ECB is gaming the refs:
Dear liberal media: Please stop pretending Hillary Clinton doesn’t exist. I know the narrative you’ve written is one in which Barack Obama triumphs against all odds to defeat the baby boomers’ Democratic Party machine and achieve the American dream, but for fuck’s sake, this is an election, not a coronation, right?
I think the coronation reference is funny, considering how it used to be that Hillary was the one getting coroneted.
Mark my words, when Obama wins South Carolina, the Times is going to play it as the story of the year: Miracle long-shot candidate comes back from near-death to triumph against impossible odds.
In 2004, Deaniacs complained loudly about unfair press coverage (“yeeeeargh!!”). In 2008, Edwards people dissed the media for pushing a “two person race” construct. (That is, until it actually became a two person race, like it is now.)
I don’t think the Clinton campaign is being ignored. We’re hearing about Bill Clinton’s false allegations of voter intimidation in Nevada, and his odd misinterpretation of Obama’s Reagan comments. We’ve heard Hillary praise Joe Lieberman, and put down Martin Luther King, Jr (if ever so delicately). Even though she’s good on the issues, it’s other stuff that bugs folks and garners press coverage.
This reminds me of the very bad taste shown by the gov when, welcoming Hillary to speak at the Wadems meeting, our lady gov celebrated the miracle of this state being led by three folks of the female gonadic persuasion and now, possibly, of having an ovarian Prexy too.
Someone needs to tell HRC and Billary that she is too old to worry about being a sex figure. IF she is Prexy, the issue of her gender will likely last as long as the speculation about what sort of tux Bill will wear to the coroinauguration.
The contrast with BHO is very telling and supportive of the Kenyan-American;s claim to be running on his own merits. If this goes on much longer, the Repricans are gonna start asking “Who wears the panties” in the Clinton campaign.
Let not go there.
It takes a whole lot of chutzpah for ECB, an advocate type of writer, to bitch about the reporting of NPR and The New York Times. She certainly lacks a sense of irony as well.
Someone needs to tell HRC and Billary that she is too old to worry about being a sex figure.
C’mon SJ, there’s something to that last “glass ceiling” being broken. That aside, although she’s not my first choice by any stretch, I believe she can do the job. A lot better than the current disaster and maybe even better than Bill did it.
Remarkable, a claim that the “liberal media” is dissing Hillary Clinton. I thought the liberal media was always blindly pro-Clinton. Welcome to Wonderland, I guess.
Obama certainly got a pass from the MSM when he was cozeing up to homophobic black preacher Donnie McClurkin a couple of months ago.
That “other stuff” bugs me too, plus Hillary isn’t very likeable, and while a thoughtful voter like me tends to see past personality and make decisions based on substance, the likeability factor without question is huge in politics.
Let me briefly reiterate why I’ve decided to support Hillary: Obama has built his campaign around a reconciliation theme — the notion that all it takes to work with Republicans is to reach out to them — and THAT WON’T WORK.
If he becomes president, and tries this, he’ll be lunch meat for the Republican obstructionists. Negotiating in good faith is not a viable strategy when the other side is acting in bad faith. Given what the GOP is, we need a leader able and inclined to crush them. Otherwise, absolutely nothing will get done. This country has too many pressing needs to wait several years for President Obama to get an education in political sabotage. His approach to governing will expose him and our party to defeat. That’s why I can’t support him.
And, since there is only one other contender in this race, that leaves … Hillary. Now, if the unexpected happens and Edwards is still in the race after Super Tuesday, then I won’t rule out voting for Edwards in my caucus. But I think there’s very little chance of that happening. We’ve had several caucuses and primaries now, and so far, Edwards hasn’t done better than the low teens, which doesn’t inspire much confidence in the strength of his voter appeal.
@1 Feeling discriminated against, SJ? While I’m not a gender voter, I’m not going to fault our female politicians for publicly taking pride in finally breaking the glass ceiling. They waited a long time for it. Perhaps it’s because politics has been totally male-dominated for so long that an old fossil like you feels threatened by the winds of change. I see it from the other side of the coin: I think about how much good leadership we would have lost if our society had continued to systematically exclude 50% of the population from political service for no better reason than gender. To which I say, it’s damn well about time our male politicians were forced to compete against capable women like Gregoire, Murray, and Cantwell.
As my mother used to say (long before female politicians were even possible, let alone fashionable), “If women ran the world, there would be no wars.”
We remember Bill Clinton with fondness only because Bush Jr. is so fucking bad. In fact, the Bill Clinton nostalgia movement is strong evidence of just how bad Dubya is! But Hillary’s campaign fundamentally is not Bill Clinton redux. A Hillary presidency won’t resemble Bill’s presidency; Bill took office 15 years ago, and the world has changed a great deal since then. The issues are different, the electorate is different, the country faces a new, different, and perhaps more compelling set of imperatives. And anyone who thinks Hillary would be a lapdog with Bill calling the shots behind the scenes just isn’t thinking; he’ll be lucky to get a floor-sweeping job in Hillary’s White House, after what has transpired between them in their personal lives.
The presidency is not an entry-level job, nor is a presidential election a beauty contest (or a popularity contest). We don’t have to like our presidents, but we do have to pick presidents who can do the job, or there’ll be unpleasant consequences (as we have seen over the last 7 years).
Now, ask yourself this: Do you really want to elect a president whose success in office will depend on Republican goodwill?
@5 I’ve never heard of that guy, so it can’t be very important.
@5 (continued) In any case, it couldn’t possibly be as bad as the Bushes cozying up to the bin Ladens.
@3 glass ceilings and pointy heads
I am not a big fan of appointing someone to anything important to prove that gender ort whatever does not matter.
I wuold much rather look at the prson and ask .. how did thisnperson deal with their issues?
WADR, I have never been impressed witht HRC. She was a rian maker for WJC, then a presid8ential wife. As an acivist she was more noise than accomplishment.
Other than healthcare, I have yet to see an insightful position piece by her and whoever ghosted the “It Takes a Towel ..” book needs to get back in the shower.
I am NOT dissing her. I too cold live with her as a Prexy, but her claim to a royal right is pretty utrageous and .. reminiscent of the most recent relative of an ex president who felt entitled.
#11 Roger Rabbit says:
How much $$ so far has the the royal family of Saudi Arabia (the country from which the 9/11 terrorists came from) contributed to the Clinton Library?
Don’t worry, it was a rhetorical question. Questions like these are tough for extreme left-wings to answer.
You crack me up, Goldie. You can’t find any real reason to bash Hillary, so you repeat that lame smear about her dissing King.
The elitists hate the Clintons – always have. First it was the media, and now it’s the snooty folks on the internet that think they know better than the average working American. Obama is trying to pick off independents, college kids, and high income folks. That isn’t any way to win a primary, but it’s all he has because Clinton still dominates in the base. She is more progressive than Obama, as the Obama supporters reluctantly admit.
Every Obama supporter isn’t so much for Obama as against Hillary. In contrast, almost no Hillary supporter will bash Obama. The reason is that Hillary supporters are the people who are most in danger from Republican policies, and they know now is no time for tantrums or protest votes. Elitists – guys who have time to run blogs, college kids riding their parent’s meal ticket – can’t stomach that their party is still a party of working folk, and poor folk. So, they take it out on Hillary, just like they took it out on Bill.
And, they’re going to lose again, just like they lost every other time.
Marvin – Number 13
It’s not a hard question to answer. Google will tell you the Clinton library received $10 million from the Saudi government, which is the same amount the Senior Bush’s library received.
Not really sure what it has to do with bin Laden. The Saudi Royal family didn’t kill 3,000 Americans. Bin Laden did. Bush’s family has extensive financial ties to the bin Laden family. Are you claiming that all Arabs are terrorists?
#15 Christine G says:
Clinton received 10 million $ from the country that all the alleged 9/11 terrorists came from. What do you think the royaal family was paying that much $$ for??
Bin laden didn’t kill anyone. It was 19 or so people from Saudi Arabia, the country that contributed 10 million $ to clinton.
Why did the royal family contribute so much money to clinton?