comment #1

Mumbleboy says ...

I'm not sure which is greater: the joy I'll feel when Hillary loses the general election or the depression I'll feel when a Republican takes the White House for another term.

The only hope is that she'll bring Obama in as her VP, or else she'll lose to McCain and possibly Romney as well. The long standing hatred of her will burn so bright as to outshine the last 8 years of Bush's fiddling while the constitution burned.

comment #2

Geoff says ...

"She's yesterday, she's divisive, she's poison..."

That's it in a nutshell. She wont win the Presidency. And if I lose that bet, our country is going to be just as pissed off as it is today. It's just a flipside to the coin. Fuck.

comment #3

George Prager says ...

George McGovern voted for Gerald Ford.

comment #4

le corbeau says ...

Why I want the Clinton-Bush era to be over:

so David Mamet will write better plays about something else.

http://theater2.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/theater/reviews/18nove.html

comment #5

jeffmcm says ...

Sputtering? In reality or just in type?
Maybe if Wells had ever convinced anybody of why Obama was so great instead of running a divisive, poisonous attack campaign against his opponents he could have done something to stem that tide.

comment #6

Crow T Robot says ...

Looks like its gonna be Clinton vs Romney, folks.

Let's see... that makes our country's choice between someone who uses their family political machine to get ahead (like George W Bush) or a NeoCon hero (like George W Bush).

Yeah, "change" my ass.

comment #7

Balerion says ...

She also edged Obama out among men (43% vs. 42%). She took a larger percentage of older voters than he did of younger voters. She was particularly popular among Hispanic voters. Her base of appeal is obviously broader than some might want to acknowledge.

comment #8

jeffmcm says ...

McCain could beat Hillary. Romney or Huckabee probably can't.

comment #9

Hash says ...

"over 40, not-very-well-educated women voting for Hillary Clinton "

Arent you a college dropout?

comment #10

jackkerouac says ...

So Sorry Jeffrey, but it's not just "over 40, not-very-well-educated women" voting for Hillary. In the Nevada primary roughly half of all votes cast by whites went her way, which has to include quite a few males. Two-third of the votes came from Hispanics and, according to MSNBC, "many members of the union that endorsed Obama".

Again, turnout for the Republicans was weak.

Speaking of women voters, I know several 'highly' educated women, over 40 and under, who plan on voting for Hillary. And, believe it or not, many men as well!

Obama's 'sloganeering' is getting old and he needs to deliver a real message. 'Change' for the sake of change is not enough.

comment #11

Walter Sobchak says ...

Hey Dems! McCain could very well end up being the Republican nominee going up against Hillary or Obama. You know what that'll mean, don't you? Time to go back to not caring about the importance of military service for a presidential candidate.

comment #12

moviemaniac2002 says ...

Perfectly worded, Jeffrey. I couldn't have said it
better. Instead of a presidential campaign to
address how to heal the nation(and the world, for that matter)...we'll have an ongoing, invective and hate-filled nightmare..the entire country turned
into an episode of the Jerry Springer show.

As for Obama...he must have telepathically
connected his brain cells to Britney Spears when he
began his utterly insane babbling about Ronald
Reagan. Okay, I get it...he wants to be a "big picture" president ("Don't bother me with details, boys...just implement my vision") as opposed to
Hilary, who'll spend countless hours drafting and
reading policy material before she finally arrives at a decision that solves nothing and pleases no one. But Barak, buddy, you want to admire a prez who had a vision to save a divided, unhappy country...try FDR for starters....didn't any of your advisors warn you about talking admiringly
about a guy who created an America For The Rich People, By The Rich People, Of The Rich People??

comment #13

le corbeau says ...

Looks like its gonna be Clinton vs Romney, folks. Let's see... that makes our country's choice between"

...the safest, dullest choice on one side versus the safest, dullest choice on the other. Not that basic competency ought to be as disparaged as it is, but... yawn.

comment #14

rocco says ...

At least I haven't heard Romney promise to enact amendments that violate civil rights, as as Huckabee.

