Alright, I'll admit it, I am not a big fan of Hillary Clinton. I remember the 1990s quite vividly and it was not a net positive. Perhaps, I thought, I somehow missed what everyone else sees. I figured that maybe I needed to do more research.

So, I set out to find nice things about her. I looked through her voting record, her resume and her education. I searched to see what inspired, motivated and created the woman who wants to be our next President.

What I found was not exactly a resume that ought to be touted as "solid experience." What I found was someone who changed ideology several times in her political life. What I found was someone who becomes ruthless and paranoid when the going gets rough. Mostly, what I found, was damn near nothing of substance.

After a week of digging, I am even more dead set against her nomination. In fact, I believe she would be a very poor choice for America. Before, I may have doubted her ability to beat John McCain, but respected her as a potential leader. Now, I am left with precious little to point out or cite to back up that position. I feel foolish for even considering her as a viable candidate.

Then, before I even have a chance to open this discussion, her hubby pops off about how Obama did "nothing" in the 1990s. Compared to what Mr. Clinton? Compared to you? Hillary was busy in the 1990s. Cool. This "busy-busy" translated into what exactly for the American people?

Barack Obama spent the 1990s fighting civil rights cases as an attorney, teaching the United States Constitution to kids in college and representing the good people of Illinois in their state house. He was not married to power and accumulating a base. He was fighting for people. Bill, as usual, should just shut up.

Before I go any further I want to begin with a question: If someone is continually labeled "inexperienced" by a candidate with half the resume, is it simply a roundabout way of pointing out his boyish good looks or his zen-like positive attitude? Or, as I suspect, is it simply Clinton-speak for the "N" word?

Thoughts?

Neither Obama or Hillary have a wealth of experience at their disposal. Neither have as much as McCain, for sure.

I'm not looking for experience, though. I honestly think that maybe someone who isn't so damn entrenched in Washington, someone who hasn't made a career of being a Congressman or Senator or bouncing around Capital Hill on Presidential cabinets or committees, might be better off. Someone who can think outside the box.

Bill Clinton was very much that person in 1992. Yeah he served as attorney general and governor of Arkansas, and had a lengthy list of public service. He still was a breath of fresh air, IMHO, in Washington in a lot of ways. He had the wherewithal to be able to work with Republicans to get things done after the Republican Revolution of 1994, after two dismal first years in office, during and after allegations from Gennifer Flowers, the Whitewater mess, Monica Lewinsky ... he still was able to lead. **THAT** is what we need in Washington.

I'm not opposed to Hillary because she's a woman. I'm not opposed to Hillary because of her lack of experience. I'm not opposed to Hillary because of political affiliation. I'm opposed to Hillary because of what you mentioned above Littlesongs, and sadly I don't think the average American Joe Q. Six-Pack voter will take ten seconds to do the research you did. Hillary has changed her views dramatically in so many areas in order to make herself look like a centrist, a moderate, that nobody knows WHAT her views are anymore! She has ridden the coattails of her husband's successes about as far as she can, and now her husband is looking like a fool for throwing out baseless insults at Obama.

Obama is the polar opposite to me. Is he liberal? Yes. Has he changed his views like I change my socks? No. He hasn't ducked who he is, his ethnicity, his lack of public service, any of it. He has for the most part taken the high road and he gets a lot of respect from me. Most important, he's a leader. He OOZES leadership. He's such a great speaker, a great orator, that he'll get the troops riled up and ready to run through a wall for him! He reminds me a lot of Vince Lombardi in that way, he might not be the most qualified or the best, but he absolutely moves mountains and MAKES people follow him with his spoken word. I really think this quality will make up for the inexperience.

I think that Hillary has the kind of smartness and toughness that the United States needs to resolve the Iraq situation and turn the world to view the us in a positive manner. The kind of arm twisting needed to get get the job done is right up Hillary's alley. She can be ruthless if needed.

The next president isn't going to be able to make widespread changes -- there's a HUGE political mess to clean up and Hillary is the master politican that get this done quickly.

Once the country is on an even keel, the time will come for the old guard to hand the reins to Obama to take us into the 21st century.

If Obama becomes president in 2009, most of his talent will be wasted because he'll have to be doing things he's most ill-suited for. I'm afraid he'll pull a Tom Potter when the going gets nasty. Hillary won't. She lives for this stuff.

McCain, of course, will be a huge improvement over Bush, but the mess we're in may remain in place when his 4 years are up.

Huckabee would make a mighty fine gas station attendent, slapping Jesus stickers on cars when they drive off. As president he'll ensure we devolve into a closed second-rate society.

"that nobody knows WHAT her views are anymore!"

I disagree. On the big ones, she's not gonna change. She is NOT ever going to appoint a conservative to the Supreme Court. She isn't EVER going to consider changing the constitution to make room for God-thinking. Minorities and disabled people will never become a lowered priority for her. And so on.

Anyone who wants to read a definitive biography of Hillary Clinton through the White House years should read Carl Bernstein's book "A Woman in Charge." It's probably not a book Hillary or Bill (especially) wishes you to read - it makes him in particular look like a total sleazebag, unable to keep his hands off any woman as soon as Hillary leaves the room.

The book is fair to her, I think, even if it is often critical of her. For example, Bernstein correctly lays out the fact that while the Clintons made Whitewater much worse with their behavior during the 90s, it wasn't much of a scandal on its own.

But I digress.

There are a lot of things I dislike about Hillary. I dislike the fact that she has a management style much like Bush's: she sees things in black and white, not shades of gray like her husband. She's someone who demands total loyalty...or you are out with her. She locks people out who don't see things her way. Bill Clinton, by contrast, brought all kinds of people into his decision making process (which in itself was flawed in many ways - another story though).

Still, I think it's unfair to criticize Hillary for being a politician. Our best presidents have been the ones who wound up changing their positions when required. As much as I'd love a leader who has been consistent from day one and never swayed from stated positions, those types of people simply don't get into the presidency. I see that as a reality of American politics.

