If Hillary only has one flaw…

By VA Blogger

it’s that she cares too much [pause to wipe tear].

From the American Prospect’s Ezra Klein, Hillary Clinton is now calling on her fellow potential nominees to re-instate the delegates from Michigan and Florida that were stripped by the DNC when they violated their rules and moved their primary ahead of the 2/5 limit.

I hear all the time from people in Florida and Michigan that they want their voices heard in selecting the Democratic nominee.

I believe our nominee will need the enthusiastic support of Democrats in these states to win the general election, and so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan.

Of course, I’m sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Obama and Edwards weren’t even on the Michigan ballot, and are prohibited by the DNC from campaigning in Florida, where Hillary has had a lead since last January, preventing them from duplicating the kind of success they had in Iowa and (soon-to-be) in South Carolina.

You have to wonder if, at a certain point, Hillary just gave up at trying not to appear craven, and how gullible the people are who believe that Hillary has anyone’s interests other than her own in mind.


Comments

  • I totally saw this coming. She really is shameless.

  • Shelby Wallace says:

    Obama is too inexperienced + he is percieved as a black man (although half-white…which no one ever mentions…I wonder about that!?!?) Mc Cain is too old. Romney is a Mormon. Huck is a Preacher. Paul is, well…Paul. Rudy is, well, Rudy. The general electorate is not going to vote for any of them for those simple-minded reasons above all others, Period.
    In the end, Hillary is the only candidate on either side who has any chance at winning both the Democrat nom (relatively easy, all things considered!) , and the general election. She is smart (idiologically moronic!!) , has a solid and ruthless organization, zillions in the bank (personal and backers!) she has Bill (!?&&@*&^!?) and she has all (rpt)all the females and all (rpt) all the blacks and all (rpt) all the hispanics, both legal and illegal, and all forms/fashions of lib-er-aaals!! and intel-ecketualls!! . In other words, prepare yourselves for the greatest political disaster/train wreck since Jimmy Carter…maybe worse, as a matter of fact.

  • Git er right says:

    You got it right.

  • The thought of these two back in the White House is enough to drive me back to the UK, well, almost.
    Don’t give up on the Republicans just yet. A whole lot of people really dislike and distrust the Clintons. Let’s not forget their shinannigans (sp?) when they were there before. How soon the public forgets.

  • malcolm says:

    I agree that Hillary is divisive, vicious, poll-driven and shameless. But also smart, well-healed, politically savvy and well-connected so that her nomination is difficult to prevent. Bill helps her with the Democratic stalwarts, but won’t his own increasingly obvious petty politics and shamelessness hurt her? Then there’s his (and apparently having been shared, her) weak foreign policy record — ignoring Rwanda, appallingly late in Bosnia, and our heroic bombing of the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan after the Dar & Nairobi embassy bombings. Won’t voters reject a likely co presidency of competing WH staffs? See Colbert King in the Post today.

    Obama is, as I see it, more fittingly and more courageously experienced than Hillary in local, state and national politics, and smart as well as eloquent. (After 8 years of Bush-speak might not Hillary bore us to tears?). He’s the most pragmatic of candidates, and as his factual observations about Reagan’s influence attest, among other things, he’s the most likely of any candidate in either party, with the possible exception of McCain, to be inclusive in his governing.

    As for McCain, he may be old, but he has the best chance to swing Independents his way against Hillary (if the Republican Party would truly embrace conservatism over radicalism), and what’s the matter with a single term, for a change?

  • 10 feet tall and Bulletproof says:

    Malcolm…oddly, we are on the same page. I don’t think McCain is a SOLID conservative, but I do think he’s the one republican who will court that precious middle ground that makes or breaks.
    I heard from an awful lot of democrats who dislike Hillary. If they do vote for hewr, they’ll be holding their noses.

  • I know a few Ds that would vote McCain over Clinton. Just saying that it is a dynamic out there right now. Not to mention the Independents.

    But it’s still so early.

    I will say this: I thought Obama’s speech in Iowa would be hard for him to top. He topped it tonight. The man can deliver a speech that has a depth to it, but also a plain-spoken quality.

    He bashed the Clinton’s (and it is a two-person thing now) and did it with “the future”. A brilliant formulation.

  • VA Blogger says:

    While I understand and to a certain extent appreciate the differences some conservatives have with John McCain, on my top four issues he’s dead-on:

    1) National Security/foreign policy

    2) Free Trade

    3) Fiscal Responsibility

    4) Abortion

    I’d gladly vote for him over any Democrat.

  • malcolm says:

    I agree; Obama hit another home run last night. And S.C. has come a long way since Thurmond!

    See Frank Rich, in today’s NY Times, who nicely poses the considerable risks to Democrats from running the Billary ticket — risks Obama alluded to last night. But they’re powerful, sleaze-infested liabilities that McCain would be superbly and best suited to articulate in a Presidential campaign.

  • laurav says:

    I don’t see any viable candidate who is “right” on every issue. It seems as though we will all have to hold our noses to some extent. McCain is on track on on the issue of primary importance to me (I’ll let you guess which issue that is), and he certainly bodes well for bi-partisanship, but Romney bodes well for the economy, which is the glue that keeps everything together. They both make me want to puke on social issues. Still, my scale tips to McCain for being the most electable.

    Clinton is a horriffic possibility, in terms of character we could do no worse. The woman is despicable. On the other hand I am not at all comfortable with many of Obama’s ideas.

    In the end, regardless of the outcome, we all have a responsibilty to be vigilant and to hold Congress accountable to the people, after all they will have much to do with these issues as the President will.

  • G. Stone says:

    Again, LauraV and I find some agreement.
    We will all have to hold our noses and vote for McCain. Hell , even his own mother admits 1/2 the party dislikes him. Mom, you are right.

    A Clinton presidency will be an absolute train wreck. Her ability to damage the country is endless.

    One question, Barack Obama has ideas ? The only ideas this guy has are re-cycled socialist nonsense. Obama is the most attractive empty suit in current American politics.

  • 10 feet tall and Bulletproof says:

    Laura, I’m in the habit of pointing out the times when we agree somewhat. They are few and far between, so relish the moment.
    My only three concerns are:
    Not cutting from the security issue in Iraq, since the action seems to have turned in our favor (albeit I’d like to see the Government of Iraq start positively engaging the rule of their country- past the fact that we’ve handed over 10 of 19 areas to their control)
    I fully support McCain on tax cuts BOLSTERED BY REIGNING IN SPENDING
    And I’m really dissapointed in his perceived direction on the Border. We need to shut it down (to suplement his stance on National Security) and start identifying those who are here illegally, and offer them a worker visa. That way you do not interrupt their earnings, or work that they supply, but you have a much clearer picture about who is here, and all without needing to jack our tax bills to give them CITIZEN’s RIGHTS.

  • I guarantee that if Obama gets the Dem nomination Billary will quietly work against him, thinking they will be set to capitalize in the next election. “See, we told you Obama couldn’t win, you should have went with Hillary”.

    As far as McCain goes, I am scared to death that the wingnuts will sit it out and let the Dems take it, once again showing their my way or the highway mentality. To paraphrase Paul Protic, “we may not win, but we’ll be pure”. How short-sighted.

    This next president will appoint AT LEAST two SCOTUS justices. These will be absolutely huge appointments that will affect public policy and governance for at least 20 years. While McCain may not pick Scalia-types, I guarantee his picks will be much more palatable than anything HIllary or Obama would put up. Can you just imagine Janet Reno on the SCOTUS?

  • Malcolm says:

    Obama taught Constitutional Law at U. of Chicago Law School, which I can assure you is as sober and balanced an intellectual environment of legal thinkers as you’ll find, and influenced without question by the Milton Friedman economic philosophy. It’s never considered as “liberal” as Yale. Nothing, in my book, better bespeaks his intellect and policy substance that comes out clearly in speaches and interviews. (Spare us the empty suit bit!) He’d appoint Supremes as balanced and non ideological as any true conservative could wish, due to his Constitutional philosophy and to his understanding the need for political cohensian in this country, neither of which Hillary comprehends or exemplifies. But he’s unlikely to make wing-nuts happy on either side.

    McCain strikes me as likely to follow a similarly pragmatic course.

  • Malcolm says:

    sorry, that’s “speeches.” I grow peaches.

  • G. Stone says:

    LI
    Make no mistake if Hillary is the Dems choice that is all the motivation Conservatives will need. Our dislike of Hill & Bill far out weighs our mistrust of McCain. Although, mistrust of McCain is real, very real.
    I share your concern regarding the US Supreme Court. My way of thinking this is issue #1.

  • RichmondDem says:

    Make no mistake–the vast majority will strongly support whoever the nominee is. Many of us have issues with the Clintons, but they pale when it comes to the thought of having another George W. Bush Republican run the country for the next four years.

  • G. Stone says:

    Malcolm:
    With all due respect, the fact that Obama taught at an institution with such an esteemed reputation is no guarantee he knows how to run a country. If Friedman’s influence meant anything to him, I suggest he would promoting supply side economics and the glory of the Reagan Revolution. He certainly would not be a devoutly liberal member of a political party forever lurching further to the left.
    To suggest this candidates pitch for change is anything other than re packaged leftist dogma works only on those who have not been paying attention for the last 5 or 6 decades.

  • laurav says:

    10 ft. in the spirit of agreement I would say that you are spot on. The border must be closed to the greatest extent possible so that the only viable solution to the problem of the 13 million or so undocumented currently living and working will be palatable to a majority of the American public. It seems like we may even agree to what that solution is. However, don’t get tricked into believing that McCain does want to secure the border, even if he has argued against a fence. Securing the border requires a much more concerted and comprehensive approach than a mere fence. After all, don’t we already have the problems of tunnels? McCain offers a comprehensive, multifaceted approach that will never be accepted by the outspoken (but certainly not majority) who will accept nothing less than “send them all home.”
    I agree with LI and G. Stone that the Supreme Court appointees will be important. I worry about the social issues but I could live with a send it to the states approach.

  • Stone, no one left of the John Birch Society is going to satisfy you. When was the last time you didn’t hold your nose to vote (in the last 5 or 6 decades)?

    I’m betting eight years ago you voted for the guy with no foreign affairs experience, the executive of a state whose governor needs only work part-time, and the fellow who ran two businesses into the ground.

    If you’re going to argue the experience issue, your own decision tree may need pruning.

    It would be helpful to me if you could produce three liberal positions that Obama has championed. I’m not saying there aren’t any, it would just help me better evaluate the candidate. Thanks in advance.

  • Tom Conway says:

    The think that disturbs me the most (recently) about Billary is the using of the race card. If a Republican used this against another Republican or a Democrat, the press would be screaming bloody murder. The press, while covering the issue, let Billary walk on a technicality (i.e. what the definition of “is” is).

    The Clintons’ have no sense of loyalty or decency. Supporters are merely pawns to be thrown aside when they outlive their usefulness. Truth is maleable like fresh clay, not firm like the marble and granite that is found on the National Mall or Arlington Cemetary. Power is an end which justifies all means necessary. The Presidency is an entitlement.

    The Billary remarks about LBJ vs. MLK were outrageous. MLK generated the moral and political groundswell which forced the hand of the Southern Democrat LBJ and Congress. Without the effective non-violent political and economic protests motivated by MLK, Jim Crow would have lasted much longer. Compare and contrast the recent remarks of Billary with Phyllis Randell’s remarks on MLK Day. Obama also speaks to such individual responsibility.

    If you think about it, MLK and Ronald Reagan had some major similarities. Both believed deeply in the ideals and promise of the United States, and pushed us to live up to them. Both strived for a day where color was not a determinent of individual progress. And both refused to back down when many others told them they had zero chance of succeeding in their quests.

    Obama could very well become the President Colin Powell could have been but chose not to be.

  • 10 feet tall and Bulletproof says:

    Democrat Powerhouse Ted Kennedy endorses Obama!!!!
    I’m waiting for her to lose all reason and whip out her claws before they whisk her off the stage to hide them….

  • malcolm says:

    Question: Given the speed with which highly divisive partisanship developed soon after Clinton became President in 1993, is there a promising difference today if Obama should be elected? Is the climate different, are the candidates sufficiently different, and the needs and issues sufficiently serious to foster greater bi-partisanship in addressing some of our major problems? My sense is yes — that Obama doesn’t carry the baggage of Clinton. But I’m curious about what others think (unless this particular blog has already run its course).

  • Malcolm, you can probably guess what I think, unless you’ve already read it on some of the earlier caucus and primary threads.

    I think Obama could build a governing coalition.

    I really doubt if Clinton can or wants to. The Clinton’s seem to be the D version of the Rovian 50 +1 doctrine.

    I’ve mentioned before how I think Obama has the rhetorical skills and temperament to rise above the political noise in much the same way Reagan was able to accomplish (and I said this before Obama mentioned Reagan by the way…).

    It should be clear to many now that Obama has an appeal to some Rs (dare I call them Obama Republicans?) I think it is born of a weariness, of the lack of true debate and deficit of American optimism. I think many Rs see Obama as an acceptable head of state — many don’t agree with policy, but do see advantages in him in that role.

    I will say this: we are one “event” away from falling back into our primal tendencies, our fears, and our knee-jerk impulses. The environment in which the message Obama nurtures — hope and optimism — can disappear with astonishing swiftness. Sadly.

  • Malcolm says:

    Well said and sadly observed, from one who lived through in the 60s. My father always observed, “there is no justice.” But hope, and working for hope need never be quenched. Obama has tapped a spirit not seen since the 60s and even then not with greater optimism.

    I hope on future blog topics of TC_ expecting this one to disappear soon — we can hear how traditionally “died in the wool” Republicans perceive Obama’s open-mindedness, because I hope, and believe, he’s truly open to Republican ideas. David Brooks, and even George Will, appear to think so. I’m not expecting conversion here at home from Mr. Stone, but that would be nice! And I’m optimistic about 10 ft.

  • Not to be to too cynical, but I wonder at times if Brooks and Will are really just hedging — betting that Clinton will eventually win and, as I’ve read elsewhere “they can then lament that once again the Democratic Party has let them down and given them no choice but to vote Republican.”

  • 10 feet tall and Bulletproof says:

    Malcolm…with all due respect (and there is plenty here- trust me) I will vote for the party that keeps the fight to Al Queda. My nephew will not have died in vain. He died for something that he had a passion for… seeing oppressed people given the opportunity to live free. 10 out of 19 total provinces have stepped up and taken that load off of the Coalition forces. I’m optimistic that given time to complete the other 9 provinces, it will happen.

    McCain doesn’t warm me over, but he’s the devil I know. I’m just having too much fun watching Hillary and Bill wallow in their “entitlement” pit. I think every American ought to see her as she really is…and Obama will bring that out in her, even as she spites herself.

  • No one dies in vain in the service of our country.

  • malcolm says:

    10 ft, I too would never support a candidate who did not honor those who died for our country, as your nephew sadly did, or who did not support troops in combat. But Iraq remains a controversial war, as was 1812 (when New England discussed secession), the Mexican War, and Vietnam.

    I do not see any “right” solution to what we now do there, because the surge may only put a temporary, if welcome, cover over a boiling cauldron of animosity. Obama didn’t favor going into Iraq but has said we should be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. I’m not sure we can know what that will mean because we don”t know what 09 conditions might be. But neither does McCain know.

    Obama believes that Afghanistan has been and remains the most critical part of the war against Al Queda, and he’s said the same about the lawless parts of Pakistan, where, on actionable intelligence he’d go in to protect the US even if, after diplomacy fails, Pres. M. disapproves.

Leave Comment