... And Then There's Hillary

[filkertom]

Who also gave a kick-ass performance at the DNC.

Comments

[annearchy.livejournal.com]

Yes, indeed. When push came to shove, she was a real team player. Thank you, Hillz.

[autographedcat.livejournal.com]

Which comes as a complete surprise to absolutely no one outside the mainstream media.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Even many of them know better, but aren't supposed to say so. Dan Rather said as much, yesterday:

"As one reporter, I think the best story here is who gives the big money to whom, expecting to get what. Now maybe the coverage does not for the most part center on this, because the larger news organizations -- of which I was part for a long time, it's important for you to understand that I do not except myself from the criticism inherent in some of the things I'm going to say today -- it may be, in terms of the larger news organizations, that they don't cover stories such as who gives the big money, to whom, expecting to get what, because after all they are part of the system. The money raised by the parties and the campaigns for advertising doesn't go to charity."

(Link is not the video, but it's embedded there.)

[maiac.livejournal.com]

That speech was completely unequivocal and irrefutable. The message could not have been clearer.

It'll be fascinating to see how the Usual Suspects parse it to keep the "Hillary really wants her supporters to vote for McCain" thing going.

They'll probably do what Fox News did to Michelle Obama's speech, and tell us all about what she might have said and what she must have been thinking, to concluded that up is down and "No McCain" means "better McCain than Obama".

[acelightning.livejournal.com]

[the-s-guy.livejournal.com]

And in 2016 she'll turn 69 years old before the election. In the whole history of the United States, only Ronald Reagan ever managed to win an election once he'd reached that age. It would be a really, really tough ask; and as a result she'll have a harder time convincing people to select her as the party nominee. Not to mention that even if she got the nomination, she'd be asking the public to approve (at least) twelve straight years of Democrat rule. Another toughie - the Bush nightmare would have faded and more people would be drifting back to the Republican ticket, especially if they fielded a strong candidate themselves.

About the only way I can see Hillary as having even the ghost of a chance is if she wangles her way into a truly massive amount of personal positive PR during the Obama years. If she uses the next eight years to reinvent herself as the Second Coming, she just might have a shot.

Realistically, though, 2008 was her last chance at the Oval Office, and to have come so close after so many years but fall at the second-last hurdle must have hurt badly. It says a lot that she's willing to roll with the punch, at least in public.

Maybe she's hoping against hope that something will happen just before the 2012 election which renders Obama medically or politically unfit to be the nominee, without simultaneously sinking the Democrats as well, AND that they won't decide to simply go with the VP.

Then again... Obama is, what, forty-seven?

Percentage of US presidents under 48 years old on ascension to office who were assassinated: 20%

Ouch.

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

Women live longer, and don't get senile so early. Plus, Clinton sure doesn't look 60 now.

Age is an issue if a candidate looks and acts old. If McCain wasn't such a Captain Queeg, and if he didn't forget things in public all the time, it wouldn't be an issue with him, either.

Seems to me Clinton's bigger problem is that Warner and Schweitzer just fired their opening 2016 shots, too, and hit them out of the park.

[acelightning.livejournal.com]

[the-s-guy.livejournal.com]

She's certainly got massive potential, and I really hope she's given something commensurate with her drive and abilities.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Yesterday was a very good day at the DNC. Two excellent lines that need shouting from the rooftops -- Hillary's "No way. No how. No McCain!" and Bob Casey, Jr. with "John McCain votes with Bush 95% of the time. That's not a maverick - that's a sidekick!" -- and a clear declaration to all but the most hardcore nutjobs that it's time to vote for Obama.

"Four more months!"

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

My favorite line: "The petrodictators will never own American wind and sunshine!"

[palenoue.livejournal.com]

My favorite line: "In four months, we will have an administration that actually believes in science!"

[darthparadox.livejournal.com]

That was one of my favorites, too. Schweitzer looked like he was having so much fun up there.

[markbernstein.livejournal.com]

I absolutely loved the speech. She said exactly what needed to be said. And "Were you in it for me, or for them?" was, I think, the best possible approach to swaying her supporters. (I do kind of wish, in retrospect, that she'd taking a moment to unequivocally say that Obama is qualified to be commander in chief, thus closing off the Fox gasbags' main line of attack, but that's a small quibble.)

But when I turned off the TV, I was angry. Why? Because after the speech, I was checking out the post-speech reporting, clicked to CNN, and watched this. I'm sorry, but I'm really having trouble understanding this. How can a committed, lifelong Democrat even begin to believe that this country wouldn't be better off with Obama winning than McCain? How can anyone not understand that a Democrat who doesn't vote for anyone is helping McCain?

If there are a lot like her, and they don't come around, that's a big problem. (And if there's anyone out there who agrees with that delegate, please step forward and join the discussion. I really want to hear from you, and try to understand what Obama needs to do to convince you.)

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

Hint: Anyone who begins a pro-GOP tirade with, "As a lifelong Democrat, I have to say..." has never voted Democrat in her life.

I'm astonished that McCain's fake "hardcore Hillary supporters" are fooling anybody. Then again, the media is going to the mat to prop them up as "lifelong Democrats", so shame on them more than anything.

[unclelumpy.livejournal.com]

I left a comment on her blog;

"We are drowning... And you refuse to grab on to the life-saver because it's not made of entirely organic materials."

What would it take to convince me...

[loriruadh.livejournal.com]

Well, I agree with the lady. And my candidate WASN'T Clinton, it was Edwards.

What would it take to make me happy to vote for Obama:

An apology for his vote on FISA, and a promise (sworn on a Bible) that he would ask Congress to rescind the current FISA, Patriot and Protect America Acts.

He immediately adopts Edward's Health Care Plan.

IMHO, Obama should have chosen Hillary for VP. As to what to do with Bill, simple, appoint him to the Supreme Court when a seat becomes available...

Re: What would it take to convince me...

[markbernstein.livejournal.com]

I've had some interaction with the folks over on the Shakesville thread, and I do understand a little better now. But I haven't changed my mind. I supported Edwards as well. I know that Obama's far from perfect. I'm as pissed about the FISA vote as anyone, and I agree that of the three major Democratic candidates, he had the weakest health care plan.

But I still maintain that in every single regard, Obama would be better for this country than McCain. And as someone living in a swing state, I worry about every vote that doesn't go to Obama.

Re: What would it take to convince me...

[loriruadh.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'll vote for Obama...but I lost all enthusiasm for the campaign after his FISA vote. I had been looking forward to supporting the Democratic candidate, no matter which one won the nomination.

Now my support will consist of "why folks shouldn't vote for McCain," rather than "this is why you should vote for Obama." The money I would have donated to Obama's campaign went to the ACLU.

I'm just tired and disillusioned with the whole thing.

[gypsylady.livejournal.com]

I loved that speech. I could support her in 2016. She proved she knows what needs to be done.

Bill Kristol, otoh.... Oh, my, he proves to be more of a moron every time he opens his mouth. (I was only going to post the link but all I can find on my clipboard is the embed code. Sorry for cluttering up your comments with an asshole spouting bullshit.)

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Why not? I do all the time. Often, the asshole spouting bullshit is me. :)

It's Kristol. William The Bloody. He's a fucking warmonger, a debased smarmy smug sniggering liar, he has been wrong about pretty much every goddamn thing for years and years, and he's still a mainstay at Faux Noise, he's got a column in the NY Times, he's regarded as an Expert and a Very Serious Person. He is the poster child for everything that is wrong with the punditry.

[gypsylady.livejournal.com]

That explains Kristol, of course, but what can explain Craig Crawford (http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/08/no-personal-touch-in-clintons.html) and his apparent belief that Clinton needed to become a different person in order to con her supporteres into voting for Obama? She is who she is and it was very much her that was delivering a hellfire and wonderment speech last night. It wasn't warm and fuzzy. SHE isn't warm and fuzzy. They have Chelsea for that...

[connor-campbell.livejournal.com]

Chelsea warm and fuzzy? i think i better not comment on that one...

The very distorted spin the media put on this whole situation...

[sepdet.livejournal.com]

I've got an articulate co-Mawrtyr (read: graduate of Bryn Mawr, where double-X chromosomes and critical thinking are a requirement) who has been following the media spin on Hillary (http://owlmoose.livejournal.com/350381.html) closely, and has picked up some comments from Eric Boehlert that yield an interesting insight into the most recent barrage of distortion:

A woman scorned? (http://owlmoose.livejournal.com/363809.html)

Essentially, the media is determined to demonize Hillary and castrate Obama to the detriment of both, to the point that it's distorting past history as well as the present situation.

(Also eye-opening to me was Wil Wheaton being a twit about all of this (http://owlmoose.livejournal.com/340022.html).)

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

You and I saw the speech differently, alas.

I didn't see Hillary so much endorsing Obama as saying, "We've got to beat McCain, no matter what!" She didn't retract or counter a single thing she said about Obama on the stump- and the Republicans, like the nauseating Kristol, picked up on that straightaway and incorporated it into their talking points.

The way I see it, Hillary positioned herself perfectly. If Obama wins, she can point to last night and say how much she supported him when the time came. If Obama loses, nothing in her speech stands in the way of her saying, "I told you so! He wasn't ready and we lost- now you HAVE to vote for me in 2012!"

As for her followers... I found this post on the Field, hardly a right-wing blog, intriguing, especially the part where the author notes that former Clinton supporters who intend to vote McCain think McCain is pro-choice... sounds like it's long past time for the Obama campaign to begin tearing down the illusion of the "renegade Republican."