Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Even though Rocky didn't win, he was ultimately seen as a triumphant figure. And that's how Hillary will be seen too.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Hillary Clinton's Defeat: An Historic Triumph

By Arianna Huffington, Huffington Post. Posted May 20, 2008.


Even though Rocky didn't win, he was ultimately seen as a triumphant figure. And that's how Hillary will be seen too.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also in Top Stories

What a McCain Victory Could Mean: No Money for Health Care and the End of Our Volunteer Army
Robert Parry, Consortium News

If Obama Wins, Who Will Be in His Cabinet -- And Who Should Be?
Jim Hightower, Hightower Lowdown

The Christian Right's Slick Campaign to Make Abstinence Seem Trendy
Vanessa Valenti, AlterNet

After Biden, the Economic Debate Takes Shape
Bill Scher, Campaign for America's Future

The Bikini Car Wash: One Sexist Tradition
Kimberly Gadette, Women's eNews

What 15,000 Reporters Are Doing at the DNC
Justin Peters, Columbia Journalism Review

Dems Nominate Obama, Unify and Transform the Party
John Nichols, TheNation.com

Should Uncle Sam Be Helping CEOs Get Richer?
Sam Pizzigati, Too Much: A Commentary on Excess and Inequality

Immigration: Too Hot for the Dems?
Roberto Lovato, New America Media

More stories by Arianna Huffington

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

A front page story in today's New York Times wonders whether Hillary Clinton's flagging run for the presidency is "a historic if incomplete triumph or a depressing reminder of why few [women] pursue high office in the first place."

Let me quickly weigh in with an unequivocal vote for "historic if incomplete triumph." And the only thing I find depressing is that the answer is even in doubt.

I have regularly criticized Clinton over the course of her campaign (and long before it, starting with her vote to authorize the war), but there is no question that she has forever altered the way women running for president will be viewed from here on out. In the words of the Times, Clinton has established "a new marker for what a woman can accomplish in a campaign -- raising over $170 million, frequently winning more favorable reviews on debate performances than her male rivals, rallying older women, and persuading white male voters who were never expected to support her."

She has also forever demolished the question mark hovering over the issue many (wrongly, in my opinion) have felt would be a woman candidate's biggest weakness: the ability to be seen as a plausible commander-in-chief.

It is to her great credit that very shortly into the '08 race, when you saw Clinton on television, you didn't think, "Oh, there's the woman running for president." That is no small feat for a woman trying to break into a male-dominated arena. So the next time a woman -- or two or three -- runs for president, it won't be seen as a novelty act. Because Hillary certainly wasn't.

But the greatest triumph of Clinton's campaign -- a complete triumph -- is the example she has set for the next generation. And not just for young women; her dedication, perseverance, and indefatigable drive make her a role model for young men as well.

Much has been made of the generational divide in the Clinton-Obama battle, with older women rallying to Clinton and younger women drawn to Obama. But the impact of her candidacy transcends this division. I've seen this very clearly in the reaction of my oldest daughter.

She voted for the first time in this year's California primary, casting her ballot for Obama. Yet hardly a day passes without her speaking with admiration, almost awe, about Hillary Clinton -- how she manages to get up every morning, no matter how hard things get for her, and keep following her dream.

I've written a lot about fear and fearlessness, and how fearlessness is not the absence of fear -- it's the mastery of fear. It's all about getting up one more time than we fall down. Has any public figure embodied this more powerfully and compellingly than Hillary Clinton?

Last week I was in a hotel room in Las Vegas preparing to give a speech. Checking in for a political update, I turned on CNN and saw Wolf Blitzer interviewing Hillary. But instead of a debate on who is more electable in Appalachia, or a Talmudic discussion about Michigan and Florida, there was this incredibly human moment.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: history, election 2008, hillary clinton

Find more Arianna at the Huffington Post.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
A fighter maybe...how about ambition at any cost? What a loser.
Posted by: Smiggsy on May 20, 2008 2:18 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now only if Hillary had gone & divorced slick Willy instead of behaving like a compliant wife lap-dog robot after her discovery (or his admission) about his extra marital liaisons in the 90's she would have looked like a stronger leader. I'm a supporter of relationship compassion & forgiveness & such but what a messed-up union they have. Its been a sham marriage of convenience for the start. More like ambition at any cost. What a loser.

Maybe without Bill she would have garnered more votes from the intuitive & discerning democratic supporter. As a consequence she has always been nothing more than another Clinton muppet, seemingly operated by the same puppeteers who backed Bill's presidency.

Obama, for his numerous faults has always appeared to be the superior presidential candidate. Thank the maker for not another Clinton president (for now......?). Now lets see how the discerning voter reacts at the polls.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not if we lose, Arianna
Posted by: willie.horton on May 20, 2008 3:03 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we lose the general election, it will be universally perceived -- forever -- as Hillary's fault.
I supported her at the start, but I have now lost all respect for her. So has the blogosphere, the real Left, and everybody else but her rabid supporters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Blame Yourself! Posted by: Sparks56
» RE: Blame Yourself! Posted by: Prairie Waif
» RE: Blame Yourself! Posted by: Sparks56
» RE: Blame Yourself! Posted by: desidid
» RE: Blame Yourself! Posted by: Sparks56
» Arianna still Republican at heart Posted by: adrienne4dean
» adrienne4dean Posted by: Prairie Waif
» RE: Not if we lose, Arianna Posted by: allyourbasearebelongtous
Triumphant?
Posted by: xi_people on May 20, 2008 3:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not so much. Billary's campaign has managed to completely unravel the mountains of goodwill (deserved or not) generated by the first Clinton presidency, and has very likely permanently alienated the dimocrat party's most reliable constituency with her low-rent race-baiting tactics against Obama.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

is this a joke?
Posted by: Moira61 on May 20, 2008 4:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Triumphant? Get real. She's despised by people who used to admire her. Her filthy campaign tactics brought her down and her obnoxious, ignorant and racist supporters didn't help - what person with any intellect would want to be lumped in with the bunch from West Virginia? Hillary did herself in and in the process divided the Democratic party. I can't see history ever puting her in a favorable light.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Serious Posted by: Sparks56
» RE: Serious Posted by: desidid
» RE: is this a joke? Posted by: writer7
realdem08
Posted by: realdem08 on May 20, 2008 4:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am so very tired of people STILL giving Ms. Clinton ANY credence as a DEMOCRAT. Her or her NAFTA/WTO loving "husband".

How can women or alleged feminists still think of her as one of them when she sat on the WalMart board? How can any true labor people think of her as a friend when she surrounds herself with Union busting lawyers?

She is still a Goldwater Republican at her core. You can't paint a horse and call it a zebra.

I will be glad when she goes away. The woman who called Obama an elitst can go on the speaking circuit and make tens of millions.

The system is broken and people like her are the reason.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Goldwater Republicans Posted by: CUnknown
» RE: 100% realdem08 Posted by: Smiggsy
huh?
Posted by: karyse on May 20, 2008 5:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Represents the working class? You've got to be kidding.

Just because you've convinced a category of people that you are THE candidate for them, doesn't mean that anything you've ever done (or ever will do) benefits the group.

Case in point -- wars and THE war. Billary has no intention, now or ever, to get out. The soldiers are ALL either poor or working class. Their deaths and maiming are of absolutely NO concern to her, the republicans, the democrats, nor apparantly to anyone else.

That anyone of working class background believes himself/herself to have anything in common with a ruling class politician is testament to the hegemony of an ideology whose sole purpose is to ensure that the rich get richer and the poor die making sure that they stay rich. Bah!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

fight, battle, win, lose, knockout, race, drive, force, power, triumph
Posted by: Suzon on May 20, 2008 5:15 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The language gives away the bias of the user, the old paradigm of winner beats loser. Shades of our violent past when the family comprising the Normans, Plantagenets, Lancaster, York, Tudor, et al murdered each other to gain the royal throne (about 300 years ago they learned they could get even richer and more powerful by cooperating).

I was and remain a John Edwards supporter but Hillary has learned nothing inspiring from history or observation. She's playing the game as it has always has been played, big deal that she's female. Her role model is more William the Conquerer than concilliatory Elizabeth I.

Obama is espousing something different and idealistic. Even if to some extent this is a cynical ploy (and other than taking corporate donations, I see no evidence of this), he is staking out moral territory that it will be difficult for him to betray.

Women imitating aggressive men? Dangerous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Women national leaders
Posted by: phindrup on May 20, 2008 5:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't understand how anyone could imagine that a woman could not be a national leader --- there have been enough of them in modern times.
While they have been no better than are men, Bush has ensured for all time time that it will never be possible for a woman head of state to do a worse job than a man.
And Hillary???

Wants power far too much to ever be allowed to get anywhere near having it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another day . . .
Posted by: Scientz on May 20, 2008 6:20 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . another great story on AlterNet . . .

. . . another chorus of vicious disagreement from the cheap seats.

Color me surprised.

It's 9:20am, EST. How long until the first post dissing me, I wonder?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» F@#$ you, Scientz!!! Posted by: Scientz
» RE: Another day . . . Posted by: Prairie Waif
» 96 scented, please . . . Posted by: Scientz
» RE: 96 scented, please . . . Posted by: Prairie Waif
Great observations
Posted by: BST on May 20, 2008 6:38 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kudos on a fine commentary, with one flaw:

Hillary Clinton is not out of the race. She will be only on the day she says "amen."

For those who think they know the candidates so well they can abuse, brutalize, smear and ridicule them -- remember this, you are all only pawns in the media marketing game.

The great comic flaw in politics in this country is that the stale Tim Russerts decide for us who will be framed as worthy and palatable and who will be denigrated and cheapened.

Hillary Clinton was, is and will be my candidate. To those who say she is unversally hated, get real! She's in a neck-and-neck race to the finish with hundreds of thousands of staunch supporters cheering her on all the way.

What planet did you just fly in from?

I'd love to share coffee with Barack -- he's unarguably a bright, pleasant fellow. But if the Democrats lose with him as nominee, do not look to Hillary as the cause.

Look to the nominee.

He will now (as the press calls it) be "vetted" as he never was when the name of the game was beat up on the witch. If he thinks it's rude for the GOP to bring up his wife's comments about pride in America, wow, he's really excessively naive. He hasn't seen anything yet in terms of the professional and personal challenges of a President and spouse.

When McCain is president, all you folks who know Hillary so well you can castigate everything about her, look to yourselves.

We will have lost out on a fabulous commander-in-chief whose time was exactly right, until the arsenal of hatred toward brassy women was aimed in chillingly familiar and focused ways.

Here come the snickering schoolboys in kneepants, wielding their slingshots.

It has amused me to see that "finally" lots of voters awakened from their stupor of reality TV when they heard something simplistic enough to embrace. The word "Change." But a thorough understanding of the political landscape, of history, records of service etc. requires more than a slogan and Hallelujiah moment.

Hillary Clinton has many flaws. I do too. So do you. So does Barack Obama, So does John McCain. But she has myriad fine accomplishments in her long record of service.

And, yes, being spouse to a president counts as experience.

It's working closely for years with a mentor.

So, laugh and ridicule and berate. But we are losing the best president for these very troubled times and I, for one, am not only sorry but deeply concerned about our future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Great observations Posted by: Carole399
» RE: Great observations Posted by: brunowe
triumph?? Aaaw Hell Naw
Posted by: mrdaveyd on May 20, 2008 7:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I always liked Hillary Clinton. I liked as first lady and thought she got a raw deal in terms of how she was treated and in many ways villanized by so called pundits and the press. I liked her when she first ran for President although I had major issues with her stance on the war. I figured she made that stance to rebuff any questions raised about her patriotism or toughness. I certainly thought she was more on the ball than Obama when they first started out.

As the campaign went on something happened. This woman who is being applauded in this column as a symbol of triumph turned real, real ugly. Her ruthless win at all cost tactics is not admirable at all. Hillary Clinton became the very things many of us detest. This assessment is not some sort of double standard being applied to her either.

There is nothing admirable about the ruthless behavior of a Karl Rove. There's nothing genius about it. There's nothing admirable about the crassness of a Bill Oreilly and to see Hillary Clinton adopt the tactics individuals like them employ only meant one thing-Women are capable of being just as crass and sinisterially manipulative as any man. To me thats not triumph. Thats a huge step backwards.

Had Hillary been the Hillary who I first met when she was first lady, where she was warm, funny, open and sharp as a tact when it came to the issues, she would've had this race in the bag with no questions asked. Sadly she lived up to every nasty name the right had always attached to her.. and she failed to make history by being a shining example of how the game could significantly be changed with someone of her background and skill set involved.

She failed and failed miserably and the only lesson I got from her was to never try to be who your not.. The sad thing here is that with each passing day, I can't help wonder if the vicious calculating, petty candidate I see running for the white house who will do anything to win is really her and the warm genuine person I met several ago was fake..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You're so 'way ahead of the curve, Arianna!!
Posted by: geoXIXXX on May 20, 2008 7:15 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Exactly so and precisely right, Arianna! You have the eyesight of a political eagle and most of these commenters are stuck with the inch-worm's view.

You didn't mention Hillary's astounding and unmatched mental gifts or her grasp of what a president must be. That all got polluted and diluted with the endless stupidity and sewage of the "debates" questions. Hillary tried to raise the bar with her answers but most of her audience preferred the nearly meaningless, albeit soothing, lounge music of Obama's lullabies.

If America is cursed, and there's a chance we may be, Obama will be comminuted by Rove and Gang. We'll get President McCain, in his sparkling Navy whites, saluting Old Glory, and that will be the end to Franklin's Republic and our personal freedoms.

If we're lucky, we get Obama as a merely bungling and floundering four year failure.

If God still loves us, "Rocky" may get her "rematch" in 2012, after we've all sobered up and become sadder and wiser and much poorer! Pray for God's love!

God Save America!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Woman President
Posted by: thehousedog on May 20, 2008 8:01 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There will be a time in the not to distant future of this country when a woman will be president. And she will be a fine president. I object to this woman being president now. That's all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A Woman President Posted by: westomoon
Too Little Too Late
Posted by: Southern Gal on May 20, 2008 9:26 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's nice to see Arianna write a piece that is almost nice regarding Hillary's candidacy. For many women this is too little too late. Much damage has been done by the tone and negativity, and nastiness of the comments from the Obama suporters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Way beyond enough Posted by: westomoon
Money Better Spent
Posted by: Southern Gal on May 20, 2008 9:31 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If this gentleman has so much money to spend on politics, the better task for him might be funding new primaries in Florida and Michigan.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Money Better Spent Posted by: Southern Gal
» RE: Act like a grownup? Posted by: westomoon
Desert Dweller
Posted by: jct3 on May 20, 2008 10:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I greatly admire you Ariana, but this is an early salvo in a coming barrage to try to rehabilitate Hillary in the eyes of both most ordinary Democrats and that party's leaders, and definitely NOT a reflection of political reality. I agree with some of the other comments that assert that she has run a negative, covertly race-based campaign, and has tremendously damaged herself, Bill, and all those who supported her too vigorously, perhaps most notably James Carville. She has definitely changed the power structure within the Democratic Party. Personally, I think that is a very good thing, but I am saddened that so many good people have been forever dragged down and out of political power in the Democratic Party by her refusal to step gracefully aside much earlier in this process. It is a hard thing to give up one's lifelong goal, but when doing so is a far greater long term benefit to our country and people than not doing so, a person who truly cares more about The People than him/herself does just that. Hillary's refusal to do this, says more about her true motives and personality than anything the Corpublican speedboaters could possibly have devised.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why pretend that she's noble?
Posted by: J Smith on May 20, 2008 11:02 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hilary is staying in the race because of a provision of a 2002 campaign-finance law cosponsored by McCain that prevents candidates who drop out of the race from raising money AFTER the nominating conventions to repay themselves for personal loans. Should Clinton fail to come up with the funds by the Democratic convention in August, she'll be out the $11 million.

I ask, where is the "heroism" or "nobility" in that?

Wake up, people. Let's not make Hilary Clinton's efforts more noble than they really are. I'd DEFINITELY vote for Hilary if she were the ONLY candidate running against McCain. However, I'd vote for Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Barack Obama and John Edwards if they were alternative choices. Any candidate I just mentioned could run independent and I'd vote for them before I'd vote for Hilary Clinton. I would not have said that before January 2008.

America has had enough scandal and too many greedy, divisive politicians. The beginning of a positive and progressive change can start here and god willing in November it will with a new and fresh face.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why pretend that she's noble? Posted by: letrightbedone
Vitriol Has No Place in This Decision
Posted by: ChicagoPaul on May 20, 2008 11:34 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I almost titled this piece: "Save Your Vitriol for November" and then realized that this sort of anger and bitterness and pettiness and smallness and rudeness and deceit (I could go on) has no place in the process of electing a leader for our country.

Not if we really love our country. If we don't give a shit, then we should just continue on with this sort of playground behavior. (Said by a retired elementary school teacher.)

It really doesn't have to do with whether Rocky will look like the Rocky in the first movie or in the latest (and I hope last) movie. It's not about Senators Clinton, Obama, and McCain - and the other possibilities.

It's about us and who can re-establish a government that is more like what Lincoln described in his Gettysburg Address: "of the people, by the people, and for the people." And who can foster a maturing of the nature of this nation's thinking about "the people" by moving us along Dr. King's dream of judging people: character vs. color of skin. AND, by the way, the same dream applies for judging men vs. women.

Yes, solutions to our various national problems: health care and Medicare, the warS, social security, the national debt, immigration, education, infrastructure, how other nations view us, trade policy, etc. matter. But we can't get there with the sort of bickering that we read in this (and the other) forums that we all read and hear.

The basic facts are that on solutions to the various national problems, Clinton and Obama are exceedingly close. And their solutions are vastly different from the solutions being proposed by McCain.

For a Clinton supporter to indicate that if Obama gets the nomination, then he/she will vote for McCain (or Nader, or Paul, or Barr, or ETC.) is - well, childish, immature, vitriol-filled, non-sensical, and really dumb. I mean - think about it rationally!!

The same thing goes for Obama supporters - of which I am one - and have been since the beginning of his campaign.

Vitriol has no place in this decision. Maturity does, Common sense does. We are in the process of governing ourselves; by electing people to meet with other people to pass laws for the common good and behave respectably in the international arena in OUR names.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's face it
Posted by: popsicle67 on May 20, 2008 11:45 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The biggest problem with Hillary being president is her husband. Nobody wanted Bill Clinton back in the White House, even just to use the bathroom. He
is the boyfriend that you are civil to when your daughter brings him home from college at christmas
because you know by spring he'll be a fart in the wind. Most of her support was from people who wanted a woman running for President and damn the
platform anyway and I feel better having somebody
who makes McCain look like the big jackass he is
running.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We're going to miss you, Hillary.
Posted by: fanny666 on May 20, 2008 11:49 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now please hurry up and go away so we can start missing you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Snowball's Chance in Hell
Posted by: Don on May 20, 2008 12:19 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem is, Hillary carries too much baggage.

What a pity the convoluted state-by-state staggered primary system gave us this choice of candidates.

I have no problem with Obama myself and will vote for him in November, but what is the major accomplishment of his political career? The keynote address at the 2004 convention... I'm sure many voters are asking "where's the beef?".

But most importantly, we need a reality check. Unfortunately as this may be, there is still far too much racial prejudice in this country for a candidate perceived as "black" to have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election.

I am afraid that, despite the Republican party's self-destruction over the past 8 years, we are in for at least 4 more years of the same old crap, and the damage that will endure for decades as a result of the Supreme Court appointees the next administration will get to make.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A Snowball's Chance in Hell Posted by: ChicagoPaul
» RE: A Snowball's Chance in Hell Posted by: Prairie Waif
Clinton on Crack
Posted by: Pennyhead on May 20, 2008 12:46 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clinton on Crack
May 19, 2008, 3:17 pm
Posted by quimby in Election2008 on YourThreeCents.com



Hillary Clinton proved once and again that she is a liar, or just severely mathematically challenged. She told a huge crowd in Kentucky that she had not only won more popular votes than Obama but won states totaling far more electoral votes. “The states I have won total 300 electoral votes,” she stated. How did she come to this conclusion? She discounted his victories in caucus states and those likely to be Republican in November. She came to the assumption that these states typically have a low voter turnout.


She also went on to say that “More people have voted for me than my opponent.”


She stated this without coming up with a logical explanation of how she came to this conclusion. She also said “more people have voted for me than anybody who’s ever run for president before.” WHAT? She is tooting her own horn but with fallacies, falsehoods, fabrications, lies!

Does she not think people read the news or have any idea what is going on? Oh Hillary, you just keep making it easier and easier.



Comments
Posted by Kozlo
on May 19, 2008, 4:28 pm

I hope Hillary takes her fight for the nomination all the way to the Convention in Colorado. She has more experience than the novice Hussein Obama. She will not run from the Iranian threat like the pacifist Obama will. She has more character than the radical, America Hater, Terrorist Lover Obama.
Vote Hillary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Posted by WALTON
on May 19, 2008, 7:43 pm

what? obama wants to take initiative and do talks with iran. maybe you are on crack.


Posted by graybear
on May 19, 2008, 6:30 pm

Kozlo,
Is this an interesting turn of events?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NSA Destroyed Evidence of Domestic Spying
Posted by: ThePublicRecord on May 20, 2008 1:11 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.pubrecord.org

NSA Destroyed Evidence of Domestic Spying

The Public Record
May 20, 2008

The National Security Agency, the top-secret spy shop that has been secretly eavesdropping on Americans under a plan authorized by President Bush seven years ago, destroyed the names of thousands of Americans and US companies it collected after 9/11 because the agency feared it would come under fire by lawmakers for conducting unlawful surveillance on United States citizens without authorization from a court, according to a little known report published in October 2001.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama, the Inscrutable
Posted by: willymack on May 20, 2008 1:27 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The clinton campaign may be viewed as a thorn in Obama's side by some, and as healthy competition by others. Many people who formerly backed Clinton have changed their minds because they see Clinton as a sore loser and sour grapes. Let's keep in mind that Clinton and Obama are very nearly equally popular, and for their own reasons. Just look at the situation. For the first time in our short history we have the possibility of having either a highly educated, exceptionally bright woman (unlike that zero, bush), or a highly educated, exceptionally bright man of color (unlike that nut, mccain) reaching the White House. This leaves the question of who either would want as a running mate. Clinton has already stated she'd like Obama on her ticket, should she get the Democratic nod. Obama, in his inscrutable fashion is as good at keeping mum as he is at attracting huge crowds to his rallies. In my mind, an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket may be the ONLY way to get past the rethug attempt to rig yet another "election".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Names May Change But
Posted by: Jim Shaw on May 20, 2008 1:43 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
all first-rank presidential candidates need boatloads of corporate cash to be taken seriously.

They also surround themselves with the same well-connected campaign advisors.

For this reason, I find it difficult to get overly excited about these candidates.

The idea of Hillary as a credible populist is LOL funny, given where her money comes from, and given the fact that she surrounds herself with people like Robert Rubin. I can't imagine any of Hillary's working class supporters would really want 4-8 more years of Rubinomics.

Hillary is a woman of great talent, and I think we need more women in government, but I just don't see her bucking all that corporate power.

I think we'll get real change not from picking the lesser presidential evil, but from demanding at a grass roots level, public campaign financing and electoral reforms such as instant runoff voting and rotating primary schedules.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Names May Change But Posted by: allyourbasearebelongtous
Respect, finally
Posted by: Ted21 on May 20, 2008 3:07 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary Clinton has finally garnered my respect with her "never give up" attitude. Before this, she has long struck me as a political operator: overly ambitious and too embedded with the power elite bent on preserving their own status through self-serving policies and their disastrous consequences. Ms. Clinton has finally demonstrated a true leadership trait. And yes, I agree that she has blazed a trail where none had existed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: xcuse me, ever hear of Shirley Chisholm? Posted by: allyourbasearebelongtous
» And on the other side of the aisle Posted by: xconservative
The real loss here
Posted by: Kym525 on May 20, 2008 3:44 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is to the core of feminist belief. At one point in time one of the fundamental tenets of feminism was the right of self-determination; that women could decide for themselves the direction(s) they wanted their lives to take. A part of that self-determination is the right to vote for the candidate who BEST represents a woman's individual interests. For some women, that is Hilary Clinton. For others it is Barack Obama.

Unfortunately, the "either/or" feminists, characterized by Gloria Steinem's divisive op-ed piece in the NYT have hijacked an entire movement because they want a woman in the White House no matter the cost and regardless of how reprehensible her behavior has been. Hilary Clinton gave GW carte blanche to launch an unnecessary war--an inconvenient fact these feminists tend to gloss over. The "either/or" contingent plays up the sexism angle (and I do not dismiss these charges lightly and have always been one of many who have decried the treatment of Hilary Clinton in the past and now), but are doing it in such a way as to cower and silence the voices of women who do not agree.

What's even more shameful is the slowly-growing division and mistrust between mainstream white feminists and feminists of color. Feminists of color are being treated shabbily by the "either/or" contingent if they do not march in lock-step with Clinton. They are being told that racism isn't as IMPORTANT as sexism and that as women of color, we must "suck it up" or we're in bed with the patriarchy. What's insulting about this mindset is that the assumption is that women of color who support Obama are doing so, not because they believe in what he stands for, or that his issues might be OUR issues, but because he's black. Frankly, that's an attitude I find racist and dismissive of the deeper insights not just of women of color, but of people of color in general.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The real loss here Posted by: desidid
I have a box of 8 Crayolas
Posted by: Prairie Waif on May 20, 2008 4:15 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Will that be enough?

Or do I need the scented box of 96?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

give it a rest obamamaniacs, geez
Posted by: allyourbasearebelongtous on May 20, 2008 4:41 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
with all due respect to all the pro-obama folks here, you don't do yourselves or the democratic party any favors by continuing to attack hillary and to personally attack folks who support her. i dropped off buzzflash because of getting sick and tired of all the flaming junk there directed at any posters who dared to say anything pro-hillary. some people are legitmately concerned that the democrats must win in the fall, no matter who they have supported. we can't afford 4 more years of the same old, same old. we certainly can't afford 8 more years. wade thru Six Degrees by mark lynas and you'll see what i mean. 8 more years of the same old do-nothing gop crap and the planet is effectively dead -- we just won't know it for some time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Excuse me... Posted by: westomoon
» RE: xcuse me... Posted by: allyourbasearebelongtous
» RE: xcuse me... Posted by: Longdream
» RE: xcuse me... Posted by: lasirene
» RE: give it a rest obamamaniacs, geez Posted by: allyourbasearebelongtous
Hillary let us all down...
Posted by: fallawayjumper on May 20, 2008 5:18 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While i've admired the woman and opposed the right wing echo chamber vilification of her, at the same time it's been hard to swallow the candidate's cynical triangulations, low brow campaign antics and sense of entitlement. Ultimately she lacked the vision and courage to lead on crucial issues important to the body politic or to stand up to seven years of GOP thuggery. Indeed, it's hard to distinguish many of her DLC positions from the brownshirt republicans.

It could have been so different. She had all the tools at her disposal in terms of raising money, selecting associates and executing on a real progressive agenda.

Instead, 'Hillary Creed' squandered an historic opportunity. Plus, she didn't anticipate a once in a generation Rocky wunderkinder on her heels...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Gall
Posted by: desidid on May 20, 2008 5:42 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of Hillary to address her racist Kentucky supporters and acknowledging an 80 year old African-American woman who was born before women could vote. When she was born and through much of that woman's life Blacks in the south were barred from voting through violence, the poll tax, and whatever other means necessary. Her candidacy hasn't been a coalition of democrats, and the last two primaries have proven her race baiting is working, to destroy any coalition she may want to form. Tell me how does she win