Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Senator Clinton: You lost because of Iraq, not sexism

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Fozzledick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:11 PM
Original message
Senator Clinton: You lost because of Iraq, not sexism
But sexism is not what cost Hillary Clinton this campaign: Iraq was, and what's more, she knows it -- or at least she should know, because her staff does. On February 17, 2007 she told people who disagreed with her vote on Iraq to choose from the other candidates:

“If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,” Mrs. Clinton told an audience in Dover, N.H., in a veiled reference to two rivals for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

Her decision not to apologize is regarded so seriously within her campaign that some advisers believe it will be remembered as a turning point in the race: either ultimately galvanizing voters against her (if she loses the nomination), or highlighting her resolve and her willingness to buck Democratic conventional wisdom (if she wins).

What she needed to do was admit making a mistake. Instead, she told her critics to buzz off. It was an arrogant decision, and it will go down as one of the worst in the history of Democratic nomination campaigns. It was the decision that sunk her campaign, and she owns it entirely.

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/05/senator-clint-1.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. Iraq and the arrogance not to face that fact
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
2. Obama was able to stake out his position to the left of Hillary on the War because of her vote
He opposed it, she was for it and he was able to hammer away at her anytime that issue was brought up in a debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oleladylib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. To hell he opposed it...GET IT RIGHT..he wasn't around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fozzledick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. He spoke out against it
He may not have been in the Senate to vote against it but he did take a clear stand in opposition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. It appears you are the one that has your facts wrong
Just because he wasnt in the Senate doesnt mean he isnt allowed to be opposed to the war? Are you telling me that none of us from DU opposed the war? Were our oppositions bullshit because we arent in the government? He was on record calling it a dumb war before it happened. He was running for the Democratic nomination at the time and staked a risky position. SO why dont you get your facts right...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Isn't it amazing how often folks who have it wrong tell you to GET IT RIGHT?
:eyes:

NGU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oleladylib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:21 PM
Response to Original message
3. You are taking this all TOO seriously..It'll be a blip in history.
but whatever floats the swiftboat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Tell that to a Gold Star Mother.
If you care enough, that is.

NGU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. Who in your family is in Iraq?
My cousin has done multiple tours and says it is HELL ON EARTH over there.

Hillary gave over her power to the worst president in history, for political expediency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. Wow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blonndee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #3
19. WTF...
one of my best friends has been back and forth to the desert, back to the states for a short rest, and back to hell again no less than FOUR times since 2001. He spent plenty of time in Iraq as well as Afghanistan, the latter of which might be FINISHED by now if it weren't for Bush's second invasion, which Hillary supported and has yet to apologize for.

And my friend is a lucky one, with no physical injuries. To say that this will be a "blip in history," considering the outrageously reckless and illegal nature of this war and the countless deaths and injuries because of it is the height of ignorance, arrogance, or both.

But don't you worry your beautiful mind about it, sweetie. It's all working out for the American soldiers and Iraqis quite well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ichingcarpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
20. I thought you meant to say ......" A COMMA IN HISTORY"
To quote the president you voted for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
21. Bush called it a "comma" in the history books - was that the word you were looking for?
Revolting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ichingcarpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Somebody just had a Freudian Slip
Just as I suspected since it came on board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #3
24. Using that reasoning so would Bush's presidency be...
Guess what? I'm not over that either. Nor am I over Clinton's IWR vote.

You win the asinine statement of the day award. Considering the day this has been that speaks volumes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DerekJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #3
30. I always knew there is something wrong about you. Bookmarked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Max_powers94 Donating Member (715 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #3
37. You should be baned for that comment
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #3
41. A "blip"?


You need to GO AWAY!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:22 PM
Response to Original message
5. She lost because she's a piece of shit. But she's still better than McCain. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #5
25. She's his equal..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. No, I think the human race would survive four years of Hillary, but not McCain. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #27
36. Don't be so sure..
We dodged an Orwellian dictator when Along came Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. Hillary is not a suicidal armaggeddonite like McCain. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. No, hilary is a suicidal maniac
like hilary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-26-08 07:30 AM
Response to Reply #40
44. Still better than McCain. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ErinBerin84 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
11. did anyone see Dan Abrams last week when Lisa Caputo
(former Hillary Clinton press secretary)was on talking about sexism? She also talked about Florida/Michigan, and her defense was just really embarassing to watch. I gave Dan Abrams credit for reading an email to her sent by a viewer that said something like "That's the thing with Hillary Clinton. It's never the Iraq war vote. It's never the message. It's never the strategic errors in avoiding caucus states. It's never the campaign finance mismanagement" (I don't really remember the rest actually, the only ones I remember for sure are "it's never the Iraq war vote, it's never the message", but the other ones listed were the usual suspects and there were many listed). Lisa's face looked so angry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecdab Donating Member (834 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:35 PM
Response to Original message
13. After watching a war hero that was a leader of the anti-war movement
during the Vietnam conflict get relentlessly assaulted by the media and the right wing for "flip-flopping" even after making a fairly unconditional apology for his IWR vote - I think many people didn't have the desire to make the same mistake twice - and this time with a candidate that didn't even bother to take a firm stand against the mistake of the IWR vote.

Additionally - the anti-war movement has grown quite a bit since 2004. There was and is a great desire to have a nominee that wasn't a part of creating the mess in Iraq.

If Hillary had voted against the IWR - she would have won the nomination hands down. I think Obama wouldn't have even bothered to run this time out.

The irony of this is astounding. She cast her IWR vote to protect her political career and it ended up costing her that which she wanted most in her political career. Karma - it can be a real bitch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Doing the right thing. It's delicious and good for you!
:toast:

NGU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #13
29. "If Hillary had voted against the IWR - she would have won the nomination hands down." Yup.
Edited on Sun May-25-08 03:01 PM by Peace Patriot
I agree. I have been mind-boggled by our political establishment's deafness, first to FIFTY-SIX PERCENT opposition to the Iraq War among the American people in Feb. '03, just before the invasion (NYT poll; other polls 54-55%), and even more so by the SEVENTY PERCENT opposition among the American people now. 70% is unprecedented. There has never been such a huge anti-war majority, except maybe in Russia in the mid 1910's, when Tsar Nicholas II kept up the mass slaughter of WW I (and paid with his kingdom, his life and his family's lives). If there had been polls then, they likely would have shown an even greater revulsion against the arrogance of power and its toll in blood. Even at the height of opposition to the Vietnam War, the anti-war percentage was only about 55%--in the same range as the antiwar percentage at the BEGINNING of the Iraq War. The people had "learned the lessons of Vietnam"--the leaders had, too, but they said "Fuck you" to the American people and passed the "Help America Vote Act" (same month as the IWR--Oct. '02) to defeat the anti-war majority, which they knew would only get bigger, and shove the war down our throats for another four years despite ever-increasing opposition, by fast-tracking electronic voting machines all over the country, run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, with virtually no audit/recount controls.

56% is a significant majority. It would be a landslide in a presidential election (and believe me, it was). But 70%! HOW CAN THEY IGNORE A 70% MAJORITY? How could Hillary Clinton NOT apologize for that vote--if she had any radio frequency at all tuned to the American people? Did she think she would be Diebolded into the nomination, and got tripped up by the caucuses, where this HUGE ANTI-WAR MAJORITY found some expression at last? That's a theory. Did she think her rightwing buds would take care of things, like they did for Bush? It FEELS that way, and there is some evidence to support it. I'm not sure yet what's going on with our political establishment. I think Obama's supporters are wonderful--their citizen activism is THE most essential component needed for recovering our democracy. But I'm NOT so sure about Obama himself. His speech to the anti-Castro Miami fascists the other day, on U.S. policy in Latin America, gave me serious pause. Are we looking at the President of Oil War II: South America? That speech could be used to make a compelling argument that we are--though there are some other ways to interpret it--and I'm not altogether sure yet how to read its omens and entrails.

Whatever is going on in the Byzantine labyrinth of those who rule over us (multinational corporate predators with no country and no loyalty to anyone), one thing is clear: the people oppose this war in overwhelming numbers, and Clinton supported it, time and again, in utter contempt for the people of this country and our democracy--and Barack Obama, at the very least, has better political radar, and has hugely benefited from his early anti-war position. He was the only one left standing to whom the anti-war political activists--representatives of the majority--could rally.

I do think we are witnessing--and participating in--a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party. Clinton is typical of Democratic Party leaders who sold us down the river on the war and a number of other vital issues. That's why we HAVE caucuses (which are NOT COUNTED BY DIEOBOLD & BRETHREN)--because the grass roots won the initial fight for chairman of the DNC, Howard Dean, who is democratic with a small d, and has pursued policies that encourage participation by the People. And it is more than telling that the DNC chairman who led the sell-out, Terry McAuliffe, joined Clinton's campaign (along with the putrid Mark Penn, known for trying to fiddle elections, to defeat good leftist candidates, in South America, as well as for being the paid agent of the fascist death squad government of Colombia). Their policy of shoving the war down our throats CAUSED this revolt.

The outlines of this political story are fairly clear. What is NOT clear--to me anyway--is how the global corporate predators and war profiteers who are running things may be manipulating its elements to defeat democracy here once again. Is Obama their stealth candidate, not Clinton? Clever move, if so. Is Obama the candidate of the "white hat" CIA and its allies, who have been trying to hem Bush/Cheney in, and get them to leave peacefully, when the time comes? It is infuriating that our fate may depend on events that are as opaque to us as our vote counting system. But that could well be the case. Maybe the Clinton's wouldn't join the anti-coup (too close to the Bushites). The upshot of this would be that the Bush Junta has gone too far, and they are being curtailed. OR, they have FAILED so miserably--in Iraq, in South America and other places--that they are being replaced by a far more talented crew of oil thieves and corporate servants, led by Obama (a thought that hadn't occurred to me until I recently learned that David Boren is on Obama's foreign policy team). (David Boren has deep rightwing connections, and is a major architect of the "military-industrial complex" in its current, all-powerful manifestation. However, it's hard to tell, at this point, whether he is Obama's watcher--on behalf of the bad guys--or his protector, on behalf of the good guys. You see what I mean by OPAQUE. It's difficult for we, the people, to know what the fuck is going on.)

I have seen too many unjust wars, too many compromised Democrats, and too much destruction of our democracy--including two assassinations of great Democratic leaders in my first five years as a voter--to have any illusions about who will be permitted to become President of the United States. I can cheer Obama's supporters, and cheer a return of at least minimal decency to our government (if that occurs) without being naive as to the bigger, more long term struggle to restore our democracy. It is possible that what has driven the grass roots to Obama's cause--the Iraq War--is now...how shall I put this?...irrelevant to the powers that be. Iraq will not likely ever see anything like full oil production again. It is a disaster area. And it is the Bushites' failure to secure the oil in South America that is the most important issue right now, to our global corporate predator rulers.

In his speech, in Miami--which he chose to give to an audience of rightwing coup plotters and fascists--he reiterated the old U.S. "Manifest Destiny" viewpoint that South America requires our "leadership" to guide THEIR destiny. He wants to bring aid and U.S. trade, and more of the corrupt, failed, murderous "war on drugs," and "democracy" to the huddled masses whom we have robbed, oppressed and inflicted with murderous dictatorships for decades. His speech was not only arrogant, it was delusional (the way Miami anti-Castro Cubans are delusional--dangerously delusional). He seems to have entirely missed what has actually happened in South America over the last decade--the success of the most amazing bloodless revolution that has occurred anywhere, anytime--led by the citizen activists and voters who have elected leftist (majorityist) governments in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, Nicaragua and, most recently, Paraguay. This week, the South Americans--acting in unison--formed Unasur, the foundation for their South American "Common Market" and common DEFENSE, neither of which includes the U.S.

Obama didn't even mention it! But it is his intention--if this speech is any guide--to DEFEAT it, by more clever "divide and conquer" tactics than the Bushites have been able to manage. He used every Bushite "talking point" somewhat softened, but not much. The only thing new--and this may be why he couched it as he did, with "Manifest Destiny" demagoguery--is that he said he intends to "talk to" Raul Castro. That is a bitter pill for the Miami federal welfare mafia to swallow. And it is a dangerous thing for Obama to say. I'm not saying that Obama doesn't have courage. But the truth is that U.S. global corporate predators are being aced out, in South (and increasingly in Central) America, by a peaceful, democratic revolution that has swept the continent, and to get back in there, and "divide and conquer" them, and steal their oil, and convert their land to biofuel production--and all of Exxon Mobil's and Monsanto's other lovely plans--the U.S. has to be put on a nicer face, and one good place to start is easing our insane policy toward Cuba. The Bushites have lost control of the situation in South America. And whether Obama would use the 4th Fleet in support of the fascist secessionist movements that the Bushites have set up in Bolivia and Venezuela, and the war they keep trying to start, using their client state, Colombia, is anybody's guess.

