Hillary, Hillary Hillary

[senseandsensibility]

Why does she get all the attention?:silly: No, really, why do think they're having this little love fest for her on MSNBC?

[mike_c]

1. I honestly think that the corporate media knows how divisive she is...

...and relishes the thought of her getting the nomination just for the conflict it would cause. They no longer give a rat's ass about America. Not when there's profits to be made.

[senseandsensibility]

2. I'm sure you're at least partly right

But it goes without saying we can't trust their motivation.

[Canuckistanian]

28. Bingo!

The right hate her after years of demonization.

And the left are divided on her usefulness to the cause of progressive issues.

PERFECT for attention-grabbing entertainment in the next year or so.

Profitable entertainment, as well

[tjwash]

78. I know she's divisive, but why?

There are at least 20 Senators way further to the left than she is, and dozens of Congressional members that hail from other states that can be called carpetbaggers. To me she is just another boring middle of the road centrist who excels at playing it safe.

Plus, really, I can't think of one actual real thing that anyone can say that she has accomplished, besides getting elected in the first place. Honestly; whenever I catch a glimpse of her on CSPAN, or one of the news shows, all I see is another face in a sea of self serving politicians.

[mike_c]

84. your description is one reason that she won't inspire support...

...from the left. Add her distinctly hawkish views on foreign policy, her support for the war against Iraq, and her avoidance of single payer health care reform and she's a non-starter for me. I suspect there will be lots of others on the left who feel the same way.

[ecstatic]

3. She gave the best answers, but she is a woman

If she was a man, she'd be considered the winner, hands down. The questions were stupid, but, for example, her answer about Walmart was excellent and well informed.

[MonkeyFunk]

5. Good example

we always decry sound-bite politics, we abhor republican black & white thinking, but when Clinton gives a nuanced answer to a complicated question, she's accused here of triangulating and trying to play both sides. I admire Clinton for the same reason I admired her husband, and why I admire Wes Clark - they acknowledge the gray areas, and don't feel compelled to spout simplistic solutions to complicated problems.

[MonkeyFunk]

4. Because she did pretty well...

especially as far as expectations went. The conventional wisdom was it was hers to lose tonight, and she did just fine. They're acknowledging that.

[senseandsensibility]

6. She came in third according to a poll

they just announced. I thought they all did equally well. It seemed at first like they were admitting that, and then all of the sudden it was all Hillary.

[Connie_Corleone]

9. Yeah. The post-debate "analysis" did take a sudden turn, didn't it?

[Kip Humphrey]

7. MSMBC falls into lockstep throwing the debate to neo-liberal Hillary - except Keith

[senseandsensibility]

8. I was wondering about that

I'm listening to a TV on in the other room and I didn't hear his voice chiming in.

[Cha]

11. Who did Keith like?

:)

[senseandsensibility]

14. I'd like to know too

:shrug: Maybe he's "keeping his powder dry", as they say in Wahington.

[Cha]

20. Ah, reserving judgement.

I was fortunate to see and hear Al Gore in person, tonight, at Hamilton College in Clinton, NY. He was Passionate, Humorous, & PUMPED!

We sat there for 2 1/2 Mesmerized and highly entertained and Inspired to go out and do our part for the Environment!

[senseandsensibility]

21. I am green with envy

Sorry, bad pun. But I would love to see Gore in person. It sounds much more exciting than the debates.

[Cha]

24. It had to have been cause

nothing would beat what went on at Hamilton College tonight.

ANd as my sister pointed out..Gore is much more passionate in person than on the DVD doc, "An Inconvenient Truth"!

We heard people going out of the "Fieldhouse" saying.."he would have made a good President"..Yeah, we heard what a brilliant, passionate, and humorous president sounded like, tonight!

[Rosemary2205]

81. I'm betting Keith is an Obama man.

I have nothing, absolutely nothing to prove it. Just a gut feeling based on little subtle snippets and looks Keith has had on camera over time concerning Obama.

I'm also betting we'll never, ever, know for sure becuase Keith Olbermann is total professional.

[Clark2008]

87. Keith doesn't vote - so he's a "nobody" man.

[illinoisprogressive]

10. Inside the beltway type and establishment.

[bonito]

12. $$$ n/t

[madinmaryland]

13. Clenis envy.

:shrug:

[emilyg]

23. love it

[Warren DeMontague]

15. She's the "front runner"

Whether or not anyone is actually planning on voting for her.

So sez the media. They wants it, that's how it is.

[MonkeyFunk]

17. She's the "front runner"

because she leads in most polls and in funding.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. Mmmmmmm Hmmm.

Whatever you say.

We'll see, won't we?

In the meantime, you'll forgive me if I don't bow down in front of the inevitability train just yet.

[MonkeyFunk]

25. Who ever suggested you do such a thing?

but the fact is, she's the front runner right now in terms of polling and funding. Disagreeing with that is just silly.

[Warren DeMontague]

26. We'll see.

No one has voted yet.

[MonkeyFunk]

29. Again

whoever suggested such a thing?

Please try to keep up.

Hillary is leading in the polls and in funding. There's no reason to extrapolate anything more important from that statement.

if you can refute that statement, please try. But it's silly to act like I'm claiming she's going to win the nomination, when I've said nothing of the sort.

[Warren DeMontague]

30. Whatever you say.

The Corporate Media sure seems to agree with you.

[MonkeyFunk]

32. Your responses are nonsensical

If you have evidence that she's not leading in the polls or in funding, please present it.

[Warren DeMontague]

33. Whose polls? Which polls?

I believe she probably has raised more money than anyone else right now. As far as whether or not most Democratic Primary Voters intend to vote for her, no I don't buy it. Not for a second.

Like I said. The Corporate Media's so-called "reputable" polling organizations may, on any given day, claim that she's the "front runner" among the various names that THEY have chosen to include in their poll. To me, that doesn't make her the "front runner". Frankly, I find the polling methodologies done by many of those organizations suspect under the best of circumstances, in general elections.

I can only imagine what kind of fucked up pretzel gymnastics they're going through to figure out who is a "likely democratic primary voter" (probably someone on Terry McAuliffe's rolodex)

Are you saying that there have been NO POLLS -of any kind- that she hasn't come out on top of?

Or are you saying that due to the Corporate Media's (to my mind) exceedingly dubious polls, worded to arbitrarily include or leave out any number of names of folks who might or might not be running at this incredibly early stage of the game, they have made the claim that she's the "front runner"?

The first one is not true. The second one I would agree is.

[MonkeyFunk]

34. No, I never said that

what's your obsession with putting words in my mouth?

In MOST polls, she's the front-runner.

If you have evidence to the contrary, present it. Otherwise, you're just being petulant.

[Warren DeMontague]

35. Most polls, according to the corporate media.

Like I said; I don't trust their methodologies.

[MonkeyFunk]

36. ah

well you could've said that at the beginning and saved a lot of time.

People who don't like the results of polls always say they don't trust the polls. but the fact is, polls are very very accurate. Their bread and butter is accuracy. The notion that they purposely skew the results for some political reason is just paranoid insanity.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. So you honestly believe most democratic primary voters intend to vote for Hillary.

See, I don't. Hey, maybe that makes me a paranoid nut; but really, I don't see it happening.

Not when the primaries come around, and not if they were held tomorrow. I think her supporters would be unpleasantly surprised.

[MonkeyFunk]

39. It seems you don't understand what polls are

The polls mean that if the primaries were held TODAY, more people would vote for Clinton than for any other candidate. They don't mean that will be true a year from now.

Now back to the question at hand - do you have any evidence that Clinton is not the front-runner? Or is your whole argument based on the paranoid assertion that polling companies risk their reputations and income to advance some obscure agenda?

[Warren DeMontague]

41. See, I don't believe that's true.

And I'm not just talking about "outlier" polls. I'm talking about the methodology they use to determine who, for instance, is a "likely voter" in the general election. Legitimate issues have been raised about stuff like that; my hunch is, for primaries, it's even worse.

So no, I do NOT believe that if the primaries were held today, Hillary would win. Like I said- I think her supporters (and floggers of DLC "conventional wisdom" everywhere) would be seriously surprised. That's what I believe. Deal with it, don't deal with it, call me a nut, I don't care. You're still not going to change my mind.

But if you really, honestly believe that there is NO INCENTIVE for a Corporate Media controlled by three or four extremely powerful corporations--- combined with the trillions of dollars at stake in making sure the "right folks" are making the decisions--- to try to "massage" reality in ways favorable to the Board Members...

..All I can say is, yeah, I'm the nut. :tinfoilhat: :hi:

[MonkeyFunk]

44. ah, there's your mistake

at this stage, they don't care about "likely voters". It's about general popularity.

Nobody claims that Clinton will get the most votes a year from now. The polls only ask who people prefer - whether they vote or not. And that's an important metric.

I don't understand why people want to deny so strongly that Clinton is the frontrunner - it's just nuts.

[bouwob1]

79. No actually I think

she would win by a large margin. The thing that will hurt Clinton the most is al gore running. Since Gore could not possibly be in the race, if it were held tomorrow she would garnish at least 75% of his support (imho) and win by quite a large margin.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. "the fact is, polls are very very accurate."

Mmmm Hmmm.

October 27, 2000: Today/Gallup

http://edition.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/27/tracking.poll/



Wow. That was pretty fuckin' accurate, wasn't it? I mean, except for the part about Bush losing the election and having to steal the presidency anyway.

[MonkeyFunk]

40. One poll

doesn't prove your point.

I'm talking about the totality of all polls - they are, almost without exception, within the margin of error in those cases where the results can be tested - that is, a day or so before an actual election.

Anybody can find an outlier - it doesn't mean they cooked the numbers.

Do you have any evidence that polls are rigged? Is there ONE person who has ever come out and said "here are the real numbers we got, and here's what was published - see the difference?"

Not ONE whistleblower among the hundreds or thousands of people with access to the real numbers?

Of course, ever poll is worded differently, and can account for different results. But do you have any evidece AT ALL that companies throw away the real numbers and publish something other than what they polled?


edit: And the Gallup poll a week later showed bush winning 47/43 over Gore. Much closer than the poll a week earlier. Most polls showed Bush winning by about 3 points - all within the margin of error.

[Warren DeMontague]

42. And how many of those polls had Gore winning?

Seems to me, since he actually DID win, someone screwed the pooch, there.

[MonkeyFunk]

47. Well, one has to be careful

about what polls they're talking about.

Can you find 3 polls that were off in the popular vote beyond the margin of error?

At the late stages, most polls are state-by-state. Again, how many were wrong beyond the MOR?

Edit: And do you think polling companies risk their reputation and income in some weird attept to influence the outcome?

[MonkeyFunk]

58. oh

and I will ask you to answer your own qustions:

how many polls DID show Gore winning?

[Warren DeMontague]

68. My point is, if the overwhelming majority of polls showed Bush winning

and I think they did- even if most of those were "within the margin of error", I think it's a little odd that the so-called margin of error so consistently broke in Bush's favor. You would think it would be spread out in both directions, no? Why so many polls showing Bush up by 3-6 points, but none showing Gore up by the same?

Here's what I think: Because the sample methodologies are skewed, either deliberately or not.

[MonkeyFunk]

71. so...

you can't name a number of polls that were outside the margin of error.


And you have no evidence that the polls are deliberately skewed. Thanks for making my point.

[Warren DeMontague]

75. No, YOU think YOU'RE making your point.

In my experience, "thanks for making my point" is the mark of an exceedingly weak debater.

I'm not under any contractual obligation to do anything except state my opinion, Jack. Which I've done, repeatedly, even though you don't seem capable of actually listening-- or doing anything except spitting out pre-programmed responses. And you seem to think that if you issue enough orders to folks about THE WAY THING ARE, the facts will line up like little obedient soldiers.

Shit, no wonder you're in the Hillary camp.

[MonkeyFunk]

88. Clinton is about my third choice

for the nomination.

You're making assertions that polls are deliberately skewed. I've asked you repeatedly to provide some evidence of that, and you simply can't do it.

[Warren DeMontague]

89. The fact that I haven't provided you with the evidence you repeatedly demand

in the format you demand...

...Only proves that I haven't provided you the evidence that you demand in the format you demand.

[MonkeyFunk]

90. I didn't ask for any format

I just asked for evidence that polls are deliberately skewed. It's your assertion - you should be able to back it up. If you can't, I just presume you don't like the results of the polls, and therefore discount them.

Clinton is the front-runner. That's a fact, whether you like it or not.

[Warren DeMontague]

92. And around and around and around we go.

No she isn't!

Whee!

[WA98296]

16. Because 'they' want her to be the dem nominee, then either way GOP wins

She is a CORPORATIST, chosen as the "frontrunner" by the CORPORATE media. She is the "frontrunner" because they say she is...so it must be true. Well, if they say it often enough it becomes true. After all, we need them to do our thinking for us.

She will not get my vote, even if she gets the nomination. I don't vote for republicans, even if they call themselves dems.

[MonkeyFunk]

45. Oh my god..

not a corporatist? In capital letters???!??!!!!

[Critters2]

83. Agreed. On all points. nt

[liberal renegade]

18. deep down inside

everybody knows it's hers for the taking.....

[MannyGoldstein]

19. Because She's Earned The Presidency!

Her political courage shines through on so many issues.

For example... um... uh...

[jakem]

91. well, she did put up with Bill.

That should earn her something... uh... right?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

27. why? MSNBC owned by GE/War Profiteer

Hillary is pro war.
Rupert Murdock held a fund raiser for her.
The media wants to pick our candidate for us, so we can stay at war.

Have you noticed how the outspoken voices are being
reined in or gotten rid of?

[Danieljay]

31. Why do you hate Hillary? Curse you and your children!

Standard answer to any comments about Hillary Clinton. Just thought I'd be the first to ask it.

(just giving you a hard time of course, but I think you understand what I'm talking about)

[Triana]

43. They're trying to "sell" her to the public ...

...and we all know she'll lose because she's so divisive.

THEY know that too, which is why they're pushing, pushing, pushing Hillary. They want to keep Republicans in the Oval Office in 08. Hillary is their ticket. Or, part of it at least. That, and the planned election fraud (AGAIN).

[Individualist]

65. Right on all counts, Triana

[B Calm]

46. I guess they're all in favor of her national 55 mph speed limit...

[MonkeyFunk]

48. I would imagine

most people here are.

It's a simple, commonsense move that reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gases.

Oh, you're not one of those types who think we can save the earth without any sacrifices at all, are you?

[B Calm]

49. I'm one of those 18 wheel truck drivers that get paid by the mile.

Reducing the speed limit for me is a cut in my hourly wage. Would you like a cut in your hourly wage? I'll leave the energy consumption to those with the knowledge to invent fuel sipping motors. My 470 horse power diesel motor gets the same kind of mileage at 65 mph as it does at 55 mph.

[MonkeyFunk]

50. OK

gotcha.

Saving the earth is for other people, not you.

[B Calm]

51. Actually I do believe we have to save the earth. Just because

I'm not in favor of Hillary's 55 mph speed limit, you label me as as some one who is destroying the earth??????? GET REAL!!! Do you want a cut in your hourly wage?

[MonkeyFunk]

52. No, of course not...

I think we should save the Earth without anybody making any sacrifices whatsoever.

:eyes:

[B Calm]

53. but lowering the speed limit is not the answer. As I said

my fuel consumption is the same or even better at 65 mph.

[MonkeyFunk]

54. so

could we save energy by increasing the speed limit to 85mph?

95?

What's the optimal speed limit for energy saving? And let's ignore the lives saved for the purposes of this discussion - what's the best speed?

[B Calm]

55. Of course not! I have a governor on my motor that won't allow

me to drive over 70 mph. Would you be in favor of installing a governor on your car?

[MonkeyFunk]

56. Don't change the subject...

what's the optimal speed for energy-savings?

[B Calm]

59. Depends on the weight of my load. As I said before my mileage

is basically the same at 65 as when I drive 55. Heavy trucks are geared differently than an automobile. If I'm heavy and lugging the motor at a lower speed, I'm burning more fuel. Are you in favor (like I already have on my truck) of putting a governor on your motor to keep you from wasting fuel and driving at higher speeds?

[MonkeyFunk]

60. to be clear

no, I'm not in favor of putting a governor in charge. But then, it would be a rare situation where a goveror enforces the speed limits.

So yet again, I ask, what is the optimal speed limit for energy savings?

[B Calm]

61. Well one thing is clear, you or Hillary have never driven a big

truck. On very rare occasions I have had light loads where I could probably drive 55 mph without having to downshift and raising my RPM's for every little grade. My truck runs more fuel efficient when I don't have to downshift. At 65 mph my truck runs smoother and more efficient with less downshifting! So lowering the speed limit for trucks doesn't make sense to curb global warming..

[MonkeyFunk]

62. I'll ask again....

what is the optimal speed limit for energy-saving?

[B Calm]

67. did you read my last post?

[MonkeyFunk]

69. Yes I did

and I didn't see a number that answered my question.

It's a very simple question - what is the optimal speed for energy conservation? Please answer with a numerical response.

[B Calm]

70. Again, I said my truck runs best at 65 mph.. I also said

depending on the road I'm on & if there's no grades (if you know what a grade is) and I don't have to downshift every few miles thus raising my RPM's, I'll burn less fuel at 55 mph. But that all depends if I have a heavy or a light load, which 9 times out of 10 I have a heavy load. Do you understand?

[MonkeyFunk]

72. OK

You think 65 is the optmal speed.


I think most of the science on this subject disagrees with you.

[B Calm]

73. Is this science you mention based on automobiles or trucks? There

is a huge difference!!!!!

[MonkeyFunk]

74. I'm sure there is a big difference

but nonetheless, I've never seen anything that indicates 90 mph is more fuel effiecent than 50mph.'

And, if the speed limit is 65, do you travel at 65? Or 75?

[B Calm]

76. As I said before, my truck has a governor that wont allow me

to drive any faster than 70 mph. Most states that I drive in has a posted speed limit of 65 mph and that's what I drive. On occasions when I'm trying to pass another truck and 4 wheel traffic behind me is getting frustrated, I'll kick it up to 70 to get out of the passing lane.
There's no freakin' way I could or even would drive a truck 90 mph, that's a strawman argument!!

Everyday I go around and check my tire pressure on 18 wheels, this act alone saves more fuel than this stupid idea of lowering the speed limit. When was the last time you checked your tire pressure?

[Le Taz Hot]

64. Is that on the table?

I mean, raising speed limit to 85 mph. Is it on the table? You wouldn't possibly be putting up yet another strawman argument would you? No, not MF. :eyes:

All Hail Senator Hillary Clinton.

Having the most money means she's the most qualified. Everyone knows that.

Anyone who doesn't like Senator Hillary Clinton is be a misogynist and hates women.

She's first in the polls but it has NOTHING to do with name recognition.

Senator Clinton didn't vote "yes" on going to war, Senator Clinton voted "yes" on the IWR because Bush told her he would go to the U.N. and he (gasp!) lied! (Someone pass me the smelling salts.)

I believe those are the talking points for this particular thread.

Please feel free to add any I've missed. (We all know them by rote at this point.)

[bouwob1]

80. Have you actullay sat down and ran the numbers

this statement seems to go against most scientific research. I understand a cut in the speed limit may be bad for your wages but it would be safer and more efficient to most of America

There is also good reason to question CEI's underlying claim that fuel efficiency standards force automakers to decrease the weight of their vehicles. Many factors that improve fuel efficiency are independent of weight, and some efficiency factors also carry safety benefits. For example, cars with short acceleration times have high occupant fatality rates, and fuel economy measures that diminish the availability of those cars would probably save lives. "While reducing vehicle weight, all else equal, is clearly one means to increasing fuel economy, so is reducing engine power, all else equal," noted Greene and Keller. In fact, they stated, "The more important technological means to improving fuel economy appear to be neutral or beneficial to safety." Lowering the speed limit on national highways would also improve fuel efficiency and save lives at the same time. The national 55-mph speed limit in effect until 1987 is estimated to have reduced fuel consumption by 1 to 2 percent while simultaneously preventing 2,000 to 4,000 motor vehicle crash deaths annually.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fuel_efficiency_standards_and_the_laws_of_physics

[B Calm]

86. Trucks get better fuel mileage at lower RPM's. Lugging a motor at

55 mph up a small grade with a heavy load will burn more fuel. Down shifting to a lower gear to climb the same small grade will raise your RPM's and increase your fuel consumption. Heavy 18 wheel trucks run more fuel efficient when they run a speed that allows them to climb small grades with out downshifting. 55 mph on I-44 through Missouri where there are small grades one after another for over 200 miles would be a damn joke when it came to fuel consumption.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

57. She is their pre-sElected candidate, It's as simple as that. MSM is in total control

of the Presidential race.

[NNN0LHI]

63. Maybe they know she will win and are trying to get on her good side?

Just saying...

Don

[BenDavid]

66. One simple fact: she had command

of the stage. She came across as knowledable and one big plus HRC came across as likable.....Simple truths....No one is trying to steal one here for her. If points were given then HRC rated higher then Obama and way the hell higher then Edwards.....

[Tellurian]

77. Those are the important points coming away from the debate

and further eschews confidence in (future) donors.

as reflected here:

Morgan Stanley Chief Executive Mack Endorses Hillary Clinton

By Kristin Jensen

April 26 (Bloomberg) -- Morgan Stanley Chief Executive Officer John Mack, one of President George W. Bush's biggest fundraisers, is endorsing Democratic New York Senator Hillary Clinton for president.

Mack and his wife, Christy, decided together to back Clinton, Morgan Stanley spokeswoman Jeanmarie McFadden said after BusinessWeek reported the endorsement. She declined to comment further, and Mack was unavailable for comment.

Mack, 62, told BusinessWeek that he was impressed by Clinton when she spoke at his previous employer, Credit Suisse Group, four years ago. The Wall Street executive said he appreciated her grasp of financial and health-care issues.

``I know we're associated mainly with the Republicans, but we've always gone for the individual,'' Mack told BusinessWeek. He plans to remain a registered Republican, the magazine said.

Mack brought in at least $200,000 for Bush's re-election campaign in 2004, qualifying him for the title of campaign ``Ranger.'' He has also contributed in the past to Clinton's Senate campaign committee.

The endorsement from the head of the New York-based securities firm ``sends a signal that we need to get beyond politics as usual and the partisan divide,'' Clinton, 59, told BusinessWeek.

[Critters2]

82. "I know we're associated mainly with the Republicans"

Nuff said.

[senseandsensibility]

85. This thread is not an attempt to slam Hillary

I'm not a supporter or a detractor; I am completely undecided. But yesterday there was something fishy going on during the post debate analysis. At first, there was "no clear winner", and they all did well, and then all of a sudden everyone, and I mean everyone, was singing from the Hillary hymn book. It was co-ordinated. It was strange. And when you have Buchanan comparing her to his deity, Raygun, something is up somewhere.:shrug: