What went wrong for Hillary Clinton?

bush_cheney2004 · May 10, 2008

....Harper can have closer relations with a Democrat in the Presidency than a Republican without having to constantly show he's not anyone's go-boy.

Oh, you mean how PM Chretien was President Clinton's shameless "go-boy"?

WIP · May 11, 2008

No conscience?
Obama said very publicly that he would never renounce his pastor and then two weeks later he did exactly that. He renounced his pastor.

You are a fool to select such politicians on such grounds. In Obama's case, I suspect many caucus-primary Democrats have done as you. When Obama goes prime time in the Fall, all of this is going to change. Then again, maybe I'm wrong. We'll see.

Is Obama dishonest? Not at all. He's just some guy.

You are blindly adhering to the conservative dogma shovelled out on Fox News, Limbaugh's show (and his assorted minions and copycats), otherwise you would have recognized Obama's attempt to stand by Rev Wright was something that is almost never done in politics - risking an election for personal loyalty! Do you think that Hillary Clinton would have hesitated for a second to throw anyone under the bus who stood between her and the Whitehouse? After Wright's grand tour, where he made it clear that he would do everything in his power to sink Obama's candidacy, there was no choice other than to throw him to the curb!

If Obama is dishonest on any subject, it would have to be this religion-crap that political candidates have to go through to get elected! Did you notice that when they had that idiotic "faith and values" debate, Hillary could wax on endlessly about how her faith got her through the embarrassment of Bill's sex scandals( and here I thought it was just greed and ambition), but Obama looked uncomfortable with dumb questions like Tim Russert's "what's your favourite bible verse?"

When Barach Obama started working in Chicago's black community, his background of being mixed-race and the child of an East African immigrant who spent his early years in Indonesia - gave him nothing in common with Blacks living in inner-city Chicago. That U.C.C. church gave him a chance to meet community activists, and get plugged in and have a chance to really meet the people.

I don't know about the rest of the church, but the problem with Rev. Wright is he is a preacher of "Liberation Theology," the class struggle version of Christianity. For people who feel trapped in poor, rundown, crime-ridden neighbourhoods it's an appealing message: your failures and disappointments in life are no fault of your own! They're all caused by oppression from "whitey" or "the man" or what have you. Since Barach Obama went to university, got his law degree, and quickly rose to the top when he began his political career, his experience is a direct challenge to Wright's social gospel. If a black man can't succeed or be accepted by white America, then how has he become the odds-on favourite for the White House? And that's likely why the Rev started plotting to undermine his campaign.

So Rev. Wright had to go, and so should John McCain's "spiritual advises" - John Hagee and Rod Parsley! The religious right has been on parade in recent years, blurring the lines of separation of church and state, advocating foreign wars and restrictive social policies, and virtually taking control of the Republican Party' The Wright debacle provides a reminder that there is a relgious left also, typified by black preachers like Wright, Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, but also existing in a more subtle and insidious form in of strategists like David Kuo and Chris Hedges. If the Republican Party burns to the ground as expected next year, watch for a whole new crowd of "spiritual advisers" to replace Pat Robertson, Hagee, Ralph Reed etc. at the White House and on Capitol Hill.

bush_cheney2004 · May 11, 2008

.... The religious right has been on parade in recent years, blurring the lines of separation of church and state, advocating foreign wars and restrictive social policies, and virtually taking control of the Republican Party' .....

Far longer than that....so called separation of church and state is a Jeffersonian idea that applies to government and religion, not individuals or their political parties. Better check the founding principles of the Republican party if you think otherwise. Right after 9/11, there was no need for any such parade to see the general faith based direction for understanding and coping. I don't expect America to elect an advertised atheist anytime soon.

The Wright debacle provides a reminder that there is a relgious left also, typified by black preachers like Wright, Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, but also existing in a more subtle and insidious form in of strategists like David Kuo and Chris Hedges. If the Republican Party burns to the ground as expected next year, watch for a whole new crowd of "spiritual advisers" to replace Pat Robertson, Hagee, Ralph Reed etc. at the White House and on Capitol Hill.

Right? Left? All you have done is confirmed that there is a religious America...always has been....in government, education, social policy, military, and custom. Many like to refer to "Judeo-Christian" values as the foundation for legal code. Pretty hard to exterminate God and his "spiritual advisors"....it is a growth industry.

BTW, "foreign wars" has been more of a Democrat thing based on the nation's history.

WIP · May 11, 2008

Far longer than that....so called separation of church and state is a Jeffersonian idea that applies to government and religion, not individuals or their political parties. Better check the founding principles of the Republican party if you think otherwise.

It depends how that separation is interpreted. The Supreme Court has refused to hear challenges to the Bush Administration's "faith based initaitives" policies, which put government funds in the hands of church-run charities. And having bi-weekly teleconference calls with a closed circle of powerful evangelical leaders may not be illegal, but it does illustrate how powerful religious leaders seeking access to political power - and political leaders desperate for their support, have led to a situation with churches and church lobby groups are being divided along the lines of political affiliation. It's not hard to envision a scenario where a favoured church or group of churches gain something even closer to state sponsorship than currently received through faith-based initiatives.

Right after 9/11, there was no need for any such parade to see the general faith based direction for understanding and coping..

And how many Americans have realized that they were suckered into supporting a disastruous war because of the appeal to faith and patriotism?

I don't expect America to elect an advertised atheist anytime soon.

Not unless the atheists organize together in the same manner as the religious. The non-believer category is at least 10% of the U.S. adult population( it's much higher in Canada). About 4% of the U.S. population now identify themselves as atheists or agnostics, but another 6.3% checked the box for "secular unaffiliated," as opposed to religious unaffiliated. There seems to be a lot of confusion about how to define non-religious belief. Further study will likely indicate that most of the secular unaffiliated are afraid to say atheist or agnostic because it has been turned into a pejorative by religious leaders anxious to maintain the control and influence they have over their flocks.

Taken as a group, the unbelievers in the U.S. are larger than many religions with powerful lobbies and political influence such as Jews and Mormons. Most of us have never talked openly about our unbelief, so the mainstream population is unaware of us....almost like gays 20 or 30 years ago. If all of the people who opted out of religion come out of the closet and start qualifying politicians for their support in the same way the churches do, then there just might come a day when you'll have an atheist president!

http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

Right? Left? All you have done is confirmed that there is a religious America...always has been....in government, education, social policy, military, and custom. Many like to refer to "Judeo-Christian" values as the foundation for legal code. Pretty hard to exterminate God and his "spiritual advisors"....it is a growth industry.
BTW, "foreign wars" has been more of a Democrat thing based on the nation's history.

Take a good look at that Pewforum survey and see how many Americans are losing their religion. The days of winning elections through Godtalk may be coming to an end! Politicians may have to produce real results in office to get re-elected.

August1991 · May 11, 2008

That U.C.C. church gave him a chance to meet community activists, and get plugged in and have a chance to really meet the people.
I don't know about the rest of the church, but the problem with Rev. Wright is he is a preacher of "Liberation Theology," the class struggle version of Christianity. For people who feel trapped in poor, rundown, crime-ridden neighbourhoods it's an appealing message: your failures and disappointments in life are no fault of your own! They're all caused by oppression from "whitey" or "the man" or what have you. Since Barach Obama went to university, got his law degree, and quickly rose to the top when he began his political career, his experience is a direct challenge to Wright's social gospel. If a black man can't succeed or be accepted by white America, then how has he become the odds-on favourite for the White House? And that's likely why the Rev started plotting to undermine his campaign.

This is utter gibberish and and shows what has happened to Obama's campaign. He's gone from St. Barack to being just another politician - and one with little experience.

Who needs to meet "community activists" to get plugged in? What kind of "community" has activists? What does a "community activist" do anyway?

And what's this argument that the way to prove that Rev. Wright and his ilk are wrong is by making Obama president? Is Obama now appealing to the anti-Wright vote (after spending 20 years going to his church)? Or did Obama only go to the church so he could meet all those activists?

----

Obama's campaign can spin this any way it wants but words like "community activist" and "Liberation theology" are not mainstream America. Obama has no track record, people don't know him or his wife (and what little they've learned so far doesn't look good) and he is simply far too left wing.

Candidates like Obama have tried before - Barry Goldwater and George McGovern are recent examples - and voters desert them. A Democratic candidate in particular has a very narrow window to win the White House and Obama isn't near the window or even the house. He's a block or two away.

bush_cheney2004 · May 11, 2008

It depends how that separation is interpreted. The Supreme Court has refused to hear challenges to the Bush Administration's "faith based initaitives" policies, which put government funds in the hands of church-run charities. And having bi-weekly teleconference calls with a closed circle of powerful evangelical leaders may not be illegal, but it does illustrate how powerful religious leaders seeking access to political power....

It doesn't depend on any interpretation....Jefferson's ideas are enshrined in a letter, not the US Constitution. As long as government and/or elected representatives makes no specific preference in such associations, it shall remain legal. Hell, in Canada, Ontario has been funding far more than just charities for a very long time:

The national watchdog organization [CCLA] yesterday released a brief arguing the Progressive Conservatives' plan to extend $400-million in public funding to Jewish, Muslim and other faith-based schools will ultimately make Ontario "a much less tolerant place." However, the group is equally critical of the province's current situation, saying it is "inequitable and unjust" to fund Catholic schools but not those of other religions. - 2007

And how many Americans have realized that they were suckered into supporting a disastruous war because of the appeal to faith and patriotism?

Far less than the number who realize no such thing.

...Further study will likely indicate that most of the secular unaffiliated are afraid to say atheist or agnostic because it has been turned into a pejorative by religious leaders anxious to maintain the control and influence they have over their flocks.

Pure speculation unsupported by American behavior and pop culture. The "flocks" and their leaders are actually mocked on a routine basis.

Taken as a group, the unbelievers in the U.S. are larger than many religions with powerful lobbies and political influence such as Jews and Mormons. Most of us have never talked openly about our unbelief, so the mainstream population is unaware of us....almost like gays 20 or 30 years ago. If all of the people who opted out of religion come out of the closet and start qualifying politicians for their support in the same way the churches do, then there just might come a day when you'll have an atheist president!

I'm sure we have already had atheist presidents....the general public just don't know it. But my point was that he/she will not be elected that way for a long time.

Take a good look at that Pewforum survey and see how many Americans are losing their religion. The days of winning elections through Godtalk may be coming to an end! Politicians may have to produce real results in office to get re-elected.

Maybe doesn't count....President Bush was re-elected in 2004. The Pewforum survey can't beat little old ladies in a voting booth.

BubberMiley · May 12, 2008

In the Democratic Party, that's what it comes down to because they've adopted identity politics as their main credo.

Actually I would say the Republicans are the ones whose subtext is fully caught up in identity politics. Just look at Fox News with constant coverage of Jeremiah Wright and Michelle Obama. Their emphasis on the big black boogeyman is using and abusing the politics of race far more than the Democrats, who are much more focused on the issues.

August1991 · May 12, 2008

Vulgar, in very bad taste but original and funny. Viewer discretion is advised.

Youtube.

WIP · May 12, 2008

It doesn't depend on any interpretation....Jefferson's ideas are enshrined in a letter, not the US Constitution.

I had a feeling this was where you were going, but I figured I'd wait till you spelled it out. By "letter", can I assume you're referring to the Treaty of Tripoli, where Jefferson explained to the Muslim rulers of the Barbary States that his government was a secular state: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"

I seen all sides of this "separation of church and state" debate when I used to participate in an American conservative forum. The "Christian Nation" advocates copy that line about separation not being in the Constitution - the 700 Club viewers could watch Pat Robertson repeat it every day, just in case they forgot! Ofcourse Robertson and other Christian leaders fail to point out that God is not mentioned in the Constitution either!

The Declaration of Independence mentions "Creator", but that doesn't necessarily refer to the God of the Bible either! Many students of early American history believe that the majority of the founding fathers would qualify as Deists - believers in a creator that set the world in motion but doesn't directly interact with us or the creation since the beginning. This was a popular belief among humanist intellectuals all over Europe. And deistic principles were advocated by many of the Founding Fathers, such as Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine.

To me, the best argument against the Christian nation claim is the fact that several attempts were made to add a Christian amendment to the U.S. Constitution. There would have been no need for it unless the religious leaders feared that the Constitution was secular or godless!

As long as government and/or elected representatives makes no specific preference in such associations, it shall remain legal. Hell, in Canada, Ontario has been funding far more than just charities for a very long time:

The national watchdog organization [CCLA] yesterday released a brief arguing the Progressive Conservatives' plan to extend $400-million in public funding to Jewish, Muslim and other faith-based schools will ultimately make Ontario "a much less tolerant place." However, the group is equally critical of the province's current situation, saying it is "inequitable and unjust" to fund Catholic schools but not those of other religions. - 2007

Yeah, tell me about it! Catholic education funding was extended to grade 12 many years back to buy Catholic votes. Now, the other religions want a share of education tax dollars to fund their religious schools, which was the setting for the quote above. The Tories ran a major campaign promise to fund religious schools in the last provincial election. It backfired in a big way! The bible belt in Ontario isn't big enough to win elections through this kind of pandering!

