckless, willy-nilly statements concerning the Clintons. And I see things you don't. I see that Bill Clinton was, at the very least, a good President for his 2 terms. Some would say very good, some great. I'd go with very good.

Well you are wrong thinking I do not see it like you on this one...I think Clinton was a great president...I liked him. I think the Lewinski crap was just that...crap. I have followed your politics, perhaps not as closely as now, but I have followed it probably since gulf war I.

He left office with a nearly 70% approval rating. I see that the Republicans absolutely hate the very idea of his success and popularity, and have been chipping away at his legacy from the moment he left office. And I see that their relentless attack on the Clinton name has slowly changed the minds of many in the U.S. Democratic Party, and many minds of those looking in on our political history - such as you.

Once again, on Bill, you have me pegged wrong. Sure, when things heated up in this primary, and Bill said some silly things, I may have referred to them as Billary, but come on, that is hardly being mean.

I never liked Hillary, even when she was first lady...she just rubbed me the wrong way. I have told you before, it has nothing to do with her being a powerful woman...I have no problems with women in power...I have willingly...no gladly worked for many women Officers heading our various medical boards here...You may not agree with me, but you have to at least accept that some people may just not like her.

I have said that if she were to get the nod (and I said this before the NC/Indiana primary) I would like to see her win over McCain, despite me not liking her, because on the issues, and in particular the War, I side with her more than him.

Also understand - and you'd know this if you actually knew me in real life - that I hold no one in lower regard because they are not Americans. I kid, I hyperbolize, and I am also never shy about skewering us Yanks when I feel like it. I look at the world as flat - we're all on the same level, regardless of country. I'm about as non-class-oriented a guy as you are ever likely to find.

Well I am glad of that. It is the sad part, the curse within the "blessing-curse" dichotomy of the internet that we can have such relationships with other people on line, yet really never get to REALLY know the people we communicate with.

My ire is that you are not an American, yet are making extremely controversial statements about American politics. You have to expect to be taken to task for that.

Taken to task yes, but it is my opinion. For me, as a Canadian, having followed my own politics (sometimes closely, other times much less so) I find the obsession with the trivial, and the character assassination components of American politics to be harsh, and not to my liking. In my opinion, Canadian politics does not suffer from this. Perhaps, if you followed ours, you could say you find the mundane quality of our politik to be displeasing...I would take no offense.

Please do not confuse my distaste for the way the media and politicians treat each other in your country, for a dislike of your people, or your democracy, both of which I admire greatly.

TAM

 

[Texas]

I expect that to change once the Democrats get back to reminding the public that McCain is promising to continue the policies of George W. Bush.

You do realize that maybe the people really don't want to surrender this war don't you? Liberals make a grave mistake if they believe the US populous, frustrated as they are with Iraq, are ready to see this country repeat the humiliation of VietNam all over again along with the same blood bath that ensued after we cut and ran. I can tell you this, if Obama is elected and he follows through on his promises to the left he is going to own the results and God help him if his direct talks with Iran give it cover to actually get their bomb along with their unopposed control of Iraq. His "hope and change" is a nice slogan for an after school special but it is not an effective foreign policy for the United States. Both Clinton and McCain understand that.
I will butt out of your intraparty squabble but I will do everything I can as a citizen to prevent this man from becoming POTUS. The stakes are just too high.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Well you are wrong thinking I do not see it like you on this one...I think Clinton was a great president...I liked him. I think the Lewinski crap was just that...crap. I have followed your politics, perhaps not as closely as now, but I have followed it probably since gulf war I.

Once again, on Bill, you have me pegged wrong. Sure, when things heated up in this primary, and Bill said some silly things, I may have referred to them as Billary, but come on, that is hardly being mean.

I never liked Hillary, even when she was first lady...she just rubbed me the wrong way. I have told you before, it has nothing to do with her being a powerful woman...I have no problems with women in power...I have willingly...no gladly worked for many women Officers heading our various medical boards here...You may not agree with me, but you have to at least accept that some people may just not like her.

I have said that if she were to get the nod (and I said this before the NC/Indiana primary) I would like to see her win over McCain, despite me not liking her, because on the issues, and in particular the War, I side with her more than him.

Well I am glad of that. It is the sad part, the curse within the "blessing-curse" dichotomy of the internet that we can have such relationships with other people on line, yet really never get to REALLY know the people we communicate with.

Taken to task yes, but it is my opinion. For me, as a Canadian, having followed my own politics (sometimes closely, other times much less so) I find the obsession with the trivial, and the character assassination components of American politics to be harsh, and not to my liking. In my opinion, Canadian politics does not suffer from this. Perhaps, if you followed ours, you could say you find the mundane quality of our politik to be displeasing...I would take no offense.

Please do not confuse my distaste for the way the media and politicians treat each other in your country, for a dislike of your people, or your democracy, both of which I admire greatly.

TAM

Cool, Doc. And I of course admire Canada, from what I can remember on my visit to Yonge Street (I did NOT create the largest sinkhole in Toronto history despite what the RCMP told you. I was drunk on Canadian whiskey and nothing was ever proven anyways).

On the one hand I'll be glad when this Election Horrificity is over, but on the other... I'm wondering what it will solve. It appears as if Hillary has been strong-armed out of the ring, which means either McCain or Obama are likely to be President. I have no crystal balls (despite what the RCMP told you) and cannot even guess at the consequences of whatever occupant occupies the (Occupied) washroom on Air Force One. I really can't. With Hillary? I could make some very good guesses. But not with the 2 guys. I do not know what the hell either of them are going to do.

 

[christie malry]

Speaking as a forn type whose interested mainly in the whole thing as entertainment, my attitude currently is best summed up by the Daily Mash's picture of Hilary with the caption

"For the love of God. Would you just. [Rule10]. Off"

 

[christie malry]

Sorry, double posted there.