Comments on Hillary Backs McCain...
John McCain is more qualified to be Prez than that Obama fool.
Obama and all of his moron supporters will send us to our grave.
This shit is flying around and people think this is GOOD for the Democrats? How does this NOT help the GOP? And what is trying to be? McCain's running mate? Wait, she was a Goldwater girl and also supported Nixon.
I'm sorry... but how can Clintonists (Clintonians? Clintonites? Clintonistas?) watch this crap and think that she's going to unite behind the nominee if it isn't her?
What a petulant whiner.
DLC and penn at work, folks. this is kind of shit that needs to be purged from the party. clean house and get these people away from the wheel because they're driving the bus into the ditch.
McCain is also more qualified, i.e. has that vaunted experience that Clinton and her supporters won't shut up about, than Clinton. Ergo, if Clinton is the nominee, everyone should vote for the more qualified candidate.
So was that it? Has Billary finally "tossed the puppy" or are we still waiting for s/h/it to shoot s/h/itself in the other foot?
Thanks for reminding why I hate her!
Fuck her! Lifetime of experience? We all having a fucking LIFETIME of experience. She has a lot of experiencing living with and accepting a lying cheating bastards of a husband. Just the kind of experience we need in the white house.
SHUT THE FUCK UP HILLARY. You only care about yourself, not the country. That is clear by how your campaign is being run.
When did 8+ state elected service years not count as experience? It seemed to work okay for Lincoln.
WORD to number 5! So if Hillary is up against McCain in the election, by her own reasoning we should vote for McCain because he is more experienced. WTF.
I did not hear her say McCain is more qualified to be president than Obama.
Instead, I heard her say she is more capable than Obama to campaign against McCain.
There's no need to read so much into it gang.
Last night, for the very first time in my 40 years, I used the word cunt, when speaking to my mother about Hillary's behavior.
Mom, a feminist from the jump, quickly admonished me. In her next breath, she told me that she is sorry to see Hillary, a woman she once had much respect for, be such a bitch.
I am, too. Hillary Clinton is bringing down the Democratic party. She ought to be ashamed of herself.
it's obvious:
Hillary is the Manchurian Candidate
@10, how will you feel if somehow Obama manages to hang on and get the nomination and this sound clip turns up in McCain ads?
Jesus Christ, people, get a grip.
You think McCain's more qualified than Obama? Or than Clinton?
You'd really like to give the Republicans four more years to cut taxes for rich people, give away resources to their corporate cronies, start a war with Iran, pack the Supreme Court full enough to kill the past 55 years of environmental, reproductive-choice, and social-safety-net legislation?
If so, just fill out the absentee ballot for Nader. This is the same stupid argument he made in 2000, and look how great that result turned out.
Its statements like these that make me LOATHE the thought of having to vote for that old bat. And that fucking sucks because
a) I would fucking love to vote for a chick.
b) I actually really liked Hillary prior to this campaign season.
Now I feel almost as annoyed while listening to her speak as I do when GWB opens his redneck mouth. And I'm finding Nader disturbingly less infuriating than her.
Sweet mother of god please don't make me have to make a choice between Clinton, Nader and not voting at all as this thought makes me feel dizzy and nauseous.
"Lifetime of experience" was odd wording indeed. If that's the argument McCain should win because he's older? We all have a "lifetime" and Obama would still be older than Bill Clinton, Teddy Roosevelt, and JFK if elected.
The actions of the last couple of "kitchen sink" days made me realize that perhaps the Clintons would truly rather have a GOP president in the White House than Obama. If Obama wins and revamps the party for a new generation then (Bill)Clinton's legacy might become that of a semi-successful, defensive presidency during an era of GOP dominance (which is what I believe it was) just as Grover Cleveland was a Democratic blip in a period of GOP dominance over a century ago.
