Apr 22 2008
NY Times PO’d At Hillary For Ruining Their Agenda
Reader WWS referred me to this emotional diatribe out of the NY Times, which in a fit of frustration has clearly shown its liberal stripes and unprofessionalism by letting such a piece of ranting fiction out of it’s doors and into the hands of its customers:
The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.
Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.
If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race.
Actually Clinton just snagged the most important bragging point there is in politics – she has the will of the people. If you do just a straight count of votes cast without filtering out votes based on a silly and archaic party rules you find Clinton has the popular support of the voters. That is the only calculus that should count for a party whose mantra in 2000 was count every vote. All other formulas are just artificial filters on the popular will expressed at the voting booth.
What is stunning about this rant is the fact it flies in the face of the people’s will over the party’s elite powers. And we just heard the reaction from one of those elite power outfits – and they are not happy.
I bet that when the general election comes about the NYT won’t have any problem with negative campaigning, so long as it is directed at McCain.
BTW, if the Democrats had a winner take all system instead of this weird complicated convoluted nonsense they got going on here Hillary would have this thing wrapped up right now.
That’s right, Terrye. They are having to take their own “super delegate” medicine. Funny how unintended consequences seems to bite the Dems in the ass more than anyone else, huh? 🙂
They just have to make it complicated.
I believe it was because of McGovern many, many moons ago. Maybe our more enlightened brethren will feed us a history lesson on that one…anyone?
75:
Yes, I think that is true, the party bosses were afraid that another crazy person would get the nomination and so the super delegates were put in place. Shows you what kind of faith they have in their people.
I think what may be worrying the times so is that the lesson that Team Hillary will draw from this is that negative campaigning *Works*. And it works when nothing else does, and it works when everyone tells her not to do it and she has no chance.
She’s going to keep going after him as hard as she can – first, because she has to bring his negatives up to her level, and second, because Obama reacts very badly to this (he’s never experienced it before) and the odds of another big rookie mistake keep going up. She, quite literally, has nothing to lose by doing this – she’s sure not going to win by playing nice, trying that with him for the first few months is what put her on the brink of elimination.
And hiding from the press and refusing to debate again (and thus looking like he’s running scared) could be the biggest rookie mistake of all.
Absolutely correct, WWS. No one plays in the sewers and gutters quite like the Cllintons. Historians will be trying to whitewash these two wretches for years to come.
HRC is doing the nation a favor. As long as she’s hanging in there, willing to get her hands dirty by proxy, we’ll learn more about the boy who came to DC to become President before finishing a single term in the Senate.
The day she drops out, the info door will slam shut, and the BHO vetting phase will be declared over.
The day she drops out, the info door will slam shut, and the BHO vetting phase will be declared over.
She’ll still be doing her damndest to make sure BHO loses. She can make another run in 2012–but not in 2016.
2012 better come quick for Hillary before the skin on her face shrinks any more…. no one is going to vote for a woman who is all shriveled.
I hate to link to Alan Colmes “liberalland” – but take a look at the candidates in 4 years. I mean I know that McCain will be really old by then, but check out Hillary!
yeah, age is really unfair to women, I know.
http://liberalland.com/2008/04/21/what-theyll-look-like-in-four-years/
This will be Hillary in 4 years…
http://fasteddie.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/helen_thomas.jpg
😉
AAAAHHH!! AAAAHHH!! GET IT AWAY!!!!
you just about ruined a good keyboard there, buddy!!! lol!
Are any of us surprised at how the dems CANNOT RUN ANYTHING WELL? Not even their own Party?
no. 🙂
She would have made a great cave troll in the Lord of the Rings trilogy…(Helen, that is)
🙂