What's next for Hillary?

[Conan71]

Well, it must be over for Hillary.  I notice that the stupid pop-up ads that come up on Yahoo are now saying:

"Who will you vote for? Obama or McCain."

"Tell us your answer and you get a free dinner at Applebee's" or some such crap.

You know your campaign's in trouble when Casale Media drops you from your rotation. [}:)]

[Hometown]

You could see "it's over" written all over her face last night.

Thank God for the Clintons.  If it wasn't for the Clintons my generation wouldn't know what a good economy was.  

I hold the Obama supporters responsible for what is about to happen.  As soon as Clinton is out of the way the destruction of Obama will begin in earnest.

Big change is in store for the Democrats.  I'm afraid the first of the big change is not going to be pleasant.

[iplaw]

quote:Thank God for the Clintons. If it wasn't for the Clintons my generation wouldn't know what a good economy was.

Yeah.  It was so great no one wants a second helping.  

[xx(]

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

You could see "it's over" written all over her face last night.

Thank God for the Clintons.  If it wasn't for the Clintons my generation wouldn't know what a good economy was.  

I hold the Obama supporters responsible for what is about to happen.  As soon as Clinton is out of the way the destruction of Obama will begin in earnest.

Big change is in store for the Democrats.  I'm afraid the first of the big change is not going to be pleasant.

Oh yeah, that economy thing where all these internet start-ups in the SF Bay area had their values ridiculously inflated and the real estate market got way over-inflated at the same time out there.  That Clinton economy that resulted in a lot of companies buckling under near the end of his administration.  Same Clinton economy which brought us the hell to pay with the sub-prime mess.

You got lucky you got out of SF with your money HT, a lot of people didn't.

[RecycleMichael]

Hillary has a good job. She is a Senator from a very powerful state. That is the same job that McCain and Obama have.

[Kenosha]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Hillary has a good job. She is a Senator from a very powerful state. That is the same job that McCain and Obama have.

And she is very good at her job...much better at that than she would be as President, IMO.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown


I hold the Obama supporters responsible for what is about to happen.  As soon as Clinton is out of the way the destruction of Obama will begin in earnest.

Big change is in store for the Democrats.  I'm afraid the first of the big change is not going to be pleasant.

Why the doom and gloom, HT?  This season has been nothing but good for Democrats of every stripe and persuasion.  Interest in the party is phenomenal, fundraising is breaking records right and left, and most importantly, there's a huge new generation of younger voters who are joining the Democratic party and re-energizing it.  

Meanwhile our opponents this election aren't as well organized as they used to be:

quote: GOP leaders warn of election disaster

Shellshocked House Republicans got warnings from leaders past and present Tuesday: Your party's message isn't good enough to prevent disaster in November, and neither is the NRCC's money.

The double shot of bad news had one veteran Republican House member worrying aloud that the party's electoral woes — brought into sharp focus by Woody Jenkins' loss to Don Cazayoux in Louisiana on Saturday — have the House Republican Conference splitting apart in "everybody for himself" mode.

"There is an attitude that, 'I better watch out for myself, because nobody else is going to do it,'" the member said. "There are all these different factions out there, everyone is sniping at each other, and we have no real plan. We have a lot of people fighting to be the captain of the lifeboat instead of everybody pulling together."

[Conan71]

Wevus, perhaps it's time for our elected officials in Washington to quit worrying about what the party is going to do for them, what they need to do to toe the party line, and start paying attention to what they are supposed to be doing for the well-being of their constituents.

I think articles like this are starting to pop up to deflect attention from the family in-fighting in the Democrat party right now.  I do think Dems will have a strong showing in the fall, but it remains to be seen whether or not they can retain control of the house and Senate.  A Pelosi and Reid-led Congress hasn't produced any substantive results, just as predicted.  

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

You could see "it's over" written all over her face last night.

Thank God for the Clintons.  If it wasn't for the Clintons my generation wouldn't know what a good economy was.  

I hold the Obama supporters responsible for what is about to happen.  As soon as Clinton is out of the way the destruction of Obama will begin in earnest.

Big change is in store for the Democrats.  I'm afraid the first of the big change is not going to be pleasant.

Oh yeah, that economy thing where all these internet start-ups in the SF Bay area had their values ridiculously inflated and the real estate market got way over-inflated at the same time out there.  That Clinton economy that resulted in a lot of companies buckling under near the end of his administration.  Same Clinton economy which brought us the hell to pay with the sub-prime mess.

You got lucky you got out of SF with your money HT, a lot of people didn't.

Subprime mess came as a result of the artificially low interest rates of 2001 to 2005.  The fraud occurred the most during the period where Greenspan quickly raised interest rates before he left his position (2005 mostly).  Poor Bernanke just inherited the mess.

The Subprimes and the ARMs were abused the most when the lenders realized the game was already over (Greenspan was already in the middle of raising rates at a very fast and systematic clip).  Greedy crooked lenders and market manipulation (The Fed) both share the blame here.

Clinton having something to do with the subprime crisis?  LOL.  Partisan hacks make me sick on both sides of the fight.

The correlation of Federal Reserve behavior and the ruling presidential administration isn't 100% clear to me, but the suspicious signs are there.  My suspicion is that the Bush administration and the Federal Reserve were working together a lot more intimately than previous administrations.  As soon as Bush took office, interest rates started going down to artificially pump up the economy so things looked better than they really are.  Greenspan held those rates down just long enough to have things looking good for the 2004 elections.  As soon as that goal was accomplished, he had to raise rates as quickly as possible to counteract the fact that they were held down way too low for way too long.  The prosperity was fake.  And it only effected those at the top who would benefit from the cheap and available new money.  The sharp rise from late 2004 to early 2006 was the reason for the crisis we are in right now.

[iplaw]

Is it just me or does it sound like HT has been listening to Rush Limbagh lately?

HT:

quote:Obama supporters -- you are going to need a miracle with your coalition of Blacks, rich liberals, young folks, Independents and cross-over Republicans. It may have given you a slim lead in the Democrat primary but you don't have a prayer in h*** when it comes to the general election.

RUSH:

quote:He can get effete snobs, he can get wealthy academics, he can get the young, and he can get the black vote, but Democrats do not win with that."

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

You could see "it's over" written all over her face last night.

Thank God for the Clintons.  If it wasn't for the Clintons my generation wouldn't know what a good economy was.  

I hold the Obama supporters responsible for what is about to happen.  As soon as Clinton is out of the way the destruction of Obama will begin in earnest.

Big change is in store for the Democrats.  I'm afraid the first of the big change is not going to be pleasant.

Oh yeah, that economy thing where all these internet start-ups in the SF Bay area had their values ridiculously inflated and the real estate market got way over-inflated at the same time out there.  That Clinton economy that resulted in a lot of companies buckling under near the end of his administration.  Same Clinton economy which brought us the hell to pay with the sub-prime mess.

You got lucky you got out of SF with your money HT, a lot of people didn't.

Subprime mess came as a result of the artificially low interest rates of 2001 to 2005.  The fraud occurred the most during the period where Greenspan quickly raised interest rates before he left his position (2005 mostly).  Poor Bernanke just inherited the mess.

The Subprimes and the ARMs were abused the most when the lenders realized the game was already over (Greenspan was already in the middle of raising rates at a very fast and systematic clip).  Greedy crooked lenders and market manipulation (The Fed) both share the blame here.

Clinton having something to do with the subprime crisis?  LOL.  Partisan hacks make me sick on both sides of the fight.

The correlation of Federal Reserve behavior and the ruling presidential administration isn't 100% clear to me, but the suspicious signs are there.  My suspicion is that the Bush administration and the Federal Reserve were working together a lot more intimately than previous administrations.  As soon as Bush took office, interest rates started going down to artificially pump up the economy so things looked better than they really are.  Greenspan held those rates down just long enough to have things looking good for the 2004 elections.  As soon as that goal was accomplished, he had to raise rates as quickly as possible to counteract the fact that they were held down way too low for way too long.  The prosperity was fake.  And it only effected those at the top who would benefit from the cheap and available new money.  The sharp rise from late 2004 to early 2006 was the reason for the crisis we are in right now.

Statistically, subprime mortgage lending went from 5% of total lending to 13% from '94 to '00, all under Clinton.  It went up another 7% to grand total of 20% in 2006 under Bush.

[Gaspar]

Dick Called it last time, now he writes:

Article from The Hill this morning.
Dick Morris

OK, so Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is staying in the presidential race despite losing among elected delegates, facing a slimming lead among superdelegates, losing the popular vote and behind by 2-to-1 in the number of states carried. She slogs on, hoping against hope for a sudden turnaround in the race.

Apart from the psychological reasons for her stubbornness, is there a more subtle political calculation going on?

Is she continuing her race so as to have a platform from which to continue to bash Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in the hopes of so damaging him that he can't win the general election? Is she doing this to keep her options alive for the 2012 presidential race?

Hillary is obviously entitled to keep running until Obama has secured the votes necessary for the nomination, and it is certainly understandable that she would want to run until the last popular vote is counted. But must she run a negative, slash-and-burn campaign? Must she use her time on the platform and on television to belittle, mock, deride and try to destroy the man who will eventually be the candidate of her own party?

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) felt similarly justified in staying in the race for the Republican nomination until Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) reached the majority threshold required for nomination. He contested the Texas primary vigorously, even though his earlier losses in South Carolina and Florida made it most unlikely that he could win the nomination. But he chose to run a positive campaign. He didn't knock McCain. He just articulated the case for his own candidacy.

But Hillary won't avail herself of that option because it does not serve her long-term fallback position: a shot at the nomination in 2012. If Obama is elected this year, he will seek reelection in 2012 and Hillary would have to face taking on an incumbent in a primary in her own party if she wanted to run, a daunting task. But if McCain wins, the nomination in 2012 will be open. And it might be worth having. McCain will be 76 years old and the Republican Party will have been in power for 12 years. Not since FDR and Truman has a party lasted that long in power. When the Republicans tried to do so, in 1992, they fell flat on their face.

Hillary is using white, blue-collar fears of Barack Obama to try to stop him from getting nominated or elected.

She is playing on his "elitism" by hammering him on blue-collar issues and is mincing no words in painting him as a stranger to blue-collar white America.

Hillary is attracting the votes of cops, firefighters, construction workers, union members. Are they in love with Hillary? They can't stand her. But they are terrified of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers and the various influences to which Obama seems to be subject. By playing on those fears, Hillary is undermining Obama's ability to get elected.

This is not a byproduct of her continued candidacy — it is the goal. She, the consummate realist, must know that she has no practical shot at the nomination herself after her numbing loss in North Carolina and her paper-thin margin in Indiana. But she welcomes the opportunity an ongoing candidacy offers to bash Obama and to drive a wedge between him and the voters he must have to beat McCain.

The question is how long Democratic primary voters and the party leadership let her go on hitting their ultimate nominee. Will they bring Hillary up short and speak out about the harm she is doing to their party's prospects by way of her refusal to recognize reality?

Hillary doesn't have to pull out. She is entitled to run in the remaining states. But she should curtail her negative campaign and adopt the Huckabee strategy: Maximize your own vote share, but don't beat up the party's nominee. Unless, of course, that is her goal all along.

[cannon_fodder]

Here's my take.

Presidents have much less to do with the economy than you think.  An elephant in the White House would have seen the economy boom in the 1990's after Al Gore invented the Internet and it's commercial potential began to be realized.  Whenever an entirely new market opens up, good times roll... then they retract back to normal levels.

During this period, new federal mandates on homeownership went into effect that rated banks on "how well" they did making bad risk loans.  Banks were expected to carry a certain portfolio of loans to bad customers to encourage home ownership.  Coupled with a housing bubble and a stock bubble recognized by the mid 1990's the stage was well set for problems.

Going into GW the markets were already crashing and the "surplus" of the Clinton years never materialized as spending caught up and receipts declined. 9/11 had no real economic effect but it heralded a loss of confidence and a death knell to the remaining phantom stocks (no profits, no assets, no IP, yet worth $500million on paper and/or retarded PEs).  The resulting war and associated expense further hindered the situation (and is).

The federal reserve, for it's part - had little choice but to cut rates following 9/11 to avoid a stag or deflationary situation, when the dust settle rates HAD to rise to give room to drop them if the need occurred (it did and is).  Lenders took advantage of this to prop up the what-should-have-been failing housing market and rack up a few extra bucks in fees.  The spiral of housing increases at +20% yearly in some markets simply could not be sustained under any market condition (100 year average is like +3%).

Now our currency is devalued as questions about our diplomatic hegemony as well as long term ability to pay the national debt are raised.  Interest rates are falling to shore up a borrowing addicted nation (personal and national finances, and I share your concerns about the Fed playing a political role). And those that were greedy enough to stay in the housing game are taking a beating (lenders who made bad loans, those who purchased commodities they didn't understand, and buyers who should have known they couldn't afford a $250K house on $40K a year).

I was hoping the card house would fall a bit more to actually teach some lessons.  But consumer borrowing is back up, Bush and the Congress handed out billions to bail banks out (rebates), and soon people who shouldn't be able to afford their homes will be subsidized by the government (which will subsidize banks who made bad loans and those who purchased commodities they didn't understand).

Is Clinton to blame?  Of course not.  Though he put a few of the cards in place, he had the good sense to keep the internet unregulated which has had amazing results.  Is Bush to blame?  His war has spent tons of money, his diplomatic relations have been horrible, and he has encouraged the Congress to spend more (he signs the Medicare bill then balks at a few bridges) and hand out cash like they have the money to give - BUT, much of the runaway market and housing issues were outside the influence of government.

Basically, neither get credit for the economy nor fault for it faltering.  But neither looked at the long term and did anything that would have been painful at the time to look out for the long term good.  

Anyone else thing we should elect the aforementioned elephant to sit in the White House for 8 years and see if we can't do better in this country?

[RecycleMichael]

I would rather elect a donkey to sit in the White House.

[bugo]

If Hillary manages to steal the nomination, it will mark the end (or at least the beginning of the end) of the Democratic Party.  Here is why I say this: the Obama campaign has energized the youth of this country, and the Democratic Party has many new supporters because of Barack.  These young voters have spoken and they overwhelmingly support Obama.  If the Dems thwart the will of the majority of the voters by installing Clinton as the nominee, these youth will feel betrayed by the party and will never, ever support it again.  Some of them will switch to the GOP, some to third parties, but I predict the majority will just give up on politics.  A Hillary nomination would satisfy the old guard types, but the youth is the future, and in 20 years many of the old guard will be gone and these same youth will be entering middle age.  A Hillary nomination would be a huge slap in the face of the youth of America, and the end of the party.