An Obama win does repudiate the 90s almost as much (but not quite) as it does the aughts. I think the Clintons know this and would rather spoil the entire kettle of soup than lose it to one of their own even if his/her policies are the most similar.
why isn't the media, that she says is giving obama a free ride, questioning this 35 years of experience? she's only been an elected official for about 8 of them. obama has been an elected public official longer than she has. if we question her on her experience it has been as a corporate lawyer known for its connections with bill, a board member of wal mart (was she there when they were banning reading materials that were not 'family friendly', not providing benefits to domestic partners only in 2005 and only in area's where it is politically recognized)
I can't wait to see how Erica spins this.
It's looking like Hillary will never realize that us Dems don't want a bunch of petty infigthing, we just want the goddamn White House. I was all geared up after I heard her hint at doing a joint ticket with Obama, I thought "hey, maybe she's turned the corner"...false hope, I guess.
Crippling Obama in the general is a feature, not a bug.
If McCain wins, that clears the field for the Clintons to run in 2012.
If Obama wins, not so much. Hillary will be 68 in 2016.
Do you agree, Dan? Do you think that's what Clinton said? Or were you just being scarcastic or provacative? I ask because it seems obvious to me that to read "Hillary backs McCain" from...
[McCain has] never been president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.
...is the worst kind of deliberate misinterpretation. She was clearly saying "I match us best again McCain for experience."
Even if her comment could be used against Obama in the fall, it's the worst form of theatrical hysterics to say that she's endorsing (Americablog) or backing (you) McCain.
Yeah, well, but at least she's not a Muslim.
her ego is unbelievable. fuck a combined ticket. fuck a clinton-seat on the supreme court. obama needs to take this and take it now. she needs to go away forever.
#20: I don't think anyone believes she's "endorsing" McCain so much as poisoning the well for Obama should he be the nominee. More like her favored scenario is "Clinton as nominee and winner in Nov" and second choice is "Obama is nominee and loser in Nov".
Oh, so now it's Hillary who'd rather John McCain be President than Obama?
And you're going to put the fate of the planet in the hands of Bush the Third because the Democratic candidate you don't support ANNOYS YOU ON TV???
Grow the fuck up.
Politics isn't some nice, fuzzy-wuzzy, gentleman's game where we all get together and sing along with Joan Baez about our fondest hopes and ideals and how wonderful it would be to make them all come true. It's also not designed to ensure that the candidate you really, really like has to win or you're just going to sit out the election 'cause of all the mean things his/her opponent said.
You think what Hillary's throwing at Obama is harsh, check out what Gore (and McCain!) got in '00 and Kerry in '04 from the Republicans. If you all go into fainting spells the minute someone levels an attack, this election is going to be 1988 all over again.
I would enthusiastically vote for either Obama or Hillary (mean as either of them might get in this primary) over McCain because I don't think the planet will survive many more years of Republican rule. Put that outcome up against your personal pique and see which one is more important.
Kill or be killed is all she understands. She'll say or do anything to be The Winner. It's her biggest strength as well as the thing everyone hates about her. If Obama wants to be the nominee, he has to knock Hillary out with extreme prejudice. He can't go soft. He can't even go semi-erect. This week, today, he needs to start drawing from the deep well of anti-Clinton muck that he's been too classy to use up until now. He needs to associate her with the stench of empire (maybe an ad that just says something like "Bush: 1988-1992, Clinton: 1992-2000, Bush: 2000-2008...isn't it time to break the cycle?"). Talk about the hate she engenders, her high negative poll numbers, her shady business dealings, her husband's philandering, and whatever other bullshit noise the media machine has used against her in the past. Regurgitate all that anti-Clinton vomit that the Republicans have used against her and her husband. Quit playing defense. Obama's campaign team have gotten their asses handed to them the last couple weeks. The gloves have to come off. It's the only way to get past her--you have to kill her. Dead.
