UPDATED: Hillary Doesn't Look So Bad Now...


Where are these coattails? Virginia gone to the (R), New Jersey gone to the (R) and now Mass. Senate picked up by another (R).

Can't blame Bush tonight can we?

Let's go back two years to help remind the readers:

NYTIMES January 25, 2008  “The sense of possibility, of a generational shift, rouses Mr. Obama’s audiences and not just through rhetorical flourishes. He shows voters that he understands how much they hunger for a break with the Bush years, for leadership and vision and true bipartisanship. We hunger for that, too. But we need more specifics to go with his amorphous promise of a new governing majority, a clearer sense of how he would govern.”

How he would govern...I have no idea...he is not standing up for anything....He is just letting Congress run his agenda.

Gitmo is still open, Health Care is going to fail, and what about Don't Ask Don't Tell....They didn't teach this on the campaign trail now did they Mr. President.

What would have Hillary would have done? We don't know...we wanted a nice speaker for President.

Oh and by the way...remember that promise to have open discussions on Health Care and deal making? All behind closed doors. Someone realized you can't make deals in front of the cameras. Hillary knew that.

Can't forget this now:

Chris Matthews, Night of the Potomac Primaries:

 “I have to tell you, you know, it's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often. No, seriously. It's a dramatic event. He speaks about America in a way that has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the feeling we have about our country. And that is an objective assessment.”


At least Hillary would know how to work the system.

Let me end with this....Just proves how good she is.

Clinton named Al-Qaeda Yemen as terror group a month ago 


Here's one thing that didn't make the recent official or press chronologies of the Obama Administration's actions towards Al Qaeda in Yemen: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton formally designated the group as a terrorist organization back on December 14.

That's 11 days before the attempt to bring down a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day--an act believed to have been organized by Al Qaeda's Yemeni affiliate, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). However, no one seems to have made Clinton's action public until last Friday, January 15, when the paperwork (see here and here) was submitted for publication in Tuesday morning's Federal Register." Josh Gerstein, Politico.com

Ah what if, what if. But we will never know. Obama is no Bill Clinton. Obama is no Leader...Obama is only a good Speaker.



Updated: And she just keeps rolling Ladies and Gentlemen. She keeps her on on the diplomatic ball and our current Speaker in Chief can't decide which agenda he wants this week:

Read on:

U.S. will not back down on Iran nuclear issue: Clinton By: Reuters | 21 Jan 2010 | 01:28 PM ET Text Size

WASHINGTON - Major powers are united in working toward pressuring Iran over its nuclear program, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Thursday, despite many signals that China is reluctant to impose more sanctions.

Senior diplomats from Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States met in New York on Saturday to discuss the possibility of placing more international sanctions on Iran.

The West suspects that Iran's nuclear program is a cover for developing atomic weapons. Iran has said the program is designed to generate electricity so that it can export more of its valuable oil and gas.

"We are unified in our resolve to work toward pressure on Iran in the face of their continuing rejection of the overtures by the international community," Clinton said at a news conference, calling Saturday's meeting a "productive step."

Earlier this month China argued in public that now was not the right time to place further sanctions on Iran and it sent only a low level official to attend Saturday's meeting while the other powers sent senior foreign ministry officials.

"Let me be clear: we will not be waited out and we will not back down," Clinton said. "Iran has a very clear choice between continued isolation and living up to its international obligations."


Tags: secretary of state, president, clinton, obama (all tags)





by you like it 2010-01-19 11:24PM | 0 recs
I thought the new site was supposed to prevent this shit

I'm on vacation. I log in to see how people are talking about the Senate loss, and this is what I find?

What is it with MyDD and PUMA trash? Why do they seek this site out?

There are 10 recs for this piece of crap excuse for a diary. And I'm supposed to believe that Martha Coakley who made every mistake Hillary Clinton made and then some somehow shows that Hillary Clinton would have been the better choice?

Take a hike, PUMA trash. You got beat and nobody will ever care or listen to you. Nobody cares.


by NoFortunateSon 2010-01-21 03:58PM | 0 recs
PUMA trash.....lol

in adult circles we are known as life long loyal democrats which out whom NO Democrat would have ever won an election.

Was the new software supposed to stop democrats from having an opinion you don't like?


Had I been in MA, I would have worked for and voted for Coakley.  Electing a schmuck like Brown would not have been my choice.  However a lot of liberal democrats are just as fed up with Obama and the congress as the independents are.  People are allowed to vote and that is what they did.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2010-01-21 08:42PM | 2 recs
clinton is a great SOS

you are just a troll.

by gravypatrol 2010-01-19 11:57PM | 1 recs
RE: Hillary Doesn't Look So Bad Now...

Coakley lost for one of the main reasons Hillary lost - overconfidence


Coakley left the country for weeks during the election instead of campaigning.

Hillary didn't plan for after Super Tuesday becasue she thought it would be over, and her people didn't even know the ins and outs of the caucus rules in various states because they didn't think it would ever get to that point.


THese people need to realize that you have to work to get elected and it is not a birthright




by jeopardy 2010-01-20 02:05AM | 1 recs
RE: Hillary Doesn't Look So Bad Now...

bullshit and bullshit.  Clinton's supporters were cheated and Coakley was not over confident.  Obama lost the MA senate seat.  Read the exit polls and wheep.  People wanted to stop that POS healthcare plan and were furious about the special deals being handed out for votes from Blue dog senators.  When they forced Coakley to say she would vote for it and told people she was the 60th vote on that crappy legislation, people said "oops, nevermind, we don't want it".

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2010-01-21 08:38PM | 1 recs

HCR would be right were it is today, VA and NJ would have gone Republican, and NY-23 would have gone Republican.  Oh, and Scot Brown would have won MA-Sen.

by Khun David 2010-01-20 02:29AM | 0 recs

political obituary was written the day she chose to leave the Senate.

She's done with electoral politics. She has said so on at least two occasions. I doubt anyone will challenge the President in 2012 so you'd be better off devoting your energies to other more realistic pursuits.

Clinton will serve out this term as SoS and then likely retire in 2013 whether Obama wins re-election or not.

by Charles Lemos 2010-01-20 04:23AM | 3 recs
RE: Clinton's

Someone will challenge Obama - and at least one of those people will be a Republican who might well be our next POTUS - thanks to Mr. Obama.

by Shazone 2010-01-20 11:00AM | 1 recs
RE: Clinton's

Bill Clinton could have used your advice after the 1994 midterms.  So could Reagan in 1982.

by FUJA 2010-01-20 12:23PM | 0 recs
RE: Clinton's

PUMA's don't know how to handle the truth.

by psychodrew 2010-01-20 02:13PM | 1 recs
Please tell me what

Congressional negotiating strategy would have produced a different result.  Bonus points if you could tell me how Joe could be leveraged when he IGNORED A PRIMARY and how Conservadems would have voted for a healthcare bill that could have been called (regardless of its merits) "Hillarycare II"

by AZphilosopher 2010-01-20 04:40AM | 0 recs
RE: Please tell me what

Easy.  Instead of caving and showing that if they hold out, they can get what they want simply because you want to pass something at any cost, and demonstrating that you will give away what you think is too much of a fight, you take the fight to them.  Pit them as "against giving American's healthcare."  When polled, people want portability.  People want health-care.  People want less bureaucracy.  People want good decent options.

Paint those who are against it as against what's better for the people.  Those that say it's too expensive, then say the war is too expensive but it's a necessary expense to make sure America is secure. American's healthy and strong and ready to work to make America better and stronger and once again a leader on the world scene who is trusted and looked toward is the goal and you do it with healthy Americans.  Those that vote against it are against making America better.

It's essentially a with  us or against us threat.  And make them defend it.


Thanks for the bonus points.

by TxDem08 2010-01-20 12:00PM | 1 recs
RE: Please tell me what

yes, i agree with all of that.


then add in some other things like telling Joe that you'll fight to keep him from getting his most charished pork projects, etc.


and then you can still use some carrots, but you won't have to give nearly as much.


and of course, you could just use reconciliation and bypass Liarman altogether.


by jeopardy 2010-01-20 01:30PM | 1 recs
RE: Please tell me what

Ahhh you see  people want all that - they also don't want to pay for it. They - the moderate/independents/swings - especially don't want to pay for it if it goes to benefit folk like minorities, the poor or unions.

Liarman was fairly popular in the polls while he was oppossing the plan. His support only collapsed when he signed onto the bill he had so effectively watered down.

by vecky 2010-01-20 08:50PM | 0 recs
Oh jeez...

Somebody let the PUMA's out of Alegre's Insane Asylum...

by psychodrew 2010-01-20 09:55AM | 1 recs
RE: Oh jeez...

Ha!  And this from someone who calls him/herself "psycho".

by Shazone 2010-01-20 11:01AM | 1 recs
RE: Oh jeez...

I'm a psychologist.  I can make this judgment.

by psychodrew 2010-01-20 02:01PM | 1 recs
Hmmmm, I've got my PhD in psychology....
so I guess it's a draw!
by Shazone 2010-01-20 06:33PM | 1 recs
Alegre? Is that you?


Come out come out, wherever you are!  Your precious PUMAS are getting hammered again!

by ReillyDiefenbach 2010-01-22 03:07PM | 0 recs
If Hillary runs

in 2012, I'd vote for her. I think Obama (and the Dems) have made several big mistakes biggest being they are not concentrating on new jobs and that the stimulus plan helped banks rather than people and small businesses. The transperency that O spoke of doesn't exist (that I can see) and there is a lack of leadership on the HC issue. I am NOT for either HC bill (house or senate) in it's current form  - mainly because BOTH bills further restrict a woman's access to abortion and are anti-choice. How in hell can a Barbara Boxer who has stood solidly for (ever) years for a woman's right to choose support either of these bills?

Those of us that supported Hillary saw in O a lack of experience and therefore leadership. Talking the talk is not walking the walk. While we will never know what would have been had Hillary be Prez; we do know that the opporutnity to keep dems in power could be seriously jeapordized if O's poll numbers continue to slide.

Meanwhile the latest polls clearly show that Hillary has a very high job approval rating (77%) which includes Dems, Ind and Rep (so who's polarizing?). This is actually good news for the Dems if they choose to wake up in time for 2012 should O's poll numbers continue to slide in the wrong direction.

At this point - the best option would be for O to do as Arianna Huffington advises and make a "course correction" - but imo, this would be to make the base happier, not the right. Afterall - 22% of Dems voted for Brown in MA and there are only 12% Rep registered to vote in the state!! This would indicate that Dems are equally angry with O's leadership and the Dem congress.


by nikkid 2010-01-20 10:27AM | 4 recs
RE: If Hillary runs

to make a course correction you have to have a course.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2010-01-21 08:49PM | 1 recs
Obama is a good reader.

Hillary was - and still is - a great speaker.  Did you notice she never has to use notes...because she knows her topics.  Mr. Obama can't even follow his beloved teleprompter.



by Shazone 2010-01-20 10:59AM | 1 recs
RE: Obama is a good reader.


Coulter at MyDD?

by Strummerson 2010-01-20 05:26PM | 2 recs
Points Awarded

for coming up with the dumbest post Coakley diary I have read today.

by jsfox 2010-01-20 11:07AM | 1 recs
So, about that whitey tape....

Any sign of it?

by JJE 2010-01-20 11:19AM | 3 recs
by TxDem08 2010-01-20 11:53AM | 0 recs
RE: Hillary Doesn't Look So Bad Now...

