Hillary's Victory Speech: <I>I listened to you and in the process, I found my own voice.</i>
By Nicole Belle Tuesday Jan 08, 2008 11:51am
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t BillW)
Hillary Clinton's victory speech in New Hampshire showed clearly that someone in her campaign was following carefully the responses to her Iowa concession speech. Look behind her: no Wes Clark, no Madeleine Albright, even Bill and Chelsea stood a distance away from the podium. But what you will see is lots and lots of young people, defying the conventional wisdom that her demographic was the older voter. What struck me most about Hillary's speech was how on target Jesse's analysis of her being a "worker" was. See if you can hear all her worker cues.
Transcript of her speech available at HillaryClinton.com And Hillary's biggest booster in the blogosphere, Taylor Marsh, has just two words for those all those naysaying pundits: Iron this.
Login or Register to post comments.
IMO her "own voice" sounds a lot like John Edwards' voice.
Not Hillary fan, but she ain't dumb, and will do what it takes to compete.
How sincere all of it is, I don't know. Hope it is, but......
Ossi @ 1:
Are you on crack?
Ah, the creation of "The Image"
Nice catch, Nicole - sometimes the medium *is* the message!
I think Hilliary's biggest booster in the blogosphere is Bartcop.com.
Ossi @ 1:
My thoughts exactly. What is the attraction that she has on any voters? Her experience? Diddly squat. Her speeches? Terrible. She is not a very good public speaker. Because they have some Bubba fantasy about how everyone was a multimillionaire when he was in power? I don't know. Somebody tell me. Tell me the truth once. None of that political mumbo jumbo because we all know that is just talk. Speeches written by someone else FOR her to say. It's like Bush. Some people to this day STILL think he's all right. Why?
Re: Hillary’s “amazing comeback” in the New Hampshire primary election; was it her tears? I don’t think so. Was it “hordes of women voters?“ I don’t think so. Was it the “Bradley effect?” I don’t think so. It was plain old electronic election theft and fraud.
Senator Obama was robbed of his election victory in New Hampshire by electronic election rigging in favor of Hillary. The most corporate candidates almost always seem to “win” when private corporations “count” the votes. I would suggest that Obama was robbed of victory in the New Hampshire Democratic Primary Election on 8 January 2008 by the criminal electronic flipping of several thousand votes from Obama to Hillary. The so-called “amazing comeback” of Hillary was based on computerized electronic election fraud.
This is just like the Bush/GOP electronic theft of Presidential Election in November 2004 when about seven million Kerry votes were electronically flipped into Bush votes on Election night.
Hillary "won" with the help of Republican corporations "counting" the votes. Certainly the pre-election polls did not indicate that her victory was even remotely possible... Could the right-wing neocon corporatists still be rigging elections in 2008? Hillary is corporate America's best good chance to continue Bush wars and unchallenged corporate greed...
I have zero faith in any election that does not employ the hand-counting of paper ballots. Anything with a “electronic” computerized voting system can be very easily and undetectably rigged…
Most of the “unexpected” and “amazing” Republican election “victories” in the 21st century were the direct result of GOP operatives hacking, rigging and stealing elections electronically…
Below are Brisa’s comments to www.theleftcoaster.com on 8 January 2008 re: electronic vote “counting” by Diebold in New Hampshire:
“Repost from earlier thread...sorry, but I feel very strongly about this issue...largely ignored by both parties.
Hate to be the skunk at the garden party but...quoting Nancy Tobi of the Democracy for New Hampshire website, "81% of New Hampshire ballots are counted in secret by a private corporation named Diebold Election Systems (now known as "Premier"). The elections run on these machines are programmed by one company, LHS Associates, based in Methuen, MA. We know nothing about the people programming these machines, and we know even less about LHS Associates. We know even less about the secret vote counting software used to tabulate 81% of our ballots."
These are the same machines that were tested in the HBO documentary "Hacking Democracy" in which a computer programmer was able to alter vote totals by introducing computer code through the memory cards. Using an optical scanning machine from a county in Florida, they demonstrated how these machines first attempt to read instructions from the memory card before accepting any votes. The audit log can then be wiped clean to remove any evidence of tampering.
Has this obvious security flaw been changed? There is no way of knowing as the source code is proprietary and not reviewable by anyone outside of the manufacturer.
How can anyone have confidence that the total reported actually represent the votes cast? No random audits are done to verify them. Even when recounts are done, as in the Ohio 2004 presidential election, hanky panky has been practiced as revealed by the recent conviction of two election workers who rigged the recount.
And if the vote totals were accurate in '04...why cheat on the recount?
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4266.
Posted by brisa at January 8, 2008 09:00 PM.
Cheers.
I'm telling you...I know you're all ecstatic about "Tweety" being wrong but...
I think Diebold
strikesagain:Other Pre-Election Numbers, For Republicans and Rest of Dems, Nearly Dead on the Money...
I wondered about that myself. Why, when she should have been down, when there was a huge turnouts of supposedly Obama-leaning independents, when people realize her victory is not inevitable, suddenly people like her and she wins.
Well it's a nice STORY.
So she finally figured out how to disguise her wanton desire for power through crying and and making jokes about herself. Too bad she only fooling old ladies with that crap. While that might help her win the primary, she'll face one of the most negative campaigns in election history should she get the nomination.
I don't think she can win. Not because she is a woman, but because she is Hillary Clinton.
Since when is C&L the official DLC blog?
Hillary (and Obama) needs to start seriously talking about the state of the U.S. Economy.
New York Times, United States - 3 hours ago
Two men were arrested after pushing a corpse, seated in an office chair, along the sidewalk to a check-cashing store to cash the dead man’s Social Security check.
I think the comments to Taylor Marsh's post are quite telling. Maybe Rachel Maddow is right, and much of HC's victory came from women who are royally pissed off at the way the MSM has been treating her, especially recently.
Hillary's Voice: negativity and distorted attacks on her opponents are OK as long as she cries afterwards. She figured it out!
Well done New Hampshire..
.. A few fake tears was all it took for you to look past Hillarys establishment neo-con enabler record.
.. and then you went and vote for a guy who finds it hilarious to sing "BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN.."
God help us.
The left-wing, right-wing and media Hillhaters are what boosted Hillary's candidacy. Keep throwing out the misogynist fireballs and she will keep winning.
The fix was in. Plant Tom Brokow to reintroduce Hillary Clinton and do the bashing overture against those who dared to derail the Clinton machine on the TV screens. Then there were the dinos, like Bill Clinton and Albright who did indeed hide from the viewers and public, but are in fact... there. How do the Clinton supporters call a tactic like that? I think Karl Rove invented that dirty trick, didn't he? I might be wrong tough, but you are wrong more.
No, you stole some of Sen. Obama's messages of change being needed and garnered a little temporary sympathy with those tears(?). Just remember Hillary, sexy is something that either you have or don't. There is something intangible that Obama has that you just don't.
L.A. Confidential @ 13:
LOL! Yes, I heard this story on NPR and related to the current state of the economy in my twisted mind.
I'm wondering when the MSM will declare recession...i heard erin burnett mention it this morning.
I know Republicans hate Hillary Clinton, but it amazes me how many Democrats hate her too. I don't understand why that is. I met her very briefly once and she impressed me as warm and intelligent. Do you believe she would, as President, act as lawlessly as George Bush has for the last 7 years? Although she's not my first choice, I would certainly vote for her if she won the nomination.
The Red Flag.
Fox Rupert Murdoch Hosted a Fundraiser For Hillary Clinton in 2006...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/politics/main1600694.shtml
BUSH FAMILY 1980-1984
BUSH FAMILY 1984-1988
BUSH FAMILY 1988-1992
CLINTON FAMILY 1992-1996
CLINTON FAMILY 1996-2000
BUSH FAMILY 2000-2004
BUSH FAMILY 2004-2008
Its time for REAL change.
THE COUNTRY HAS HAD ENOUGH OF BUSH AND CLINTON
Congress is poised to consider a new emergency paper ballots bill next week
http://pol.moveon.org/paper2008/
Sour grapes do make a fine whine, don't they?
Travis @ 12:
You know, I'm really sort of sick of comments like this.
Let me see if I can put this so that your very limited reasoning skills can understand it.
Reporting on a public figure DOES NOT equate to endorsing that person or his/her politics.
Hillary Clinton won the NH primary. We would be remiss if we didn't show her speech. Nowhere in that post do you see any endorsement of her campaign tactics (because I certainly don't like what she and Bill have been doing lately), nor do you see an endorsement of her as the front runner in the presidential race.
Sometimes we show people because they are newsworthy, not because they are our BFFs.
Why not try to give your impression of the speech rather than try to assign some strange tin-foil hat behind-the-scenes conspiratorial motivation to us?
Beware a facist neocon and the tears of a queen.
I wish Edwards would find a voice, of America and get out of the race!! what an egomaniac...
I'm learning i can't count on blog comments to make sense.. or make honest arguments about individual stances.... commenters are turning into savage like people that insult and smear.
Pity she's a hawk.
It's still the economy, stupid:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jan2008/newh-j09.shtml
....
A staggering 98 percent of those who voted in the Democratic primary said they were "very" or "somewhat" worried about the economy.
....
StirFry @ 20:
Two more beds filled for Bush Co's buds in the Private Prison industry. Keep em' coming! Crash that economy!
And this link...
http://presscue.com/node/38170
Fascist America using Diebold machines even AFTER they were shown to be fraudulent. This voting system is completely messed up.
Nicole Belle @ 24:
Huzzah! Nice to see you come out fighting for what should be obvious. Thank you.
Call me an optimistic cynic at this point.
Could this be real? An awakening or re-awakening of things that have been systematically, surgically or butchered out of
political discourse? Beyond a strategy, ploy or triangulation?
I can see where practical immersion in politics destroys one's ability to reason, process and convey ideas. We call it "inside the beltway" thinking don't we?
Getting back to people, places and things that had become more concepts than real must have an impact.
I'd say right now, we have multiple candidates who are sounding much more aware of the genuine anger and distress felt by a frightening number of us.
How is that a bad thing?
ConcernedCanuck @ 6:
Oh, please...I'm no Hillary fan...but they all have speech writers...All of em.
Pawsie @ 27:
Agreed - it seems that ever since Yahoo! closed down its comment boards, the quality level of discourse in the overall blogosphere has taken a downward turn. It seems the vitriol has been more acidic than usual on C&L today. Where's the Tums?
Nicole Belle @ 24:
She's right, Travis.
I hope the South Carolina voters are getting the message that Hillary listens to voters, and finds 'her voice'.
So, So.Carolina voters, start whispering in her ear, and shouting, 'NO MORE WAR' as soon as she gets in town.
Alright Obama fans, listen up.
Okay, we got beat. It doesn't matter HOW, it doesn't matter what happened.
Our focus is UNITY and MOVING FORWARD. We take this in stride. But listen up
We are the mouthpieces for a movement of unity. So don't blame crying or main stream media or exit polls or racism or anything else.
Instead, learn from this. Keep going. We are a movement of unity and every body is invited to join, that's the focus. That's what Obama preaches.
The forces of status quo seek to split the movement up. Along conservative/liberal, along black/white, along man/woman. Anything to split the movement. But we can beat this. Obama is the best candidate, he is the only one that preaches that we ALL come together to move forward. That's the message.
I was wrong about it earlier, too. It's all about staying positive, staying on message, and keeping the invitation open. It's about every body coming together. So let's all do the right thing.
Milton Friedman @ 26:
I just wish the media will find Edwards...
I am no Hillary Clinton fan and do not intend to vote for her. That being said, I think she changed her campaign around a bit after Iowa. More and more she was being viewed as an unfeeling aristocrat and those in Iowa apparently had picked up on it and voted against her. She realized this and had to do something to appeal to the average voter. In other words, she had to come down from her high horse. Her earlier tearful comments may have helped do just that. This victory speech appears to be a continuation of that strategy.
ConcernedCanuck @ 6:
The main thing the Clintons were able to accomplish in the 90's was restoring confidence in the U.S. and U.S. Marketplaces after Bush Sr. and Ronald McReagan.
People haven't forgotten that.
Nicole Belle @ 24:
Who said anything about a conspiracy? It's kind of out in the open. Right there in the post you draw the conclusion that because she payed some interns to stand close to the podium that somehow her support is coming from young people. It's fine and good for a current events blog to have a bias- over at Sadly, No! there was a post with the headline to the effect of "I'll never vote for Clinton in the primary"- and nobody sneezed.
I'm just kind of disappointed how much positive attention the Clinton campaign is getting today, between this post and the post about Brokaw dressing down Matthews (which is really kind of a non-story). If C&L wants to hop on the "centrist" bandwagon, it's the right of the people who post the stories here...I just had come to expect better.
And this...
http://www.truthnews.us/?p=1587
Ron Paul recorded ZERO votes in Sutton, NH, yet here are people saying on the internet that they VOTED FOR PAUL THEMSELVES.
They cannot be lying because if they are "Paulites", then there would have been at least one vote for Paul. If they are not Paulites and hate those people, WHY say they voted for Paul?
There is something clearly afoot in this "election".
I think the CFR are using these first few states as testing grounds for fixing the elections, and if they don't get caught, then they will go all out in the national election, just like in 2000 and 2004.
Skeptical are you? You think it could not possibly happen what with all the people involved? Afraid? Sad?
In any event, we're fucked.
Bud @ 35:
Huh? When has the "blogsphere" ever been anything but a perfect reflection of the greater marketplace of ideas. Free expression means dealing with all kinds of speech. That's the beauty of it all....and the challenge.
OOH! OOH! Hillary won in a largely white, inconsequential Northeast state! Well, OK then, I guess we should have the coronation - oops, I mean inauguration, tomorrow. Look, if Hillary's the Democratic Candidate for President then we WILL have another GOP puppet President in the White House. It's that simple. When that happens, you Clinton fetishists can spend the next 4 years blaming Ralph Nader, "crybabies" like myself who chose to sit out this sham of an election rather than vote for the Golden Girl of the Beltway Establishment, or what have you. You can blame everybody except the people responsible for foisting this useless piece of shit candidate upon the country. Hillary's fucking useless, and she's not going to get elected President.
Just a suggestion, but somebody ought to tell Hillary that when you're trying to humanize yourself to the voting public, show them that you're a feeling, caring person and not some calculating "Hillbot", it doesn't help to stand in front of a sign that simply reads: "hillaryclinton.com".
C'mon, are we being asked to vote for a person or a website?
The good women of NH have voted and they want Bill back in the White House. The President who took advantage of a young female aide and used her genitalia as his cigar holder.
Milton Friedman @ 26:
Oh, yeah...How dare a politician have a big ego!!!
Paleeze.
Nicole Belle @ 24:
With all due respect, Nicole, this is today's fourth story on C&L about HRC's "stunning comeback." I can see why some people interpret that as boosterism. How bout a story on John Silvestro or media exclusion of Kucinich & Gravel?
Those of you who think that Hillary's tears are some kind of strategy obviously weren't around when that female politician--whose name escapes me right now, from CO I think--cried publicly, was ridiculed, and left politics. Probably why I can't remember her name.
L.A. Confidential @ 41:
If Obama can do that more power to him.
The inside story is that Bill told Hillary that if she lost the election, he was going to stay married to her. After she saw the horrible polls, and realized what she might be stuck with, she was emotionally overwhelmed.
Whatever else you may think of Bill, he's a helluva campaign manager.
He knows just which buttons to push to make a candidate really strive to win.
Johnny2Bad @ 44:
I'm not knocking it - to me it just seems that the majority of talk has turned into trash talking lately. Not that it ever used to be a completely enlightening experience but it was a nice change from all the trash talking that takes place everywhere else.
Bud @ 4:
Thank you Mr McLuhan. ;)
Found her own voice? Does she mean "the voice of change"? Was that before or after she invented the internet?
She still is going to keep on supporting torture, the war OF terror in the middle east and the loss of freedom, liberty and the rule of law at home.
Matthews and Hillary are the headline
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/01/09/hillary_nh/
L.A. Confidential @ 41:
And coincidentally that restoration of confidence had a lot to do with the major internet build-out which was occurring at the time. :)
The first two primaries have had unprecedented turnout.
"Thank you Ohio"
"Thank you New Hampshire"
Hillary vs. Obama
It could come down to ...
Working People... vs. The Establishment Press Status Quo
The front of their sites tells us alot.
http://www.barackobama.com
Obama endorsed by Culinary Workers Union
Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin endorses Barack Obama
Nevada SEIU Endorses Barack Obama for President
http://www.hillaryclinton.com
Concord Monitor Endorses Hillary
Johnny2Bad @ 36:
I never see the negative comments for dem candidates that we see for GOP candidates. If a dem screws up, all that is said here is "well, we don't really agree with what they did, but....". If a GOP screws up, it's like WW3.
I can't believe how some people at this site think that the posters here are really that dumb. Stop insulting our intelligence. Let me say this so that everyone with "limited reasoning skills" can understand:
Outright and explicit endorsement is not necessary to determine who is supported and who is not. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who the favorites are. I personally am sick and tired of posters here getting hammered for simply pointing out the obvious. If it's not true, why the dramatic defense? If accusing this site of endorsing people is completely wrong and incorrect, then why not just ignore it like all other completely wrong and incorrect stuff that is said?
Am I missing something here? If my brain overwhelmingly tells me that certain people are favorites over others, why is that so evil? I trust my judgment enough to see the barn door in front of my face.
Even if this site did become explicit in its endorsement, WHO CARES? The last time I checked, this was a free country. But the law is so fucked up in this country that to show favorites outright puts you under certain regulations and targets of the establishment. I hate that law, and I think you should be allowed to say who is liked.
So I chastise C&L for perhaps underestimating the posters here, but I defend C&L's right to select who they think is best.
I mean, we are all human here aren't we? ALL of us have our favorites, if we didn't, then we wouldn't have a brain. Everyone posting and blogging have their favorites, so why not just accept that there are favorites. C&L, you could say who you WOULD vote for IF asked, and STILL not endorse anyone right? Everyone has their favorites!
dan @ 55:
Tisk Tisk. She may not be the most authentic person in the world, like most politicians. But you do know Gore never said he invented the internet, right?
BDM @ 49:
C & L is obviously a republican 'poop sheet'. You can tell by the number of democrat trolls who hang around, muttering nonsensically, igniting flames, trying to instigate controversy, just so they can stir up controversy and good quotes from the republicans to put on their liberal blogs.
Site Monitor: Kind of like you, Preacher? Don't start...we've got enough flaming from the Ron Paul fans to deal with.
Travis @ 42:
Again, Travis, your reasoning skills are astounding. I said that someone in her campaign must have paid attention to the feedback they got from the Iowa speech, because the old guard supporters they lined up behind her were gone. I never said that must mean that young people were supporting her; I'm trying to show that she's managing her image again.
Apparently, in Travis world, unless I show a blatant ANTI-Hillary bias, we're giving her positive attention and are trying to be centrists. Do I have that right?
Travis, I've been accused of being too positive and too harsh about every single one of the candidates, depending on how the individual felt about the candidate. That tells me that this is more about you wanting the site to reflect your values than anything we're doing.
If you want a site that reflects your values, make one. But don't assume just because we're not trashing the candidates you don't like in the way that you want us to that we're selling out to the DLC. It's a ridiculous logical fallacy.
And for your information, this site was started because John Amato wanted to document biases in the media and how their framing shaped political discussion. Again, your assessment that Brokaw dressing down Matthews as a non-story shows that you are projecting what you want from the site, not its owner's original intent, because that is very much on point of what this site was created to do.
Yeah Hillary, way to show your experience by stealing from competitors and "winging it" based on where the wind is blowing. Get your own personality.
Drew @ 60:
We're a liberal blog, Drew. We're going to criticize Republicans more.
Since you're so smart, go ahead and tell me who it is you think we're endorsing.
hadenuf @ 50:
It was Pat Schroeder, a great liberal, who's less remembered for being a primer supporter of the Family and Medical Leave Act, than for being lampooned for crying on SNL by Gilda Radner.
Hillery Experience judging flower gardens as first lady of Arkansas and US or 2 terms in Senate?
What experience is she talking about?
Drew @ 60:
You're obviously teetering on the brink of falling into the morass of rationality, and there's no place for that nonsense on a political blog.
peaceful easy feeling @ 58:
If Bush Sr had won Tech most likely wouldn't have gotten the incentives to accomplish what it has. It would have went to Big Oil and the MIC.
yuck, just friggin yuck.
obama was not my first choice of candidates, but, i think, hillary is my last choice. she is the dem candidate i fear the most.
hillary: the one most likely to govern as a GOP-lite, neoliberal, corporate-lackey.
Johnny2Bad @ 3:
I must be on crack, too, since I heard the same echoes.
But I commend her for it. She ain't dumb and that's the most important change that I want to see.
Polls show that Barrack was winning . . . paper ballots he wins . . . machine ballots he loses . . . same thing that happened to Howard Dean . . . . company counting ballots in NH under investigation.
Remember when Gore lost in 2000 and everyone was saying . . . . how did the exit polls get it so wrong? . . . . why not ask the logical question . . . .what's wrong with the vote counting?
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5530
Nicole Belle @ 65:
John Amato?
Big John @ 56:
Yeah, and Ruppert Murdoch even hosted a small fund-raiser for Hillary, which is a sure warning sign the end of the world is near if she gets elected. ;)
I like only Kucinich, but the cult following that Obama has is very unattractive. And naive.
Nicole Belle @ 65:
Avid Reader, I understand your frustration at the loss, but blaming the ballots, blaming diebold, blaming the people of new hampshire or anything else will get nothing done.
