Clinton cites possibility of Obama assassination reason to remain in race

Can you explain where I said anything against Obama? I've said I'll vote for him and that he's generally in line with my positions from a policy perspective. I've said he's a great candidate and has run a great campaign.

Please don't assume my problems with Obama's supporters are problems I have with Obama. They're two different entities.

 

23, although soon to be 24. Yeah, it's been quite a while.

 

dude, i've seen you on more than one instance question obama keeping his campaign promise of a different type of politics. maybe obama is to blame for holding himself to a higher standard but you sure don't have a problem doing it for him

 

It would be naive to not think there are nuts who would love to go down in history for assassinating Bush. It would be naive to not think there are nuts who would love to go down in history for assassinating Clinton. etc., etc.

 

Not when it's not reflected in overall, head-to-head polling. It's the temporary sore loser effect. Clinton voters are passionate, but when given time away from the situation and faced with two choices of Obama and McCain (Bush Jr.), they generally stay with the party and the candidate of similar beliefs, assuming nothing crazy happens. Polls reflect that to this point.

It's gamesmanship. I don't doubt Clinton made a play for VP, and I don't doubt Obama either turned her down or told her he'd go through the actual process before deciding. It certainly fits with the evidence, as you said. This is her counter. If it goes beyond June 3, yes, it's a problem. But in the grand scheme of things, one week isn't going to mean anything. The entire two months of "kitchen sink" campaigning, as you guys put it, had seemingly zero negative effect on Obama in the polls.

 

And in this thread, I specifically praised Obama for holding to that promise while only criticizing the responses of some of his supporters. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

duplicate post

 

Good post. These incidences of improper campaign tactics/insults or whatever you call them do not warrant voting for McCain or sitting the election out or voting third party if one really supports the Obama-Clinton positions, which are pretty close to one another and quite different from McCain's.

The effects on the American people and the world once the general election is over is what is important!!

 

He said the word Cling and she jumped on it so you know what she would have done with this. If the tables were turned, Hillary would have been all over this and probably trying to keep this in the media. I was kind of open for her becoming the VP nominee, but now I just want her to go back to home and retire form politics.

 

I hope you're right. I've been convinced that the Supers will come out in mass around June 4th and then she would drop out, but I'm not sure as sure anymore - about either of those things. These supers just seem to scared to actually declare for anyone, but hopefully they are just waiting until the end of the primaries. I have a far more negative view of Clinton than most, obviously, but I'm getting the sense these last few days that she still wants the power and is not quite ready to give up. I do hope I'm wrong, though - and I agree about the one week, so long as she doesn't go nuts. She came out with an article in the NY Daily News today which was a bit more reasoned/calm. It was inaccurate (it's not a close race and she can't win on the merits) but it's basic to the reasonable-Hillary. She really seems to flip back and forth between these two personalities, so who knows.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/05/25/2008-05-25_hillary_why_i_continue_to_run.html

 

Do you think she will keep her senate seat?
I mean . .. get reelected.

Rocket River

 

Hillary has a lot of soul-searching to do. IMO, her Senate career was done solely to set up a run for president. Unless she really feels like 2012 and 2016 are viable options, I doubt the Senate holds much appeal for her, even as Majority Leader. When being president is what consumes you, nothing else will satisfy.

 

For those of you who haven't seen this rant by Keith Olbermann, it is pure gold and sums up the way I feel and the way we all should feel about Hillary. Olbermann is the most level-headed guy in politics IMO.

Go to this link and launch the video:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24797758/

 

By the way, now Hillary's people are blaming Obama for fanning the flames after her remarks. It's scary to think (at one point) this fruitcake and her minions had a good chance of setting up the next presidential administration. What a flameout. Just think: These breakdowns could be happening under the new Hillary Clinton presidency. Yikes! Talk about dodging a bullet (sorry for illustration).

 

It's comical the way the smarter Hillary supporters are attempting to head off controversy by admitting that her gaffes are "stupid" or "idiotic", and in doing so Obama should be held to a higher standard and not call her out on her idiocy. Afterwards they use the tactic of blackmailing their vote which is just misdirected anger and frustration at being clobbered in the primaries with no hope of getting elected.

Oh yeah, she has every right of staying and making a desperate ass out of herself, but I'm keeping my eye on you Sen. Obama...
YOU'RE BETTER THAN HER.

 

We need to keep an eye on everyone...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjYpkvcmog0


Foxnews jokes about killing Osama and Obama.......


Everyone will finally see the true colors of both Foxnews and Republicans after this campaign. If something does happen to Obama.......there will be hell to pay.

 

They? Where do you place me? I support both of them. I voted for Obama in the primary, because I believed, and still believe, that he has the best chance of winning in November. I've been consistent, because I've always said I'd support the candidate that I thought would win. As for Hillary Clinton, go back a year, two years in a search and you'll see numerous posts from me dismissing her as a possible nominee. Why? Not because I didn't think she'd be a good president. I think she would be a fine President. It was because I knew she had very high negatives from being the target for many years, along with Bill, of a multi-million dollar hit job from the GOP and their menions, with so many people influenced by that, even among those who are self-described Democrats or moderate to liberal independents here, that they spit back the same BS Rovian/Rush talking points that the GOP wanted them to believe and that is something that simply astonishes me.

As someone who's followed politics closely for decades and was an avid supporter of Bobby Kennedy in 1968 (which might explain, to those who needed an explanation, why I just added the second person on my very short ignore list), and voted for McGovern in '72, marched in protests against the war in the '60's (I was passionate about it and there were smokin' chicks all over the place... a win-win! ), I've been one of those who would defend my candidate at the drop of a hat, regardless of whether my candidate was right or wrong (yes, sometimes they **** up), or whether, as has often been the case here, the candidate has rarely done the dirty work him/herself, or even wanted to, but his/her campaign certainly did plenty. "Plausible deniability" is the operative phrase here, and the deniability may be plausible and even sincere (I'm a cynic about sincerity in politics... politicians put it on and off like a coat, depending on circumstance. yes, even Mr. Obama. another word for sincerity might be honesty), but regardless of that, I've been the person, like so many Obama supporters here, who would get in someone's face defending my "guy," with blinders on as to the flaws of "my" candidate.

So I know where so many here are coming from. They may not like hearing it, but I've been around enough that in most cases, I don't care. I probably get the most upset when it involves someone I respect. Seeing as how I've had some absurd accusations thrown at me because I refuse to throw Clinton under that bus that's so popular this season, no doubt I've been bothered quite a bit. The fool I put on ignore doesn't count, because he/she has no history here and why should I suffer a fool, when the fool isn't a friend or someone I care about or have an interest in?

Really, glynch has described what I've been doing better than I have here. I'm usually far too verbose.




Impeach Bush.

 

Deckard

It is astonishing to see otherwise intelligent informed folks have their beliefs so influenced by this carefully orchestrated campaign.

I must admit, however, that some of Hillary's tactics in the present campaign have played into the Rovian talking points.

BTW I have the same history as Deckard of marching for peace during Vietnam and have occasionally protested even up till today.

It is upsetting to me to see the Batman-Deckard controversy when they basically agree so much on the issues. Of course, so do Obama and Hillary.

 

glynch:

The notion that Karl Rove or any Republican (or even Democrat apart from the Clintons themselves) has played any role whatsoever in the formation of my opinion of Hillary Clinton is ludicrous and stupid. I never suggested Hillary was a criminal or secret murderer or wannabe murderer; I said she was an ******* and that I'd never vote for her. I also said why.

In fact I have explained in a ridiculous level of detail the basis for those feelings and Deckard, judoka and others have just flat ignored both my grievances and the reasons for them. They've suggested I'm a misogynist, they've suggested I'm blinded by Obamamania, they've done everything they can think up to avoid addressing the reasons for my feelings about her campaign.

Unless they're willing to engage on the merits, it's passing stupid for them to keep complaining.

I'm sorry that makes you sad, glynch. It doesn't make me sad; it just makes me frustrated and annoyed. And it reminds me very much of arguing with the various lesser debaters on this forum.

But hey, at least Deckard finally admitted his opinions in these matters are based on steadfastly and blindly defending a politician he likes, regardless of whether or not such defense is actually deserved. That explains things a little.