While I supported Clinton in the 2008 election and believed she was the better leader, Obama is our President. We would never know what a Clinton presidency or McCain presidency might have been. People can claim that Clinton would have been in the same position, McCain would have make things worst, but frankly, we do not know the decisions these leaders would have made.

Personally, I feel the last year was wasted. What have Obama and Congress actually done for the country? There is not a single signature issue passed last year. Jobs should have been number 1, pass the things Democrats and Republicans agree on on Health Care. Work on the core of the legislation at a later date.

As a side note, I'm sick and tired of people calling others troll for simply stating a valid opinion. It's not like the OP is chanting "death to America" and pledging support for Al Qaeda. Enough already.

by RJEvans 2010-01-20 03:46PM | 2 recs
RE: Hillary Doesn't Look So Bad Now...

They really haven't done much hence some of the anger from Mass. A lot of the problem is that Obama isn't a leader. He is a mediator.

by Ga6thDem 2010-01-20 04:50PM | 2 recs
A little data

"Personally, I feel the last year was wasted. What have Obama and Congress actually done for the country?"

There is much to be dissatisfied with.  But come on.  Check this: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

According to their tracking, out of 500 campaign promises they rate no fewer than 91 kept and 275 in the works as opposed to 15 broken and 87 stalled.  Not bad for the first year.  Of course, this frame privileges quantity over quality.  Nonetheless, a little perspective would do more for galvanizing the left flank than this despair and hysteria.

by Strummerson 2010-01-20 05:31PM | 1 recs
RE: A little data
Give me a break here. Among that list is make a speech in a Muslim country. Try running on that. Name me one signature issue that Democrats can run on and win. There is not one. Among the three biggest issues, the economy, health care and national security, there is not a single legislation or event you can point to and claim Democrats are better for the country. Don't get me wrong, I'm voting Democrat in 2010 and I very much support my President, but as I said 2009 was wasted. If Bush could get a $1 trillion tax cut passed with 51 Republicans, it says a lot that Democrats cannot get Health Care reform with 60 Democrats.
by RJEvans 2010-01-20 05:41PM | 1 recs
RE: A little data

I agree to a point.  I think expectations have/were set a little too high, but that is what the campaign and the administration were doing, and they have not lived up to their own hype.  But I do honestly think they thought they would be able to do more than they have.


Now, as far as his promises go...out of the 500...the numbers listed by politifact 91+275+15+87...  =/= 500.  Where are the extra?  Did they just stop counting?  And out of 500...he's only kept 91?! That's not even 20%!


That is not gonna galvanize the left...it may infurate them or even deflate them.  Encourage????  Not.

by TxDem08 2010-01-20 05:57PM | 0 recs
RE: A little data

Be a grown-up and check the link.  There are other categories.  And a presidential administration is for 4 years.  Within 1 year they have fulfilled nearly 20% and made headway on another 55%.  Again, we need to keep in mind that this calculus privileges quantity over quality.  I am displeased with this administration on a number of critical issues.  But an effective left flank wouldn't disregard positives and collapse into dispair.  What is going on here, and over at kos does no credit to progressives.  Most of it is PUMA triumphalism creeping out of the dark corners into the light.  Schadenfreude and lack of any long-term perspective by people who claim to have "their" PhD in serious academic disciplines make us seem as cretinous as teathuggers whose heads are 80% bone and hearts filled with bile.

by Strummerson 2010-01-20 11:37PM | 1 recs
RE: A little data

Yeah, there are other categories..2 other...compromise and not yet rated.  The knee-jerk to those shining the light on the broken wheel are not nay-sayers, but harbingers of the dangers at believing your own hype.  What's going on over at kos is significantly different from here, and it does have a purpose as misguided and as hateful as it may be.

Schadenfreude is best employed and enjoyed by those who claim to have "their" PhD in serious disciplines, simply for the fact that they may indeed be able to enjoy the nuance even more, than the average bear...or tea thugger, which ever over-simplistic peel and stick label you wish to use.

The left flank of the progressive movement is only demanding their payment for their pound of flesh, and when the butcher's bill is due, no one can escape paying their tab.  Not even the enlightened one's.

by TxDem08 2010-01-21 01:55AM | 0 recs
RE: A little data

Let's leave "pounds of flesh" out of this.  It's offensive.

I see know nuance in Shazone.  Not enough to suggest a qualified psychologist, PhD or not.

And I ain't hyping anyone or anything.  I'm just saying we should press our demands firmly but with a bit of perspective and without the mouth-froth that produces petty infighting.

And I don't think that a tea-thugging attitude or mode of engagement is representative of anything "average."  You seem to have bought their self-authorizing populist rhetoric.  I give "average" Americans more credit than that.  Tea-thugs and PUMAs display a very particular kind of deranged political delusion of their own granduer. Obama has underachieved in some significant ways.  But he's not, so far, a wholesale incompetent.  So I suggest we stop this dime-store apocalyptic and pull together to press him on what we see needs to happen.

by Strummerson 2010-01-21 09:10AM | 1 recs
RE: A little data

A little sensitive I see.

Let me clarify before going any further, I was not implying that you were hyping anything, and agree that the frothing is just a distraction.

However, you seem to attempt to display a reasoned and dispassionate position, yet retort with the same peel-and-stick labels just as quickly as those whom you're deriding.  Just an observation.  And you seem to have had no problem buying into that rhetoric whatsoever.

Do I think Obama is an incompetent?  Far from it.  But attempting to insinuate that he has barely underachieved is pure obfuscation.  And while you're "pulling together to press him" is viewed in one form, others view they're tactics as "pressing him" in their own way.  There is no set one perfect way to move someone who doesn't want to move or can not move.  Just because someone uses a MLK approach, doesn't mean that others can't use a Malcom X approach in concert to achieve the same goals.

Think about it.

by TxDem08 2010-01-21 11:46AM | 1 recs
RE: A little data

I'm not so senstive that I need to twist what anyone else is writing here in order to feel superior.  "Hype" is as much a "peel-and-stick" label as PUMA or Tea-thug.  Indeed, accusing someone of "peel-and-stick" seems a neat way to "peel-and-stick" something to someone. PUMAs and Teathugs are real, in case you haven't noticed.  They display certain tendencies I see echoed here.  Comparing some of the attitudes expressed here to those forms of political expression seems perfectly valid to me.  Labeling that a "peel-and-stick" move seems pretty cheap and not a little hypocritical.  It's certainly not substantive.  "Just an observation."  I am not sure whence your resistance to their descriptive value.

Resorting to an accusation that I am "attempting to insinuate that [Obama] has barely underachieved" represents "pure obfuscation" is nothing less than...well...pure obfuscation, given that what I wrote here quite clearly and explicitly is that he "has underachieved in some significant ways."  So you switch out "significant" for "barely" as if they were synonymous and accuse me of obfuscating?  Nice move.  It makes almost as little sense as your "peel-and-stick" designations of these modes as either Malcolm or MLK.  I don't buy either analogy.  They certainly don't resonate as self-evident. 

"Think about it."


by Strummerson 2010-01-21 12:01PM | 2 recs
RE: A little data


Not so sensitive...sure...sure.  You go ahead and believe what you're posting if it makes you feel better.  You have to live with yourself "by any means necessary" and do what you have to do.

Asked and answered.

by TxDem08 2010-01-21 11:54PM | 0 recs
RE: A little data


What an asshole.

by Strummerson 2010-01-22 08:51AM | 0 recs
RE: A little data

Peel and stick.  Can't expect more from something that's not there. No surprise, no revelation.

And that's Mr. Asshole to you.

Tested and fail. Next.

by TxDem08 2010-01-22 03:39PM | 0 recs
RE: A little data


by Strummerson 2010-01-22 04:09PM | 0 recs
RE: A little data

Ceteris Paribus

by TxDem08 2010-01-23 01:52AM | 0 recs
Whose More Transformative Clinton or Obama?

I remember a couple of years ago when Obama sneered that Reagan was a transformative president and Clinton was not. After one year, Obama's biggest legislative achievement was a modest budget stimilus bill which will expire at the end of the year. His next biggest acts were the bailouts which were passed by the Bush administration. His most lasting biggest achievements were getting tobacco classified as a drug, and violence against gays as hate crimes. Those two new laws were nice pieces of legislation, but hardly transformative. In contrast, in one year, Clinton had passed America Corp, the Family Leave Medical Act, legislation that ended the ban on federal workers to attend political caucuses, The Violence Against Women Act, and whether you like it or not NAFTA.

The problem with Obama is his kumbya politics. It demonstrates that he does not understand the conservative mind. Conservatives look at kumbya politics as a sign of weakness. Democrats in Congress are at fault, too for not using tit for tat strategies against the Republicans. As long as their obstructionist tactics keep rewarding Republicans with great electorial victories, Democrats will never be successful in passing progressive legislation. They've got to show to Republicans what goes around comes around. I believe that Hilary Clinton would have been more willing to do that.

by Zzyzzy 2010-01-20 07:05PM | 3 recs
RE: Whose More Transformative Clinton or Obama?
Neither were transformative. Clinton caved too much to the Republican Congress and Obama is doing the same thing. To be transformative, you must fight the enemy like Reagan, LBJ, and FDR did. Obama has been a wasted President who will go down in history as a huge failure.
by Kent 2010-01-20 10:34PM | 1 recs

going to go down in history as a huge failure

by ND22 2010-01-21 08:25AM | 0 recs
RE: You're
With all due deferance to the SOS who is doing a great job for Obama, Martha Cockley was a less funded Hillary with none of her good qualities and political instincts. The same folks who pushed Hillary in 08 ran Cockley's campaign. They were just as arrogant and unable to read reality. Let us please run, run, run away from any candidate that EMILY LIST endorses! There is a silver lining. It is apparent that the Republicans are already acting as arrogantly as the Dems. Secondly, I think it will soon be apparent that Scott Brown -- while an affable, handsome fellow -- is really, really dumb. So stop pointing fingers!! We have work to do.
by NYWoman 2010-01-21 09:53AM | 2 recs
RE: You're

That's crap.  Her campaign was run by pollsters and people who gave to the RNC back in '05/'06(Dennis Newman).  They weren't the same people who ran Hillary's campaign.

They were arrogant and self-assured.  Bouyed by the DEM party head's namely Kaine who shunned Dean and basically took a vacation since becoming DNC Chair.

by TxDem08 2010-01-21 12:01PM | 1 recs
RE: You're

Obama and Rahm also took their eye off the ball here.  Inexcusably.  They should have picked up the phone 3 weeks ago and screamed at Coakley to get out there and fight for this.

Ballgames aren't won with line-up cards and elections aren't won by polls a month before the booths open.

by Strummerson 2010-01-21 12:44PM | 0 recs
RE: You're

Agree 100%.  They bought into their own hype.  Just like the National Dem party as well as the local Dem's who thought that dusting off the "ride to the polls" would be sufficient to overcome the gaffes and inaction of the Coakley campaign.

They could have ended Brown's campaign at least 8 weeks out, but they all believed that had it locked.

"Don't believe the hype"...should be playing on Obama's ipod on repeat right about now.

by TxDem08 2010-01-21 11:57PM | 0 recs
I just got back from a week in Haiti.

and what do I find upon my return?


Tragedy upon tragedy.

by QTG 2010-01-21 10:31AM | 0 recs
RE: I just got back from a week in Haiti.
God forbid we don't focus on Haiti....and who do they send in? The Clintons....enough said.
by mtg44234 2010-01-21 02:14PM | 1 recs
and George W. Bush

don't forget George W. Bush


by ND22 2010-01-21 06:36PM | 0 recs
RE: and George W. Bush

Only metaphorically.  Both Clintons have been to Haiti.  Bush has not.  Can't imagine that he will go, at least for some time.

by aggieric 2010-01-21 07:08PM | 0 recs
One of them
is the freakin chief diplomat of the country.
by ND22 2010-01-21 08:08PM | 0 recs
I suspect she looks about the same as Obama

Except, as in the primary, she would have lost the general, and we'd be looking at President McCain and VP Failin.


No thanks.

by lojasmo 2010-01-21 10:33AM | 0 recs
RE: I suspect she looks about the same as Obama

Nope. Not according to the exit polls. She would have done better than Obama winning with a double digit margin. Obama polled poorly until the financial meltdown. The party could have run a mule and it would have beated McCain in '08.

by Ga6thDem 2010-01-21 12:53PM | 1 recs
You're revising history

Obama was polling well before the Democratic convention and received a big boost immediately afterwards.  McCain received a big boost immediately after the Republican primary and his selection of the 'maverick' yet before she was set loose before the media.  Once McCain was seen in campaign mode, and Palin was seen to be the wacko she proved to be, and people realized that if he could chose this incompetent person, what other poor choices he would make, his campaign was in freefall.

The financial meltdown and McCain's incompetent decisions in the aftermath, along with Obama's steadfasteness, only sealed the deal.

by Khun David 2010-01-22 09:40AM | 0 recs
RE: You're revising history

You are not remembering correctly unless you consider tied in the polls with McCain polling well.


It's all a moot point now though. One year and Obama's a lame duck.

by Ga6thDem 2010-01-23 06:52AM | 0 recs
RE: I suspect she looks about the same as Obama

Yeah ok, and you probably watch Fox News. What a generalization. Need some facts here.

by mtg44234 2010-01-21 02:15PM | 1 recs
RE: I suspect she looks about the same as Obama
Thank you for the gross insult. Aren't we mature? Cockley's MASS team was largely made up of the folks (mainly prominent Mass women) who backed yhe SOS in the presidential primary. They made no secret of the fact that they were "owed" a eoman candidate. There is nothing wrong about that. It is just they they all went to sleep for most of December and January. Please do some research before you opine on something you do not know anything about.
by NYWoman 2010-01-21 02:23PM | 0 recs
RE: I suspect she looks about the same as Obama

You keep pushing that meme, but it's just not true.  Her campaing manager and strategist were pollsters out of CA and one of them was donating to the RNC as late as '05/'06.  I mean seriously...who doesn't catch that?!

by TxDem08 2010-01-22 12:00AM | 0 recs
I thought the new site was supposed to prevent this shit

I'm on vacation. I log in to see how people are talking about the Senate loss, and this is what I find?

What is it with MyDD and PUMA trash? Why do they seek this site out?

There are 10 recs for this piece of crap excuse for a diary. And I'm supposed to believe that Martha Coakley who made every mistake Hillary Clinton made and then some somehow shows that Hillary Clinton would have been the better choice?

Take a hike, PUMA trash. You got beat and nobody will ever care or listen to you. Nobody cares.


by NoFortunateSon 2010-01-21 03:56PM | 0 recs
RE: I thought the new site was supposed to prevent this shit

It's much worse and more widepread. Obama didn't embrace the hatred of the bankers today, and our leadership counts that as an epic fail. The Supreme Court's decision today means nothing really. We are doing fine all by ourselves. Corporate pile on will be icing on the cake that "Liberals" are making. It's really sad that what distinguishes this place from RS is that I haven't been banned here.


by QTG 2010-01-21 07:23PM | 0 recs
The circular firing squad

When Republicans lose, they regroup and fight harder (see: Scott Brown)

When progressives lose, we give up. We are truly a pathetic bunch.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-01-21 07:39PM | 0 recs
RE: The circular firing squad

Yes indeed.  And the leadership starts at the top...now where's my Kumbaya hymnal. LOL...

by TxDem08 2010-01-22 12:04AM | 0 recs
Past and present

During the tsunami there was a small group of folks who followed the animals and headed for the hills because they saw impending danger. Not one of them perished.

There were several fishermen who stayed in the middle of the ocean and rode out the storm; they were also spared.

Finger pointing is an easy art. Doing something effective is not. If Democrats refuse to do as their constituents ask, and pass a decent healthcare law, curb the greed on Wall Street, or at least allow them to waste their own money, and actually govern, the States will not only run red in the mid-terms, but it will be a tsumani.

Regardless of whose fault it is or isn't, something went terribly wrong. Learn from it!

by LadyEagle 2010-01-21 09:04PM | 1 recs

Hillary would have had the same problems, except the right would have been able fit negative frames to her more quickly, since they've been working on them now for eighteen years.

She and Bill already tried healthcare once and got their ass kicked--and they were responsible in no small measure for the bank deregulation.

They're both corporitists just like Obama, so how would it have been any different?

AND, in spite of all that, Hillary's probably the best hope for 2016, when she'll only be 68.

by Hoomai29 2010-01-22 01:17AM | 1 recs
Wait a minute!!!

There is no need for the Hillary vs Obama fight (again). The likelihood of Hillary actually quitting her job and then running against a sitting President who for all his lack of leadership qualities still has about a 50% approval rating - it just isn't gonna happen. She's already proven that she's a loyal democrat and she quit the Senate to work for Obama. Her quitting and then running against him would simply cause the Repugs to win and she knows that. So unless Obama wants to leave office and asks her to run, it simply isn't gonna happen.

IMO, Hillary would have been a much better President because she is a Leader and by that I mean is not afraid to fight (with passion) and take a stand even if it's unpopular on issues. I think her time in the Senate and on the committees she was on taught her to negotiate and her loss on HCR round 1 also taught her this. Furthermore, I think she knew enough (based on primary interviews and her statements about the mortgage crisis) to start off on the economy (mortgage crisis/jobs/"it's the ECONOMY STUPID") and she spoke about an energy policy that would create jobs ~ so my guess is that is how her 1st year would have gone. It's unlikely she would have even tackled HCR until further along, but we will never really know.

Unlike many in these comments I do not believe her political career is over ~ she happens to be younger than a whole gaggle of politicans from Biden, Pelosi, Boxer, Reid, etc. But if the way America is now that we seem to go from flavor of the month to flavor of the month (I include Obama as a "flavor" to Palin to now Brown) then there will be another "flavor" that America goes "gaga" over, just like O.  But at some point, when nothing gets done, we'll wake up and realize that experience and knowledge of how Washington works may actually be an advantage - not a detriment and that rather than "Change" brought on by an "outsider" that doesn't have the wherewithall to bring it about may be better by a progressive insider who's been around the block a few times, taken a few knocks here and there and has proven HERself as a leader. HER purposely capitalized because there reaches a point where Women will want to have their voices heard and have their turn at history (herstory).


by nikkid 2010-01-22 02:26AM | 1 recs
With regard to the update

regarding Clinton's steadfastness regarding Iran...

Does anyone really think that she is a rogue secretary of state, and would be conducting foreign policy that is not approved, endorsed and directed by her boss, the President of the United States of America?

by Khun David 2010-01-22 09:50AM | 0 recs
RE: With regard to the update

of course not. But does anyone really believe O is directing it? I don't. I think she is and she's saying "here's what I want to do, OK?" He has too many other problems and she is clearly not one of them.

by nikkid 2010-01-22 10:16AM | 1 recs
She not one of them?

So you do think that she is a rogue secretary of state.

by Khun David 2010-01-22 08:52PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads