Hillary Clinton and my hatred for her

Size=everything

Is it just me or does Clinton seem obsessed with power and power alone?

Instead of dropping out now when it is highly likely that Obama will gain the nomination and avoiding damaging the Democrats further she stubbornly refuses to the detriment of the party holding onto an ever fading glimmer of hope that maybe, just maybe she will get the nomination

why?
Because Hillary doesn't care about the democratic party all she cares about is getting into a powerful position.

She stuck with Bill Clinton after his affair not because she still loved him but because she knew he was her ticket to power.



Her campaign has, instead of concentrating it's efforts on addressing the public's issues and meeting with locals, concentrated on a campaign of negativity smearing her opponent.

why?

Because Clinton doesn't care about the public she is solely interested in destroying her rival and threat to her dream of power.


Clinton has lied numerous times to the public, she has claimed she was a key factor in the Northern Ireland peace process and landed in the Balkans under heavy sniper fire and had to sprint into an armoured vehicle for her own safety. She has claimed that as first lady she has foreign policy experience which is absolute bull she is only 2-3 years more experienced than Obama. Her close aide even recently claimed that Obama's experience was akin to a local county councillor in the UK running for Prime Minister


God I hate Clinton I would take Obama or even McCain over her any day. I really, really hope her campaign is over by tomorrow.

/RANT

mike65

Her close aide even recently claimed that Obama's experience was akin to a local county councillor in the UK running for Prime Minister

Not far off. Clinton knows this is her one and only chance so she won't drop out until she is beaten. She is full of hogwash but Obama is not filling me with any great expectation I must say.

Mike.

is_that_so

RickyHatton wrote: »

Is it just me or does Clinton seem obsessed with power and power alone?

Instead of dropping out now when it is highly likely that Obama will gain the nomination and avoiding damaging the Democrats further she stubbornly refuses to the detriment of the party holding onto an ever fading glimmer of hope that maybe, just maybe she will get the nomination

why?
Because Hillary doesn't care about the democratic party all she cares about is getting into a powerful position.

She stuck with Bill Clinton after his affair not because she still loved him but because she knew he was her ticket to power.



Her campaign has, instead of concentrating it's efforts on addressing the public's issues and meeting with locals, concentrated on a campaign of negativity smearing her opponent.

why?

Because Clinton doesn't care about the public she is solely interested in destroying her rival and threat to her dream of power.


Clinton has lied numerous times to the public, she has claimed she was a key factor in the Northern Ireland peace process and landed in the Balkans under heavy sniper fire and had to sprint into an armoured vehicle for her own safety. She has claimed that as first lady she has foreign policy experience which is absolute bull she is only 2-3 years more experienced than Obama. Her close aide even recently claimed that Obama's experience was akin to a local county councillor in the UK running for Prime Minister


God I hate Clinton I would take Obama or even McCain over her any day. I really, really hope her campaign is over by tomorrow.

/RANT

Feel better now She's still there because she can and the party's rules allow her to be there. She may not care about the party but the party has only got itself to blame for this debacle. They had the chance to have the first woman or the first black president and may end up with neither.

As for negativity, well it's part and parcel of US elections these days and Obama's comments and attitude recently have invited some serious questions.

For me McCain is really looking like the only option. The net effect of the negativity is that Clinton is starting to look unelectable and Obama is not the knight in shining armour he set out to claiming he was. The GOP will be even nastier once the Dem candidate is clear.

DeVore

Come on, lets face it... there arent many people who wouldn't think Obama hit the nail on the head about hick gun wielding religious nutjobs in Penn.

He's on The Daily Show tonight , should be a giggle

DeV.

mike65

Did anyone see the WWE promo? Christ.

http://www.wwe.com/content/media/video/vms/raw/2008/april15-21/6913858?zone=_index

Mike.

David@Bayard.co

Personnally I think Obama may have shot him self in the foot saying that if the priest didn't retire he would have left that chruch.......... Won't sit well with the deep south!!!

That and the fact that he defended himself remaining there for ages . It seems like he basically said "f*** it, I give up, I'd have left anyway" .........

That and the whole NAFTA thing - talk about being shot from behind!!!

I dunno, there is just something that doesn't sit well for me with Obama... I wouldn't vote for him anyway.

I still prefer Clinton!!

Like come on, Obamas heamth plan would cost way to much for what it is vs.s Clintons!!!

leninbenjamin

mike65 wrote: »

Did anyone see the WWE promo? Christ.

http://www.wwe.com/content/media/video/vms/raw/2008/april15-21/6913858?zone=_index

Mike.

what the f... ?

Podge_irl

The main thing that bothers me about Clinton is her seeming complete lack of sincerity. She'll pretend to be whatever she thinks people want her to be at that point in time.

davyjose

RickyHatton wrote: »

Instead of dropping out now when it is highly likely that Obama will gain the nomination

She's just won Pennsylvania, so clearly much of the US voters still think she has a shot! We should she drop out?

flogen

I think she proved (yet again) just how disingeuous she is when she attacked Obama for saying McCain would be a better president that GWB, saying he was bigging up the opposition.

This is after she said McCain had passed the 'Commander in Chief' test but Obama had not, and that McCain was a patriot but she wasn't sure if Obama was.

mike65

I said a few months back I thought I knew who would win, now I think McCain is a shoe-in. The Democrats are splitting, with a huge % of Clinton voters saying they would not vote Obama, if nominated. While if she gets the nod, every Republican will turn out to make sure to stop Clinton.

Mike.

bonkey

is_that_so wrote: »

She's still there because she can and the party's rules allow her to be there.

She's still there because she can still win.

I don't get it....in Ireland some years ago, there was outrage that only one candidate was put forward for the Presidential election.

Now, many people in Ireland seem outraged that the Democrats haven't reduced a two-horse-race to a single candidate, even though it would mean that some states would have ended up getting no say in things.

Size=everything

bonkey wrote: »

She's still there because she can still win.

I don't get it....in Ireland some years ago, there was outrage that only one candidate was put forward for the Presidential election.

Now, many people in Ireland seem outraged that the Democrats haven't reduced a two-horse-race to a single candidate, even though it would mean that some states would have ended up getting no say in things.

Because this battle is to the detriment of the democratic party. It is highly unlikely even after her win last night that Clinton will get the nomination. If she had any dignity or respect for the democratic party she would drop out now and support Obama before she ruins any chance the democrats have of getting back in power.

To be honest I think it might even be too late. If I was a betting man I would go for McCain hes looking more and more likely to get the presidency. Clinton's malicious attacks on Obama have damaged him whilst Clinton is Clinton and there are many people who will do everything in their power to ENSURE that Clinton doesnt become president.

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

RickyHatton wrote: »

Because this battle is to the detriment of the democratic party.

Howard Dean said the opposite on the news yesterday. He said it was great for the democrats to have such high profile primaries so close to the elections. And also so many people signing up to the democratic party in order to be part of the campaign.

drunkmonkey

I'm with you Ricky


That woman is evil.....If you were Bill would you put your ***k in that mouth....:eek:

davyjose

RickyHatton wrote: »

It is highly unlikely even after her win last night that Clinton will get the nomination.

It's not highly unlikely enough for someone to just quit IMO. Would you quit? If Obama was 100-ish delegates behind (out of a couple of thousand), with 10 states to go would you expect him to quit.
Give her a break. Why should she quit just because she's not the one slightly in front?

FatherTed

Not much of a victory for her yesterday as she gained only 12 delegates and is still over 150 pledged delegates behind.

namloc1980

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7361509.stm

clinton is a lunatic....she would "obliterate Iran"....kill millions of people!! she is obsessed with power. it's a disgrace that someone in her position should even say such a thing as she did in the interview.

David@Bayard.co

You really are a bit of a sensationalist - Let me take a leaf from your book!!

Hows about we give a Terrorist state some Nukes - you know for use on the Western countries.

(But we all know its just for Nuclear Power ie. electricity) - give me a break dude......... a tough line is needed in Iran!!!

David@Bayard.co

mike65 wrote: »

I said a few months back I thought I knew who would win, now I think McCain is a shoe-in. The Democrats are splitting, with a huge % of Clinton voters saying they would not vote Obama, if nominated. While if she gets the nod, every Republican will turn out to make sure to stop Clinton.

Mike.

You know it will be interesting to see if there will be a climb down on the tone of the competition over the next few weeks.

Because, if it does it could lead to the so called Dream Ticket

Clinton (Pres)/Obama (First) - My pref
or
the opposite

It will be interesting to see!!!

namloc1980

David@Bayard.co wrote: »

You really are a bit of a sensationalist - Let me take a leaf from your book!!

Hows about we give a Terrorist state some Nukes - you know for use on the Western countries.

(But we all know its just for Nuclear Power ie. electricity) - give me a break dude......... a tough line is needed in Iran!!!

"Obliterate" 70 million people sounds just a tad more than a tough line to me. Clinton would say anything to get a few votes

bonkey

David@Bayard.co wrote: »

You really are a bit of a sensationalist
...
(But we all know its just for Nuclear Power ie. electricity) - give me a break dude......... a tough line is needed in Iran!!!

Here's how you judge whether such a statement is reasonable or not...

Replace the name of the person who said it, with the name of the leader of the country referred to.
Replace the name of the country referred to, to the country the person who said it is from.

So....if you had Ahmadinejad saying that he would obliterate America....would you see that as him arguing that a tough line should be taken?

No, I didn't think so.

Das Kitty

Oh how I wish I had sound on my work computer.

Manic Moran

bonkey wrote: »

So....if you had Ahmadinejad saying that he would obliterate America....would you see that as him arguing that a tough line should be taken?

I think it's a case of the caveat of "If"

The Hillary didn't say "I'll obliterate Iran on a whim", it was "I'll obliterate Iran if it tries to nuke our friend", which is pretty reasonable, if a bit sensationalist. Ahadinejad has not, to my knowledge, made any such caveats of response-in-kind.

NTM

bonkey

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think it's a case of the caveat of "If"

The Hillary didn't say "I'll obliterate Iran on a whim", it was "I'll obliterate Iran if it tries to nuke our friend", which is pretty reasonable, if a bit sensationalist.

I'd agree its sensationalist. I'm not sure its pretty reasonable, nor the type of thing I'd expect a world leader (or aspirant world leader) to say.

If, for example, China were to say they'd obliterate the US if the US attacked (say) N. Korea with nuclear weapons, or Iran were to say they'd do it if the US were to attack (say) Syria, I still don't think that many of hte people defending Hilary would be coming out saying "well, you know, its a bit sensationalist, but its not really all that unreasonable a position".

I guess what it boils down to is that there is a (human) tendency to see comments as being perfectly reasonable when made in defence of one's own ideals, and atrocious beyond reprehension when made against those same ideals, and in defence of ideals one opposees.

I would prefer a world leader (or aspirant) to take the stance that the correct answer is along the lines that they would do everything in their power to ensure that situation never occurred on their watch, and that they weren't going to get tied down in worst-case "what if" scenarios for someone looking for a sound-bite.

Jesus Wept

FatherTed wrote: »

Not much of a victory for her yesterday as she gained only 12 delegates and is still over 150 pledged delegates behind.

Hillary can still win the delegate race.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBGyuYKlxIg

ghostdancer

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think it's a case of the caveat of "If"

The Hillary didn't say "I'll obliterate Iran on a whim", it was "I'll obliterate Iran if it tries to nuke our friend", which is pretty reasonable, if a bit sensationalist. Ahadinejad has not, to my knowledge, made any such caveats of response-in-kind.

