Hillary Clinton and my hatred for her

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.

I'm with you Ricky


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

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

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

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.

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.

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....

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.