Comments on: Clinton’s Legacy: Never Quit

By: syolles

syolles — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:43:40 +0000

If you want a country run by the Mark Penn types, Hillary is someone you will admire.
If you want to reopen the issue of racism as an attack weapon in American politics, you should admire Hillary– who threw all of us overboard, who might have found that tactic reprehensible.
Now, if you want a President who won’t listen to economists, no matter how many of them agree that a
certain course is a disaster, Hillary is your “girl”.
If you want to diminish and disrespect those who vote for someone else, no matter if it is the voters in the state of Iowa, or a whole geneneration of young people, Hillary will be your candidate.
If you want a candidate who blames many, and refuses to take responsibility for her errors … well, no question who that would be.
How about someone who will revive MacCarthyism, and smear a couple of people who have devoted their lives to helping others … How about that?
I am dumbstruck by the support of feminists who I would believe to be at least reasonably progressive, for a campaign that used this stuff –
And I believe that it is Obama’s excessive graciousness to his opponent, that permits columnists to now consider that
Hillary’s campaign was commendable, when it was an abomination and an insult to Democratic values.

By: merkwurdiglieber

merkwurdiglieber — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:07:21 +0000

Enough to know Ted Kennedy diminished himself and Carter in the exercise.
Seems to me the purpose of this post is to rip the scab off and start
the venting again, Clinton lost when she did not win Texas and Ohio by
landslide numbers, that is why after those victories, she blew up and
acted out Golda Mier fantasies or Thatcherite slash and burn the rest of
the way. Interesting that she never fought Republicans with the same
zeal… self interest maybe, like the old days in Arkansas they talked
a good game but governed like people on the make, which appeals to a lot
of people these days.

By: ekunin

ekunin — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:46:20 +0000

I suppose you are right although I believe Ian’s post gives more credit than is due. I don’t understand women who were for Clinton who now say they will vote for McCain. I hope you are not one of them. My point was that Hillary lost not because she is a woman, but because she was a flawed candidate. Under those circumstances, Hillary’s female supporters should have no trouble supporting Obama. To the extent these disappointed women are ready to vote McCain, I rake old coals in an attempt to persuade them they are wrong.

By: ACitizen

ACitizen — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:45:40 +0000

Too all of you on this thread. Do any of you know any history? Any at all?

Ted Kennedy took his campaign all the way to the Convention. All the way to the floor.

And he trailed by 700 delegates.

And nobody batted an eyelash.

So….

Just how do … you … label yourselves?

Many millions of Democratic voters see eye to eye to me.

Stop trying to suppress the Democratic Process!

Nothing Hillary has done has done anything other than increase the real Democratic Party’s appeal.

Nothing.

~~~Edited and released by Mods~~~

By: demi

demi — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:23:47 +0000

Okay. I thought your were referring to Ian’s post, not Clinton’s many previous statements.
Nevertheless, she is not hurting him now.

By: msmolly

msmolly — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:21:03 +0000

Why not let it go? Hillary is not the candidate. This incessant rehashing of the Clinton campaign and what she did/didn’t do/say are getting very old. I’m not aiming at you specifically, but what more is there to say that hasn’t been said hundreds of times already? It simply keeps our eyes OFF the prize of putting a Dem in the White House.

By: BooRadley

BooRadley — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:17:25 +0000

Thanks for the response.

Ok, I see your point.

By: Crosstimbers

Crosstimbers — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:16:43 +0000

I’m not sure I understand what you don’t understand. By “at the expense of”, I referred to the fact that she had previosly argued her own experience as superior to that of Obama. I had no problem with that. When she stated emphatically, on two occasins, that she and McCain were sufficiently qualified, but Obama was not, I viwed that as atdvancing her own objective at the expense of the Democratic Party if Obama were nominated. I still see it that way, as I previously noted. Nevertheless, it doesn’t help the cause to continue to harbor grudges, and I don’t. On the other hand, I don’t agree with the “fighter” image. It’s like a sparring partner who is trying to hurt you.

By: bonkers

bonkers — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:12:53 +0000

I wasn’t talking about Clinton supporters in general, just the ones that indignantly say they’re now going to vote for the Death Lover Panama John McSame. Yes, America has been and is now an extremely sexist society. So they’re going to take that understandable frustration and vote for McC*nt as he trollops on lipstick on the pig we call American policy over the past 8 years!?! (or more…)

There’s no getting through to people like this. We don’t need to spend energy figuring out how to make them see how misguided their attitudes are. We’re increasing our numbers in terms of people and money right now. I say full steam ahead with what Obama has been doing, since it’s working extremely well. People can choose to get on board or not. The choice is clear.

By: lee5

lee5 — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:04:28 +0000

yes, pity gore didn’t