Hillary Clinton will win

I would now place bets she will win the primary, and almost certainly the presidency. I wish it were Edwards or Obama, but I now believe the magic of Obama’s Iowa surprise has faded completely, and the majority of Democrats and independents are skeptical he has the stuff to lead. As much as people hate Clinton, she still enjoys immense support among those whom Nixon famously dubbed “the silent majority.” This silent majority consists of retired people, lots of blue-collar Democrats and the average middle-income middle-aged adults who don’t show up on the blogs but who always vote. Today she won an important endorsement and I expect her support to rapidly increase.

Part of the reason is the sheer nastiness of those who hate Clinton, including us liberals. I’ve been combing message boards at some liberal sites and am stunned at the hostility. Yeah, she’s hard as nails and opportunistic and ruthless (is there any president who wasn’t, at least to some degree?). But what has she done to qualify as “loathsome” or “a hateful bitch”? Those are tough words, and we should save them for the real thing, like Bush and Karen Hughes.

Ezra Klein has a good piece about this today, and it further increases my conviction that the attacks against Clinton have ironically done more good than harm.

On the one hand, Hillary Clinton is running a bare-knuckled, often unfair campaign, and pundits should mention that. On the other, the sort of attacks she’s levying — misrepresenting Obama’s payroll tax plan, or exaggerating his comments about Reagan — are pretty much par for the course. We’re not hitting some sort of new low in politics, here. And the overarching theme of Waldman’s column — that Clinton is “running like a Republican” — almost pushes me to her side on the issue. The winner of the Democratic primary, after all, will have to run against a Republican.

This seems like good practice for Obama, who needs to prove that he can do precisely that. And, so far, it looks to me like Clinton is getting the better of this one: Obama and his folks are spending a lot of time clarifying statements and categorizing attacks as unfair, while Clinton keeps throwing more punches and controlling the conversation. While I can name a half-dozen open attacks Clinton has on Obama right now, I’m not really sure what line his campaign is taking against Clinton. This is what folks feared with Obama: That he’d be too high-minded to stand up to the smear machine. And distasteful as some of Clinton’s hits are, they’re nothing compared to what he’ll face as the nominee.

Clinton now has the upper hand and I think she will retain it, for better or for worse.

The Discussion: 52 Comments

Richard, I must disagree with you on one point:

Will Senator Clinton win the nomination? Probably.

Will she then win the presidency? I doubt it.

This is especially true if McCain is the Republican nominee, which is looking pretty possible at this point. He would get almost all of the independent vote, the youth vote (which has been massively in support of Obama) would not bother to turn out for the election at all, and black voters would feel somewhat jaded by the whole thing, so they probably won’t turn out either. (I realize that many African-Americans look back fondly on the Clinton presidency, but the Clinton’s will have just torpedoed the first viable African-American nominee for president in our nation’s history). Finally, nothing gets the Republicans frothing at the mouth like Hillary Clinton, so you can bet on massive turnout from their side.

Ms. Clinton may have the “silent majority”, but it is other constituencies and turnout that decide elections, and everything is working against her in that regard. Regretfully, I predict that John McCain will be our next president.

January 25, 2008 @ 2:22 pm | Comment

We’ll see. I think McCain is the only one of the motley crew of GOP candidates who could possibly win, but I doubt he will. He is 73; that isn’t ageism but a fact – Americans are wary of electing someone that old to be commander in chief. Also, he has many vulnerable spots, more than Clinton, I believe – they will come up, like his uncontrollable temper, his tasteless jokes (talk about “loathsome”) and his fiery support of the war in Iraq. As the economic crisis escalates, Iraq will become an ever sorer spot, as it is playing a role both in bleeding the treasury and fueling inflation (cost of oil). Yes, Clinton voted for the resolution to use force if necessary back in 2003, but 80 percent of Americans were in favor of that resolution at the time, so don’t expect that to sink her ship.

America, I suspect, wants a burst of energy and change. Now, to many of us Clinton is the wrong kind of burst at the wrong time, but we have to understand how many perceive her – as doggedly determined, field-tested and thick-skinned, a crusader for what she believes in and the type who gets things done. (Whether any of that is true or false is irrelevant; I am talking about perceptions.) She is a woman and a Democrat – simply for that, she represents change, at least of a sort. McCain is still a good old boy who talks like a maverick and votes like an arch-conservative. He may take an enlightened stand on torture, immigration and election finance reform, but he’s a tried and true right-wing male Republican, a proud member of the Keating Five (albeit the cleanest of the lot) and he is happy to keep us in Iraq forever.

Even Americans who have serious issues with Clinton (like me) will vote for her if she’s up against McCain, or any other Republican.

January 25, 2008 @ 3:04 pm | Comment

I don’t know why Democrat think we will beat Republican for sure. Considering Republicans run a far better propaganda machine then we do: Conservative radios, Evangelical Christians, Southern Baptist, and majorities of Southern states are all extremely hard for Democrat to win over. Florida also because of a lot of Cuban American will not for a Democrat because of the whole thing about Bay of Pigs especially the older generation.

Also, I don’t think liberals hate Hillary. I will say more of a dislike but will vote for her if she is the candidate.

January 25, 2008 @ 3:04 pm | Comment

“She is a woman and a Democrat – simply for that, she represents change, at least of a sort”

Oh right, just like Nancy Pelosi was supposed to represent change. Since the election of 2006 it’s been business as usual. Now she’s caved in and signed on to more ridiculous, Reagan-esque tax cuts.

Some “change.” Business as usual.

January 25, 2008 @ 3:51 pm | Comment

Keep in mind that women are so far about 57% of the electorate. They got pissed off at the blatant sexism in the media. And when stuff like the C.U.N.T. T-shirt gets promoted (unfortunately I’m not making this up), believe me, women are going to turn out for this.

I’m still voting for Edwards but I understand the impulse. Frankly if you look at Clinton and Obama’s records, there is very little difference, and Clinton actually has a slightly more progressive platform, in environmental, economic and health care issues. No less than Paul Krugman has been pointing out that Obama’s image does not match the stands he’s taken on issues.

Any one of the Democratic Three will be light years ahead of anything the Republican Party has to offer.

January 25, 2008 @ 4:19 pm | Comment

Arty, the GOP has been badly splintered. McCain is no friend to the evangelicals. He is loathed by the reactionary right for not hating brown-skinned people enough (have you been reading Michelle Maglalang’s attacks on him lately?) and for not endorsing torture, which, as we all know, was enthusiastically supported by Jesus Christ. The GOP noise machine has been playing off-key recently, if you haven’t noticed.

Cuban Americans do not vote against Democrats because of the Bay of Pigs, which was done to help overthrow the regime they detested. Why on earth would that pro-Cuba (in their eyes) event from nearly half a century ago turn them away from Democrats today? I am waiting to hear you explain that one, Arty, and how you come to this conclusion. Where is your evidence that the Bay of Pigs made Cuban Americans hate Democtrats? I can see pro-Castro Cubans feeling that way, not those against Castro.

January 25, 2008 @ 4:24 pm | Comment

Hilary Clinton is an appalling human being and I fail to see what will really change if she gets in. Initially I felt any Democrat will do, but the way the Clintons have run their campaign has appalled me. As a Englishman, it is foreign and economic policy that really concerns me as those are things that have a knock on effect. There is perhaps little substantive difference between the democratic candidates, but the attitude of the Clintons….

Obama is somewhat naive in foreign policy terms, which is a concern, but he is a breath of fresh air and would be welcomed by many as representative of a change of attitude in the US and a complete break with the past 8 years. Clinton wouldn’t give that. She is yesterday’s president.

January 25, 2008 @ 4:27 pm | Comment

Ya know, I’ve never been a Clinton fan – I worked for Jerry Brown in ’92 and I know a fair amount about the Clintons.

But I want to ask all of you who think that Hillary Clinton is some sort of Lillith Bitch Anti-Christ — why do you think this, exactly? I don’t see it. My guess is that she’s actually smarter and more idealistic than her husband, and who knows, she might actually be a really good President. She has a good reputation in Congress as a Senator who actually can reach across party lines and get things done.

I reflexively disliked her for years and finally had to ask myself why. Is it just buying into the media hype and the right wing noise machine? Because now that I’m paying more attention, sorry, she’s not striking me as the Bitch Queen of Evil. I think she might be pretty okay. Even if she isn’t my first choice for President.

January 25, 2008 @ 4:37 pm | Comment

[start of rant]

what irks me about clinton is that despite all of this talk of greater experience blah blah, as soon as she feels a threat she goes negative. she could counter obama by highlighting policy differences, but no, she just starts banging on about some slum landlord obama has a really tenuous link to and grossly distorting some statements he made about reagan. i suspect this is because her policy positions and obama’s are similiar and where they are different (iraq, for example) it is a big minus for her.

regarding her ability to reach across party lines, my understanding is this is mainly due to her ability to adopt republican positions. the whole 80% of the us was for action in iraq therefore she should have voted for it argument simply strengthens the idea that she has no principles and will do anything with a high enough poll rating. she is just another poll reading unprincipled third wayer like her husband and that tosser blair.

i hate her even more than i hate bush, because i am not entirely convinced she even believes the @!$% she spouts

[rant over and yes, i feel better now]

January 25, 2008 @ 4:59 pm | Comment

Si, I can see disliking her. But I really have a hard time understanding the passionate hatred. I dislike her reliance on consultants and polls, but it’s hardly that unusual. I mean, what has she done that is truly loathsome, truly bad?

January 25, 2008 @ 5:34 pm | Comment

What’s to like?

NAFTA? Welfare reform? Dont Ask, Don’t Tell? The Communications Decency Act? Easing media ownership laws? Defense of Marriage Act?

This is some of the legislation Bill Clinton signed into law in an effort to save his presidency after the disastrous failure of Hillary’s healthcare reform bill lost congress to the Republicans.

Obama is right, Clinton didn’t shift the American debate our way. The Clintons just triangulated their way through the 1990’s doing their best to ameliorate the worst aspects of Republican legislation.

In the end the man who told us if we worked hard and played by the rules broke the rules, got caught and allowed the Republicans to stifle any gains he could have made for us. We lost congress and he couldn’t even help Al Gore become his successor.

If we nominate Hillary and she gets elected you can expect more of the same small bore efforts. These two won’t build the huge mandate we need for the great changes that have to be made. There will be no coattails. They won’t change the debate. They’ve never even tried.

January 25, 2008 @ 11:32 pm | Comment

Arty, the GOP has been badly splintered. McCain is no friend to the evangelicals.

Yea, however, if McCain become the candidate, they will vote for him. Rush (the big fat idiot) already make peace with McCain as of yesterday.

Why on earth would that pro-Cuba (in their eyes) event from nearly half a century ago turn them away from Democrats today?

Do you ever have a Cuban friends or work with one (first generation especially)? Most Cuban Americans see Bay of Pigs as a betray by the Democrat administration i.e. Kennedy. Most of the Cubans’ are also Republicans not Democrats. Castro is a left winger. Chev is left winger. Why do you think the people from Cuban who hates Castro are left liberals at the first place. I worked with one for 2 years sitting right next to me. He hates Castro. He hates Chev and think he is a genocidal maniac. He is in his late 30s and first generation Cuban in the US (he didn’t swing to the US but his entire group defect to the US the moment they landed).

January 26, 2008 @ 12:54 am | Comment

Mark, I completely agree with you about NAFTA, welfare “reform” and communications policy (again, I was working for Brown, who was for single payer health care and against GATT and NAFTA as drafted). I would just argue that Obama means any real substantive change in terms of his policies.

Edwards is the most progressive of the three and he doesn’t have much of a chance at the nomination. I’ll vote for him because I want to see him continue to promote his issues. I hope he’ll at least be the king (or queen) maker and will demand that some attention be paid to the poor and struggling middle classes.

