Letters to the Editor
-
Hillary has read the writing on the wall and is now angling for a shot at 2012.
Anyone looking at the numbers knows that Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning the Democratic primary. She is still in the race now to try to spoil any chances Obama may have in the general election so that she can be the Dem's candidate in 2012.
And that pretty much speaks volumes about Hillary Clinton and why I am not voting for her.
-
WES
Yes, it is possible that the repubs will launch a dirtier campaign against Obama than HRC, though I doubt it. They'll be afraid of looking like OVERT racists if they get too dirty so they'll be more careful I think than with HRC with whom I think they'd be rabid. But doesn't matter. The argument that your enemies will treat you like shit so your friends should treat you like shit too doesn't hold here because HRC's shit-slinging could damage Obama in the GE because the shit slinging is additive AND it will be used by the repubs AS WELL as their own shit. AND dems chances of winning are increased the more energized they are when they head to the polls, and HRC's campaign style could demoralize some people. Its just not good sense. They should both be running against each other in a way that builds up Dem morale.
-
As I Have Said Before
Hillary could be the 2012 nominee even if Obama wins the Presidency.
-
@Notorious WES
Notorious WES: "I still think that the republicans may end up launching a more hysterical, coordinated attack on Obama than they would against Hillary."
Baseless conjecture.
Notorious WES: "We may as well gather up all the dirty laundry ourselves. See what it might mean."
Rationalization for bad behavior.
-
@ WES
I give. You are the smartest, wittiest person in the room. You have finally convinced me that my dislike of Hillary Clinton is wrong. She is the only person who can save the party. I was foolish to think that her high negatives would impact her chances in November. I was very wrong to think that her poorly run campaign is in any way a harbinger of 4 to 8 further years of ineptitude in the White House. And it was very selfish of me to think that I couldn't bear more Bill Clinton jokes.
Please forgive me. As a Pennsylvanian, I cannot wait for my chance to save the country from the hope and possibility of an Obama campaign.
I'll join the other sheeple at the polls voting for Hillary.
-
How does this differ...
...from Obama's people saying that if Clinton does not win "X", then she will not be able to win the primary? Or, for that matter, from Obama himself saying that Clinton will not be able to win the general election? This is just another pseudo-scandal where the media are being whipped into a frenzy by the Obama campaign's choice to spin something as dirty politics.
-
Hutman
You should thank me for doing short posts.....That prevents you from having to go through your normal ritual of pathologically quoting and responding to 25 points.
-
please
You've got to be kidding. Could we please can the faux outrage and the simple repeating of campaign back and forth
Oh my god, an opponent said the other person can't win the general. Oh my god, an opponent was "divisive" Give me a break and grow up. First, if you take anything seriously any campaign spokespeople say you're an idiot and the reason Madison Avenue is a multi-billion dollar business. That's the sort of stupid stuff they say. Why the press feels the need to report it I have no idea. Why people are shocked, shocked, there's gambling in. . . Oh, I mean shocked, shocked one opponent isn't saying the other is the best person for the job I don't know. You think Penn is an ass? Bully for you. Move on. I think so too. I also think Obama's spokespeople have been asses at times. And Joe Trippi was an ass at times. Guess what--spokespeople are basically paid to be asses.
Obama supporters have been saying from day one that Hillary can't win the general. From day one. She's too divisive. Republicans hate her. blah blah blah. This is no different.
Polls are meaningless at this point. Look at their record--they don't mean anything. anything. Especially because nobody is running against anyone yet. Let's quit citing polls to show one person is better than the other in a general. The primaries are a worthless predictor of those as are the polls
Quit trying to read the tea leaves. Go back to arguing over the five percent difference between these two on the issues. Grow up over the fact that there's going to be stupid stuff said by stupid people and stupid stuff said by smart people. Haven't you people lived through a campaign before?
And serously, Salon. This is what you print. "you are" "no you are" "am not". How about a press embargo on anything not directly from a candidate's mouth. Wonder what would happen then?
-
jamartinjr
Please no. I don't want that on my conscience. Vote for hope and change. If it wins and Iraq is still going on in 4 years then you can re-evaluate.
-
"Obama Cuts Into Clinton's Delegate Lead Among Elected Officials"
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a0OkW8Ml8ljw&refer=worldwide
-
Just out of curiosity
...what does anyone expect this guy to say?
Do you expect a GM spokesperson to actually say, "Well, yeah, Honda builds better cars than we do"?
Do you expect Dana Perino to say, "Our Iraq policy is totally FUBAR"?
He's saying what he's being paid to say, that's all.
-
@blue turtle
blue turtle: "I fear the completely unknown depths of scumbag behavior on the part of non-affiliated right-wing smear groups."
Let's clarify what you are saying here. You're saying that you think a prime consideration in who you choose as a candidate is based on vague, conjecture-based fears regarding how opponents might attack them in the future, and NOT on whether they're the best candidate for your own party's interests, or how they're currently rating in carefully calculated polls.
blue turtle: "Obama has not had to handle this to the extent that Clinton has."
To what extent has Hillary Clinton had to directly handle right-wing smears? Clinton has only run for one major elected office, in New York state. Outside of that, most of the attacks on Clinton were random (if continuous) potshots and slurs based on opposition to her husband. Hillary had only to endure them -- she had nothing to lose or to win.
blue turtle: "It is true that as it stands NOW, Obama is more popular and seems to be a better candidate against McCain, but what about in September when he is painted in racist, xenophobic colors, not to mention long exhaustive rehashing of Chicago housing shenanigans?"
The Rezko stuff has proven not to have much effect on voters. Obama has already responded to it and distanced himself from it reasonably well, and the media has only so much interest in re-hashing the story. Obama has already been painted in racist, xenophobic colors, and he has overcome it this far. Fox-News took pleasure in "accidentally" calling him "Osama" (or calling Osama "Obama"), and there was a whole false story floated about Obama belonging to an Indonesian Madrasa. The use of xenophobia against Obama will continue, but its effects on the public seem to be short-lived and negated as soon as people get a chance to see Obama in person. In any case, these are all fear-based conjectures on your part, and they don't make a convincing argument for why the polls showing Obama with a clear advantage are meaningless, or why Clinton is a better candidate.
blue turtle: "Clinton, for her part, is completely immune."
That is what the Clinton campaign wants us to believe. But there are still questions regarding her tax returns, for one example. There are still questions regarding her relationship with various lobbyists and fundraisers. Maybe there's nothing to these things, and I'm not saying there is. But I don't think anybody should just take it on faith that Clinton is immune. That seems just as naive as anything Obama's people are saying.