Splinter Cell
(498 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 05:08 PM
Original message |
Lets get something straight...... |
|
The Clintons are not, and should not be the star of this show. Hillary was beaten fairly in the primaries, after she had run a nasty campaign. She lost. Obama doesn't owe her shit.
The Clintons have always got to be the center of attention, and it's getting VERY OLD.
I don't think the Clintons wanted Obama to win. To be honest, I really wouldn't be shocked if they voted for McLame. Everything is about their agenda. Yes, Bill Clinton did a great job for the most part as POTUS. Hillary is a great public servant as well. They just need to back off and let Obama have his time in the sun because he earned it.
It's just disgusting, that after the entire campaign, all the ups and downs, and we finally have victory, that the Clintons are again the focal point. Let's move on.
|
liberalmuse
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 05:11 PM
Response to Original message |
|
They are Clintonophiles. Really. People blame the Clintons, but the truth is, the MSM is the entity creating all the drama here. Watch how both Bill and Hillary try to downplay the 'leaks', and note how the MSM completely disregards this. I have a long memory, and this shit is no different from what I witnessed with great consternation during the 1990's.
|
TexasObserver
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 05:11 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Flamebait and primary rehash. Stop it. |
salguine
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
38. I don't think it's flamebait. I agree with The Godfather a hundred percent. |
TexasObserver
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #38 |
41. Your agreement doesn't change it from flamebait to wisdom. |
salguine
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #41 |
45. That's very true. But your calling it flamebait does not, in itself, make it false, either. |
TexasObserver
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #45 |
47. Flamebait doesn't have to be untrue to be flamebait. |
|
Again, you miss the point.
Flamebait is intended to inflame, typically to air some old grievance the OP cannot let go.
|
Lex
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 05:11 PM
Response to Original message |
|
who likes to keep it stirred up.
|
Arkansas Granny
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 05:12 PM
Response to Original message |
4. The Clintons are not responsible for this current drama. The media is driving this. |
liberalmuse
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
Fuck! Someone here who really gets it!!!
|
EFerrari
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
18. So, the Obama team leaked this? |
|
:shrug:
I have a really hard time believing that.
|
Egnever
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
MadBadger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 05:12 PM
Response to Original message |
5. This is gonna turn into a flamefest |
onehandle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 05:13 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Yeah, Obama should not be allowed to get his way! |
|
It's not about his choice, it's about Me, ME, ME!
ha ha...
|
Thrill
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 05:14 PM
Response to Original message |
7. Its Obama's fault. He shouldn't have opened this can of worms with the Clintons |
|
He has more than enough qualified people out there for SoS. There was no need to flirt with them on this.
|
knixphan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
JuniperLea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
16. How is it you know more than Obama? eom |
Thrill
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
17. Its not about knowing more than Obama |
|
Its a FACT. That there are several other people qualified for the position. And flirting with the Clintons wasn't necessary. You know when you flirt with them, there was going to be this drama or media obsession with it
|
JuniperLea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
23. If Obama picks her... |
|
Then he feels she's the best person for the job.
I'm down with that, regardless of how I feel about Clinton.
|
Thrill
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #23 |
24. I don't mind if she gets the job. My only point is |
|
when people talk about the drama involved in this. They need to keep in mind, this is on Obama. Because he had to know what would come of this if it got out she was being considered or offered the job. I just laugh at the stories about The "Obama camp getting exasperated with the Clinton camp". They opened the can of worms, you had to know this would happen. There is no need to be exasperated, when you didn't have to go in this direction in the first place.
|
JuniperLea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #24 |
25. That's been debunked though... |
|
The Obama camps says it's not so.
Besides, the Obama camp are champs at ignoring the drama... and sometimes refusing it. I like that.
|
ShortnFiery
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #25 |
39. Yeah, they are trying to tap down the resentments. Not necessarily debunked - played down. eom |
ShortnFiery
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #24 |
37. They (Obama Team) can still slam the door and give it to Bill "Judas" Richardson?!? |
|
Edited on Mon Nov-17-08 09:33 PM by ShortnFiery
I hope they do just that. :-)
*FYI: for non-political junkies, it was a Clintonite (James Carville) who called Bill Richardson "Judas" after he supported Obama and not HRC in the Primaries.
|
sufrommich
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 05:15 PM
Response to Original message |
8. Sooo, do you blame Obama? nt |
JuniperLea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 05:15 PM
Response to Original message |
9. Both the primary and the general elections are over... |
|
Obama won. He is clearing vetting Hillary for a spot on his team. Get over it.
|
Splinter Cell
(498 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
|
Obama won, the Clintons didn't.
They're not the idols of the party now. Get over it.
|
JuniperLea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
15. They'll have any roll in the Obama administration... |
|
That Obama chooses, and that Clinton accepts. I'm fine with that. A lot of people are fine with that. I don't vote for "idols" anyway. If that's your game, have fun with it...
Ploink.
|
Hellataz
(804 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 05:21 PM
Response to Original message |
13. Think of it this way... |
|
Obama is still the star, but the more positive light we can shine on Hilary, the more experience she gets and the more star power she achieves, it will be that much easier for her to succeed Obama and win the presidency in 8 years. What's good for Obama is good for her and visa versa because at it's core, they stand for the same things and keeping them both in the positive spotlight means good things for us democrats not only now but in the future.
|
jhrobbins
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
14. You just STFU with all that reasonable talk and rational thinking |
|
It has no place here in DU with many folks.
:sarcasm:
|
Hellataz
(804 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
19. LOL, sorry forgot where i was.... |
EFerrari
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
22. Did I miss what was "rational" about wanting to build up Hillary right now? |
EFerrari
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
20. And why would "we" want to shed positive light on Hillary right now? |
jhrobbins
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
26. Oh, I don't know - because she is a powerful Democrat that seems |
|
to be supportive of the president elect and apparently she has been offered the SoS position. We Democrats have got to get over eating our own-it thins the herd of good people.
|
EFerrari
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #26 |
27. Why should Hillary be a focus right now? |
|
There are three undecided Senate races. Obama is transiting into the White House. Bush is trying to steal the silverware before he leaves. I don't see any immediate problem that involves focusing on Hillary. And I'm a vegetarian.
|
jhrobbins
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #27 |
30. I'm not saying she should be a focus or not-I thought the discussion was |
|
about Obama and his choosing her as SoS. She should be whatever Obama and she determine without all this BS that has surrounded her for forever. I couldn't be happier that Obama is president, but I did support her initially. When that didn't work, I shifted my energy and my heart to Obama without reservation. Apparently though, that is beyond a lot of the people that have hated her from the beginning. For crying out loud, can't y'all be good winners? And I don't necessarily mean you, it's just where this post has taken me.
|
EFerrari
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #30 |
31. Obama wasn't my first choice by any means. |
|
I think that some of you Hillary supporters forget that a lot of us shifted our support from our candidate to the party's choice, not only you all.
|
jhrobbins
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #31 |
32. No, I don't think that - I do think that there is still quite a bit of rancor |
|
surrounding the entire 'being' of Hillary Clinton and so many people that were against her candidacy are just as vociferously against her (still) as a living human. That's just my observation.
|
EFerrari
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #32 |
34. It's not unearned. Even beyond, before and after the primaries. |
|
drama seems to stalk the Clintons. Maybe Bill more than Hillary and it just attaches to her. That's too bad.
|
jhrobbins
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #34 |
35. We are unlikely to agree on this, but how refreshing that we disagreed |
|
with one another without calling each other assholes or idiots or so many of the lovely epithets I have seen here in DU..
|
ShortnFiery
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
42. HRC will be too old in 8 years. Besides, some of us detest present day family line dynasties. eom |
Connie_Corleone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 05:44 PM
Response to Original message |
21. The media is the one stirring all this up. |
|
I really don't give a hootin' damn if Obama chooses Hillary as SOS and she accepts.
Obama knows what he's doing.
|
Jennicut
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 06:23 PM
Response to Original message |
29. Um, so Obama never asked her? This is Obama's decision. |
Orangepeel
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 07:44 PM
Response to Original message |
33. We could get it straight that Obama is making the decision and not you or I |
1Hippiechick
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 09:27 PM
Response to Original message |
36. I trust Obama. He is trying to UNITE the country, not UNTIE it! |
ShortnFiery
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #36 |
43. I trust NO politician completely. Nobody deserves blind loyalty, especially politicians. eom |
La Lioness Priyanka
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 09:36 PM
Response to Original message |
40. i always stump for people whom i want to see lose. esp in battle ground statess |
|
because that my friends is the great logic of the idiots on du
|
mtnsnake
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 09:39 PM
Response to Original message |
44. The Clintons get the attention not because they crave it, but because THEY DESERVE IT. |
|
You just need to wake up to the fact that the Clintons are a thousand times better quality than what you give them credit for, and that's your fault, not theirs. Go read a fucking book sometime or the NYT and get some basic education about them instead of getting all your info from message boards that are loaded with more mis-information than information.
|
Splinter Cell
(498 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-18-08 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #44 |
|
Edited on Tue Nov-18-08 12:39 PM by The Godfather
I know all about the Clintons and I was supporting them years ago like most of the people on DU. It's not hard to see, if you look into it, that the Clinton reality revolves around what's best for THEM, not the party or the country.
Bill Clinton did a good job as president. Hillary is a good senator. They just are not the center of attention anymore, and it eats them up. I'm tired of this shit. The Clintons will get my respect when they earn it, not just because he was better then Dubya has been. They can't stop pushing themselves on the party, and it's old. She couldn't accept that she wasn't crowned the nominee, so she stayed in the race until that last primary, even though she had fucking lost MONTHS before that. She had to have her video at the convention, even though you didn't see any of the other losing contenders for the nomination get that treatment. Anyone who endorsed someone in the party other then her was a "Judas" in the eyes of the Clinton camp.
It's time to move on. Stop giving to the Clintons just because they feel entitled to special attention. If Hillary is Obama's first choice for SOS, then by all means it's great imo. But I can't wash the feeling that it's just another move to keep them quiet.
|
jjanpundt
(284 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-17-08 09:53 PM
Response to Original message |
46. I just wish they'd go away for awhile and give us a break n/t |
OneBlueSky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-18-08 08:34 AM
Response to Original message |
48. what it's going to lead to is a polarization of the party by the media . . . |
|
it won't be long before they start talking about the "Obama faction" and the "Clinton faction" . . .
whether the characterization is correct or not is irrelevant . . . that's how it will be "reported" . . .
if real conflict doesn't exist, they'll simply make it up . . . happens all the time . . .
|
LostinVA
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-18-08 09:54 AM
Response to Original message |
49. I guess you just told Obama off, eh? |
jillan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-18-08 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #49 |
rug
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-18-08 12:54 PM
Response to Original message |
52. You left out Chelsea and Socks. |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 12:38 AM
Response to Original message |