or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Is Hillary Melting Down?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is Hillary Melting Down? - Page 6

post #201 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Well, you really ought to do your own homework, since you made the claim, but I'll get you started.

Adams "ran" against Washington in 1792 and lost only to win in 1796.
Monroe "beat" JQA in 1820 and JQA wins in 1824 against Jackson, who wins in 1828.
Buchanan loses to Pierce in 1852 only to win in 1856.
Cleveland lost to Harrison in 1888 only to win in 1892. (interesting replay of 2000)
TR lost fo McKinley only to win in 1904.
FDR (the veep candidate) lost to Harding in 1920.

I haven't run all the way up through the present, but remember that Nixon lost to JFK in 1960.

pwn3d

What a doofus.
post #202 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Well I'll be accused of backpedaling here, but I certainly wasn't looking back beyond last century. Even still, you're talking about handful of people at best. Your FDR example does not fit, btw..nor does TR. He didn't run against McKinley. They were both Republicans. Remember, I was talking about the general election alone.

In fact, according to this, Nixon is the only one to have ever done it. Cleveland was elected President, then lost reelection, then returned to win. That doesn't fit the bill either. Going back before 1800 really doesn't make sense, since there were so many candidates and no real two party system.

So, I'll be happy to admit I forgot about Nixon. I still think my statement holds weight. Those who lose Presidential elections don't come back and win later...with one notable exception.

How convenient.

You get caught 100% wrong and you still claim to be right, by adding a postfactum disclaimer.
post #203 of 235
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Yeah. You're right. If you limit the scope of the inquiry and exclude a bunch of stuff, it totally fits with your claim. But whatever, dude. I got no horse in this race.

Or, if you limit to what I actually meant. Either way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So by your logic Pete Wilson was one of the best governors California has ever had...

A history lesson:

Pete Wilson at one point had the worst approval ratings in the governorship of California in history. He then pushed for a law, which he knew was unconstitutional and could not possibly pass, that appealed to the anti-Mexican voting block. He "won reelection by a landslide". The law he was pushing for was declared unconstitutional, of course. He then went on to kill California's economy.

George W. Bush, facing reelection, appeals to the Texan "good ol' boy" crowd and gets reelected, because good Texas boys like to play cowboys and Indians and good Texas girls support their man.

Reelection != success.

So GWB=Pete Wilson. Hmmm. Really, I like to hear more about that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

How convenient.

You get caught 100% wrong and you still claim to be right, by adding a postfactum disclaimer.

"100% wrong." Why, because of Nixon? He is the only one.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #204 of 235
Thread Starter 
<BUMP!>

So, err...Hillary. Hmmm.


I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #205 of 235
No, Hillary's not melting down. She's just losing.

She's losing to Obama because she's too conservative for what the voters want this time around. The incompetence of GWB and the shortsightedness of the Republicans (and Democrats) who supported him is the very reason Hillary is losing.

American voters are still not ready for someone like Kucinich or Gravel or Dean, but they are sick of kisseurs-de-Republican-ass like Hillary, and would rather have someone like Obama taking charge for a change.
post #206 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

No, Hillary's not melting down. She's just losing.

She's losing to Obama because she's too conservative for what the voters want this time around. The incompetence of GWB and the shortsightedness of the Republicans (and Democrats) who supported him is the very reason Hillary is losing.

American voters are still not ready for someone like Kucinich or Gravel or Dean, but they are sick of kisseurs-de-Republican-ass like Hillary, and would rather have someone like Obama taking charge for a change.

No, she is slightly behind because Obama is likable, articulate, clean, fresh, new, and young. Oh...and he talks a lot about change and the future, with a positive outlook and an avoidence of identity politics.

Hillary seems to be losing because her legacy is of Clinton sleeze, manipulation, arrogance, and cynical postion parsing...oh and a bit of hubby's penchant for lying and destructive campaign involvement. She is losing because she is a gender candidate.

I doubt there is much difference in thier positions on any issue - hence the debates are vapid on that level.
post #207 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So by your logic Pete Wilson was one of the best governors California has ever had...

A history lesson:

Pete Wilson at one point had the worst approval ratings in the governorship of California in history. He then pushed for a law, which he knew was unconstitutional and could not possibly pass, that appealed to the anti-Mexican voting block. He "won reelection by a landslide". The law he was pushing for was declared unconstitutional, of course. He then went on to kill California's economy.

George W. Bush, facing reelection, appeals to the Texan "good ol' boy" crowd and gets reelected, because good Texas boys like to play cowboys and Indians and good Texas girls support their man.

Reelection != success.


So far I see no evidence that Pete Wilson was a bad Governor. California's economy is pretty immune to the effects of a single governor unless that person and the California legislature, create a hostile environment to business.

Did Pete Wilson create massive new business regulations and more taxes? Did he reform tort law to cause huge new costs in doing business? How did he restrict land, capital, and labor so that the foundation of businesses were harmed?

By the way, that initiative was not obviously unconstitutional, not to a reasonable student of the law. But as usual, liberal judges found it so.
post #208 of 235
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

No, Hillary's not melting down. She's just losing.

She's had more than a 30 point negative poll swing in two months. Are you fucking kidding? If that is not a meltdown, perhaps you could explain what would qualify as one?

Quote:


She's losing to Obama because she's too conservative for what the voters want this time around.

Well, that is ONE reason, I agree. It's not THE reason.

Quote:
The incompetence of GWB and the shortsightedness of the Republicans (and Democrats) who supported him is the very reason Hillary is losing.

That doesn't even make much sense.

Quote:

American voters are still not ready for someone like Kucinich or Gravel or Dean, but they are sick of kisseurs-de-Republican-ass like Hillary, and would rather have someone like Obama taking charge for a change.

OK, I agree there. The problem is it's not about him being more liberal than her. It's about Change(TM) and Hope(R). He is, in fact, more liberal, but people don't even know it for the most part. Ask any 10 people...ANY 10 PEOPLE...and 9 of them will not be able to tell you one thing he's done or stands for other than Change, Hope and The Future. I've done it myself...it's absolutely mind boggling. It's the same answer when you ask why someone is voting for Obama. It's never, ever a specific policy position or set of them. It's an answer like "because it's a feeling he will change things." It sure as hell isn't his more liberal stances.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #209 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Well, that is ONE reason, I agree. It's not THE reason.

...

OK, I agree there. The problem is it's not about him being more liberal than her. It's about Change(TM) and Hope(R). He is, in fact, more liberal, but people don't even know it for the most part. Ask any 10 people...ANY 10 PEOPLE...and 9 of them will not be able to tell you one thing he's done or stands for other than Change, Hope and The Future. I've done it myself...it's absolutely mind boggling. It's the same answer when you ask why someone is voting for Obama. It's never, ever a specific policy position or set of them. It's an answer like "because it's a feeling he will change things." It sure as hell isn't his more liberal stances.

I thought she was slightly to the left of Obama.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #210 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Ask any 10 people...ANY 10 PEOPLE...and 9 of them will not be able to tell you one thing he's done or stands for


I'd guess that's the case for most candidates.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #211 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Hillary seems to be losing because her legacy is of Clinton sleeze, manipulation, arrogance, and cynical postion parsing...oh and a bit of hubby's penchant for lying and destructive campaign involvement.

Did you say manipulation?

Quote:
Hillary Clinton and her campaign is pushing for precinct captains for Texas' 8,000 Democratic polling places. They need to train folks to lead the caucus sessions that will determine more than 60 delegates after the primary voting is over.
In training materials being handed out by the Clinton campaign, it is clear that they want to control those caucus sessions.
The materials say in part, "DO NOT allow the supporter of another candidate to serve in leadership roles."
It goes on to say, "If our supporters are outnumbered, ask the Temporary Chair if one of our supporters can serves as the Secretary, in the interest of fairness.
"The control of the sign-in sheets and the announcement of the delegates allotted to each candidate are the critical functions of the Chair and Secretary. This is why it is so important that Hillary supporters hold these positions."

SOMETHING ABOUT THIS SMELLS BAD!

I am not the only one talking about this,, Randi Rhodes on Air America is not happy with Hillary due to this very matter.

http://trailblazers.beloblog.com/arc...-strategy.html

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #212 of 235
post #213 of 235
Finally! One of Artman's stupid useless pictures is funny!
post #214 of 235
Howard Dean just spoke on CNN with Blitzer and said that everyone knew the rules going into this campaign and he is going to play by the rules that were agreed to.

Could this mean Hillary can forget seating anyone from Florida or Michigan?

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #215 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

Finally! One of Artman's stupid useless pictures is funny!

And I love your words of wisdom too.
post #216 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

Did you say manipulation?



SOMETHING ABOUT THIS SMELLS BAD!

I am not the only one talking about this,, Randi Rhodes on Air America is not happy with Hillary due to this very matter.

http://trailblazers.beloblog.com/arc...-strategy.html

Fellows

Well this kind of tradition of machine politics stealing elections goes way back. One of the reasons that politicians were once hated even MORE than today (back in the early 20th century) was that most of politics were the stuff of myth (only real)...novels like the Last Hurrah and All the King's Men give us a glimpse of a large class of people hungry for power under the spoils system - the seedy types that 'gentlemen and ladies' NEVER associated with. Until the middle class progressive movement started a gradual cleanup, politics was one level below that of actors.

So we see it in Hillary's ruthless caucus instructions; the implication is clear. Signup sheets can be lost, hand counts can be inaccurate, etc. Good old fashioned rob and steal...

I hope Obama's people are not so idealistic they are unprepared for this gut level work.
post #217 of 235
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I thought she was slightly to the left of Obama.

I don't think I've said that. Well, actually... perhaps she is in a sense. I think at her core she is more liberal. But she's smart enough politically to know her fortunes are not well served by pushing for what she really believes. In terms of record, he's more liberal. In terms of what they actually believe? that may be different.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #218 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


I think they're always funny! Even when I disagree with his point of view.

The guy has an endless source of visual illustration of that point of view.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #219 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

<BUMP!>

So, err...Hillary. Hmmm.




SDW on election night!

PS. Not that I think HC will win. I think Obama is the more likely now.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #220 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I don't think I've said that. Well, actually... perhaps she is in a sense. I think at her core she is more liberal. But she's smart enough politically to know her fortunes are not well served by pushing for what she really believes. In terms of record, he's more liberal. In terms of what they actually believe? that may be different.

Dude, do me a favor. Print out this quote and go to your local bar. Walk up to a stranger. Read it to that person. Ask him if it makes any sense.

She is, but she's not, but her record is, but it's not? But she really is?

Huh?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #221 of 235
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Dude, do me a favor. Print out this quote and go to your local bar. Walk up to a stranger. Read it to that person. Ask him if it makes any sense.

She is, but she's not, but her record is, but it's not? But she really is?

Huh?

What happened to nuance, mid? Is it really that hard to understand? She is liberal at heart. She has been liberal for 30 years. But she's shrewd too. She will do what is politically popular and what will benefit her political future. Her ambition outweighs her political beliefs.

Now, Obama? He's liberal, certainly. He's probably not as collective-minded as she is. But he votes his conscience--and his ambition does not outweigh that conscience. Therefore his record is more liberal than hers.

Tough concept, I realize.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #222 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

What happened to nuance, mid? Is it really that hard to understand? She is liberal at heart. She has been liberal for 30 years. But she's shrewd too. She will do what is politically popular and what will benefit her political future. Her ambition outweighs her political beliefs.

Now, Obama? He's liberal, certainly. He's probably not as collective-minded as she is. But he votes his conscience--and his ambition does not outweigh that conscience. Therefore his record is more liberal than hers.

Tough concept, I realize.

I'm mostly just fascinated by the elaborate narratives about "hearts" and "cores" and "conscience" and "ambition" that you have to construct to compensate for the fact that Obama is slightly more conservative that her.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #223 of 235
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I'm mostly just fascinated by the elaborate narratives about "hearts" and "cores" and "conscience" and "ambition" that you have to construct to compensate for the fact that Obama is slightly more conservative that her.

I'm not compensating for anything. It's just the way it is. His record is a bit to the left of hers. But I really don't think the record tells the whole story. That's the point I'm making.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #224 of 235

never mind
post #225 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I'm not compensating for anything. It's just the way it is. His record is a bit to the left of hers. But I really don't think the record tells the whole story. That's the point I'm making.

I think the point is that, for a politician, "the record" is the ideology.

You're arguing that Hillary has some kind of indwelling "liberalism" that isn't reflected in what she has actually done, as an office holder. That is, in a word, gibberish.

You might as well argue that, say, Jackson Pollock was a painter of traditional landscapes and that the fact that he actually produced abstract canvases was due to some kind of cunning.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #226 of 235
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

I think the point is that, for a politician, "the record" is the ideology.

You're arguing that Hillary has some kind of indwelling "liberalism" that isn't reflected in what she has actually done, as an office holder. That is, in a word, gibberish.

You might as well argue that, say, Jackson Pollock was a painter of traditional landscapes and that the fact that he actually produced abstract canvases was due to some kind of cunning.

Wow. Let me get this straight. You're suggesting that Hillary Clinton has voted her conscience, ignoring what has been politically popular in favor of what she felt was right? Two words: Iraq War.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #227 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Wow. Let me get this straight. You're suggesting that Hillary Clinton has voted her conscience, ignoring what has been politically popular in favor of what she felt was right? Two words: Iraq War.

So that's why she's completely apologized for her vote, right? Riiight? Riiiiiiiiight?

To which I add: that vote is a real problem for lots of folks.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #228 of 235
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

So that's why she's completely apologized for her vote, right? Riiight? Riiiiiiiiight?

To which I add: that vote is a real problem for lots of folks.

It's why she's changed her position about 17 times.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #229 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It's why she's changed her position about 17 times.

She changed her position? From "I voted for it" to what? to "I voted for it"?

But never you mind. That record doesn't matter, apparently, since you seem intent on arguing that despite what they have done, they meant to do something else.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #230 of 235
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

She changed her position? From "I voted for it" to what? to "I voted for it"?

But never you mind. That record doesn't matter, apparently, since you seem intent on arguing that despite what they have done, they meant to do something else.

Hillary didn't just vote for it, she openly supported it and argued for it.
  • On October 11, 2002, Clinton voted in favor of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, commonly known as the Iraq War Resolution, to give President Bush authority for the Iraq War.
  • On Larry King, 2004, asked about her vote: Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since. No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade...
  • In a November 29, 2005 letter to her constituents, Senator Clinton said, "There are no quick and easy solutions to the long and drawn out conflict [the Bush] Administration triggered...
  • On June 15, 2006, Clinton charged that President Bush rushed to war and refused to let the UN inspectors conduct and complete their mission ...
  • June 14th, 2006: Clinton restates her opposition to a timetable for withdrawal.
  • In a Jan. 15, 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas, she proposed to "start withdrawing" troops within 60 days of her inauguration, to bring out "one or two brigades a month" and have "nearly all of the troops out" by the end of 2009.
  • In June 2006, Clinton restated her long-standing opposition to establishing timetables for withdrawing U.S. forces in Iraq. In a Jan. 15, 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas, she proposed to "start withdrawing" troops within 60 days of her inauguration, to bring out "one or two brigades a month" and have "nearly all of the troops out" by the end of 2009.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #231 of 235
ok...


so Hillary sucks when it comes to her hawkish actions... we all have known this for some time...

what of it?
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #232 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Hillary didn't just vote for it, she openly supported it and argued for it.

I don't think that helped your point that she's some kind of uber-lefty at heart.

Hillary is a hawk. Her votes says she's a hawk. Her refusal to cow tow to the lefty wing of the party (hell, to the majority of Americans who think invading Iraq was a bad idea) shows she's a hawk. Her speechifying for the vote says she's a hawk.

I mean, unless you ignore her record.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #233 of 235
The first three items in that list show Clinton's hawkishness.

The last three are some kind of odd effort to get maximum bullet points out of two things: that she opposed timetables for withdrawal in mid '06 and had come around to same by January of this year, 18 months later.

As Midwinter says, hawkishness seems like poor evidence of secret liberalism; reaching the point of enough is enough regarding our presence in Iraq just seems to be evidence of sanity.

In fact, haven't you, yourself, SDW, gone on record as expecting and desiring troop drawdowns Pretty Soon Now?

Is this evidence of your secret liberalism? Or do you actually want to see the troops stay in Iraq forever, but you're just saying you want them out to disguise how liberal you really are? Wait, that doesn't seem to make much sense........

Hypocrisy? Flip-flopping? I mean, it must be something bad, to have made the list of Hillary crimes.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #234 of 235
Silly SDW. Trix are for kids!
post #235 of 235
Novak is particularly keen in his latest WaPo column:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...502888_pf.html

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Is Hillary Melting Down?