NTM

no, it's not remotely reasonable. maybe over there your judgement is clouded by the Israel=our peace-loving allies b.s. that the US loves to spew, but to most of the rest of the world, america's sole cheerleading of a terrorist state is absolutely abhorrent.
Iran is years away from having a nuclear weapon, if it even decides to seek one, which it isn't. this type of saber-rattling is exactly what causes so much trouble in the region.
i mean christ "if it tries"??? so if a country "tries" to attack another with some currently non-existent weapons*, then America will obliterate it? honestly...
Hillary Clinton should know better, but then again pretty much all of her political life has been one wrong step after another, so why am I surprised she comes out with this ****?
at least McCain had the sense to just make a joke of bombing Iran, and not talk of nuclear options from something that will never happen.
the thought of Iran ever using a nuclear weapon, if they ever developed one, on Israel is so far-fetched it's hilarious that people are even talking about it. they might as well just set it off in Tehran instead of bothering going at Israel and having the rest of the world level Iran within a matter of weeks.
*these would be the weapons that Iran doesn't possess and the technology for them that Iran stopped developing several years ago according to the IAEA. just a caveat of my own considering this has seemingly been completed ignored by pretty much all US media i've seen in the past few months, up to Republican politicians and mouthpieces still saying that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

ghostdancer

davyjose wrote: »

It's not highly unlikely enough for someone to just quit IMO. Would you quit? If Obama was 100-ish delegates behind (out of a couple of thousand), with 10 states to go would you expect him to quit.
Give her a break. Why should she quit just because she's not the one slightly in front?

there's 9 primaries left, and 130+ delegates of a difference.

she should quit because she hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of winning the Democratic nomination. this thing has been over since Wisconsin. anyone who doesn't realise this needs to sit down and cop themselves on.

barring some shocking gaffe or scandal on either side, on June the 3rd, Obama will have somewhere in the region of 90 delegate lead, the remaining super delegates will start to jump over to him, by the end of June Hillary Clinton will have dropped out "for the good of the party".
anyone with half a clue knows this is exactly what will happen.

ghostdancer

David@Bayard.co wrote: »

You really are a bit of a sensationalist - Let me take a leaf from your book!!

Hows about we give a Terrorist state some Nukes - you know for use on the Western countries.

(But we all know its just for Nuclear Power ie. electricity) - give me a break dude......... a tough line is needed in Iran!!!

was the hypocrisy of your reply deliberate or accidental, i'm a little confused....

ghostdancer

David@Bayard.co wrote: »

You know it will be interesting to see if there will be a climb down on the tone of the competition over the next few weeks.

Because, if it does it could lead to the so called Dream Ticket

Clinton (Pres)/Obama (First) - My pref
or
the opposite

It will be interesting to see!!!

yeah, the opposite won't happen.
and the former almost certainly won't happen because Hillary Clinton won't be the nominee bar some massive Obama scandal or gaffe which would leave him out of the running for VP.
not that he'd take it anyway, he seems to have morals. unlike Hillary Rodham Clinton.

ghostdancer

mike65 wrote: »

I said a few months back I thought I knew who would win, now I think McCain is a shoe-in. The Democrats are splitting, with a huge % of Clinton voters saying they would not vote Obama, if nominated. While if she gets the nod, every Republican will turn out to make sure to stop Clinton.

Mike.

you're smart enough to know that Clinton supporters will line up behind the democratic nominee, when their candidate drops out, and he's selected in a few months time.

ghostdancer

Roundtower2 wrote: »

Howard Dean said the opposite on the news yesterday. He said it was great for the democrats to have such high profile primaries so close to the elections. And also so many people signing up to the democratic party in order to be part of the campaign.

he would say that. he's keeping the voters who don't realise how this is going to end up onside.
himself, Pelosi and Reid, among others, have basically been making all the noises for the rest of the super delegates to line up behind the pledged-delegate leader come June 3rd (which will be Obama). Dean and Reid have both said that this will be over before the convention. it doesn't take a genius to figure out how it's going to go....

Manic Moran

I'll wager there's a bunch of independents and even some Republicans signing on for the Democratic vote now that McCain has been selected: If you're going to vote, may as well vote in something which still matters.

Though defininitely only a minority, there will be a number of people particularly voting in these late primaries, who might vote McCain over whoever wins the Democratic nomination. However, I would not attribute this to the after-effects of fracturing, just saying that the numbers will be slightly skewed because of this effect.

NTM

Manic Moran

ghostdancer wrote: »

no, it's not remotely reasonable. maybe over there your judgement is clouded by the Israel=our peace-loving allies b.s. that the US loves to spew, but to most of the rest of the world, america's sole cheerleading of a terrorist state is absolutely abhorrent.
Iran is years away from having a nuclear weapon, if it even decides to seek one, which it isn't. this type of saber-rattling is exactly what causes so much trouble in the region.
i mean christ "if it tries"??? so if a country "tries" to attack another with some currently non-existent weapons*, then America will obliterate it? honestly...

I think it's extremely reasonable to make a policy statement along the lines of "We will respond to an attack against one of our friends, using equivalent weapons." This has nothing to do with 'peace-loving-Israel', it's simply a case of global real-politik that the US considers Israel an ally. It's the same policy which managed to avoid us all getting nuked or slimed in the Cold War. Arguably it also prevented Coalition forces being slimed in 1991.

If Iran indeed has no weapons plan, no weapons ambition, and no weapons capability, then I see no reason for them to be worried about being obliterated in a retaliatory strike, do you?

NTM

Tricity Bendix

ghostdancer wrote: »

there's 9 primaries left, and 130+ delegates of a difference.

she should quit because she hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of winning the Democratic nomination. this thing has been over since Wisconsin. anyone who doesn't realise this needs to sit down and cop themselves on.

barring some shocking gaffe or scandal on either side, on June the 3rd, Obama will have somewhere in the region of 90 delegate lead, the remaining super delegates will start to jump over to him, by the end of June Hillary Clinton will have dropped out "for the good of the party".
anyone with half a clue knows this is exactly what will happen.

On the balance of probabilities, this is the most likely outcome. But it is by no means certain. The Super Delegates might think they have a duty to follow the wishes of the party and go for Obama, or they might decide they have a duty to ensure the party is in with the best chance possible of obtaining the presidency and vote for the candidate who has the most support in the key battle-ground states, which would be Clinton.

snow scorpion

Yes, it's sad that a horse was killed, but this made me laugh out loud.

JESUS, WHERE TO BEGIN: Hillary Clinton's pick to win horse racing's Kentucky Derby, Eight Belles — the only female horse in the race — finished second, broke both front ankles, and subsequently was put to death on the track. The first place horse was "Big Brown." Go nuts.

Lots of funny comments in the thread:
http://wonkette.com/386888/#viewcomments

is_that_so

ghostdancer wrote: »

you're smart enough to know that Clinton supporters will line up behind the democratic nominee, when their candidate drops out, and he's selected in a few months time.

If that were true yes, but I am not sure that it is.
With recent figures suggesting the draining away of the white vote towards Clinton it does raise questions about his widespread appeal.

If it was Bush then yes I think it would be true but McCain is a likeable type of candidate that some of the constituency who support Clinton could relate to.

However up to 25% of Clinton supporters claim that they will not support him and 13% or so of Obama supporters will not support her. And then we have the potential ire of the African-American community to take into account.

Even reactionary(IMO) Andrew " I really, really hate the Clintons and everything they stand for" Sullivan is proposing the "dream ticket". Much as I disagree with a lot of what he tends to write, he argues well on this point and it may be the only thing that can save the Democrats from themselves. If nothing else this campaign proves to me that they have confused the "need for party democracy" with the far more pressing need to select a candidate quickly and efficiently.

It is for many in the Obama camp an unthinkable thought. But politics is sometimes the art of adjusting today to what seemed inconceivable yesterday. I'm talking about the possibility — and the powerful logic — of a unity Obama-Clinton ticket for the Democrats. ...

Full story

Manic Moran

Yeah, but who gets to be on top?

The fighting over that would be just as bad as 'who gets the nomination'

NTM

Podge_irl

is_that_so wrote: »

However up to 25% of Clinton supporters claim that they will not support him and 13% or so of Obama supporters will not support her. And then we have the potential ire of the African-American community to take into account.

They say that now, but I doubt such sentiment will follow through til November. Emotions are running high at the moment and its a pretty fiercely contested race. Once things move to concentrating on the general election I imagine the majority of democrats will revert to disliking the republican agenda more then a democratic candidate with ever so slightly different views from the one they wanted.
Also can't see a "dream ticket" happening. With the amount of crap they've thrown at each other at this stage it would possibly be a fairly strained ticket and would certainly have people questioning who was in command.

David@Bayard.co

That and the fact that he promises change - stating that Hillary is the type of thing that needs to be done away with!!

He'd look like a bit of a hypocrite if he decided to make her VP!

FatherTed

David@Bayard.co wrote: »

That and the fact that he promises change - stating that Hillary is the type of thing that needs to be done away with!!

He'd look like a bit of a hypocrite if he decided to make her VP!

But they're policitians, they're allowed to be hypocrites

LuckyLloyd

Her political end drew closer last night.

is_that_so

In a report on Morning Ireland , her camp was quoted as saying "She can't get nominated and he can't get elected". Therein lies the Dem problem so no wonder the dream ticket is being floated.
There's also some type of Dem committee meeting on 31st May to address the two rule breakers Michigan and Florida.

Amazotheamazing

is_that_so wrote: »

In a report on Morning Ireland , her camp was quoted as saying "She can't get nominated and he can't get elected". Therein lies the Dem problem so no wonder the dream ticket is being floated.
There's also some type of Dem committee meeting on 31st May to address the two rule breakers Michigan and Florida.

Her camp have to say that, it's her best chance of getting to the White House.

That being said, I don't trust Clinton and won't fully write her off until Obama has the nomination.

is_that_so

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Her camp have to say that, it's her best chance of getting to the White House.

That being said, I don't trust Clinton and won't fully write her off until Obama has the nomination.

Whatever things her camp may say he has had serious problems killing off this race and has shown himself unable to win big states, an obvious drawback come the real election. I agree with their reasoning but really don't see either as electable at this stage.

If she does get nominated the democrats will never again be able to bring up the topic of stolen elections...

whatawaster

is_that_so wrote: »

Whatever things her camp may say he has had serious problems killing off this race and has shown himself unable to win big states, an obvious drawback come the real election. I agree with their reasoning but really don't see either as electable at this stage.

Absolute nonsense. Of the ten largest states in America, Hillary won 5, Obama 3 (Michigan and Florida don't count) so it's not as if he did terribly in all large states. And in a general election he'd be a certainty to win some of the ones he lost like New York, New Jersey and California. Then there is his strength in large southern states with high african-american populations like Georgia and South/North Carolina where he'd have a great chance and Hillary might not.

Manic Moran

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Her political end drew closer last night.

She did win Indiana. NC was never really up for grabs.

NTM

is_that_so

whatawaster wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. Of the ten largest states in America, Hillary won 5, Obama 3 (Michigan and Florida don't count) so it's not as if he did terribly in all large states. And in a general election he'd be a certainty to win some of the ones he lost like New York, New Jersey and California. Then there is his strength in large southern states with high african-american populations like Georgia and South/North Carolina where he'd have a great chance and Hillary might not.

You've also highlighted his weakness. Remember his performance to date has been based on votes from his own party.
These are "big" states you would expect him to do well in anyway. He can't carry the South IMO and if McCain opts for someone like Huckabee then he may only win those with bigger African-American populations.

He also has really big problems attracting the type of blue-collar workers that McCain will pick up in Ohio, Pennsylvania and other swing states and which will decide the vote there.

He may be in with a shout in California but McCain is also strong there and in places like Massachusetts but he will not win the dreaded Florida and I doubt if he can take Texas. And these are places where elections are won and lost.

So maybe I should rephrase to say that he can't win big states that count.

mike65

Manic Moran wrote: »

She did win Indiana. NC was never really up for grabs.

NTM

But only by 2%, hardly a ringing endorsement.

Mike.

BJC

I agree that Clinton is pure unadulturated demon-spawn but the issue is that neither her nor o bama are ready to be president, they're too inexperienced .

I don't think it's really an issue anyway, while they battle it out, taking postshots at eachother, trying to gain an inch, McCain is sweeping through the country with publicity campaigns that are spurring America's gigantic population of born again Chritstians (just like Bush) to vote for him....like they weren't going to vote republican anyway...