PDA

View Full Version : Opinion: Clinton years hurt Democrats


Regis Philbin
Apr 21st, 2008, 07:52 PM
Prediction: The Democrats will find a way to lose this "can't lose" election... :] :funny: :hat:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/19/opinion/19herbert.html?_r=1&em&ex=1208750400&en=13b2fa2cf7483a4f&ei=5087&oref=slogin

Road Map to Defeat

By BOB HERBERT
Published: April 19, 2008

The Democrats are doing everything they can to blow this presidential election. This is a skill that comes naturally to the party. There is no such thing as a can’t-miss year for the Democrats. They are truly gifted at finding ways to lose.

Jimmy Carter managed to win the White House in 1976 by looking pious and riding a wave of anti-Watergate revulsion. After four hapless years, he dutifully handed the keys back to the G.O.P.

Bill Clinton tried hard to lose, with sex scandals and whatnot, during the 1992 campaign. But Ross Perot wouldn’t let him. Mr. Clinton won with a piddling 43 percent of the vote. For eight years, Mr. Clinton tried to throw the presidency away (with sex scandals and whatnot), but he was never able to succeed.

That’s been it for the party for the past 40 years. The Democrats have become so psychologically battered by these many decades in the leadership wilderness that they consider the Clinton years, during which the president was impeached and they lost control of both houses of Congress, to have been a period of triumph.

Now comes 2008, a can’t-lose year if there ever was one. A united Democratic Party should be able to win this election in a walk. The economy is terrible and getting worse. The Republicans are demoralized. John McCain is no J.F.K. And the country wants to elect a Democrat.

JoviFan
Apr 22nd, 2008, 06:02 AM
sex scandals haha i can name a lot of Rep. who were having affairs the same time Clinton was what a joke.

Annoyedlistner
Apr 22nd, 2008, 06:11 AM
sex scandals haha i can name a lot of Rep. who were having affairs the same time Clinton was what a joke.

There also have been rumors for years that George H. W. Bush had a mistress as well.

DoubleEdgeSword
Apr 22nd, 2008, 06:23 AM
Unless Sen. Clinton wins by HUGE numbers today in Penn., the national Party leaders need to step in and end this. Even if she does win by a good margin, a deal needs to be made now. We need a nominee and we need to focus on November.

JoviFan
Apr 22nd, 2008, 06:34 AM
Prediction: The Democrats will find a way to lose this "can't lose" election... :] :funny: :hat:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/19/opinion/19herbert.html?_r=1&em&ex=1208750400&en=13b2fa2cf7483a4f&ei=5087&oref=slogin
Love the way you quote Rush umm he admitted to cheating the same time he was trying to get Clinton out of office for what oh yeah the same thing. Funny :rolleyes:

DoubleEdgeSword
Apr 22nd, 2008, 06:39 AM
Oh snap! lol

SparkleHugs
Apr 22nd, 2008, 10:33 AM
Unless Sen. Clinton wins by HUGE numbers today in Penn., the national Party leaders need to step in and end this. Even if she does win by a good margin, a deal needs to be made now. We need a nominee and we need to focus on November.

Why exactly? I don't quite understand why she cant just ride it out and do her best to attempt to get as many votes as she can. We will get our nominee at the convention. the official campaigns do not begin until then anyway.

DoubleEdgeSword
Apr 22nd, 2008, 10:42 PM
John McCain is already running his "official" campaign. The Democratic Convention is just a little more than 8 weeks before the general election. Not enough time.

Richard Tafoya
Apr 22nd, 2008, 11:54 PM
That and her campaign finances have dried up.

Besides, the Bush Jr. years have eviscerated the Republican party. Sent millions of voters rushing to register as Democrats rather than be part of what today's Republican party has become.

JoviFan
Apr 23rd, 2008, 05:43 AM
Hillary swept Pennsylvania..

DoubleEdgeSword
Apr 23rd, 2008, 06:08 AM
Hillary led Obama by 10 percentage points, and mostly in rural PA. Obama won in the major metro areas (except Pittsburgh). She earned 52 delegates and Obama earned 46 delegates. He still leads her in total delegates. Basically, the race didn't change anything. Hardly a "sweep."

JoviFan
Apr 23rd, 2008, 08:27 AM
Don't know what you were watching but every news station out there is calling it a sweep.

Richard Tafoya
Apr 23rd, 2008, 08:49 AM
I haven't seen that term used in any headline. She netted six delegates. If anything, I'm seeing that last night sealed the fact that the math is now insurmountable for her in terms of taking a popular vote lead in the primary.

JoviFan
Apr 23rd, 2008, 09:23 AM
Just this morning on good morning america they said she swept PA. Heard it last night on CNN, MSNBC.

phlix
Apr 23rd, 2008, 12:52 PM
I think the main problem with democrats is the fact that we nominate goobers to run against relatively charming republicans. Jimmy Carter? Walter Mondale? Michael Dukakis? John Kerry? Al Gore? Give me a break. Note that I am not slamming their qualifications, but a lot of people vote based on looks and personality. Many of these guys are either homely or wooden or both. Jimmy Carter apparently rode the tide of Watergate to the White House so he's an exception.

When we nominate someone like Bill Clinton we win. We need personality and charm.

DoubleEdgeSword
Apr 24th, 2008, 06:49 AM
Just this morning on good morning america they said she swept PA. Heard it last night on CNN, MSNBC.

Just because some pundits on mainstream media say it doesn't make it so. The fact remains, as Richard pointed out, it is mathematically impossible for her win the nomination by popular vote, i.e. delegates.