And I’m with Richard. The dislike of HRC I get. The foaming at the mouth hatred, I do not.

January 26, 2008 @ 1:19 am | Comment

I am neither silent nor in any majority that I am aware of but, hoopla aside, she has always seemed the most intelligent choice; on record on experience, on tensile strength and most importantly on balance.

The policies markg8 cites as objectionable are collectively a specious argument–some were necessary compromises which define the art and craft of politics, of leadership. There were successful and progressive policies of the Clinton administration as well. One of them is an overarching consideration – balancing a huge federal budget deficit and creating a surplus. It’s a tough job being president. Getting good policies into action takes a lot more than jumping up and down and repeating “yes we can!”

The Clinton presidency should not define Sen. Clinton’s race, nor should it hinder it. She’s a well tested leader and the NY Times endorses her today with first hand experience of that.

I wince at the intended and unintended misogamy that she has to face. But I admire her dignity in facing it.

January 26, 2008 @ 3:11 am | Comment

I have little doubt that Hillary Clinton would make a good president: she seems sharp, driven, focused and extremely intelligent. However, as Si mentioned earlier in the thread, she comes across as “yesterday’s president” and I think that might really work against her.

It’s a “leader-in-waiting” syndrome that has played out in similar forms in both the UK and Canada. In both countries you had/have political parties (Labour and the Liberals) in power for a decade plus, with very identifiable leaders who significantly overstayed their welcome (Blair and Chretien) and squandered much electoral good will. Then you have the ‘groomed’ next-in-line waiting in the wings to take over- and doesn’t matter how spectacular he/she is, people are just tired and weary of the whole story. Paul Martin suffered from this, and the jury is still out on Brown in the UK.

Of course, with the American system the dynamics are very different- because it hasn’t been Clinton’s party that has left voters tired and weary over the past 8 years. So, on a very superficial level, sure, she is a change: a Democrat. But as many others have said, she represents too much of a throwback to a tired political struggle/cultural war, a US living hostage to the 1960s (and dreaming of a glorified 1990s).

She has perhaps been the “leader-in-waiting” among the Democrats, and I admire her personal drive for the presidency. But I’m also afraid that her time has passed- she has picked the wrong battle at the wrong time. People aren’t just weary of the Republicans from what I can tell- they are seeing deeper structural problems underlying the whole political establishment. And in that sense, Clinton still represents the status quo (aka Republican Lite/Third Way).

Of course, after the last 8 years any of the Democrats or McCain would result in a huge credibility bump for the States on the global stage.

January 26, 2008 @ 6:30 am | Comment

“Cuban Americans do not vote against Democrats because of the Bay of Pigs, which was done to help overthrow the regime they detested. Why on earth would that pro-Cuba (in their eyes) event from nearly half a century ago turn them away from Democrats today?”

Bay of Pigs is synonymous with abject failure to most Cuban-Americans who blame Kennedy for withholding the the crucial air support needed to win. Not only did Kennedy fail to provide the necessary air support for the Bay of Pigs, he also as part of the Cuban missile crisis agreement, promised that the US would never invade Cuba if the missiles were removed. He thus eliminated any possibility of something like “Operation Just Cause” (Panama 1989), and thus permitted (in the eyes of many if not most Cuban-Americans) Castro to remain in power for more than forty years.

January 26, 2008 @ 8:41 am | Comment

Dana hit it dead on. I think the only way Hillary can lose in a two-way race is with McCain. Unfortunately for her McCain looks like front-runner. His perceived strength is her weakness (straight-phony).

The wild card is her husband, who has proved to be remarkably valuable, if stunningly dishonest. He’s completely taken over her campaign, and that can’t be good over a 9-month stretch.

I took at look at his role and compared the actual speeches Senators Clinton and Obama gave just before the war vote, not only because he was 100% correct, but also for the tone. She hedged in every way. It was a completely political calculation, while Obama’s position made policy sense: Afghanistan, health care, and other issues were all more important. This is not a minor subtlety or the Iraq debate: it extends to every policy initiative of the campaign.

January 26, 2008 @ 10:39 am | Comment

Commentator, is this such an electrifying issue today, 40 years later that they won’t vote for a Democrat simply because he is from the same party as Kennedy, who tried, if unsuccessfully, to help them?

McCain could conceivably win, and he is the only one who could. I don’t think he will for reasons stated above – perceived to be too old, too connected to Iraq and too conservative at a time the pendulum is swinging to the left.

January 26, 2008 @ 11:19 am | Comment

“Commentator, is this such an electrifying issue today, 40 years later that they won’t vote for a Democrat simply because he is from the same party as Kennedy, who tried, if unsuccessfully, to help them?”

I am no expert in this, but is it 100-percent correct to say that South Florida Cubans typically vote Republican, and have for many years. The Republican Party is seen as the one that takes a harder line on the Communist government. Look at the voting records if you require back-up.

One quick search online yielded the following 2006 article, which explains some things:


The following quote from that article could have come out of Commentator’s mouth:

“Democrats say foreign policy plays a key role in the choices Florida Hispanics make. Most of South Florida’s large and politically-influential Cuban community has been staunchly Republican ever since late President John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, denied air cover for exile Cuban forces during the 1962 Bay of Pigs invasion.”

The article also admits the potential for Cubans to cross party lines at times. They are likely Republican supporters although not assured Republican supporters.

January 26, 2008 @ 11:51 am | Comment

Oooh, I forgot about this event. From the same article:

“Former Democratic President Bill Clinton fared better for awhile, but that ended when his administration sent young refugee Elian Gonzalez back to Cuba in 2000. That was just months before Democratic candidate Al Gore lost Florida by just 537 votes, costing him the White House in a drawn-out and controversial election battle.”

You can say what you want about unfair balloting at the time of the disputed 2000 election, but you would be wise not to overloook the effects of this event on the opinions of the Cuban-Americans, and the role in actually losing Florida, and the presidency, for Al Gore.

January 26, 2008 @ 11:55 am | Comment

This has taken the thread way off topic. Thomas, I know all about their voting record. Is it because of the Bay of Pigs? That’s all. Arty has this way of making extravagant statements and then not backing them up. That’s all. Back to topic.

Reading the latest headlines about the elections, I see Clinton is being overly cold and calculating and ruthless again. Why doesn’t she realize her power grabs make her appear exactly the opposite of the way she wants so desperately to appear?

January 26, 2008 @ 12:04 pm | Comment

If Republicans can write off African-American voters and still get elected, I don’t see why any Democratic candidate should worry about an enclave of bitter Cuban-Americans in south Florida.

January 27, 2008 @ 12:10 am | Comment

This has taken the thread way off topic. Thomas, I know all about their voting record. Is it because of the Bay of Pigs? That’s all. Arty has this way of making extravagant statements and then not backing them up. That’s all. Back to topic.

Believe what you want Richard. We are going to lose Florida, again!!! If not the election itself.

January 27, 2008 @ 2:48 am | Comment

You are right that she is going to win and you are right that she has lied countless times. Nonetheless, I cannot help but believe she would make a good president (ignoring ideology). Call it the cynic in me, but with all the turmoil, I think we need someone who can assume the presidency by hitting the ground running. The country is just not in the mood for taking big risks.

Whether she can win it all will depend on who she is up against.

January 27, 2008 @ 7:20 am | Comment

No, she won’t. Obama will. Obama just won the South Carolina primary this past hour. One more down. Obama is the best person for the job. I am certainly rooting for him. All the rest of them are a lot more opportunistic. I think this will be one of the exceptions, when in a democratic nation, people will vote for the person who is the most honest, sincere, and selfless of the choices available. I sure hope I ain’t wrong when he comes up against Romney (who is probably the Republican who will win).

January 27, 2008 @ 8:51 am | Comment

Toth, we’re not going to tell by one primary or another. I hope I come to regret this post, that it ends up making me look stupid. But I still believe it’s true for the reasons I think anything is true, namely what I see and read and experience. This silent majority referred to is the reason. Then again, who can say? We’re all speculating, and it’s good fun, if ultimately meaningless.

January 27, 2008 @ 10:42 am | Comment

CLB, I won’t vote for her i the primary, but I will vote for her in November We could do a lot worse.

January 27, 2008 @ 10:45 am | Comment

55% when 98% are reported. Clinton only got 27%……..

I am an Edwards guy but guess what, in order for Obama to win. I am voting Obama in California. 2/3 of my Democrat co-workers are voting for him (some already did with mail in…my boss is voting for Hillary though.

January 27, 2008 @ 10:55 am | Comment

I hope Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination because this will guarantee she receives a humiliating defeat in the general election.

The spineless cowards that the Clintons are; their utter lack of principles or integrity; the pathological obsession for power; and, the embarrassing representation of the morality and cultural values of poor white trash are the qualities that make the Americans “loath” this dysfunctional couple.

Yes, Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee will allow the American people to put paid on the cultural values that have turned the US into nations of weak, self-centered, amoral, cowards.

What better lesson of repudiation for the “useful idiots” the Clintons pander to.

My vote will be an anti-Hillary Clinton vote.

January 27, 2008 @ 11:52 am | Comment


If you feel so strongly that Hillary will win the election, why don’t you put your money where your mouth is? How about a $50 donation to the Library Project if you are wrong?

Personally, I think Obama is far more electable than Hillary. He wants change, he’s not a professional politician and he doesn’t have a string of deaths surrounding him. The Republicans have far more ammunition for Hillary than they do Obama.

January 27, 2008 @ 12:04 pm | Comment

I’ll do it Gordon. I’ve made bets before. You yourself wrote here a few weeks ago that America will not elect a back man president, at least now now. Have you changed your mind? (And I thought you were wrong.) After my own look at things when I was home, I decided Hillary is a lot more electable than those who hate her believe, or want to believe. Hell, I was 100 percent Bush was unelectable back in 2004, but life is full of surprises.

January 27, 2008 @ 12:13 pm | Comment

funny, robert – I was always of the notion that when Clinton left office his popularity ratings were nearly 70 percent, even after all the scandals and pseudo-scandals. He remains one of our most popular presidents ever. I think you’re blinded by your own hatred. You probably think Giuliani is a moral guy. You spout off every far-right talking point with zero substance. Anyone running for president is power-hungry and ruthless. The Clintons are no worse than the others, except it makes you apoplectic that Bill is still a much beloved man (and he’s even more beloved in Europe and Asia; I’ve ever seen any leader of ay country talked about in such glowing terms).

January 27, 2008 @ 12:17 pm | Comment


I don’t think “America is ready for a black President”, but I think America is so badly in need of change that the people of America will elect Obama over Hillary.

My comment about America not being ready for a black President was nothing more than an indication of America’s lingering ignorance. We have come a long way, but we still have so far to go.

January 27, 2008 @ 1:26 pm | Comment

“Commentator, is this such an electrifying issue today, 40 years later that they won’t vote for a Democrat simply because he is from the same party as Kennedy, who tried, if unsuccessfully, to help them?”

Maybe, maybe not. The point that you seem to be missing (by saying Kennedy tried unsuccessfully “to help” Cuban-Americans) is that probably the majority of Cuban-Americans (rightly or wrongly) perceive Kennedy as having done absolutely nothing to have even tried “to help” them, and view Kennedy as the reason that Castro is still in power today. I don’t think that for second generation Cuban-Americans it is still quite as “electrifying” as it was thirty or forty years ago for first generation emigres.

“Former Democratic President Bill Clinton fared better for awhile, but that ended when his administration sent young refugee Elian Gonzalez back to Cuba in 2000.”

Thomas, thank you for reminding me about the Elian Gonzalez case (how could I ever forget?!).

Getting back to the topic, I think it’s still too earlier to tell. Be sure to follow the campaigns with the following links:



January 27, 2008 @ 1:49 pm | Comment

Bill Clinton: Obama Is Just Like Jesse Jackson…


I wonder if blacks will still be stupid enough to vote for his wife?

January 27, 2008 @ 6:04 pm | Comment

Yeah, Bill may just hand it over to Obama.

Commentator, all points acknowledged. I tried to make a simple point, and no one has addressed it: Is there evidence that today Cuban Americans refuse to vote for Democrats because they are enraged at Kennedy for the Bay of Pigs incident more than 40 years ago?

For the record, Bill Clinton’s handling of the Elian Gonzales incident was exemplary. You can’t refuse a parent’s right to their child. Bill made lots of mistakes; Gonzales was not one of them, and it took a lot of courage knowing the rancor it would instill among the Cuban Americans.

January 27, 2008 @ 6:14 pm | Comment


I think you’re right that Clinton still has the upper hand. However, it was beautiful watching SC reject the negative tactics of the Clintons.

If you want to know who the Republicans are afraid of, all you need to know is that the FOX News website had a giant delegate count up with the Obama victory headline. For some reason they decided to include super delegates, otherwise known as undemocratically chosen party hacks.


What is this risk? All elections involve risk. Hillary has less experience as an elected or appointed official than does Obama.

Accepting Hill’s experience argument for a moment, shouldn’t judgment and tone count too? What would a Hillary administration fresh off a 51% victory mean for her agenda? Four years of nothing.

January 27, 2008 @ 7:39 pm | Comment

Josh, I was happy to see Obama win myself. Maybe I’ll end up eating my words.

January 27, 2008 @ 10:43 pm | Comment

This rather remarkable post from one of my favorite bloggers puts Obama’s win in perspective.

January 27, 2008 @ 10:47 pm | Comment

I read that link, Richard. The writer was spot on with his observation that likening Obama to Kennedy was a double-edged sword. Kennedy was not one of our best presidents. However, I was perplexed at his assumption that Hispanic and black voters will not support the same candidate. Where on earth did that political wisdom come from?

Republican strategy for winning elections has been to keep their core constituency, the far right, happy while crafting a message that appeals to moderates and independents. Obama has an enthusiastic, loyal base of African-American and young voters of all races who would turn out in record numbers to vote for him in November. He has shown in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina that he can attract a large share of voters outside his base.

The big rivalry between Clinton and Obama will help propel one of them into the White House in November. Both are getting lots of press while the undistinguished line-up of Republican candidates is relegated to the inside pages.

January 28, 2008 @ 12:43 am | Comment

Obama reminds me of Matt Millen: talked a good game on TV, but day-to-day work such as building a top-notched scout team, and finding good coaches was too much for him.

Personally very much am turned off by politics. If I have to rank all candidates as to how I view the US equity market and USD, if a candidate is elected. By far the most bullish to me is Clinton, and by far the most bearish is Obama.

January 28, 2008 @ 3:14 am | Comment

I was perplexed at his assumption that Hispanic and black voters will not support the same candidate. Where on earth did that political wisdom come from?

Richard will say I am making an extravagant statement again. The reason is simple. Both African and Hispanic groups are the most racist groups of people you will ever met in your life. Plus, the media seen to see them as the two groups that are in conflict with each other.

Hillary beats Obama in getting Hipanic votes that’s why some people still think Obama cannot win the largest two states in the Union with large Hispanic population, California and Texas.

January 28, 2008 @ 8:07 am | Comment

“Ted Kennedy For Obama: Intends to campaign aggressively with Western trip this week, followed by appearances in Northeast… Kennedy upset over attempts by Clinton campaign to highlight Obama’s race and distortions of statements, record… made views known in call with former president…”

Richard, I believe this is the beginning of the end of the trailer-trash couple’s hold on America.

January 28, 2008 @ 1:49 pm | Comment

robert, it is exactly that kind of nasty, petty comment that I am afraid will make Hillary a martyr and thus ensure her success.

January 28, 2008 @ 3:30 pm | Comment

richard, you have a short memory.

When the Clintons had to move out of the White House, there was a big scandal about all the White House furniture they took. Embarrassing for them when they had to return it.

Isn’t this what trailer-trash are known for? I have no problem with Hillary and Bubba being martyrs for trailer trash.

I’m just afraid if the Clintons go back, they’ll steal more furniture, dishes, and silverware.

January 28, 2008 @ 5:29 pm | Comment

Thanks robert for repeating one of the most detestable lies ever concocted about the Clintons. That is pure bullshit, right out of the Rush Limbaugh talking points. I mean pure, total, unadulterated horseshit. There goes your credibility.

January 28, 2008 @ 7:39 pm | Comment

“Report Claims Clintons Took White House Furniture a Year Ago”

By Lisa Myers

WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 – Twenty days after he left the presidency, there were new questions Friday about whether the Clintons removed even more government property from the White House without disclosing it. The new questions come to light from a government list of furniture the Clinton’s returned to the White House on Wednesday night.

IT INCLUDES not only $28,000 in gifts listed on their financial
disclosure sheet but also six new items that the Clintons had not even reported taking with them: a gaming table inlaid with the presidential seal, a television armoire, two prints and two more tables. The Park Service says virtually all the items taken and returned are in fact government property.

A spokesman for the former president says the gifts were given to the Clintons when he was president-elect, before he officially took office, so they didn’t have to be disclosed. She says the Clintons considered them personal gifts but sent them back “just to be safe.” However, The Washington Post reported Friday that the Clintons started shipping White House furniture to their new home in New York more than a year ago, without revealing it …”

January 28, 2008 @ 9:54 pm | Comment

No link? And what comes after those dots at the end of your quote? I just did a search and saw no other media picked this story up, but it’s on all those sites with the bogus Clinton stories, like the “Clinton body count” and the murder of Vince Foster. It’s bullshit.

January 28, 2008 @ 10:20 pm | Comment

Interesting how insulated everyone is, depending on where you live and who you hang out with. I’m from a red state, and I voted for Bush twice, never voted Democrat except Clinton in 1992, though came close in 2000. Bush fooled me twice, but oh well.

I predicted weeks ago: McCain vs. Obama. It’s where the tide has turned. Richard — you’ve predicted twice that Senator Clinton would win; what gives you that enduring impression? Are most people in your group buzzing about Clinton? Just curious.

January 29, 2008 @ 1:49 am | Comment

My crowd is way more liberal. Nearly all my good friends, including me, wanted Edwards to win. When I realized he couldn’t, I endorsed Obama, but I have to say I feel increasingly half-hearted about it. The turning point for me was my recent trip to America, where I saw a lot of my relatives, all of whom are liberal. Each and every one is for Clinton, including to my surprise my own parents. Older people seem put off by Obama and convinced that Hillary would make an excellent president. Whether that’s true is irrelevant. It’s a perception I am finding a lot of people share, and these people are serious voters.

I hope everyone saw Paul Krugman’s column yesterday, demolishing the argument that Bill was being some kind of monster, using race to subtly smear Obama. It’s another of those media waves, where the media smell blood and gang up on a single obscure “fact” and have a field day. Like the Dan Rather report on Bush’s military service (or lack thereof). Everyone got caught up in the most trivial detail and failed to see the larger picture.

January 29, 2008 @ 9:15 am | Comment

Many comments here didn’t really contradict the initial claim since they aren’t considered to reflect the quiet majority. I do agree that there is a quiet majority that behaves quite to the contrary of the media or the more vocal faction.

February 2, 2008 @ 4:09 am | Comment

I think that the right wing bashing hillary as they do,all the time gives hillary the best chance to become president because the underdog figure will ultimately unite liberals and centerists into one camp the right wing bashers are the best at shooting themselves in the leg due to their hatred of women and large minorities;its going to be an exciting elections and if hillary is the front runner many more people will be enthusiastic 2 vote including us women feeling that we had enough of being

February 4, 2008 @ 3:43 am | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.