European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

Hillary Clinton Will Not Disrupt the Convention

by Maryscott OConnor
Thu Aug 7th, 2008 at 11:14:08 PM EST

Crossposted from MY LEFT WING

Okay, I just caught up on all the "Hilary's going to try to get to get nominated!" nonsense news, and here's my take: It's bullshit.

She's not a fucking idiot. I saw the so-called "smoking gun" undercover video, and the only thing it "proves" is that she has absolutely no such plans whatsoever. In fact, she disowns the damned "plans."

It doesn't take someone with keen foresight to know what would happen if the Clinton camp tried to nominate Hilary at the Convention: she'd lose by even more delegates than she had in June. The humiliation would be disastrous and her political career would be effectively crushed.

There is no way in hell she would allow this to happen, let alone mastermind it. I don't know who's driving this rumour bus, but it sure as hell isn't Hilary Clinton. It's probably the small, deeply disturbed cadre of Clintonites who tried to disrupt the rules committee, led by that racist woman who set YouTube afire with her "inexperienced black man" comments. Who knows. But isn't it just predictable as hell that the corporate televised media is running with it?

After all, there aren't any REAL stories to cover. No wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, no political corruption in the Bush Administration or Congress, no pathetic capitulation by the Democrats on impeachment, no challenges to Democrats like Pelosi by independents like Sheehan because of Pelosi's refusal to consider impeachment of Bush because of criminal offenses...

Nope. Nothing to see here, let's cover a non-story in the election. Let's not even cover a REAL story in the election, like John McCain's myriad of ties to big oil and lobbyists. Maybe tomorrow we can do a story about Obama's email address book and how many movie stars are in it...

On another note: I am so fucking sick of the "Hilary was victimised by gender bias" meme I could puke. It's such a crock of SHIT. She ran against a BLACK MAN, for chrissakes. If there were ever a time Hilary Clinton had an ADVANTAGE as a woman, THIS WAS IT. If there were EVER a time it was PURE ADVANTAGE TO BE A WOMAN, THIS WAS IT.

Sorry, it's the goddamned truth. She did NOT lose because of gender fucking bias. After February, she lost because Barack Obama was the better candidate. Period, the end, no more discussion to be had. After February, she was toast. Stick a fork in her (and that is NOT a goddamned misogynist violence against women expression get over it), she'd have been better off quitting, end of story. Gender bias my firm, heart shaped rounded ass. BARACK OBAMA WAS THE BETTER CANDIDATE, THE BETTER CAMPAIGNER, THE BETTER FUNDRAISER, THE BETTER DEMOCRAT.

GET USED TO IT.

Gender Bias. Jesus Christ. That anyone can say that with a straight face... against THIS man? Against a man who gets called NIGGER every fucking day in a hundred different ways on a thousand different websites... Holy fucking shit... how can you look yourselves in the mirror. I am embarrassed to have a fucking uterus.

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. Search
. Search (Google)
. Archives (Wiki)
Art, Economics, Energy, Environment, EU Politics, Mech & Tech, By Country

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Hillary Clinton Will Not Disrupt the Convention | 28 comments (28 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Get. Real. (none / 1)

If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution

by Maryscott OConnor (myleftwing@gmail.com) on Thu Aug 7th, 2008 at 11:14:26 PM EST

Erm... (4.00 / 2)

...huh?

Maryscott, you must not take the drama queens in the blogosphere seriously. Anyone who seriously believes Clinton would try to steal the nomination at the convention is kidding himself or herself. First of all, doing so would result in her being perceived as illegitimate. She'd lose in November even if she succeeded.

That said, would I put it past HillBilly to make some effort to damage Obama at the convention? No. As I keep saying, "The Clintons: They're There When They Need You." And Hillary is, of course, a nut case.

I actually have to disagree with you a bit. I don't think being black was a huge disadvantage to Obama, looking back. I don't think Hillary's gender was a disadvantage either. And, really, while Obama is sometimes boxed in because of his race -- any talk of race is bad for him unless the foul is clearly committed by the other side in such a way that it's obvious to the retards who vote in this country -- I think it's actually an asset with a large group of people.

All this is just a product of the press's love of the "Dems Divided!" meme. People need to calm down. Stop paying attention to the Clintstones and their emotional issues.

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Thu Aug 7th, 2008 at 11:51:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You may be right about his blackness not being (4.00 / 3)

disadvantageous in the primary...

but neither was her femaleness to her in the primary.

But I'll bet you it WILl be a major disadvantage in the general.

Racism is pernicious in American.

And I stand by my statement that the gender bias claim is bogus.

And Bill Clinton this week has been SHAMEFUL toward Obama. He damned him with faint praise; he practically said Obama qualifies as President because he has lungs and a SPLEEN.

If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution

by Maryscott OConnor (myleftwing@gmail.com) on Fri Aug 8th, 2008 at 12:13:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You may be right about his blackness not being (none / 1)

Neither race nor gender was disadvantageous. It was a Democratic primary. It might be slightly disadvantageous in the general, but I think there are certain factors that reduce the impact of racism, too, so it'd be a slightly negative thing.

I don't think you're giving the country enough credit for all that's gone on this year.

Bill Clinton is an asshole. It's always about Bill Clinton. You know this. Anybody who's ever watched Bill Clinton knows this. He's licking his wounds, still mad that he got his ass kicked by some kid. Democrats really must stop pretending as though this guy is some great person. He was a decent president, but my first clear political memory is still watching Bill Clinton stand in front of a camera and say, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," when he should've just told the damned truth.

Good president, but let's be honest: He's a dishonest human being.

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Fri Aug 8th, 2008 at 12:37:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You may be right about his blackness not being (4.00 / 2)

Bill Clinton is a smarmy little fuck so it's not surprising he would do that.

The major reason I don't want Senator Clinton as Veep is Bill "I Can't Keep My Mouth OR My Pants Zipped" Clinton.

Och nu den svenska kocken bakar en Alaskan älg jägare. Bonk! Bonk! Bonk!

by ATinNM on Fri Aug 8th, 2008 at 05:09:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You may be right about his blackness not being (none / 1)

I honestly cannot begin to understand this. It makes absolutely no sense to me. What is the logic? If you lie to your wife, you must be lying to the American people? If you lie about your personal life that is no one's business, you must be lying about the economy? If you cannot be 100% loyal to your spouse, you cannot be 100% loyal to your country? Is it (your definition of) perfection, or is it intelligence and competency that make people good leaders? I look back through history and don't find a blaring correlation between leaders who had no affairs and leaders who were great. How does consensual sex (I obviously could not tolerate a rapist...) corrode a person's ability to lead?

And who on earth are we to judge people based on what they do in their bedrooms? I don't get it. At all.

"This is nothing compared to how Putin rigged Eurovision."

by poemless on Fri Aug 8th, 2008 at 05:20:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You may be right about his blackness not being (4.00 / 2)

It matters because it matters.

From Pew Research:

...the largest partisan gap comes in views of a presidential candidate who "had an extramarital affair in the past." Fully 62% of Republicans say they would be less likely to support such a candidate, compared with 25% of Democrats (and 36% of independents).

While it is doubtful a Democratic candidate would be much affected by the Republican POV it is very likely the Independent POV would impact the election results.

Och nu den svenska kocken bakar en Alaskan älg jägare. Bonk! Bonk! Bonk!

by ATinNM on Fri Aug 8th, 2008 at 05:59:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You may be right about his blackness not being (none / 1)

It matters because it matters is not an argument.

Even if 99% of the public cared about who "had an extramarital affair in the past" it would not make such a concern anymore valid. A lot of people would never vote for a Muslim. That does not lead some a logical conclusion that a candidate would be a "smarmy little fuck" because of that fact.

Obviously I am not debating whether something is the opinion of many people. I am debating the validity of that opinion. And you've not explained how having an affair effects a person's qualifications for leadership. There are probably some reasonable arguments out there. "Cause everyone says so" is not one of them.

"This is nothing compared to how Putin rigged Eurovision."

by poemless on Fri Aug 8th, 2008 at 06:09:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You may be right about his blackness not being (4.00 / 2)

Having an affair while you're running for the presidency shows rather poor judgement and/or impulse control. You know that it will be a major liability if it comes out, and that the odds are decent that it will. The fact that none of us here give a shit isn't the point. One of the qualifications for the presidency is being a skillful politician.

NB If I were a personal friend I might judge him negatively as well. I don't know the details of their personal lives, for all I know she might not care, in which case it's fine on a personal level as well, but if she minds, he's acting like an asshole. Though of course everybody in a longtime relationship has behaved badly towards their partner at one time or another, and I find the way in which people single out infidelity a bit bizarre.

by MarekNYC on Fri Aug 8th, 2008 at 06:27:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You may be right about his blackness not being (none / 1)

Voting doesn't require a valid opinion. If I want to vote against John McCain because he called his wife a cunt, I have that right. Hell, if I want to vote against him because I believe he secretly fucks mountain goats on the weekends, or because I think his wife might be a succubus, or whatever, that's perfectly fine.

It's meaningless as it relates to policy, but, yes, it matters because it matters. It's valid because enough people say so.

Had Edwards been the nominee, many would be looking at him right now and thinking, "God, what an asshole to do that to his terminally ill wife, and to lie about it to his supporters." They might even say it won't impact their votes, but we all know it will.

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Fri Aug 8th, 2008 at 09:14:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You may be right about his blackness not being (4.00 / 2)

Consensus gentium is a Informal Logical fallacy but political reality in a republic or democracy. What a significant demographic thinks, or feels, about an action or an issue becomes part of the political landscape. When that action or issue becomes a deciding factor, or a potential decisive factor, in a political campaign then it becomes important.

I provided evidence, from a reputable polling source, that a significant (25% of Dems and 36% of Independents) number of voters would be less likely to vote for a candidate who had an extra-marital affair. This makes it important. Logic has nothing to do with it. It's Inductive (Statistical) Evidence.

Och nu den svenska kocken bakar en Alaskan älg jägare. Bonk! Bonk! Bonk!

by ATinNM on Sat Aug 9th, 2008 at 12:16:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You may be right about his blackness not being (none / 1)

What he said.

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Sat Aug 9th, 2008 at 12:23:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You may be right about his blackness not being (none / 1)

Pulling an All-Nighter there Drew?

Och nu den svenska kocken bakar en Alaskan älg jägare. Bonk! Bonk! Bonk!

by ATinNM on Sat Aug 9th, 2008 at 12:33:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You may be right about his blackness not being (none / 1)

Nope, just up late.

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Sat Aug 9th, 2008 at 11:08:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You may be right about his blackness not being (4.00 / 2)

So much for Vitter's reelection chances. I wonder how Giuliani managed to get reelected as mayor of NYC. Didn't McCain have an affair with his current wife while still married to his first? I'm not so sure I believe this survey.

But you're right about Edwards. Regardless of what he did, lying seems to be treated by the press, and maybe by the voters, as an unforgiveable sin.

by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Fri Aug 8th, 2008 at 06:13:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You may be right about his blackness not being (none / 1)

New Yorkers care a lot less about this sort of stuff. If only Spitzer had fucked some random woman he met at a party or on his campaign, he'd still be governor.

by MarekNYC on Fri Aug 8th, 2008 at 06:28:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You may be right about his blackness not being (4.00 / 2)

Have to compare apples with apples. This was a national survey and reflects national opinion. Also note they are "less likely to vote for" the politician not "will not."

In our two most obvious examples:

McCain has yet to run for, and win, a national office.

Clinton got caught with his Monica down but the GOP mis-played it by using it as a pretext for a rather transparent partisan attack.

Och nu den svenska kocken bakar en Alaskan älg jägare. Bonk! Bonk! Bonk!

by ATinNM on Sat Aug 9th, 2008 at 12:27:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You may be right about his blackness not being (none / 1)

Senator from Arizona isn't a national office?

Otherwise, I agree, but I'm not sure what the apples represent. There have been lots of stories about adultery and Republican politicians, with no repercussions in most cases; I just selected those that I remembered well. "Less likely to vote for", does indeed, not mean "will not", but I'm not sure, in practical term, it does mean.

by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Sat Aug 9th, 2008 at 12:24:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You may be right about his blackness not being (4.00 / 2)

Maybe I was wrong, and McCain isn't off the hook. The L.A. Times just happened to have an article today on McCain's divorce (inspired by the Edwards affair). The interesting passage is:

Although McCain suggested in his autobiography that months passed between his divorce and remarriage, the divorce was granted April 2, 1980, and he wed Hensley in a private ceremony five weeks later. McCain obtained an Arizona marriage license on March 6, 1980, while still legally married to his first wife.

Assuming this is true (how reliable is the L.A. Times?), this might mean he broke some laws - I presume that you have to state your marital status when getting a marriage license.

by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Sat Aug 9th, 2008 at 04:07:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You may be right about his blackness not being (none / 1)

It's fairly reliable, and the date of the marriage license is something that'd be easy to verify.

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Sun Aug 10th, 2008 at 03:49:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You may be right about his blackness not being (none / 1)

I agree, although, for the record, this story seems to have raised a lot more scrutiny of Edwards's past on honesty issues well beyond his affair. I hadn't heard about all of the stuff Bob "0-for-8" Shrum brought up in his book about Edwards's behavior prior to joining the Kerry campaign, before his vote on the war, etc.

I'd forgotten Russ Feingold's comments about Edwards, too.

It'd certainly assure some of what they already believed, and lead many of us to believe what we thought might very well be -- that Edwards has always been a phony.

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Fri Aug 8th, 2008 at 09:22:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You may be right about his blackness not being (4.00 / 2)

And he is a piss-poor politician to boot.

The guy ran in the Iowa primary for 5 frickin' years and still came in third. What a lamer.

Och nu den svenska kocken bakar en Alaskan älg jägare. Bonk! Bonk! Bonk!

by ATinNM on Sat Aug 9th, 2008 at 12:36:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You may be right about his blackness not being (none / 1)

Second, not third.

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Sat Aug 9th, 2008 at 11:09:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

p.s. (none / 1)

I LOVE your sig.

If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution

by Maryscott OConnor (myleftwing@gmail.com) on Fri Aug 8th, 2008 at 12:13:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Get. Real. (none / 1)

And speaking of Hillary: Fuck EMILY's List.

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Fri Aug 8th, 2008 at 12:45:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton Will Not Disrupt... (none / 1)

Thanks Maryscott, good rant! I completely agree. I watched that little Youtube going around, and while HRC appreciated her crowd wanting to stir stuff up, she was pretty clear in saying "ain't nothin gonna happen but our expressing our feelings".

I must admit, however, that I am quite aware of the remaining pissed off, envious feelings of Bill (and seems a lot of people are envious of Obama lately - et tu, McSame?) - and it does worry me a little paranoid corner of my brain that they might in some unconscious way try to sabotage Obama. But then, as you so well state, they would basically be so despised by Dems that it would be the end of HRCs career. I can only hope that things go smoothly

Obama is brilliant strategically - and he is being brave putting both HRC and Bill in key spots at the convention, especially Bill just before the VP talks, but I think he is really trying to follow the model set by Lincoln, who really tried to integrate his "enemies" into his administration. Lets see what happens! But, yep, I also think Hillary would be a fool to do anything destructive.

Half the population is under the age of 18. Tanzania's future is NOW...join the 50% campaign!

by whataboutbob on Fri Aug 8th, 2008 at 10:19:19 AM EST

Disrupt the Convention (4.00 / 2)

Obama is never gonna volunteer to have Bill pulling a Cheney on him out of the VP office. Obama is a rock star, he has no real negatives and no real needs so the only thing he wants from a VP is harmlessness. HRC is volunteering to sail into a minefield for fun and frolics. She and her baggage can blow up at any moment and take the ship down and he's not gonna risk it.

And the only reason to have Clinton as VP is she's the best bullet proof vest he'd get. No-one but no-one is gonna shoot him to put her in the Oval Office

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sat Aug 9th, 2008 at 04:36:28 PM EST

Re: Disrupt the Convention (none / 1)

Might not be a bad idea for that reason. They've arrested a few people already for plotting to kill him, I believe, and those are just the ones we've found out about.

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Sun Aug 10th, 2008 at 03:51:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary Clinton Will Not Disrupt the Convention | 28 comments (28 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]