Hillary's survival strategy

Actually, her survival strategy is to: Win PA, Indiana, KY and Puerto Rico and then get Florida and Michigan reinstated.

If Clinton wins those states, then there will be even more uncertainty about Barack Obama's chances in the general election.

A Clinton/Obama ticket is the only way everybody wins. If Barack agreed to that, he would stay on his path to the presidency and would generate a historic moment of unity.

The Democrats have to be united or they will not beat the Republicans this year. Barack or Hillary can't do it alone.

Let's be honest. She LIED. I've traveled enough, also to war zones to know that these are things you don't forget. And she denied that she lied; she "misspoke".

Hillary is the weaker candidate. She would mobilize the Republican base as well as lose the independent and crossover voters.

If she was tuned in to reality, she would get out now and support the stronger candidate, Obama. Or maybe it's just about her and not her party or country.

I should be completely honest. I actually used to be a Hillary support. Seems like a lifetime ago.

A Clinton/Obama ticket is an impossibility as she stands no chance of winning. Likewise, an ObamaClinton ticket would not make sense as he doesn't need her. It would also be seen as a betrayal by his base.

In all probability it will be an Obama/Webb ticket. That would beat the Rethugs hands down.

Don't rule out an Obama/Richardson ticket. The appeal of diversity may be significant with that pairing. I'm not completely ruling out Obama/Clinton, either. Not yet, anyway. Again, diversity in another form could draw in the non-voters. There's still a slim chance that they can work together to solidify the Democrats toward the most amazing pairing in the White House, ever.
I've also recently moved into the Obama camp due to his eloquence and passion. In my mind, he sounds and behaves the way a good US leader should. Hillary's embelishments over the past few months, especially this Bosnia thing, raises my suspicions. It's like not she confused one overseas episode with another. She made the same claim of how things went down repeatedly. As stated before, she had ample opportunity to correct herself and only did so after substantial pressure was applied by way of visual facts. Over the years, there's been heated discussion about her credibility and this episode refueled it. If Clinton is planning on waiting for Obama to trip, stumble and fall as a campaign strategy, she needs a new campaign manager.

I too speak as a one-time admirer and supporter of Hillary. That stopped after the multiple fiascos of the early years of the first Clinton Administration.

The current pattern of behavior is, sadly, all too reminiscent of an earlier pattern of dissembling in order to clean up after Bill's numerous sexual escapades. Hillary was all too ready to do in other women, misused and thrown away by Bill, when they threatened the unquenchable Clinton ambition. I've never understood, after this unsisterly behavior, how self-respecting feminists can continue to support her.

I've also profoundly troubled by the way "loyalty" works in Clintonland. If anyone who has previously served the Clintons as a loyal retainer finds appeal in other campaigns, he/she is quickly labelled a "Judas." Yet for the Clintons, loyalty works up, and not down. Recall the Clintons' trashing of Lani Guinier when she became a political liability. Under the bus with her--despite a lifelong friendship.

We've seen too much of such demands for loyalty as the principal virtue in politics (in place of competence and principle, not to speak of obligations to the American people and the Constitution), going back to Nixon and continuing through W. At least W shows a modicum of loyalty back down (see Libby, Scooter).

We deserve better. I think Obama offers our best chance of getting it.--The Wise Bard

Okay, here's the deal; women don't necessarily lie per say, their version of the truth is very often what they feel about a situation rather than what it factually was or is.

It's not a lie, it's a woman's emotional perspective, and in Hillary's case, she probably wishes it was more romantic and heroic, she probably had hoped there would be some excitement going there. You know, something to tell the grandchildren about.

What does this mean if we had a woman for President? Depends on the woman. For me, it doesn't matter, I'm voting for the cool logic of a man this time around - OBAMA!

oh pleaze!!

I really know where my emotions end and facts begin..... don't b s me now!

come on voyager!!

thank you Voyager for bringing the male perspective back to the caveman days. We need more of that (heavily laden with sarcasm).

I too supported Hilary. oops, I fucked up.

When she came out in support of big money because "they're american voices too" she lost any and all respect from me. I thought she left behind the WalMart perspective a long time ago.

Hunter you, as per often, said it. Obama is an eloquent and well spoken candidate whose rhetoric and delivery are an orgasmic turn from the bumbling moron W. I look forward to seeing him speak in Grand Forks, ND this Friday. I don't think another Democrat in history has even bothered visiting this state. Clinton sent his wife, Kerry sent Edwards, and the whole Gore/whomever ticket passed us by.

And sfgaffer, the last time I checked the 2nd place candidate rarely gets top billing. But maybe this is bizarro world, after all Bush was 'elected' twice.

jade_azule16 - come on, with the female of the species, it's about how you feel about things largely, as opposed to the males of the species' practicality.

Perhaps, you are less emotional than some other females, or perhaps you don't realize it about yourself, yet. To say it ain't so is to severely handicap human development as both the female and male perspectives are necessary. You know, the Yin and the Yang.

Men and women are not "the same" - thank god.

"Caveman" chet_arthur - give me a break!

Yes, women are just emotional wrecks. What hogwash.

She lied and it's not the first time. The Clinton hubris assumes no one will catch them in lies. This is unconscionable, as is her scorched earth attack on Sen. Obama. The Clinton's have made it very clear... she gets the nomination or she damages Sen. Obama so badly that even John McCain will beat him... and she'll once again present herself as the "inevitable candidate" in 2012. No thank you. I may be part of the demographic she assumes is in her camp, but she will never get my vote. I believe Obama. I think his mistakes are not damaging. I do not and will never believe anything the Clinton's say. They don't give a damn about the Democratic party. They only care about power, and winning and they don't mind getting their hands dirty. No thanks.

you're right voyager, "caveman" was too complimentary.

JanForGore - never did I imply ANYTHING negative about women being emotional - I said it was necessary - as in to balance male energy. It appears you are interjecting your own "demons", fear or "internalized" feelings.

And although, there are plenty of effeminate men in the world to appease and please women with predominately masculine personality characteristics, I prefer intelligence and feminine beauty in all it's forms. To each, his own.

chet_arthur - great. Call me what you like - you are entitled to your opinion and I do not require your approval, so thanks anyway.

VF? You did suggest that guys aren't wired to embelish. That would get big laughs from just about every woman I know. The others would just get pissed off. Guys exaggerate and over-exaggerate to women, and each other, all the time. In bars, gyms, the work place...you name it. Why? To paint a better self-portrait to impress. Major-league ego issue. Women are prone to remembering situations clearly and in great detail. That's been my experience.
Back to topic.
There's been a boatload of Press saying that Hillary should get out of the way and let Obama roll on.
I think it's too soon to make that call. If she decides to step down because of a financial dry-up, that's a whole other matter. I have to remind myself that, unlike Barrack, a lot of Hillary's political history has a "Bill" attached to it. As he continues to loom in the foreground, saying things like, "Chill out", to the masses, Hillary needs to regroup and speak plainly to prospective voters much the same way as Obama.
It's time for her to inspire. If she can't do that, she will not be our president. I'm cutting her a little slack to get it together by August or get out of the way.
In other words, if McCain wins because of a split Democratic Party, shame on every last one of us for allowing it to happen.

the yin and the yang exist within me.

I am emotional, but I am also practical, analytical and critical. It's just a matter of what I decide should prevail.

JanforGore, trust me, doesn't fear anything or internalizes any emotions, a healthy human being aknowledges what he/she feels and acts on it based on his or her's own standards.

And to imply that you know more about being a woman than me is just silly.

huntre - you crack me up! Funny, I don't embellish anything. As a matter of fact, I'm quite understated. So, am I to assume you embellish? Lie? Exaggerate the truth? Are you in some way defective and therefore need to present a "false reality" of yourself? I took you for a more grounded and healthy personality than that - perhaps
I was wrong.

jade_azul16, among the things you attribute to JanForGore, you left off that she is also capable of speaking for herself - I guess it wasn't an emotional response that compelled you to speak up on her behalf - based on what you've said of yourself.

Back to the topic of this thread; my comment pertained to Hilary's obvious departure from reality. I was being nice and offered a experienced observation other than she's a bald faced lier.

Jade_azul16 - we could run an experiment to prove the point although, I doubt you'd like it.

Yes, this is funny.

By stating there are "effeminate men" I was stating there were men who in fact are wired similarly to women - I was not suggesting that women are necessarily embellishers. What do you know!?

Schwarzenegger called them "girly-men" didn't he?

Perhaps that distinction was missed.

Thanks chet_arthur - I've been called metro, masculine, androgynous, gay, a chauvinistic pig, macho, pretty much the gamut - but what does it matter? It doesn't define me any more than Bush violating what he is entrusted to protect (us) in his position of highest elected official of the US define me - nor does it change the reality any more than any particular individual's degree of self-awareness.

The fact remains, what I said although, not all women nor men are exactly alike, embody exceptional balance consistently throughout their lives or even experience (let alone are aware of) the learning / development curve each sex evolves throughout their lives - nevertheless, my earlier statement remains true - certainly of Hillary on this issue.

You can't possibly take everything I say seriously. I certainly don't...and I've known me for far too long to not laugh at my own choice of words or expressions. Christ. If I can't make fun while making a point, what's the point of making fun points?
Sheesh. Some minds can't be pryed open with a crowbar.

Oh... it was a joke?

Insane McCain--that's poetic rage--LOL

but poetry is another one of those
problematic areas....have to feel something to achieve proper exegesis...probably a woman thing.

We better be careful Voyager, we could all end up in a swoon and vote for McCain.

This is a really entertaining discussion, no really...distills the whole gender issue down to its most basic elements.

I speak up for whomever I want, Voyager.

And trust me, I don't really like her that much (feeling), but I do share a lot of her ideas and opinions. And I learn from her a lot.

I'm acting on convenience, you see.
Practicality prevails.

Voyager: I can speak for myself, thank you for that. And while i have agreed with you on many things here (and happen to like you and many others which is why I am puzzled by one person's desire to constantly make a point of stating she doesn't like me when she doesn't know me) I did get the impression you were stating that women act out of emotion only. In this instance I think she embellished about her surroundings because she lilke all politicians are in politics, and in order to look brave you have to speak as if you are, and I do think women in general are held to a different standard regarding that front. So why she would do that knowing it could be disproved is a mystery to me which I tried to discuss in another thread but once again was attacked for it by the usual clinton haters here. All I am saying is that women and men all act at times out of emotion (just look at an Obama rally), and in the case of Obama, he embellishes too. So what is his rationale for lying about a bill on nuclear he said he passed that he didn't pass? Emotion, or political expedience?

Sometimes, in the battle between the heart and mind, the heart skips a beat and blurts out something the mind would've prefered left unsaid. Both sexes do this. One no more than the other. All career politicians embellish. The significant difference now is the ease of access to materials that show the facts. I'm hoping that, instead of the usual damage control tactics, the would-be leaders will focus on the here and now issues that directly effect the future. To me, Obama has taken a giant step in that direction. Like the others, he still has things to answer for. I'm just hoping that McCain and Clinton follow his lead and show me what they're really made of. I'm damn tired of voting against someone, instead of for.