-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2008/06/why-clintons-non-concession-speech.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Hillary Clinton for President 2012
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction...
?!!!
She is SO not a democrat, not a patriot... who the hell is she beholden to, besides herself?
(Can you imagine the outcry if Obama had lost in the fashion that she did and then he went and started a campaign for 2012? He would be run out of town. People would say he was an "angry black man" -- even if they didn't use those words. But Hillary? Oh, no. She is crazy and mean and everyone is SCARED of her!! It is so dysfunctional. I just can't understand why the left doesn't mention this double-standard more often. "If the shoe was on the other foot" can be so illuminating and really show who is getting away with what. )
Hillary Clintons real myspace page
I by no means am a Clinton supporter, but if we are going to criticize her, at least do it based on real information. The page above looks like some supporter of her made the sight. The folks there do seem a bit delusional, but this is definately a case where time should heal all wounds. Luckily, if Saturday goes as planned and the Clintons have a leash put on them finally, there's more than enough time to heal the wounds.
Theoretically since Statistics is a subset of mathemetics, if a subset (statistics) of a union (mathematics) is fals then the union can be considered false as well, ergo, if the statistics say she's out, then mathematically she is out.
The difference between "statistically" and "mathematically" is illustrated by the "magic number" that a baseball team follows when they're in the playoff hunt. Their magic number might be 3 on September 1st, but you won't find anyone breathing easily until it's at 0 and they're *mathematically* guaranteed a spot. If a fan says that his team is "mathematically" in the playoffs before that number is zero, he'll get slapped around by his buddies for trying to jinx things.
Extremely small but not zero.
No time to waste as Obama might get whacked right before his second term.
I'm truthfully not 100% convinced her "concession" tomorrow is even the real end of it for HRC. I have not seen evidence to lead me to conclude that she is ultimately a team player...
Tim Russert hinted at wanting to change the calculus of how this race is going to be covered. We'll see!
maybe we should refer to it as the Government Mouthpiece.
I dove into the murky waters at HillaryClinton.com, to see what they were telling her to do. It's a surreal place over there, as they have bought--hook, line and sinker--the alternate reality that was being spun. And they've built elaborate storylines there beyond what they've been led to believe.
Almost to a person, they believe that the DNC, Barack Obama, liberal blogs and the mainstream media have conspired to steal the nomination from Clinton. They believe everyone was out to get her, and that Obama was handed everything on a silver platter. They hate Obama as much as we hate Karl Rove (with much less reason) and are dedicated to voting for John McCain, or getting Hillary to run independent. There is no rational thought over there, no logic, only scalding emotion.
It's nice to come back and visit reality again, as written in this post, to remember how the media REALLY treated Clinton: as though her alternate reality had merit. They kept her on equal footing with Obama, long after she'd lost the game.
Warning: if you don't want a headache, don't go to HillaryClinton.com.
Probably impossible to know, but if it is just a fraction of her "18 million" supporters then it seems not so much to worry about. If it is a growing "movement" of people who really believe that Hillary somehow had it stolen from her then that would be another story.
Also, is Hillary doing ANYTHING to stop these stupid lies? No, of course not. Can you imagine what Obama would do if there was discussion like that on his website? I think he would nip it in the bud.
I think the numbers are probably (hopefully) rather small. Consider the audience Hillary had Tuesday, and the fact that these blog threads only go 1,000 or so deep. And those 1,000 contain many, many repeating members. But they are very dedicated, and very determined. Oh, and nucking futs. . .
I guess if the media had real balls it would ask Hillary "So, on your blog on YOUR website your supporters are saying X, Y and Z. Do you agree with their conclusions and what if anything are you going to do about it?" I mean, is this a blog that states "the opinions stated here do not relect...." .
Well, in any case, it is on her website and she has no track record of stopping vicious rumors whether online or not. Wasn't there proof that she started or said "okay" to the email about Obama being a Muslim? I have always wondered what was actually proven to be traced back to her, and what things she truly had nothing to do with. We'll never know with most of it, I am sure.
I totally agree. It wouldn't surprise me to see her go on some long angry rant and then announce her bid to become McCain's VP. She and her followers are beyond shame and will try anything.
She's already campaigning for 2012. This crazy lady needs some serious meds.
any other candidate will have invited the nominee to speak tomorrow after embarassing themselves on tuesday. JUST SAYING.
Oh well, the lot of first adapters and all that.
And I do blame them for alot of the way the Hillary supporters are behaving in their rage and anger towards Obama. They bought it all and kept up the hope of her winning because they were told it was neck in neck by the media.
the other reason is that the media doesn't want to say goodbye to the Clintons. They are the best story around with their scandals, eruptions, dramas and diva acting. The clinton circus would keep them neck deep in stories and gossip for years and to not have them and their antics around is something that brings panic to them.
Afterall, the Obama camp is not filled with intrigue and drama and infighting. The Obamas love and are faithfull to each other. Neither is on this ego trip and consuming need for the spotlight like the Clintons.
Which is why they are the ones, more than her supporters, who are pushing and obsessing over this ridiculous dream ticket.
So I think it isn't just about ratings, although that is obviously part of it. I think it is primarily about preserving the Clintons powerhold on the party, since the Clintons are so "connected" -- ie they have lots of people that owe them, and people who they owe, and they are all doing each other favors. I just don't think we can let the media off the hook by giving them ratings as their excuse and motivation. The media is EXTREMELY powerful and essential to the ruling class and that is its primary purpose, I think.
You are a psycho. And people were right to compare you with Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction. You can't beat him, so you must kill his chances. Just like Close can't get the guy in the movie, so she must kill him.
As to Clinton: I agree Clinton's speech was jarring and she should've at least acknowledged Obama's big victory. But I think it was also hard for Clinton to acknowledge her defeat when she'd just won another state that night. It was a very close election. If she'd run a better campaign, if she'd not voted for the Iraq war resolution, or if she'd apologized for that, if she'd not threatened to nuke Iran, if, if, if, if...
Anyway, aren't polls coming out now showing movement toward Obama from Clinton supporters? Those 18 million voters Clinton hoped to use as a bargaining chip, aren't they moving quickly to support Obama?
It's no coincidence that the captions and headlines for the cable shows are the exact words she used in her tuesday night disgraceful speech:
"What does Hillary want?"
Can I say 'gag me with a spoon'?
Reuters called CNN out on this.
http://thejoshuablogs.blogspot.com/2008/06/reut...
"In March, two months after network executives had expected viewer interest in the primaries to subside, CNN averaged 444,000 viewers during the prime-time slot — 8 to 11 p.m. — for the key 25-54 age demographic. It was an 87 percent jump from the previous year and the first time CNN had captured the No. 1 spot for that age group since 2001 — a rare victory over archrival Fox News Channel.
The question, media analysts ask, is how will CNN hold up when the political news dies down?"
I don't think news coverage will ever improve because journalists have been shamed into it. They don't chase sensational but bogus stories because they're bad people (in most cases, anyway). They do it because of the economics, the same reason most people do most things. A public corporation's first responsibility is to its shareholders. Responsible but unsexy journalism gets lower ratings than the junk journalism we see so much of. Lower ratings drive down ad revenue, and that gets people fired - as it must, given the business model.
Any of us who wants better journalism could be made news director at one of the networks tomorrow, and we'd have to follow the same practices or get fired - and whoever fired us would be acting correctly, in terms of responsibility to shareholders.
This is a structural problem, not a moral failing on the part of journalists as a class - any time the explanation for a problem is that some group seems, mysteriously, flawed by nature, I think it's a pretty good sign that we're getting distracted from the real issue.
Have you noticed a lot of newsrooms have been cutting staff? The big media corporations no longer have stations around the world. Nowadays they rely on freelance "stringers" in other countries. The big media corporations aren't making money off reporting news and that gets filtered down to the staff in the newsrooms. Now it's about entertainment and ratings.
So if you're a reporter and there's no money for you to work on an investigative story, which can take days and weeks and months, what are you going to do? You have a family to feed and bills to pay.
Seriously, publicly-held corporations make poor owners of meaningful news organizations. The rise of the blogosphere is evidence that private ownership makes the difference. Look at NYTimes, Wash Post, The Guardian -- even Fox, which is effective at what it does (promote the right).
In the not very distant future, Rachel and Keith, and Markos and Duncanm and Matt and John and Joe will be the establishment media. In many ways, they already are.
Elizabeth Drew, "Molehill Politics," The New York Review of Books, 17 *April* 08.
That Clinton herself is a victim of that same Media I have a hard time buying just so. I think she has been trying to be a vigorous tail who is gratified to see the dog move a bit, and then she does what she damn well pleases anyway. "What Does Hillary Want?" will not be answered by the Press, nor by us, nor by her webminions. Only her own internal weather vane blown by God knows what.
The Media got too comfortable covering her and treated her like a celebrity, and you know what they can get away with. On the other hand there are the threats and strongarming which don't help, (like with David Schuster.) It must be difficult to write anything about the Clintons that is not mealy or neutral or 'balanced' so it is seldom done. Cowards. Like the general coverage of Bush - the better the coverage the more the heat, so the less coverage.
SO in the heirarchy of needs and accountability it's the press who is responsible to us, and it's Hillary who is responsible to us, and they can both do their JOBS of that better by stopping being so cozy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
"The Fairness Doctrine was a United States FCC regulation requiring broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner deemed by the FCC to be honest, equitable, and balanced. The doctrine has since been withdrawn by the FCC, and certain aspects of the doctrine have been questioned by courts"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080605/pl_b...
Anybody else see this?
"Open to it" LOL. I will believe it only after it happens and has been confirmed by three sources.
As a strong, independent woman, Hillary shouldn't have to depend on a man to pay her bills, should she?
However - it is funny to see how the media takes off with these stories, and is met with such different behavior from Obama and his campaign. A different melody is bing played, much of the Media has not noticed, I think. THeir out-of-joint noses after being ditched in an airplane when he met Hillary yesterday a funny funny example! Obama will not be pressured by the press to give them what they want. He gives them what he wants and lets them say whatever in the meantime. A whole new rythm is being established now. (Good topic for another thread.)
Please please, do not let this happen!
What he can do is appeal to his donors to help her or to give her his donor list.
I better not get a soliciting email from her.
Get that 11 year old boy a new bike and new video games!
Then we can talk....Maybe.
I'll admit, the media is currently filled with contemptible hacks more concerned about pushing a fight for the sake of ratings - like a high school kid goading 2 classmates into fighting each other so he can make money arranging the bets. But Hillary is NOT a political neophyte. She knows how to interpret polls and what they mean. It's why she was flip-flopped on getting Florida & Michigan's delegates seated - she knew there was no way to win without them.
So sorry, I won't accept her as acting like a child who's never been told no analogy. She's a crafty, politically savvy person who used everything she's ever learned to keep this race competitive. The ONLY thing I'll grant in terms of her being naive is that maybe...MAYBE...she was kept in the dark on the true level of enmity she's generated within the party. I think that's why, after the "I need time to think" non-concession speech of Tuesday, it look less than 24 hours of haranguing by her colleagues for her to say "Oh, maybe I should put the kibosh on this thing."
The proof will be the tone of her speech on Saturday. It really has to be more than a concession speech. It pretty much has to be a full-blown mea culpa. An apology to Barack for her own behavior and the behavior she allowed to run rampant within her campaign staff. An Acknolwedgment, at the very least, that she let her desire to win clouded her judgment, and she said and did things - and allowed things to be said and done for her benefit - she now regrets. And a complete and total endorsement of Obama, to the point where she implores people who donated to her general election campaign to redirect those funds (when legal) to Obama. After that, if she takes a powder from the public eye for a while, I'm cool with that. Heck, I'd even encourage it, go back to your day job and otherwise rest up. It won't matter to me if she never attends an Obama rally or fundraiser, as along as she makes this kind of mea culpa and then pretty much shuts her trap about all things Obama.
We shall see...tomorrow...
The longer you and other leftist supporters of Senator Obama continue to trash Senator Clinton the harder it is going to be for some of us to campaign for him. You've been complaining about everything she did, including breathing, and now is the time to stop it.
I will reiterate what I keep saying and that is that people should vote based on ideology, not personality. In the primaries, OK, a bit of cult-of-personality is expected, but to still have people threatening to defect from the party when the dichotomy between Obama and McCain is so great is simply insulting.
At this point I say if you have a strong desire to shoot yourself in the foot and not help get Obama elected, good luck with that. If he loses at least I can say I tried to change the direction of the country and make it better rather than hold on to malice and spite at my candidate not being chosen (I voted for Edwards btw).
What is your point? Its time to face reality people, Clinton lost. Even without the SDs, she still lost (remember, Obama had more pledged delegates too, or is that "an inconvenient truth"). The only way she could have won was to re-write the rules to use the popular votes (and not count any caucus states). In other words, if you squint real close, Clinton could have won, in Alice in Wonderland.
Clinton lost not because Obama was "better", she lost because she mismanaged her campaign and didn't sense the mood of the country.
As much as you want to cry about it, the public did vote and even if we accept your ludicrous assertion that she won the popular vote (which requires giving Obama nothing from Michigan AND not counting caucus states), Obama and her still finished within inches of one another. Clinton already got one mulligan when the DNC bent over and gave her half the votes in MI/FL, if they had really wanted to play by the rules, she wouldn't have gotten that either.
Not as pathetic as saying that was how she'd win it.
Sisters, unite and take back the White House from the big bad black man. I am Woman. Hear me roar.
voter fraud! voter fraud!