Clinton cites possibility of Obama assassination reason to remain in race

glynch, there's no doubt that some of Hillary's tactics were ill conceived and certainly could be compared to some of what we've seen from Rove and company the last several years, but those blunders make up a fraction of her campaign. It certainly doesn't explain how she's been able to get nearly half the Democratic vote in the primaries. It also doesn't excuse attacks against her that we've read here and elsewhere, the obvious sexism she's had to deal with, or the positives she brought to the campaign, like her own ability to get new voters into the Democratic primary process, her own amazing fundraising ability, which would be a huge story were it not for Obama's history making fundraising ability.

Clinton has grown as a campaigner as the primaries have progressed, finally finding her voice and as a result pulling in voters from segments of America that the candidate in November needs in order to have the best shot at winning. Absent the things none of us like about her campaign, I really believe that she would still have done extremely well, which makes her blunders all the more frustrating. I'll add that if Obama's own problems with the Rev. Wright had surfaced before Super Tuesday we'd be having a far different conversation. But it is what it is. My opinion is that Barack Obama will have a better shot in November because of her. Without this experience to toughen him up and to draw out the things in his "closet," mainly Wright, one can imagine what Obama would have gone through if Wright had come out in September or October, with time running short to respond to the craziness of his religious "mentor." It could very well have ended in disaster.

Batman, it's ultimately always about you, isn't it? Always in search of drama. I hope you've found enough to keep you happy, at least for a while. I'm glad I could be of service.





Impeach Bush.

 

Nope. And how incredibly stupid and offensive for you to say so.

It's about health care, Iraq, reproductive rights and trade, among other things.

I'm not in search of drama -- I know exactly where to find that since it is the basis of my professional career. I'm in search of debate.

It is as hilarious as it is disappointing that you find the idea of a debate -- in a debate forum -- so egregious.

For all the energy you've spent whining about my position on the Clinton campaign, it would be so easy for you to actually address the merits. Alas, you prefer to moan woe is me.

Whether it's me or not, if you are going to continue to whine about Obama supporters you should really address the merits of the arguments. Or just stop whining. Either way.

 

Batman, a McCain Presidency will in no way impact your reproductive rights. You can rest easy.

 

Nope. And how incredibly stupid and offensive for you to say so.

You took an exchange between glynch and myself, where he said, "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" and replied with a post both insulting to me, as is this one, and all about you. Spin it how you like, and certainly disagree with me, but that is how I see it. It was all about you, except this... "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." You ignored the other points glynch made. You were far more interested in how you were a victim, and how, in a larger sense, it follows that Barack Obama is a victim, as well. Why that turns you on is passing strange, but I've seen a lot since I've been graced with a presence on this spinning ball, so while I wish I could say I'm surprised, I am not. Just disappointed.



Impeach Bush.

 

Deckard, you are the one that has made it about me and you by focusing on how I say what I say rather than just answering my (and others') points.

You continually talk about how Obama's like every other politician, say that nothing Hillary's done is that bad, suggest that she's been a horrible victim in this race (of misogyny, of Dems repeating unfair GOP attacks), and when confronted with real arguments to the contrary you just repeat yourself.

Why do you find it so impossible to just defend your positions? Leave the personalities aside -- why do you find it so distasteful to just argue the merits?

One of the great things about being a Democrat is that we're not supposed to walk in lockstep. We're allowed to disagree with each other. Don't take it so personally.

 

Batman you misunderstand but perhaps it is my fault. I never once thought you have fallen for the Rovian or other right wing campaign to discredit the Clintons. I sincerely think you are too sophisticated politically for that. I accept your reasons to be anti-Hillary due in large part to this campaign of hers, though like me you hold the war and some of her pre-campaign positions against her. I do think you have gone a bit too far at times.

I think that many other folks including a number of posters on this bbs have fallen for the 20 yr orchestrated plan to demonize the Clintons.

 

Well of course I've gone too far at times. I would hope we all would and then would pull ourselves back. This is a debate forum and the debate -- elsewhere if not here -- is fierce. If we can't care enough about it to be passionate, what's the point?

But I would just love it if you'd tell me where I'd gone too far wrt Deckard. Because here's how our conversations on this stuff have gone.

Deckard: Obama's like every other politician and Hillary's getting a bum rap.

Batman: No he isn't and no she isn't and here's why... [insert about a dozen different reasons for each, previously posted here, unanswered]

D: Why are you being so mean to Hillary? She hasn't done anything and Obama's just like her.

B: I just told you why and I just explained why they're not the same. Why didn't you respond? It's really frustrating that you keep saying the same stuff and ignoring my posts that put the lie to it.

D: They're the same! Stop picking on me!

B: But what about the specific examples I presented regarding health care, abortion rights, Iraq, party loyalty? What about the commander in chief stuff? What about 3am? What about her absolute about face on FL and MI? What about "hard working people, white people?" [Bearing in mind I left out Jesse in SC, assassination and a number of other things I could have brought up.]

D: Your mean! It's all about you! They're exactly the same!

B: This is weird. Why won't you just answer my question(s)?

D: You're dramatic! Hillary and Obama are exactly the same, there is no new politics, they're exactly the same.

B: But I just told you how they're different and you keep pretending it didn't happen.

D: !!!

Where did I go too far, glynch? We're on a debate forum. I presented my side, Deckard pretended it didn't happen (X 1000). And then he got his feelings hurt because he kept pushing the same BS talking points, I kept refuting them and he kept failing to answer.

I can list these points one by one. They're not personal. They're not picking on Deckard. They're policy and political debates. Here's a random one (I have ten more):

Why did Hillary send out a ton of mailers telling women they couldn't trust Obama on abortion rights due to his "present" votes in the IL state senate when those votes were endorsed, encouraged and prescribed by every single abortion rights group in IL (including Planned Parenthood and NARAL)? And why, when she was corrected by each of those groups, did she keep sending out mailers asking voters if they could trust Obama on choice when he kept voting "present?"

I can do this exact thing on Iraq (several times in fact), on the Reagan comments, on health care, on free trade, on MI and FL. And, in each of these areas, I can ask (as I have repeatedly) where is the example of Obama doing the same?

And, again, Deckard will answer, "They're exactly the same" with no explanation whatsoever. And then he will complain that he's getting picked on.

Tell me where I went too far. This is a debate forum. If debating hurts your feelings, if you absolutely refuse to engage in it, what are you doing here?

 

Don't worry about me, George. I rest extremely easy in the confidence that there won't be a McCain presidency. I'll be very surprised, in fact, if he loses by less than 5%. Maybe you guys should run Orlando Sanchez next time. He's awesome.

 

I think you are WAY overstating this. I'll repeat that before the 2008 campaign started, Bill Clinton was highly admired by a majority of people, and maybe still is. What some cannot acknowledge is that millions don't view Bill and Hillary as the same. Remember the crowds at Iowa where Bill was like a rock star and Hillary was the sidekick? Can you accept the fact that his glow doesn't rub off on her? Can you also accept that her sometimes bizarre and sometimes pathological behavior the last 6 months has widened the divide between the two in the public eye? Is a "20 yr orchestrated plan to demonize the Clintons" responsible for why so many think Hillary is dishonest and untruthful? I could ask several other legitimate questions with an obvious "no" for an answer.

Of course both of the Clintons have been unfairly targeted at times. That goes without saying. But blaming most of her recent image problems on a "20 yr campaign" is ludicrous. Hillary has impaled herself so often I lost count and she can't blame those blunders on anyone but herself. So much for "being ready". I doubt she digs up that argument anymore.

 

Deckard,

Hillary has gotten several passes of her own. It's only when she repeats the same gaffes when people start calling her on it. She repeated the Bosnian sniper account, denied it was a lie, called the sources questionable, and finally admitted that she was mistaken.

For this recent matter, (which by the way, she and Bill have a very peculiar way of invoking civil rights references (it took LBJ to get things done)) she had already mentioned her faulty historical account. Bobby Kennedy started campaigning in May and it was tragically stopped short 4 weeks later. Totally wrong context the way she claims to have been using it. It takes an extreme insensibility to be unaware of the level of death threats Obama has been receiving since the start of his candidacy. I don't even know why any successful assassination attempt should be mentioned to bring up "unpredictability in campaigns".

First, the things "none of us like" were part of a kitchen sink tactic to redo her image into something that voters could resonate. I'm sure no one liked Hillary milking Rev. Wright for all it was worth, but she gladly capitalized upon it to cover her own gaffes. They took what worked and ditched what didn't. The process of trial and error can be seen from her campaigning in Iowa to how she's campaigning now.

I admit that she's found her stride. Her recent speeches carry more weight and emotion in them. As you know, timing is crucial, and her recent stride doesn't mean she deserves or is entitled to a "do-over" for the past 5 months. Yet she's using her second wind as basis to convince and justify to her constituents on the whole idea that she's now a more viable candidate despite being mathematically eliminated from a delegate majority. She can't win her own party so she talks about "Republican rules". Her and her husband's claims of an "Obama disaster" sound similar to McCain's.

And at the end of the day, since both candidates share several similar core issues, it's not like Hillary is sticking around to convince Obama the merits of her ways, a tactic other previous hotly contested campaigns have used to justify reconciliation. But she's still campaigning and preaching the concepts of an alien and untrustworthy Obama. Why is that? From her account, it's to protect Democrat voters from a bad choice, despite Obama winning more states and more delegates than she has.

What does she want other than total victory? Senate Majority Leader? Sec. of State?

Finally, why is she running a divisive and inevitably fruitless campaign where more Hillary supporters won't vote for the other candidate than vice versa? It's morphed beyond an "issues" debate and into a character/personality debate. Is that honestly for the best for the Democratic party, to weaken the front runner with Pyhrric victories?

I think she's taking her voters hostage, and seeing the most she can extract out of them come June.

 

Just assasinate her, problem solved.



All kidding aside, this is her ONLY shot, if she does not get the nomination - unlikely and can not weasel out the VP spot her presidential career is over.

This is it for her....why not try to do everything she can to hang on or at least keep her hopes alive.

McCain is the sacrificial lamb the Repubs are tossing out there this year...everyone knows it....

If Hilary ever wants to be President, she HAS to stay in the race and secure the VP spot....

No big deal, it will all sort itself out by the convention.

DD

 

Hillary's strength in states like West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida make her the obvious choice for veep. She won't have any power though.

Obama doesn't have a choice, but I am pissed off at Hillary for how she has handled herself.

 

You having fun, Batman?

Batman, the post above was a response to glynch. This is that post:

The part I bolded was where he mentioned you and I. Your response was entirely about you. Go ahead and post 20 questions and cry about not getting responses. At least as far as I'm concerned, it won't help you a damn bit. The more you attempt to play this game, the less I'm likely to bother replying to you. I come here for fun. Your idea of fun and mine appear to be entirely different. You post things like this and then expect me to engage in a debate and discussion with you? Good luck, buddy.



Impeach Bush.

 

hillary is spinning out of control and destroying any legacy to which she has sunk all her dreams into. obama is just kicking back and letting it happen. yes, he's irritated, but, down she will go, relax guys.