WIP · May 12, 2008

This is utter gibberish and and shows what has happened to Obama's campaign. He's gone from St. Barack to being just another politician - and one with little experience.
Who needs to meet "community activists" to get plugged in? What kind of "community" has activists? What does a "community activist" do anyway?

Are you black? Do you live in a crime-ridden innercity neighbourhood? No! And neither do I. But I'm not arrogant enough to tell African-Americans how they should they should run their neighbourhoods! And Barach Obama had enough sense to know that having dark skin wasn't enough for him to understand what life was like for the people when he took that first job as a community organizer.

And what's this argument that the way to prove that Rev. Wright and his ilk are wrong is by making Obama president? Is Obama now appealing to the anti-Wright vote (after spending 20 years going to his church)? Or did Obama only go to the church so he could meet all those activists?

You still can't figure it out? Wright's refusal to leave quietly and instead to appear everywhere he could get an audience and refer to Obama as "just a politician," convinced a lot of people that he had reasons to try to ruin Obama's campaign.

----

Obama's campaign can spin this any way it wants but words like "community activist" and "Liberation theology" are not mainstream America. Obama has no track record, people don't know him or his wife (and what little they've learned so far doesn't look good) and he is simply far too left wing.

You obviously haven't read anything about Liberation Theology, or you would have realized that if Barach Obama believed this way of thinking, he wouldn't have run for president in the first place!

And leftwing / rightwing is becoming meaningless in desperate times. A lot of the indepedent voters are saying they just want their country out of Iraq and out of debt.

Candidates like Obama have tried before - Barry Goldwater and George McGovern are recent examples - and voters desert them. A Democratic candidate in particular has a very narrow window to win the White House and Obama isn't near the window or even the house. He's a block or two away.

Thanks to George Bush, a failing economy, skyrocketing oil prices and an unwinable war, that "narrow window" has gotten a lot bigger! John McCain has to wear the Bush Legacy around his neck because he re-positioned himself as a Republican insider and Bush's heir to the throne when he started his 2008 campaign.

In Congress, Republican incumbents are reading the writing on the wall and announcing their retirements. The GOP is going to get burned to the ground by an electorate which blames them for the mess their in! If John McCain did win, he would face a House and Senate with big Democrat majorities.

sharkman · May 15, 2008

You still can't figure it out? Wright's refusal to leave quietly and instead to appear everywhere he could get an audience and refer to Obama as "just a politician," convinced a lot of people that he had reasons to try to ruin Obama's campaign.
----

You obviously haven't read anything about Liberation Theology, or you would have realized that if Barach Obama believed this way of thinking, he wouldn't have run for president in the first place!

Thanks to George Bush, a failing economy, skyrocketing oil prices and an unwinable war, that "narrow window" has gotten a lot bigger! John McCain has to wear the Bush Legacy around his neck because he re-positioned himself as a Republican insider and Bush's heir to the throne when he started his 2008 campaign.

The point remains that Liberation Theology and community activist are not mainstream America ideas. Obama may not believe in Liberation Theology, but he's obviously a sympathizer, which still makes him out of touch with the norm. 20 years under Rev Wright gives Obama something around his neck as well going into the election.

He will also have to face a democrat party that has spent itself into the ground and is election weary, what with the Hillary debacle. A good portion of her supporters will not vote for Obama, but will vote for McCain instead. Meet the McCain Democrats.

The one thing Obama will have on his side will be the MSM. But the Republicans have won at least 3 recent elections under such conditions, and no doubt are preparing for the onslaught. It will be a very interesting election.

bush_cheney2004 · May 15, 2008

...The one thing Obama will have on his side will be the MSM. But the Republicans have won at least 3 recent elections under such conditions, and no doubt are preparing for the onslaught. It will be a very interesting election.

Oh how they soon forget....Gov. Mike DoTaxUs had a commanding lead in the polls and media for the 1988 election, only to stumble badly during the second debate (with the now famous "intellectual" answer to a rape/murder question concerning his wife).

Like Obama, he didn't clinch the party nomination until late in the game. He went on to lose the election to George H. W. Bush, carrying only 10 states.

BubberMiley · May 16, 2008

Oh how they soon forget....Gov. Mike DoTaxUs had a commanding lead in the polls and media for the 1988 election, only to stumble badly during the second debate (with the now famous "intellectual" answer to a rape/murder question concerning his wife).
Like Obama, he didn't clinch the party nomination until late in the game. He went on to lose the election to George H. W. Bush, carrying only 10 states.

Republicans are increasingly living in the glories of their distant past these days. Not a good sign for them for November.

bush_cheney2004 · May 16, 2008

Republicans are increasingly living in the glories of their distant past these days. Not a good sign for them for November.

