Hillary Clinton: what a dick

[abcdefz]

From CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/24/campaign.wrap/index.html):

(CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton is arguing that she is ahead of rival Sen. Barack Obama when it comes to the popular vote.

If Michigan and Florida are counted, Sen. Hillary Clinton is ahead in the popular vote.

"I'm very proud that as of today, I have received more votes by the people who have voted than anyone else," Clinton said Wednesday,
one day after her decisive win in Pennsylvania.

Not so fast, says Obama's campaign. Clinton's count includes her wins in Michigan and Florida, but the Democratic presidential candidates
agreed not to campaign in those states because they violated party rules by scheduling their contests too early.

Obama didn't even have his name on the Michigan ballot, so he received no votes from that contest.

"We think that, in the end, if we end up having won twice as many states and having the most votes, then we should be the nominee,"
Obama said.

If Michigan and Florida are counted, Clinton is ahead by 100,000 votes -- 15.1 million to Obama's 15 million. Without those states,
Obama has a 500,000 vote lead, 14.4 million to 13.9 million.

Clinton says she has received more votes than any Democratic candidate in history.

"It's a very close race, but if you count, as I count, the 2.3 million people who voted in Michigan and Florida, then we are going to build
on that," the New York senator said.




I guess it depends on what "is" is.



So basically she's ignoring her own party's rules, huh? Yeah -- that's the makings of a great leader.

[QueenAdrock]

That logic is so fucking backwards. Winning by DEFAULT is not a win at all. If Obama had his name on the ticket, there's no doubt in my mind she wouldn't be "winning" by 100,000 in those states. Too bad he decided to take it off and follow his party's rules.

She's really grasping for straws, huh?

[abcdefz]

I think she sees the world through entitled-colored glasses.

Plus, she's a lwayer, so she's got that Pharisaical thing going.

I really think that, for her, "whatever works" is the strategy. She's lied, doubled back, complained about being pummeled by the press,
complained about Obama complaining about being pummeled by the press, talked about making sure the will of the people is done while
also saying superdelegates may have to "vote their own conscience (for her), etc.

She's a dick.

[QueenAdrock]

I was undecided for a while back there, and I heavily weighed both sides and looked at the issues. They're both comparable to one another in that regard. But then I took a step back and looked at character, and Hillary left a BAD taste in my mouth. She's petty and vindictive and will do whatever it takes to claw her way to the top, even sabotage someone who most likely will win her party's nomination and she knows it. I don't like it one bit.

[abcdefz]

It's so weird, because, obviously, you have to have a certain amount of character to have accomplished so many things she did -- and also,
I'd say, to not split with her husband after his infidelities. The only way I can reconcile that observation with who she really appears to be
is that it's all selfishly motivated.

I just think she's got a really ugly spirit, and that's based on some evidence but it's also pretty subjective. Ick.

[RobMoney$]

So basically she's ignoring her own party's rules, huh? Yeah -- that's the makings of a great leader.

I think it's safe to say that having a candidate who can win FL and MI is highly important. Howard Dean's ego basically screwed the pooch for the DNC.
The deal is basically this:

There were a lot of states who were making noises to push up their primaries/caucuses, and rightly so. Why the hell should Iowa and NH have so much influence when they're such a blip on the radar?
The problem with that is, then IA and NH would move THIERS up and pretty soon, everybody's holding their primaries just shortly after Inauguration.

Then, instead of a run-up of great airtime for all the candidates at least somewhere within a year of the election, you get a nominee half-way through the last guy's term. - And then "dead air". - That was the fear.

Howard Dean thought he could intimidate the states as Lord of the DNC. That's what scared me when he was a candidate in '04. He looks, sounds and speaks like a facsist.
He had a legitimate concern, but a stupid way to handle it. And now it's come back to bite him.
I imagine Dean will be looking for work in 2009.
Blame him for the FL. & MI. debacle, not Hillary.

[EN[i]GMA]

I think it's safe to say that having a candidate who can win FL and MI is highly important. Howard Dean's ego basically screwed the pooch for the DNC.

I'm convinced that Hillary could carry Michigan in the general election.

As long as McCain didn't campaign there and his name was left off the ballot.

It wasn't Dean's ego, it was the state commision's egos.