The important thing is to go to Nevada and South Carolina and keep the message of Change alive. It's important to stay positive, stay on point, stay on message, and keep moving. At the end of the day, Obama's drawn record numbers of people to the polls in both primaries. He has people excited about change, and that's what counts.
Can we look past the conspiracy and just focus on winning by being the best?
YES, WE CAN
Why is it being implied that anyone who disagrees with the tone of this post automatically of limited intelligence? I thought the replies that Drew and I posted were fairly respectful, and never once attacked the author personally. Maybe my inexplicable inability to reason is clouding my judgment, here.
Johnny2Bad @ 48:
Yeah after ignoring Edwards for over a year Matthews has asked Edwards to do the same thing. Hell even the so called progressive media has been ignoring Edwards. Go listen to Mark Green owner of Air America's program from this past Saturday 7 days in America. Green makes sure Edwards is ignored. Then even Amy Goodman (who I have never criticized, she walks on water as far as I am concerned) until she completely ignored Edwards in her coverage before the New Hampshire vote. I am not kidding go listen for yourselves.
Jane over at Fdl has some interesting insights into Edwards being committed to staying in the race. I am still completely with Edwards, he apologized for his stupid and bloody mistake by voting yes on the 2002 war resolution, he completely supports diplomacy with Iran (while Hillary voted for the Kyl warmongering Liberman amendment, and OBama skipped town on this vote ..Mr. antiwar yeah right). Edwards has said that there will be no lobbyist in his administration and no individuals who have lobbied for a foreign nation. He is not taking Pac money.
Corporate America is scared. Israeli firsters are scared of Edwards Obama is starting to take on this theme, Hillary will not touch it. Have you heard Hillary say anything about special interest. Although Hillary is borrowing Edwards consistent making it personal theme.
Go listen to Mark "progressive" Green do a propaganda program last Saturday
Green excludes Edwards from the discussion. It is all Obama Obama Obama Clinton
http://www.airamerica.com/7daysinamerica/node/19
So if you just found your own voice, does this mean you've been blathering nonsense for the past year or so?
Preacher Boob @ 73:
Actually, I don't think Johnny has political aspirations, but you never know.
Nicole -
Since I agree with all that you wrote above, I'd like to say that I got in your face last week for what I saw to be an unfair and counter-factual headline. Not for raising a particular issue.
Whats Duke Nukem McCain going to do to restore confidence in the U.S.
I shudder to think about it.
This New Hampshire vote was so very disappointing. I was a long time ago a very strong Clinton supporter. I would never vote for another one again ever. There is absolutlely no way ever I want to go back to anything like the Clinton years. The Clinton years is how we ended up with the Bush years. We just cannot stand anymore of either one of these families. Ever.
Nicole Belle @ 65:
I respect your own judgment about who you like, much more than my assessment of who I think you like. I have my favorite, as do all people. I know it may be hard to NOT show favorites what with the intent of this blog and all, but like I said we are all human and sometimes not showing favorites is a hard thing to do. But it's perfectly and completely natural to have favorites.
I am not trying to "set you up" or make a trap. My main point is that it is human nature to have favorites, so why hide it? We should be proud of who we like, that's the whole point of "democracy". Unfortunately the candidate fields are getting worse and worse every year, because naturally in a fascist country like this one, the "elected" officials more and more reflect what the elite want, and less and less what the people want. Instead of the influence moving from bottom up (as what happens in a democracy), the influence goes more and more from the top down. THIS is why we are being literally cornered into having to choose people we may not like.
It's ok to hate ALL the candidates (I hate them all for different reasons), but if you have favorites to win, stand up and be brave on who you like.
Nicole, I appreciate your opinion of who you like more than mine because voting is (or at least should be) a very cherished and personal thing. But favorites exist in everyone's hearts.
If this was a DLC mouthpiece site, I'd be banned....
cuz I'd never stop cussing the posters out.
Did anyone think that Hillary delivered her concession speech and Obama delivered his victory speech? She had a couple of telling comments about we WILL go on. Obama said, "There is something happening when men and women in Des Moines and Davenport, in Lebanon and Concord, come out in the snows of January to wait in lines that stretch block after block because they believe in what this country can be."
I am not sure they retooled their post-election comments for the real vote! Can someone enlighten me as to when their speeches are written and do they have both a concession and a victory speech in the can on the day of polling?
billary good. pundit bad.
Much as I hate to get involved in controversy, may I just opine that C&L is the best damned blog on the web, has the most freedom, least censorship (except some evenings, when a first-form elementary drop-out must be monitoring the site), widest range of intellectual and non-intellectual posters, posts ranging from literate to non-coherent, opinions ranging from reasonable to other-worldly, contributions from every sex nature ever mutated into (and some that are indeterminable), posters with styles ranging from dastardly to sublime, in short, just the kind of blog we'd all create if we had the smarts to do it.
Preacher Boob @ 73:
ZING!
SassySandy @ 84:
What a cool argument. I love it. Let's expand it, shall we?
It's all Washington's fault!
Nicole Belle @ 81:
I don't know him, only of him, but I think he could whup ass in the current menage.
She's smart. She was on the wrong course and she quickly, sharply changed to the right course for her. Not a bad skill for a president to have when solving a crisis or a national problem. Bravo, Hillary. Your rivals, the media, and lord knows the Wingnuts have tried to break you more than anyone and you're still standing and thriving. Keep it up. Every time I see Obama I expect it to turn into a commercial for the Pepsi Generation -- that's about how much depth his feel-good motivational speeches have for me.
The more I see of Hillary Clinton the more I compare her to Ukraine's Yulia Timoshenko. Timoshenko is extremely wealthy and has a lot of influence along with political backing by very powerful people. Yet, on the campaign trail she tries to appeal to the working class and less fortunate. Behind the scenes though, she is all about power. Heck, Timoshenko even has her own personal bodyguard of 12 former Russian Spetsnaz Commandos. Hillary Clinton seems to be just the same, uses the same methods and has the same goals in mind as Timoshenko.
she didn't find her voice, she found her VOTES in the Diebold machine count districts.
But the Bush years were how we ended up with the Clinton years first.
Redux year? Fuck it all.
L.A. Confidential @ 69:
Incentives? As in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, pass by a Republican Congress and signed into law by a Democrat? ;) That just proves how rising tides can lift all boats when people focus on the big picture and work together, instead of trying to demonize each other over relatively small things.
Shadowgm @ 80:
Exactly. I played the speech twice I and still can't remember what she said after "I found my own voice," because I had so much trouble processing that statement. What specifically was she referring to when she said that? I could understand if she were a newcomer to politics and if there was a noticeable transformation (and a single misty-eyed moment of vulnerability does not count), and everyone else had noticed it too, and it had been winning her state after state, and voters who never thought they'd vote for her found themselves warming to her. But all that happened was that after losing Iowa in a big way, she narrowly won a state she was supposed to win all along.
This is a genuine question: what about her "voice" was she referring to, and how did it win her New Hampshire? Finding one's voice is a non-trivial thing; to say you've found your voice should really mean something. I'm at a loss as to what she meant.
Getting choked up was a brilliant calculation on the part of her campaign strategists.
Jason B @ 77:
You say, "Can we look past the conspiracy and just focus on winning by being the best? YES, WE CAN"
NO, WE CAN'T
You say, "but blaming the ballots, blaming diebold, blaming the people of new hampshire or anything else will get nothing done."
So we said after Florida and Ohio and we got what we deserved for our naivety and belief in a self-correcting Diebold software with hacked firmware that would reset to the default mode and give us Al Gore as the president. It didn't f******g work!!!
Time to supplement the Obama wagon with the conspiracy awareness and focus skills.
JTM @ 91:
You're not giving King George (the first King George) any credit?
I thought she said she was listening before. Was she lying then, or is she lying now?
Preacher Boob @ 89:
Word.
theWalrus @ 21:
yes. she voted for the military commissions act and the patriot act, which are both very much unconstitutional acts. she's a fearmongerer, and trhe closest thing the a neocon the democrats could possibly have. funny how she talks about "change" so much, but has more in common with neocons than liberals.
Do they have Diebold machines in NH? Do they use them in the primaries? It would be interesting to see if Hillary, in fact, was doing well in Diebold districts.
The amazing thing that I have noticed is that in districts that have Diebold machines, exit polls are almost always wrong.
Shadowgm @ 80:
Spot on... Spot on...
Wien @ 8:
No, I like the theory that the Stanford professor is promoting: She won because her name was first. That says a lot about Obama's people. I guess they're either too stupid or too lazy to look for their candidate's name, so they just mark the first thing they see.
Drew @ 85:
So, let me see if I have your position correctly:
1. You're upset because there's not universal acclaim for the person you like, thus we're biased.
2. But you believe we should all stand up for the person we DO like.
This is what psychologists call a double-bind, a set of conflicting imperatives.
yeah I saw Billary's victory speach and I fell asleep. Obama & Edwards on the other hand were inspiring.
Hillary Clinton is a supporter of "workers" - a concept only the ignorant or truly idiotic could believe. But what the heck, a former director WalMart, the biggest union buster in the past fifty years, is pro-worker; up is down; black is white, Big Business (including NewsCorp) gives tens of millions to a progressive...
Is there anything this country won't believe?
Heh, this is really funny. CNN has a video that says that the Nevada Culinary Worker's union endorses Clinton, but if you listen to it they quite clearly and repeatedly endorse Obama.
BigTobacco @ 106:
http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS
http://presscue.com/node/38034
Jon @ 105:
Her sense of entitlement regarding the White House clearly shows her true Neo-Con lite colors: New image, same old flavor.
fiver @ 111:
In Evolution, maybe?
I think BartCop has called this one right. This election is not a choice between Hilliary and perfection. It's a choice between change and more of the same. If we want to win back the Whitehouse we will need to nominate someone who knows how to fight back against the GOP/MSM slime machine. The Clintons know how to fight. Obama is just too nice and would be swift-boated into oblivion like Kerry.
Obama's time will come, it's just not now.
Bud @ 104:
That is a good post...
Actually, it is the entire national union going for Obama. Russert got it wrong, surprisingly.
CNN has now fixed the headline on their video.
jim @ 100:
Look, I agree that there are people in the establishment, people of status quo and people behind the scenes with money that will do anything to prevent somebody like Obama from being the pick. I don't think it's out of the question that people would lose ballots or adjust voting machines to give their candidate the edge.
But you know how we can beat them? With pure, unadulterated NUMBERS.
Turnout in Iowa was HUGE. Turnout in New Hampshire was great, but not enough. But if you get another New Hampshire, I think people will start to get suspicious.
This is one loss. 1 for 2, out of a 50 state battle. It is WAY too early to start calling conspiracy theories and behind-the-scenes manipulation. Let's just focus on positivity and moving ahead.
This is still an open battle, and if any of it is true, if any of your claims are true, they will be found out. Because this is only the 2nd battle out of 50, there are still 48 more to go.
YES, WE CAN
Bud @ 104:
Agreed. If you bring up the I-lobby or Aipac at FDL trolls appear and go haywire..to the point where the owners of the blog and moderators shut it down. Just the way the radical trolls like it
buzz @ 116:
So the only hope for victory is to elect someone committed to the status quo? What?
Shadowgm @ 109:
If you're going to drop this psycho-babble on posters here, please please please ensure that you know exactly when to apply them. If you don't, then you just come off as being a person who does care about ideas, but simply a person who wants admiration in their lives.
1. I never once said I am upset over not having universal acclaim over the person I like, nor did I imply that anywhere.
2. This comment still stands.
Greg @ 103:
Okay, Greg. Tell me who I'm personally supporting, since we already know that--despite every accusation to the contrary--the site is not endorsing any candidate during the primaries.
I don't know if you noticed the by-lines, Greg, but I didn't do that post. I'm not in the habit of editorializing on other writers' posts. That would seem pretty rude, IMO. But if you bothered to read my comment that you quoted you'd see that I said I have a problem with what Hillary and Bill have been doing lately. If I had done that post, I would have slammed the Clintons for that tactic as well.
Preacher Boob @ 101:
I considered doing that, but didn't because I couldn't come up with a principled reason for stopping there. In fact, while considering taking it farther back than Washington, I was suddenly faced with a huge choice: should I blame it on Adam or Lucy (as in the "missing link" from great ape to human). This suddenly made me face my own agnosticism in a way that I've never done before. It was like the first time that I masturbated.
Is G*d watching me?
No, of course not, because he doesn't exist.
So why are you talking to yourself about him right now?
Because you brought him up.
And who is this you that you're referring to?
It's you!
That doesn't answer my question.
You!
Me?
Yes ... oh, never mind; I've lost my erection, anyway.
(And, so, I just clicked "submit comment" and did a few minutes of work.)
Travis @ 121:
Do you want victory with change (even if it's not all the change you want) or do you want more Republican rule? Get serious!
Preacher Boob @ 89,
Please allow me to pile on: Great post.
The whole aura of inevitability around Hillary springs from the fact that she is a "safe" candidate who will continue to support the current order of things... war, profiteering, the erosion of civil liberties, outsourcing, etc.
Unlike George Bush, she will give you free band-aids on occasion. And, if you get laid off, she will get choked up on TV about. She is like Tony Blair as compared to Margarer Thatcher... although she will probably have to prove she is "tough" on security issues early on, much like Thatcher, so expect her to initiate a war or two early in her first term.
I mean, any woman who was on the board of Walmart at the same time that they were sexually discriminating against their workers is not pro-woman or pro-worker. She's an elitist who speaks a contrived language for the common people.
buzz @ 125:
But Clinton has promised NO change. She even said in the ABC debate:
"So, you know, I think it is clear that what we need is somebody who can deliver change. And we don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered."
This was in response to John Edwards talking about keeping corporate interests out of politics. With an attitude like that the only thing that will change in the White House is the name being signed on the authorizations for torture.
Silent...all these years...
Oh sing it Tori! Find your voice! I really loved that 'Little Earthquakes' album...
What tripe. True believers eat it up...what a phony.
BigTobacco @ 127:
It's the Clinton/Bush family fascist dynasty brought to you by the CFR and international bankers.
Some "tin-foil hat" conspiracies are true.
Why are we screwing around at the mercy of all the ding bats in the world?
Bushes, Clintons, Diebold, BigOil, NeoConZionists, republicans, ad infinitum?
We got some power.
This is C&L, a known blog.
Why don't we fix things, our way, for the good of the US of A and the whole world?
Here's 'The Plan'. First, we need money. Lots of money. The best and biggest money raising scheme I can think of is we pretend we're going to turn all of Beverly Hills into a World-Class Holocaust Museum, and all of Miami into a F**k Castro Commemoratory Conservatory. Think of the bucks (and pesos, and sheqels) that'll roll in! Then we use our web connections to hire the world's best hacker.
We put him to work, at an exhorbinate salary plus humongous incentives and bonuses, and Voila! On election day, whatever button they push or part of the screen they touch, the vote comes out
JOHN AMATO!!
We all get Ambassadorships, or Attorney General slots, or whatever we want, and we turn the corrupt US government around, so it serves OUR corrupt interests, instead of the ESTABLISHMENT. F**K 'EM!!
It's our turn for yachts, and G-5's, and Airbus A-380's.
And just think of the AMATO LEGACY, that will go down in history!
Man Bush has really screwed this country up.
Thats taken 35 years ?
Left&Left @ 19:
That "something intangible" is called a smooth-talking charmer who is full of promises he will never keep.
And the misogyny and chauvanism will fuel her candidacy.
GO HILLARY!
The only thing I have to say about Senator Clinton's speech is that she gave hers better than Senator McPain gave his.
That is amazing... If someone can verify this data: http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS
In precincts with machine counts: The exit polls were wrong, Hillary won.
In precincts with hand counts: The exit polls were right, Obama won.
That would be a heck of a news story if someone with the resources could investigate.
I don't understand the people who insist that anyone opposed to a Clinton candidacy is automatically a sexist. In my opinion, the middle class citizens of BOTH sexes are screwed if she gets into the White House.
Preacher Boob @ 131:
Can I make a suggestion? Get very stoned tonight and listen to Pink Floyd's Animals on headphones.
Preacher Boob @ 131:
Your plan, although energetic and moving, is completely useless.
You can NEVER make more money than the elite because the elite have access to the money printing press (the Fed). Hence, if you raise $1 million, they will just print $2 million, give it to Halliburton and Blackwater in the form of government contracts, then in return these companies will "donate" the $2 million back to whoever gave the contract!
You want to know about rackets? I got lots of them for you because I'm smart.
Hillary was really good on the morning shows I saw her on today
"“81% of New Hampshire ballots are counted in secret by a private corporation named Diebold Election Systems (now known as “Premier”). The elections run on these machines are programmed by one company, LHS Associates, based in Methuen, MA. We know nothing about the people programming these machines, and we know even less about LHS Associates. We know even less about the secret vote counting software used to tabulate 81% of our ballots.”"
From previous post.
Really, all this discussion about the candidates and wondering why people voted the way they did...
No one wondered why EXIT POLLS ARE AGAIN NOT JELLYING WITH ACTUAL VOTES?
Obama should be winning 12 points over Clinton, if the true numbers had reflected what the pollsters had predicted....
But it doesn't matter because Hillary is OUR big business, Washington elite and AIPAC candidate as opposed to a republican one right?
I will leave y'all now to your illusions...
Ta ta
americangoy
Linkies:
www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/5094
www.sos.nh.gov/voting%20machines2006.htm
www. huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/08/new-hampshire-exit-polls-_n_80533.html
Due to issues I had with C&L web link feature, there is a space in last link. Sorry.
JTM @ 124:
Geez, what a coincidence!! I just mentioned 'your kind' of poster on a previous post. (If I knew how to do it, I'd put a smiley face here:______ Use your imagination)
Her speech was soooo boring! Hillary is not good. She's completely a status quo, establishment candidate. Nothing will change if she's president. Don't believe her promises! She's much to connected to buck the system in the slightest. She also has an unfair advantage because she can send her husband around to campaign for her in a way that no other candidate can. It's a two-tiered attack when Bill is in one city with a microphone and Hillary is in another.
Obama people, please stop the anti-woman rhetoric. Even something that could be CONSTRUED as anti-woman. We are not the negative campaign.
Remember that Obama was first with "Change," and he has been consistent with Change. It was others who took Obama's word and held on to it, seeing the power it had.
It was others who take credit for his hard work, like www.usaspending.gov , forgetting that this was Obama's bill. It was others who will slam on him for being cooperative, like the hard work it took for him to pass the bill in Illinois that films police interrogations.
It was others who claim that his talk is all empty blustering, while we know that he is the candidate that has the actions and results. He doesn't need to lie about his achievements, he doesn't need to take credit for somebody else's work and claim it as his own, and the majority of people who vote for Obama are voting for Obama, not somebody else they think will get in to the white house.
Obama wasn't the one who dissed Martin Luther King, and when the going got tough for other candidates, Obama refused to comment. He's classy like that.
He really is the best candidate, and just about every body knows this. But you can't convince them by attacking them emotionally or tearing down their candidate, because it's an emotional, intimate issue. But you can do the right thing and focus on his message of positivity.
I'm not going to let this be a man v woman campaign. Because dividing us is a classic strategy that has worked for decades. People know the importance of keeping the population separate.
But it isn't about red america, or blue america, male america or female america, black america or white america, it is the united states of america.
Yes, we can
SM@134 Smooth-talking charmer full of promises he won't keep? I think you mistake Obama for your husband. What are you, a mystic? Misogyny and chauvinism? You forgot racism because I believe Obama is the better candidate. Keep scraping the bottom of the barrel SM, you'll soon find something.
hadenuf @ 75:
I totally agree. Too much Obama Kool Aid going around. The Obama-nites have this hard "pimply 13 year old girl" crush on him. I'll say this, the man can talk a smooth talk, but that's about all he can do.
Ask yourselves: What has he done in the Senate? He's sided more times with Rethuglicans than Hillary ever has.
Obama is a Joe Lieberman puppet and an anti-gay supporter (Donnie McClurkin, anyone?)
Drew @ 139:
Hey, whattsamatta, you? If you think Amato's gonna be president and not lay his hands on the fed printing presses, you ain't thinkin'. PS. If you wanna be PC, here on C&L, remember this: Amato IS one of the 'elite'.
Jason B @ 144:
So simply saying the word "change" somehow is 100% correlated with actually acting to make changes?
I think you are overestimating the CFR politicians.
Preacher Boob @ 147:
Wow.....just wow....
You sound like a nice dude, but I didn't get this post at all...
SM @ 146:
Hadenuf, you want to see what Obama's done in the Senate? Take a look at www.usaspending.gov - that shows you exactly where your tax dollars are going. Government transperancy? Thank Obama.
In Illinois he passed legislation to get all police interrogations video taped - against heavy opposition from the police (and consider that Chicago is one of the country's most corrupt police departments). He TALKS about hope, because every body wants things to be better. He encourages people to listen, to look at each other and say "Okay, these are my concerns, what are YOUR concerns, and how can we find the best way forward?"
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ Look at his site. And I mean, actually look at it, and see what he's doing. He isn't just empty talk.
MeMyselfAndI @ 114:
I'm glad someone else sees it, too. I got the very clear impression that Hillary thinks she's entitled to the presidency for some reason, whether it's '35 years of change' or 'ready on day one' or 'finding her voice.'
Drew @ 148:
Where did I say that? I didn't say that. And I gave you specific examples of change he has made. Why did you ignore those?
He's made changes. He's gotten hard bills past the corrupt opposition, and that's what he's good at. Will you at least take a look at what he's done instead of just claiming empty rhetoric?
Login or Register to post comments.