Why Hillary Lost in 2008, and will it matter in 2016? (Just for you, Marty)

[JoeB131]

Just for you, MartyBegan

Shaking in their terror of Hillary in 2016, Republicans cling to the hope that once again, someone like Obama can stop her in the primaries because they know all their candidates are awful.

They fail to understand why Obama beat her. Seriously, I had a poster spew some Talk-Radio crap about how Democrats cared more about race than gender, like that was a real thing.

Okay, here's what derailed Hillary in 2008, and it had nothing to do with her skin tone or genitalia.

1) The Iraq Vote - By 2008, the Democratic Base was in a lather about Iraq - a war based on lies that the country had clearly rejected in 2006 and was still being fought. Hillary had voted for that war. Obama had opposed the war even when they were running war heroes like Max Cleland out of Congress for not supporting it enthusiastically enough. In short, they saw in Hillary political calculation and in Obama political principle.

In 2016, Iraq will probably not be a factor. If it is, it will be a guy like Jim Webb who can challenge Hillary on it because he has a strong military record.

2) Poor Organization - Hillary did a bad job of planning the long range campaign. Not only letting the DNC disqualify early primary states she had an edge in, but not having any organization in place after Super Tuesday. This allowed Obama to rack up delegates in the later primaries and garner "Superdelegate" support. She actually got more votes, nationally. Didn't help under the rules in place.

In 2016, she won't make that mistake again.


3) Clinton Fatigue - A lot of Democrats felt that a return to Clinton would be a return to all the Clinton scandal mongering by the GOP. Did we really want to suffer through a whole campaign talking about Vince Foster and the Mythical Mena Airport? Obama was fresh and new and shiny.

Won't be a factor next time. Given that Obama has made Republicans FAR crazier than Bill Clinton ever did, they'd probably perfer someone who will punch back.

 

[gipper]

Anyone who would vote for Mrs. BJ Bubba, is a big gov dupe.

 

[JoeB131]

Anyone who would vote for Mrs. BJ Bubba, is a big gov dupe.

Hey, the Somali travel office called. They got a great time share oppurtunity for you.

 

[Roadrunner]

Anyone who would vote for Mrs. BJ Bubba, is a big gov dupe.

Grubercrats will.

 

[Meathead]

Okay, here's what derailed Hillary in 2008, and it had nothing to do with her skin tone or genitalia.

Can we please not talk about Hillary's genitalia. Eww!

 

[Roadrunner]

Just for you, MartyBegan

Shaking in their terror of Hillary in 2016, Republicans cling to the hope that once again, someone like Obama can stop her in the primaries because they know all their candidates are awful.

They fail to understand why Obama beat her. Seriously, I had a poster spew some Talk-Radio crap about how Democrats cared more about race than gender, like that was a real thing.

Okay, here's what derailed Hillary in 2008, and it had nothing to do with her skin tone or genitalia.

1) The Iraq Vote - By 2008, the Democratic Base was in a lather about Iraq - a war based on lies that the country had clearly rejected in 2006 and was still being fought. Hillary had voted for that war. Obama had opposed the war even when they were running war heroes like Max Cleland out of Congress for not supporting it enthusiastically enough. In short, they saw in Hillary political calculation and in Obama political principle.

In 2016, Iraq will probably not be a factor. If it is, it will be a guy like Jim Webb who can challenge Hillary on it because he has a strong military record.

2) Poor Organization - Hillary did a bad job of planning the long range campaign. Not only letting the DNC disqualify early primary states she had an edge in, but not having any organization in place after Super Tuesday. This allowed Obama to rack up delegates in the later primaries and garner "Superdelegate" support. She actually got more votes, nationally. Didn't help under the rules in place.

In 2016, she won't make that mistake again.


3) Clinton Fatigue - A lot of Democrats felt that a return to Clinton would be a return to all the Clinton scandal mongering by the GOP. Did we really want to suffer through a whole campaign talking about Vince Foster and the Mythical Mena Airport? Obama was fresh and new and shiny.

Won't be a factor next time. Given that Obama has made Republicans FAR crazier than Bill Clinton ever did, they'd probably perfer someone who will punch back.

Why will Iraq not be a factor; her vote hasn't changed, and it went to Hell again on her watch?

Her book disaster, and her recent stupid comments show she is still not organized, and she can't compete intellectually with Elizabeth Warren, who will destroy her from the left. Remember how Warren pushed her into the stupid "don't let anyone tell you corporations create jobs crap".

And of course, there is no Clinton fatigue, "murca sho donna be no waz tarred ob de Clintons".

I truly hope she runs.

 

[martybegan]

Just for you, MartyBegan

Shaking in their terror of Hillary in 2016, Republicans cling to the hope that once again, someone like Obama can stop her in the primaries because they know all their candidates are awful.

They fail to understand why Obama beat her. Seriously, I had a poster spew some Talk-Radio crap about how Democrats cared more about race than gender, like that was a real thing.

Okay, here's what derailed Hillary in 2008, and it had nothing to do with her skin tone or genitalia.

1) The Iraq Vote - By 2008, the Democratic Base was in a lather about Iraq - a war based on lies that the country had clearly rejected in 2006 and was still being fought. Hillary had voted for that war. Obama had opposed the war even when they were running war heroes like Max Cleland out of Congress for not supporting it enthusiastically enough. In short, they saw in Hillary political calculation and in Obama political principle.

In 2016, Iraq will probably not be a factor. If it is, it will be a guy like Jim Webb who can challenge Hillary on it because he has a strong military record.

2) Poor Organization - Hillary did a bad job of planning the long range campaign. Not only letting the DNC disqualify early primary states she had an edge in, but not having any organization in place after Super Tuesday. This allowed Obama to rack up delegates in the later primaries and garner "Superdelegate" support. She actually got more votes, nationally. Didn't help under the rules in place.

In 2016, she won't make that mistake again.


3) Clinton Fatigue - A lot of Democrats felt that a return to Clinton would be a return to all the Clinton scandal mongering by the GOP. Did we really want to suffer through a whole campaign talking about Vince Foster and the Mythical Mena Airport? Obama was fresh and new and shiny.

Won't be a factor next time. Given that Obama has made Republicans FAR crazier than Bill Clinton ever did, they'd probably perfer someone who will punch back.

Your reasons may apply to a part of the democratic electorate, but again you make the mistake of assuming a monolithic block of voters. The fact is black(ish) trumps woman in the democratic spectrum of identity politics, and guffawing over a black(ish) president has more gravitas over guffawing over a woman president, especially a Clinton.

And you keep ignoring the very real issue of her age. Like it or not, women face more image problems as they age than men do, including from other women.

 

[Silent Warrior]

Perhaps if whoever the opposing candidate is runs commercials showing that to Hillary lying about the causes at Bengazi means nothing (“What difference, at this point, does it make?") they will stand a chance with those voters who would rather have integrity than politics as usual. A good Democratic candidate could oust her in the primary.

Or maybe they needed her in Ferguson. She could have told the crowd after the Grand Jury decision was announced,what difference, at this point, does it make?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Perhaps if whoever the opposing candidate is runs commercials showing that to Hillary lying about the causes at Bengazi means nothing (“What difference, at this point, does it make?") they will stand a chance with those voters who would rather have integrity than politics as usual. A good Democratic candidate could oust her in the primary.

Or maybe they needed her in Ferguson. She could have told the crowd after the Grand Jury decision was announced,what difference, at this point, does it make?

Oh look a new rube to play with. Hey any new updates on Benghazi buddy?

 

[Silent Warrior]

[QUOTE="Silent Warrior, post: 10280813, member: 52179"
Oh look a new rube to play with. Hey any new updates on Benghazi buddy?

Hey Buddy, if you read a little closer my post was about lying and indifference to it, not about Bengazi. The same “it just doesn't matter” attitude could be applied to any subject and still not be appropriate. The Bengazi situation just happens to have an easy to understand quote by the subject of the thread. You do understand it don't you?


Also, if you read a little closer you will see that I was talking about a Democratic opponent in the primary so your fear of Republicans needn't kick in.

 

[TheOldSchool]

[QUOTE="Silent Warrior, post: 10280813, member: 52179"
Oh look a new rube to play with. Hey any new updates on Benghazi buddy?

Hey Buddy, if you read a little closer my post was about lying and indifference to it, not about Bengazi. The same “it just doesn't matter” attitude could be applied to any subject and still not be appropriate. The Bengazi situation just happens to have an easy to understand quote by the subject of the thread. You do understand it don't you?


Also, if you read a little closer you will see that I was talking about a Democratic opponent in the primary so your fear of Republicans needn't kick in.

Sorry it's just that the "what difference does it make" thing was beaten to death around here. Oh well I guess it can always make a comeback.

 

[Conservative65]

Just for you, MartyBegan

Shaking in their terror of Hillary in 2016, Republicans cling to the hope that once again, someone like Obama can stop her in the primaries because they know all their candidates are awful.

They fail to understand why Obama beat her. Seriously, I had a poster spew some Talk-Radio crap about how Democrats cared more about race than gender, like that was a real thing.

Okay, here's what derailed Hillary in 2008, and it had nothing to do with her skin tone or genitalia.

1) The Iraq Vote - By 2008, the Democratic Base was in a lather about Iraq - a war based on lies that the country had clearly rejected in 2006 and was still being fought. Hillary had voted for that war. Obama had opposed the war even when they were running war heroes like Max Cleland out of Congress for not supporting it enthusiastically enough. In short, they saw in Hillary political calculation and in Obama political principle.

In 2016, Iraq will probably not be a factor. If it is, it will be a guy like Jim Webb who can challenge Hillary on it because he has a strong military record.

2) Poor Organization - Hillary did a bad job of planning the long range campaign. Not only letting the DNC disqualify early primary states she had an edge in, but not having any organization in place after Super Tuesday. This allowed Obama to rack up delegates in the later primaries and garner "Superdelegate" support. She actually got more votes, nationally. Didn't help under the rules in place.

In 2016, she won't make that mistake again.


3) Clinton Fatigue - A lot of Democrats felt that a return to Clinton would be a return to all the Clinton scandal mongering by the GOP. Did we really want to suffer through a whole campaign talking about Vince Foster and the Mythical Mena Airport? Obama was fresh and new and shiny.

Won't be a factor next time. Given that Obama has made Republicans FAR crazier than Bill Clinton ever did, they'd probably perfer someone who will punch back.

I know why Hillary lost. Liberals/Progressive had to pick between the darker skin color or the vagina. While the vagina may have been the frontrunner early, wanting to satisfy themselves by electing a person of color soon came to be more of an important concept. In the back of their minds, they convinced themselves that it was OK because they would eventually get to pick the vagina.

 

[JoeB131]

Why will Iraq not be a factor; her vote hasn't changed, and it went to Hell again on her watch?

Are hundreds of Americans coming home in body bags from there? No? Then it won't be a factor.

Her book disaster, and her recent stupid comments show she is still not organized, and she can't compete intellectually with Elizabeth Warren, who will destroy her from the left. Remember how Warren pushed her into the stupid "don't let anyone tell you corporations create jobs crap".

Yes, you guys really need to keep being the lapdogs of corporations, that always works so well for you.

No indication that Warren plans on running.

And of course, there is no Clinton fatigue, "murca sho donna be no waz tarred ob de Clintons".

I truly hope she runs.

It's fun to watch you wingnuts shit your pants over her candidacy.

 

[JoeB131]

I know why Hillary lost. Liberals/Progressive had to pick between the darker skin color or the vagina. While the vagina may have been the frontrunner early, wanting to satisfy themselves by electing a person of color soon came to be more of an important concept. In the back of their minds, they convinced themselves that it was OK because they would eventually get to pick the vagina.

Okay, see, this is what happens when a brain listens to too much Hate Radio.

They hear shit like the above from some drug-addled, closeted homosexual and they blurt "Right on Rush!" and "Ditto" and then repeat it like they had an original thought.

 

[JoeB131]

Perhaps if whoever the opposing candidate is runs commercials showing that to Hillary lying about the causes at Bengazi means nothing (“What difference, at this point, does it make?") they will stand a chance with those voters who would rather have integrity than politics as usual. A good Democratic candidate could oust her in the primary.

Or maybe they needed her in Ferguson. She could have told the crowd after the Grand Jury decision was announced,what difference, at this point, does it make?

Guy, your Boy Romney tried six ways to sunday to try to campaign on Ambassador Steven's corpse. It didn't work then, it won't work now.

 

[JoeB131]

Your reasons may apply to a part of the democratic electorate, but again you make the mistake of assuming a monolithic block of voters. The fact is black(ish) trumps woman in the democratic spectrum of identity politics, and guffawing over a black(ish) president has more gravitas over guffawing over a woman president, especially a Clinton.

And you keep ignoring the very real issue of her age. Like it or not, women face more image problems as they age than men do, including from other women.

I think it would be more impressive if you could show me a Democrat who only voted for Obama because he was Black-ish rather than trying to claim you know what they think.

I can claim to know what Republicans think because I was one for years until I finally figured it out, but frankly, you don't seem to engage in anymore more than cliches when trying to get into the other side's head.

 

[martybegan]

Your reasons may apply to a part of the democratic electorate, but again you make the mistake of assuming a monolithic block of voters. The fact is black(ish) trumps woman in the democratic spectrum of identity politics, and guffawing over a black(ish) president has more gravitas over guffawing over a woman president, especially a Clinton.

And you keep ignoring the very real issue of her age. Like it or not, women face more image problems as they age than men do, including from other women.

I think it would be more impressive if you could show me a Democrat who only voted for Obama because he was Black-ish rather than trying to claim you know what they think.

I can claim to know what Republicans think because I was one for years until I finally figured it out, but frankly, you don't seem to engage in anymore more than cliches when trying to get into the other side's head.

Ah the old "i wuz a republican, neener neener" bullshit. Thats farkey farkey crap.

 

[ninja007]

why Clinton lost- two words. Ted Kennedy. Do your research.

 

[JoeB131]

Ah the old "i wuz a republican, neener neener" bullshit. Thats farkey farkey crap.

You keep thinking Democrats voted on skin tone, dude.

 

[Conservative65]

I know why Hillary lost. Liberals/Progressive had to pick between the darker skin color or the vagina. While the vagina may have been the frontrunner early, wanting to satisfy themselves by electing a person of color soon came to be more of an important concept. In the back of their minds, they convinced themselves that it was OK because they would eventually get to pick the vagina.

Okay, see, this is what happens when a brain listens to too much Hate Radio.

They hear shit like the above from some drug-addled, closeted homosexual and they blurt "Right on Rush!" and "Ditto" and then repeat it like they had an original thought.

It's how people like you vote. You put the concept of having a dark skinned person above one with a vagina. Either way you voted and will vote based on something having nothing to do with the job but everything to do with making yourself feel better.