Not that many people watched, but Hillary sure appeared much more presidential during Tues night's debate than Obama....ugh...looks like I'll have to vote AGAINST, rather than for, someone yet again...

comment #15

Mumbleboy says ...

I had called McCain as the Republican nominee among some friends about 6 months ago, when he was being written off by the MSN. I like Romney as governor of Mass, before he changed his opinions on all those social issues. I wonder how many people are voting for Hillary just because they liked Bill? Would Monica vote for Hillary?

comment #16

Mumbleboy says ...

I'm so afraid the Hillary is going to try to prove to everyone how "strong" she is and have an even more aggressive foreign policy that W. Isn't that ironic, thinking a woman couldn't be president because of their softer side and then the woman we might just get turns out to be the hardest of them all.

comment #17

Mumbleboy says ...

And what's up with Obama never attacking Hillary on her 35 years of experience claim? What experience? The papers from your years of sleeping in the white house haven't been released to disclose what experience that'd give you. Doesn't Obama have more time in an elected position than Hillary, anyhow?

comment #18

Lloyd Dobler says ...

They ran a exit poll in NH

If you could elect Bill Clinton for a 3rd term instead of your candidate would you vote for him instead of your current choice?

54% of Hillary's voters said yes
23% of Barack's said yes

HRC vs. McCain is going to be a worst case scenario for the dems. Yes, the democratic party is excited but HRC will mobilize teh Republican base the second she wins the nomination.

Add to the fact that McCain can pull in a majority of the indep votes and some moderate/cons democrats + a ton of men who secretly won't want to actually vote for a woman...and it is very very likely she will lose.

Her best bet is to name Obama as her VP which locks up the women vote and the black vote which would be huge. It also pulls away a ton of indeps and republicans who would otherwise vote for McCain. I'm not sure there is any combo on the Republican side that can beat a Clinton/Obama ticket unless their is a major terrorist attack.

And McCain will win the nomination. Thompson is going to drop out and support him and Rudy will do the same. That leaves it as Romney vs. Huck VS. McCain. Huck is to nuts and hated by most of the establishment to win and Romney is a mormon.

comment #19

MAGGA says ...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8286221400571322886&q=hillary&total=28040&start=0&num=10&so=1&type=search&plindex=8

comment #20

Dirty Harry says ...

"Obama's 'sloganeering' is getting old and he needs to deliver a real message. 'Change' for the sake of change is not enough."

Exactly.

Top that with the all the talk about race that Wells and other Obama supporters are unwisely bringing up -- all very insulting and a turn off to Dem voters -- and you have even more problems.

I've yet to hear one substantive argument to support Obama other than starry-eyed horseshit about 'hope' and 'change' or Hillary-fear. I asked Wells to explain and he yelled at me.

comment #21

George Prager says ...

Umwelt.

comment #22

Balthazar says ...

I have a terrible fear the Clinton would beat Romney. .... So we need McCain to get the GOP nomination. Or else we need Bloomberg to throw his hat in the ring, clusterfucking everything.

comment #23

lazarus says ...

Will Hillary be thanking Tyra Banks tonight?

comment #24

Chicago48 says ...

I saw the debate on Msnbc and HRC looks presidential compared to the other two. She was aggressive and stood her ground. I like others are sick of the Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush era and want it over with...if only Gore would have been drafted. I would like to see A non-Irish "Color" in the white house, but honestly, that house is reserved for white Irish people. No way are they going to let any non-Irish white person in that house!
Nope, she won't name him as a VP running mate. She might name Richardson or someone else that her husband likes, but not Obama. They'll use him to campaign.

comment #25

Chicago48 says ...

Oh - lest I forget. The talk in Illinois is that if Obama loses (big chance!) that he'll run for Governor against Gov Rod B. Gov Rod is not even liked by his own Dem party, so Obama will come home and run for Gov. which would set him up to run for President again in later years.

comment #26

D.Z. says ...

Jeff: Nevada's got no industry. Women in states like that and NH can vote for her, because they're not in working-class families which have to deal with real issues. The states which matter are the ones which have suffered the most from outsourcing. And there are more of those than the recreational states. They're the ones which pick the winners, and they're not going to let the woman whose husband is responsible for NAFTA win. It's not a race or gender divide, but a class division.

Hash: "Arent you a college dropout?"

And Bush went to Yale. What's your point?

moviemaniac: "But Barak, buddy, you want to admire a prez who had a vision to save a divided, unhappy country...try FDR for starters....didn't any of your advisors warn you about talking admiringly
about a guy who created an America For The Rich People, By The Rich People, Of The Rich People??"

You're kidding, right? There were as many people against FDR as there were against Reagan. Hell, people[who hate the poor] still question his policies. Besides, not many people are alive who remember FDR.

Harry: "Exactly."

Yeah, why can't he make an empty comment, like compassionate conservative?

"Top that with the all the talk about race that Wells and other Obama supporters are unwisely bringing up -- all very insulting and a turn off to Dem voters -- and you have even more problems."

Um, it's not us pulling the race card. We're just defending MLK, because it seems it's trendy to denigrate any black man who wants to make an impact.

comment #27

Marcello says ...

Perhaps, Jeff, the "not very well educated" blacks in South Carolina will even things out.

It's all we can hope for until there's finally an education requirement for voting!

comment #28

jackkerouac says ...

"Um, it's not us pulling the race card. We're just defending MLK, because it seems it's trendy to denigrate any black man who wants to make an impact".

If that was the case, Obama would not be in the position he is in now, (a popular black Presidential candidate).

Seems to me that, on this site in particular, it's trendy to denigrate women. One persons claims of racism could easily match another's claim of misogyny.

comment #29

heretakethis says ...

Well said, jackkerouac. I won't go so far as to declare mysogyny but it certainly reeks of gender entitlement. God knows a female presidential candidate couldn't POSSIBLY have a legitimate chance at the White House without the "over 40, not-very-well-educated" female masses turning out in droves, right? State after state after state. Right?

I prefer Obama myself but Jeff's post is so offensive that I hope HRC wins and paints the White House pink, just to see the heads explode.

comment #30

heretakethis says ...

Well said, jackkerouac. I won't go so far as to declare mysogyny but it certainly reeks of gender entitlement. God knows a female presidential candidate couldn't POSSIBLY have a legitimate chance at the White House without the "over 40, not-very-well-educated" female masses turning out in droves, right? State after state after state. Right?

I prefer Obama myself but Jeff's post is so offensive that I hope HRC wins and paints the White House pink, just to see the heads explode.

comment #31

D.Z. says ...

jack: "If that was the case, Obama would not be in the position he is in now, (a popular black Presidential candidate)."

Tiger Woods is a popular golfer, and they're still making racist comments about him.

"Seems to me that, on this site in particular, it's trendy to denigrate women."

No, it's just trendy to denigrate women who add nothing of substance to our society.

takethis: "I won't go so far as to declare mysogyny but it certainly reeks of gender entitlement. God knows a female presidential candidate couldn't POSSIBLY have a legitimate chance at the White House without the "over 40, not-very-well-educated" female masses turning out in droves, right?"

Those women don't represent most women in this country, though. They're just yuppie trophy wives who think solidarity means "girl power", not feminism.

comment #32

christian says ...

Clinton would beat Romney. He'll go down easy. McCain, not so much. But jeez, anybody that would hand the GOP anything other than a pink slip is out of their fucking skull.

comment #33

Hash says ...

D.Z.: "And Bush went to Yale. What's your point?"

Im sorry, but I dont see Bush on here attempting to insult other people's intelligence simply because he doesnt agree with their political views.

comment #34

D.Z. says ...

Hash: "Im sorry, but I dont see Bush on here attempting to insult other people's intelligence"

His continued Presidency is an insult to our intelligence.

"simply because he doesnt agree with their political views."

They don't HAVE political views! They're the same idiots who elect Arnie because he's a celebrity and vote against Gore and Kerry, because they're "boring".

comment #35

jackkerouac says ...

Wow D.Z. I guess you put me in my place.

comment #36

Movie Watcher says ...

I am glad I don't vote. I don't care who wins.

comment #37

jeffmcm says ...

