home

Hillary Clinton Web Chat

Hillary chatted with folks today. Here is a highlight:

Questions #4:

Hey Hillary you are such a great person I went to a rally of yours during the primary in New Hampshire & did some campaigning for you here in albany ny you put a smile on my face every time I saw you whether in person or on tv. You are a strong women don't give up keep fighting for whats right. I hope our country can take a new step in the right direction once Barack Obama is president. I want to say if he does ask you to be his VP you should and you would make a great vice president Mrs. Clinton:)

God Bless

Larry D.
Albany ny

Answer:

I have said repeatedly that I will do whatever Senator Obama asks me to do. I am really focused and enjoying being back in the Senate and working on behalf of my New York constituents. This is Senator Obama’s decision and his alone and I am going to respect the privacy of that process by not discussing it.

< The Trouble With Polling, Part XXX | Kilpatrick's Bail Revoked >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Don't do it Hillary!!!! (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Shainzona on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:20:37 PM EST
    It can only be bad news for you and we're going to need you fresh and ready to serve in 2012!!

    Loved this one! (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by pie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:22:07 PM EST
    The first one is I want to go into law one day as my major what is the best piece of information you can give me? The second one is what wanted you to go into politics?

    Answer:

    ...My path in politics grew out of my commitment to public service and helping others. I realized that I could be most effective in helping to make a difference by becoming an elected official. It was actually a young woman who urged me to "Dare to compete." That is a piece of advice I now pass on to you.

    The most recent one is great too! (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by americanincanada on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:24:07 PM EST
    Gotta love it when she helps downticket dems!!

    Question #10

    As a college student who is participating in his first presidential election, your candidacy really borught to my attention to and energized me about the great things that can be accomplished through our political process. Now that, unfortunately, your candidacy is over, and since you (reading your biography) were able to accomplish so much during your collegiate years:
    What would you suggest college-aged Americans do to become more involved in the American politcal system, aside from voting?

    by ChrisMIA at 8/7/2008 12:42:12 PM

    Answer: Thank you, I am always glad to hear from young people who want to stay active in politics. I so apprecaited your  enthusiasm and energy throughout this campaign. This is a great time to be active in politics at every level. Every campaign I know is looking for volunteers who can help with reaching out to voters, and I can tell you that personal contact is so effective. I suggset you look at the campaigns that are taking place near you and sign up for one. The friends you make in these early campaigns are likely to stay with you throughout your whole life.

    by Senator Clinton at 8/7/2008 1:18:49 PM


    It's clear that (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by pie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:25:01 PM EST
    no decision has been made about placing her name in nomination at the convention.  (question #11)

    The perfect Democrat (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:25:55 PM EST
    Wonder if anyone will be able to find fault with her responses?

    If Obama asks her to be VP, I hope she declines.  If Obama Or McCain asks her to be Secretary of State, I hope she accepts.  She's a helluva diplomat!

    She's certainly (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by pie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:26:51 PM EST
    ramped up her senate work.  That WSJ op-ed was amazing!

    Parent
    Just caught Ed Shultz (5.00 / 10) (#11)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:00:39 PM EST
    saying she is hurting Obama.  I didn't catch the first part of his rant, but it is clear that if Obama loses, he is setting it up to be all her fault.  That dynamic has not changed, no matter how much she campaigns for Obama.

    Parent
    It is Shultz who is hurting Obama (5.00 / 16) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:04:39 PM EST
    afaiac (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:19:46 PM EST
    Schultz is the face of the Obama democratic party.

    Parent
    Schultz is someone I have only one experience with (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:07:30 PM EST
    He was debating Mark Green on one of the cable nets at some point in the early spring, and managed to make a complete @ss of himself. I would have been embarrassed if I had agreed with him.

    Parent
    Before his head got so big (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:07:28 PM EST
    he was at least listenable when he ranted against the righties.  Now that I have heard him lie time after time about Hillary, I can't listen to him for pleasure.  When I'm in the car at lunch I sometimes tune in for a minute to see what he is up to.  A couple of weeks ago he was yelling at Hillary for not, in his exact words, 'getting off her a--' and campaigning for Obama.

    I doubt he is making any new friends for Obama.

    Parent

    Ed Shultz (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by Radiowalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:19:17 PM EST
    has been of the loudest, off-the-wall, and dishonest detractors of Hillary Clinton throughout the primary.  I think he liked the gigs he was getting on Hardball and other cable shows where he performed like a reliable trained seal, trashing Hillary and Bill at every opportunity and then saying "Who, me?"

    Parent
    No, that'd be (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by talesoftwokitties on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:23:26 PM EST
    Randi Rhodes

    Parent
    How could she be hurting Obama? (5.00 / 10) (#64)
    by dianem on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:46:17 PM EST
    By not being considerate enough to drop dead before the convention so that there would be no calls for her to be on the roll call or nominated as VP?

    Parent
    Heh. (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by nemo52 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:57:26 PM EST
    It's ALWAYS Clinton's fault!

    Parent
    Remember it's the #1 Obama Fan Base (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Rhouse on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:24:20 PM EST
    Rule.

    Parent
    Not enough (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Roz on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 04:49:56 PM EST
    60% of male Obama supporters 18-25 years old will still say she's not doing enough.

    Parent
    Yeah, this is their first campaign. (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by ghost2 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:32:40 AM EST
    They have no historical perspective.

    Parent
    I found it interesting in answer #8 (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by americanincanada on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:34:04 PM EST
    That she very clearly talked about what Senator Obama and I agree on and later in the answer switched to I also believe.

    I gotta say this... I always liked (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by TheJoker on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:42:23 PM EST
    Hillary. I support O, but me and a couple friends have been really surprised at how HRC has conducted herself for the last month or so. It may be killing her, but she IS trying to be dignified and supporting lil O. Some of my friends are beginning to see her in a different light, and even expressed sentiment they would be "more open" to her in 2012 if BO manages to screw this up. They were softening a bit until this week with B. Clinton's vent. It's clear he married up, but they actually didn't hold it against HC...yet.

    It's not "killing her" (5.00 / 7) (#74)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:57:25 PM EST
    That's what she does.  That's what she's always done.  She's a professional, and she has an incredible amount of class.

    Some of it's clearly killing Bill, but he's always had a hot temper.


    Parent

    I am not surprised (5.00 / 8) (#112)
    by Manuel on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:41:33 PM EST
    Hillary has always shown the ability to handle tough times with equanimity.  This is a big reason why I supported her over Obama.  I have yet to see Obama handle negative events with as much aplomb.  The Wright flap, for example, was handled with a lot of equivocation.

    Parent
    rollingeyes@lilnetroots ... (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by bridget on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 03:27:55 PM EST
    I am soo impressed with the lil blogging "progressives" ...

    click...
    "really surprised at how HRC has conducted herself for the last month or so...."

    click:
    ..." It's clear he married up, but they actually didn't hold it against HC...yet."

    rollingeyes@lilnetroots who lack complete sense of history but don't know it ... yet.

    Parent

    Yeah, I wouldn't want to be her (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by SoCalLiberal on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 06:16:59 PM EST
    She's doing a remarkable job promoting Obama and yet because of Obama's failings, his supporters still look to blame her.  I was at a fundraiser for Hillary that Bill went to and the host talked about how much he had in common with Bill and mentioned "We both married up".  

    If you were Bill and had spent your whole life fighting against discrimination, racism, and inequality and you had been the single greatest advocate for African Americans in the past 3-4 decades, you'd be pretty pissed if suddenly a rival campaign and the media labeled you as a racist.  You'd be even angrier if they were successful at it and everyone believed them including African Americans.  Hell, I'm pretty angry about it. Point is, he has a right to be angry.  

    Parent

    I wish we were back to a year ago (5.00 / 9) (#14)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:04:08 PM EST
    Hillary hasn't changed but she has blossomed. I wouldn't have even flirted with Edwards if Hillary had been able to really show me what she is about. I know now for sure. The odd thing is I liked Obama better before Iowa than I did by March. I just wish we had do-overs in this primary season. Hopefully, this week that he is on vacation is a audition even if she has been doing that for a year now.

    A similar thing happened in Crimea in 1991 (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by goldberry on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:20:06 PM EST
    Mikhail Gorbachev went on vacation and while he was gone, eight of his associates staged a coup attempt.  They put Gorbachev under house arrest and said he was ill.  Somehow, he got word out that he was not.  

    Same thing here.  There is coup in progress in the DNC.  They have Hillary Clinton under house arrest and are making her read things she doesn't believe for a second.  Why do I know that?  Because none of us were fooled.  

    The DNC has tipped its hand.  It's getting concerned with Hillary's support community online.  So, they dragged her out to make statements of unity with Obama.  It's not looking good for Obama and Dean if they are resorting to this.  They want to demoralize us and shut us up.  

    But it's much bigger than Hillary Clinton now.  The Obama statue is starting to fall.  

    You are drinking a different kind of kool aid (5.00 / 12) (#33)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:23:10 PM EST
    BTW, that is a metaphorical house arrest (none / 0) (#44)
    by goldberry on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:30:48 PM EST
    It isn't to be taken lit-rally.  

    Parent
    one can actually tell (5.00 / 15) (#54)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:36:20 PM EST
    how bad it is for Obama by how shrill and hysterical the CDS coming from his surrogates in the media is.

    With his poll numbers falling and nearly half of those Americans polled sick and tired of seeing him, there is still a slight chance the SDs may see the light, tell Dean and Brazile to STFU and nominate the choice of the majority of Primary Voters.

    If she weren't still a threat -- which she is --, then they'd be focusing on McCain instead of still trying to tear her down.

    This is not how confident campaigns act.

    Parent

    Enhancing Barack Abroad with Olympics ads (5.00 / 7) (#95)
    by Ellie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:18:22 PM EST
    ... and triumphantly carrying this World Class Mascot Obama into the Dem convention is a fizzled plan.

    How EASILY it was derailed pretty much explains why this (brilliant!) campaigner has to have a burn rate of 1-to-5 times his more experienced opponents just to tread in place (or keep from losing to them).

    All Obama's and his campaign's continuing pettiness has done is reinforce confidence both in McCain's supporters and Sen Clinton's supporters.

    She's reiterated that she'll do whatever Obama asks to support his campaign. Team O looks really bad continuing to slam her and Bill Clinton. Try as Team Obama might, he and his not ready for prime time playpen can't blame others for their own missteps.

    They're not doing so hot against McCain, either, who's having way too much fun painting Obama as another Bush.

    Parent

    Maybe after the Hawaii beefcake shots... (5.00 / 8) (#102)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:25:22 PM EST
    The numbers might go up after his photo shoots in Hawaii. And even if he stays cooped up in his room, I am sure there will be tales of his grins and fun. On a surfboard, running along a beach, splashing out of the ocean, diving off the high dive into the pool, visiting the big volcano and catching some lava in his hand, slicing up 5 pineapples with a single swing of his Swiss Army Knife and the list goes on.

    Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Hillary will be following her instructions and doing the home work.  

    Parent

    Surfing? wind-surfing? (none / 0) (#156)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 04:16:26 PM EST
    where? (5.00 / 6) (#151)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 03:58:45 PM EST
    and what polls?

    you mean the Pew Poll where 48% of Americans are sick of hearing about him compared to the 27% who are tired of hearing about McCain?  

    Now, I'm no political "expert" (unlike, say, Olbermann or Maddow), but I don't think that's a rise ObamaLand should be pleased with.

    Parent

    in Obama land (5.00 / 4) (#165)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 05:00:41 PM EST
    his polls are always rising.

    Parent
    five points (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:41:39 PM EST
    when the margin of error is three points is nothing to get excited about.  Check his cross tabs on Women, blue collar, rural and independents (all of which he's losing) and you'll -- well, maybe not you personally, but someone who's objective about these things -- will see stunningly soft support and great cause for worry.

    In fact, I believe both Kerry and Gore had higher averages and stronger support from those groups I mentioned above during this time of the race.

    Parent

    Follow Hillary's lead (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by Manuel on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:49:32 PM EST
    I think Hillary understands that the cause will go on regardless of what happened in the primaries or what happens in the GE.  We must do what we need to do for the sake of the issues we care about.  An Obama victory will be better for our issues than a McCain victory (though we'll have to organize and fight regardless).  Forgive but don't forget!

    Parent
    that is a statement of faith on someone with a (D) (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Ford Prefect on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:07:32 AM EST
    Obama and his campaign has made it clear that they are not about policies really. They are about "changing the politics" although there is zero evidence he has ever done that the entire time he has been in public office. There is zero evidence that this guy really believes in any specific progressive or non-progressive policy, what with his flip-flops in just weeks after the primary was over. I do believe any dem will likely have more dem friendly policies than a repub president, even if he or she doesnt believe an iota of it, just purely due to the cabinet and the congress and reelection necessities etc. But that is not the only reason or the primary reason we elect presidents for.

    If our congress critters were half as brave as they should be, we could get a veto proof majority in a year like this and use that to get our policies enacted. But then again our own congress has been afraid of progressive policies and so has been a problem just as much as the president. So I dont see how an Obama presidency would suddenly usher in a utopian era of progressivism. You could say things wont move extreme rightwards like it would, with a republican majority. But that can be accomplished with a dem majority in the congress as well. In the worst case they at least wont do extreme righty things. In the best case they may do a few things that are centrist or slightly right of center, what with multi-colored dogs in congress (blue, yellow and god knows what else)

    A president is one who should have the ability, wisdom and leadership skills needed to handle a crisis (not just national security) and get the nation through a crisis and be able to take unpopular positions with his/her own party and its leadership and maybe the whole nation and convince them of the need to take those positions to steer the country in the right direction. Even if a candidate doesnt offer all of the above things they should have demonstrated skills in at least leadership and ability/curiosity to learn enough and make decisions. Obama at this point has offered zero evidence of his leadership skills in previous elected or non-elected offices he held or his conviction/commitment to any dem principle which is politically risky. It is clear he believes in himself (good for him) and wants everyone to believe in him as an article of faith. He seems more and more bush-like in his demeanor and self-assuredness and avoiding tough questions/criticism, which is not a good thing in a president to begin with, dem or repub. Even if all those qualities can help a dem candidate strategically to win a national campaign, not good in a president. What happens after the election is way more important to me and I would imagine most people, than just electing a person with a (D) after their name based on policy positions they have regurgitated from their advisors.

    Parent

    you're right (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 04:34:50 PM EST
    and now we're watching the Giant Superpowers of China and India and Dubai flex their muscles.  Americans still think We're #1, but, in reality, we're not.

    My partner is starting his work at a Private Bank in Paris and all of his business is in China, Dubai, India and Russia.  There are NO clients who are American and the business he has in America is tied directly to those Europeans and Asians bargain shopping for American real estate.

    If you watch TV, though, you'd never know how we're really viewed around the world.  

    Quick clue: it ain't pretty.

    Parent

    I suspect (5.00 / 14) (#63)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:46:06 PM EST
    at the end of the day when the dust settles and the light inevitably shines on what the DNC adn Obama did during the Primaries, many will feel Hillary was robbed and, much like Al Gore, will desperately want her to run in 2012 so they can set it right.

    A close friend of mine who works at Vanity Fair here in NYC told me last night that they already have a "Rise and Fall of Obama" article in the works.  No one is expecting him to win, but they are anticipating his fall from the pedestal will attract a lot of readers and millions of viewers.

    Hillary is much more powerful and has a much more workable Brand now than she did at the beginning of the Primaries.  And she's certainly not going to rest on her laurels and let it go to waste.  

    If his supporters and surrogates insist on continuing to trash her and her husband, she'll redirect her efforts to strengthening the majorities in the House and Senate and let the Obama campaign try to do what they keep saying they want to do:  win this without the Clintons or their supporters.

    Or, in other words, unnecessarily commit political suicide.  

    Regardless of who becomes President (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:47:48 PM EST
    (and I think it doesn't matter much, given the choice), I would like to see Hillary become the true leader of the Senate.
    You know, that gives me one reason to vote for McCain: Obama won't be in the Senate with Hillary if he wins the Presidency.

    Parent
    Oooh, she's so scary! (5.00 / 11) (#96)
    by lmv on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:20:03 PM EST
    Wow, Hillary the Omnipotent!  She can influence millions of voters with a single wave of her wand.  Everything is up to her.  Not.

    If Obama loses, it will be OBAMA'S fault.  Period.  Full stop.  End of story.

    I'd like to think that Hillary has super-cali-fragilistic magical powers.  But, she doesn't.  If she did, she would have cast a spell and made herself the nominee.  

    Hmm (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:23:26 PM EST
    Would you agree that Hillary deserves exactly as much blame in your scenario as she would deserve credit if she supported Obama and he won a close election?

    I mean, before you start saying "it will clearly be her fault," think about the flip side of that proposition.

    "Will\? (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by kempis on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 04:57:34 PM EST
    Clinton has been "doing the right thing for her party" since the beginning of the primaries. She consistently said she'd support Obama if he won. And that's exactly what she has done, despite the conspiracy theories whipped up by some of Obama's more hysterical supporters: she's gonna try to "steal teh election! Oh NOES!" Or the most outrageous conspiracy theory of all: she's hoping Obama will be assassinated!

    Parent
    give me a break (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by maladroit on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 04:05:04 AM EST
    Unnecessary division my foot. Please remember people kept voting for her - up until the last day of the primaries. Clearly by staying in until the end and ensuring that everyone got the chance to participate (save caucus states, of course) even when thigns weren't going well for her is admirable. There have been convention battles with much greater delegate spreads than this one.

    Also, FYI, she was a loyal democrat from the start. If you're only now seeing that, you haven't been looking very hard.

    Parent

    the point is, (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by sancho on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 05:17:47 PM EST
    everyone is repsonsible for what they choose to do, be they Hillary, Barack, or Catori. One thing I like about Hillary is that she owns up to her mistakes and to her responsibilities. For instance, if she said she was going to vote against FISA, she'd vote against it. If she says she is supporting Obama, she's supporting Obama. People who say she is not are helping McCain--intentionally or unintentionally.    

    Parent
    Everyone had their chancde to read (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 03:00:07 PM EST
    Flyerhawk's little bit of sh*t stirring and gotten their shots in?

    Everyone get it? Everyone understand that if they have something to say about my moderation, you do it in an e-mail to me?

    I hope so. Because it is all getting deleted now.

    I'm glad. (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by pie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 03:24:54 PM EST
    Talking past each other anyway.  Nobody here pretends BIll Clinton isn't without his faults, but the depths to which some go to trash him completely are ridiculous.

    I don't see McCain get criticized like that!  Criminey.  

    Parent

    Thanks goodness I didn't see these comments (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by bridget on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 03:38:05 PM EST
    Coming late to the site does have it's advantages at times like today.

    I only read one and fell for it by responding. Wish I hadn't now. I guess I will never get used to it to hear and see Bill Clinton maligned by socalled liberals in such a fashion.

    Thanks again, BTD.

    Parent

    I missed it too (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 06:25:04 PM EST
    Must have been something. No need to fill me or each other in, let's move on. Thanks, BTD for removing whatever it was.

    Parent
    have been deleted.

    Next person to try that little game again will be banned from my threads.

    You understand that flyerhawk?

    Parent

    Media (5.00 / 8) (#139)
    by jb64 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 03:36:57 PM EST
    The media will have their way, and again turn this election into a Democratic soap opera. I am sick and tired of people parsing every single utterance of the jr senator from New York, looking for some nuance, or double meaning in it.

    The primary is over. Whatever Obama decides to do with Clinton, or without her, the responsibility for that rests on his shoulders alone. Whatever I think (personally not picking her as VP is a HUGE mistake) or you think,or whatever the media and their endless "campaign aides" or "sources close to the campaign" thinks, this election will be won or lost by Barack Obama.

    He can choose to bring the party together or not. He can exercise some humility and make a social call on the head of the party President Clinton, or not, He can reign in his surrogates and "campaign aides" or not, but John McCain will never defeat him unless he fails to unify this party. That is his responsibility alone, like it or not.

    No he cannot. (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by prittfumes on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 04:38:53 PM EST
    He can choose to bring the party together or not. He can exercise some humility and make a social call on the head of the party President Clinton, or not, He can reign in his surrogates and "campaign aides" or not, ...

    IMO he has been bought and paid for by the DNC/RBC. He dare not move a muscle without their approval.

    Parent
    Cafferty, Hillary Doesn't Want Obama to Win (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by fctchekr on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 05:12:39 PM EST
    Check out Jack Cafferty:

    "Hillary Clinton apparently hasn't gotten the message yet that it's over.

    Here's my question to you: Do you think Hillary Clinton wants Barack Obama to win?"

    Would they really be doing this if BO wasn't fighting for every point?

    Jack is a (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 05:31:51 PM EST
    Hillary hater from way back.

    Wonder how many ex wives he has....?

    Course, he hates Bill too.

    Envy.

    So unattractive.

    Parent

    CNN has been horrible (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 06:50:25 PM EST
    for hours now.  That Cafferty crack has kept me keeping CNN on in the background, and it's back to primary-level Clinton-bashing or worse.  Seriously.

    And not a one of them appears -- repeat, appears, conveniently -- to know a thing about the history of conventions and how they are done.  

    Parent

    Good grief. (none / 0) (#180)
    by pie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 06:18:45 PM EST
    Could he be more transparent?

    On what did he base that claim?

    Parent

    come again! (5.00 / 4) (#169)
    by Ford Prefect on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 05:24:57 PM EST
    Are you frigging kidding me? Just on principle no one can fault Hillary or Bill if they dont move a finger for Obama. THis is the guy whose campaign vilified the clintons as racists. That goes way beyond politics if you have been working hard for civil rights and minority rights for 20 years only to be called a racist by someone who hadnt 1/10th as much for civil rights.

    If I were Hillary or Bill, I wouldnt move a finger for someone who calls me a racist after I work hard for minority rights for decades.

    Jeez, talk about entitlement. One has to wonder if the Obama supporters really are 16 year olds without a clue

    Yeah I know (5.00 / 3) (#177)
    by SoCalLiberal on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 06:09:44 PM EST
    I think that a lot of Obama's voters in the primaries were basically Republicans who had a wake up call about Bush but still wanted to blame the Clintons.  They live in their guard gated golf course communities and cast judgement down at the other Democrats but of course they're really not Dems.  Sad that we gave these folks so much weight in our nominating system.  Many no longer want to vote for Obama upon finding out about his past associations.  Folks like Bernardine Dorhn and Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright are the reason they live in the gated communities in the first place!  Not to mention the hoodlums.  

    Of course, the guard at the gate and the housekeepers who clean these homes all voted for Hillary and it was the first vote for so many but they lived and voted in districts with far fewer delegates.  It didn't matter to those Obama folks anyway because they feel their opinion matters more than "those people".  

    Evidence: new Wisconsin poll (5.00 / 0) (#190)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 06:55:55 PM EST
    today, a local outfit, finds Obama's lead cut by half from what it was in that outsider Quinnipiac poll a while ago.  Hard to see exactly what it says, without a previous poll this season by this local outfit.  And it's still a good lead for him here.  But he Republicans are heading back home -- as we here knew they would after their fun with the very high percentage of crossover votes in the primary per our local media in the know.

    Crucial county: No way, as I said many a time before here, that Obama gets anything near the votes he got in the primary from Waukesha County, the fundie and white-flight hideaway west of Milwaukee.  Watch it.  The local legislative races are starting to heat up now, and the Repubs are starting to pour on the money and rally their troops 'round the flag.  (See report on poll and more at jsonline.com.)

    Parent

    Cream City... (none / 0) (#195)
    by huzzlewhat on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:12:33 PM EST
    At the risk of being OT, I'm still learning the lay of the land when it comes to Wisconsin politics (I relocated here about 3 years ago), so I really appreciate your comments on Milwaukee and the environs!

    Parent
    You're a Badger, ain'a hey? (none / 0) (#198)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:17:40 PM EST
    Where in the fair state of Wisconsin?

    And thanks.  Mwokee is a weird city to figure out, in a lot of ways.:-)

    Parent

    Same as you -- (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by huzzlewhat on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:05:47 PM EST
    My handle could probably be CreamCity2, actually... :-)  

    Parent
    Sheesh (4.80 / 5) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:31:38 PM EST


    Yeah right.... (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:05:54 PM EST
    I am really focused and enjoying being back in the Senate and working on behalf of my New York constituents.

    Not on my behalf she's not!  Just yesterday she was doing a song-n-dance about Bush's criminal cronyism which she herself aided and abetted.  She's serving the complex just like her so-called adversaries with the R's after their name instead of D's.

    Who buys this bullsh*t?    

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:10:34 PM EST
    I patiently explained to you yesterday how Congress is not responsible for how the Executive Branch spends its money, aside from earmarked amounts.

    Does Congress have oversight responsibility?  Absolutely.  And the Republicans did a great job of ignoring that responsibility while they were in charge.  But either way, that doesn't mean Congress shares equal responsibility for each and every line-item.

    The Democrats have done far more to shut down war profiteering and cronyism than the Republicans ever did, although there's still a lot more work to be done.  Being in the minority has its drawbacks.

    Parent

    The dems wanted (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by pie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:16:49 PM EST
    oversight built into the Iraq bill, and the repubs threw it out.  I remember that the dems really pushed for it and correctly predicted what would happen without oversight.  Was it you, Steve, or oculus who posted the letter that the four congressmen, including Waxman and Dingell, sent to Rumsfeld about the awarding of Pentagon contracts?

    Yes, it was too bad the dems were the minority when all this went down.  The media certainly weren't any help either.

    Parent

    I cannot take credit (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:21:44 PM EST
    I believe it was oculus.

    What makes this war different from prior wars is that the profiteering was a feature, not a bug.  Under DeLay, the GOP was organized as a pure political machine, in which they deliver federal funds and favorable legislation in exchange for votes and contributions.  As a result, pretty much every Republican who might have been interested in oversight was getting major funding from the same people who were ripping off the federal government, in a sort of barely legal kickback scheme.  Small wonder they opposed every effort to crack down on the profiteering.

    The Truman Committee was one of the truly patriotic institutions in American history.  A shame we may never see its like again.  Oh well, this is why Eisenhower originally proposed to call it the "military-industrial-congressional complex."

    Parent

    They're the majority now.... (2.28 / 7) (#26)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:17:02 PM EST
    still waiting on that oversight or better yet...impeachment.  Or maybe if she and the other D's had put up a fight when they passed the resolution giving Bush his golden ticket to invade Iraq the whole con-job could have been avoided.

    I guess she's not talking about that kinda "serve".  She probably had something less politically risky in mind...like bringing home pork.

    Some leader...

    Parent

    Not sure I follow this logic.... (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 03:02:56 PM EST
    So, you're saying she didn't do enough in the past (I disagree but fine), and now you're castigating her for doing something.

    With that sort of attitude, why should she ever do anything to fight cronyism and corruption, then?

    Parent

    Democrats are not a senate majority. (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by wurman on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 03:37:56 PM EST
    The actual split is 48 - 48 - 2 and Sen. Reid cannot often herd enough cats onto the same side of the room as is necessary to change anything.

    Parent
    I've sent him those cat herding lessons (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 04:59:43 PM EST
    more times than I can count. Sheesh.

    Parent
    there are about 50 senators right? (none / 0) (#207)
    by Ford Prefect on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:22:53 PM EST
    So its hillary's fault if the dem majority as a whole, now including our dear leader Obama that didnt do a thing on oversight or war funding or impeachment. DOnt we declare someone a leader after they have done something to earn that leadership? Did you get any from Obama on any of these issues above? Why Blame hillary after electing Obama as the leader despite his dismal record as a leader on these or any other issues. This is not to say I agree with everything Hillary does. I dont. But hey at least she has done somethings in the past to be a leader. Obama has done absolutely nothing in the past including in the US senate to address the very issues you are riling up against hillary on. I guess for the obama crowd anything the savior does is OK as long as they can conveniently blame the rest of the dems and let him off the hook. If you want to single out any dem senator or senators blame Reid and Obama. They are supposedly the leaders now.

    Sheesh!

    Parent

    Coy (none / 0) (#7)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:29:30 PM EST
    I have said repeatedly that I will do whatever Senator Obama asks me to do.

    Indeed, too coy by half, in my estimation.  

    And I gotta wonder if use of the Obama phrase "I have said repeatedly" (used most often when questioned about his flip-flops) was deliberate...

    In what way is that coy? (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:55:24 PM EST
    She can't go out and campaign for him on her own say-so, y'know.

    Parent
    One way of taking Hillary's comment (none / 0) (#108)
    by frankly0 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:32:17 PM EST
    turns it into a double edged sword.

    Namely, she's basically saying that if she isn't chosen as VP candidate, it's all on Obama.

    And if her former supporters react with anger to someone else being chosen, Obama is not going to have the one excuse that they'll find acceptable: that it was her choice, not his.

    Parent

    I'm not so down with 'coy' (5.00 / 5) (#120)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:59:45 PM EST
    but if it means she is making two strong statements in one sentence, then yes, that is what she means.  She is saying:

    1.  I will do whatever is asked of me for the Party.

    2.  The VP choice, and how it falls out, is entirely on Obama.

    #2 is as it should be; heaven knows she's been blamed for enough by the 'it's someone else's fault' campaign.

    Parent
    tightrope, skillfully navigated (5.00 / 6) (#124)
    by huzzlewhat on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 03:07:25 PM EST
    "Namely, she's basically saying that if she isn't chosen as VP candidate, it's all on Obama."

    But isn't that just the simple truth? I mean, Obama will be the nominee -- therefore who's named the VP candidate is his decision. It's the same thing with the campaigning ... she can be willing to campaign for him, but ultimately, any appearances must be coordinated with (and therefore controlled by) the campaign. So whether or not she actually appears in front of an audience, stumping for him is down to him and his team, no matter what Ed Schultz says. :-)

    She's having to tread some really uncertain ground here, and I think she's doing it very well. She can't be too assertive or put herself too far forward, or she'll be criticized for being a loose cannon or trying to muscle her way onto the ticket; and she can't be too stand-offish, or she'll be criticized for sulking or trying to undermine him. She's in a no-win situation, and actually managing to make lemonade.


    Parent

    I have said ... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 03:30:36 PM EST
    repeatedly (heh) that people who oppose Clinton are more obsessed with her than even her most fervent supporters.

    And it's all very "pigtails in the inkwell."  

    I think they really love her.

    Parent

    they've always had a crush on her n/t (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by sj on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 03:33:27 PM EST
    This from the poster who earlier said this: (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by tree on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 05:57:39 PM EST
    The buck stops with Hillary for whatever Hillary chooses to do.  If she undermines Obama, it will clearly be her fault if Obama loses an otherwise close election.

    and who said "Hillary who?" in an earlier thread in response to this:


    Even if Hillary campaigns for Obama every day from now until Nov., imo Obamabots will claim she wasn't REALLY sincere, etc.  

    Sad, but also quite funny. A series of self-negating posts.

    Parent

    Looks more like darn pesky opinions: (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by tree on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:23:40 AM EST
    1-Hillary is not only responsible for what she does, she's apparently responsible for what Obama does as well, in your eyes. Obama has no responsibility for how his campaign does, Clinton has responsibility for her own campaign and Obama's as well. There's a fine example of impartiality.

    2-No one's buying what your selling.

    3-See number two. If you feel continually compelled to make negative comments about Hillary, chances are that you really don't give a rat's p@tootie about her future endeavors going well. Try pulling the other one.

    Parent

    With that "false sense of entitlement" (none / 0) (#187)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 06:48:18 PM EST
    she has, unquote catty Catori?  I'm glad you know some nice people.  Maybe they will have an improving impact upon you, because you clearly do not wish Clinton well.

    Parent
    You're the one personally attacking (none / 0) (#199)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:19:33 PM EST
    Senator Clinton.  And with untruths.

    I'm just correcting you, bless your heart, because we're reality-based here.  Maybe best you lurk a while before trying to pull that stuff here.

    Parent

    Now...tell me how you REALLY feel!! :D (none / 0) (#53)
    by TheJoker on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:36:11 PM EST


    Interesting logic. (none / 0) (#160)
    by Jake Left on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 04:44:15 PM EST
    Flawed and silly, but interesting.

    By your logic, if Hillary doesn't "undermine" Obama, then she should receive all the credit for his win. By extension of your "logic" Obama cannot win the election without Hillary.

    I like Hillary, but I don't think she's quite that powerful. Evidently, you do.

    The one thing (none / 0) (#166)
    by Bluesage on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 05:07:43 PM EST
    I have noticed about all those ex-republicans like Shultz, Moulitas, Aravosis, Huffington etc. is that it is obviously impossible to shake off that Republican Nasty Streak.

    Thanks! (none / 0) (#176)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 06:07:52 PM EST
    For keeping us up to date with newest fantasyland tpm of the day.

    I do so enjoy having it delivered.

    look, the longer this thing goes with Obama (none / 0) (#189)
    by g8grl on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 06:52:43 PM EST
    underperforming the more likely it is that he'll tap Hillary to save him.  I think the folks pulling his strings basically made a deal with the spoiled childish one that he can have his choice if it looks like a landslide but if he isn't polling up big, he has to take Hillary.  Poor guy would never acknowledge on his own that he can't win it without her.

    So will it be completely to her credit (none / 0) (#197)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:32:27 PM EST
    if he wins, then?

    I think it is TIME (none / 0) (#201)
    by weltec2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:57:58 PM EST
    to send e-mails to SuperDels again and encourage them to stand by Hillary... make BO earn it. Let him know that there is a sizeable body in the party that does not approve of his conservative compromises. It's going to be a long night.