<p>garland: I see her rather differently - that she thinks so strongly that she is better than Obama that she is willing to do a lot of stuff to make sure she is the nominee. And I think that point of view leads her to discount the possibility that she could lose still and Obama would then be massacred in the general because of the infighting.</p>
<p>Or, she knows that and is trying her best to make it happen so she can run in 2012.</p>
<p>1of42…go study young man. Your mid-terms have begun.</p>
<p>It is especially inappropriate for “somebody who’s in second place” to offer the VP position to the first-place candidate when the first-place candidate’s lead is increasing. Obama’s lead over Clinton has increased by 13 delegates in the past week, and it will increase even more after tomorrow.</p>
<p>1of42–she can think it as strongly as she might, but on the face it makes no sense. The fact is she is in second place right now.</p>
<p>There is no way Hillary can beat McCain. It’s not a question about who people will vote for, an African-American or a woman. It’s which *individual *will get votes–and no one else seems to rake up the kind of animosity that HRC seems bound and determined to excel in.</p>
<p>I hadn’t realized, but found out today, that the popular vote totals that give Senator Obama a 500,000-ish lead don’t include all states because several, including Maine, Iowa, Nevada and Washington, haven’t been included in the reported totals. If those were included, the lead is 750,000-ish. (If everyone knew this but me, please snicker behind your hands and ignore the post.)</p>
<p>You won’t see me snickering, zoosermom. I didn’t know all those Obama states had not been included in the count, either. I did hear that Michigan had been counted for Clinton, though. As the kids like to say, “***?”</p>
<p>Senator Obama was right (and I think he actually was magnetic and engaging in the process) in saying that he is ahead by all measures. I saw on the news a pundit (sorry, I can’t remember who) who called the Clintonian strategy the “audacity of audacity.” That cracked me up!</p>
<p>Something else that got hidden in all the political fray this week that I just learned. (You can snicker at me if you all knew this too. I didn’t.)</p>
<hr>
<p>"Associated Press - March 7, 2008 7:33 PM ET</p>
<p>LITTLE ROCK (AP) - More than a thousand pages covering pardons granted by former president Bill Clinton during his final days in office have been withheld from the public.</p>
<p>Archivists at the Clinton Presidential Library decided to keep the papers out of a larger batch recently released because they covered confidential discussions with advisers.</p>
<p>Included in the more than 2800 documents that have been made public, letters in support of fugitive financier Marc Rich and his partner, both of whom were pardoned by Clinton.</p>
<p>The delays by the library in releasing documents have led to sharp criticism of Clinton and former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton.</p>
<p>A spokeswoman for the National Archives, which runs the library, now says they may have misinterpreted a 2002 letter from the former president in which he left instructions on which pardon documents should be made public.</p>
<p>The library is expected to release 10,000 pages of Hillary Clinton’s schedules as first lady later this month."</p>
<p>From USA Today: " Former president Clinton issued 140 pardons on his last day in office, including several to controversial figures, such as commodities trader Rich, then a fugitive on tax evasion charges. Rich’s ex-wife, Denise, contributed $2,000 in 1999 to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign; $5,000 to a related political action committee; and $450,000 to a fund set up to build the Clinton library."</p>
<p>Also from AP: “Rich had fled the country after being indicted for tax evasion. His wife, Denise Rich, had contributed $450,000 to the Clinton library and more than $1.1 million to the Democratic Party.”</p>
<p>simba: What do you think I’m doing? ;)</p>
<p>garland: Oh, I’m not saying I agree with her. But I suspect that is her thought process. I just don’t see the “evil, wants nothing for anyone but herself” Hillary that everyone here seems to.</p>
<p>I could not disagree more with those who may view Obama’s response as “arrogant.” It was appropriately assertive, i.m.o., against HRC’s offensive arrogance/presumptuousness, while a delayed assertion.</p>
<p>For starters, it’s generally considered bad form on the part of the <em>presidential</em> candidates themselves to start making bold statements about particular running mates at this not-near-to-being-decided stage of the game.</p>
<p>About time, indeed (for Obama). </p>
<p>Hey, Hillary, the Queen you are not. You don’t get to just decree that a person in a superior position to you should accept the role of underling. Oh, but wait, I forgot: He’s black. </p>
<p>Am I the only one astounded at the not-so-subtle racism of suggesting that (1) he’s “less qualified,” and (2) should “wait his turn,” and (3) should take his patient place at the back of the bus? And for no good reason (being that he’s AHEAD, Hillary, Ahead.)</p>
<p>I was trying real hard to get used to liking her. That was until she acquired a raging case of Foot-in-Mouth disease.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How much do you bet that this shocking tidbit of information gets little if any media coverage? The Obama campaign would be wise to make note of it, and use it in the event The Clintons choose to keep hammering the Rezko nail. This makes the house lot favor Rezko did for Obama look like small potatoes by comparison</p>
<p>Well, I am sorry to wave goodbye to the dream ticket I envisioned when I filled out my absentee ballot many months ago for the CA primary. I imagined a Clinton-Obama landslide victory, with very long coattails for the Congress and the state house races. Oh well. The primary voters have spoken so it’s not to be. </p>
<p>But I don’t think Obama made a tactical mistake or came off as arrogant in his statement. If anything, he looks more decisive and forthright, someone willing to play hardball against a tough opponent. IMO, this is going to help him in the long run. Looking forward to how it all unfolds in the PA voting. </p>
<p>And I don’t see racism on Hillary’s part. More like a wishful thinking pronouncement aimed at turning back the clock — wanting to have it the way it was before Obama’s groundswell started breaking. Sorry, I just don’t see this political evil seeping from her every pore. A Clinton-Obama ticket would have been unstoppable, imo. Now, we’ll have to see how it all plays out and who ends up on top and who gets the nod to fill out the ticket and how they will compete against a bonafide war hero saddled with the Republican failures under Bush.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know if you’re the only one, but probably close to it. You’re being pretty presumptuous and reading a lot into Hillary’s actions, when in reality, she’s probably just being arrogant and playing hardball. Sounds more like you’re the one acting on Obama’s race, by imputing motives and insinuations to Hillary that I highly doubt she was thinking about.</p>
<p>No, I don’t think she was consciously thinking about [those motives]. That’s entirely the point. I think, however, her talking down to him, frequently (as she talks down to many others, of all races), combined with her “suggestions,” makes her possible unconscious racism come into play. Her husband was willing to play the race card several weeks ago himself. Unconscious and/or conscious, I think she will stoop to everything that she believes will “divide and conquer” (for example, blue collar whites against blacks, for example, hispanics against blacks), and thus help her emerge the victor.</p>
<p>I highly doubt that if it were Edwards in Obama’s position right now, she would have suggested that Edwards take the VP spot. (And he would have laughed at her.)</p>
<p>No, I’m pretty sure she wasn’t being racist as there is no indication. She was just being unthinking and stumbling over her words, saying faux pas as usual, obama’s race notwithstanding. just because obama is black doesn’t mean anything negative hillary says about him implies racism.</p>
<p>No matter, I continue to find her general, liberally spread condescension nauseating. Whether it will work is another question. </p>
<p>Here’ s from Andrew Romano’s piece in his Newsweek blog:</p>
<p>"The offer of a joint ticket looks like an olive branch, but it’s really a knife aimed at cutting Obama down to size. In the words of one Clintonista, “It’s a way of belittling him” by suggesting he’s not ready to be President and would lose the general election as nominee to John McCain.</p>
<p>So giving your rival an opportunity to remind voters that he’s “won twice as many states… more of the popular vote… [and] more delegates” than you is meant to diminish him? Seems to be working like a charm."</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, sorry for posting oblique references. I thought that the context discused in this thread (job offer, lack of qualifications, silly test) would have sufficed to relate to a campaign who made race an issue and found quite the ally in the cast of Saturday Night Life for the past three weeks. </p>
<p>As far as patina, the classics of SNL never get old and with the immense reservoir of youtube, young dark jedi have instant recall of things that aired well before our time, but are part of the material taught at some very selective schools. As far as maturity, I prefer to ignore remarks that make an issue of age differences. I already admitted not knowing when the Cowboys scored two touchdowns in the final 26 seconds of a championship.</p>
<p>Young and old only have one vote in politics, even if they gave some of us two in the Texas primaries.</p>
<p>Here’s a version that is online.</p>
<p>[Interview</a> for a janitor - Richard Pryor and Chevy Chase slog it out - on Bore Me](<a href=“http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2005/associated-words-p1.php]Interview”>http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2005/associated-words-p1.php)</p>
<p>The transcript is here:
[SNL</a> Transcripts: Richard Pryor: 12/13/75: Racist Word Association Interview](<a href=“http://snltranscripts.jt.org/75/75ginterview.phtml]SNL”>SNL Transcripts: Richard Pryor: 12/13/75: Racist Word Association Interview - SNL Transcripts Tonight)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Arrogant… hardball…Yep, sounds about right. I wouldn’t go so far as to throw racism into the mix. I don’t honestly suspect either Bill or Hillary of being racist, but I do think they’re willing to use race and racism to their “win at any cost” advantage.
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Precisely.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton is rarely, “unthinking” or “liable to stumble over her words”. (That would be George Bush.) No, her every word was cool and calculating. My guess is she was hoping the electorate would jump at the bait, and Obama would fall at her feet with gratitude over her “magnanimous” offer.:rolleyes:</p>
<p>Thanks for the link to that video, xiggi. I did see that segment of Saturday Night Live when it aired. I had completely forgotten it. Then as now, it was hysterical!</p>
<p>
Well, no, she’s not. She probably doesn’t say more than a few words that haven’t already been charted out in advance. But she still manages to say stuff like this that … although it surely wasn’t thought up spontaneously, managed to offend lots of people and SOUND unthinking, desperate, and a little ridiculous.</p>