There will be serious political consequences for the Clintons' bad behavior.

Saturday, April 26, 2008
Now the Democrats have real "irreparable" problems if Hillary somehow manages to steal the nomination.
by Joe Sudbay (DC) · 4/26/2008 08:15:00 PM ET ·

This whole drama -- and it is always, always drama with the Clintons -- has played out as if we're in some kind of Clinton vacuum. It's as if there were no political consequences beyond those relating to Bill and Hillary.

There are.

This week, the Clintons and the Democratic party learned that there will be serious political consequences for the Clintons' bad behavior.



Hillary Clinton's campaign has become delusional and destructive. For me, the moment she jumped the shark was her NPR interview claiming Michigan was a fair election. Yeah, it might have been in the Soviet Union or Iran, but in America, an election in violation of the rules with only one name should never count.

The pundits can continue to game out the different ways Hillary can steal the nomination. That's all fun and games for them. For the rest of us, this is too serious. The Democratic Party needs an intervention before Bill and Hillary march us off a cliff.
more at:
http://www.americablog.com/2008/04/now-democrats-have-real-irreparable.html

Historians will vote Bush the most colonic president ever. ie A sack of useless stinking shit.

Hillary has run a colonic campaign and couldn't shit her way out of a wet paper bag.

race cards--it will be Obama who History will not be gentle with.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

= :wtf:

have played the race card. :toast:

...you are delusional.

want to make a sandwich?

"Hillary Clinton's campaign has become delusional and destructive. For me, the moment she jumped the shark was her NPR interview claiming Michigan was a fair election. Yeah, it might have been in the Soviet Union or Iran, but in America, an election in violation of the rules with only one name should never count."

I could see perhaps seating Florida's delegates at the Convention, as there were multiple candidates on the ballot, but certainly not Michigan's. Michigan is off the table for sure.

there is no way I want Hillary Clinton anywhere near the reins of power. In fact, she should be drummed out of the Senate. She is despicable.

Rep. James Clyburn laid out very clearly what is at stake. The interviews Clyburn has done with several major news outlet should be sending shock waves through the Democratic hierarchy:

"If this party is perceived by people as having gone into a back room somewhere and brokered a nominee, that would not be good for our party," House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (S.C.), the highest ranking African American in Congress, warned yesterday. "I'm telling you, if this continues on its current course, is going to be irreparable."

That fear, plus a more general sense that Clinton's only route to victory would be through tearing down her opponent, has led even some black Democrats who are officially neutral in the race, such as Clyburn, to speak out.

Clyburn isn't bluffing.

...I realized he's still neutral. He was basically saying - don't let me hear anymore of this crap or it won't go well. There was no threat, it's was just the reality of what he was facing.

or Bushs in the White House.... I would never vote for either one.

hilary has done her damnest to destroy and James Clyburn is letting it be known that they aren't rolling over for the destroyers.

In one scenario bilary must think they can get the nom anyway they can and the Dems will have to come together to reward their treachery.

They're eating stupid pills by the handful.

Or, if you prefer:

Nuts.

...the dems can't afford to lose the African American vote, not to mention the young voters who will be voting for the first time in 2008. Disillusion them and they won't be back.

black voters are going to go GOP all of a sudden? and the mythical excited youth vote? Right. Cause the last time the dems elected a youth candidate, supposed to solidify an entire generation for the Party, the boomers managed a whopping four democratic wins in the next 48 years, that's one out of three. And two of those were the evil Bill Clinton, who, we are told wasn't actually a democrat anyway. So Kennedy's youth movement managed two wins in the next 48 years. Yup, we should take that seriously.

eom

sudden."

Taking something for granted are we?

that the democratic party, even under the evil baby-eating Hillary Clinton, is far more aligned with the interrsts of the average African American voter in this country than any other party. And I give the average voter enough credit to recognize that in the long term. I think saying that black voters will depart the party en masse is just as ridiculous, don't you? Or should we be held hostage to 20% of the electorate, which isn't enamored with any of the other options, anyway? Make no mistake, that's what this is, someone who purports to speak for a chunk of the electorate saying 'if we don't get our way, we are taking our ball and going home.' that's no way to run a party.

I don't think you fully understand the import of what you are proposing. The way you so casually dismiss the black vote as in trhe bag no matter what is astonishing to me. Blacks have been complaining about that attitude from democrats for decades.

You are really underestimating the level of pain and rage that the black community would be afflicted with if Obama wins by the rules, and it is taken from him. I can't imagine it.

Don't make any bets on that ok? You may be in for a very rude shock when we decide what's in our best interests. The Democratic Party has NOT been in our best interests and people are beginning to get sick of how easily you take our values and issues for granted.

Truth-telling time may be coming. For the country's sake, I hope you certain idiots don't push it.

...she won't be able to "heal" the party and no one is "required" to vote for president.

they almost deserve president mccain. Me, I carry an eu passport as well, I can leave if mccain wins, can you?

...my husband is a British Naitonal

no wonder you can afford to play identity politics so much.

who can't beat the person who can't win? That's even better logic.

If she can't win, why can't obama beat her to the finish line? If some fairly mild negative campaigning can knock him off his stride, what's he going to do in the face of the forthcoming tsunami?

Most of which he'll get in the upcoming primaries.

He's ahead in the popular vote.
He's ahead in primaries.
He's ahead in caucuses.
He's ahead in finances (in other words, not horribly in debt)
His pledged delegate lead cannot be beaten.
Superdelegates for both candidates say they're going to endorse the winner of the pledged delegates.

Shillbot logic is remarkable. It's like saying "Why can't you beat me?" when the other side has all your pieces and is three moves away from checkmate.

are the future of the election process. I am a boomer and what the young voters say causes me to take a trip back to when I sounded much like you do now. I think it's great you are involved in the process and I hope you stay involved.

I remember when I was so disgusted by the democrats I worked my behind off for John Anderson and Ray gun is what we got. The end result is why I will vote for the nominee even if it means holding my nose and drinking several bottles of wine to do it.

Democrats have taken AA and GLBT votes for granted and it must stop. Unity 08 didn't get far this year but I hope soon we will se a viable third party. Democrats must include all the members of the party not just the DLC and blue dogs. We are a bigger portion.

I understand what you say about the young voters. Many dropped out after McGovern and more turned into pirates.

Senator Obama will win the nomination and the presidency. Hillary has already lost, she just is unable to accept it. And McCain? Obama's campaign will run commercial after commercial of McCain hugging Bush, eating cake with Bush as New Orleans suffered, etc.

39 YO white male, former republican. I moved to the left during the start of the Iraq war. I hate our current system. I'm sick of professional politicians. I'm sick and tired of the Bushes and the Clintons. I'm voting for Obama to change all of this.

If he doesn't win, I may just remove myself from politics all together.

I'd like to try life in a social democracy.
I sometimes wish the GGGparents hadn't left
in the first place.

...it won't be difficult to be green if she's wins the nomination.

This isn't American Idol, Lisa - winning at all costs isn't winning at all.

A "Survivor"/"American Idol" mentality.

is a big part of it - you nailed that one. Very strong, but virtually unnoticed - setting the frame of reference...

regards
bmc

under the party rules, as opposed to Obama getting the superdelegates he needs under party rules? And yes, winning at all costs is winning. There is no prize for second place, ask al gore and john Kerry about that.

Do you know why obama hasn't clinched the nomination? Why the expected flood of post-PA supers didn't come? Because of a fear that the obama campaign is more interested in style points than actually winning by any means neccesary. He had his foot on Hillary's neck, and refused, or was unable, to deliver the coup de grace. He let her up off the mat to deliver body blows. He won't be so lucky against mccain to have a large lead and proportional voting. This isn't ice dancing, you don't get bonus points for style, as Pennsylvania shows.

...I thought you were saying Hillary would go to the green party if she lost the nom.

My bad.

The Greens would laugh her out of the room if she showed up asking to be their nominee. I think Clifford meant that a lot of progressives would be voting for Cynthia McKinney instead of Hillary Clinton. I certainly would, but then I live in California, and have that luxury.

Republicans won't vote for her, a pissed off and divided Democratic party won't get her there, and she couldn't pay other parties to vote for her. Her negatives are very high. She will never win the GE.

...her negatives are too high and she's pissed off too many who would have cut her a break if she won with any sense of fairness.

in a contested state. But you're right, we should definately go with the guy who can't beat Hillary head to head in meaningful states, much better idea.

maybe look at some polling or something....

the ones by the places thatcsaid Pennsylvania was. Four point race last Monday? Or the ones that overstated his support in new hampshire, California, Ohio, Texas, Maryland, or basically any other state in the past six weeks? In the contested states with primary voting, polls have consistently overstated his support by 4-5 points. Keep that in mind. we don't elect people with polls.

when nominating a candidate? How odd.

the vast majority are completely useless.

or just believe the campaign's announcements, almost always after the fact, about polling?

polls from February mean, well, nothing.

He had the delegate count right from Pa the first week of February, that is pretty good isn't it?

since Florida is off the table, we have to look at the other big swing states. Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia.

and I would consider 'meaningful' to a states that they both actually contested.

It's a good thing he's winning and drawing such huge turnout in states that haven't been in play because of the Clintonite policy of 'fuck states that we have to work harder for'.

We have conceded the South and much of the Southwest since 1992 without even attempting to fight for votes down there. Howard Dean institutes a 50 state strategy and we're winning midterm elections in places Clinton, Emanuel and Schumer would have never given a dime to.

Prepare for some surprise states to be picked up by Obama in November in addition to all the Blue States that he would carry regardless because he's a Democrat.... her strategy is to only win those safe blue states and that will lose her the general election (as well as alienating the rest of the states in this country).

Rp

wow, someone should really tell Al Gore and John Kerry that. Ditto with Florida, West Virginia, Arkansas...

what surprise states, exactly? in the South? what state do you consider that Barack Obama legitimatly puts into play that Kerry didn't have in play, and that you don't think Hillary can? and no points for Nevada, since Hillary puts that into play as well.

Just a point counting Hillary's win in Florida is disingenuous. As we've seen anytime Obama goes to a state Hillary might naturally have a large lead in and campaigns against her, her lead drops dramatically and in many cases he wins the state. So to count Florida is lying to yourself if you think that state or Michigan is some sort of automatic win.

West Virginia and Arkansas will not vote Democratic in the fall even with Hillary on the ticket. However Obama could win states like Virginia, South Carolina, possibly even do very well in North Carolina and will put some Western states into play.

Hillary has dismissed most of the nation as not meaningful states and she will receive no mercy in the general election for that attitude.

Rp

yes we should.

Hillary still can't win, no matter how out of touch she and her supporters are.

First, funding a democratic challenger for her senate seat.

Think her hypothetical challenger cam break 17% next time?

I don't think the most rabid supporters do, either.

But they're not fooling anyone who is part of the party. The party regulars who are not old time Clinton loyalists are sick of the Clintons, sick of all their fabricated outrage and drama, sick of their constantly playing the victim while embracing Republican ways.

Hillary has proved that she's even worse than Bill in every negative respect, and not as good as him in his positive attributes. She's one part Bush, one part Bill, and one part crazy cat lady.

Precisely!

:patriot:

this is why democrats don't win. There are 40 million of your 'ignorant' voters in this country, and you need to win at least 20 Million of them in November to have a chance. You know what you call someone who wins none of these 'ignorant' voters? Fritz Mondale.

and seem to forget that Bill received less of the popular vote than Michael Dukakis did.

He was lucky that Ross Perot disliked the incumbent.

When multiple senators and congressmen are threatening to not support her bills, threatening to strip out her pork, even taking her to a back room and threatening to strip her of committee seats & such, she's gonna have to pay attention. Same when big-name donors and fundraisers are threatening to ditch her.

