it's gonna be a hot time in denver - hil's name is going in- Page 3

[Biff AKA Levi]

Posted: 8/15/08 at 3:15am

Free Hillary Clinton Campaign Material

[Q]

Posted: 8/15/08 at 3:18am

What's laughable to me, Jerby, is the notion that years of almost real hatred were just supposed to melt away because some folks decided she was the chosen one.

I've ALWAYS been objective where she's concerned - and I've ALWAYS disliked her. Going WAY back before this particular debacle.

And frankly, every move she makes only confirms what I've disliked about her ALL ALONG.

[Q]

Posted: 8/15/08 at 3:21am

I'm not sure why Jerby's post isn't showing up, but I was able to see it through a search, and that's what I was responding to. This is what he posted:

"It was laughable? She almost won. He didn't win in a landslide.

I wish some of you had anything near objectivity."

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/15/08 at 3:26am

And thus you have no objectivity. She had almost as many votes as Obama. If that equals "real hatred", then it doesn't say much for Obama does it?

It sure doesn't say anything for McCain seeing how both Clinton and Obama would beat him in November.

But, no, let's just blindly dismiss everything simply because that reality does not match up with how we want to see things.

Look, folks, she lost. Obama won. Isn't that--SHOULDN'T that be enough??

Apparently not.

And thus the fighting goes on and on and on.

[Q]

Posted: 8/15/08 at 3:30am

It's going on and on becuase of HER!

YES, we get she lost - if only by a slim margin.

Then she should REMOVE herself - and do what she can to diminish and discourage the continued rantings of those like PalJoey.

People would be HAPPY to move along and rally behind the ACTUAL nominee - but we're still having to deal with HER name and those who bellow it - with no real attempt to silence them by her. Because she is and always has been THAT narcissistic, and just WON'T accept what has happened.

And neither will her husband, but that's another story.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/15/08 at 3:43am

Well, despite the way that you and others want to see her and the events currently going on, I see things entirely in a different way.

I see BOTH Obama and Clinton wanting to unite the party. I see her supporting Obama graciously. I see her (and apparently Obama) also wanting the history she also made honored and the votes made in this historic primary honored as well--I'm one of those votes. I want my vote to be honored. I want the history they both have made to be honored and then making his candidacy official and coming together to celebrate that choice.

It won't diminish Obama's being officially made the candidate. It won't stop it from happening.

But what I guess I am hearing is the fear you guys have that somehow La Diabla is going to steal this from him. Otherwise, I have no idea what nonsense is going through your heads. The only other possibility IS "how dare she and her supporters stand in the way of his coronation". And that's just foolish on both sides of that kind of thinking.

I can understand Hillary supporters being disappointed that she isn't the nominee. Can't we all understand that? Imagine how you would feel if Obama had lost? What I can't understand is why some Obama supporters can't take comfort and pride and focus on Obama's having won.

The ball's completely in your court and some of you have failed miserably by being sore winners.

It's sad and just as bad as these ridiculous Pumas in my opinion.

Let's all grow the **** up and start working together. And stop leaping to every BS blogger waxing eloquent about some inevitable machinations of the evil Clintons.

Good grief, Charlie Brown.

[Chance]

Posted: 8/15/08 at 4:20am

Let's all grow the **** up and start working together
when are Bill and Shill gonna take this advice and stop pouting?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/15/08 at 6:31am

People would be HAPPY to move along and rally behind the ACTUAL nominee - but we're still having to deal with HER name and those who bellow it - with no real attempt to silence them by her. Because she is and always has been THAT narcissistic, and just WON'T accept what has happened.

Are you still voting for McCain, DG?

Updated On: 8/15/08 at 06:31 AM

[NYadgal]

Posted: 8/15/08 at 6:33am

Maureen Dowd (August 12, 2008 ):


While Obama was spending three hours watching “The Dark Knight” five time zones away, and going to a fund-raiser featuring “Aloha attire” and Hawaiian pupus, Hillary was busy planning her convention.

You can almost hear her mind whirring: She’s amazed at how easy it was to snatch Denver away from the Obama saps. Like taking candy from a baby, except Beanpole Guy doesn’t eat candy. In just a couple of weeks, Bill and Hill were able to drag No Drama Obama into a swamp of Clinton drama.

Now they’ve made Barry’s convention all about them — their dissatisfaction and revisionism and barely disguised desire to see him fail. Whatever insincere words of support the Clintons muster, their primal scream gets louder: He can’t win! He can’t close the deal! We told you so!

Hillary’s orchestrating a play within the play in Denver. Just as Hamlet used the device to show that his stepfather murdered his father, Hillary will try to show the Democrats they chose the wrong savior.

Her former aide Howard Wolfson fanned the divisive flames Monday on ABC News, arguing that Hillary would have beaten Obama in Iowa and become the nominee if John Edwards’s affair had come out last year — an assertion contradicted by a University of Iowa survey showing that far more Edwards supporters had Obama as their second choice.

Hillary feels no guilt about encouraging her supporters to mess up Obama’s big moment, thus undermining his odds of beating John McCain and improving her odds of being the nominee in 2012.

She’s obviously relishing Hillaryworld’s plans to have multiple rallies in Denver, to take out TV and print ads and to hold up signs in the hall that read “Denounce Nobama’s Coronation.”

In a video of a closed California fund-raiser on July 31 that surfaced on YouTube, Hillary was clearly receptive to having her name put in nomination and a roll-call vote.

She said she thought it would be good for party unity if her gals felt “that their voices are heard.” But that’s disingenuous. Hillary was the one who raised the roll-call idea at the end of May with Democrats, who were urging her to face the math. She said she wanted it for Chelsea, oblivious to how such a vote would dim Obama’s star turn. Ever since she stepped aside in June, she’s been telling people privately that there might have to be “a catharsis” at the convention, signaling she wants a Clinton crescendo.

Bill continues to howl at the moon — and any reporters in the vicinity — about Obama; he’s starting to make King Lear look like Ryan Seacrest.

The way the Clintons see it, there’s nothing wrong with a couple making plans for their future, is there? That’s the American way and, as their pal Mark Penn pointed out, they have American roots while Obama “is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values.”

The Clintons know that a lot of Democrats are muttering that their solipsistic behavior is “disgusting.” But they’re too filled with delicious schadenfreude at the wave of buyer’s remorse that has swept the Democratic Party; many Democrats are questioning whether Obama is fighting back hard enough against McCain, and many are wondering, given his inability to open up a lead in a country fed up with Republicans, if race will be an insurmountable factor.

Some Democrats wish that Obama had told the Clintons to “get in the box” or get lost if they can’t show more loyalty, rather than giving them back-to-back, prime-time speaking gigs at the convention on Tuesday and Wednesday. Al Gore clipped their wings in 2000, triggering their wrath by squeezing both the president and New York Senate candidate into speaking slots the first night and then ushering them out of L.A.

Wednesday will be all Bill. The networks will rerun his churlish comments from Africa about Obama’s readiness to lead and his South Carolina meltdowns. TV will have more interest in a volcanic ex-president than a genteel veep choice.

Obama also allowed Hillary supporters to insert an absurd statement into the platform suggesting that media sexism spurred her loss and that “demeaning portrayals of women ... dampen the dreams of our daughters.” This, even though postmortems, including the new raft of campaign memos leaked by Clintonistas to The Atlantic — another move that undercuts Obama — finger Hillary’s horrendous management skills.

Besides the crashing egos and screeching factions working at cross purposes, Joshua Green writes in the magazine, Hillary’s “hesitancy and habit of avoiding hard choices exacted a price that eventually sank her chances at the presidency.”

It would have been better to put this language in the platform: “A woman who wildly mismanages and bankrupts a quarter-of-a-billion-dollar campaign operation, and then blames sexism in society, will dampen the dreams of our daughters.”



Amazing how Democrats once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory...

Link to Article here

Updated On: 8/15/08 at 06:33 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/15/08 at 6:40am

There is no problem between Obama and the Clintons about this.

Why can't we take them at their words?

===

Statement from the Obama and Clinton Press Offices

August 14, 2008

Since June, Senators Obama and Clinton have been working together to ensure a Democratic victory this November. They are both committed to winning back the White House and to to ensuring that the voices of all 35 million people who participated in this historic primary election are respected and heard in Denver. To honor and celebrate these voices and votes, both Senator Obama's and Senator Clinton's names will be placed in nomination.

“I am convinced that honoring Senator Clinton's historic campaign in this way will help us celebrate this defining moment in our history and bring the party together in a strong united fashion,” said Senator Barack Obama.

Senator Obama’s campaign encouraged Senator Clinton's name to be placed in nomination as a show of unity and in recognition of the historic race she ran and the fact that she was the first woman to compete in all of our nation’s primary contests.

“With every voice heard and the Party strongly united, we will elect Senator Obama President of the United States and put our nation on the path to peace and prosperity once again,” said Senator Hillary Clinton.

Senator Obama and Senator Clinton are looking forward to a convention unified behind Barack Obama as the Party’s nominee and to victory this fall for America.

[NYadgal]

Posted: 8/15/08 at 6:57am

I don't buy it, PalJoey.

This is Obama’s time. Had Hillary won the nomination, it would be her time and I know that Obama would have had the grace to step aside and let her have it. Now she needs to do the same. She gets her night at the Convention to speak and be front and center. That needs to be the end of it.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/15/08 at 6:58am

Joan Walsh in Salon responds to Maureen Dowd:

===
Friday August 15, 2008 06:40 EDT

Happy days are here again!

I'm always happy when events conspire to prove that a nasty Maureen Dowd column was fantasy as quickly as possible. It only took a day to disprove her fanciful depiction of Hillary Clinton trying to topple Obama in Denver, "Yes, She Can." The Clinton and Obama campaigns announced jointly that her name will be put into nomination Wednesday, Aug. 27, in Denver, and there will be a roll call vote. The two teams are still working out the mechanics, a Clinton aide said, but it looks like each state will announce its tally for both candidates.

"I am convinced that honoring Senator Clinton's historic campaign in this way will help us celebrate this defining moment in our history and bring the party together in a strong united fashion," Obama said in the campaign statement.

Only yesterday, it seemed like that might not happen. There was Dowd's vicious column, of course, plus continued coverage of Josh Green's Atlantic story about Clinton campaign infighting. Maybe worst of all was Howard Wolfson's unsupported claim Monday that Clinton would have won the nomination if John Edwards had done the right thing and left the race before Iowa (a claim that seems demonstrably false, given that Clinton wasn't the second choice of Edwards voters polled in Iowa. I was there, and I have no doubt Obama would have won even more overwhelmingly without Edwards' challenge in the caucus). Wolfson's remarks were widely seen as another example of sore loserism from the Clinton camp, even though he was only speaking for himself.

Then came the news that former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner had been tapped as the Tuesday night keynote speaker, even though Tuesday, the 88th anniversary of women's suffrage, was to have been "Clinton's night." I heard from angry Clinton supporters on Wednesday, but negotiations between the Clinton and Obama teams continued without incident. Some Clinton folks were surprised by the Warner keynote announcement, but she had never been designated the "keynote" in the first place -- the tag usually goes to a political up-and-comer -- and she will still anchor the coveted prime-time television slot.

All the static could well have derailed the negotiations around putting Clinton's name into nomination, but it didn't, and both candidates' camps are to be thanked for their perseverance and forbearance. Obama looks great: magnanimous, a strong leader, a mensch, a guy who wants to win in November; a president. Clinton gets affirmation, and her die-hard supporters get a moment in Denver to savor her historic accomplishment -- and then board the unity train for the fall.

Will they? Most of them already have, more of them will thanks to this news; a few may never get on board. But increasingly Clinton loyalists will have realized that they're hurting their hero if they continue to attack Obama. Even after she'd hit the campaign trail for him, braving 115 degree August heat in Henderson, Nev., the haters were accusing her of sabotaging Obama and planning her comeback in 2012. I agree with my friend Joe Conason's wise column today, though I'd argue that Clinton's smartest campaign advisors are telling her exactly the same thing he is; the divisive talk is coming from former staffers, outsiders, and of course Maureen Dowd. There has never been a shred of evidence that Clinton supports the more divisive efforts on her behalf. I personally wish she hadn't called for "catharsis" for her supporters in Denver, in that notorious YouTube video from a couple of weeks ago, but most everything else she said there was just fine.

And, as it turns out, Obama agreed with her. My sources say the Obama campaign was enthusiastic about the idea of putting Clinton's name in nomination, having independently reached the conclusion that it was the best way to honor her achievement and do more to win over her supporters. "The conversations with her folks were very cordial and we've been able to work very closely with them as we unify this party," Obama spokesman Bill Burton told me in an email. "We couldn't be happier about how things are going with Senator Clinton and her team."

If only someone had told Maureen Dowd.