Read Obama's speech

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x4546

And then read this

"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html

What does Obama intend?

--------

DU commentary on Obama's speech and related matters:

I'd like to know what you all think about Obama's remarks today on Latin America
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=405&topic_id=4545&mesg_id=4545
Response to Obama's Miami Speech
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x4577
Background on Obama's Foreign Policy Advisor - Former Senator David Boren
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x4578
the Pentagon Moves Its Pawns: With Evo/FARC Weakened Wash. Begins Checkmate Against Chavez/Correa
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x4622
"What the FARC is Obama Talking About?"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x4620


Two other informative sites
www.venezuelanalysis.com
www.BoRev.net (hilarious AND informative)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Combative Democrat Donating Member (26 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
15. Nobody has said Hillary lost because of sexism
People have pointed out that there has been a lot of sexism.

Who claimed she lost because of this?

And I thought she lost because of racism. Make up your mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DogPoundPup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
16. N-A-F-T-A???????? also? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
17. I'm glad she didn't apologize
because since that vote was cast, nothing shows who she is inside more clearly than that.

Her latest little "gaffe"? No surprise there. It's appalling and I've joined others in being appalled--and yet next to her appalling lack of contrition on Iraq it doesn't matter one fucking bit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShadowLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
18. No, she lost from horrible planning, and a negative image built up over two decades
Clinton's planning for the primaries was horrible (ignoring caucus states, not viewing Obama as a real threat until it was too late, going all in for Iowa instead of abandoning the state where she consistently polled worse then the rest of the US).

Her negative image built up from over two decades of public service and all the attacks thrown at her, and all of her past actions, also hurt her. Even though republicans couldn't really vote most of the time, how polarizing she was and her high negatives in polls certainly made some people look elsewhere (it did for me, I wasn't comfortable with a near 50% negative rating, and I was leaning towards supporting her for a few months before Iowa voted).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fozzledick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #18
26. Those are contributing factors, but this is her tragic flaw
I believe she knew that voting for the war was the wrong thing to do legally, morally and strategically,
but her advisers warned her that the 'publicans would call her "weak" if she opposed them.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
23. Brilliant from The Jed Report...thanks, Fozzledick!
Arrogance thy name is bush-cheney and now hilary who's trying to out arrogant them.

I had forgotten about this..wow, this should be blasted from the mediawhores horns(yeah right..if they ever turned one of their own they'd have gold to mine).

The landscape must have been a wee bit different to hilary back in Feb 2007 that said to her she could get away telling those against the War On Iraq to buzz off. Course, being a military complex pimp she really doesn't have a choice, does she?

And when did she change her spiel? When she said she was going to bring the troops home and all those people who believed her? Tsk tsk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az_lefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
28. she lost because of everything but sexism...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
31. Hillary has an apology problem
No apology for the IWR and her 'apology' about the assassination comments was hardly a sincere and true apology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VotesForWomen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
32. clue: 'we voted for the war before we voted against it' is probably not a winning position for dems.
and if you think a climber like Obama wouldn't have voted yes on IWR had he been in the senate, you are naive indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
intaglio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 03:27 PM
Response to Original message
33. I disagree - she lost because of the Peter Principle
"In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence."

Hillary is ok at Senate work but the Presidential side is her level of incompetence
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. Yeah, there's that. There's a
myriad of reasons why hilary wasn't meant to be our dictator.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mainer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
34. If she'd voted against IWR, she'd be our candidate now
That's what killed her candidacy. Not her mistakes (which came later) or her lousy campaign. It was because her IWR vote allowed Obama to slip past her and gain momentum as the alternative candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #34
43. I agree.
She was disqualified for my vote because of that.
Everything else just made me dislike her PERSONALLY.

Especially that "Shame on you, Barack Obama" bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
38. No, she lost because she ran a crappy early campaign and mismanaged her resources.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 11:16 PM
Response to Original message
42. The sexism was in no way an asset
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Medusa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-26-08 08:21 AM
Response to Original message
45. She lost because she's a fake, a phony, a liar, and for a million other reasons
other than the fact she's a woman. It's insulting TO women to have her use this pathetic excuse to explain away her failures. Enough already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 12:12 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC