Why is the Dem Party so AFRAID of John McCain that they TRASH Bill and Hillary?

[KoKo]

I see Move On.org and Ted Kennedy and legacy Caroline...and so many Liberal "Old Guard" so afraid of Hillary/Bill Redux that they are in spasms over the possiblity of Hillary/Bill getting back in the White House! WHY?

Why is the Dem Establishment of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi SO AFRAID of Hillary/Bill? Given the track record or our Dems since we've worked our butts off here on the "Liberal Grassroots" of the Internet since Selection 2000 and BEFORE!

Isn't this the SAME DEM PARTY who didn't stand up for Al Gore when the Bush Bot Repugs were down there in Florida stamping their feet and calling for an END TO RECOUNT? Isn't this the same Dem Party who refused to defend Bill and Hillary agains the Vince Foster Fake Stories and the Whitewater Fiasco by Ken Starr that cost us Taxpays over a Million in Money in Investigation?

Isn't this the same Dem Party who allowed Jimmy Carter to be TRASHED with "Day 1..............0000" of Iranian Hostage Crisis that blared out on ABC's Ted Koppel "Nightline" EVERY NIGHT?

Now SOME in the Dem Party are trashing Hillary ...putting out crap like this from David Lindorff cautioning us to not vote for Hillary because......"be afraid...be very afraid......"

Here's an example of the latest Bill and Hillary FEAR...

-------------


I'm Going to Make a Prediction Here: Hillary's Toast
Thu, 02/07/2008 - 20:11 — David Lindorff


For two years now, I have been telling people who insisted that Hillary Clinton would be the next Democratic candidate for president that they were wrong. I even put it in writing a few times.

Now I'm going to really put it out there: Hillary Clinton is Toast. She is not going to be the Democratic nominee.

The reason I always figured she wouldn't make it across the primary finish line was that she was too calculatingly conservative for primary voters.
-snip-

For years, it has been the case that Democratic primary voters have been more liberal than the broader spectrum of registered Democratic voters. That is because progressive voters have generally been better educated and also more motivated to try to have an impact on the decisions of "their" party than other voters who just mechanically, or out of habit, checked the Democratic box when they registered to vote. Then you have to add to the mix the reality that independents, who vote in the primaries of many of the 50 states, are often, contrary to conventional wisdom, way more "liberal," or better, anti-Establishment, on many issues than are Democrats.

Clinton, meanwhile, is the quintessential Establishment candidate. She has honed her resume, she has cautiously calculated the impact of every critical vote in the Senate. Even as Mr. Bill's unofficial adviser, she played the role of making sure that White House decisions hewed to the center-right, as for example when she pressed him to defund welfare, or to gut habeas rights for death penalty prisoners. Her craven support in the Senate more recently for a flag-burning law, and her vote in support of the mortally dangerous Kyle-Lieberman bill last year (which would, if passed in its original form, have declared Iran's main armed force, the Revolutionary Guard, to be a "global terrorist organization," thus giving President Bush all the authorization he thinks he needs to attack that country), epitomize her politics.

-snip-

Moreover, while it does sometimes appear that the Democratic Party has a death wish, I've never subscribed to that theory. I think that party leaders to want do win the White House and to keep control of Congress, not because they want to reform the system, but because they want all the perks, patronage and payola that go to the winner. And I think they all are acutely aware that Hillary cannot win in November against a candidate like John McCain. Indeed, she probably could not win against any of the main Republican hopefuls for president.

My guess is that they'll watch what happens over the next month, and if Barack Obama doesn't keep advancing in the polls and the delegate count, they'll do something to sink her candidacy, which we'll see happen when the so-called Super Delegates--the party "ins" and big-wigs--jump to Obama. The talk at the Democratic National Committee about holding caucuses in Michigan and Florida (the two states that held early primaries against party rules and had their delegations ruled unseatable at the Convention), instead of letting them ultimately be seated, is a direct indication that the Party doesn't want the contest going to Clinton. Clinton won both those primaries, which were held before the Obama surge really got going. If the delegations as voted in the primaries were allowed to be seated at the convention, Clinton would be


My guess is that they'll watch what happens over the next month, and if Barack Obama doesn't keep advancing in the polls and the delegate count, they'll do something to sink her candidacy, which we'll see happen when the so-called Super Delegates--the party "ins" and big-wigs--jump to Obama. The talk at the Democratic National Committee about holding caucuses in Michigan and Florida (the two states that held early primaries against party rules and had their delegations ruled unseatable at the Convention), instead of letting them ultimately be seated, is a direct indication that the Party doesn't want the contest going to Clinton. Clinton won both those primaries, which were held before the Obama surge really got going. If the delegations as voted in the primaries were allowed to be seated at the convention, Clinton would be way out front right now.

I predict they won't be. Those delegates will be reallocated at caucuses at which Obama's people will be dominant.

So for my money, it looks like Obama v. McCain in November.

And a good thing that is, because Clinton v. McCain would have resulted in President McCain.

Obama's "change" rhetoric may be ludicrously empty, but it sounds more real coming from his mouth than from his imitators, including Clinton, and that's enough to bring primary voters, who sure enough do want change, over to his column.

You read it here.


http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/?q=node/104

[Captain Hilts]

1. McCain will look like an unhealthy OLD crank on a stage with either HRC or BO. nt

[KoKo]

2. He's a disaster...yet we see so much of "Hillary" will be trashed because RW

will go after her...and John McCain will be elected. We HAVE to go with OBAMA because the RW will go after Clintons and John McCain will be elected.

Has anyone not realized that the RW Swiftboaters and Ken Starr Groupies will GO AFTER ANY DEM? Why push it off to the Clintons when as Hillary says: "I've been vetted." ?????

[bellasgrams]

7. No, we don't have to go for BO. Hillary will win. Everyone I

talk to thinks McCain is to old plus he's a war monger.

[Captain Hilts]

8. They've already thrown all their mud at her. In a debate, many folks will see she has no horns...

unlike on that Time Magazine cover...

[Qutzupalotl]

3. and by himself!!

But you're right.

[Straight Shooter]

4. Good point.

Maybe it's because some people in the Dem party just enjoy kicking Bill and Hillary around. It lets them express their inner bully.

[Qutzupalotl]

5. I thought Reid was supporting Hillary?

Didn't he schedule the K/L vote while BO was out of town, after promising not to? Of course, I read that on DU, so WTF do I know.

[KoKo]

6. His son works for Hillary ...but Reid is such a disaster maybe his son is a "wild seed?"

:shrug: