Let's have a serious discussion here about the Ultimate Prize for Hillary.
It's the White House. Plain and simple, she isn't interested in a leadership position unless it is The Leadership Position. And I don't blame her, she has bought into her own press. For the last 4 years she has read article after article after news cast after radio show transcript about how she is the natural front runner.
Now I know there are some here who support her run for office, I am not one of them, but I understand the allure of her Presidency. They want Bill back and this is the easiest way to have it, plus, I think they genuinely believe that she is better qualified for the job. And when compared to Obama, I would have to agree.
And I know there are those here who support Obama. They are fascinated by the concept of Hope and Change and a new way of doing things in Washington. I would be too, if only someone was actually offering anything different. Obama says little so as not to have a need to defend a position. It's beautiful and the fact that so many of you have bought into it, and I mean bought into it financially, emotionally and spiritually, is impressive.
But let's get back to her majesty, the ordained Queen of Democratic Politics, Hillary Clinton. After years of infighting and technical political maneuvering she has fought her way to the pinnacle of Politics enough to be considered the first, very real female candidate for the highest office in the land. One must remember that Hillary is a woman who has had a knack for getting her way and she also knows that the only way to get what she wants quite often is to fight for it out in the open.
This is what she is doing today. She is telegraphing her punches. She is giving us some insight into her mentality on the subject. It's hers damn it, and she want is.
In her mind she has paid her dues, and a hell of a lot more dues than this upstart kid from Hawaii, Chicago, or where ever he claims to be from this week. Hillary Clinton has eaten more s*** in the last 30 years than any woman in the limelight today except for perhaps, well, no-one. She is the winner by a mile in that category. Can you imagine the sense of entitlement that breeds in a person? You can't. Neither can I. But she can.
Hillary is not thinking of the Ultimate Prize in the way we are. Right now you are all circling the wagons trying to justify why she would continue. And I have told you several times it is because she is not out of the running yet and she knows it.
There is an inbred fear that is so obvious that it is actually funny to watch. CLB tries to give you a little advice about cutting your own throats and you jump on her like she were me. So far CLB is the only one who has even come close to visualizing the disturbing chain of events that could very easily come to pass if Hillary does not walk.
You should listen a little more and speak a little less.
But what would I know; I'm just an Average American.
Hillary's Ultimate Prize
|
Posted By: Average American Posted on: May. 21, 2008 at 10:45 PM |
0.0 / 5
Based on 0 ratings.
|
*This article was filtered, login or change your preferences to remove language filter.
Anonymous commenting has been disabled, you must login to comment on articles.
Signup for an accountComments:
|
May. 22, 2008 at 07:21:41 AM
|
||
[This is a reply to comment by degaselli on May. 21, 2008 at 11:44:22 PM]
degaselli
May. 21, 2008 at 11:44:22 PM Like i havent mentioned the self destruct issue with... View this Comment WTF are you talking about? I'm lost. Yes you have spoken of the Obama implosion but what does that have to do with this? Obama won't have to implode if Hillary negotiates or brokers an outcome favorable to her in Denver. Obama will just have to sit back for 4-8 years and mature. He will be a more viable candidate by then so I hope someone out there is preparing for a real fight in 2012/2016. |
||
|
May. 22, 2008 at 09:20:26 AM
|
||
| First of all, Cynthia is making an argument for why Clinton has every right to stay in the race; she is not trying to be a Cassandra in warning us about Clinton stealing the nomination in August. Sounds like you should listen more and speak less too. Second, you keep on repeating this BS that Hillary is a ruthless shrew who always get her way, and like so much you say, it's an empty talking point. She may be showing her ruthless ambition now, but where is her history of brutal conquest? Healthcare reform? I don't recall her getting her way on that one. Third, you know as well as I that politicians running for reelection are ambiguous as a survival mechanism. Specifics are rarely offered up freely; it's called giving your enemy a rope. It's also called not prematurely tying your hands (like Read my lips: No new taxes.). But when pressed for real policy answers, I have not found Obama nor Clinton lacking in specifics, and they stick to their answers. What does McCain do? His answers (or should I say platitudes) vary with the phase of the moon, or come and go with the tides. I'd rather have a President with the right and consistent general approach to government policy than a President with the wrong specific approaches on nearly every issue, especially when those specific approaches keep contradicting each other. Hillary Clinton has eaten more s*** in the last 30 years than any woman in the limelight today except for perhaps, well, no-one. Coming from the man feeding her all that s***, this is a rich endorsement. Gosh, you Republicans really want to run against Hillary. |
||
|
May. 22, 2008 at 10:16:18 AM
|
||
| "Cynthia is making an argument for why Clinton has every right to stay in the race; she is not trying to be a Cassandra in warning us about Clinton stealing the nomination in August." I never said that was what she was doing. I said she was trying to stop her party from cutting their own throats, primarily by asking for Hillary to bail. So, upon your reflection of that statement and the rereading of my original post, I'm sure you feel just a little repentant for your comments. I am a kind man; you are forgiven. |
||
|
May. 22, 2008 at 10:32:20 AM
|
||
| So far CLB is the only one who has even come close to visualizing the disturbing chain of events that could very easily come to pass if Hillary does not walk. So the "disturbing chain of events" you are referring to is Democrats asking the person who can't win without destroying the party to stop trying? You have a strange way of getting your message across AA. You said yourself that Hillary would break the Party if she takes this to the convention and somehow prevails; now you're saying that the real danger is if Democrats try to convince her not to do this. Which is it? Should we "cut our throats" in asking the loser to bow out already, or should be allow Hillary to cut out collective throats at the DNC? Or are you just trying to confuse the issue . . . Operation Chaos? |
||
|
May. 22, 2008 at 10:33:08 AM
|
||
| Another argument in support of Hillary, coming from people who will never vote for her in a million years. When was the last time the opposition spent this much time, money and effort to help their "opponent" to victory? Anyone recall this at the Presidential level? Mody, 2 cents or any of you old farts, did Wilson or Coolidge benefit from this kind of help?
|
||
|
May. 22, 2008 at 12:14:38 PM
|
||
[This is a reply to comment by Phaedrus on May. 22, 2008 at 10:33:08 AM]
Phaedrus
May. 22, 2008 at 10:33:08 AM Another argument in support of Hillary, coming from people who will never vote for her in a million years. When was the last time the opposition spent this much time, money and effort to help their "opponent" to victory? Anyone recall this... View this Comment Why do we want Hilary to beat out Obama? Plain and simple, out of the three candidates Obama is the least qualified. Obama knows nothing about security, foreign policy, the economy, he has weak senatorial experience, thinks Iran is a "tiny" problem, has poor judgment, and doesn't have a clue on how he is going to "change"anything and can only "hope" he can. This is not a game, our countries future is at stake, these are dangerous times, we can't risk putting him in office. Wake up!! McCain or Hillary would make a stronger president because they have more EXPERIENCE. As an independent, I am leaning towards McCain but Hillary would be my second choice based on experience. If Obama is out of it, I wouldn't need to vote. Obama would not be the front runner if he wasn't black, he would have been eliminated a long time ago. Blacks want a black president that they can identify with, whites have a need to show they are not racist, the young voters want a youthful fresh looking guy and him being black makes a bigger point , the parents of these kids want to show their kids they are "with it and they are still cool." THATS WHY THEY ARE BACKING OBAMA, SICK ISN'T IT? Remember watching American Idol last year, the people continued to vote for this kid who had a mohawk hairdo, he was the worst singer and never should have been on that stage. People wanted to make a point by upsetting the whole system. SAME LOGIC. |
||
|
May. 22, 2008 at 01:11:51 PM
|
||
[This is a reply to comment by My 2 cents on May. 22, 2008 at 12:14:38 PM]
My 2 cents
May. 22, 2008 at 12:14:38 PM Why do we want Hilary to beat out Obama? Plain and simple, out of the three candidates Obama is the least qualified. Obama knows nothing about security, foreign policy, the economy, he has weak senatorial experience, thinks Iran is a... View this Comment 2 cents, other than Hillary and McBush both being warmongers, what other issue do they agree on? How can anyone look at those 2 and think they're both equal? And maybe you've not been literate, or listening to this year's race; the peeps don't want a "black" candidate, they are rejecting the experience, they want change from the last 20 years of the politics of division. If the voters wanted experience, then Hillary, Dodd, Biden or Richardson would've swept Super Tuesday, and knocked out Obama. But he knocked them out. As for qualified, what the voters want is good judgment, which is essentially the only qualification that matters. McCain and Hillary were for the Iraqi FUBAR war, and for the occupation forever. McCain and Hillary are both for NAFTA, and free trade, and shipping all our jobs to China. 24 years or 16 years of Washington experience of doing the wrong thing is not better for America. It just leads us to more stupid, Bushian results. |
||
|
May. 22, 2008 at 01:58:06 PM
|
||
[This is a reply to comment by Phaedrus on May. 22, 2008 at 01:11:51 PM]
Phaedrus
May. 22, 2008 at 01:11:51 PM 2 cents, other than Hillary and McBush both being warmongers, what other issue do they agree on? How can anyone look at those 2 and think they're both equal? And maybe you've not been literate, or listening to this year's race; the peeps don't want a... View this Comment Phaedrus, 2 cents, other than Hillary and McBush both being warmongers, what other issue do they agree on? How can anyone look at those 2 and think they're both equal? I didn't say they were equal Or that they agreed on issues. I said Hillary would be my second choice, because of experience. We haven't much to choose from here that being said McCain shows the most leadership and experience. Obama has NONE And maybe you've not been literate, or listening to this year's race; the peeps don't want a "black" candidate, they are rejecting the experience, they want change from the last 20 years of the politics of division. I am literate and obviously listening closer than you. If people don't want a black president then WHY ARE THEY VOTING FOR ONE?? Change comes with all the candidates, and Obama is not going to change the political division. He is as partisan as the other two. BTW didn't Edwards want CHANGE, they didn't vote for him. If the voters wanted experience, then Hillary, Dodd, Biden or Richardson would've swept Super Tuesday, and knocked out Obama. But he knocked them out. You need to go back and reread what I wrote. WE THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE VOTING FOR THE CANDIDATE WITH THE MOST EXPERIENCE. THE DEMOCRATS ARE VOTING FOR OBAMA B E C A U S E: Obama would not be the front runner if he wasn't black, he would have been eliminated a long time ago. Blacks want a black president that they can identify with, whites have a need to show they are not racist, the young voters want a youthful fresh looking guy and him being black makes a bigger point , the parents of these kids want to show their kids they are "with it and they are still cool." THATS WHY THEY ARE BACKING OBAMA, SICK ISN'T IT? As for qualified, what the voters want is good judgment, which is essentially the only qualification that matters. EXACTLY, BUT THEY WON'T GET IT WITH THEIR POOR JUDGMENT OF VOTING FOR OBAMA. McCain and Hillary were for the Iraqi FUBAR war, and for the occupation forever. THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY SAID, WE WILL HAVE BASES THERE AS WE DO IN EVERY other COUNTRY. I would be very surprised if Obama didn't do the same, after talking to his advisers. McCain and Hillary are both for NAFTA, and free trade, and shipping all our jobs to China. UNTRUE 24 years or 16 years of Washington experience of doing the wrong thing is not better for America. It just leads us to more stupid, Bushian results. Its easy being an armchair quarterback. Hindsight is a wonderful gift if you have it, you should be running. I think you need to take off those rose colored glasses. If you don't see any good in the past 24 years, what makes you think Obama can do better? He is not a magician or a saint is he? The democrats are ALREADY giving Obama a pass for the first 4 years if he is elected. So there you have it. I refuse to believe the American People are so passive that they would vote Obama into office, IT WON'T HAPPEN. (Notice the Mohawk guy who couldn't sing didn't make it to the end, the majority of the people didn't let that happen, they said enough already). |
||
|
May. 22, 2008 at 02:07:25 PM
|
||
| Steve Benen: I’m 35, and have been following politics for quite a while, and I’ve never been so disappointed with a politician I’ve admired and respected. Yesterday’s tactics weren’t just wrong, they were offensive. For that matter, they seem to be part of a deliberate strategy to tear Democrats apart and ensure a defeat in November. For several weeks, I’ve appreciated the fact that Clinton considers herself the superior candidate, and has kept her campaign going in the hopes, from her perspective, of saving the party from itself. But after yesterday, it’s become impossible for me to consider Clinton’s intentions honorable. Her conduct is not that of a leader [...] Instead of trying to help bring the party together — Election Day is 24 weeks away — Clinton went to Florida to argue that if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, his nomination will be illegitimate. And if the DNC plays by the rules Clinton used to support, it’s guilty of vote-suppression — comparable to slavery, Jim Crow, and Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe. TBogg: My contempt for her has reached the Lieberman line. There is one thing that I truly believe in and that is fairness. You may not like the rules, but once you agree to them, you play by them. Hillary Clinton can't even manage to do someting as simple as that. Josh Marshall: [Clinton] is embarking on a gambit that is uncertain in its result and simply breathtaking in its cynicism. Clinton HAD de-escalated last week, but now she is going nuclear. Why? This is a theory: Time magazine’s Karen Tumulty reports: What will Clinton’s terms of surrender turn out to be? Her husband, for one, seems to have a pretty clear idea what he thinks she should get as a consolation prize. In Bill Clinton’s view, she has earned nothing short of an offer to be Obama’s running mate, according to some who are close to the former President. Bill “is pushing real hard for this to happen,” says a friend. The Field can now confirm, based on multiple sources, something that both campaigns publicly deny: that Senator Clinton has directly told Senator Obama that she wants to be his vice presidential nominee, and that Senator Obama politely but straightforwardly and irrevocably said “no.” Obama is going to pick his own running mate based on his own criteria and vetting process. In matters like these, I won't put much stock on anyone's secret sources -- whether it's Time or the always excellent Al Giordano-- since there's so much bulls***, misinformation, and rumors floating around that it would be impossible for anyone to sift between fact and fiction. There are probably only a handful of people who would know whether this is true, and they're not publicly dishing. =============================== OK so there is alot of cut and paste, but it shows other bloggers backing my screed, that the most liberal minds on the internets all are disgusted at Hillary's gambit at this point. Also, GE match ups, Obama is now leading McBush by 7 points, which is a 15 point swing in the last 5 weeks, since Obama has wrapped up the nomination. |
||







del.icio.us
Digg It!


Report Abuse