Is Hillary going to self destruct ???

[rapunzel]

I love you, too. You may find this difficult to believe based on your guess as to my news sources, but I try to listen to all sides, and on average, listen to more npr, than talk radio. It is really difficult to hear much on the left side of things, by tuning into the radio. The shows are non-existent in our local area. NPR has a small bit of news from that angle. I try to catch the BBC news hour at night, but don't always listen in. Without cable, I don't get Fox, Fox News, CNN, nor MSNBC. I am limited to somewhat left CBS, NBC, ABC, and the mostly neutral PBS.

As for the bigot comment, I'm glad you clarified your statement. I am far from a bigot. My comment comes from the perspective that Obama is very likable as a person, and Hillary is very repulsive.

Regarding who is the most left, that remains to be seen. I may have misunderstood the part you mentioned about Hillary, "she is not quite as willing to increase taxes on corporations." I thought I heard Hillary in a recent speech stating that the oil companies make too many profits and that she wants the Federal Gov't to take away/limit their profits.

I apologize for making assumptions about your news sources. The bits of news I caught yesterday included some hand-wringing from liberals on Obama's centrist views and willingness to embrace bipartisanship, but the conservative talk radio guys turned on a dime from bashing Hillary to this sort of crap (talking about Obama's speech after Iowa--

"Wasn't that cool? Wasn't that amazing? Wasn't that uplifting? Wasn't that just . . . totally wrong?" Limbaugh asked after playing a clip from Obama's speech. "What was that an appeal for? 'Red state America, blue states, we're the United States.' Yes, that means, the codeword there is: bipartisanship. We have to stop the partisan rancor. . . . Folks, when you hear anybody -- and this gets back to basic conservatism 101 -- when you hear anybody, I don't care if it's a Republican or a Democrat start talking about 'ending bipartisan,' red flags ought to go up left and right. Partisanship is ideal. Partisanship is crucial. Partisanship is based in ideals and principles, and people who hold those principles dear and are loyal to them will not compromise them. Partisanship founded the country; partisanship propels the country. What we do not need is an end to partisanship. If we finally come up with this notion of bipartisanship across the board and the country's unified, one of two things is actually going to have happened. One side is going to have lost. So the question is, 'Who wins?' The question is victory, not bipartisanship. I would love the bipartisanship of liberalism as a 20 percent body of thought in this country. I could live with that kind of bipartisanship. The idea is to defeat them! Liberalism poses threats and dangers to this country, and your economic security, and your economic future. Liberals are to be defeated, not to be gotten along with. It's the nature of American politics."​

And then there were a few tirades about Democrats being a bunch of mindless lemmings and supporting Obama because he's doing well.

I am sorry if I took your post to be advancing that sort of viewpoint, since that was not your intent.

I'm just so sick of the rhetoric, the negative drumbeat of fear and despair. It depresses me how many people are influenced by this propaganda that is not backed up by facts or logic. I felt I had to point out that Obama is the least liberal of the D candidates.

And, um, the news sources...that's just sad. I can't even make myself watch PBS news. Have you tried streaming BBC news? That might be an option -- although I've been cringing at British coverage of the election all morning.

 

[Mango]

Why don't we stop playing the race card while we're at it too. You claim to be so proud that people are looking beyond the fact that the man is half black, half white.

Maybe you should be telling Gloria Steinem to stop playing the race card.

In her desperate support of Hillary in an op-ed in the New York Times today she writes: "because racism stereotyped black men as more ?masculine? for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren?t too many of them); and because there is still no ?right? way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what."

Edward Morrissey says it best:
"Hillary had a lot of advantages coming into this race, something Steinem fails to mention. Besides the identity politics angle Steinem pursued, she had a lot of goodwill left over in the party from her husband's administration, a big political machine waiting for her, and money raining all over her for a year. At some point, however, Hillary had to show that she was the best candidate for the job -- and she's been failing miserably at that task.
Steinem shows everything that's wrong with identity politics. It's crass, it's irrational, it assumes that people should get "turns", and in the end it's anti-democratic. Obama hasn't played that game like Hillary has -- and that may be why Obama's beating Hillary like a bongo drum in Iowa and New Hampshire."

 

[seacrestkristi]

After all it is a big game, isn't it? Mystery is more fuNN than clear cut plans to so many.

 

[rapunzel]

The crying thing yesterday, it didn't strike me as fake. It struck me as someone who has given up so much of her life, compromised so many times, for the promise of the day when it would be her turn, only to realize it's all slipping away. On a personal level, I do feel sorry for her. When you think that on top of the rejection, she is having to deal with the Democratic establishment (aka Clinton machine) up in arms because of all the money they've given her and she's losing. Professional donors see it as an investment to give money, and they are not supportive when things don't go well.

I fear we are writing her obituary prematurely, though. She and Obama are still essentially tied in national polls, and we can't forget that the machine is supporting the Clinton Restoration. Obama and his supporters can swarm Iowa, New Hampshire, and perhaps South Carolina and get his message in front of voters and push the GOTV. Tsunami Tuesday is going to make that sort of grassroots push impossible. The Democratic establishment in all those states will be far more prepared than the Obama organizations. A lot of powerful people have put a lot of money behind Hillary, and they will not give up easily.

Hillary's supporters are demanding that she attack Obama, and that's happening. Her campaign sent out a mailer stating he is "unwilling to take a stand on choice." NARAL is now calling 82,000 pro-choice Independent voters in New Hampshire with a message from NARAL president Nancy Keenan: "All the Democratic candidates running for president are pro-choice and will support and defend a woman's right to choose."

There are also calls for Mark Penn's head, and reports that Bill Clinton has been in contact with James Carville, and Carville has agreed to come on board if they get rid of Penn. (If Bill Clinton brings in his old guard to save Hillary's campaign, how can we pretend that she is anything more than a figurehead rather than a feminist?) Carville is good at what he does, and he knows how to crank up the machine. Is he good enough to bring Obama down?

 

[Smiling JOe]

Punzy, Apology accepted. Thank you.

I didn't even realize that Rush was still on the air. They don't even play him on the talk channels around here. Rush is an entertainer at best. I do listen to his son, Sean Hannity, every once in a while. I say his son, because Sean can be a real fruit cake, often focusing on one thing, taken out of context. So, I also think of him more as a pudding stick (reference to the days of the outhouse -- I'll let you guess what a pudding stick is used for). Some days when I listen, he just annoys me and I change the station.

Yes, my current TV selection is crap, but it wasn't much better with Cable. I do miss C-Span. This morning, I was listening to Diane Rheeme's discuss politics, and I thought she was never going to get the question out. The BBC broadcasts over the PBS TV station sometimes, as well as on NPR. Back in the days when I had highspeed cable, I streamlined most of my news. Now, I don't even click on the youtube videos, because it takes forever for them to download. Most of the news I get today comes from reading online papers.

I think we are all tired of the rhetoric and distractions of the candidates. It is a political race, so I guess we won't be changing their tactics.

I believe your quote of Rush Limbaugh mentioned that some people would fall into Obama's camp just because he is popular. I would agree with that. Not all people really care about the election (Surprise!), and people in general do tend to follow the masses. Look no further than the stock market and real estate trends, and you will see more proof of this idea. It doesn't mean that many of Obama's crew aren't sophisticated and knowledgeable, and are with him because they think he is the best candidate. Sure, there are some smart and concerned people in the US, but have you really looked around the country at the people in general? Those people I describe are out there. I wouldn't even go so far to say they are dumb, but they have the cattle mentality. It's human.

 

[scooterbug44]

I don't think Hilary losing the nomination or (god forbid) the presidential race means the end of her political career.

IMO she will have a long career as a Senator as her talents seem better suited to that job.

 

[Smiling JOe]

...When you think that on top of the rejection, she is having to deal with the Democratic establishment (aka Clinton machine) up in arms because of all the money they've given her and she's losing. Professional donors see it as an investment to give money, and they are not supportive when things don't go well.

I fear we are writing her obituary prematurely, though. ...A lot of powerful people have put a lot of money behind Hillary, and they will not give up easily.

Hillary's supporters are demanding that she attack Obama, and that's happening. Her campaign sent out a mailer stating he is "unwilling to take a stand on choice." NARAL is now calling 82,000 pro-choice Independent voters in New Hampshire with a message from NARAL president Nancy Keenan: "All the Democratic candidates running for president are pro-choice and will support and defend a woman's right to choose." ...

According to what I've heard, somewhere between 1-3% of voters are showing up at the Caucuses. So you may be spot-on about her obituary being premature. I'm not sure that the popular vote really matters anyway.

I'll say this one statement about the issue of abortion. Whether or not one is for or against it, and even if Roe V Wade is overturned and abortion suddenly becomes illegal, women who want to have an abortion will do it, and the legal aspects of abortion would only affect the health and safety of the would-be-mother. Congress (both houses) know this health/safety issue is out there, and they will do what they can to protect the life and health of the would be mother. (sounds strange since they don't fight as hard for the life of the unborn child, but I think it to be true.) Making alcohol illegal only changed the vendor of alcohol and the health of the drinker, as many moonshiners didn't know what they were doing and gave people ethyl alcohol and lead poisoning. Making abortion illegal, will change only the vendor of abortions, and perhaps put more would-be-mothers' lives in harms way. To put the legality of abortion in the top five list of important issues in a Presidential election, IMO, is just wrong.

 

[goofer]

PUDDING STICK

I now have a great put down for my NY friends !!! And they won't even know what the hell it means !!

 

[rapunzel]

According to what I've heard, somewhere between 1-3% of voters are showing up at the Caucuses. So you may be spot-on about her obituary being premature. I'm not sure that the popular vote really matters anyway.

I'll say this one statement about the issue of abortion. Whether or not one is for or against it, and even if Roe V Wade is overturned and abortion suddenly becomes illegal, women who want to have an abortion will do it, and the legal aspects of abortion would only affect the health and safety of the would-be-mother. Congress (both houses) know this health/safety issue is out there, and they will do what they can to protect the life and health of the would be mother. (sounds strange since they don't fight as hard for the life of the unborn child, but I think it to be true.) Making alcohol illegal only changed the vendor of alcohol and the health of the drinker, as many moonshiners didn't know what they were doing and gave people ethyl alcohol and lead poisoning. Making abortion illegal, will change only the vendor of abortions, and perhaps put more would-be-mothers' lives in harms way. To put the legality of abortion in the top five list of important issues in a Presidential election, IMO, is just wrong.

I couldn't agree more with that last sentence. It makes me sick to think of all the important issues the Supreme Court deals with that directly effect all of our lives, but the only issue anyone seems to care about is a SC nominee's view on Roe v Wade.

I bring up the abortion mailer to point out the Rovian tactics of the whole thing.

 

[scooterbug44]

Congress (both houses) know this health/safety issue is out there, and they will do what they can to protect the life and health of the would be mother. To put the legality of abortion in the top five list of important issues in a Presidential election, IMO, is just wrong.

I don't think abortion should be the litmus test, but when politicians start legislating your medical rights, it definitely becomes a factor. Usually when you start exploring their position on that issue it reveals a lot about that candidate and how they feel about a variety of issues.

The issues of foreign policy, immigration and the economy are definitely much more important.