DZ, your comments here are more insulting and toxic than usual, especially your contention that people in Nevada and New Hampshire are somehow above the problems of the rest of the country.

As usual, you do not know what you're talking about and are grasping and everything you can to make cheap shots.

comment #38

Chuck Latovich says ...

You know, I like reading HE, but sometimes, like now, Jeff and crew just get ugly.

comment #39

Hash says ...

"They don't HAVE political views! They're the same idiots who elect Arnie because he's a celebrity and vote against Gore and Kerry, because they're "boring"."

Wow. When it comes to the democratic process, you are a prime example of what is wrong with this country.

Although, I think I can safely assume this trait extends to pretty much every facet of your life.

Ill bookmark this page in case 10 years from now my kids ask me to explain what ignorant it.

comment #40

SpinDozer says ...

Are we supposed to find it surprising that your offspring wonder 'what ignorant it'?

comment #41

SpinDozer says ...

sorry, sort of.

You have the empathy of a poor typist but the circumstances favored the sadistic regressive trait.

comment #42

SpinDozer says ...

'(don't tell me this isn't a factor) race.'

Welcome to the Hotel Reality,, we hope you enjoyed your visit to Mount Euphoria, and don't mind if you're a bit late checking in...

comment #43

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "DZ, your comments here are more insulting and toxic than usual, especially your contention that people in Nevada and New Hampshire are somehow above the problems of the rest of the country."

Oh, I'm sorry. How many electoral votes did Hillary win compared to Obama again?

"As usual, you do not know what you're talking about"

So what's Nevada good for again? Gambling and hookers? What's NH's export? Cider? Yeah, people in those states have it rough. Sorry I was mistaken...

Hash: "Wow. When it comes to the democratic process, you are a prime example of what is wrong with this country."

Yes, wanting someone who doesn't cry, because she can't win a state shows bad judgement...

comment #44

D.Z. says ...

From http://michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=10775
:

"It's a free country and you can vote for who you want," said Teresa Reyes, 37, a Mexican-American pantry worker at the Paris. Reyes said she had received numerous phone calls from Clinton supporters urging her to break from the union endorsement but said she would have, anyway.

"She's got good past experience as a first lady and a woman always listens to her man," she said.

comment #45

K. Bowen says ...

Why does everyone assume the Republican nominee will be among the current roster of candidates?

comment #46

rocco says ...

Obama won more deleagtes, although not a good sign that hereceived fewer popular votes than someone who tried to cheat and have the process changed

...I respect that Obama has run a campaign of hope rather than fear, but jesus, it's time to be assertive...from the very first speech when he announced his candidacy he's been way too careful not too offend...

comment #47

jeffmcm says ...

I don't know, DZ. I'd like you to tell me exactly how many electoral votes Hillary Clinton has won and how many votes in the electoral college Barack Obama has won, if you would be so kind. I look forward to your response.

comment #48

D.Z. says ...

jeff: 12 and 13, respectively.

comment #49

jeffmcm says ...

Really? Because I'm pretty sure they've both won exactly zero, since the Electoral College doesn't meet to award votes until January to the nominees in the November election. What you're thinking of are party convention delegates. Now, I'm sure you're a great guy to all your friends and family, but online here you are a miserable, arrogant, presumptuous asshole who dares to persist in the misguided belief that you actually know what you're talking about, when you can't even tell the difference - even when given a pretty obvious hint - that you don't.

Fuck I hate you.

comment #50

le corbeau says ...

Why does everyone assume the Republican nominee will be among the current roster of candidates?

Because no one alive remembers it working any other way?

comment #51

SpinDozer says ...

'Because no one alive remembers it working any other way?'

Agreed. That said, the conventions have at least the potential for being far more interesting this time than anything in recent memory (even if the candidates are not).

comment #52

renorambler says ...

I can say that in my precinct even before Edwards was not considered viable Obama led in votes. After the 2nd choices were made Obama increased his support.

Anyway, this is neither here nor there. I'm happy the Dems have three (Ok, 2 now) worthy candidates. What should be scaring the bejesus out of Repubs is the turnout. Every person I talked to from different precincts said that that the turn out for the dem caucus was at least double and triple what was expected with tons of people who had never registered showing up to cast a vote. Even Harry Reid, who was ridiculed for saying the turnout would hit 100,000 (more "reasonable" estimates were guessing between 60-80K) has got to be thrilled with the 120,000 people who showed.

comment #53

Silverscreenvideos says ...

I don't think that Hillary is the best candidate the Democrats could have had, but with Al Gore not running and others understandably not wanting to get into the muck, she's the best available.

Obama is a phony and a huckster, plain and simple. He comes across well in a revival meeting style environment, but when you get past his enthusiasm and his empty buzz words about change and hope and bi-partisanship, there's nothing there.

The recent polls demonstrate that when people first get exposed to Obama, they get very enthusiastic, but as they get to know the man, a lot of them get turned off. And that's just with the attention Hillary and the MSM have given him. Give the right wing three or four months to pummel him and every flaw will be exposed over and over.

His latest paean to Ronald Reagan is just one more example. He is a calculating slickster who tries to pander to whatever audience he needs to. Democrats have tried for years, for some stupid reason, to paint themselves as Republican-lites in a general election, with little success. Republicans and independents will reject him in the general, and his Democratic support will fade away somewhat as well. McCain/Obama is a rerun in terms of voting results of Bush I/Dukakis.

comment #54

Marcello says ...

Silverscreen, pretty much everything you wrote is nonsense. Obama turns voters off when they get to know him? How did he win Iowa then, where he's known best? And how did he close the gap with Hillary in every state as he's gotten more exposure?

The "paean" to Reagan comment is so ridiculous--do you take your talking points directly from Clinton emails? He said Reagan had bold ideas and led through his ability to communicate. All true. You think he was pandering? To who? He's getting crushed for the comment by boneheads like you. It was a foolish thing to say politically, but absolutely true in its merits.

He's also without any question MUCH more popular with Independents than Hillary is. You're just making things up to suggest otherwise.

I agree the buzz words about "change" and "hope" are pretty meaningless--as is everything else every candidate is saying to get elected. The fact is, they all will push the same general policies. None of what they "say" now means much of anything. But Obama is the smartest of the dems, and he's the least divisive, and he was opposed to the war in Iraq, and he'd CRUSH any Republican in the general. So he's got my vote.

comment #55

Chicago48 says ...

As I recall, didn't Bill Clinton also pay homage to Reagan?

comment #56

Silverscreenvideos says ...

Obama builds popularity initially as people hear what he has to say and it strikes a good note with them. When they think about him seriously as a candidate, those flaws in his character and his record come out.

To a certain extent, the fade in his popularity closer to election day has been balanced by anti-Hillary voters abandoning Edwards in favor of Obama as a more viable choice, but the fade was there, in NH and in NV, and it will be in SC as well.

In Iowa, Obama was helped immensely by the bizarre schedule which in essence kept some of the intense scrutiny about the candidates away for the last ten days because of the holiday. All people saw and heard was largely the pre-packaged Obama, which is a very likable commodity.

Obama chose his words about Reagan very carefully to pander to get the endorsement of a right-wing newspaper while giving himself wiggle room if pressed on the subject. In the same way he has carefully arranged the missed votes and "present" votes in key situations.

For seven years, we've suffered for putting our trust in a president who basically said, just believe in me and I'll take care of the details. Well, the details, none of which Obama can be bothered to discuss, do matter.

He is a phony, and if the Democrats are foolish enough to nominate him, he will get destroyed in the general election. In a contest between a real Republican and a fake Republican, voters will choose the real thing every time.

comment #57

D.Z. says ...

Silverscreen: "When they think about him seriously as a candidate, those flaws in his character"

Yes, why can't he be married to a spouse who cheated on him and lied about it in court?

"and his record come out."

What? He did drugs? So did her husband! So did Chimpy!! But he's black, and they should be the ones serving time for that.

"To a certain extent, the fade in his popularity closer to election day has been balanced by anti-Hillary voters abandoning Edwards in favor of Obama as a more viable choice, but the fade was there, in NH and in NV, and it will be in SC as well."

No it won't be, because Hillary's not rural enough to pull it off like her husband, Bill.

"Obama chose his words about Reagan very carefully to pander to get the endorsement of a right-wing newspaper while giving himself wiggle room if pressed on the subject."

He wasn't pandering. He was describing. There's a difference.

"In the same way he has carefully arranged the missed votes and "present" votes in key situations."

I'd rather he miss votes than make shitty votes like Hillary.

"For seven years, we've suffered for putting our trust in a president who basically said, just believe in me and I'll take care of the details. Well, the details, none of which Obama can be bothered to discuss, do matter."

Ok, so what are Hillary's plans for Iraq? She also swiped Obama's idea of negotiating with Iran.

"He is a phony, and if the Democrats are foolish enough to nominate him, he will get destroyed in the general election."

No, he won't, because he's not divisive like her.

"In a contest between a real Republican and a fake Republican, voters will choose the real thing every time."

So that just means that the Clintons are bigger Republicans than their rivals.

comment #58

jeffmcm says ...

Why do you post here when you already know everything there is in the world? As Comic Book Guy said, there are unsolved crimes happening, go for the good of the city!

Alternatively, have you ever once in your life admitted to being wrong?

comment #59

christian says ...

"Democrats have tried for years, for some stupid reason, to paint themselves as Republican-lites in a general election, with little success...McCain/Obama is a rerun in terms of voting results of Bush I/Dukakis"

SSVideos is dead on. Obama's flaws get more dominant every week and after 8 months, he'll be damaged goods. McCain wil be easy to paint as a war supporter and loose cannon (singing "Bomb Iran") but in a debate he'll take out Obama. Don't count on the Kos Kids to deliver votes. They've got iphones to deal with, dude. LOL.

I'm starting to really see what's happening with Hillary, and let me just say, men, we have this coming. Women are over us being in charge.

comment #60

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "Alternatively, have you ever once in your life admitted to being wrong?"

Yes, jeff, which is more than I can say for you.

christian: "SSVideos is dead on. Obama's flaws get more dominant every week and after 8 months, he'll be damaged goods."

What flaws? That he's black and not a daddy's girl, like Hillary?

"McCain wil be easy to paint as a war supporter and loose cannon (singing "Bomb Iran") but in a debate he'll take out Obama."

Yeah, because he really showed George in 2000...

"I'm starting to really see what's happening with Hillary, and let me just say, men, we have this coming. Women are over us being in charge."

That must be why the woman whose daughter died, after being denied a liver transplant, supported Edwards.

comment #61

jeffmcm says ...

You're a liar. You can only admit to being wrong when you have honest give-and-take conversations, and all you ever do is an unending series of soapbox rants which aren't even accurate half the time.

You're a horrible person.

comment #62

jeffmcm says ...

Oh, here's something I was very wrong about. I was wrong anytime in the past that I tried to have a reasonable, rational conversation with you and respond to your comments like a normal human being talking to another human being, because every single response you ever give is a big fuck you. I was wrong to give you chance after chance to try and redeem yourself by trying to break through your facade of awfulness to the real person underneath, because that was always a waste of time. And it's a mistake to try and change your behavior to be less antisocial because you have no interest in anything aside from feverishly jerking yourself off with your keyboard and pretending to be someone who cares about the world and is making it a better place.

On every count, I was wrong.

comment #63

LADODGERS23 says ...

Obama still has a very good chance to win CA... Don't be surprised if he pull it off

comment #64

BurmaShave says ...

Obama got one more Delegate than she did, which, if this comes down to a fight for delegates, is all that matters.

comment #65

Dave Polands Gut says ...

The Liberals dont have the stones to actually offer up a liberal candidate that they believe in. Hence why they will lose again with Hillary.

Always nice to put up a candidate with over 50% unfavorables 9 months before an election.

comment #66

Dave Polands Gut says ...

There is nothing worse on here than reading replies from "jeffmcm"

Talk about someone that is utterly repulsive with his personal insults and attacks. You give blog commenters a bad name, "jeffmcm". The hatred you spew is very telling about who you are as a person.