The deal is basically this:

There were a lot of states who were making noises to push up their primaries/caucuses, and rightly so. Why the hell should Iowa and NH have so much influence when they're such a blip on the radar?
The problem with that is, then IA and NH would move THIERS up and pretty soon, everybody's holding their primaries just shortly after Inauguration.

Exactly.

Which is why it's in the interests of the DNC to prevent ANYONE from moving around their primaries willy-nilly.

Look, I hate the primary business. I think they should all vote on the same damn day and just be done with the issue.


Then, instead of a run-up of great airtime for all the candidates at least somewhere within a year of the election, you get a nominee half-way through the last guy's term. - And then "dead air". - That was the fear.

I assure, it's exactly what would have happened had states tried to butt in on Iowa and NH.


Howard Dean thought he could intimidate the states as Lord of the DNC.

Huh? As head of the DNC he is head, by proxy, of the Democratic parties of those states.

He is the guy that runs the organization -- the Democratic party -- about which these primaries are held. He IS the man.


That's what scared me when he was a candidate in '04. He looks, sounds and speaks like a facsist.
He had a legitimate concern, but a stupid way to handle it. And now it's come back to bite him.
I imagine Dean will be looking for work in 2009.

Maybe a cabinet position...


Blame him for the FL. & MI. debacle, not Hillary.

Don't blame either of them, blame Florida and Michigan for doing EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE WARNED NOT TO DO.

"Don't put your hand in the fire" Dean tells him.

They do it anyway and complain when Dean does exactly what he warned them he would do.

What you're advocating is essentially this: Dean, as head of the party, tells the state parties what to do. The state parties tell him to fuck off. Dean sticks his thumb up his ass and watches as every state holds their primary 3 years ago.

And then you bitch because he DIDN'T reprimand those states.

It's lose-lose for him. But at least this way he has the argument that he is just following through on his word. And you can't fault him for that.

[RobMoney$]

GMA;1578487']

Look, I hate the primary business. I think they should all vote on the same damn day and just be done with the issue.

That's not even close to being a realistic solution.
There are benefits of going early, namely all the money that politicians pour into a state. FL & MI. wanted a share of that cash and moved up.
The solution would have been to rotate the order of their primaries.
Why have them in the same order every time?
That way every state gets the chance to be early in the process from time to time and recieve the financial benefits.




GMA;1578487']Huh? As head of the DNC he is head, by proxy, of the Democratic parties of those states.

He is the guy that runs the organization -- the Democratic party -- about which these primaries are held. He IS the man.

Don't blame either of them, blame Florida and Michigan for doing EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE WARNED NOT TO DO.

"Don't put your hand in the fire" Dean tells him.

They do it anyway and complain when Dean does exactly what he warned them he would do.

What you're advocating is essentially this: Dean, as head of the party, tells the state parties what to do. The state parties tell him to fuck off. Dean sticks his thumb up his ass and watches as every state holds their primary 3 years ago.

And then you bitch because he DIDN'T reprimand those states.

It's lose-lose for him. But at least this way he has the argument that he is just following through on his word. And you can't fault him for that.

The rule was there, but there was no set punishment.
The Republicans cut the delegates in half, Dean said no delegates at all. And that was all on Dean. It was his decision.
Whether you agree with the rule or not the punishment was ridiculously harsh and short-sighted considering the positions those states hold in the general.
Michigan is probably still safe, but we Democrats can kiss Florida goodbye.
The "rules" are not only arbitrarily enforced, it was prompted by and initiated under Dean's tenure just last year.


It basically turned into a game of chicken, and while MI & FL certainly were "cavalier" with the rules (which i kind of like), it was up to the head of party to head off disaster before it happens.
Dean did not have the skills to convince MI & FL to back things up a week or two, then he's either a terrible leader or he's trying to enforce a rule that can't be validated enough to make a logical case to those states to back off. Once he already established that he's a weak leader, it was decision time for him:

Is the problem he was trying to solve worth the problem created by "solving" it?

[RobMoney$]

Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1724374,00.html)

According to a poll conducted this week for various Florida media, almost a quarter of Florida Democrats say they'll be "less likely to support" the party's nominee if their state's delegates aren't seated at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August— and by seated they mean counted in the final tally to choose the presidential nominee. (Note: Which Dean PERSONALLY - not his buddies in the "rules committee" have threatened - see above.)

Florida has more than 4 million registered Democrats, but even just taking into account the 1.7 million Florida Democrats who voted in the January primary, that's still a potential alienation of some 400,000 votes, on a peninsula (and the nation's fourth largest state) that ended up deciding the 2000 presidential race by a mere 537 ballots.

In addition, some state party leaders tell TIME they privately estimate the Dem dysfunction will cost them at least 1% of Florida's sizeable chunk of independent voters, who number more than 2 million, or almost a fifth of the state's electorate.


Dean has consistently argued that the integrity of party rules is at stake. But that seemingly principled stand rests on shaky ground. In a New York Times op-ed article this week, Michigan Senator Carl Levin and Debbie Dingell, a Michigan member of the DNC, pointed out that one of the perennially pampered primary states, New Hampshire, also broke newly established party rules last year by defensively moving its own primary to an earlier date — and the DNC allowed it.

Blame Dean for this debacle, not Hillary or anyone else.

[EN[i]GMA]

That's not even close to being a realistic solution.

It's the only fair method and the only way you'll stop this sort of nonsense.

As it stands now everyone has an incentive to move up, which is what creates this mess.

That is unless some leader or something enforced harsh penalties for doing that...


There are benefits of going early, namely all the money that politicians pour into a state. FL & MI. wanted a share of that cash and moved up.


Yes, and there are benefits from breaking all kinds of other rules too.

Is that an argument for breaking them?


The solution would have been to rotate the order of their primaries.
Why have them in the same order every time?
That way every state gets the chance to be early in the process from time to time and recieve the financial benefits.

Maybe.

But for whatever reason the parties seem perfectly content with the current system. They seem to like it this way.


The rule was there, but there was no set punishment.

Until Dean set one.


The Republicans cut the delegates in half,

How is that fair? "You guys get half a vote"?


Dean said no delegates at all. And that was all on Dean. It was his decision.
Whether you agree with the rule or not the punishment was ridiculously harsh and short-sighted considering the positions those states hold in the general.

Maybe short-sighted.

But maybe he thought that by laying down such a ridiculously harsh punishment, Fl. and Mi. would not fuck with him.

Then they did, thinking he would break. So he had no other option.


Michigan is probably still safe, but we Democrats can kiss Florida goodbye.
The "rules" are not only arbitrarily enforced, it was prompted by and initiated under Dean's tenure just last year.

Yes, and we can think those dipshit Florida Democrats for losing their own state.

Nice job guys, way to fuck over your state and, by proxy, the country.

Still not Dean's fault though.


It basically turned into a game of chicken, and while MI & FL certainly were "cavalier" with the rules (which i kind of like), it was up to the head of party to head off disaster before it happens.

Which he did by saying "DO NOT DO THIS. DO NOT. DO NOT."

Which the states promptly ignored, like petulant children.


Dean did not have the skills to convince MI & FL to back things up a week or two, then he's either a terrible leader or he's trying to enforce a rule that can't be validated enough to make a logical case to those states to back off. Once he already established that he's a weak leader, it was decision time for him:

Or maybe the states are just incompetent?

Maybe all he could do was resort to threats. But that just means Florida and Michigan had all the more reason to expect that he would carry through.


Is the problem he was trying to solve worth the problem created by "solving" it?

Ask Florida.

Was it worth it?

[saz]

interesting article in yesterday's washington post:

Party Fears Racial Divide
Attacks Could Do Lasting Harm, Democrats Say

By Jonathan Weisman and Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writers

Saturday, April 26, 2008; Page A01


African American leaders say a Clinton nomination -- handed to her by superdelegates -- would result in a disastrous breach with black voters.

"If this party is perceived by people as having gone into a back room somewhere and brokered a nominee, that would not be good for our party," House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (S.C.), the highest ranking African American in Congress, warned yesterday. "I'm telling you, if this continues on its current course, [the damage] is going to be irreparable."

That fear, plus a more general sense that Clinton's only route to victory would be through tearing down her opponent, has led even some black Democrats who are officially neutral in the race, such as Clyburn, to speak out.

More than 70 top Clinton donors wrote their first checks to Obama in March, campaign records show. Clinton's lead among superdelegates, a collection of almost 800 party leaders and elected officials, has slipped from 106 in December to 23 now, according to an Associated Press tally.

"If you have any, any kind of loyalty to the Democratic Party, perhaps you need to rethink your strategy and bow out gracefully in order to save this party from a disastrous end in November," Rep. William Lacy Clay (Mo.), an African American Obama supporter, said in an appeal to Clinton.

There are signs that the anger voiced by some African Americans is beginning to extend to the Democratic donor base. Campaign finance records released this week show that a growing number of Clinton's early supporters migrated to Obama in March, after he achieved 11 straight victories. Of those who had previously made maximum contributions to Clinton, 73 wrote their first checks to Obama in March. The reverse was not true: Of those who had made large contributions to Obama last year, none wrote checks to Clinton in March.

"I think she is destroying the Democratic Party," said New York lawyer Daniel Berger, who had backed Clinton with the maximum allowable donation of $2,300. "That there's no way for her to win this election except by destroying [Obama], I just don't like it. So in my own little way, I'm trying to send her a message."

The message came in the form of a $2,300 contribution to Obama.

Donors are not the only ones who have made the leap. Gabriel Guerra-Mondragón served as an ambassador to Chile during Bill Clinton's presidency, considered himself a close friend of Sen. Clinton, and became a "Hill-raiser" by bringing in about $500,000 for her presidential bid.

But he had a fitful few weeks as the battle between Clinton and Obama turned increasingly negative. Last week, he decided he had seen enough.

"We're just bleeding each other out," Guerra-Mondragón said when asked why he had decided to join Obama's finance committee. "Looking at it as coldly as I can, I just don't see how Senator Clinton can overcome Senator Obama with delegates and popular votes. I want this fight to be over -- the quicker, the better."

The Obama converts include William Louis-Dreyfus. The billionaire New York financier said he had been impressed by Clinton's performance in the Senate and distressed by eight years of the Bush administration when he donated the maximum to her campaign last August. Then, he said, he began watching more closely.

"However much one might have supported the Clintons, or one might support the usual suspects in the Democratic Party, I began to believe Obama represents a new approach. He gives off such a sense of relevance that he's sort of irresistible," Louis-Dreyfus said.

He also expressed, as did other big givers who crossed to Obama, exasperation about the tone of the Clinton campaign and frustration with the candidate herself.

"At the end of the day, all she had to do was open her mouth for me not to believe her," Louis-Dreyfus said.

link (includes video) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/25/AR2008042503707.html?hpid=topnews)

[yeahwho]

It is interesting how easily Hillary Clinton can run off supporters. The republicans love her, she represents an easy target for every media outlet they control, which is surprisingly huge. They've all had practice lambasting her for decades and when they get bored with her they'll drag out Bill for a good ribbing. Every day, every hour and every chance the dittoheads can.

Negative works two ways, it can distract voters from what the real issue is, we're broke, oil hit a new high, $120 a BBL today and our country is entwined in a deadly expensive war.

I drive all over the State and the roads, especially the interstates look and drive like shit. Our infrastructure is crumbling at an amazing rate.

Schools are failing our kids and modern medicine is a corporate for maximum profit organization. Food prices are steadily increasing right along with all other services. It's worse than it looks, yet the negativity Hillary grasps about Obama just sounds like more bad news, from her.

We need to desperately change course from candidates who promote fear and negativity.

[QueenAdrock]

http://www.caglepost.com/cartoon/RJ%20Matson/50377/Hillary%20Is%20Really%20Winning-COLOR.html

[abcdefz]

In a recent Newsweek interview, Hillary was asked if she would consider stepping down, etc., and her reply was (paraphrasing?), "Why aren't people asking Sen. Obama to step down?"

Uh... because he's the one who's winning...?

[QueenAdrock]

Hey just because it's pretty much mathematically impossible for her to get the nomination now does not mean that she's "losing." It just means she needs to find more things to bash on Obama about.

[abcdefz]

I'm kinda hope Brad and Angelina get married just so Hillary and Obama wind up as relatives. Wonder if they'd be invited to the wedding?