She's gonna get forced out of the race soon. About damned time.

I didn't realize they had any leverage..I hope they're thinking along your lines!

The carrot is that if she bows out gracefully before June, she'll be given the chair of a big Senate committee.

If she doesn't bow out gracefully and continues to damage the Democratic Party, she won't get that chair, she'll lose some of the seats on the committees and subcommittees she currently serves on, and she'll find that the rest of the Democrats in the Senate will treat her as if she's radioactive, thus she'll be able to add very little of her pork to appropriations bills, she won't be able to get any of her bills cosponsored, much less passed, she'll lose most of the behind-the-scenes string pulling that the party does for her behind the scenes.

The party will make her stand in the corner and have a timeout.

feel better:) The clintons should be a pariah to the Dems, indefinetly, by now.

and homeland security ain't that big a deal. Maybe biden will give up foreign relations? Boxer will give up public works? Conrad will abdicate at budget! Byrd will step down from appropriations? Leahy will leave judicary? Rockefeller will drop out of intelligence? Kennedy will walk away from health, education labor and pensions?

Surely one of them loves obama enough to give up the seat of a lifetime, with a democratic senate and a democratic president! Who will fall on their sword for the party? Any suggestions?

for bilary for "their bad behavior".

We'll persevere.

If someone challenges her from the left for her Senate seat, that person will have no trouble raising money.

Anybody else?

spitzer? Oh right.

I'll never vote for Hillary again. Not for dogcatcher.

Let's hope.

It'll depend on what happens in November and beyond.

If McCain takes down Obama by parroting Hillary talking points then definitely. She put herself in a great position to be blamed for an electoral loss, and four more years of an incompetent "war president" will keep the wound nice and fresh.

re-election to the Senate. The primary defeat will garner a lot of talk from people like you--not so much from the masses. The primary challenge will go down as a buffoonish joke.

Not that Obama has this nomination locked up yet.

Steve

...to overturn the results of the Nationwide election.

Obama has an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates.
Obama has WON the Democratic nomination by ALL valid metrics.

The Clintons are trying to force the Democratic Party insiders to tell Obama he must move to the back of the bus and give up his rightful seat.



My response:

NOT THIS TIME !!!

Sure, she got the initial superdelegate lead before the primaries started, when everyone thought she was a shoe-in.

But since Super Tuesday, she's only got a handful of superdelegates, and at the same time, she's had a few defections, and a few superdelegates engaged in open defiance (Bill Richardson, anyone?)

for his tactics in this election also.

It's a two way street.

:patriot:

in order to get their way. Funny how they don't mention Obama's repeated slanderous comments (usually through his surrogates--like them).

But hey, look on the bright side. If Barack is nominated and then loses they will be able to spend the rest of history pretending that it was the Clintons' fault.

Steve

Slanderous comments made by whom? What did they say? Did they accuse Hillary of voting to allow Bush to go to war or something?

even though he is leading in delegates, popular vote, states won, and every other indicator just so Queen Hillary can take her rightful and presumptive place as head of the Democratic Party. :sarcasm:

Why even bother to write this garbage, when you can't back it up.

P.S. - If Hillary can't stand up to Obama's kid glove campaign McCain would break her in half anyway.

Hillary has done more than alienate large portions of African-American voters. She's succeeded in alienating Democrats of all stripes.

If she were to get the nomination at this point, there is no way it would appear valid or authentic. She'd get killed in independents, get absolutely no Republican cross-over votes, and a huge amount of Democrats would just sit out the election.

She came into this primary process as one of the most polarizing figures in the country. Against all odds, she's managed to make herself even more polarizing.

Yeah, it's been a long primary. Yeah, it's grown contentious. Yet come November, whichever Democratic candidate we send to the General Election will have a clear advantage over the Republican candidate - on the issues. And for most of the voting population, the issues - the economy, the war, healthcare - will be the deciding factors, imho.

I'm a political junkie of sorts, yet realize most of the country - even in this 24/7 cable TV driven quest for more and more political drama - isn't.

The pundits and talking heads may well parse nuance until the eve of the election - in fact, count on it. Yet, in the day to day real world we are all a part of, folks know for a fact something is decidedly off with the way the country has been mismanaged and manipulated these last eight years.

That will tell the tale. As it rightly should.

:kick:

was the last straw for me.

:thumbsup:

And likely racism to boot.

But your McCarthyism is very much in evidence.

Not just wrong, but not intersecting reality at any point.

One cannot simultaneously be a "boi" and "old". Unless you're hanging out at the Saloon in Minneapolis, and even then...

The kids who joined for the excitement will stay home.

Some of the blacks may stay this time, hold their noses and vote for Hillary, but they will work for a separate party in the future and the party will never be the same.

When Hillary's Bush like actions don't help the blue collar workers the way they think(because she will do nothing about NAFTA) and they stay as miserable and we stay at war they will go back to republicans for the "safety of it." As ridiculous as that is, it is a gut felling and people do vote their gut very often.

The women most strongly aligned to her will have lost the reason most of the women are voting for her, i.e. because we want to break that highest of glass ceilings and will now want a women who can do the job with out selling out to the Rovian political rules that have defined her run since Super Tuesday.

The reason we want Bush(one of the reasons)out is because he feels he is above the rules and he keeps changing the definition of winning in Iraq.

Tell me, do we want another president who is capable of this dangerous self image and this ridiculous habit of changing the definitions of things to suit his/her needs at our expense, just because she fulfills one of our dreams of at last having a female president?

She does not need to quit the race if she wants to keep running it is her right. But what she does need to do is stop holding the Democratic Party hostage to her ever changing definitions and rules. What is winning? What is an "important state"? Who picks the candidate? Are caucus state that have "advocates" not "regular voters" and not as important because they don't represent the people? But super delegates who "know the candidates up close and know the process"( they sound like advocates to me) "should not be held to the voters desires, "should vote their conscience."

Her words show how she manipulates the language and the rules to her benefit just like our dear soon to be(but not soon enough) Ex President does.

Her logic is as twisted as the language she uses to try to justify her behavior.

I want to say, I voted for Bill Clinton. Twice. I thought He should have never answered the question he was caught lying on. The answer should have been it's none of your damn business. It's worked for every president before and since.

And to that point it was not a "tough question" it was an "irrelevant question".

As Hillary goes on and continues to accuse Obama of complaining of "tough" questions, she would do well to remember the difference between a "tough" question and a totally irrelevant one. One has the purpose of keeping important information AWAY from the people and we've had our full of them. Tough questions are meant to get important information TO THE PEOPLE.

She above any should know the difference. The fact that she does not shows either a very bad learning curve, or deception.

the tone and behavior, overt racism and attacks put on the manner in which we vote, and against our nominee-in-waiting, Obama, have made them lepers.

I do not like Bill as I once did, and I despise her as a candidate.


Shame on the Clintons - they either feel he's unelectable and know she's our only hope (in their minds) and will do anything to stop us lil' kids from making a grave mistake - or - they're egomaniacs, hell-bent on power and the feeling of being in charge like they once were, and could care less if they destroy the party in their goal of regaining that mantle of power.

I'm banking on the latter.


pro-Obama and Anti-McSame items added each week!
www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable

I remember how thrilled I was when Bill Clinton won the presidency, and I remember what a bitter (yes, I used the word BITTER) disappointment he turned out to be. Mostly for the same reason that I'll never forgive Paul Wellstone, "MY" Senator (DOMA...remember that?).

and no, I didn't know Wellstone apparently voted for that? Sad. And yes, b/c I was young, I didn't quite get what bad things Clinton did towards the rights we had, despite the growing economy. You can forgive Paul now, you know. He surely knows better since he's no longer in this painful existence.

I doubt I'll ever forgive his betrayal on DOMA. And now that he's dead, he'll never have the chance repent of his error. It will forever be a stain on his "progressive" record.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Paul_Wellstone_Civil_Rights.htm

The intensity of projection from the minions of "the candidate of Hope" has reached a new high in zeal AND absurdity.

Surrender, Hillary!

--p!
Note to eeevil Hillary: See what you made them do?

let the people decide, and then get together and BEET THE REPUBLICANS.

This "surrender Hillary" thing is just silly. It degrades the whole process and the debate.

This petty bickering is getting annoying from both sides, alot of you seem to be confused with who the enemy is and its not Obama and its not Hillary, its McCain and the possibility he might win if the democratic party is divided with petty bickering like this so can we please atleast act civil and stop with the bashing.

Even though Clinton's name has a (D) after it, I'll be damned if I vote for her or any of the corporate elite Democrats. The Dems should have been able to just walk into the White House, except there happens to be this monomaniacal couple that just won't get over their sense of entitlement. Do I believe the Clinton's would do all they can to take down Obama for the purpose of trying again in 2012, oh YES I do. Their problem in 2012 will be that too many will recall 2008 with the result that Clinton is finished one way or the other.

If I could believe that out of the ashes, of a back room brokered deal, that a true Phoenix of a viable third party could arise I wouldn't worry it, however, this is America and I have serious doubts.

It's about time some prominent Dems started calling out Hillary for her destructive lies.

And so she uses that to beg for money,, And from what we've been hearing it is working for her..

:shrug:

:rofl: Direct and to the point! :D

She still has many supporters and fans like me.

they'll be just fine outside of public life, don't worry. They will always have Dubai, and Saudi Arabia, and Isreal to call on.

Not one example of how Hillary is supposedly destroying the party by daring to challenge Obama for the nomination. Just the accusation. Doesn't she know she's disrupting the coronation???!!! How evil is she???!!!

This whole damn process has had a cloud of, "watch what you say about Obama" hanging over it. Same kinda shit repukes were saying about Kerry re: bush in 2004. Who the fuck are these people who can't handle a challenge? Who are these people who think that the more people getting a chance to vote is a bad thing? Who are these people who claim Obama's every loss to Hillary is somehow a result of dirty tricks? How insulting to the voters in those states, and those yet to vote. Who are these people so damned afraid of our own democratic process they they whine and threaten and try to scare people out of supporting Hillary by claiming her very presence is dangerous? They're not leaders, that's for sure. And they don't represent change. And they don't represent hope. And they don't represent winning in November if all they have is fear and cowardice to offer.


Barack began this campaign by calling Hillary bush-cheney lite, calling her untrustworthy, questioning her character. The Obama camp played the race card in SC to sink her, which did cause real damage. The "Hillary's destroying the party" by having the audacity to run against Obama is a tired refrain from a chorus of hypocrites.

Who's daring to challenge whom? Whose coronation was it "supposed" to be?

Not reading any articles that Obama is destroying the party by running and staying in the race until it is decided.

Are you sure you know what irony means?

It's "ironic" that a supporter of Hillary is complaining that the OBAMA people are upset at her daring to challenge him for the nomination, and daring to upset HIS coronation. Hillary was the presumed nominee so many months ago, and the outcome of the nomination process was a forgone conclusion. She was the heir apparent, the Crown Princess of the Democratic Party.

Before you call me some derogatory term derived from the word "Obama", I was a John Edwards supporter. Unfortunately, he dropped out before I was even able to vote for him at caucus (I know, caucus states don't count).

in the name of 'party unity'. I thought that winning elections was about getting out more voters than the other side does. If you've criticized young voters, independents, crossover republicans, democratic voters in red states, 'activists', african-americans--how that add up to getting more people out to vote for the Democratic ticket against McCain?

As for coronations, until January 2008, Democrats who wanted someone other than Hillary Clinton were basically told that she would have the coronation sometime in the primaries, as if no other candidates need apply.

under any circumstances.