Do you really want 8 years of drama, polarization, narcissism, perennial battles and negativity?

That, IMO, is what we're in for if, somehow Hillary gets the nomination and wins the General Election.

Those are the trademarks of Hillary and of The Clintons as a team.

Look at what she's done to the whole primary process. Compare what it is like now, compared to what it would have been if Edwards, Biden etc. had emerged as Obama's main challenger. IMo it might have been tough, but it would also have been a lot more relevant, substantial and dignified and MUTUALLY RESPECTFUL.

In the General, if Hillary gets the nod, you will have stolid, down-to-earth McCain versus the Drama Queen. Although his policies are obviously dreadful, McCain would be looking a lot more adult, trustworthy, tougher and safer to many voters compared to Hillary. He would be perceived as a moderate and the "change" candidate.

And then there's what would happen to the country if she gets elected. She will stir up the GOP and right wing to an unimaginable level. Not just the Rushes and the Coulters, but the whole right half would be in a never-ending pitched battle with her -- which she would provoke with her own demonization and drama. Meanwhile, her own administration would be as disorganized and strife-filled as was her healthcare panel in the 90's and her campaign this year.

Say good bye to health care and any otehr significant reforms. She would be a "fighter," but an ineffective one. And one who would ultimately continue the Wall st. over Main St. zeitgeist that has dominated Washington since the 80's.

Most likely you would also see a replay and intensification of the divisions within the Democratic Party, between the Corporate DLC under Hillary and the rest of us who want meaningful change done in a way that might actually get something accomplished.

next four or eight years for this country. And if the winner is smart they will accept that that is all it will be the entire time they are in office trying to uphold the consistution.

Yes we need someone who will fight for us.

But there are fights over nothing and there are fights over something.

There is also smart fighting and drama fighting.

IMO Hillary tends to go for fights over nothing and drama over results.

only fight for the Clintons - they don't give a shit about you, me, the Democratic party, or America. Listen to her speak its all "I" "I" "I" - "me" "me" "me" - "Bill" "BIll" "Bill."

All the worst parts of the 90's would be happening again but with inflation, shortages, price gouging, and perpetual war thrown in.

Remember what a pain in the ass it was to listen to rush limpballs tear the shit out of the clintons day after day?

Remember how the librul media used to rub their hands together gleefully as they picked apart the latest clinton scandal scab by ugly scab?

Remember wag the dog? Travel gate? Whitewater? Vince Foster? Paula Jones? Monica Lewinsky?

Do you want to go through all that again? I sure don't, but I believe there are some wing nuts out there who would not mind if hillary was not only nominated by the Democratic party, but actually elected to the presidency. Look how much fun they had during the two bill clinton terms. Look how much money they made. Not only that but they could blame her for all the fuckups of the bush maladministration which are not repairable in a single term.

Sure they could do the same thing to Obama. but look at all the practice they've had doing it to a clinton.

(Plus a self-serving plug for one of my posts that sank like a stone)


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5666774&mesg_id=5666774

"Look at what she's done to the whole primary process. Compare what it is like now, compared to what it would have been if Edwards, Biden etc. had emerged as Obama's main challenger. IMo it might have been tough, but it would also have been a lot more relevant, substantial and dignified and MUTUALLY RESPECTFUL."

Anyone of the above mentioned would have bowed out gracefully at this time instead of tearing the party apart.

so that's how she's work as president. The RW didn't seem to reject her when she was the junior senator from New York, they'd say.

But I think that's easier to pull off when she's one of 100 in the senate. As president she'd be a lightning rod for division and controversy. I'm not looking forward to it.

Dems' suspense may be unnecessary

By ELIZABETH DREW | 4/25/08 4:47 AM EST Text Size:



The torrent of speculation about the end game of the Democratic nomination contest is creating a false sense of suspense – and wasting a lot of time of the multitudes who are anxious to know how this contest is going to turn out.

Notwithstanding the plentiful commentary to the effect that the Pennsylvania primary must have shaken superdelegates planning to support Barack Obama, causing them to rethink their position, key Democrats on Capitol Hill are unbudged.

...

Essentially, they are three:

(a) Hillary Rodham Clinton is such a polarizing figure that everyone who ever considered voting Republican in November, and even many who never did, will go to the polls to vote against her, thus jeopardizing Democrats down the ticket – i.e., themselves, or, for party leaders, the sizeable majorities they hope to gain in the House and the Senate in November.

(b) To take the nomination away from Obama when he is leading in the elected delegate count would deeply alienate the black base of the Democratic Party, and, in the words of one leading Democrat, “The superdelegates are not going to switch their votes and jeopardize the future of the Democratic Party for generations.” Such a move, he said, would also disillusion the new, mostly young, voters who have entered into politics for the first time because of Obama, and lose the votes of independents who could make the critical difference in November.

See Also
Obama has a new problem: Punctuation
Obama won't change game plan after loss
GOP objects to bill allowing recounts

(c) Because the black vote can make the decisive difference in numerous congressional districts, discarding Obama could cost the Democrats numerous seats.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9862.html

If he could manage to win the GE.

The GOP is going to raise hell over any Dem who gets elected. That's what they do.

IMo Obama is basically a "cool" temprement, which McCain is also (at least in public).

Hillary is a "hot" temprement (which GW Bush is).

The difference, IMO, is whether one stirs things up for a purpose, or whether they stir things up naturally and needlessly in a fundamental bid for constant attention.

I believe the General Election would be a lot more meaningful with McCain and Obama slugging it out over basic political and ideological choices on a substantial level, than all of the distractions that Hillary would add to the mix.

Its inaccurate, but also self-serving.


And Obama thrives on the divide and conquer method. He's an incredibly manipulative, dishonest person who sets people and groups against each other to advance his own agenda.

I see Obama as trying the exact opposite of divide and conqueor, while that, IMO, is what Clinton is specializing in.

And, on a gut level, I see Clinton's message and performance as "me,me,me-- Pick Me!" while Obama is much more collectively focused in his message and behavior.

But that's what makes horse-racing, I guess. :)

'Cause I can tell you exactly what would happen. She'd get in and promptly alienate not only anyone who ever voted republican in their entire lives, she'd also alienate the left wing and the African-Americans. I can't see her not being hawkish and corporatist in office.

She would have NO base, nobody defending her, and either she'd be impeached, or she would go down to CRUSHING defeat in 2012.

The ultimate victor in 2012 would be "Hold Your Nose and Support the Democratic incumbent......Yet Again."

And she's gonna get health care this time.

why did she give up the health care issue after one defeat?

She's a fighter alright, but only when it's for her...

lol

(Yes, he has a lost election in there.)

And I'm getting closer to 60 and I sure wouldn't vote for me. :)

What I believe is that Hillary will replay the past. She just can't help it.

And by attaching the most unpopular aspect of universal health care,mandates, she will doom any reform to defeat again.

If her campaign is any indication of how she would run the country, we may be in for another disastrous Presidency. Perhaps this is one reason why most voters have chosen another candidate to lead the country.

:kick:

No matter who get nominated and who gets elected, our national political landscape for the foreseeable future is drama, polarization, narcissism, perennial battles and negativity.

You are correct. Those have been the mothers milk of politics for....forever probably.

But it's a question of degree. It's also a question of the quality of battles and polarization. To be perfectly honest, in terms of Democrats and republicans we have'nt really been poolarized on the substance of ideological differences for at least 25 years.....It's all been about lifestyle, personalities and wedge nonsense.

The other day I was talkin to a friend of mine (life long Dem who will go Green if Hillary is the nominee) who just couldn't understand anybody voting for Hillary after the last couple of months.

I half-jokingly said, "I'm starting to think that there are those that wanna (metaphorically, LOL) shove Bill and Hillary Clinton right back up the Republican's wahzoo until they scream in agony. It's political schadenfreude!"

My friend then got this big shit-eating grin, and said, "And THAT is probably the ONLY good reason to vote for her."

And we had a good laugh.

But it got me thinkin... there are people who are still pissed off at the Reagan Years, the SCOTUS moving ever rightward, the Gingrich Revolution, the Impeachment, and all the rest. And although I'm one of them, and as much as I'd love this karmic revenge scenario... no, not this time. Not for me.

We are way past political tit-for-tat. It's time to put our country back together. It's time for something new.

:shrug:

I think with Clinton we would just keep playing the same old games.

if nothing else, Obama would offer a chance to move beyond that, and perhaps actually move towards a politics based on getting things done.

It's the only way this country can put the pieces back together.

no matter who our nominee is. I don't expect the RW attack machine to go easy on President Obama, either.

I also don't buy the Hillary supporters' notion that because she's "vetted" the RW smear machine will have little to discuss. Reruns are quite popular and there will be many. And of course there will be plenty of new material - speculation, innuendo and attacks on what Bill has been doing the past 8 years.

We all should know by now that these folks are good at making stuff up if they have to.

I agree. The GOP will do what they do.

But if we take the same old approaches as a response, we'll get the same results.

I think a candidate like Obama would, at least, elevate the level of differences. The GOP would have to revert to calling Democrats commies, instead of all the distractionary nonsense that the Clintonian style of Democrat provides.

That's why I don't want either of them, (or McCain, of course :eyes: ,) to be president.

I don't see less of any of the above under an Obama administration.

with one caveat

McCain screws the pooch before November (health issues/rage/dementia) and/or, we're at war with Iran.

She's gambling we will be... mho

The "drama" will never extend to the White House for the Clintons because there will be another Bill "BJ" type fiasco just as soon as she becomes the Dem nominee.

Given the "history" present there how serious will ANYONE take it when the denials start? (Tell me nobody will drag out the "I did not have sex with that woman" quote...)

I swear to you that in spite of how much I am still pissed at the Clintons over NAFTA, my second biggest problem with her is she's still married to that skanky husband. It renders her unelectable in any scenario of a national election. Had she kicked his lying ass to the curb I could see how she might stand a chance in hell.



Laura

Figth fight fight fight fight


I prefer reason, consultation, concensus, and rational discussion..

I don't want 4 or 8 years of screaming & hollering & threatening..

was talking to one today..."see how he is now dividing people!" they said. "He says he wants to unite people but look what's happening!" they said.

Clinton supporters are blaming Obama for Hillary's divisiveness.

So - ya, I told them that (that they're blaming Obama for Clinton's divisiveness) - and I told them that Obama isn't responsible for the way Hillary is running her campaign. Hillary is the one causing all this divisiveness herself - because she's already LOST but continues on to destroy the Democratic nominee who won. And NO people DO NOT like that! She's destroying the party and our chance to win in November. And her doing that is going to help - who? (McCain, mostly)

My comments fell on deaf ears, of course. THEY'RE NOT EVEN AWARE THAT SHE HAS ALREADY LOST THE THING (or they simply don't give a poop). :banghead:

to american conceit. :sarcasm:

Democratic ideas and policies and someone rolling over - I choose to fight.

I have NO clue why anyone on DU thinks that the Republicans are going to get all docile if Obama is elected - it's nothing more than wishful thinking.

36 years of Bush & Clinton polarization would be a bit much.

Anyone remember the civility of politics during the Ford & Carter presidencies - before the Bush/Clinton dynasty?

Washington is Washington and the Rethugs are Rethugs.

That's not going to change.

Although I do sense that perhaps Obama will be better able to deflect petty controversies (as he's done in this primary campaign) better than Clinton.