What does Hillary bring to the table? She really is ready "on Day One" to be president. She was an absolutely integral player in Bill's White House, especially in the early years, much like a VP or senior adviser. I'm certain she absolutely knows how to run a White House (learned from many of Bill's mistakes), whereas I am guessing Obama would be more likely to make a rookie mistake or too. The job of president is overwhelming and I think Hillary knows exactly what to expect. Obama might not, few do.

And I do think Hillary Clinton wishes to use power for the overall good in America, in ways I'm generally in favor of (health care, especially for children, education, etc.). She wouldn't be my first choice for president, but if it comes down to her and McCain, there's no contest, really. I don't want another one or two right-wing (or at least right-leaning) Supreme Court justices being appointed for the next two generations, replacing aging left-wing liberals on the court. With McCain we're certainly not going to get a liberal to replace them; with Clinton and a Democratic Congress, shouldn't be a problem.

As for Obama: I think he does have a solid background, just no executive experience. When Bill Clinton took office in 1993 he had a decade of executive experience (which didn't seem to help much, but at least he had it). Does Obama have the judgment to pick a good chief of staff, good people around him to be able to run an effective White House? I hope so. I am sure he's an intelligent guy and he seems earnest and trustworthy. But I think we are taking a lot on faith with him. With Clinton, while we know bad things about her, at least we shouldn't be surprised at what's coming, and I for one am ready to accept her in that role, over McCain anyway. I am leaning Obama however.

Andrew

George W. Bush had all sorts of executive experience as a two-term governor of Texas. He still ... well, we've seen it. One of my best friends lives in Houston, and lived there for part of Bush's tenure in that state, and was hopeful of Bush in the White House. He said Bush was generally a good, even-handed governor ... and this is coming from a guy that has always leaned to the left (my friend). The last seven years have been a catastrophe in ways unfathomable by most all Americans. All this from a guy with oodles of executive experience.

I guess this shows that all the experience really is overrated.

Skeptical, I appreciate your point of view. I respectfully disagree with some of what you have said.

The kind of arm twisting needed to get get the job done is right up Hillary's alley. She can be ruthless if needed.

The next president isn't going to be able to make widespread changes -- there's a HUGE political mess to clean up and Hillary is the master politician that get this done quickly.

What sort of consensus and bi-partisan feeling has she ever generated in Washington? Furthermore, what achievements can she point to that she led the fight to accomplish through cooperation? Finally, what widespread changes does she have in mind? She had eight years with Bill to bend his ear and another seven plus years in the Senate to start her revolution, so what has it amounted to and where is it going?

Even if we take "quickly" out of the equation, it still stacks up to almost nothing. I really want to be fair about this, but I am lost as to how her achievements tower over Obama. The record shows that in a shorter time, with fewer inroads, Obama has been a more effective Senator.

If Obama becomes president in 2009, most of his talent will be wasted because he'll have to be doing things he's most ill-suited for. I'm afraid he'll pull a Tom Potter when the going gets nasty. Hillary won't. She lives for this stuff.

Actually, Obama will be doing what he is best suited for in 2009. Unlike Clinton, he has spent most of his political life working with folks on both sides of the aisle. He has had far less to do with the division and gridlock than Mrs. Clinton, because "she lives for that stuff."

The most important job of the next President is to actually unite the United States. I have found overwhelming evidence that she will not be able to do that job on "day one" or any other.

On the big ones, she's not gonna change. She is NOT ever going to appoint a conservative to the Supreme Court. She isn't EVER going to consider changing the constitution to make room for God-thinking. Minorities and disabled people will never become a lowered priority for her. And so on.

So, the fact that she was President of the Wellesley Young Republicans in college does not strike you as a bit odd? The fact that her first job in politics was to be an intern for Charles Goodell, a Republican, does not seem out of step with who she is now? The fact that her thesis derided "grassroots" organizing all those years ago is not directly reflected in how she approached the caucuses?

Apparently, she does have some consistent feelings. Unscientifically, the ratio looks to be about one in three.

Again, I really am not on the attack here, I am just not convinced that Hillary is a good fit for President.

Andrew, I am truly worried that Hillary may split the Democrats in a way that makes the "Jesus vs. Wall Street" fight on the right look like a squabble. Mitt is an idiot, but he knew when to take his ball and go home.

Already, in states with open primaries -- like Wisconsin -- the GOP has started an effort to inflate her numbers with their votes. This trend reflects the overall feeling that the Clintons might have their comeuppance yet from a very bitter Republican Party. She is a master at unifying her opponents.

If she does not score definitive victories -- and I mean like 70-30 kind of numbers in the next half dozen states -- there is definitely no reason for her to continue. As they say in the South -- where Obama has done well -- she can "consider herself sorted."

It's those super delegates that will cause the problem. Either that, or Florida and Michigan.

I heard Al Sharpton's show today. Man, it will be messy if the Clinton's pull shennanigans on Mr. Obama.

ABC.

Anybody but Clinton. She almost makes Brezhnev look good. And 'Henry the K' might even agree.

Herb

Does Obama have the judgment to pick a good chief of staff, good people around him to be able to run an effective White House? I hope so.

I know that he does because it is a matter of record. Here is the staff Barack Obama assembled when he arrived in the Senate:

"Obama hired Pete Rouse, a 30-year veteran of national politics and former chief of staff to Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, as his chief of staff, and economist Karen Kornbluh, former deputy chief of staff to Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin, as his policy director. His key foreign policy advisers include Samantha Power, author on human rights and genocide, and former Clinton administration officials Anthony Lake and Susan Rice."

Wiki

Huh. No nepotism. No buddies. No yes men. Just good solid hires.

I really do appreciate you folks ringing in on this thread. Again, this is not about "trash-n-bash" at all. I want to make damn sure that we the people do not simply defeat the current administration. This nation needs healing, not division. This nation needs to move forward with a new approach to old problems, not an old approach to new problems.

Littlesongs, those hirings are encouraging. Power wrote a compelling book a few years back about American reaction to various genocides in the 20th century ("A Problem From Hell"), and I saw her speak at Powell's - she seems pretty bright. I'd love to see her in a high position in an Obama administration.

I think the people a candidate hires says a lot about the candidate's likely future success when governing. Definitely.

The fact that Hillary grew up in a conservative family and campaigned for Goldwater in 1964 before flipping to the Democratic party a few years later doesn't trouble me at all. Many people need a few years to break free of family influence (and let's remember, Republicans were not yet fully in the sway of the right wing in the late 60s; it was still possible to be a "moderate" Republican then). Air America/KPOJ host Thom Hartmann had a similar journey from conservatism to liberalism (and also campaigned for Goldwater I believe).

Andrew

Littlesongs, doesn't Obama strike you as being a bit fragile? I'm afraid he's gonna get bummed out. He's going to sit in the White House and realize he can't do a damn thing without doing a LOT of gladhanding. This is what LBJ was great at -- he got his Great Society programs by arm twisting and calling in favors he amassed as a Senate leader. Obama doesn't have any of this. Hopefully I'm wrong.

"What sort of consensus and bi-partisan feeling has she ever generated in Washington?"

Perhaps what I'm saying is that she is well suited for doing it alone. I believe she is going to give whatever she wants to do 100%. It may not be to everybody's liking, but unlike Bush, it will be decisions made based on facts.

I can understand Hillary being president of the Young Republicans -- I once voted for Gerald Ford. Only later did I understand the stupidity of not putting much thought into political choices.

If Obama gets elected, I'll be behind him 100%, but I think Hillary is just twisted enough to get MORE things going my way.

Oh, and yes, I don't think anyone can "unite" the country -- there's a division that's gonna take generations to cross. Obama isn't magical enough to bringing extremists like the Lying Swiftboaters to behave rationally, so we might as well just have Hillary kick em in the balls.

I agree that a new page could be very desirable.

What I find fascinating is how democrats are only now realizing the credibility gap of the Clinton's. It appears that as long as 'their guy' was in office, the bar was set very low indeed.

Now that Mrs. Clinton is in a position to pull more of her own funny stuff, democrats are getting rightfully concerned.

If republicans were to lose, Mr. Obama would be the more civil choice. Otherwise, Newt might pitch in for 'Contract With America II.'

Herb

I think he does have a solid background, just no executive experience.

Obama would have that experience if he had chosen the easy ride into the private sector, but he was compelled less by greed than service.

If we are realistic about it, precious few educated men of color get "executive" experience. To paraphrase NBA legend Charles Barkley, "How many black owners are there? None? Huh." Yeah. Huh.

Skep, I'm going to have to disagree with you a bit. I'm not so sure LBJ's manipulation of the Congress in the 1960s was such a healthy thing. While he was able to get some great legislation passed (civil rights, Medicare), I think some of the Great Society stuff was passed too fast, without enough time for the Country to accept it and make it successful. I'm not sure LBJ's style is one I'd like to see repeated.

I am encouraged that Obama might be able to work with Republicans. One reason for this is that I think he has a unique cross-over appeal to Republican voters, the way Reagan did to Democratic voters. That's because I've talked to a number of Republicans who are surprisingly positive on Obama - and not just because he's not Hillary (whom they despise). And where Republican voters go Republican politicians will follow (or risk early retirement by the voters). If Obama is pushing something that Republican congresspeople are hearing about from their constituents, because Obama can actually reach them, you might be surprised how bipartisan the Congress could become. I'm not saying it's ever going to become some sort of free love society but I think Congress has the capacity to improve greatly from what it has been the last 15-20 years.

Andrew

Doesn't Obama strike you as being a bit fragile?

You know what, I totally understand what you mean. It is completely unfounded, but it is an emotion I got early on when I saw him. I believe that it stems from the fact that we are fragile. After twenty years of war, lies, scandals, layoffs, backroom deals and front room terrorism, hope is almost alien to us. Bile has been poured down our necks so long it is almost hard to swallow something as simple as the American ideal.

However, I can assure you that he is far from fragile on the stump. Remember, this fellow has been a tireless activist and legislator on the south side of Chicago. "Rough neighborhood" is a vast understatement. As a legislator, he reached out to all the people in his district. Though they ranged from extreme poverty to lavish wealth, he listened to their needs and united them with common purpose. From 1993 to 2004, he also lectured on the Constitution at the University of Chicago Law School. He has extra energy stored where most people have fear.

Just to illustrate my point, here is a fantastic article about Obama on the campaign trail in 2004. It was published in The New Yorker and is simply called, "The Candidate."

"What I'm saying is that she is well suited for doing it alone. I believe she is going to give whatever she wants to do 100%. It may not be to everybody's liking, but unlike Bush, it will be decisions made based on facts."

I do not ever ever ever ever ever want another leader who has the brazen audacity to assume that the position of President is anything more than the highest point in American public service. We do not have royalty in this country outside of Aretha Franklin.

I hasten to remind folks that almost all of the monkeyshine that has been pulled in the last seven plus years will not be reversed under a Clinton. The system of a unitary executive will only be reinforced, partisan divisions will run ever deeper and our democracy will slip away.

Andrew and Skeptical, I totally grok the idea of changing how one feels over time. I was quite the conservative Alex P. Keaton type in grade school. However, at some point, we figure all out who we are and what we stand for as a person.

If we have integrity, those concrete fundamentals do not change. We fight for what we believe is right, stay focused and accomplish something. If we do not have that kind of conviction, then we do things wrong and make excuses.

How many different dance steps can HRC do around her vote for a war that should never have been waged in the first place? The Watusi, the Twist, the Macarena, the Lindy Hop, the Foxtrot, the Bump, the Charleston...

For many people, she cannot be trusted to make the right decision for America based on that one vote. Well, that is just how it goes sometimes in politics. You would think, with her wealth of experience, she would know that by now.

Perhaps there is another factor to consider here . . . for many of us following politics over the years, we've become a bit jaded. We know there's never gonna be another JFK-type that took us out of one age and into a new age almost overnight, so after 7 years of the Bush adminstration, all we REALLY want is revenge -- as barbaric as it may seem, we're only human, and Hillary can fill a need that would be most satisfying even if she never accomplishes anything else. Obama on the other hand, would have to be a DAMN GREAT president to provide that same satisfation.

Think about it -- since Congress took impeachment off the table, it has sank to historic lows.

What say you?


There is some relief in Littlesong's comments regarding Obama's toughness. As for Hillary, I don't think she'll abuse presidential powers like the current president, but I will concede she may overstep the line once or twice, but nothing like Bush, her husband or that Nixon fellow.

As an aside, I believe one needs to examine how each candidate approaches their minority status.

At no point has Obama assumed that the Congressional Black Caucus was his to manipulate. At no point has Obama assumed that every black hand was filling in his oval in the primaries. Obama has no illusions that he deserves to lead because of his genetic makeup.

By contrast, Hillary... well, I think that Camille Paglia put it best:

"The old-guard feminist establishment has also rushed out of cold storage to embrace Hillary Clinton via tremulous manifestos of gal power that have startlingly exposed the sentimental slackness of thought that made Gloria Steinem and company wear out their welcome in the first place. Hillary's gonads must be sending out sci-fi rays that paralyze the paleo-feminist mind -- because her career, attached to her husband's flapping coattails, has sure been heavy on striking pious attitudes but ultra-light on concrete achievements."

Actually, I'm one of those who thinks "yes" was the correct vote on Iraq in 2002. Let's remember that it wasn't a vote for war, it was a vote to authorize use of force, and Bush promised to seek a 2nd UN resolution and let weapons inspectors do their jobs. Bush reneged on both. Bush took a gamble on that vote; had it come out "no" it would have made the US look weak and Saddam really was dangerous and needed to be contained. I think the Congress had to vote "yes" on that resolution.

A "yes" vote gave Bush the leverage needed to force Saddam to let weapons inspectors back in, something Clinton was unable to do. Had Bush stopped there, coming a year after 9/11, he would have looked like a strong, wise president, who understood that the threat of force is more potent than actually using it. (And Saddam may well have been deposed soon after anyway; he almost didn't survive the 1998 desert fox attacks by Clinton.)

So, anyway, I don't blame Clinton (or Edwards) for their votes in 2002 - who knew then that Bush couldn't be trusted to keep his word? I think it's unfair the way that vote has been turned into a "war" vote (Cheney at the time believed Bush had the authority to go anyway, has he believed in 1990 before the first Iraq war.). There was only one "vote" for or against going to war - in the Oval Office.

So I personally have no problem with her attempts to explain her 2002 Iraq vote - it makese sense to me.

Andrew

Exactly! I bought the Bush WMD line 100% Maybe this is why I want pure revenge.

Andrew, I disagree. She did not do the right thing. To be clear, I am not one who hinges his whole opinion on that vote either. Unfortunately, we are forced to accept her shortsightedness. Hillary not only neglected to verify intel to support her position, but refused to put any teeth into the resolution:

"Clinton voted against the Levin Amendment to the Resolution, which would have required the President to conduct vigorous diplomacy at the U.N., and would have also required a separate Congressional authorization to unilaterally invade Iraq."

Wiki

Lest we forget, Clinton also voted for the Patriot Act. She is a sheeple. Well meaning, but malleable to the fears of a moment and the interests of a few.

I am reassured by the very real grasp Obama has of the Constitution. He also knows what makes a "dumb war" a dumb war.

"I will concede she may overstep the line once or twice, but nothing like Bush, her husband or that Nixon fellow."

Skep, I cannot support another leader who feels that kind of privilege is theirs to take on a whim. America needs to have a restoration of balance, not an administration that sets us up for a future with someone even more dangerous than the shrub.

"I bought the Bush WMD line 100% Maybe this is why I want pure revenge."

I did not, so what I want is a new government. :0)

"Now that Mrs. Clinton is in a position to pull more of her own funny stuff, Democrats are getting rightfully concerned."

Herb, you are right. It is sure making this (usually) Independent voter wonder what the hell folks are thinking. Obama has made me a temporary Democrat for the primaries. If Hillary is nominated, I will vote for her. However, I will also leave the party, and all parties, for good.

Like all of her counterparts in the Empire State, Hillary pushed for legislation after 9/11. To my initial astonishment, the record showed that most of it was only token or co-sponsored. It does surprise me that she has added little to the discussion in over six years.

Unlike Rudy, she has done us the favor of avoiding the "flag flapping victim card," but perhaps it is because there is so little legislation or investigation for her to show her own district. She did not press for transparency and did not deeply probe the findings of the 9/11 Commission.

One might think that she is still smarting from the warm welcome she received when she shared a bill with The Who and The Rolling Stones.

A big thanks to Brianl, Skeptical, Andrew and Herb for their contributions and the rest of you folks who took the time to read this thread. I learn something from all of you every day!

I hope my torrent of thoughts doesn't come off as needlessly contrary or angry. There is an urgency that I feel deep down in my gut right now. These days have the flavor of times one never forgets.

I will put this to bed for the night.

Good thread guys. Enjoyed the read.

This thread was never meant to single anybody out as being off-base in their choice. I hope it was clear that I was trying to reconcile this election for myself. After finding so many things along the way, I felt I had to share some of my conclusions.

To discover some things out about Hilary Clinton the Senator, it is simple. Beyond that folks, it is a minefield. Records with her and her husband are so strewn through the Congress that you could spend weeks pawing through that sordid era again. In the end, you will very discover little positive about Hillary.

I avoided singling a lot of things out because I think it is important for us all to dig through the record for ourselves. Sure, you are gonna run across the multiple bills about "liquefied tomato sauce" and lowering the tariffs on expensive wool for women's sweaters that pad Hillary's totals in the Senate.

On a serious note, you will also find her rolling over on our rights. She cannot be simultaneously against the war when she is funneling defense contracts to her district. These do not diminish the good things she has done for women and children in her life of public service. It is simply the contrasting sides of Clinton.

Despite having a party and purpose in common, there are stark contrasts between Obama and Clinton. I found that earmarks are a very good place to poke around. If that article surprised you, hey, it surprised me too!

Another ever growing contrast between them is the American Freedom Pledge. When it was first proposed last August, Hillary refused. She remains the only Democratic Presidential candidate to refuse the pledge in a once wide field. This decision is baffling to me.

Obama on the other hand, would have to be a DAMN GREAT president to provide that same satisfaction.

Think about it -- since Congress took impeachment off the table, it has sank to historic lows.

What say you?

I completely agree with your assessment that the American public are utterly disgusted with Congress for taking impeachment off the table. It is not the only issue, but it is one of the many things that was promised in 2006 and not delivered.

With a unified party, a Congress that works with each other and all Americans doing their part, Obama could be a damn great President. It is up to us.

With the flagrant abuse of our elections in our recent past, I like to keep a sharp eye on the process. I am not a big fan of electronic voting machines. Hillary, on the other hand, is quite happy with their performance.

First, there were stories that came out of New Hampshire after her miraculous comeback. With no momentum at all, she gained one helluvalotta ground.

Then the problems started to pour in from Los Angeles, Sacramento and the rest of California after super-Tuesday. Many absentee and provisional ballots, possibly a million were tossed out.

Questions were also raised in her "home" state of New York. Like many folks, I find it very hard to believe that even in an increasingly gentrified Harlem those numbers were correct. She seemed to win every county by "just enough" much like a certain someone not long ago.

Of course, we still have the issue of Michigan. Barack Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan to conform with the decision of the party. Though Hillary stated in interviews that the primary was not sanctioned and didn't matter, she remained the only candidate on the ballot. No surprise, she won and now wants the delegates seated.

Florida was the exact same situation, the party told the candidates to stay home, and again, Clinton subverted the process. She made a campaign appearance in Florida and saturated the airwaves with advertisements. Of course, she won, and like Michigan, she wants the delegates seated.

I am not sure if we should look at all of this as a pattern in her victories, but it is interesting to note at the very least.

I've seen absolutely zero evidence of foul play related to Clinton's wins any of those primaries - only speculation. I think it's pointless to speculate without evidence; one could certainly point to supposed voter illregularities in states where Obama won as well, if you want to play that game.

By the way, the day after she lost Iowa I predicted Clinton would win New Hampshire - for one because I believed the Iowa numbers weren't necessarily indicative of how people would vote across the country (since Iowa's numbers historically tend to be way off from future primaries). I guess I was the only one not surprised the evening of the New Hampshire primary when she won as I predicted.

Andrew

Andrew, this is not a game. I guess that is why I am distressed by even the appearance of impropriety.

Just so nobody feels alone, I also think it is uncomfortable to take the bloomers off the empress. Again, I know this is bringing up some emotions here, but I feel it is important to take a deeper look. This is about our future. If anyone has some concrete positives about Hillary to bring to the table, I am all for it and have been all along.

She takes no responsibility for the very real divides she has created and perpetuated not only in this election, but for fifteen years in Washington. Though she is a fair to middling candidate with more baggage than United, I would vote for her in November. My biggest fear is that she is so selfish and so driven that her party and our country are secondary to her ambitions.

I don't think there is even an appearance of impropriety. You're connecting two things:

- some reported voting irregularities
- the fact that Clinton won in those states

and, based on your suspicion (not evidence), concluding that there might be some sort of hanky panky going on. But there's zero evidence of such, as I said. Show me evidence and we can talk - otherwise it's speculation and not worth discussing, to me.

Andrew

Andrew, to be clear, I am just the messenger and not convinced of any wrongdoing. I just found it odd, as did the voters in those states. We all have a right to be suspicious. If this country were run cleanly, it wouldn't be an issue. I am certainly willing to set aside judgment for the moment.

I guess that it might be easier to swallow the current climate if this was a good old fashioned horse race. When folks start pulling pages from Rove 101, I get a bit twitchy.

Why would the Clinton camp stoop to planting questions? Then, when they get caught doing it, turn around and do it again? I really hate having to bring up Norman Hsu too.

Is this the kind of way that a "seasoned veteran" Democratic candidate starts out on the campaign trail these days? Perhaps, as Mary Mapes notes, her trail will end at the Alamo.

I guess that my frustration stems from digging for the goods. I did and it led me to a realization: I am not liking what I see even more than before when I saw less of it. Does that make sense?

This is not just about Hillary versus Obama. It is about how she could win as a candidate in November.

• She insists she is vetted in the face of overwhelming evidence.
• She ignores how damn tough it can be to win being a Clinton.
• She has made little effort to reach out to all of her constituents.
• Her campaign is frazzled and it is only February.

Littlesong said: "My biggest fear is that she is so selfish and so driven that her party and our country are secondary to her ambitions."

I am curious as to what you think Hillary could do that wouldn't be benefitual to Democrats. I just don't see Hillary aiming for personal gain here. Even if she becomes power mad, it would benefit Democrats. Other than cheap universal health care crammed down Americans throat (something that more than half the country wouldn't mind), what's the worst Hillary could do?

Right now she's running for office and politicans often say/do things to get elected -- not necessary an indicator of how they'd do their job.

Littlesongs, you're welcome to muse about the appropriateness of Clinton's tactics or about her electability - and I might well agree with you on many points. But you must admit, your dislike for Clinton is what really fuels your suspicion, not any shred of real evidence of election fraud. Someone who dislikes Obama could do exactly the same thing and it wouldn't be any more valid.

Andrew

The central issue is not the alleged fraud. Since it has derailed us a bit, I now regret passing that information along. The central issue is Hillary Clinton as a viable candidate and the way her campaign is being run.

What's the worst Hillary could do?

Skeptical, well, for starters, the damage by her husband was extensive. It left the Democratic Party wide open to the kind of crap we have seen go on now for two election cycles. They left us with all sorts of goodies including NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and a whole lot of dirty jokes.

Now, I believe she is publicly undermining the position of the party in MI and FL by insisting that they be seated since the results suit her. By extension, the Clinton camp is implying that these primaries and caucuses are simply a formality and that the real nomination process will be up to a group of party elite and elected officials.

The potential split within the party is real. Traditionally, the Democrats have taken folks for granted and been surprised on election day. They just figure that black folks and young folks and poor folks ought to know what is good for them and toe the line. When the system has failed those very people, it can take a helluva push to get them back in the fold.

Traditional Democrats have been joined by centrists, Reagan Democrats, disaffected Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, young people, old people and minorities in this primary season. They have all joined the process because of a dynamic candidate and the dream of a better future.

Almost 500,000 Americans have donated to Obama since the first of the year. Almost 10,000,000 Americans have voted for him in the primaries so far. Quite a few of these people are not part of the Clinton base. They do not feel included in her plans or they would be working for her, and voting for her.

Come November, there are quite a few seats in Congress depending on a Presidential candidate to boost their numbers. In fact, the Democrats are banking on regaining control. So, the ratio of happiness that Joe Q. Public feels toward the party hinges quite a bit on who is running for the highest office.

If she gets into office, it will be business as usual. Painful as it is to wrap my head around -- and to type it on this page -- it will be McCain-lite. Her friends will benefit, her enemies will be scorned and Congress will continue to do nothing. Take a gander at our history from 1992-2000, take away our rights, add a war and a recession, and there you have it.

If this comes off as personal, so be it. I felt it was in our best interest to share only a bit of what I discovered. I have done us all the favor of keeping the dirtiest dirt in the bucket. I see no reason to enable the GOP, but that is probably my biggest concern about any Clinton running for office.

If this line of thought seems to be the rantings of an Obama supporter, or Clinton hater, you are entitled to that opinion. I just call 'em as I see 'em. What I see is not gonna get the Democrats the White House, so figured I'd share that opinion before it was too late to ruminate.

The dirtiest? Again, read Carl Bernstein's book about her. It's a fair book but as I said, not exactly flattering to the Clintons especially to Bill.

Andrew

Andrew, perhaps we actually feel the same way -- at least about William J. I do not think it is fair that Hillary has the millstone of Bill around her neck. Despite my very real reservations about her candidacy, I have an immense amount of respect for her as a person. She is a potential force in our country that has been dampened and muted by the shenanigans of her husband.

I left the post-White House questions alone. Right now, thank heavens, most of it is rumor and innuendo. However, as we painfully found out in the 90s, sometimes these things have legs. She may have made a shady deal or two that could haunt her, but his ever raging pillock is absolute poison. We do not need to find out this October that when he was laid up in the hospital, he was laid up in the hospital.

Bill is a far bigger problem to her and the Democrats than he is ever gonna admit. Two for one seems like a good deal, but I really wish she had kicked him to the curb. Whatever happens, we are all stuck with Bill, his mouth and his popular fly. Not to make light of a potentially damaging problem, but this is the Viagra era. Do we really need the Secret Service and the press watching him screw around for another four or eight years? Oh Lord, there is nothing like looking forward to an inevitable mess.

(I will read that book.)

Right now, I really want these lousy goddamn sons of bitches in the GOP to lose by a landslide in November. Come January, I want our esteemed Republican legislators to work with their Democratic colleagues and our President for a better America. I guess I am searching for the best person to destroy the current regime, but with the skill to mend fences. To win it soundly, but still be able to reach out across the aisle and rebuild our country. Ah, our messy wonderful democracy.

Anyway, you folks are my friends and I feel like I have tromped around enough in dirty boots tonight. I hope that you understand that this was in the spirit of sharing information and reflecting on things. Thanks for indulging me.

I'm enjoying this thread. Little is articulating much of my thought on Hilary right now.

At the end, the big question is who is gonna win solid? The GOP has gotta take a pass on the sidelines for a while. We need to rebuild and so do they.

Thanks for airing that out. Many of those thoughts are with me right now.

At this moment, I think Obama is the right thing to do. All of this stuff is just stuff. People are shallow, so sadly, it probably matters.

If it's possible to say it, Obama has less of it, but what he has is potent. Drug, Muslim, Black...

His spark with people is real though. More real than Hilary's. Since people are shallow, I'm sticking with my gut and that's Obama at the moment.

Having said that, I actually like Hilary. There have been some of those biography type programs on. At her core, she's a good kid, who wanted to change the world for the better. Hard not to like that and see Bill for what he really is --not built in the same class as she is.

But, she does love the guy, and I really think he loves her. Both very smart people, both caring. --And both sorry. Strong.

These are not bad things. Experience may have left her somewhat more jaded than necessary. Here's another question to ponder then:

Set aside all of the crap --and wonder if she, once elected, will continue to embrace all that crap, or change up, remember who she really is and go from there?

And on the flip side then, is Obama really a poser?

Thanks Missing. I will probably elaborate a bit more on my current feelings in a while, but you asked two very important questions:

Set aside all of the crap --and wonder if she, once elected, will continue to embrace all that crap, or change up, remember who she really is and go from there?

I believe the late great Molly Ivins might have hit the nail right on the head.

And on the flip side then, is Obama really a poser?

The very same question was posed by New York Magazine.

You may have noticed that both of these articles are from 2006. I felt that to truly separate the current climate from the real meat, it was a good idea to turn back the clock.

Interesting perspectives!

You know, I've been thinking about catalyst people. These are the kinds of people that do stuff that really matters longer term. These kinds of people can be good or bad, but they all share something that is compelling to the rest of us.

(what that something is really is up for discussion --hard to nail down)

Obama is absolutely one of those people. I can't yet decide if Hilary is one or not.

BTW: Being a poser, then suddenly finding things are real can inspire someone. It's not all bad in this way with Obama. Goes right back to passion and character.

Maybe he's over selling the love a bit. That's no crime.

Or maybe it is. Is it a bigger crime to oversell the toughness?

Sounds to me like this new drug is called for here!

http://www.jibjab.com/view/156511

Looks like someone from FAUXNews FINALLY got a sense of humor. Oh, that's right it wasn't a parody of DUHbya.....

I like this one:
http://www.jibjab.com/view/227577

I do want to expand on some of the ideas more. In the meantime, here are two compelling profiles from New Yorker magazine:

The Pol

The Conciliator

Obama creamed Hillary in WI!

Obama - 55%
Clinton - 44%

Obama is also expected to beat her in Hawaii.

I don't think these results surprise to anyone actually. Texas and Ohio are the ones that will really count.

Andrew

Obama vs McCain
Hillary vs McCain

Doesn't matter at this point I don't think.....

It's looking more and more like we are going to get our first Black President......

"Texas and Ohio are the ones that will really count."

Right. And Mr. Obama is now closing the gap in both of those former Clinton strongholds.

Herb

Wow, the only "victory" the Republicans have within the realm of possibility this year is that Obama wins the nomination. The non-election of McCain as president of the United States this fall is a foregone conclusion.

Wow, not only Bush has hosed the country, he has lowered the expectation of his own party.

You're absolutely right Andrew. Wisconsin doesn't surprise me at all.

• Obama drew a key demographic: Voters.
• Hillary tried to campaign in Wisconsin from Texas and Ohio until the very last minute.
• Mark Penn is learning far too late about macrotrends.
• People in her camp view red states as "second-class" citizens, I mean, delegates.
• Bill is steadily driving away core voters one by one.

Great points, Littlesongs.

All the more reason why I strongly feel a Hillary Presidency would be an unmitigated disaster. Do you really feel that someone who views traditionally conservative states as "second class" is going to do what is in the best interest of those states? I think we have seen that to a large extent with Bush and "second class" states as he views, Hurricane Katrina being a prime example in the Gulf region.

Obama is proving to unite people. He's taking away the educated, older, white population and he's taking a lot of women from Hillary. He's appealing to moderates, both left- and right-leaning, and even to some conservatives. (Heck, even Herb likes the guy! **THAT** is saying something!).

It remains to be seen whether Obama can truly be a uniter in the mold of a Kennedy, or Reagan. He sure talks the talk though, and his previous actions dictate that he's not afraid to walk the walk.

I don't think, right now, that Hillary holding out for Ohio and Texas can stop that giant snowball rolling down the hill right at her. As the saying goes, "Shit rolls downhill".

I think we are gonna have to give him a test drive to find that out.

Been playing a bit of a game this week. There are times when it's ok to just strike up a quickie conversation. So, I've tried it with, "So, what about [insert name here]?"

The differences are stark! I've met a coupla people, who are stoked about Hilary, but even they say something along with we've got to take the good with the bad. Met a lot of people, who hope she does not win.

Perceptions I've encountered on Obama range from, "Who? --Oh, that Black guy." to "Yeah, he's looking huge!"

More people than I expected did say he is likely to get shot, but should run because he's gonna do good. !?! The worst really, so far, was "I really want [x], but if he wins, that's ok."

Responses to Huckabee have been generally hilarious! "What? That guy?" Which I had to follow up and explain what I was doing, more than once. Have met a coupla the loyal though. "About time we get God back in the White House." I just smile and say I perfer Obama, which has gotten me some great expressions!

McCain is generally guarded positive. Interestingly, few people said the same old, same old is gonna happen. All thought he was gonna continue wars.

McCain conversations almost always ended up talking about parties. Which one is better, Bush, etc... That didn't happen with the Huckster, nor did it with Obama. Did with Clinton. The Bush / Clinton being in too long bit is real, IMHO.

Anyway, you all should try it. People are wanting to talk, it seems.

One younger black kid and his mom, that I spoke to, actually said, "But you are a white guy!". Fun conversation! The kid wants to vote, but is only 15! He knows who Obama is though, and that's neat!

The Clinton campaign got caught flat-footed after Super Tuesday, because their whole strategy from a year ago had been to win the nomination by then. So in many post-Super-Tuesday states, they simply had no ground organization. Obama meanwhile apparently has a great ground organization, everywhere, for months or longer, and that's been reaping benefits.

So now Clinton is trying to play catch-up. And as I said, it will come down to Texas and Ohio. She may not drop out if she loses those states but if she can't win at least one of them decisively, it's going to be nearly impossible to stop Obama.

Andrew

Great stuff guys! Everyone here has made some great points. As far as last night goes, I will try to keep it brief.

I saw two campaigns at a crossroads:

When he was projected to win, Obama took the stage in Houston. He thanked the voters, volunteers and the people of Wisconsin. The crowd roared, the bulbs flashed and an electrified electorate celebrated 9 in a row. As soon as the audience drank it in, he focused on motivating the party for the next round.

Before he began his speech, he took a few minutes to urge folks to vote early. I wasn't just a quip. He also explained the ballot in detail. This was not just for a Texas crowd of over 20,000. He shared insight about their process with a national audience. Then, he spoke for just under 45 minutes.

Hillary, on the other hand was dismissive of the contest. If she did not wish to congratulate Obama, I understand. If she did not wish to thank her staff and volunteers who worked in mid-winter for her before this landslide loss, it is also understandable. However, she could have thanked the voters of Wisconsin who came out in the bitter cold by the hundreds of thousands.

I did like a great deal of her speech, but her dopey plagiarism canard stuck in my craw too much to really focus. Where do your ideas come from Mrs. Clinton? You see, there are banners everywhere that say Solutions for America and they remind me a whole lot of American Solutions. Of all the mixed messages that sends, one is clear: You are so 90s. :0)

I am sure both campaigns are delighted that Texans are already voting in droves!

The first New York Times article was not proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, but it is very interesting who is speaking up now. I know this really raised a stink the first time I brought it to light, but there is new information to pass along:

"February 19, 2008 -- Mayor Bloomberg charged yesterday that "fraud" was behind the unofficial results in the New York Democratic presidential primary that produced zero votes for Barack Obama in some districts.

"If you want to call it significant undercounting, I guess that's a euphemism for fraud," said the mayor.

Unofficial tallies on election night gave Obama no votes in 78 out of more than 6,000 election districts."

NY Post

Remember, I aint sayin' it happened -- Mayor Bloomberg is saying it happened.

Actually, I think low-level fraud is fairly common, except the people who try it usually aren't so STUPID as to make it look so obvious (ZERO votes for Obama?). But I would still hold judgment pending evidence that this is really the work of the Clinton campaign itself. They are not that stupid as to be involved with something like this. If you were going to steal votes, wouldn't you do it in a state where you needed the votes, not a state where the candidate is strong?

Andrew

I'm surprised Trixter hasn't chimed in yet.

No worries, I'll do it for him..

The HILLster is TOAST!!

Do You Think Obama Is Driving Hillary Bonkers?

BTW....Click on the link above!

Reverend Herb writes:

Anybody but Clinton. She almost makes Brezhnev look good. And 'Henry the K' might even agree.

Yeah and Hickabee almost make the taliban look good. You want to throw around insults, let's go.

Chaps...
I'm just soaking up the fact that Hillary is getting her ass handed to her. YES!
I'm also grinning form ear to ear that the HUCKster has decided to throw in the towel. Best news ever!
PGABH
Please God ANYONE but HICKabee

Clinton and Obama learned a great deal about politics last night, and it seemed like they both found a new part of themselves. One could see them transforming in the moment and it was refreshing to say the least. I came away seeing the Hillary that I admired, not the mired Hillary.

I enjoyed the debate and hope that the unity she so eloquently created at the end is something that lasts. Her campaign is suffering and grieving the loss of a police officer, so I will set my other thoughts aside for the moment.

Pardon me, Little, as I hurry in to drive the porcelain bus.

That cheap stuff is rough on an empty stomach, eh?

I loved the fact that the audience started booing Hillary after she made that stupid Xerox comment. The thing that really irritates me about Hillary is that she NEVER answers the questions people ask her. She always tries to avoid the question with some stupid comment like
"Last week I had a Mother come up to me crying because her daughter did not have health insurance, I knew something had to be done. BLAH BLAH BLAH! Answer the damn question HILLARY

Well, since you brought it up Justin, that was one of those learning moments for her. I also thought the hissing earlier was awesome too. I think what bothered me much more than the digression into "silly season" was her complete dodge on the question of secrecy. Obama made it clear that his Oval Office would not resemble the Kremlin, and stated his Senate achievements on transparency. She did not address the issue in even the most oblique way, she simply ignored it. You are spot on about her inability to give a straight answer most of the evening.

"That cheap stuff is rough on an empty stomach, eh?"

No, but your adoration of Hillary is.

Adoration? Good Lord, have you read this thread?

Little wrote on 15 February: "Alright, I'll admit it, I am not a big fan of Hillary Clinton." "After a week of digging, I am even more dead set against her nomination."

Little then wrote on 22 February: "I came away seeing the Hillary that I admired..."

That's quite a turnaround in a week!

Ah, but I did not come away seeing Hillary as the nominee, or Hillary as the President. In fact, I came away seeing a Hillary who knew in her gut that she had to unify her party. She knew that it might be her very last chance to keep it from an all out war.

I said that I admired her because she put her country and her party first. It was not merely about making sure the positive feelings of her family legacy were preserved. I felt that it was a transcendent moment in her political life. Even as a critic, I am not alone in that opinion.

This pretty much says it all!

http://s215.photobucket.com/albums/cc66/Skybill/?action=view&current=Chelsea.jpg

(I know it's been Photochopped, but it's still funny!)

Mea culpa. I tried to play nice. I tried to be fair. I thought that logic had prevailed. I thought there was a shred of decency and honor left in Hillary. I was wrong. Nope, instead of running a good campaign, she has to justify her assault on the Democratic Party. For somebody who blew through a hundred-fifty-million and is now short of funds, she sure has the budget for self serving propaganda.

Uh-oh, I keep forgetting about the American minority dynamic. You see, there are more white women than any other group of Americans. After all of this time, they should have a strong voice, but they still make far less and work more hours than one other group, white men. Why is this? Well, in simple terms, many forgot their own, and often, they forgot everyone else.

Brave and revolutionary as it all seems in old newsprint and fading pictures, burning a bra in the commons at an elite university was not action, it was a gesture. Promiscuity without pregnancy was not a revolution. It was only a universally embraced convenience for a generation -- without a thought for the health issues -- like say, Viagra.

Despite some very real opportunities for change, many women felt the whole "politics and revolution thing" was something to do between school and marriage. The music was loud, the beer was cold, the weed was green, and the sex was hot. It balanced out the government mandated fun for men: Vietnam.

At the time, this majority of women did not strongly unite against the draft because, well, it wasn't really their problem. So, when the war was over, their leaders claimed credit, rather than accurately saying we as a nation ended the conflict.

At the same time, this majority in America could not get ERA passed because their leaders made it a "me" issue instead of a "we" issue. In those days, when white women gained an education, privilege and power, they became elitist and railed against motherhood. Many were more than willing to roll over on their sisters and their own mothers for a bigger dollar.

To this day, some of America's most powerful women cannot imagine that an Equal Rights Amendment was the outgrowth of a massive Civil Rights Movement, not just Suffrage. No, they still insist it was some special magic only available to their coven, not an idea that was born centuries earlier in the bellies of the first slave ships.

I love my Mom. I cannot discount the intense suffering of white women in history. I cannot discount the many white women who have fought for everyone over the years. I cannot forget the very real challenges that face white women every single day. Still, no one is pleased that the two most powerful white women in the Democratic Party do nothing but reinforce stereotypes.

Hillary has a persona that is booksmart, snobby, mean-spirited, intensely competitive, and passive-aggressive. She becomes negative and frosty rather than finding common ground, and takes credit for things she did not do. Her counterpart, Nancy Pelosi, gives the impression that she is flirty, flighty, and unfocused. She wiggles her ample rack on cue, giggles way too much, but worse yet, she has not fulfilled her promise of leadership. So, after the Suffrage Movement and all the years of struggle, white women still boil down to a witch and a milf? C'mon ladies, you can do so much better!

Clinton represents an aging generation of white female go-getters who promoted pipe dreams, did token projects, and failed without any consistent action. She could return to her district and be a middling Senator with shady finances instead of a growing national embarrassment, but why? Is not our entire system hers to exploit? No wonder the paleo-feminists love her, while a majority of thinking women are behind Obama.

Of course, when we have a wonderful opportunity to unify the Democrats and show the true diversity of our American story, it becomes a race-baiting, victim playing gender war. I guess it ought to come as no surprise that the one who wants all the attention, the credit, and eventually the Oval Office, is a white woman with a sense of entitlement.

Before she sets back all women in politics fifty years, it is time for Hillary Clinton to get out. As the folks are known to holler in the marches, "NOW!"