Home
 
 
07 March 2008 @ 10:48 am
wtf McClinton?  
Olbermann did an interesting piece on this last night, highlighting the fact that Senator Clinton has mentioned - at least three times in the past week! - how qualified Senator McCain would be to lead the country, in apparent contrast to Senator Obama's abilities. What kind of crazy ass strategy is this? There can only be two real explanations:

1) She is far more a "Lieberman" Democrat (hawkish, pro-McCain) than some liberal supporters would like to believe, and is finally starting to reveal this in more depth (in a move to the center for the general election?)

or

2) She will do absolutely anything and everything - i.e. the kitchen sink approach - to beat Obama for this nomination. In which case, praising McCain seems incredibly short-sighted. One can only imagine the commercials he could put out with virtual endorsements of his readiness to be President from Hillary herself if they faced off in the general election.

So, what gives?


Olbermann's piece last night:
 
 
Current Music: videotape - radiohead
 
 
( Post a new comment )
Hot Tramp (formerly Lottelita)[info]tacky_tramp on March 7th, 2008 07:33 pm (UTC)
I am so, so terrified of a Clinton-McCain race. She's beating him right now in matchup polls, but will that hold up over the next eight months?

The only reason she's competitive with Obama is a) racism (which the county-by-county map for Ohio clearly illustrates) and b) "experience." McCain is a white man, which means she won't attract racists and she'll lose the sexists she's already losing. And McCain trumps her hands-down on experience. The 3 a.m. phone call commercial? Goes to McCain. Period.

Also, if it's Clinton McCain, it will be a moderate female hawk who has never had an executive position vs. an unapologetic male hawk with military experience. That's not much of an alternative.

Edited at 2008-03-07 07:33 pm (UTC)
(Reply) (Thread) (Link)
Chad[info]chad_etc on March 7th, 2008 07:48 pm (UTC)
I completely and totally hear you. She would get beat in a general election - which is why I'm scared to death that the Democrats, who seem to love nothing more than finding new ways to lose elections, will nominate her.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
Still a Beloved Cunt: STFU[info]99catsaway on March 7th, 2008 07:52 pm (UTC)
That is absolutely horrible. Thanks for trying to sabotage our party, Hillary!
(Reply) (Thread) (Link)
Time magazine's 2006 "Person of the Year": Clinton[info]the_lance on March 7th, 2008 08:44 pm (UTC)
I seriously do not get her appeal at all. I know I've been saying the same goddamn thing forever and I know I've been called names over it but seriously W T F???

My vote is the kitchen sink approach with a taste of the "a bit more hawkish than she lets on."

Even if the race boils down to who can win, I don't know how you pick Hillary. Granted Obama's armor isn't perfect but for the love of all that is right, she is a terrible politician.

Here's my Monday morning quarterbacking: Hillary should have run in 2004. Her campaign style and her ability to hit back decisively on Bush would have likely won the White House in 2004. It certainly would have flown in the face of Kerry's weak strategy coupled with a complete inability to inspire more people to come vote against Bush. The extra four years in the Senate hasn't helped her out at all and even though I still don't think she has great appeal, she would have the same strengths as Bush with less negatives. She has also shown that she can mobilize ground supporters in a way that compares well to Bush.

But against John McCain? Running on the argument that she'll be ready on day one (versus someone with 25 years of congressional experience)? And operating an uninspiring campaign against a guy that, despite Dean and the DNC's attempts, is definitely NOT Bush?

No. Fuck no. It might be close but it will definitely go to McCain.
(Reply) (Thread) (Link)
Still a Beloved Cunt: WTF[info]99catsaway on March 7th, 2008 08:54 pm (UTC)
THANK YOU.

This is 100% right.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
Chad[info]chad_etc on March 7th, 2008 08:57 pm (UTC)
110% actually.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)