Let us welcome America's new political family (and what a happy little family it is), the illustrious Clintobamas!
I've been listening to the Democratic National Convention, and I'm struck by the sudden and loving union of the Clintons and Obamas. We've never heard a more deceptive speech from Bill Clinton. (Then again, yes we have: "I didn't inhale," or, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman"). Regardless, how can any former Hillary Clinton supporter actually believe that both Clintons have done a complete about-face and simply accept Barack as part of their family now? I don't have to go into the nasty campaign season, the criticisms of Michelle Obama, the playing of the "race card," and all those other crafty rhetorical tricks that politicians use to support my claim. Everybody knows about that, and I'm not going to insult anyone's intelligence here.
Put simply, the fact that Bill and Hill say they support Obama now, fully and unconditionally, is a contrived lie, and it's only delegitimizing their efforts to unite the party. The American people cannot be so easily manipulated.
The fact that Team Clinton so viciously campaigned against Team Obama, and Obama against Hillary, will harm the Democrats' chances this November. According to a recent Gallup poll, 27% of Hillary's former supporters now plan to vote for John McCain. That is no insignificant number, especially when considering how close the race was. In fact, these Democratic defectors probably account for most of the two point lead that McCain currently enjoys over Obama in the polls. Sure, two points is not significant; in fact, it's within the margin of error. But, the very fact that McCain is shown as winning - for the first time ever - should be very unnerving for Democrats.
In addition, the Clintons are not only lying, they’re playing the waiting game. Hillary is just biding her time at this point. When she took the podium at yesterday's convention speeches, someone in the crowd shouted: "Hillary 2012!" Her thoughts exactly. She's just acting nice and supportive, all supposedly in the name of party unity, so that she'll have one more chance to seize the throne and reinstate the Clinton Dynasty in the next election. You simply can't get a sincere action out of that woman (maybe she'll start crying again...).
We shall wait and see if the Clintons' speeches actually convinced any of Hillary's discontented supporters to vote for Obama. Still, there's little chance that the uneasy union of the Clintobamas will effectively rally Democrats and propel Obama into the Whitehouse. Beneath the glitter and dancing and sloganeering of the Convention, the Clintons are being dishonest and unenthusiastic.
Perhaps Mr. Barack Obama should look into a divorce. He can cite infidelity and irreconcilable differences.
Personally, I was wondering what would have happened if the roll call had continued and some superdelegates who had pledged to Obama had flipped to Hillary. I know it's improbable, but it would have been interesting to see if the roll call would have continued until the bloody end, one last hope for her to pull the rug out from under Obama.
I think they fully support Obama because they feel he's a weak candidate and they hope they have four more years of a Republican in office so they can ride in on their white horse in 2012 and say, "If you had voted for me last time....." and hope enough people are disenchanted that she will be able to become the first female president.
I'm all for a female in office IF it's the right one! Hillary Clinton is NOT the woman I want my daughter reading about in history books!
but the following:
"I think they fully support Obama because they feel he's a weak candidate and they hope they have four more years of a Republican in office so they can ride in on their white horse in 2012 and say, "If you had voted for me last time....." and hope enough people are disenchanted that she will be able to become the first female president."
is almost an exact quote of what Pat Buchanan has been saying. I don't put much stock in what Pat Buchanan says, personally. I think he's kind of a nut job.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Normally, I wouldn't agree with much of what Pat Buchanan says, but if he is also saying this, then I do agree with him. How long has it been since Bill got a cut in on Obama and then tried to back-pedal? Has it been 24 hours?
For them to be so sacharine sweet about their love and devotion for Obama is deceptive and I truly feel they're doing it for their own gain. Those who are gullible enough to believe them will see this as a noble move.
because they are not devoted to Obama. They are devoted to the ideals of the Democratic Party, and Obama is the chosen representative of that party. We have to remember that these people are not just individuals. They are representatives of many individuals. That means setting their own feelings aside for the good of their constituents sometimes. Which Hillary is better at than Bill is.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I've heard the speculation regarding Hillary staging a coup at the convention, but if it had failed, her political career, and perhaps even her daughter's, would be finished. Even if she had succeeded in stealing the nomination, she would be viewed as a cheat and a cutthroat by Obama's supporters, and would have handed the election to the Republicans anyway. She knew she had no other option, so she wisely decided to wait things out.
You bring up an interesting possibility about Clinton returning in four years after a (potentially) disastrous Obama/McCain presidency. There are some conservatives who hope for something similar: they want Obama to be elected so that in four years Republican credibility can be restored and they can retake the Whitehouse (assuming Obama is a failure, that is).
Will Clinton get a cabinet post in the (potential) Obama administration? I doubt it. I truly think he will try to ostracize her, because he's suspicious of her, and quite frankly afraid.
So basically, I agree with you. We have certainly not seen the last of a Hillary Clinton presidential candidacy.
Hillary Clinton is NOT the woman I want my daughter reading about in history books!
And I could not have said it better myself. AMEN!
~T
A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins. ~Benjamin Franklin
The same thought crossed my mind to!! :D
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can't ignore me, for I'll not lie down quietly.
http://insanitek.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Guess I see things a little different I did not see a happy Clinton bring anything to the table. She did not bash McCain and she did not praise Obama. I see this as she knows she is done I do not think she will get re elected to the Senate again. Obama made a bad choice in Biden he will cost the election for Obama. Also McCain is the nice guy he is calmly waiting for the Democrats to finish their convention before he tells us who his VP will be. Also the fact that McCain is up in the after the Dem convention is not a good sign for Obama. I hope that McCain makes a smart choice and chooses Rice to be his VP that would make a great ticket I could see a lot of Hilary supports vote for that ticket regardless of what the Democrats have to say to try and bring them back.
I only say that because many people have said the McCain's VP is more important then Obama's because McCain may die in office (of natural causes) and his VP will be the next president.
Ala in all I think that the Convention was a complete and utter failure.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Having been poor is no shame, but being ashamed of it, is. Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richards Almanack, 1749
Interesting that you think Hillary won't even be able to win her Senate seat again. I didn't think that her failure of a campaign and the Convention would affect her that badly. We'll see what happens; anything's possible.
As for the Convention (which I'm listening to at this very moment), it's more of a pep rally turned dance party than a meaningful political gathering. Of course, that's not the Democrats' fault; all political conventions are like that nowadays. The nomination convention has just become a formality, and isn't nearly as important as CNN and the rest of the media make it out to be.
At one point I was hoping Rice would be McCain's VP, but she's already made explicitly clear that she does not want the job. At this point, I've heard McCain has made his VP choice; it just won't be made public for a few days. I'm almost sure it will be Romney, and I'm not particularly thrilled about that.
It comes down to a common denominator that can rival the McCain that has, this year, taken up many of the same issues that Bush 43 has for the past eight. I'm not surprised that they are attempting to "Charade" (you might say) the public into supporting a strong candidate for President.
Do you think that when the two stand up at the (mock)debates this October, Clinton's supporters won't see a significant difference?
my documentary...
Wanna smile on the spot?
McCain isn't quite as like Bush as many are making him out to be. From the outside, to liberals, he certainly appears similar. But many conservatives are unhappy with him - unhappy enough to boo him when he appeared before the Conservative Political Action Conference. I've met some diehard Republicans on this very site who despise him. The fact that he supported (and continues to support) Bush's war does not make him 100% the same as Bush, as tempting as it is to claim.
I'm not sure that Hillary's supporters who have joined the McCain camp will ever come back, simply by their political nature. They can probably be classified as working class, but socially conservative, Americans. Reagan Democrats, you can call them, or, as they're called in Pennsylvania, Casey Democrats (fiscally liberal, socially conservative). Obama does not have as strong an appeal for that demographic.
Obviously, I'm no liberal, and no fan of Obama, but I'm not much of a McCain fan either (thanks in part to some people moderating a few of my views, you, believe it or not, being one of them). Regardless, to me, he represents the best compromise. I can't speak for that 27% of Hillary's supporters who've defected, but perhaps they too employ this rationale.
I didn't know those working class Democrats came in so many flavors.
For the record, he's pro-occupation.
He's pro-offshore drilling. Thinks it'll lower gas prices soon.
He's pro-market based solutions to climate change (ooo radically different!)
He's pro-upper class.
He's pro-nuclear.
He's pro-bloated defense budget.
He favors an antagonistic foreign policy that we've seen in the past administration.
You're spot on that the type of conservatives that dug Bush don't favor him as much. But does that mean that his his policies are radically different like you suggest? If they were looking for a fiscally conservative candidate, you know they would have started the Ron Paul Revolution. I've heard it for a year--the Republican Party just had a poor set of candidates. Who do you think he will nominate as VP? Someone young? A Quail?
my documentary...
Wanna smile on the spot?
There are so many "flavors" in every voting demographic, putting even Ben and Jerry's to shame. We all have our own personal political philosophies, but they rarely coincide fully with a major party's platform. The rigidity of the two-party system forces us all to compromise and vote for a candidate with whom we don't completely agree.
I'm also not saying that McCain is "radically" different than Bush, but any claim of a "third Bush term" is deceitful.
I'm shocked that Palin got the VP slot. Pretty obvious that it's a strategic move to assure McCain keeps Hillary's former supporters. Palin has less experience even than Obama. So, she's strategically beneficial, but probably a low quality candidate.