To all those blaming Hillary for a probably brokered Democrat convention...

[dennilfloss]

To all those blaming Hillary for a probably brokered Democrat convention and who say that she's ensuring that McCain will get elected because the Democrat nomination process is continuing and becoming more intense, just remember that it takes two to tango. If Obama had waited his turn and not run this time, there wouldn't be this problem. Instead, there would have been probably an early Hillary coronation instead and she would have already begun tearing the Republican nominee a new Iraq-sized butthole, so one could just as easily blame him.

 

[Dari]

This has got to be one of the dumbest OPs have read in a while. Waited his turn? Pffft, this is American competition, not a European coronation.

 

[dennilfloss]

So you think it's good that instead of paying his dues to the party, going up the rank and file, etc...,he went above her helmet like he thinks he's Lone Star the galactic messiah. I just happen to believe otherwise.

Still, I must admit that this did work for Canada in 1968 with Trudeaumania and I too was and remain a Trudeau enthusiast.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
So you think it's good that instead of paying his dues to the party, going up the rank and file, etc...,he went above her helmet like he thinks he's Lone Star the galactic messiah. I just happen to believe otherwise.

Still, I must admit that this did work for Canada in 1968 with Trudeaumania and I too was and remain a Trudeau enthusiast.

It's called competition. May the best win. Besides, the same old fucking politics is why our country is so fucked up today. Greasing a few palms here and there; making and taking IOUs for special interests; political scandals and so on, people are tired of these. They want politicians to worry about them, not the people in power and their sycophants.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Dari
This has got to be one of the dumbest OPs have read in a while. Waited his turn? Pffft, this is American competition, not a European coronation.

Thats OK all the threads the Op has started lately smacks of somebody whose stull in elementary school!!

ROFL....waited his turn.....

Even if Obama had waited 3 more years he would have been running against a Republican....Hillary is NOT electable!!

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Why should he "wait his turn" when Hillary's entire relevant experience is two more years in the Senate than Obama? He has more experience as an elected official, and God knows he's run a vastly superior campaign. If she wins, fine, and I'll probably vote for her in the fall, but don't try to hand me the argument that she is somehow entitled to be President in a way Obama is not.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
So you think it's good that instead of paying his dues to the party, going up the rank and file, etc...,he went above her helmet like he thinks he's Lone Star the galactic messiah. I just happen to believe otherwise.

Of course it's ok and apparently a great many voting Americans agree with it.

There is no and should be no turn-waiting in an open and free competition. No more here than an upstart 19 year old who enters a sporting event and takes on veterans who've been in the game for a decade. If he wins fair and square, he won, period.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
If Obama had waited his turn ...

except that isn't how the US political system is supposed to work

there isn't supposed to be an elite class of politicians that decide who is going to be the next president, it is supposed to be the peoples decision

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
So you think it's good that instead of paying his dues to the party, going up the rank and file, etc...,he went above her helmet like he thinks he's Lone Star the galactic messiah. I just happen to believe otherwise.

Still, I must admit that this did work for Canada in 1968 with Trudeaumania and I too was and remain a Trudeau enthusiast.

Because the people who pay their dues are beholden to the party and the special backroom deals they make while claiming to represent the people even if it means going against the reason they were voted in the first place.

It's all fun and games when it's peaceful and the economy is ok like during the late 90's, no-one seems to mind much. Add a recession and what looks like an endless war people will want change and they will blame the old guard like Clinton and Bush and their backroom business dealings for the current problems.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
Why should he "wait his turn" when Hillary's entire relevant experience is two more years in the Senate than Obama? He has more experience as an elected official, and God knows he's run a vastly superior campaign. If she wins, fine, and I'll probably vote for her in the fall, but don't try to hand me the argument that she is somehow entitled to be President in a way Obama is not.

Others have already bashed the OP for his views (rightfully so) but I think that this post (minus the "I'll probably vote for her" part) best sums up my thoughts.

Edit: Had to add 1prophet's post also because it sums up the reasons for the feelings that Don Vito and others expressed that I embrace as well.

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Because the people who pay their dues are beholden to the party and the special backroom deals they make while claiming to represent the people even if it means going against the reason they were voted in the first place.

It's all fun and games when it's peaceful and the economy is ok like during the late 90's, no-one seems to mind much. Add a recession and what looks like an endless war people will want change and they will blame the old guard like Clinton and Bush and their backroom business dealings for the current problems.

:thumbsup:

 

[Rainsford]

I don't think we should "blame" anyone. We still live in a democracy, right? There are no "turns", nobody has a right to run for President, everyone who wants to gives it a try and (hopefully) the best man or women wins the election. Everything else is BS from people enamored with political processes, forgetting that the dog is supposed to wag the tail and not the other way around. The internal workings of party politics are supposed to be driven by what the people want, the party is not supposed to decide for them. And while a lot of people decided they like Hillary, an equally large number seem to like Obama. If that screws up the plans of Hillary supporters, I feel for you, but that's how the system works...in a democracy, sometimes the other guy wins.

 

[EagleKeeper]

As stated above, Hillary has just a few more years in the Senate.

8 years in the WH shows that she is blind to obvious facts.
Health Reform package which she was so proud of went nowhere.
Rails about NAFTA, which her husband implemented.

What does she have other than her name to justify that she should be the anointed one?

Or is it the fact that she is a professional flip-flopper that earns her the privilege of embarrassing the Dem party?

 

[RY62]

I've got to agree with the OP on this one. It has been known for a long time that Mrs. Clinton was going for it this time. B.O. came along and fractured what was a united party. Had he waited, the party would still be united around her and we would have him for the future. The blame for the division is all his.

That said, I'm all for competition even if someone becomes irreparably damaged in the process.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
As stated above, Hillary has just a few more years in the Senate.

8 years in the WH shows that she is blind to obvious facts.
Health Reform package which she was so proud of went nowhere.
Rails about NAFTA, which her husband implemented.

What does she have other than her name to justify that she should be the anointed one?

Or is it the fact that she is a professional flip-flopper that earns her the privilege of embarrassing the Dem party?

In the Wisconsin exit polls, voters who cared most about experience went for hillary 95-5. Apparently some people think she wasn't baking cookies in the white house for 8 years.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: RY62
I've got to agree with the OP on this one. It has been known for a long time that Mrs. Clinton was going for it this time. B.O. came along and fractured what was a united party. Had he waited, the party would still be united around her and we would have him for the future. The blame for the division is all his.

That said, I'm all for competition even if someone becomes irreparably damaged in the process.

That seems counter-intuitive, if Hillary Clinton really had united the party, Obama wouldn't have been able to come along and do anything. The current situation we're in is extremely unusual, most times an obvious front running appears quickly and the whole primary process is really a formality. The fact that it DIDN'T happen this time for the Democrats tells me Hillary in no way had anything locked up, she was just the only real choice until Obama came along.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
As stated above, Hillary has just a few more years in the Senate.

8 years in the WH shows that she is blind to obvious facts.
Health Reform package which she was so proud of went nowhere.
Rails about NAFTA, which her husband implemented.

What does she have other than her name to justify that she should be the anointed one?

Or is it the fact that she is a professional flip-flopper that earns her the privilege of embarrassing the Dem party?

In the Wisconsin exit polls, voters who cared most about experience went for hillary 95-5. Apparently some people think she wasn't baking cookies in the white house for 8 years.

She was just planning on how to continue the regime.
What experience did she get from the WH other than to ignore what you do not want to see?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
As stated above, Hillary has just a few more years in the Senate.

8 years in the WH shows that she is blind to obvious facts.
Health Reform package which she was so proud of went nowhere.
Rails about NAFTA, which her husband implemented.

What does she have other than her name to justify that she should be the anointed one?

Or is it the fact that she is a professional flip-flopper that earns her the privilege of embarrassing the Dem party?

In the Wisconsin exit polls, voters who cared most about experience went for hillary 95-5. Apparently some people think she wasn't baking cookies in the white house for 8 years.

I'd say they are probably right. Not all first ladies are like Laura Bush, I'd bet Hillary was involved enough that she has the most experience in the White House other than someone who has actually BEEN President before. I don't think she was involved in every little detail, but most men who marry intelligent women talk things over with them on a regular basis, I'm sure Hillary got a front row seat to a lot of decision making that went on during the 8 years her husband was President.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

In the Wisconsin exit polls, voters who cared most about experience went for hillary 95-5. Apparently some people think she wasn't baking cookies in the white house for 8 years.

She has certainly been selling herself based on "experience," and people have bought into it. That said, the overwhelming majority of her experience consisted of being a corporate attorney. I don't doubt that she was involved in formulating some of Bill Clinton's policies, but as has been noted above, these failed for the most part. The reality IMO is that the "experience" she is selling is her husband's - apparently the voters are to presume that Bill will be heavily involved in her presidency, and accordingly trust her as an executive. The question is whether that is a good or a bad thing, and perspectives are all over the map on that issue.

 

[Robor]

People talk about Obama's lack of experience. Maybe. But, if Hillary didn't have the 'Clinton' last name she wouldn't have her current political career. Seriously, if she wasn't Bill's wife does anyone think she would be in this position?

I'm an Obama supporter and I will probably vote Democrat if Hillary gets the nomination but if and only if it's a clean win. If she loses the elected delegates or tries to use Florida/Michigan to her advantage I'll either not vote or vote McCain against her. Also, if she continues the dirty tactics of half-truths and innuendo making this an even uglier primary she'll lose my vote. In short, if she drags this out to the detriment of the Democratic Party I will vote against her out of spite. Every poll I've seen shows Obama beating McCain and Hillary losing to him. I don't think Hillary or the Democratic Party can afford an ugly Dem primary then run against McCain.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: sirjonk

In the Wisconsin exit polls, voters who cared most about experience went for hillary 95-5. Apparently some people think she wasn't baking cookies in the white house for 8 years.

She has certainly been selling herself based on "experience," and people have bought into it. That said, the overwhelming majority of her experience consisted of being a corporate attorney. I don't doubt that she was involved in formulating some of Bill Clinton's policies, but as has been noted above, these failed for the most part. The reality IMO is that the "experience" she is selling is her husband's - apparently the voters are to presume that Bill will be heavily involved in her presidency, and accordingly trust her as an executive. The question is whether that is a good or a bad thing, and perspectives are all over the map on that issue.

Well I can only speak for myself, and I see her as an extremely bright woman who has been involved in politics for over 30 years, and I believe her 12 years in AR gov' mansion and 8 years in the WH, and her time in the senate were spent sponging up domestic and foreign policy knowledge for her future anticipated presidential run. I do think Bill would be an advisor in her admin but by no means calling shots. I don't see how detractors can square thinking Bill will be calling the shots behind the scenes while simultaneously thinking Hillary is a type A control freak.

Anyway, the majority of dem voters polled have indicated that their number one priority isn't experience, it's change. She can win 100% of the 20% that think experience is most important, but Obama still gets the large majority of the remaining who want change as a priority.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Robor
People talk about Obama's lack of experience. Maybe. But, if Hillary didn't have the 'Clinton' last name she wouldn't have her current political career. Seriously, if she wasn't Bill's wife does anyone think she would be in this position?

No, I doubt she would. But I also think if Obama were woman with a few years in the senate there's no shot in hell he'd be presidential material either.

I'm an Obama supporter and I will probably vote Democrat if Hillary gets the nomination but if and only if it's a clean win. If she loses the elected delegates or tries to use Florida/Michigan to her advantage I'll either not vote or vote McCain against her. Also, if she continues the dirty tactics of half-truths and innuendo making this an even uglier primary she'll lose my vote. In short, if she drags this out to the detriment of the Democratic Party I will vote against her out of spite. Every poll I've seen shows Obama beating McCain and Hillary losing to him. I don't think Hillary or the Democratic Party can afford an ugly Dem primary then run against McCain.

[/quote]

I'll vote dem either way, but I'm not horrified by the thought of a McCain presidency, as opposed to Huckabee or Romney.

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Thats OK all the threads the Op has started lately smacks of somebody whose stull in elementary school!!

Ah, the erudite commentary that makes ATP&N the place to be for insightful discussions.

Like much of the US, I was introduced to Obama at the DNC Convention 4 years ago. I was moved by his speech. I thought then that he was better spoken than the candidates, and hoped he would run for president someday. And last fall I was thinking he was running too soon.

But the thing that has enabled him to gain such momentum is the perception that he represents the possibility of much needed change among a field of business-as-usual me-too candidates. I'm not sure I'd get out of bed to vote in an election between Clinton and McCain: sure, they seem to represent different ends of the spectrum, but I don't see any meaningful possibility that either will solve the country's biggest problems.

Neither will be able to mend the damage done in the last 7 years to the fiscal fortunes of the US, nor the stacking of the Supreme Court. And as for the monumental challenge of repairing the goodwill of the rest of the world toward the US, even Bush and Cheney's heads on pikes for a generation won't help there.

Can Obama do any better? Probably not. But the fact that he has not had time to become a jaded insider goes a long way. To me he offers hope in a time of hopelessness, and this, dennilfloss, is why I disagree with you.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Dari
This has got to be one of the dumbest OPs have read in a while. Waited his turn? Pffft, this is American competition, not a European coronation.

Typical from OP. :laugh:

You get what you earn.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Robor
People talk about Obama's lack of experience. Maybe. But, if Hillary didn't have the 'Clinton' last name she wouldn't have her current political career. Seriously, if she wasn't Bill's wife does anyone think she would be in this position?

No, I doubt she would. But I also think if Obama were woman with a few years in the senate there's no shot in hell he'd be presidential material either.

I'm an Obama supporter and I will probably vote Democrat if Hillary gets the nomination but if and only if it's a clean win. If she loses the elected delegates or tries to use Florida/Michigan to her advantage I'll either not vote or vote McCain against her. Also, if she continues the dirty tactics of half-truths and innuendo making this an even uglier primary she'll lose my vote. In short, if she drags this out to the detriment of the Democratic Party I will vote against her out of spite. Every poll I've seen shows Obama beating McCain and Hillary losing to him. I don't think Hillary or the Democratic Party can afford an ugly Dem primary then run against McCain.

I'll vote dem either way, but I'm not horrified by the thought of a McCain presidency, as opposed to Huckabee or Romney.

McCain basically = Hillary. I'm not surprised.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: sirjonk

In the Wisconsin exit polls, voters who cared most about experience went for hillary 95-5. Apparently some people think she wasn't baking cookies in the white house for 8 years.

She has certainly been selling herself based on "experience," and people have bought into it. That said, the overwhelming majority of her experience consisted of being a corporate attorney. I don't doubt that she was involved in formulating some of Bill Clinton's policies, but as has been noted above, these failed for the most part. The reality IMO is that the "experience" she is selling is her husband's - apparently the voters are to presume that Bill will be heavily involved in her presidency, and accordingly trust her as an executive. The question is whether that is a good or a bad thing, and perspectives are all over the map on that issue.

Well I can only speak for myself, and I see her as an extremely bright woman who has been involved in politics for over 30 years, and I believe her 12 years in AK gov' mansion and 8 years in the WH, and her time in the senate were spent sponging up domestic and foreign policy knowledge for her future anticipated presidential run. I do think Bill would be an advisor in her admin but by no means calling shots. I don't see how detractors can square thinking Bill will be calling the shots behind the scenes while simultaneously thinking Hillary is a type A control freak.

Anyway, the majority of dem voters polled have indicated that their number one priority isn't experience, it's change. She can win 100% of the 20% that think experience is most important, but Obama still gets the large majority of the remaining who want change as a priority.

My problem with that is all of the polls I've seen show Obama beating McCain but McCain beating Hillary. I know McCain =/= Bush but I think the Dems deserve a chance for a change and I don't think Hillary can win.