....while Democrats (and adoring Grits) try to forget their distant past, only to be forced to re-live it. Even Bill Clinton recognized that folly.

the janitor · May 24, 2008

....while Democrats (and adoring Grits) try to forget their distant past, only to be forced to re-live it. Even Bill Clinton recognized that folly.

That has more to do with being an American than being a Republican or Democrat. :lol:

Edited May 24, 2008 by the janitor

bush_cheney2004 · May 24, 2008

That has more to do with being an American than being a Republican or Democrat.

How would you know....American? :lol:

scribblet · May 25, 2008

IMHO the media has been harder on her than on Obama, except for Hurricane Wright, he's had nearly a free ride. It's almost as if people are scrambling to prove they are not racist, they are falling all over themselves to support him, while few people question him on much of anything.

Personally I think Hillary has a better chance of defeating McCain than Obama, the democrats should be careful what they wish for.

BubberMiley · May 25, 2008

Personally I think Hillary has a better chance of defeating McCain than Obama, the democrats should be careful what they wish for.

Both of them would make quick work of the dithering old man. He's not even sure who he wants endorsing him anymore.

bush_cheney2004 · May 25, 2008

...Personally I think Hillary has a better chance of defeating McCain than Obama, the democrats should be careful what they wish for.

You are correct...the Democrats have boxed themselves into a real problem. Senator McCain just needs to make fewer mistakes.

WIP · May 29, 2008

IMHO the media has been harder on her than on Obama, except for Hurricane Wright, he's had nearly a free ride. It's almost as if people are scrambling to prove they are not racist, they are falling all over themselves to support him, while few people question him on much of anything.
Personally I think Hillary has a better chance of defeating McCain than Obama, the democrats should be careful what they wish for.

Why? Outside of Appalachia, Obama polls higher than Hilary. And Hilary and Bill have already had enough of a free pass from the MSM for using subtle and not so subtle race-baiting strategies to make Obama the "black candidate." They made a shrewd, cold-blooded assessment that the black vote was going to go to Obama after he proved he could win a white state in Iowa, and they were willing to feed white resentment of those "blue collar democrats" and worry about winning back the black vote in the general election.

Good Riddance Clintons!

Barack 08 · May 29, 2008

What went wrong for Hill-Da-Beast? She got out-classes by an extremely superior cadidate. Build A Bridge and get Over It

"What we do in life...Echoes through eternity"

Barack 08 · May 29, 2008

Furthermore-

Clinton is an example of what America was entirely founded against - Familial aristocracy ruling a country. That’s why it’s not part of a commonwealth and that’s why it has no King/Queen etc. The Bush/Clinton Monarchy needs to be stopped once and for all. Here’s the thing about Clinton: She’s more of a Republican than even McCain, except on universal healthcare. She only Panders to the white working class vote, shes in bed with big business, has earmarked over $300 million in useless government spending, promises no diplomacy and nuclear action against Iran (she’ll pull the troops out of Iraq alright, right into Iran). Not that McCain is much better (I’m voting Obama, but no Hillary is still a win in my book). It’s not about race or gender, it’s not about Republican or Democrat (well it kind of is), but more importantly it’s about the state of America right now. The reason America has had so much trouble overseas, the reason 9/11 happened, the reason we are losing friends, is because of our foreign policy and because of our image. I live in Canada as an American citizen and am getting sick of being ashamed of my citizenship. Hillary won’t help this. Obama will be a major facelift to our foreign policy and international image. Internally, he has the most thorough and reliable economic policy and while his healthcare program isn’t perfect, it’s a step in the right direction. Clinton is just another political pawn working for an oligarchic family/families (don’t be fooled - the Bushes and the Clintons are quite fond of one another) and in bed with big business.

"the only good Clinton is No Clinton"

Barack 08 · May 29, 2008

Bush-Cheney 04...how can you possibly expect to be taken seriously after the last 4 years? you're the biggest joke of recent politics...how many young soldiers will die because of your pointless war? Lets bring our troops back home.

stevoh · May 29, 2008

Hilary is loosing because her campaign thrust was change, but when compared to Obama, her version of "change" seems like the same ol ****.

bush_cheney2004 · May 29, 2008

Bush-Cheney 04...how can you possibly expect to be taken seriously after the last 4 years? you're the biggest joke of recent politics...how many young soldiers will die because of your pointless war? Lets bring our troops back home.

Then why didn't you win in 2004? The joke was on you...LOL! :lol: