-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/02/hillary-is-trying-to-sabotage-obama-in-november/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
You are better than me, Jack.
I can hate her easily.
What saddens me is that I would have never said any of those things a year ago. She is my junior senator and I admired her for being a strong woman and what I thought to be a good politican. I am now seeing a different side of Hillary that I dont like and its more than unfortunate...its a disgrace. With her we won't be a city on a hill, we will be a city in a ditch!!
She should catch a lot of flack for this. It's not funny. And, quite frankly, I don't need a president who dismisses "hope" so easily.
Is there any way that you could post it on this site?
She is being really childish!
Hillary's tone is defiant now, because she knows the nomination is slip sliding away and that uppity negra is the cause of it!
His message is in my words that Hillary would rather have a Republican win this year so she can become Queen in 2012. Get it.......!!! She will continue to campaign as though she can win but over all help the Repubs diminish Sen. Obama....in other words... if she isn't the Democratic nominee, there will not be a Democratic president in 2009.
Hillary doesn't care about the country, she cares most about living in the White House again.
What a shallow shallow person.
If she ran in 2012, she'd have 4 supporters--herself, Bill, Chelsea, and Mark Penn. Nada after that.
I don't think Obama is going to lose. But if he did, I think it'd be Gore in 2012, or if not him then Sebelius, but no way on Clinton. Anyway, I don't think it matters. Obama is going to be running for re-election in 2012.
We on this blog can debate all day long about her tactics and shrill voice and yada yada yada.
What counts is what the average jane and joe hear last and what resonates with them.
We cannot take anything for granted. We cannot assume that just because Sen. Obama is doing well now that he will succeed.
They want Obama to lose as well. If they can't have it, no Democrat will.
OOO
From The Daily Dish:
Now, she's sarcastic. And this:
"I'm not asking you to take a leap of faith on me. I’m asking you to look at the record."
The record is that the senator's one single attempt at policy implementation - healthcare reform - was an enormous failure in which her own arrogance, secrecy and paranoia derailed universal healthcare for a decade.
On the most critical foreign policy decision of her career, Iraq, she was disastrously wrong.
And in terms of management experience, she clearly can't run even a campaign half-way competently.
I think she'd be better off asking people to take a leap of faith, don't you?
She is mocking all the people who have attended one of Obama's speeches. "Enough with the big rallies," she said. Is she joking? I stood with 20,000 people in St. Louis to hear Senator Obama and it was the happiest, most polite, most diverse crowd I'd ever seen, at any event, EVER -- and all of us stood and intently listened (no mindless chanting, just a sincere interest to make our country better). I've been angry at Hillary before but now I feel personally insulted. Don't TELL me that my hope is false!
Thorazinetime for Hillary
There is a difference between stating the case for yourself and mocking people. She has mocked his supporters, insulted all the states that have not gone her way, attacked Sen. Obama's character, and used Republican tactics to go after Sen. Obama. I have NEVER seen Sen. Obama attack Sen. Clinton. Give me a break with this.
Well put, anonymous. This is not lighthearted fun at an opponent's expense. This is Glenn Close I'm-gonna-boil-your-pet-rabbit pissed. There's a difference, Nance. One is presidential and the other is mean spirited--and scary, too.
been throwing up MAD posts this weekend. will settle down when i get back to the j-o-b tomorrow. let me know if that's now what yall are tslking about
To let you know I am neutral to this whole presidential Race so I am neither a Hillary Lover or an Obamaholic and yet it would appear I can see clearly than most.
Hillary Clinton's objection to the Obama campaign's mass mailing "distorting" her Universal Health Care agenda was and is considered a Violation of their Fair and Ethical Campaign Agreement that the candidates agreed to in the beginning.
That was and is a blatant Violation, one that Obama publicly agreed to. And even if Obama appologizes for what his campaign did, the damage is done.
She as a right to be angry, its dirt politics from a candidate that is labled Squeeky Clean.
So Clinton didn't support NAFTA? So she's not going to go after a person's wages if s/he doesn't pay into Clinton's health care plan?
What about Clinton putting up a TV ad in Wisconsin that said Obama would not protect Social Security? What about in NH when her campaign sent out mailers to women voters saying Obama wouldn't protect a woman's right to choose?
You're neutral--yeah, right.
It is all planned by her sorry campaign advisors. They think it will work and so does she.
I've never thought that Obama was above reproach. I don't think that of any politician. He is not the next coming of Moses, but nor was Edwards the best thing for poor people.
I never understood why people loved Bill Clinton so much.
Obama is a damn good politician, nothing more, nothing less. I will still have to go work every day. I will still have to raise my son, fight with the school board, put out the trash, etc., etc.
But giving the choices of presidential candidates, he's got my vote.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashoa.htm
Quote: "With a week to go until the Texas and Ohio primaries, stressed Clinton staffers circulated a photo over the weekend of a "dressed" Barack Obama. The photo, taken in 2006, shows the Democrat frontrunner fitted as a Somali Elder, during his visit to Wajir, a rural area in northeastern Kenya."
So - now, not only is he the "black" candidate, he's what? - the "African" candidate? What are they trying to say here?
If nobody seemed to care, then most likely it wasn't mockery.
As expected, the Clintonites are so desparate, that they're deluded themselves into believing that they're going to change people's minds by posing as "neutral observers".
A strong woman does not resort to all the tactics she has pulled out of her arsenal; crying, mocking, yelling shrilly - that's pissing off white women in DC because they feel her 1960s, "I love Lucy" antics are reversing their progress and they're going for Obama in droves.
She need look no further than what happened to girlfriend who challenged Deval Patrick for the state House in Massachusetts and the Patriots saw right through her and elected Patrick in a landslide.
I'm thinking the states she won in the primaries were as a result of early voting and not seeing her for what she was until after she had their votes in her back pocket.
My brother lives in LA - he said that the majority, including Latinos, went for Obama; and the ones who didn't were the ones who voted early and got Buyer's Remorse.
We want a woman POTUS at some point. Just not Hillary. I can think of too many other women who are more qualified, starting with my home Senator, Barbara Boxer.
OMG!?!? The media is actually giving Hillary positive press for her tantrums over the weekend.
I’m not kidding. They’re spinning it as a rallying cry for feminists. Taking lead from Tina Fey’s sketch on SNL, her tantrum is somehow being spun into an ownership of the word, “bi*ch.” You have people on tv talking about the double standards that women face in politics (i.e., men are assertive and women are bi*ches).
Now, I won’t deny that women face double standards. And I know that there is some truth in that analysis. But this is not Jane Doe, this is Hillary Clinton. The media is doing nothing but excusing her behavior.
Guess what, that “double standard” theory doesn’t fly when her opponent has gone out of his way to be as respectful as he possibly can towards her (despite her repeated attacks). I could see if she was running against some sexist prick. But she’s not. Yet she wants to take her anger at the media and re-direct it towards Obama and his success?
Why doesn’t the media focus it’s attention on how disrespectful she has been towards him? She won’t acknowledge his victories; she mocks his message; she scolds his supporters; she calls him an empty suit; she calls his words, “cheap,” and his hope, “false.” The list goes on and on.
I don’t care if she’s a woman, man or whatever . . . when you’re wrong, you’re wrong.
“Shame on you Barack Obama”?!?!?! Who the hell is she to talk to him like he’s some 4 year old? This ain’t pre-school and her condescending attitude is getting real tired, real fast.
Senator Obama is a grown a*s man. He’s just as accomplished as she is, yet she wants to go around the country and call him some naive rookie??? She dismisses his supporters and ignores the impact that he has had.
It’s never good enough. He can win 11 straight states by an average of 33%, but it’s still NEVER GOOD ENOUGH! He can expand the Democratic party by bringing in Independents, cross-over Republicans and first-time voters, but it’s NEVER GOOD ENOUGH! He can draw crowds of 20,000 but it’s NEVER GOOD ENOUGH! He can win more states (24 to 11), have a commanding lead in Pledged delegates, have a strong lead in the popular vote . . . but it’s still NEVER GOOD ENOUGH!
No. We still have to hear the media talk about a Clinton comeback, even when the MATH says it’s highly unlikely.
She needs to stop making excuses. She needs to recognize that (beleive it or not) this brotha is just doing a better job at reaching the voters than she is. Plain and simple.
Her stunts are going to backfire on her. It has nothing to do with being a man or woman. Democratic primary voters don’t like negative politics . . . it’s as simple as that.
You know, I’d love to see the press give Obama as much room to be a stereotypical black man as they give Clinton to be a stereotypical woman. I’d love to see Obama get the opportunity to go straight up gangsta and show his a*s! But we all know that would never happen. The second he shows ANY aggression whatsoever, is the moment people see him as the “angry black man.”
This goes to show that there are differences in how the media treats race and gender. I’m not saying that they’re better or worse, just different. I’m just gonna say it. This country has an instinct to protect white women. It can be a burden at times (i.e., Cult of True Womanhood) but it's still there. Hillary gets her feelings hurt and voters rush to her aide. She throws a fit and we make excuses because, after all, we can’t forget those double standards, right?
Yet, at the same time, we have an instinct to FEAR black men.
Tell me, what would happen if Obama went on a tirade against Hillary, like she’s done over the weekend??? What would happen if he (gasp) raised his voice to this white woman? What would happen if he spent all of his time talking about the “white man,” the way Hillary talks about the “boys club?”
Rick Lazio, a white man, found out when he “invaded her personal space.” If he took the fall, you can imagine what would happen to Obama’s black a*s the second he steps out of line.
Hillary faces a lot of obstacles through sexism, no doubt. But there are moments where she benefits as well. There are moments where she has the luxury to portray herself as the victim to garner sympathy from voters and the media. There are moments where she can, as Melissa Harris-Lacewell (a black woman, professor) notes, slip in and out of her “Scarlett O’Hara” routine. It’s a prime example of how mainstream media discusses gender bias without recognizing the white privilege that often comes with it.
You want to talk about double standards? Obama has run his campaign under the interrogation of white approval ever since he made that speech at the DNC in 2004. He knows he can’t do or say certain things because he can’t afford to make white folk uncomfortable, especially when running against a white woman.
Trust me, we all know the routine. Smile . . . show your teeth . . . get that base out of your voice . . . don’t look them straight in the eye . . . don’t show emotion . . . make them comfortable and they might call you one of “those good black people,” and throw you a few crumbs.
Once again, I know that we have to fight sexism as vigorously as we fight racism. And we should be doing a better job at it.
But I also know that there are many “oppressed” white women who would never trade places with my black a*s. That same “oppressed” white woman has been quick to clutch her purse and call the cops when she sees me in her neighborhood after 8:00pm. Hillary reminds me of one of those types of people.
All I'm saying is that it's more complicated than the media would like to suggest.
So to the media: Fine, point out the double standards. But don’t make excuses for Hillary’s poor and divisive behavior. And don’t pretend like Obama doesn’t walk a tight rope everyday as well.
Obama caught hell just for saying, “you’re likeable, enough” because people didn’t like the tone of his voice. He caught hell for the “snub” because he happened to be talking to someone else when she came by. I swear, I almost fell out of my chair late last week when I heard a pundit criticize Obama for WRITING ON HIS NOTEPAD while Hillary spoke at the debate. I guess he was being disrespectful because he wasn’t looking at her when she talked. Give me a break!
I can’t make this any clearer. Obama has to RUN AWAY from issues of race for fear of being labled the “black candidate.” It’s the only way he can win. Yet, Hillary gets to embrace “girl power” in ways Obama could NEVER embrace “black power.” Now you’ve got Tina Fey saying “Bi*ch is the new black.” WTF does that mean?
Some see Hillary as a victim. But some of us also know what discrimination is. And for a lot of us, we see Hillary as a grown a*s woman who knows exactly what she’s doing. She conveniently plays off of gender oppression and white privelege every chance she gets.
Some of us don’t see her as a victim, and never have. What we see is a privileged person who thought the white house was her entitlement. And she can’t stand the fact that this uppity negroe didn’t wait his turn in line.
But the media keeps falling for her BS. The narrative remains the same . . . everything goes back to “POOR HILLARY”
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am saying that not all of the media has Hillary's back. I've been watching MSNBC all morning, and they're basically all rolling their eyes and saying she's come undone and that the wheels are coming off the bus, the campaign is over, etc.
Yeah, the SNL skit was definitely pro-Hillary, but - let's be honest - who the hell watches SNL anymore? Okay, you did and I did too, but i don't think there are very many of us.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/washington/811441,CST-EDT-Washington25.article
OOO
http://tinyurl.com/29t4j8
OOO
Co-sign. Every word.
btw, it amuses me that on the NYTimes.com site (which leans Hillary), "Obama" is consistently in the top 3 search terms, while "Hillary Clinton" is near the bottom or sometimes not even on the Top 10 list.
Obama's factcheck website gives a link to the article.
Take the word boon out of quotes, and everything else is correct.
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/heres-why-clinton-lashed-out-at-obama-022408002.html
This article suggest that Clinton is trying to give the appearance that Obama is attacking her unfairly because the exit polls in Wisconsin suggest this would get people to vote for her. Keep in mind that these are old flyers.
For some reason, that phrasing is disturbing to me. Not you, the implication.
Props to you! Loved it!
You were so on the money on your entire reply, but I was feeling you here:
You know, I’d love to see the press give Obama as much room to be a stereotypical black man as they give Clinton to be a stereotypical woman. I’d love to see Obama get the opportunity to go straight up gangsta and show his a*s! But we all know that would never happen. The second he shows ANY aggression whatsoever, is the moment people see him as the “angry black man.”
I wrote about this in my endorsement of Obama, so you know that I agree with you. He simply doesn't get enough credit for what he's doing, which is nothing short of remarkable. I'm going to write a long post about Obama's journey later on, but, I wish Black folk would step back and realize what he's on the cusp of doing. How utterly phemonenal he is. I'm not gushing to be gushing, but give the man HIS DAMN PROPS.
I wrote a whole blog post on it (http://caribbeanlionesse.blogspot.com/2008/01/w...) back in January when HRC made her Johnson/King comments and then boo-hooed they were taken out of context.
As to the Hilary mocking... I'm actually of two minds on this. Being from the Caribbean, this would actually be mild platform behaviour. Our political culture is such that we prefer to have our substance written down in the manifesto but when it comes to the platform, it's pure theatre and mud-slinging. People go to rallies just for entertainment and the most humourous and biting politicians are the stars. We just had an election here last month and it was bacchanal!
Thing is, while I'm used to it in my context, it was pretty jarring to see an American presidential candidate do it. Not to mention - it's one thing to cuss your opponent, but it's another thing to cuss the voters...especially if the voters are from your own side. I have NEVER seen anything like that anywhere. Who the heck insults and mocks their own voters?