Breaking News
Hurricane Ida Targets US Gulf Coast

The Candidate AGAINST Hope And Aspiration?

February 24th, 2008 12 Comments

Wow, this thing is going of the rails. This seems to be the positioning Sen. Clinton wants to place herself in, and the exact opposite of the majority of the Democratic primary electorate to date. Clinton is essentially saying in this tirade that touting hope and aspiration isn’t the job of the presidency.

Haven’t we had enough of that for the last eight years? It was her husband, after all, who succeded by telling us that he “still believes in a place called Hope”.

Posted in 2008 Election |
« Jonah Goldberg’s Insipid “Liberal Fascism”
CNN Versus The Democratic Party And Barack Obama »
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

12 Responses to “The Candidate AGAINST Hope And Aspiration?”

  1. z_adura says:
    February 24, 2008 at 6:47 pm

    Bill was indeed from Hope, Arkansas. Hill is from Desperation, Illinois.

  2. megamoze says:
    February 24, 2008 at 6:58 pm

    The Audacity of Nope.

  3. kangeroo says:
    February 24, 2008 at 7:17 pm

    obama’s been mocking hillary and edwards in his rallies for a long time now; i bet you didn’t care then. besides, huffpobama is in the tank with the mainstream media.

  4. dasclemhaus says:
    February 24, 2008 at 9:08 pm

    …the same mainstream media that built up the “inevitability” of the Clinton nomination, expecting a bruising match-up with McCain or Giuliani and ready to rehash every detail of the family Clinton’s history. Senator Clinton was the presumptive nominee; she was also presumptuous, with reason. The MSM wanted Hillary to get the nod, because she’s the one they’d prepared for, just as the GOP wanted her to get the nod because they’d prepared for her.

    Do you actually believe that the MSM and GOP would summarily and arbitrarily drop a script they’ve been writing for sixteen years? It’s in their best interests to marginalize Obama, not Hilary. That they haven’t been able to do that, that Clinton hasn’t been able to do that, doesn’t mean there’s a conspiracy, it means they’re being whomped by a superior politician.

  5. ignatz says:
    February 24, 2008 at 11:32 pm

    How incredibly stupid, It looks like she’s responding to Obama’s idealistic appeal in the worst manner possible: by claiming to be cynical and declaring it a virtue.

  6. kangeroo says:
    February 24, 2008 at 11:35 pm

    if you doubt the media’s bias, check out these:
    http://www.cmpa.com/releases.html
    http://mediamatters.org/items/200801200003
    http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2008/02/driving_a_wedge.htm
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=55807

    and it was the media, not hillary, that incessantly pushed the inevitability theme. i also think they did so deliberately in order to make tearing her down more dramatic (fun!): http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2008/02/memo_to_media_f.php.

    and if the GOP wanted hillary to get the nom, they wouldn’t be encouraging their troops to vote for obama in the open primaries.

  7. CrustyDem says:
    February 25, 2008 at 12:09 am

    The difference, kangeroo, is that Obama mocks Clinton mildly to make a clear point (usually that they consider something “too hard”). Clinton sounds as if she’s mocking change, hope, and progress. A better candidate could work an angle there (maybe Bill Clinton could manage it), but Hillary Clinton is tone deaf.

    Do you have any evidence of the GOP “encouraging their troops to vote for obama in the open primaries”, because many people are reporting exactly the opposite.

  8. dasclemhaus says:
    February 25, 2008 at 12:47 am

    …and, to the extent that there is GOP encouragement to vote Obama, it’s really just a psyche-out move. Here’s how it works:

    1) GOP encourages partisans to vote Obama
    2) GOP makes sure Dems hear about it
    3) Dems think, “If the GOP wants Obama. they must be sure they can beat him”
    4) Dems vote for Clinton
    5) Which is what the GOP wanted all along, because they’ve had 16 years to prepare for her and know how to frame her negatively (and effectively)
    6) McCain wins in November by 3 percentage points.

    Happy, kangeroo?

  9. 4tehlulz says:
    February 25, 2008 at 12:52 am

    “… a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany … and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama” – Barack Obama Lebanon, New Hampshire. January 7, 2008.

    beverage * transportation

  10. duros62 says:
    February 25, 2008 at 1:01 pm

    The MSM wanted Hillary to get the nod, because she’s the one they’d prepared for, just as the GOP wanted her to get the nod because they’d prepared for her.

    If she doesn’t, they have to redo all their on-screen graphics and get the yard signs all reprinted.

  11. Tx Liberal says:
    February 25, 2008 at 1:48 pm

    Personally, in the long run it really doesn’t matter a hell of a lot whether “queen hilliary” gets the nomination or not. If she loses to Obama, all the better for the democratic party. If she wins, I get to vote against her sorry ass twice!

  12. Enlightened Liberal says:
    February 25, 2008 at 2:12 pm

    So Tx liberal you would vote against Hillary in the general election? Really? That’s the same strategery that gave us 8 years of Bush. (See Nader, Ralph)