Hillary Clinton: "This primary election on Tuesday is a game changer. This is going to make a huge difference in what happens going forward. The entire country – probably even a lot of the world is looking to see what North Carolina decides."

Comments

[Joe Guarino]

Interestingly, the latest Zogby poll shows Obama about 16 points ahead of Clinton in NC. Most of the other polls show a much smaller margin, but Zogby has a good track record. Of course, things could be fluid over the next several days.

Hillary's words, however, may come back to haunt her if Zogby's numbers are correct.

[Andy Vance]

shows Obama about 16 points ahead of Clinton

Not to worry; the non-conformers have been given a vote suppressant.

[spag]

Hillary will simply deny she said it- or claim that she meant that the game changed because now she has the reason to go forward (regardless of the actual outcome).

Obama is going to beat her by 11+ points in NC, and she will still claim victory. She will not be stopped, dammit, if she has to take everyone down with her or kick Obama off of the steps of the Capitol on inauguration day.

[spag]

...and even if she won both states, he would still have more delegates. There is no path to victory for her. This is about ruining Obama so she can run again in 2012. She is a vicious, mean, and vindictive person. Paranoid and untrustworthy. Worse than Nixon when it comes to these traits.

[Patrick]

Those are traits with which you're pretty familiar, so I have to assume you know them when you see them.

[spag]

But if I agreed with YOU on most issues, well then I suppose it would be different.

Petty, my friend, petty.

[Ed Cone]

Easy on the personal flames, thnx, Patrick.

[anonymous]

That's pretty lame, Ed. Spag spews some invective from his personal hate box, which he has done every day all fucking week so far, and we've all had to live with it; Patrick says "you too", and you jump on Patrick.

Sam dumps the bucket of shit on the floor. Why throw a coat down for him, and not everyone else?

If Sam wants to use big boy adjectives like "vicious, mean, vindictive, paranoid, and untrustworthy", he should know that his words can be turned against him. Why keep wet-nursing him in front of God and everybody?

[Jim Buie]

Sam, shockingly, stepped out of his kneejerk partisan Republican box and criticized Richard Nixon. Could that possibly mean that his world is not actually divided between always good Republicans and always evil Democrats? Might he have voted against Nixon?? Are there any Democrats in the nation's history Sam might praise?

And if Hillary drops out before the convention and supports Obama, might Sam admit that he was a bit hard on her?

Hoping for a "post-partisan" discussion, I'll say that I have a lot of respect for John McCain.

[spag]

Calling Hillary "vicious, mean, vindictive, paranoid, and untrustworthy" is hardly spewing invective from a personal hate box. In fact, many people feel that way about Hillary, and I've heard quite a bit worse about Bush.

I suppose I'm not allowed to have a negative opinion of her, me and half of the country.

I also challenge you to show where I have spread "hate" all week as you claim. Or maybe "hate" simply means not agreeing with you.

You can call me "vicious" and "mean" if you'd like, but you have no basis to call me paranoid or untrustworthy.

Credit Ed for marking the point of deterioration into personal attacks on commenters here and recognizing that despite some popular notions, I didn't start it. I never do.

Jim, JFK was a good Democrat. I like Harold Ford. I like Lieberman. I liked Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Closer to home, I like Elaine Marshall. I liked Easley when he was AG, but no so much since then.

I like Obama, I have written many positive things about him before. But I think the criticisms raised about him are valid and some people are being willfully blind and apologetic for him for partisan reasons. I have criticized Bush on a number of issues in the past. I have criticized the GOP in the past, and I am not too happy with them right now.

My biggest issue with Democrats isn't usually about individuals, but the party itself which I find to be immature, corrupt, Machiavellian, and filled with hypocrisy as this election has shown.

[Jim Buie]

Sam -- so you liked JFK, Moynihan. You like Lieberman (what about his support for all those "socialist" policies? Other than the war, he tends to vote with Democrats). You "like Obama." What do you find to like, and what positive things have you said about him?

Can one fairly generalize about a political party filled with millions of people, thousands of political actors? Surely there are also people in the Republican Party who are "immature, corrupt, Machiavellian, and filled with hypocrisy"? Can you think of any people in key positions in the Bush administration who fit that description? No political party can possibly be immune from those kinds of people.

And with Bush, accg to polls, the most unpopular president in modern history, do you think he is just getting bad press from the "liberal media" or has he made serious errors that justify the perception of poor leadership?

[Ian McDowell]

Now, now, I've disagreed with Sam before and said some harsh things about him (and remain bemused that he still thinks of me as a "liberal", when I've made it pretty clear I'm not). But there's a difference between spitting venom at a prominent political figure and doing so at another poster here (trolls and racist morons excluded, but Sam isn't one of those). "Big L" calling Obama an Islamic terrorist is an example of vicious mudslinging, or would be if he or she really believed that. Sam calling Hillary calculating and vindictive is not. Whether it's a fair description of her is debatable, but it's something that plenty of educated and reasonable people in both parties believe to be true, and is to some degree based on observed character traits rather than knuckle-dragging racism and blind hate.

It's the difference between calling Bill Clinton a liar and claiming he murdered Vince Foster, or calling Bush an idiot and claiming that he masterminded 9/11. In both cases, the first statement (that Clinton repeatedly lied and that Bush often gives the appearance of being rather stupid) strikes me as a reasonable thing to say about a powerful public figure, if less so about another sincere poster on a public forum.

[Ian McDowell]

Btw, I was responding more to Anonymous than Jim,, as I think that Sam is perfectly in his rights to attack Hillary Clinton, but less so in his his blanket condemnation of Democratic "hypocrisy." And Sam, while I agree that you didn't start it this time, the "I never do" defense doesn't work, no matter how impeccable one may believe one's own behavior to be. Birds do it, bees do it, and sometimes even you do it. Everybody's a jerk at least occasionally, and as someone who's that way more often than not, I'm particularly distrustful of those who claim they never are.

[spag]

I never denied I could be a jerk. I'm pretty good at it when called for.

[spag]

Jim, my comments as I stated, are not about individual Democrats, but the structure of the organization at the top levels and the leadership. Sure, the GOP has some of the same problems but I find them far less pervasive. But just look at this whole "superdelegate" mess as an example. What is that but consolidating power at the top? That isn't very democratic and it also guarantees the same Daleyesque leadership and control over the party. The Democratic Party is far more top down than the reverse.

I believe most Republican's are reluctantly drawn into politics, while the Democratic Party believes in pursuing power at any cost. I see a lot of that mentality filter down even here on this blog where so many people seem incapable of admitting any flaws in the Democratic party. It's always spin to win. I just believe that the GOP is less FOS than the Democrats by a wide margin- but that gap is closing.

What do I like about Lieberman? He's pretty conservative on a number of issues, but more importantly he is an honest broker who isn't afraid to call B.S. on his party and their leadership when called for. DPM was the same way. As far as Obama, if you Google him on my old site, The Conservative Alternative, you will find many complimentary things I have written about him. Some of the regulars here would know that to be the case.