If she loses in NH (anything but first place), she is all but done, because she will get trounced in SC and the rest of the south...this extended pre-primary season that started about a year ago has exposed Clinton, and her strategy of running on her experience has now backfired on her...she is now viewed as the "establishment" candidate in a year when voters are looking for something else...
Being on the outside (Canada) looking in, one can't help but wonder the movie that could result if/when Hill-dog's campaign implodes? What pulled the trigger? Craven ambition? The media pushing the candidate too early and too much, so that by the time election year had finally come, they were yesterday's news? Fascinating stuff.
It's entertaining to again watch the Democrats being self-destructive. The one candidate the Republican's don't want is Hillary -- because she has experience, money and a base. Karl Rove says Republicans really want her because she has high negatives -- he's a liar; it's called reverse psychology.
Remember in '92 when all the scandals broke around Clinton just as the primaries were about to get underway? That's because the GOP saw him as the biggest threat and wanted to take him out.
So, if Obama is such a threat, why isn't anybody trying to knock him out? Everybody's focused on knocking Hillary out.
Obama better duck. Remember what the Clintons did to Monica Lewinsky before she came up with the stained dress? How the stalking, psycho narrative started with people coming out of the woodwork..? Obama will get that times-ten.
It wouldn't surprise me if someone from his seedy drug past suddenly decided to do a press conference.
The Republicans know they are not going to win in 2008. They have known for months ever since the party preference polls have come out - they have consistently shown likely registered voters are trending Dem. This is a virtually infallible predictor of who wins the presidency. The democrats ARE going to take the white house in 2008 and everyone in both parties know it.
This is all about keeping the Clintons out of the White House. Their hatred of the Clintons trumps everything else.
Some of them might think Obama will be a pushover in November, but honestly he won't be. He will roll over any GOPer with the possible exception of Giuliani, who doesn't seem like he is going anywhere.
I am a fairly conservative independent voter who voted twice for Bill Clinton and twice for W. I am looking at this contest and pretty much underwhelmed by the entire slate. But I am willing to give Obama a crack because I think he has not been locked up in the system long enough to become completely corrupt, unlike Hillary, Edwards, McCain and Giuliani.
Voters are being inspired by Obama. That's enough for him to win.
Oh, and by the way - Hillary is pretty much continuity of leadership and policy from W. From Rupert Murdoch to President Bush it's obvious that while she may not be an anointed successor or anything, she certainly offers a reliable continuation of most W admin policies, from Iraq to energy to economy, as any candidate in the field. As someone who doesn't think W is a terrible president that's not a huge negative for me. But as cozy as those families with each other are it's amazing to me that the words "I am a change candidate," don't stick in her throat and choke her.
If people just want true change - vote for Kucinich or Ron Paul. But if you want an uncorrupted outsider who offers achievable, electable change, vote for Obama.
Just be careful what you wish for. Change is what you might get, and you might find yourself wishing for those dirty old Bush policies that kept unemployment low, the economy booming and mushroom clouds out of American cities.
Yeah, its amazing if you don't count certain unemployed people in the unemployment tallies then, gee golly!, unemployment numbers look downright rosy.
And voting for a continuation of Bush policies, either by an actual Republican or a stealth one like Clinton, is a damn good way possibly see those mushroom clouds. You know, from say those unsecured nukes in former Soviet puppet states that Bush and his supposed Soviet expert Rice have mostly ignored.
It's not enough to "break the streak" , it's about getting the best Democratic candidate in the White House - and yes, I said Democratic because after the last 7 years of utter despair, no Republican candidate should win, sorry.
And all the Barack love better not backfire - are the Dems about to nominate a candidate who'll lose a general election?
I wonder if the people who are taking a maesure of glee in Hilary's recent slide will show the same glee if that happens with Barack.
Kucinich is suing ABC for their ridiculous exclusion of him from the debate. As he succintly said, "ABC should not be in charge of the primary." But that's exactly why they don't want him there.
Andy Sullivan has a literal scrapbook of inspiring Obama speeches. But actions speak louder. Obama could win, but the Rove machine is mean and ugly albeit quite unstable. As we've seen.
"I gently had to remove him from that position. No scuffle, I just moved him from the spot.. I might have called him an SOB, that's possible, nothing more than that. No one on this earth is going block a shot on the O'Reilly Factor. It is not going to happen."
he incident was triggered when O'Reilly--with a Fox News crew shooting--was screaming at Obama National Trip Director Marvin Nicholson "Move" so he could get Obama's attention, according to several eyewitnesses. "O'Reilly was yelling at him, yelling at his face," a photographer shooting the scene said.
O'Reilly grabbed Nicholson's arm, said "move" and shoved him, another eyewitness said. Nicholson, who is 6'8 said O"Reilly called him "low class."
Secret Service agents came after O'Reilly pushed Nicholson and the agents flanked O'Reily.
Christian wrote:
Kucinich is suing ABC for their ridiculous exclusion of him from the debate. As he succintly said, "ABC should not be in charge of the primary." But that's exactly why they don't want him there.
One could say ABC wanted an evenly-balanced Democratic candidates debate: two Establishment candidates (Hillary and Bill Richardson) and two proponents of change (Obama and Edwards).
Or maybe, just maybe, ABC just wanted candidates that have a snowballs chance in hell of winning. Kucinich needs to realize that he's not going to win, and we shouldn't have our time wasted in a debate on someone just there for giggles.
At least Ron Paul has a lot of money, even though he has no chance of winning either...
Thanks IndyNick for that Kos-like anti-democratoc rhetoric. Kucinich forces the others to deal with issues they usually get to bury. I want to hear a candidate who voted against the war, opposed the Patriot Act and shamed the other corporatists by retorting that he had actually read the damn thing.
At what point did you decide that ABC gets to determine who speaks for America? You should reconsider your party affliation.
Just remember, Obama hasn't been vetted. Not in the least. The media didn't take him seriously enough to give him a serious look and everytime Hillary clumsily tried to bring it up the Dems shouted her down and made her pay for it.
Yes, Obama is likely to win if nominated, but if he loses it will because you Dems covered your ears whenever Hillary tried to make the vetting point. The time for the vetting is now with plenty of time for people to get used to it, not after the convention in a drip-drip of bad news.
Americanrat, all you do by proclaiming with absolute certainty that the Republicans will lose the '08 white house bid is show how young you are or how ignorant you are. And I don't mean that as a pro-Republican statement, either. It's just ridiculous to make any kind of prediction with that amount of certainty.
I remember a skit SNL did in early '92 featuring the Democrats running for president. It was called the "The Who Will Be Chosen To Lose To President Bush Debates" (or something like that)... each candidate, (Cuomo, Clinton, Gore, etc.) gave reasons why they shouldn't be the nominee and then get hammered by Bush in the general. It was funny because, afterall, there was NO way the Democrats were going to win the White House in '92.
I remember that SNL skit, but the timing on it was different -- it aired before primary season had begun in earnest (and before Clinton had become a factor), and in the wake of the first Iraq War, which was a huge success for Bush I and pushed his approval rating into the 90s.
Then the economy went south, and Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan alienated a whole lot of people with their reactionary speeches at the national convention.
I agree that we shouldn't be complacent about a Dem victory, but even if the economy starts suddenly doing great and making Bush look better, it doesn't specifically help the current candidates.
mutiny: "The one candidate the Republican's don't want is Hillary -- because she has experience, money and a base."
She has money, but her experience is mostly siphoned off of her husband, while her base shifted to Obama and Edwards' camps.
"Remember in '92 when all the scandals broke around Clinton just as the primaries were about to get underway? That's because the GOP saw him as the biggest threat and wanted to take him out."
True, but Clinton proved he's as much of a sell-out as the rest of them. No, the Republicans just hate competition, which is why they pack their offices with people who lobbied for them, rather than people who are qualified. Their hounding of Clinton near the second half of his term had nothing to do with their fear of Gore, though.
"So, if Obama is such a threat, why isn't anybody trying to knock him out? Everybody's focused on knocking Hillary out."
Hillary's not just being attacked by Republicans like her husband, but progressive Dems. The Republicans don't want her to sell more jobs to NAFTA, and the Dems don't want her to expand the Iraq war to Iran. That's all there is to it.
americanrat: "Change is what you might get, and you might find yourself wishing for those dirty old Bush policies that kept unemployment low,the economy booming"
Um, we're heading for the second recession in his term.
"and mushroom clouds out of American cities."
You do know that research has shown that our nuclear plants are even more unsafe from terrorist attacks under Bush II than before him, right?
jj: "And all the Barack love better not backfire - are the Dems about to nominate a candidate who'll lose a general election?"
No Dem's gonna lose, because the Republicans are universally reviled right now for some reason.
christian: "Andy Sullivan has a literal scrapbook of inspiring Obama speeches. But actions speak louder."
I could say the same for John "voted and supported the war, anyway" Edwards.
Harry: "The media didn't take him seriously enough to give him a serious look and everytime Hillary clumsily tried to bring it up the Dems shouted her down and made her pay for it. Yes, Obama is likely to win if nominated, but if he loses it will because you Dems covered your ears whenever Hillary tried to make the vetting point."
As long as he didn't hit on any 15-year old kids of the same gender or shoot his hunting buddy in the head, I'm sure he'll survive.
comment #1
D.Z.
says ...
I'd rather the candidates get asked real questions, not fluff. This popularity contest crap has got to go.
Posted by D.Z.
at January 6, 2008 3:31 AM
comment #2
MAGGA
says ...
Agree completely with D.Z. But I am watching the debate on youtube now, and it seems pretty serious.
Posted by MAGGA
at January 6, 2008 4:52 AM
comment #3
JHRussell
says ...
If she loses in NH (anything but first place), she is all but done, because she will get trounced in SC and the rest of the south...this extended pre-primary season that started about a year ago has exposed Clinton, and her strategy of running on her experience has now backfired on her...she is now viewed as the "establishment" candidate in a year when voters are looking for something else...
Posted by JHRussell
at January 6, 2008 6:14 AM
comment #4
Howlingman
says ...
Being on the outside (Canada) looking in, one can't help but wonder the movie that could result if/when Hill-dog's campaign implodes? What pulled the trigger? Craven ambition? The media pushing the candidate too early and too much, so that by the time election year had finally come, they were yesterday's news? Fascinating stuff.
Posted by Howlingman
at January 6, 2008 7:57 AM
comment #5
mutinyco
says ...
It's entertaining to again watch the Democrats being self-destructive. The one candidate the Republican's don't want is Hillary -- because she has experience, money and a base. Karl Rove says Republicans really want her because she has high negatives -- he's a liar; it's called reverse psychology.
Remember in '92 when all the scandals broke around Clinton just as the primaries were about to get underway? That's because the GOP saw him as the biggest threat and wanted to take him out.
So, if Obama is such a threat, why isn't anybody trying to knock him out? Everybody's focused on knocking Hillary out.
There's your answer.
Posted by mutinyco
at January 6, 2008 8:17 AM
comment #6
Dirty Harry
says ...
Obama better duck. Remember what the Clintons did to Monica Lewinsky before she came up with the stained dress? How the stalking, psycho narrative started with people coming out of the woodwork..? Obama will get that times-ten.
It wouldn't surprise me if someone from his seedy drug past suddenly decided to do a press conference.
Posted by Dirty Harry
at January 6, 2008 8:56 AM
comment #7
Josh Massey
says ...
Harry: I can assure you that is what's coming. But the Clinton camp ain't playing those cards yet.
Posted by Josh Massey
at January 6, 2008 9:03 AM
comment #8
americanrat
says ...
The Republicans know they are not going to win in 2008. They have known for months ever since the party preference polls have come out - they have consistently shown likely registered voters are trending Dem. This is a virtually infallible predictor of who wins the presidency. The democrats ARE going to take the white house in 2008 and everyone in both parties know it.
This is all about keeping the Clintons out of the White House. Their hatred of the Clintons trumps everything else.
Some of them might think Obama will be a pushover in November, but honestly he won't be. He will roll over any GOPer with the possible exception of Giuliani, who doesn't seem like he is going anywhere.
I am a fairly conservative independent voter who voted twice for Bill Clinton and twice for W. I am looking at this contest and pretty much underwhelmed by the entire slate. But I am willing to give Obama a crack because I think he has not been locked up in the system long enough to become completely corrupt, unlike Hillary, Edwards, McCain and Giuliani.
Voters are being inspired by Obama. That's enough for him to win.
Oh, and by the way - Hillary is pretty much continuity of leadership and policy from W. From Rupert Murdoch to President Bush it's obvious that while she may not be an anointed successor or anything, she certainly offers a reliable continuation of most W admin policies, from Iraq to energy to economy, as any candidate in the field. As someone who doesn't think W is a terrible president that's not a huge negative for me. But as cozy as those families with each other are it's amazing to me that the words "I am a change candidate," don't stick in her throat and choke her.
If people just want true change - vote for Kucinich or Ron Paul. But if you want an uncorrupted outsider who offers achievable, electable change, vote for Obama.
Just be careful what you wish for. Change is what you might get, and you might find yourself wishing for those dirty old Bush policies that kept unemployment low, the economy booming and mushroom clouds out of American cities.
Posted by americanrat
at January 6, 2008 9:06 AM
comment #9
RoyBatty
says ...
Yeah, its amazing if you don't count certain unemployed people in the unemployment tallies then, gee golly!, unemployment numbers look downright rosy.
And voting for a continuation of Bush policies, either by an actual Republican or a stealth one like Clinton, is a damn good way possibly see those mushroom clouds. You know, from say those unsecured nukes in former Soviet puppet states that Bush and his supposed Soviet expert Rice have mostly ignored.
Posted by RoyBatty
at January 6, 2008 9:25 AM
comment #10
Rosebudsthesled
says ...
Can you believe that for the last 27 years, the national ticket has always had a Clinton or a Bush on it?
Time to break that streak.
Posted by Rosebudsthesled
at January 6, 2008 9:43 AM
comment #11
jjgittes
says ...
It's not enough to "break the streak" , it's about getting the best Democratic candidate in the White House - and yes, I said Democratic because after the last 7 years of utter despair, no Republican candidate should win, sorry.
And all the Barack love better not backfire - are the Dems about to nominate a candidate who'll lose a general election?
I wonder if the people who are taking a maesure of glee in Hilary's recent slide will show the same glee if that happens with Barack.
Posted by jjgittes
at January 6, 2008 9:53 AM
comment #12
snackyx
says ...
WTF are the Lindsay Graham for South Carolina Senate ads doing on this website? Did I miss something?
Posted by snackyx
at January 6, 2008 10:25 AM
comment #13
christian
says ...
Kucinich is suing ABC for their ridiculous exclusion of him from the debate. As he succintly said, "ABC should not be in charge of the primary." But that's exactly why they don't want him there.
Andy Sullivan has a literal scrapbook of inspiring Obama speeches. But actions speak louder. Obama could win, but the Rove machine is mean and ugly albeit quite unstable. As we've seen.
Americanrat is rat on!
Posted by christian
at January 6, 2008 11:50 AM
comment #14
christian
says ...
Bill O'Reilly is officially deranged:
"I gently had to remove him from that position. No scuffle, I just moved him from the spot.. I might have called him an SOB, that's possible, nothing more than that. No one on this earth is going block a shot on the O'Reilly Factor. It is not going to happen."
he incident was triggered when O'Reilly--with a Fox News crew shooting--was screaming at Obama National Trip Director Marvin Nicholson "Move" so he could get Obama's attention, according to several eyewitnesses. "O'Reilly was yelling at him, yelling at his face," a photographer shooting the scene said.
O'Reilly grabbed Nicholson's arm, said "move" and shoved him, another eyewitness said. Nicholson, who is 6'8 said O"Reilly called him "low class."
Secret Service agents came after O'Reilly pushed Nicholson and the agents flanked O'Reily.
Posted by christian
at January 6, 2008 11:54 AM
comment #15
Terry McCarty
says ...
Christian wrote:
Kucinich is suing ABC for their ridiculous exclusion of him from the debate. As he succintly said, "ABC should not be in charge of the primary." But that's exactly why they don't want him there.
One could say ABC wanted an evenly-balanced Democratic candidates debate: two Establishment candidates (Hillary and Bill Richardson) and two proponents of change (Obama and Edwards).
Posted by Terry McCarty
at January 6, 2008 12:34 PM
comment #16
IndyNick
says ...
Or maybe, just maybe, ABC just wanted candidates that have a snowballs chance in hell of winning. Kucinich needs to realize that he's not going to win, and we shouldn't have our time wasted in a debate on someone just there for giggles.
At least Ron Paul has a lot of money, even though he has no chance of winning either...
Posted by IndyNick
at January 6, 2008 12:40 PM
comment #17
christian
says ...
Thanks IndyNick for that Kos-like anti-democratoc rhetoric. Kucinich forces the others to deal with issues they usually get to bury. I want to hear a candidate who voted against the war, opposed the Patriot Act and shamed the other corporatists by retorting that he had actually read the damn thing.
At what point did you decide that ABC gets to determine who speaks for America? You should reconsider your party affliation.
Posted by christian
at January 6, 2008 12:43 PM
comment #18
Dirty Harry
says ...
Just remember, Obama hasn't been vetted. Not in the least. The media didn't take him seriously enough to give him a serious look and everytime Hillary clumsily tried to bring it up the Dems shouted her down and made her pay for it.
Yes, Obama is likely to win if nominated, but if he loses it will because you Dems covered your ears whenever Hillary tried to make the vetting point. The time for the vetting is now with plenty of time for people to get used to it, not after the convention in a drip-drip of bad news.
Posted by Dirty Harry
at January 6, 2008 1:03 PM
comment #19
Walter Sobchak
says ...
Americanrat, all you do by proclaiming with absolute certainty that the Republicans will lose the '08 white house bid is show how young you are or how ignorant you are. And I don't mean that as a pro-Republican statement, either. It's just ridiculous to make any kind of prediction with that amount of certainty.
I remember a skit SNL did in early '92 featuring the Democrats running for president. It was called the "The Who Will Be Chosen To Lose To President Bush Debates" (or something like that)... each candidate, (Cuomo, Clinton, Gore, etc.) gave reasons why they shouldn't be the nominee and then get hammered by Bush in the general. It was funny because, afterall, there was NO way the Democrats were going to win the White House in '92.
Posted by Walter Sobchak
at January 6, 2008 1:05 PM
comment #20
AJW
says ...
Clinton was not involved in that SNL debate.
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/91/91edebate.phtml
Your point still stands assuming the show accurately reflected the political climate.
Posted by AJW
at January 6, 2008 2:03 PM
comment #21
Luke Y. Thompson
says ...
I remember that SNL skit, but the timing on it was different -- it aired before primary season had begun in earnest (and before Clinton had become a factor), and in the wake of the first Iraq War, which was a huge success for Bush I and pushed his approval rating into the 90s.
Then the economy went south, and Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan alienated a whole lot of people with their reactionary speeches at the national convention.
I agree that we shouldn't be complacent about a Dem victory, but even if the economy starts suddenly doing great and making Bush look better, it doesn't specifically help the current candidates.
Posted by Luke Y. Thompson
at January 6, 2008 2:29 PM
comment #22
D.Z.
says ...
mutiny: "The one candidate the Republican's don't want is Hillary -- because she has experience, money and a base."
She has money, but her experience is mostly siphoned off of her husband, while her base shifted to Obama and Edwards' camps.
"Remember in '92 when all the scandals broke around Clinton just as the primaries were about to get underway? That's because the GOP saw him as the biggest threat and wanted to take him out."
True, but Clinton proved he's as much of a sell-out as the rest of them. No, the Republicans just hate competition, which is why they pack their offices with people who lobbied for them, rather than people who are qualified. Their hounding of Clinton near the second half of his term had nothing to do with their fear of Gore, though.
"So, if Obama is such a threat, why isn't anybody trying to knock him out? Everybody's focused on knocking Hillary out."
Hillary's not just being attacked by Republicans like her husband, but progressive Dems. The Republicans don't want her to sell more jobs to NAFTA, and the Dems don't want her to expand the Iraq war to Iran. That's all there is to it.
americanrat: "Change is what you might get, and you might find yourself wishing for those dirty old Bush policies that kept unemployment low,the economy booming"
Um, we're heading for the second recession in his term.
"and mushroom clouds out of American cities."
You do know that research has shown that our nuclear plants are even more unsafe from terrorist attacks under Bush II than before him, right?
jj: "And all the Barack love better not backfire - are the Dems about to nominate a candidate who'll lose a general election?"
No Dem's gonna lose, because the Republicans are universally reviled right now for some reason.
christian: "Andy Sullivan has a literal scrapbook of inspiring Obama speeches. But actions speak louder."
I could say the same for John "voted and supported the war, anyway" Edwards.
Harry: "The media didn't take him seriously enough to give him a serious look and everytime Hillary clumsily tried to bring it up the Dems shouted her down and made her pay for it. Yes, Obama is likely to win if nominated, but if he loses it will because you Dems covered your ears whenever Hillary tried to make the vetting point."
As long as he didn't hit on any 15-year old kids of the same gender or shoot his hunting buddy in the head, I'm sure he'll survive.
Posted by D.Z.
at January 6, 2008 3:37 PM