-- Joan Walsh

If only someone had told Maureen Dowd.

Updated On: 8/15/08 at 06:58 AM

[NYadgal]

Posted: 8/15/08 at 7:04am

And there will continue to be responses on both 'sides'.

I just will never believe that if Hillary had won the nomination she would be doing the same for Obama. And he ran a 'historic campaign' as well.

This, in my opinion, is not about history.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/15/08 at 7:35am

If Hillary had won the nomination, Barack would have been announced as the VP weeks ago.

[NYadgal]

Posted: 8/15/08 at 8:58am

On that, we can agree.

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 8/15/08 at 9:00am

So Maureen Dowd is just Ann Coulter's Democrat pseudonym?

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/15/08 at 9:53am

"I've ALWAYS been objective where she's concerned - and I've ALWAYS disliked her."

It's possible--sorry, POSSIBLE--for an outside observer to think this may not be, in the strictest sense, true.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/15/08 at 10:35am

At the risk of being shrieked at and badgered again, my point is: When the convention is entirely united, the democrats have a chance of winning. When it is not, we don't. If Hillary Clinton put victory for Democrats in November as her top priority, she would find another way to give her followers "catharsis."

Hillary Clinton did indeed run an historic campaign and has been given historic concessions; no losing candidate has been given more influence and exposure at the convention than she. I hope she does have the party's (and country's) best interests at heart and takes the microphone the instant her name is placed in nomination to gracefully decline and throw her full and enthusiastic support behind the nominee. I think that is the only hope we have of winning in November.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/15/08 at 10:37am

But that's exactly what Barack and Hillary are planning.

[madbrian]

Posted: 8/15/08 at 10:54am

I have little doubt that HRC and Obama will handle this well. My concern is with Bill. He handled that softball question about Obama's readiness so poorly, and he is clearly still bitter. Can he deliver what's needed in his speech?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/15/08 at 10:54am

It may be a little long, but yes.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 8/15/08 at 1:40pm

those people who are complaining about this: what was the latest meme in the msm? bammy fatigue. he was overexposed. people were tired of hearing about bammy.

how best to remedy that? let people focus on the clintons for a while by making this announcement now. it puts the focus of the news on them. but with the olympics sucking air out of the news cycle, it doesn't let them dominate the news so much as to make it a bammy vs. hil thing. save for here and some other places on the web.

he can quietly air some positive ads, allow the books about him to be attacked and countered and let his image recede a bit while america's focus is on underage china dolls and men in tights.

there's still two and a half months to go.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 8/15/08 at 1:46pm

I actually believe Bill will deliver a speech that rises to the occasion. His missteps were not calculated; hey were impromptu remarks devoid of strategic savvy. This is an entirely different opportunity. My guess is, look for Bill to find some common ground with Barack -- both were raised by strong women who shaped their lives. Their stories, while different, have parallel issues about missing dads, models, humble origins, ambitions. I think Bill knows too well that any effort to steal the spotlight mid-week will mar his legacy. In some ways, leaving Bill OFF the schedule would be stratetically far more dangerous. His absence would hurt everyone, his wife, himselef and Obama. A convention is a theatrical venue, carefully plotted and shaped. Bill's speech will not be the wild card event.

[southernboy]

Posted: 8/15/08 at 1:58pm

Uh, check out past conventions. There were very similar roll call votes with runners up before. There is ZERO chance that a coup will be staged and successful, this is PROCEDURE and it's rather ridiculous that anyone is standing here suggesting that the primaries were the end of it.
Why don't all of you take a quick little flip through the rules of the nominating process and you'll notice, perhaps, that Barack Obama isn't actually our nominee yet. In fact, you'll notice he's usually referred to (as is McCain) as the "presumptive" nominee.
Know why? Because his delegates haven't voted on him yet. So why not let it play out the way it's, you know, supposed to be?
The Hillary hate plays along the narrative that everything she does is cold and calculated and planned to within an inch of its life. I think her failed and stuttering campaign should show that every single thing she does is not cold and calculated and planned.
But please, don't let anyone step on your confirmed, 100000% true opinion of a woman I'm sure none of you have ever met.
I'm with Jerby on this: MANY of Clinton's supporters are being terribly sore losers, but what does it say about the winner's supporters being equally, if not more, sore?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 8/15/08 at 2:01pm

that they should have insisted on lube?