10 - you may not have heard that, but a lot of people clearly did. there are an infinite number of things she could have said to make her case as the best candidate against mccain without directly insulting obama. she chose not to.
worse still, if experience is all that matters [hmmm, certainly didn't seem to matter much to the clintons in 1992], mccain beats all, as many others here have pointed out. way back when hillary was a college student campaigning for nixon, mccain was starving in a cage somewhere in vietnam getting poked with a pointy stick, and then went on to serve 24 years in the senate. walmart kind of pales in comparison.
My second favorite kind of Obama fanatic post, after the "If HRC is the nominee I'm going to move to Spain / vote for Nader / kill myself", is the "fake undecided":
"I really considered supporting Hillary at the beginning, but now that I know how she killed Vince Foster and secretly had George Bush's baby, I've decided that I hate that fucking cunt more than Nazis or tsetse flies."
It's now been adapted for the unity ticket:
"I really thought an Obama/Clinton ticket might be a good idea, until..."
Super nummy political theater!
To #10:
I hear you - and maybe it is wise to stop foaming at the mouth long enough to really listen, but when I do that, you know what I hear? Her upholding the status quo, fencing off the elite, and aligning herself with the established mode of Washington politics represented by dynasties, on the right or left. 'John and I are part of the club, he is not,' is basically what she's saying (and people think this mess ISN'T helping the GOP? What do you think McCain is doing right now, with no nomination battle to wage? Sipping margaritas by the pool???) To which I say, "YES, YOU ARE." And people think this mess ISN'T helping the GOP? What do you think McCain is doing right now, with no nomination battle to wage? Sipping margaritas by the pool???
And actually this is EXACTLY why I chose Obama over her - the road she represents is one we have already been down and I want new territory, not the same old rutted, well-worn, lemming-trodden path.
Now if Obama had said the same thing about McCain over Clinton, imagine the outrage.
Is this any way to create the "unity" ticket you were talking about his morning with Obama as your VP when you are saying crap like this?
Shall we have that "who's better for the PARTY conversation" again?
Oh, and Hillary, send a bouquet to Rush for the Texas victory.
If hillary insists that she is better at taking on mccain, why isnt she winning against obama?
Jason@23:
I don't think anyone believes she's "endorsing" McCain
Dan's title was "Hillary backs McCain"
Americablog's was "Hillary again endorses McCain."
Now THAT'S unambiguous.
brandon@26:
you may not have heard that, but a lot of people clearly did
Yes. A lot of victimy, excitable, chip-on-their-shoulder, echo-chamber-residing Obama fanatics.
I mean really, brandon, do you believe an active candidate for the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party said that she would prefer a Republican candidate over a fellow Democrat?
Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?
Dan, I love you. But you're wrong about this clip - I think it's clear that Hillary is positioning herself as a better candidate against McCain. Not a bad tact to take at this point.
The rest of you need to fucking put up or shut up - support your candidate through the convention and then VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE IN THE GENERAL ELECTION.
I will ENTHUSIASTICALLY campaign for whoever gets it, and I will smear the Republican nominee AND Nader every chance I get.
I expect the same from my fellow Democrats.
@Kerri - Sorry Hillary doesn't fit you & your mom's idea of what a female politician should behave like. Tell me how Gregoire does in November, okay?
@27, my GOP parents (and in laws) planned to vote for Obama but will probably hold their noses and vote for McCain after all when Hillary is the nom.
Hillary has irreparably damaged Obama and herself, politically -- I can't honestly see how McCain doesn't end up President in Nov.
Maybe that's good in a way, with the Democratic Party in ruins maybe a new party can start from scratch and plan ahead for the 2020s...?
16 An Obama win does repudiate the 90s almost as much (but not quite) as it does the aughts.
right fucking on.
If Obama supporters think this is negative campaigning, they are really going to whine if he gets the nomination.
Getting elected president is a brutal gauntlet to survive. If you are going to whine about Hils bringing up your shortcomings maybe you should just get out now.
Obama has little experience. Better he develop responses now to this line of attack.
Hasn't Obama questioned Clinton's judgment and tied her to policies of the past? How is that any different? What if she is the nominee--won't his attacks hurt her as well?
Why the hell is she saying that the Republican candidate is more qualified to be president than our own presumptive nominee?
Her motives are transparent. Here's the thinking:
1) By any reasonable calculation, Obama will come to the convention with more pledged delegates. Thus, Clinton can only win if the superdelegates decide in her favor.
2) The superdelegates will place electability high on their list of desired traits for the party's nominee.
3) Based on polling, a Obama-McCain matchup appears to be more winnable than a Clinton-McCain race.
4) Hence, in order to win the nomination, Clinton must make an Obama-McCain matchup less desirable. There are two ways to do this: a) "go negative" on Obama and b) make McCain look good, especially in the context of a match against Obama.
This is a slash-and-burn strategy. It shows a willingness to destroy the party's long-term future in order to meet short-term political goals. In this way, Bush and Clinton have a lot in common. Maybe the Republicans aren't in such a tight spot this year, after all. The Democrats seem to have a knack for seizing defeat from the jaws of victory.
It takes a woman..to destroy the Democratic party. Hillary Clinton is pathetic and will not win the nomination.
clinton and mccain are different. clinton's argument against obama is that clinton and obama are so similar that experience matters -- that she is the one who can get the job. she can still argue that mccain will get the job done -- but the wrong job.
it is a shame, however, that it really comes off as her placing obama lower than mccain.
Paul Begala, a Clinton supporter, said on CNN that Clinton should not have said it. He said Dems should never do that to another Dem and give red meat to the GOP.
@35 the "whining" is because this negative campaigning is coming from an ally. they expect it from a rep. they don't expect it from another dem in a way that will hurt the dem part in the general election. any just exactly where has obama ever said that clinton is less qualified than mccain?
And just for the record--I think this comment of Hillary's is completely stupid and destructive, and that the strategy she's been pursuing since Super Tuesday is alienating a hell of a lot of people in her own party.
@37. shut up, bigot.
@37: "It takes a woman..to destroy the Democratic party."
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Hillary's nastiness isn't going to stick to Obama. By the time she's done (which will be July), she will reviled by everyone nationwide. People will discount her attacks as being worth nothing more than anything else said by Hillary Clinton. She's destroying her own short, brutal political career before our eyes.
I am looking forward to the Clintonians scaring the Obamamaniacs to "vote for Hillary or you wil die" if she gets the nomination. Nader just may not even have to try to get a few million votes this year.
Between Hillary and McCain guess who crosses party lines? McCain does and have you all forgotten Kerry looked at McCain as a running mate in 2004 or have you all forgotten that?
Big Sven, read back to the previous thread to see my and Brandon's responses to your point.
Will someone PLEASE call her on this "lifetime of experience" crap:
- years practicing corporate law (walk through the downtown of any major US City, spit and hit someone with this experience)
- Eight years as First Lady (just like Laura Bush)
- a few more years in the US Senate than Obama.
Just WHAT is she selling with this line and WHAT are people buying?
Obama could get angry and fight back. But then he would be seen as an angry black man beating up on a poor ole white woman. He'll lose handily. He has to be gentle with her. She will continue to browbeat him into submission. Then McCain will beat her like a drum. GOP women want him to be a sexist pig.
imagine if right now, instead of this awful bickering, we were just talking about how in love we are with the Gore/Obama '08 ticket we have?
The fundamental problem with this refrain from Clinton, a problem that people like Big Sven seem to have a hard time understanding, is that in trying to sell yourself as your party's best candidate, you can compare your experience to the experience of your fellow party candidates, but never should you state, or even imply, that the opposing party's candidate is superior to the other candidates within your party. This is what Clinton is repeatedly doing. In the words of Fallows, whom I quoted in the previous thread where this issue was discussed:
By what logic, exactly, does a member of the Democratic party include the "Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience" part of that sentence?
sven, what i believe is that the clintons will say anything, do anything, step on anyone to gain more power [although for the record i don't think they killed vince foster. but i wouldn't be too surprised if hillary had bush's love child]. slash, burn, clean up the mess later; repeat until sufficient power obtained.
if this were an isolated incident, i would agree with you - the obama camp is over-reacting. but this is a consistent pattern of behavior from them. "jesse jackson won south carolina." "he's not a muslim.... as far as i know." please. for people with such highly acclaimed experience, they should know better than to be so careless with their words against someone within their own party. utterly shameless.
and if they truly cared so much about having a democrat in the white house, they would have focused their resources getting gore elected in 2000, rather than putting hillary in the senate with their eye on 2008. it's not about democrats, it's not about liberal principles, it's always been, always will be about the clintons.
and really now, "victimy"? "no decency"? from a clinton supporter? that's about as rich as it gets.
"Wait, Obama’s the presumptive nominee? After last night?"
Oh, for the love of all that's good and true.
Yes. Yes, he is. Do your freaking homework. Do some freaking math. Somebody. Anybody. Stop spouting off about "momentum" and "wins" and pay attention to how the freaking process actually works.
GAH.
This reminds me of a point I made when some reporter said something about Clinton's "experience" at the Obama campaign last night - if we're choosing based on legislative experience, Clinton's argument is an argument that we should vote for McCain, not for her.
Unless we want experience in being a hostess.
eh, i still think the experience argument works. clinton says the she and obama are very similar, but she has the experience to attain her goals.
clinton would then argue that she and mccain are not similar.
@54 I think it's more effective to make the argument that Clinton's experience argument is crap without the sexism.
OK...so Hillary wants to play politics? Fine...
Innuendo? Shady deals? Sowing doubt?\
There are entire manuals written towards Hillary. Shall we start pulling some of them out?
Glass houses, Hillary, glass houses.
For example...
"Hillary is not a lesbian...as far as I know."
@57, this reminds me of one of those leading questions "Chaz Mudude-Child Molestor?" where the question mark is a poor cover for making people connect the two.
@53: There is no math, because Hillary Clinton will be agitating to have Florida and Michigan included, just as her campaign supported challenging the process in Nevada.
Big Sven, like you, I generally support the Clinton scorched earth policy when it's aimed at the Republicans (although it often backfires). But, uh, Barack Obama is not a Republican. The Clinton campaign doesn't see the difference: both Obama and the Republicans are enemies that stand in their way, so there's no reason to treat them differently.
Michigan/Florida do-over news:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080305/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble
@56 - hey, if she wants to throw mud, two can play at that game.
See? You can't take the fire stay out of the kitchen where you're baking cookies.
Yeah, I remember those times. They're on tape or video - fresh and ready to use.
Clinton should have listened ... won't be none if she don't start none.
I don't think Clinton should have compared a fellow Democrat negatively to a Republican candidate in any capacity. I wish she hadn't have said it.
But it's not the end of the world, and it's CERTAINLY not "endorsing" or "backing" McCain. That's just crazy talk.
OK, I hate her now.
@56 I don't mean to be argumentative, but I really don't understand what you're saying here.
If you mean "If Hillary doesn't want mud thrown at her, she shouldn't throw mud," I get that. But she didn't attack Obama in an explicitly racist way (say, "Obama's argument is an argument that we should vote for McCain, not for him. Unless we want experience in being a thief."). She just said he's too green to be President. Whether or not that's true, I don't think it's an out-of-bounds question to raise.
I might be more sympathetic if you were referring to innuendo about Obama's religion. But even there, Hillary's much-repeated statement on the subject was misquoted. See: http://mediamatters.org/items/200803050010?f=h_latest
I admit that all Penn's whining about how hard the MSM has been on her campaign is a major turn-off. But there's certainly plenty of documentation (by Gene Lyons and Joe Conason, especially) of the extent to which the big news organizations were in bed with her husband's political enemies in their attempt to destroy his Presidency. If I'd gone through an experience like that, I might be paranoid myself.
Hillary Clinton sucks.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).