Democratic Party Gives Hillary the Royal Shaft

Interesting editorial from non-supporter of Clinton.

The Democratic Party is giving one of its presidential candidates Sen. Hillary Clinton the royal shaft.

While we do not support any of the candidates running from either party, in the name of common fairness no one watching the unfolding events of the last few months can objectively come to any other conclusion. Clinton has worked hard and presented a good campaign, even though we totally disagree with her political philosophy. Hillary has not ducked questions, has gone toe-to-toe with many formidable foes and demagogues, and she has won major victories in states where the demographics are similar to those of the United States as a whole.

Yet, her party, which she and her husband have supported and helped build into a state-of-the-art candidate, success machine, is throwing her under the bus.

Link to rest: http://exposedstory.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/05/democratic-part.html

In what way is she getting the shaft? There was a competition, and the one with the most votes wins.

the Clintons would have run him out of the race 2 months ago saying he was hurting the party's chances in November and citing rules IN WRITING that were agreed to about NOT seating the Florida and Michigan delegations-and everybody knows that would be true

He alternated between rage at the Democratic Party for electing Obama and depression that his girl didn't win.

His supporters must really be stupid, he is very transparent.

WTF???????

WTF does that mean? :wtf:

It means states where the demographics mirror the demographics of the US as a whole.

It's very disturbing to me that the Clinton campaign and supporters share the idea that some states are more important than others, some voters are more important than others and some groups of people are more important than others.

but winning those states is one part of an argument that the the winner of those states has a better chance of winning the US as a whole.

It seems pretty basic and obvious to me.

the delegate count, the popular vote, the number of states won, the number of SDs and the record-breaking fundraising with over 1.5 million donors ... and give the nomination to the other person. :eyes:

to superdelegates. Obama is making his own arguments to superdelegates. Clinton is making hers.

I have no idea what the hell that means, truthfully. The demographics in my own county couldn't be painted with so broad a brush.

That's gotta be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. You mean winning states in the GE that don't mirror the "demographics of the US as a whole" won't add to a candidate's vote count? Because that's basically the result of what you're saying.

How stupid can you get. Not only that, but, your theory is flawed on the bases that you're assuming folks who didn't vote for Obama in the primaries also won't vote for him in the GE. AND....on top of that your theory doesn't take into account all the cross over republican voters who are voting for Hillary because they know she has the least chance against McCain.

Please think before posting.

first on the issue of non-bias

seond for completing ignoring the issues which have been thrown in Obama's face (just because he got past them doesn't mean they weren't there or potentially fatal blows)

too much work to do to go on, but thanks again for putting a smile on my face

A much larger percentage of the electorate in the general election than latte liberals and blacks.

nonsense, yet he's gotten millions of their votes. Iowa is 91% white, for godsakes. And in the states he lost the white vote he was running against another democrat, which in no way reflects what will happen in the GE. Let's move on from this b.s., please?

Always conveniently bypassed.

:banghead:

thank you.

There is nothing in Obama's record this primary season that assumes he can effectively court the working class white vote to the point we need to win the election.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

How is this relevant, at this point?

Seems to me you aren't paying attention. The race is OVER. The time for arguing points like this is past.

If not, the race is not over.

as proof of sheer, single-minded power seeking. As if the fact that all the delegates haven't made their feelings known has any relevance to the question at hand.

You simply ignore the harm she is doing to herself and our party. Did you even read the Noonan article? What's your response? Quoting numbers is not a response.

I can only surmise that it was phrased this way in order to sound as if some "authority" has pronounced that it's time for the "working white class" to get in line and vote for "the appointed" candidate.


I am working white class and I'm not lining up to receive my "cup o bullshit" for the week. :eyes:

Obama has some working class white support, but it is miniscule.

Iowa and Wisconsin.:eyes:

Yup just millions of black, upper class, egghead, latte sipping farmers populate those states.:eyes::eyes:

The Clinton's race card and class warfare schemes have totally failed in case you didn't notice it.

:eyes:

That the white people who vote for Obama are not part of the "working class whites", that's just crap!

I have worked my ass off since I was a kid, served my country during the Vietnam war, raised a family, paid my bills, and I am still working my ass off at 56! I know a lot of other "whites" just like me who will be voting for Obama, so stop with the BS about how Hillary is the only one that can get the "working class white vote"!

IWR. Bullshit divisive campaign.

Hopefully, the damage that she has done to our party will not hurt us in November.

get a healthy part of the blame, and could possibly be alienated by her Democratic colleagues, in the Senate. Her naked ambition is on full display these days, and it's not pretty.

dem·a·gogue - a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power

DECLARATIONS
By PEGGY NOONAN

Damsel of Distress
May 9, 2008
This is an amazing story. The Democratic Party has a winner. It has a nominee. You know this because he has the most votes and the most elected delegates, and there's no way, mathematically, his opponent can get past him. Even after the worst two weeks of his campaign, he blew past her by 14 in North Carolina and came within two in Indiana.



He's got this thing. And the Democratic Party, after this long and brutal slog, should be dancing in the streets. Party elders should be coming out on the balcony in full array, in full regalia, and telling the crowd, "Habemus nominatum": "We have a nominee." And the crowd below should be cheering, "Viva Obamus! Viva nominatum!"

Instead, you know where they are, the party elders. They are in a Democratic club on Capitol Hill, slump-shouldered at the bar, having a drink and then two, in a state of what might be called depressed horror. "What are they doing to the party?" they wail. "Why are they doing this?"

You know who they are talking about.

The Democratic Party can't celebrate the triumph of Barack Obama because the Democratic Party is busy having a breakdown. You could call it a breakdown over the issues of race and gender, but its real source is simply Hillary Clinton. Whose entire campaign at this point is about exploiting race and gender.

-snip
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121027865275678423.html?mod=opinion_columns_featured_lsc

Because it is not. What the math does is to support, taking into account the political reality, that it is impossible.

Phrasing it the other way just makes room for a real objection that clouds the discussion.

Other than that she is right.

I am getting pretty tired of people who apparently didn't pay attention in math class. I stand in line behind them while they buy lottery tickets every day.

The Democratic Party has not thrown the Clintons under the bus, a phrase that has jumped the shark, which phrase itself has in self referential fashion, also done the same. Hillary Clinton has lost the primary race. She failed to win more delegates than Obama. The party has remained mostly out of the primary race, as it should.

Oh, and her campaign since she adopted the kitchen sink strategy after losing the race on super tuesday, has been anything but a 'good campaign'. That assertion in your article is laughable, all the more so by its accompanying assertion that "no one watching the unfolding events of the last few months can objectively come to any other conclusion". Yes they can. Everyone being remotely objective understands that the Clintons went deeply negative and have in fact descended into outright racism, from scary black man pastorbating to 'whites don't vote black', their latest theme.

More troll work.

All she had to do was vote YES on the war......etc.

They HAVE betrayed her! Now the money will flow toward
power....I have hope that Obama's charge from the PEOPLE
will now take precedence.

We have CRACKED THE BACK of the DLC!

"We have CRACKED THE BACK of the DLC!"

- the people have spoken!

We were bushwhacked in 04...

but too many people have been
feeling the very real pain of
the unholy alliance between the
DLC and the 'puglicans.

I only hope it's not too late to
change things before HALF OF AMERICA
loses their homes!

if you know what I mean.

It is how she has been viciously thrown under the bus by the entire Democrat party. You know, the same Democratic party that she and her husband made relevant again after the Dukakis and Mondale failures.

The way the Democratic party has thrown a loyal soldier under the bus is shameful.

If she had won more states and had more delegates than Barack, then everyone would be talking about how she was the nominee. As it were, Barack has more states, more delegates, and more VOTES. He is the nominee.

No one did anything to her, she did it to herself. She wanted the world to think that she was something she wasn't, she called out and flat out lied about her competition and then announced how only she and McCain were suitable for the job.

She threw the democratic party under the bus, stuck her foot in her mouth and pissed off the majority of democrats. The republicans, well... they love her, she ran her campaign by the republican play book.

She needs to take responsibility for the choices she made, and trust me she isn't a victim, people just don't want to play her way anymore. I'm pissed that this crap keeps coming out of democrats. :mad:

Loyal soldier?

Tell that to all the voters she keeps dismissing.

Regards

I guess from now on we should let the party elders award presidential nominations based on seniority.

Now they are bailing.

I guess if your goal is present yourself as inevitable, start of with double digit leads everywhere only to lose the most votes, the most states and the most pledged delegates then, yes, I guess that it has been a good campaign.

If you want to know what the Clintons did for the party, all you need to do is look at the number of Dem Governors, Senators and Congressmen in Nov 92 and Nov 2000. If the numbers went up a lot, then the Clintons were good for the party.

Welcome to democracy.

It's like one of those Rube Golberg contraptions that make a lot of noise, do goofy things, and wows the the hicks, but produces nothing.

Unfortunately she hired the wrong campaign manager and completely miscalculated her opponent. This revisionist history of trying to paint Hillary as the underdog up against the wall doesn't wash.

Either way, it's not to be.

state-of-the-art candidate, success machine"

The Democratic Party lost in 2000 and lost in 2004 pretty much as a direct result of Bill Clinton's sexual indiscretions. It was the ineptitude of George W Bush that turned things around for the Democrats in 2006.

Nobody's throwing her under the bus - she's leaping down there all by herself.

:eyes:

they might, just might, have an ulterior motive? Do you REALLY think Pat Buchanan, Bill Kristol, Byron York, Dick Scaife, etc. want Hillary to be president? I hate to rain on your parade, but good grief, your clue is missing. Better go find it or get a new one as soon as possible.

to support the Obama nomination and you want to hector people about right wingers?

Jesus Motherfucking Christ on a Popsicle Stick. :crazy:

Other than that, what's your point?

Therefore, your original assertion is bunk.

Other than the aforementioned Ms. Noonan, what else ya got? Where are all those pro-Obama op-eds and endorsements from the right wing? I'm interested to see those.

I'll leave you to that as I gotta go. Have a nice weekend. :hi:

on par with Kristol and Buchanan and Scaife and Scarborough then we will just agree to disagree, and even if we were to agree, that's just two.

do you frequent that site often progressive25?

Careful, posting links to wingnut websites, with a post count as low as yours, could cause someone to think you are a troll :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

She should have dropped out immediately after she lost 11 in a row...lined up next to Obama and campaigned WITH him..

Polls would have had us leading in double digits over Mccain..

They could have been resting up for the convention..

she was broke already, and HAD to know that she could not compete..either on message or money

all the nasty divisive stuff has happened since then.. they would have been an unstoppable force.. and she would have been the hands-down shoo-in as veep..and we all would have loved it :) then.....but not now...

give someone the shaft:
1. To perform sexual-intercourse with or to someone.

So, I guess the question is was it rape?

more racist code

He never once mentioned anything to do with her personal life to get ahead and that's why I favor him. If it was a low blow upon Hillary in the 90s it's a low blow now.

Shocking... Um... Yeah :eyes:

She lost fair and square... well partly because she was unfair, but she drove her own campaign into the toilet.