dagblog - Comments for "Hillary's Non-Concession Speech Revisited"

HAHA maybe the gov't can take

rallan25 — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 04:47:36 +0000

In reply to Hillary's Non-Concession Speech Revisited

HAHA maybe the gov't can take over and become the grammar police too.

You first. :D

workerbee — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 06:44:49 +0000

In reply to Hillary's Non-Concession Speech Revisited

You first.

I live in Oregon and am

Oregon Activist — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 04:12:28 +0000

In reply to Hillary's Non-Concession Speech Revisited

I live in Oregon and am surrounded by Obama supporters. I know of one Clinton supporter. Of course, people have been accosted on the street for wearing a Clinton pin and yelled and screamed at.

I was discussing the election last night with someone blithely assuming I was in the Obama camp. It was actually hard to stop the flow of vitueration long enough to say, just so you know....

Actually, I remember Jesse

CVille Dem — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 21:39:07 +0000

In reply to Hillary's Non-Concession Speech Revisited

Actually, I remember Jesse Jackson's introduction by his son as "The Next President of the United States." I remember wondering what the hell that was about, and since then I have seen it repeated so many times.

It is pretty ridiculous to make such an introduction a trite phrase, but that is what it has become!

Everyone in the media

dijamo — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:10:07 +0000

In reply to Hillary's Non-Concession Speech Revisited

Everyone in the media denouncing Hillary? Yup that petty much happens no matter what she does if you haven't noticed. Of course I will join the nominee, but that doesn't mean denounicing my candidate of choice. I still heart Hillary and I deserve one sentimental hogwash post to pour a little Crown Royal out for the candidate that is no longer with us. And hopefully explain to Obama supporters that now is a critical time where people will be either driven away from the party or brought closer together. Reading the comments at TPM recently that continue to be all about Hillary sucks does not add to the unity. Some respect for Senator Clinton might be too much for many of you I understand, but some respect for her supporters and some appreciation of their viewpoints is what we need to try to bring the party together.

GFYWAIR, m'tard

☠enghis — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:54:28 +0000

In reply to Hillary's Non-Concession Speech Revisited

GFYWAIR, m'tard

I will say this for Obama -

Fosberry — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 07:43:42 +0000

In reply to Hillary's Non-Concession Speech Revisited

I will say this for Obama - his campaign knows how to play harball and has done it to stunning effect. They've demonstrated the Rovian skill to smear and slur and attack without appearing to get their hands dirty (who me sending out memos about the Clinton's being a racist? ...

Pot, kettle on line 1!

The one distinction I'll grant here is that the media called out Clinton as slinging mud, so her hands did get dirty. Obama may have found some of Ronald Reagan's teflon.

The way she has been treated by the Obama campaign and the media has been appalling.

I agree with the latter half of that statement, but not the former. It's politics, and we're all far more sensitive to the perceived slurs aimed at our candidate than to those aimed at the opposition. To my observation, Hillary took far more undeserved abuse from the media than she did from Obama's campaign.

The media coverage played up sexist stereotypes in ways they never would have considered with racist ones: harping on the "cackle", her cleavage, the pundit on CNN saying some people really are bitches, the "pimping out" line, and Chris Matthews's denigration that she only won her senate seat because Bill cheated on her are just a few examples where the media demeaned and attacked her simply because she was a woman. And certainly all of that was appalling.

To my eyes, Obama never tried to make Hillary's sex an issue, while Clinton did try to make Obama's race an issue.

IMO (biased though it is), "... as far as I know..." was more scurrilous than "... you're likable enough...", but I could see where a Hillary supporter might view things differently. I've drunk the kool-aid, but I can't see anything Obama said that was comparable to Clinton implying he hadn't crossed the Commander-in-chief threshold, but McCain "certainly" had. But I could have missed something.

If you were honestly appalled by Obama's treatment of Clinton in this campaign, take a look again at Clinton's campaign from a pro-Obama perspective. There's plenty of material one could be appalled at.

I will note (and I sent an e-mail to Josh Marshall about this at the time) that I thought Bill was unfairly denounced for his Jesse Jackson comparison. His comments and delivery were nothing but complimentary to both men, yet by mentioning both he conflates the two in listeners' minds. To me, that wasn't dirty - Bill knew exactly where the line was, and while he came close to it, he never crossed it, IMO. He effectively made his point without actually doing anything wrong, and it was vintage Bill (and I mean that as a compliment).

I thought Bob Johnson, Bill Shaheen, and Geraldine Ferraro all crossed the line, however, so the backlash Hillary's camp took for that was, to me, deserved.

As the saying goes, politics ain't beanbag. Undoubtedly the Obama camp played hard - but so did Hillary. Which side you think was dirtier is most likely predicted by which candidate you prefer. Obviously the opposition must have been worse.

From skimming the other comments, though, I do see (and very much appreciate) that you're backing Obama in the fall. As I've said elsewhere, we don't need to convince Hillary supporters that Obama is actually a stronger candidate than she is, but we do need to convince them that he's stronger than McCain.

Yeah - in '88 Jesse did take

dijamo — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 07:24:01 +0000

In reply to Hillary's Non-Concession Speech Revisited

Yeah - in '88 Jesse did take 30% of the Dem primary vote and I thing 13 or 14 states including Michigan. Not bad at all.

Sorry-now that your candidate

sj — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 06:47:22 +0000

In reply to Hillary's Non-Concession Speech Revisited

Sorry-now that your candidate has won, your blogging subsidy is being cut off. They only need bloggers now who can spell and compose something other than hate-filled spews. They especially do not need bloggers who encourage the former competition to join the current competition.

Oh, just shut up.

workerbee — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 06:40:01 +0000

In reply to Hillary's Non-Concession Speech Revisited

Oh, just shut up.