Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Not Worthy of the Title.. Not Fit to Lead..
As far as I am concerned, Hillary lost her chance to serve the people of the US and the world both as President and World Leader.
Four years ago we all needed someone to seriously challenge the Republican machinery and GWB to rescue the world from the wretched clutches of this current administration. Hillary opted out and decided to send the second best to fight the Republicans and GWB.
Her refusal to take up the mantle offered her by the peoples of the world, the American People and the Democratic party has led to billions in losses of money, assets and of course human life. The world has become far more unsettled and unstable during the last 8 years. Hillary could have come on board, challenge for the Presidency and save us this mess that we are in right now.
As far as I am concerned, Hillary did not want to compete with the GOP and GWB because she was not convinced she could win and what is more, she was looking for an easier and more direct path to the White House. She never envisaged that someone like Barack Obama would have entered the frey and be the proverbial thorn in her flesh.
Just by the many mis-steps in her campaign and the fact that she didnt expect to be campaigning beyond Feb 5th is proof enough that she never expected Obama to be truly competitive.
Her opting out of the challenge for presidency is proof enough that she is not fit for the role of President. Proof enough that she is not passionate enough about the peoples of the US, not passionate enough about her world allies, proof enough that she is not true to herself on providing the best leadership for the world. It is proof enough that while words matter, that her words are definately not genuine and hence in her case they do not matter. It is proof enough that she does not care much about ending the war in Iraq. Proof enough that she is not too concerned about finding those who did so much damage in the US on 911 and around the world. Proof enough that she is not the President the world is looking for right now.... maybe in eight years time. She would not be too old by then.
I am sorry but Hillary had her time to shine. She opted out and now... it is time to move on. Let us give someone else a chance to prove him/herself. Let us listen to someone else even if we have not yet proven him/her. Let us give ourselves a chance to redeem ourselves from this mess that we are sitting squarely in right now.
Let us welcome Barack Obama....
Comments (10)
I think she thought it would be really poor form to run as a starry-eyed first-term Senator. Could lead to disastrous results. She learned back in 1993 that Washington's not as easy as it looks to a gullible outsider. Watch the potholes.
February 21, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
If she is such a tough seasoned fighter, like she is always claiming, why is it that Senator Obama has put her arse on the canvas in each of the last eleven rounds of the fight.
Since she can not land a glove on Senator Obama, then that proves that Hillery is all Glove and no Punch.
When is "I have been snubbed" Hillary going to thank those who came out in all kinds of weather, to vote for her in the last ten state contests? To date she has not done so. How classless can she be!
February 22, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think she would have stood a chance, the RWNM was in full gear, the war was still a 51% argument and one she was on the wrong side of, the memory of the clinton scandals was too fresh, it may still be. But all in all, this was a much better time for her to run, just didn't see that freight train...
February 21, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bel, In 2000, she made a pledge to New York voters that she would serve out a full term if elected, she did.
Obama on the other hand made a pledge to serve a full term and said he would “unequivocally would serve 1 full term.”
And your entire misplaced diatribe makes you look outrageously ridiculous.
February 22, 2008 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a very good insight that never occurred to me. She could and should have run in 2004 but figured she'd be better off letting someone else get beaten by Bush, and then letting him screw things up so horribly that 2008 would be a cakewalk for her.
The best laid plans often go astray. And you're right - 2004 was too critical to the long-term well-being of the nation to sit back and do the smart thing politically - so was her politically safe approach to the Iraq War, it turns out ... a cakewalk that turned into a plank walk!
I really think Hillary's downfall is that she's been fighting the last war -- the Karl Rove divisive 50+1 swiftboat war.
February 22, 2008 5:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am an Obama supporter as well, but this posting seems biased and lacking in arguments. You basically have no proof for your claim, it's just your gut feeling that she chickened out of fear for Dubya.
If I were looking to backup your claims, I would say that I remember reading in 2004 that Bill Clinton was ambivalent towards Kerry because she wanted her to have a shot in 2008. But that was just speculation (and if you watch TV for a couple of hours, you will see that they simply can't do anything more than that).
But mcsize's idea that she was just following her promise to New York voters sounds enough of a reason to me.
February 22, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
As always, I find one thing to add after I click on Send:
Your argument is pretty symmetrical to arguments about Obama's presumed premature candidacy.
"Why does he run, he is so young and unexperienced, he should wait his round"
He runs because he wants to. It's not like he's imposing some kind of military dictatorship. If he gets the votes of the majority, he wins, if not, not.
My conclusion: this kind of meta discussion is meaningless.
The real discussion is: do the candidates have good professional background? do they have good plans? can they lead? can they win in November? can they implement (i.e. convince others to vote their plans)? can they manage crises?
February 22, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are blaming Hillary Clinton, who was in her first term in the Senate, for the fact that the Democrats put up a losing candidate in 2004? Looking at the non-stop animosity aimed at her from the media and powerful parts of the Democratic establishment, do you really think her candidacy at that time would have stood a ghost of a chance?
Is there ANYTHING Obama supporters won't blame on Clinton?
You do understand that Obama is the heir of that loser in 2004? That Kerry's organization and donor base were turned over to Obama early in 2007, along with support from losers Gephart and Daschle, making him at that point the best funded primary candidate in history long before his web fundraising operation was set up (yes, he had more money from big donors than Hillary, and more money from the outset)? You do know that his Communications Director is Robert Gibbs, the man who produced (for Kerry) the ugly Osama Bin Laden ad aimed at anti-war candidate Howard Dean in Iowa?
The members of the Democratic establishment who are behind Obama's candidacy are not "anti-war," and they are not progressives. They are centrists, in terms of economic and social policy, who are most concerned about the party's lack of appeal for middle class men and it's dependence on the working class and women, most especially, working class women, for its most recent victories at the presidential level. They are afraid of a woman at the top of the ticket.
February 22, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, Clinton was smart enough to realize she had to get some Senatorial experience under her belt, and prove that she could be effective. New York has certainly affirmed this to be true. She is now in her second term, which means they voted for her twice. The first time was a leap of faith, the second was all about her effectiveness.
Second, she did commit to NYkers to fulfill one full term, and we needed her there, not just as NYkers, but our country needed her Senatorial power.
Perhaps Obama should have thought about that before deciding to run for President with his minimal national experience. Is it possible he would be more effective changing the way government works from within the system as a Senator, and then running for president in 2016 after several years of being a wonderful public servant at the national level? Frankly, I think his decision to run began after his inspiring speech at the DNC in 2004. It got to his head. People said, "Oooh, aaahh...you're so wonnnndderful," just like they're doing now. Unfortunately, this kind of hero worship is a fad, and if he is actually elected, he will be a disappointment, way too soon in his career, and he may lose the chance to be effective for us in the future.
February 22, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
You may want to see Obama win (as I do), but this is ridiculous. HRC is a wonderful candidate and we would be lucky to have her. I'd be very proud to have her at the head of our party. Does she have faults? Sure. So does Obama. No one's perfect.
Let's remember that until quite recently she was our front-runner -- and this thing is by no means over yet.
February 22, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment