Hillary or Obama?

[Greg]

From the parts of it I caught, I thought Hillary gave a very gracious concession speech.

[criddic3]

So Hilary-not afraid of losing but hating to quit--has left the building. Temporarily? If Obama chooses her to be VP, what happens to Bill? Is he offered The Court Of St. James to keep him out of the country, and will Hilary go for that?

I don't think Obama will take the risk of choosing Clinton as VP. It's possible, but unlikely. First, they don't get along at all and neither do their supporters. She has very high negatives, as has long been the case, but now so does Bill. The campaign has left a lot of bitterness among Hillary's supporters. I think he'll choose someone else. The only thing she brings to the ticket is most of her 18 million voters, which is substantial. But she doesn't bring him a state and she doesn't bring in independents or cross-over Republicans.

[cam]

So Hilary-not afraid of losing but hating to quit--has left the building. Temporarily? If Obama chooses her to be VP, what happens to Bill? Is he offered The Court Of St. James to keep him out of the country, and will Hilary go for that?

[criddic3]

Several disgruntled ex-employees have come forward complaining about Bush.

And have you read the book? You speak as if you have, but I know you haven't. Matter of fact, all of these accusations you make against McClellan sound almost verbatem like what the White House Press Machine has been saying since the book came out attempting to refute the information right down to the "why didn't he quit if he was disgruntled or talk to someone about it" line. I heard those words spoken by a number of associates of the Bush administration.

I don't normally like Katie Couric, but right after the book came out, I caught part of the newscast and she was interviewing several people who declaimed McClellan and they all said about the same thing and she asked one of them point blank if they had gotten together to decide what the frame of the response would be. Of course, he denied it, but you don't have that many people saying virtually the same thing without someone suggesting their talking points (Criddic is even spoutin them). And what's even more interesting is that the White House can deny that coordinated the response, but we also know they've been caught planting pro-War/administration personnel on news programs as "professional" opinions.

I didn't say I've read the book. I said he, McClellan, was not in on conversations and planning the way he says he was. I have seen some of his interviews about the book.

I will read his book, if only to have a better idea of what he actually says in it. But I can see from his interviews that he contradicts himself. He says that thinks Bush is a good man, that he believed in what he was doing, but then in almost the same breath implies that he lied us into war. That is a contradiction. One that tells me a lot about the nature of his book and his motivations.

And you have to admit that it is puzzling that McClellan stayed for 3 years and, even when he left 2 years ago never said anything. He said he had been "honored to serve" with this administration. Again, a contradiction to what he now says about being conflicted.

Your attempts to paint my post as a lie is stupid, since I didn't say I read the book, nor did I quote any passage from the book. My reactions were to his interviews and to his public statements. It is suspicious to me that he would be selling such a book in an election year, when there was no prior hint that he had any problems with the administration.

--
By the way: Planting? Some of his former employees were hired as political consultants, the same as George Stephanopolous (CNN) or Bob Beckel or Kirsten Powers (FOX). That's not "planting."



Edited By criddic3 on 1212705175

[taki15]

That's priceless.

Reactions to McCain's speech

[cam]

You talkin' to me?

Of course I am talking to you--who else has their ostrich head in the sand up to his ass?

McClellan is just trying to make himself look good to the crowd who used to humiliate him for his ineffectiveness as Press Secretary. He wasn't in on half the stuff he's been talking about. There are NO revelations here, just a guy who saw an opening for more fame. After all, he's got a book to sell now.

How can I take him seriously when he says "Bush is not a bad guy" and wanted to do something good, but then basically implies he is a liar who misled the American people? Those kinds of contradictions make me skeptical of McClellan. He wants it both ways. He knows he stayed in the administration for 3 years, without a word of dissent or question, was not privy to any of the conversations he speculates about, and had no future except the reputation as one of the least articulate White House Press Secretaries in history. Of course he wants to be loved by people, and the easiest route is to pretend that all-of-a-sudden he realizes that Bush opposers were right. It's a revelation!

No, it'll take more than a disgruntled ex-employee to make me change my mind about President Bush. It would be too convenient to just switch to your viewpoint after all these years, when I don't really believe it, just to be on the in-crowd list. That's what McClellan has done, and I hope he likes himself 20 years from now when he looks in the mirror.

I hope you will have grown up in twenty years when you look in the mirror and realize what a sheep you were for eight years, and continue to be.
Your head is not in the sand. I was wrong--it's up your ass.

[OscarGuy]

Several disgruntled ex-employees have come forward complaining about Bush.

And have you read the book? You speak as if you have, but I know you haven't. Matter of fact, all of these accusations you make against McClellan sound almost verbatem like what the White House Press Machine has been saying since the book came out attempting to refute the information right down to the "why didn't he quit if he was disgruntled or talk to someone about it" line. I heard those words spoken by a number of associates of the Bush administration.

I don't normally like Katie Couric, but right after the book came out, I caught part of the newscast and she was interviewing several people who declaimed McClellan and they all said about the same thing and she asked one of them point blank if they had gotten together to decide what the frame of the response would be. Of course, he denied it, but you don't have that many people saying virtually the same thing without someone suggesting their talking points (Criddic is even spoutin them). And what's even more interesting is that the White House can deny that coordinated the response, but we also know they've been caught planting pro-War/administration personnel on news programs as "professional" opinions.

[criddic3]

You talkin' to me?

Of course I am talking to you--who else has their ostrich head in the sand up to his ass?

McClellan is just trying to make himself look good to the crowd who used to humiliate him for his ineffectiveness as Press Secretary. He wasn't in on half the stuff he's been talking about. There are NO revelations here, just a guy who saw an opening for more fame. After all, he's got a book to sell now.

How can I take him seriously when he says "Bush is not a bad guy" and wanted to do something good, but then basically implies he is a liar who misled the American people? Those kinds of contradictions make me skeptical of McClellan. He wants it both ways. He knows he stayed in the administration for 3 years, without a word of dissent or question, was not privy to any of the conversations he speculates about, and had no future except the reputation as one of the least articulate White House Press Secretaries in history. Of course he wants to be loved by people, and the easiest route is to pretend that all-of-a-sudden he realizes that Bush opposers were right. It's a revelation!

No, it'll take more than a disgruntled ex-employee to make me change my mind about President Bush. It would be too convenient to just switch to your viewpoint after all these years, when I don't really believe it, just to be on the in-crowd list. That's what McClellan has done, and I hope he likes himself 20 years from now when he looks in the mirror.

[Penelope]

As a columnist here in Chicago put it this morning: "Hillary Clinton did not concede the race, saying she had not decided her next move; precisely what we want in a national leader."

I really hope she's not the VP choice; sure, I want her to campaign for Barack and bring her support and voters to him, but I don't want her anywhere near the White House again.

[Damien]

According to Howard Fineman of MSNBC/Newsweek, Clinton is demanding to be offered the vice-presidency, which she will then turn down. He also said that in return for her full support, Obama cannot pick another woman as his running mate because that person would then become the most prominent female in the Party -- and the bitch couldn't abide that.

[Big Magilla]

This woman is shameless. She picks a venue in which to speak which is two floors below ground with no TV monitors or cell phone reception so the audience can't know that Obama has already won the nomiantion. Then she talks as if she won and says she owes it to the 18 million peopel who voted for to continue her battle. Has anyone ever campaigned so openly for the No. 2 spot before?

NEW YORK - Angling for a vice presidential nod, Hillary Rodham Clinton refused to bow out of the Democratic race Tuesday, hoping to maintain leverage as Barack Obama clinched the delegates needed to secure the party's nomination.

"A lot of people are asking, 'What does Hillary want?'" Clinton told supporters at a rally in New York. "I want what I have always fought for: I want the nearly 18 million people who voted for me to be respected and heard."

Clinton told the crowd she would consult in the coming days with advisers about the fate of her moribund candidacy. But her remarks came hours after she told congressional colleagues she would be open to joining Obama as his running mate.

Many of her top supporters spoke openly of Clinton's potential vice presidential prospects. Lanny Davis, a former White House special counsel under President Clinton, said he told the former first lady Tuesday that he was initiating a petition to press Obama to select her for the second spot on the ticket. He said Clinton did not encourage or discourage the step.

"If he doesn't have her, I think he can still win. With her on the ticket, he can't be beat," Davis said.

Clinton's national finance chairman, Hassan Nemazee, said he was also pushing an Obama-Clinton ticket, claiming that together they would be able to raise $200 million to $250 million for the general election.

Advisers indicated earlier Tuesday that the former first lady would publicly acknowledge in her speech that Obama had crossed the delegate threshold. But she changed her mind and refused to do so even after television networks and The Associated Press declared the Illinois senator had sealed the nomination.

Her advisers said they considered the delegate numbers to be unreliable, even as the AP estimated Obama had several more than the 2,118 needed to nominate. Earlier, Clinton acknowledged on a conference call with New York lawmakers that the delegate math was not there for her to overtake Obama, according to several participants on the call.

She said none of that publicly Tuesday but vowed the Democratic Party would unite in its effort to defeat Republican John McCain in November.

Clinton won South Dakota's primary Tuesday, while Obama won Montana's. The two contests rounded out a historic five-month primary battle that pitted the first major black candidate against the first serious woman contender.

The South Dakota victory, which was unexpected, gave Clinton an excuse to buy more time to consider options, her advisers said.

On the conference call with New York colleagues, Clinton, a New York senator, said she would be willing to become Obama's running mate if it would help Democrats win the White House.

Clinton's remarks came in response to a question from Democratic Rep. Nydia Velazquez, who said she believed the best way for Obama to win key voting blocs, including Hispanics, would be for him to choose Clinton as his running mate.

"I am open to it," Clinton replied, if it would help the party's prospects in November. Her direct quote was described by two lawmakers who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak for Clinton.

"I deserve some time to get this right," she said, even as the other lawmakers forcefully argued for her to press Obama to choose her as his running mate.

Joseph Crowley, a Queens Democrat who participated in the call, said her answer "left open the possibility that she would do anything that she can to contribute toward a Democratic victory in November. There was no hedging on that. Whatever she can do to contribute, she was willing to do."

Another person on the call, Rep. Jose Serrano of New York City, said her answer was "just what I was hoping to hear. ... Of course she was interested in being president, but she's just as interested in making sure Democrats get elected in November."

Rep. Charles Rangel, a devoted booster of Clinton who helped pave the way for her successful Senate campaign, said he spoke to her Tuesday and got much the same answer.

"She's run a great campaign and even though she'll be a great senator, she has a lot of followers that obviously Obama doesn't have, and clearly the numbers are against her and so I think they bring all parts of the Democratic Party together and then some," Rangel said.

Aides to the Illinois senator said he and Clinton had not spoken about the prospects of her joining the ticket.

Most of Clinton's campaign staff will be let go and will be paid through June 15, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to divulge her plans.

Universal health care, Clinton's signature issue as first lady in the 1990s, was a point of dispute between Obama and the New York senator during their nomination fight.

Clinton reiterated her commitment to that issue in her remarks Tuesday.

"It is a fight I will continue until every single American has health insurance. No exceptions and no excuses," she said.

Other names have been floated as possible running mates for Obama, including former rivals New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, and governors including Janet Napolitano of Arizona, Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and Tim Kaine of Virginia. Also mentioned are foreign policy experts including former Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd and Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, and other senators such as Missouri's Claire McCaskill and Virginia's Jim Webb.

Obama could also look outside the party to people such as anti-war Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska or independent New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg. Or he could look to one of his prominent supporters such as former Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota or try to bring on a Clinton supporter, such as Indiana's Sen. Evan Bayh or retired Gen. Wesley Clark.

[cam]

You talkin' to me?

Of course I am talking to you--who else has their ostrich head in the sand up to his ass?

[Damien]

This says it all about that horrible woman.

I've never in my life called a woman a "cunt." Hillary Clinton is a cunt. A disgusting bitch. If she ends up as Barack's vice-presidential candidate, I won't vote for him.

From Talking Points Memo:

LIPSTICK ON A PIG

By Deanie Mills - June 1, 2008, 1:07PM

We've been here before.

It's all wearyingly familiar.

Faces twisted in rage, insulters shouting down those with a Roberts Rules of Order right to speak, angry threats and snotty comments to reporters...and for those of us on the sidelines, that same sickening feeling as we listen to or watch or read news reports...that feeling of frustration and anger, the urge to shout at the TV or radio, the moody preoccupation with events over which we have no control--and last, but not least, that miserable knowledge that this whole thing is, yet again, not even a real controversy, but a frenzy whipped up for political theater, with the passions of innocent victims used and abused as weapons for the personal gain of those at the top of the heap.

And as before, the principals involved are busy blaming everyone else under the sun for their travails but themselves, giving partisans on either side something else to argue about.

I'm finding cherished friendships now under significant strain over something that has nothing to do with the relationship between the two of us, and again, we've seen all this before.

Remember the '90's?

I mean, REALLY remember?

It started--and perhaps those of us who voted for him should have been paying closer attention--but it started during the Clinton campaign of '92. "Bimbo eruptions." Gennifer. Paula.

The Clintons, even then, vowed to FIGHT this Republican Attack Machine that was trying to destroy them.

Everybody likes a fighter, right?

So boy, we all joined in the brawl, didn't we? Faced off our conservative friends, flocked to the polls, all tuned in to 60 Minutes after the Super Bowl. Thought the Clintons were so cool.

Delivered them the White House.

And almost immediately, there were more eruptions--Travelgate, White Water.

Republican opponents accused the Clintons of withholding important documents; we countered that the whole thing was a fake-controversy engineered by partisans who hated the Clintons with such mad-dog intensity that you found yourself fighting for the First Couple in sympathy even if you weren't that crazy about them to start with.

Bill put Hillary in charge of health care, and suddenly, it was all about Hillary more than about health care; all about whether it was a "co-presidency," all about her charming Capitol Hill, and how smart she was, and what a good job she was doing.

But all along, under the surface, massive resentments grew within the Democratic congress because she was acting behind closed doors without any of their input, and when the Big Plan was sprung, she refused compromise of any sort even within her own party, and set the whole debate up as a "with us or against us" showdown, forcing conservative Democrats to vote against it, handing the right-wing their biggest victory, and contributing to a takeover two years into the Clinton administration of Congress by Republicans which led, ultimately, to the debacle of a government we see today.

We need to remember. REALLY remember.

It dragged on, and dragged on. More bimbo eruptions, and as the accusations from the right-wing grew positively Machiavellian, we knew that this wasn't about any failings of the Clintons but was about shoving a right-wing agenda down the throats of a populace easily manipulated by soundbite sloganeering.

We just knew it. We were so sure of it.

For eight years, we seethed, shouted at the TV news, argued with relatives, defended and defended and defended the Clintons against the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy,

Then came Monica.

This time, we raged, and with good reason, because Ken Starr was so overtly a political hack, and because his dumping of the Clinton Grand Jury testimony on the Internet before even Clinton's own lawyers had seen it, was so unseemly, such a disgrace, such a travesty of the law.

And we fought with and for the Clintons. Boy did we fight. We fought to prevent an impeachment over something we found ridiculous, especially in light of, you know, INVADING A COUNTRY AND LYING TO YOUR OWN PEOPLE ABOUT THE REASONS WHY.

After all that, we cheered Hillary on when she put in for the Senate run--even when she sucked all the oxygen out of Al Gore's campaign room by stealing all the biggest fundraisers for her own Senate campaign and didn't really campaign for him because she was so busy with her own run.

And Gore--he was in a tough spot. Embrace Bill and risk being CRUCIFIED by the Attack Machine, or distance himself and insult many in the party.

Bill put him in that position, simply by his own inability to harness his appetites. Narcissists tend to do things like that.

When Hillary got elected, we swore to our conservative friends that noooooo, she was not looking to take over the White House.

But we were exhausted, man. Worn out with all the battles and all the anger and all the fights--especially when a tiny cadre of judges who'd been given their jobs by the Republican candidate's daddy handed Daddy's Boy the White House, oh man, were we ever demoralized and devastated.

Of course, if Bill had kept his pants zipped in the first place, Gore would most likely have won with plenty of votes to prevent such a scenario. And just think where this country might have been by now.

We need to remember. REALLY remember.

Do you know what the Clinton's were doing in the news right before the Monica story broke?

I do. I remember it vividly.

First, they were filmed from a distance, dancing together in their bathing suits on a beach during a vacation. The big controversy was whether or not they knew they were being filmed in this romantic moment.

And second, the White House was holding a contest for someone to come up with a name for Bill's new chocolate labrador puppy. (He wound up naming him "Buddy" after an uncle, but still.)

This was what was dominating the news about the Clintons. Whitewater had not stuck--in spite of the much-vaunted Attack Machine and their Attack Dog Starr--tens of millions of taxpayer dollars and virtually the entire FBI in their pockets, and they could find NOTHING.

Until Bill lied about a blowjob.

We've spent seven years in hell since Bush was selected president. That miserable feeling of rage and frustration and the utter depression of feeling we have no control over events that define our lives has continued this entire time.

This political season started as one of unprecedented hope and excitement and energy for the Democratic party, raking in hundreds of millions of dollars, pulling in millions of new voters, energizing the base and bringing in Independents and moderate Republicans. All of our candidates were outstanding.

We could not lose.

Until Hillary started to.

In spite of the fact that her campaign badly misjudged the American mood with their campaign message of experience over change; in spite of the fact that they blew through money like water with unneccessary luxury spending; in spite of the fact that they had no organization on the ground in place to even consider having to go beyond Super Tuesday; in spite of a lackluster Internet organization, in spite of backbiting and infighting within the campaign--much like there was within the Clinton White House--in spite of monumental gaffes committed by the candidate herself...well, it wasn't their fault.

SEXISM!

MEDIA BIAS!

THE DNC HATES US!

And so the nasty set in. As soon as Clinton set herself up as Joan d'Fighter, then here came all the old familiar standbys: snotty surrogates making sensational claims on talk shows, enraged supporters baring their teeth at detractors, Republican opponents launching snide countersnarls, and phony issues getting whipped up by partisans into a frenzy of outrage completely unrelated to the problems at hand.

Only this time, it was the Clintons themselves egging the whole thing on.

So here we are, back again in ClintonLand.

The land of anger and misery and division and depression and anxiety. And friendships driven apart.

I don't begrudge her supporters their rage--I've felt a fair amount of it myself when my candidate gets dragged into racist smears.

(Maybe they haven't received in their Inboxes the forwards I have from conservative friends, depicting such things as color caricatures emphasizing not just his ears, but his lips dontcha know.)

But I do think that they are being used, and the fact that the candidate has stepped back into the shadows and allowed them to surge forward into near-hysterical demonstrations of outrage and hate is a disgrace on her part. She should be ashamed.

Even if she had a true case in the Michigan/Florida debacle--which she does not, for so many reasons you could write a whole book on it--she does not honor her supporters by encouraging this dramatic display, and they don't honor her when they claim Obama's supporters are a "cult," that primary elections are being "rigged" for him, that he is a socialist like Hitler was, and that they'll vote for McCain no matter what unless Hillary gets her way.

They only wind up looking crazy, and she winds up looking desperate and mean.

And now, the divisions are borderline psychotic. Hillary supporters have banned online news sources because, you know, the ENTIRE media is biased. One said they only pay attention to BBC reports.

Which means, I guess, THAT THE WHOLE COUNTRY is against Hillary and, by extension, identification, and classic psychological transferance--THEM.

When you're in ClintonLand, compromise is absolutely out of the question. It is considered a form of weakness. Paula Jones, for example, offered to settle the lawsuit against Bill, and he was ready to do so. But nooooo, Hillary said, LET'S FIGHT!

And so fight they did--all the way to impeachment.

In the Florida/Michigan impasse, to Clinton and her mad-dog supporters who showed up for the meeting, there was to be no compromise. Either they got their whole way, or it was nothing.

Even after DNC lawyers released a 38-page memo stating in clear terms that, legally, only half-votes could be awarded to the delegates--that was shoved aside as though it did not exist.

Anything less was a personal attack on the Clintons and Hillary's campaign.

We've been here before.

It's all wearyingly familiar.

We need to remember. REALLY remember.

The big question all Democrats everywhere must ask themselves now is, DO WE WANT TO GO THERE AGAIN?

Because we already know what a Clinton White House would be like. We already know about the us-against-them battles, the rage of supporters, the partisan political divisions and government lockdowns and inevitable scandals.

We should have been paying attention in the primary campaign of '92. We should have realized that the way a campaign is managed gives us a pretty clear picture of the way an administration will govern.

And if we hadn't figured it out then, we most surely have after seven years of a Karl Rove administration.

Barack Obama's campaign has been streamlined, efficient, well-organized. Its message has been clear, concise, and consistent. His team is close-knit and not divided by backbiting and infighting. He's done his best to maintain his dignity against unconscionable racist attacks, some launched by Hillary's campaign.

He flat-out told his supporters not to demonstrate during the DNC meeting. Over and over again, his campaign offered scenarios for compromise, all of which were rejected by Hillary and her people.

He tries to take the high road. He tries to keep people together. He is no saint, and he's made mistakes, and he will make mistakes in the White House.

But wouldn't it be nice if we could go into a new administration with a feeing of hope, excitement, and peace of mind? A feeling of fresh change and new direction?

Of looking forward and not behind?

Hillary has made herself ugly with the nastiness of this campaign. Her supporters only reflect the bitterness she has enflamed.

Even when the Rules Committee tried to find a fair solution, one of her noisier supporters--many of whom repeatedly shouted down Committee members who were trying to do their jobs--yelled, "LIPSTICK ON A PIG."

That's what Hillary's campaign has come to resemble.

Do we really want to take this into the White House?

AGAIN?



Edited By Damien on 1212427553

[criddic3]

You talkin' to me?

[cam]

I am truly amazed, that after all this time, and the revelations of the Scott McLellan book you can still defend That man. It is almost unbelievable that one person can still maintain the faith that you have held in the past years. It is also kind of --sick.