Tuesday's debate and the real danger of a Hillary Clinton nomination

[jgraz]

Hillary's on-stage triangulating has yet to hurt her in the primary polls, but that may be masking a dangerous problem that will only be truly realized in the general election. As examples, I give you four of Hillary's responses in the debate. (Apologies for the long quotes, but I want to avoid any possible "out of context" accusations.)

First we have her response to Russert's question on Iran's nuclear weapons:

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, would you pledge to the American people that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb while you are president?

SEN. CLINTON: I intend to do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.

MR. RUSSERT: But you won't pledge?

SEN. CLINTON: I am pledging I will do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.

MR. RUSSERT: But they may.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, you know, Tim, you asked me if I would pledge, and I have pledged that I will do everything I can -- (audience laughter) -- to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.

Then Russert asked about her records as First Lady:

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I'd like to follow up because, in terms of your experience as first lady, in order to give the American people an opportunity to make a judgment about your experience, would you allow the National Archives to release the documents about your communications with the president, the advice you gave, because, as you well know, President Clinton has asked the National Archives not to do anything until 2012?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, actually, Tim, the Archives is moving as rapidly as the Archives moves. There's about 20 million pieces of paper there and they are moving, and they are releasing as they do their process. And I am fully in favor of that.

Now, all of the records, as far as I know, about what we did with health care, those are already available. Others are becoming available. And I think that, you know, the Archives will continue to move as rapidly as the circumstances and processes demand.

MR. RUSSERT: But there was a letter written by President Clinton specifically asking that any communication between you and the president not be made available to the public until 2012. Would you lift that ban?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, that's not my decision to make. And I don't believe that any president or first lady has. But certainly we'll move as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the National Archives permits.

Later, Russert asked her about her position on Social Security:

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I want to clear something up, which goes to the issue of credibility.

You were asked at the AARP debate whether or not you would consider taxing -- lifting the cap from 97,500, taxing that, raising more money for Social Security. You said, quote, "It's a no." I asked you the same question in New Hampshire. You said no. Then you went to Iowa and you went up to Tod Bowman, a teacher, and had a conversation with him, saying, I would consider a -- lifting the cap perhaps above 200,000. You were overheard by an Associated Press reporter saying that.

Why do you have one public position and one private position?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, Tim, I don't. I have said consistently that my plan for Social Security is fiscal responsibility first, then to deal with any long-term challenges which, I agree, are ones that we're going to have to address. We would have a bipartisan commission. In the context of that, I think all of these would be considered.

But personally I do not want to balance Social Security on the backs of our seniors and middle class families. That's why I put fiscal responsibility first, because we have to change the Bush tax cuts, which I am committed to doing. We have to move back toward a more fair and progressive tax system and begin once again to move toward a balanced budget with a surplus.

You know, part of the idea in the '90s was not just so Bill would have a check mark next to his name in history, but so that we would have the resources to deal with a lot of these entitlement problems. George Bush understood that, the Republicans understood that. They wanted to decimate that balanced budget and a surplus because they knew that that would give them a free hand to try to privatize Social Security. I am not going to be repeating Republican talking points.

So when somebody asks me, would something like this be considered? Well, anything can be considered when we get to a bipartisan commission, but personally, I am not going to be advocating any specific fix until I am seriously approaching fiscal responsibility.

MR. RUSSERT: But you did raise it as a possibility with Tod Boman.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, but everybody knows what the possibilities are, Tim. Everybody knows that. But I do not -- I do not advocate it, I do not support it. I have laid out what I do believe, and I'm going to continue to emphasize that. I think for us to act like Social Security is in crisis is a Republican trap. We're playing on the Republican field, and I don't intend to do that.

And finally, we have her already notorious answer on the issue of granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants:

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer has proposed giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. You told the Nashua, New Hampshire editorial board it makes a lot of sense. Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver's license?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform. We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It's probability. So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum.

I believe we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform because no state, no matter how well-intentioned, can fill this gap.

There needs to be federal action on immigration reform.

MR. RUSSERT: Does anyone here believe an illegal immigrant should not have a driver's license?

SEN. DODD: This is a privilege. And look, I'm as forthright and progressive on immigration policy as anyone here, but we're dealing with a serious problem here, we need to have people come forward. The idea that we're going to extend this privilege here of a driver's license, I think, is troublesome. And I think the American people are reacting to it.

We need to deal with security on our borders, we need to deal with the attraction that draws people here, we need to deal fairly with those who are here; but this is a privilege. Talk about health care, I have a different opinion. That affects the public health of all of us. But a license is a privilege, and that ought not to be extended, in my view.

MR. WILLIAMS: Who else? Senator --

SEN. CLINTON: I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it. And we have failed --

SEN. DODD: Wait a minute. No, no, no. You said yes, you thought it made sense to do it.

SEN. CLINTON: No, I didn't, Chris. But the point is, what are we going to do with all these illegal immigrants who are (driving ?) -- (inaudible)?

SEN. DODD: Well, that's a legitimate issue. But driver's license goes too far, in my view.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, you may say that, but what is the identification if somebody runs into you today who is an undocumented worker --

SEN. DODD: There's ways of dealing with that.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, but --

SEN. DODD: This is a privilege, not a right.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, what Governor Spitzer has agreed to do is to have three different licenses; one that provides identification for actually going onto airplanes and other kinds of security issues, another which is an ordinary driver's license, and then a special card that identifies the people who would be on the road.

SEN. DODD: That's a bureaucratic nightmare.

SEN. CLINTON: So it's not the full privilege.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure what I heard. Do you, the New York Senator Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor's plan to give illegal immigrants a driver's license? You told the Nashua, New Hampshire, paper it made a lot of sense.

SEN. CLINTON: It --

MR. RUSSERT: Do you support his plan?

SEN. CLINTON: You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays gotcha. It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problem. We have failed, and George Bush has failed.

Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York we want to know who's in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows. He's making an honest effort to do it. We should have passed immigration reform.

So there you have it: four questions, four dissembling, triangulating answers. Never committing, never tying herself down, never demonstrating core principles -- in short, playing right into the biggest criticisms against her and her husband.

Now imagine Hillary giving answers like this in the final debate of the General Election. The entire nation is watching and Hillary clearly demonstrates that in this area she is exactly as bad as the right has been portraying her. How does a candidate recover from that?

It's a basic fact of politics. If we nominate a candidate who has something to hide, or at least acts as if she has things to hide, then we run the risk at every non-scripted appearance that she will be exposed -- that she will make some slip that reveals the depths of her dishonesty. And then it's game over, hello President Giuliani.

Is that a risk you're willing to take?

[Eric J in MN]

1. The American public thought John Kerry won all three debates with Bush,

...but Kerry wasn't inaugurated.

The relationship between debates and who gets to be president aren't one-to-one.

[jgraz]

2. Um...except that Kerry actually won the election

Are you saying that debates don't count because the election could be stolen? That doesn't make any sense.

[Renew Deal]

5. And Kerry cut Bush's lead by around 10 points

IIRC.

[jgraz]

7. Good point. Bush really tanked after that first debate

I believe Krugman called it "the scales falling from people's eyes." We could run that same risk with a Hillary candidacy.

[earthlover]

65. I don't follow you...are you implying that a poor performance in the debates is a good thing?

Uffda!

[Eric J in MN]

68. No, but I don't think Hillary Clinton was all that bad the other night,

...and it's just one factor in who gets to be president.

[earthlover]

69. It was HOW she did poorly that was potentially devestating

The worst part of the debate for Hillary was that she, on several occassions (especially)the drivers license for illegals thing, came off as trying to have it both ways. Triangulation and vague generalities may work....if it is not obvious to the voters that this is what a canidate is doing. But it becomes obvious to the voters, it moves from being "safe" all the way to the perception of "talking out of both sides of mouth". That is what started to happen during this week's debate.

This debate would provide several film clips that the Reps could use against her if she were to be the nominee, another reason her performance was poor.

All in all, I am sure Hillary's planners will be working hard to try to repair the damage.

Was it a knock out blow to Hillary. Of course not. It was more like the third round of a fight when the odds on favorite shows a weakness, something the opponent can exploit. We will see, in later rounds of the fight, if Hillary's opponents will be able to exploit the vulnerabilities demonstrated this week. In any case, the inevitibility thing is less believable....

[TwilightGardener]

3. Here's my hope--that IF she wins, she will come out of her permanent

dissembling/triangulating campaign mode and become a real leader. I do think she's competent, for what it's worth.

[jgraz]

4. That's everybody's hope. But then there's always the run for a second term...

And of course, she has to get elected first. If she turns in the kind of performance we saw last night, it could be catastophic in the general.

[Colobo]

66. That's not going to happen- she is what she is.

[cali]

6. bwahahah

considering our recent conversation with your accusations about Hillary supporters trying to scare DUers, this post is too funny. And where's the beef, grazzie? Where are all these polls showing that Clinton is down in the polls due to her performance in the debate? The exhaustive new Pew poll and report, released today, shows no such thing.

Now I don't care for Clinton, and I didn't like her answers or demeanor in the debate, but I prefer to live in the real world. And in the real world, Clinton does as well as the others against Guiliani, who btw, I see as a weak candidate. He splits the party, and many in the repuke base consider him as evil as Hillary. You do know that there are a lot of single issue voters in the repuke party, right? And guess what that issue is?

[jgraz]

9. Losing arguments seems to be turning you nasty.

Also it's affecting your reading comprehension, which wasn't great to begin with.

Seriously, I don't mind you stalking all my posts, but please actually read them and try to respond with parseable English. Thanks.

[Clintonista2]

17. Jgraz, don't look now but..

Your desperation is showing.

[jgraz]

19. Thanks Lirwin. I know how much your opinion is valued on this board.

:rofl:

[Skip Intro]

8. I personally don't see anything wrong with her answers.

I think you could do what you're trying to do here with Edwards' and Obama's answers. Hillary came across far more clearlly to me in that debate than either of those candidates did.


In fact, I believe the only candidate who did better than Hillary was Biden.

[Eric J in MN]

11. I agree these answers aren't so bad.

She plans to try to stop Iran from getting nukes, but can't guarantee it. Fine.

She plans to leave Social Security alone, but if she has to do something, she'll tax high-income workers more. Fine.

[jgraz]

13. When the audience laughs derisively at you, it's a bad answer

Mix in a large national audience and a fully-spun-up right-wing noise machine and you've got a recipe for disaster.

[Clintonista2]

14. Erm.. did you actually WATCH the debate? Or have you only read the transcript?

The audience wasn't "laughing" at her. The audience was laughing at her smackdown of Tim Russert.

[jgraz]

15. Uh..ok. Just keep saying that and it may begin to sound believable

In the meantime, I'm laughing derisively at you. :rofl:

[Clintonista2]

16. Alrighty

Go watch the video before you make yourself look anymore foolish.

[jgraz]

18. Let's see. Who else thinks the audience was laughing at Russert?

Anyone? Anyone? (Well, anyone without a Hillary avatar)

[Skip Intro]

21. yeah, I just posted as much just below

I was interrupted (at work) while typing, and posted only to see that someone else had beaten me to making the point.

[Clintonista2]

22. Here's a link to the exchange..

Go to about -5:55 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x66111

They are clearly laughing with Clinton. There is also applause in the audience.

[jgraz]

24. ha...one clap is not "applause"

But keep spinning. You're almost distracting people from the real issues raised in the OP.

Oh wait...no you're not.

[Clintonista2]

26. One clap?

Methinks you forgot to watch the video again...

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Clintonista2]

33. That's wierd. Non-Hillary people are supporting what I am saying

Scroll down in this thread a bit, and see what they are saying.

[jgraz]

35. You realize people can actually just look at the posts, don't you

You and skip seem to be having a mutual love-fest. We've yet to hear from anyone else on the topic.

[Clintonista2]

36. Oh ok

People still agree with me: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3673165

[jgraz]

37. And the rest of us don't care. Why don't you post another thread on her immigration answer?

Now THAT would be entertaining.

[Clintonista2]

38. Aww poor Jgraz. Now he "doesn't care" and changes the subject.

Feeling a bit foolish? Don't start fights you can't win.

[jgraz]

40. My evaluation hasn't changed. What I don't care about is your blowing up of a side issue

You'd much rather fight about some interpretation of an audience response than the central issue of the OP. Classic spin. Classic Clinton.

Also, you might want to save your little touchdown dance for when you actually get more than two or three people to agree with you.

[Clintonista2]

41. No, you were the one who brought it up

I simply told you that you should watch the video rather than just read the transcript before passing judgement. You were the one who turned this into a battle (which you ended up losing).

[jgraz]

43. Hokay, Lirwin. Get back to me when your little thread gets more than two people agreeing with you

This whole discussion has caused me to drop 10 IQ points. Do you have that effect on everyone?

[Clintonista2]

44. Sure thing!

10 responses in my "little thread", not a single "At her" person. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3673165&mesg_id=3673165

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skip Intro]

20. I think the audience was laughing with her, not at her.

Russert was trying to get her to promise something that is not fully within her control. I think several candidates gave basically the same answer, except for Biden, who hit it out of the park.

But I think the audience was lauging more at Russert's insistence that she promise the unpromisable (if that's a word). Hillary just refused to let him put words in her mouth. Good for her.

[jgraz]

23. Then why did the laughter start in response to her answer and not to Russert's question?

Was the audience on a tape delay? Listening over satellite phone? If your analysis is correct, it seems they were a bit slow on the uptake, don't you think?

[Clintonista2]

25. Go and watch the video, and see for yourself

The audience isn't only laughing, it's applauding aswell. Go to this video, and go to where there is 5:55 time left: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x66111

[Skip Intro]

27. The audience starts laughing as she answer's the question for the third time

with the same answer, despite the prodding of Russert to use his words instead. The audience didn't laugh the first two times she gave the same answer, but the third time, which would indicate to me that the audience found Hillary's refusal to bow to Russert's idiocy funny, as did I as I watched. If they were laughing at her answer, they would have laughed the first time she gave it. It was the fact that she had to tell Russert three times before he got it that was funny.

[Clintonista2]

31. Exactly

Jgraz has obviously not bothered to watch the video, because it's very clear who they were laughing at.

[2rth2pwr]

45. You're the one slow on the uptake. nt

[jgraz]

48. Oooh...the Rubber/Glue response. Whatever will I do?

Is recess over yet? :rofl:

[2rth2pwr]

54. Your not bad at the comebacks

It's the rest of your repertoire that sucks.

[emilyg]

53. They laughed with her. Get it?

[The_Casual_Observer]

10. The real danger is that Hillary will do a great job & make a lot

of people around here look foolish.

[jgraz]

12. There isn't one Hillary detractor on this board who wouldn't want her to succeed as president

We just haven't seen any evidence that that will happen.

[The River]

29. Totally Irrelevant Supposition

I'd be happy to look foolish as hell 24/7 if that would
guarantee she was a great President. It's no danger at all.
How foolish will the Hillary "fans" feel if she is nominated and then looses the General?
that said....
She is the greatest cover story the GOP could want
to get away with their plans to steal the 2008 election via
black box vote theft.

[bunnies]

28. This would not be a good showing in a GE debate...

I cant believe anyone would honestly argue against that. Whether or not it would translate to the polls remains to be seen... but a republican would be all over ANY dem if they gave answers like these.

[MGKrebs]

51. That may be so... to a degree.

Nuanced answers are often more truthful than simple ones. How many people here are so enamored of the Edwards pledge to make Congress give up their insurance if they don't give the same coverage to everybody else? The thing is, it sounds good, but it's bullshit. The President can't do that. Same with not taking the lobbyist money. There are lots of lobbyists who aren't corporate whores, and failing to make that distinction is just pandering and political b.s. The simple answer is just wrong sometimes.

Hillary is giving nuanced answers to complex issues, which is hard to do in the sound bite arena we've created for these candidates. As long as we keep insisting on ridiculously simple answers to complicated issues, we'll keep getting empty headed but "strong" candidates who don't really have to know what they are talking about, only what triggers an emotional response in people. We can do better. We reject so much else of the Bush syndicate, but this to me is the essence of it. They don't care about policy, or truth, or progress. They only seem to care about profit and winning. They will say anything to win, and that usually means fear or greed. Simple answers that people have a hard time resisting, but ultimately don't help solve our problems. We can do better.

To the extent that Hillary, or any other candidate for that matter, dances around certain questions, I don't think it should be a surprise to anyone that some questions are volatile, the country is divided, candidates have to win the nomination before they can compete in the general, and therefore they will try to avoid making answers that half the country currently disagrees with. It's the same as saying "we'll deal with this later". A "time out" if you will. Some work has to be done before we can arrive at a reasonable solution for some problems.

Someday in the future we may have a more progressive country, but right now there is no evidence that a strongly progressive candidate can win on a national level. Let's face it, half the country is conservative. The main reason Dems are looking so good right now is not because we've convinced them that our way is the right way. It's because the current Republicans are self-destructing. It's not a philosophical issue. It's just corruption and incompetence. It's an opportunity for us, but we could easily overplay this into defeat. Save the philosophical purity tests for your volunteer work with the ACLU and Planned Parenthood and poverty assistance. This is presidential politics and everybody gets to play, even those who disagree with us.

The thing is though, you might not like the more direct answers we will get in the GE. The candidate will need some swing votes, and many of those, by definition, are not going to be particularly progressive. We just don't get to vote for "candidate A" vs. "pure progressivism". We only get to vote for a Dem vs. a Repub. in a more European system, we would have more parties and we would at least get to be part of a coalition, but here it's all or nothing. If we get more direct answers in the GE from a Dem candidate, it is more likely those answers will be farther to the right than we would like, and they probably should be if we want the Dem to win, so long as they are to the left of the Repub candidate.

[Sparkly]

30. I think adversaries want lots and lots of details to use as ammunition.

In many cases, it'd be politically stupid to hand them what they want.

[Enrique]

34. danger!

:scared:

[cali]

39. Pennsylvania: Clinton Opens Double Digit Leads

Thursday, November 01, 2007

In Pennsylvania, Senator Hillary Clinton has opened a double digit lead over four Republican Presidential candidates. The survey, conducted before Tuesday night’s Democratic debate, reflects a big improvement for the former First Lady from a month ago.

<snip>

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

[jgraz]

42. Did you mean to post this as an independent thread?

Cuz it has little or nothing to do with my OP. If you need me to explain why, perhaps you should PM me. The rest of the board already gets it -- no need to waste their time.

[cali]

46. No I didn't, and yes I think it's germane to your OP

How? You posit that Clinton is the weakest thread. I counter by suggesting that polling- and not just this one poll, suggests that you're wrong. You seem to think that her performance in the debate and her triangulation will damage her. I doubt that. Part of the reason that I doubt that is that the repuke brand has suffered real and evidently, lasting damage. That's good news for all the dem candidate. I believe any of them except Kucinich and perhaps Dodd, has an excellent chance of winning in the general. You continuously insist-sans evidence- that she's the weakest possible nominee. You appear to think that her negatives are an insurmountable stumbling block. It appears, as reflected in numerous polls, that they are not.

Thanks for your kind invitation to pm you, but I have no desire to do so. I get it just fine. And do you really think that you have the stature to speak for the rest of the board? Smells like hubris to me.

[jgraz]

50. Once again, reading comprehension bites you in the ass

I know I'm repeating myself but if you're going to respond to a substantive post, please make sure you ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND IT. I don't know how much clearer I can make it, but I'll try. Here's the relevant quote from the OP:

So there you have it: four questions, four dissembling, triangulating answers. Never committing, never tying herself down, never demonstrating core principles -- in short, playing right into the biggest criticisms against her and her husband.

Now imagine Hillary giving answers like this in the final debate of the General Election. The entire nation is watching and Hillary clearly demonstrates that in this area she is exactly as bad as the right has been portraying her. How does a candidate recover from that?

It's a basic fact of politics. If we nominate a candidate who has something to hide, or at least acts as if she has things to hide, then we run the risk at every non-scripted appearance that she will be exposed -- that she will make some slip that reveals the depths of her dishonesty. And then it's game over, hello President Giuliani.

Is that a risk you're willing to take?

OK. I'll type slowly so you can keep up.

The premise of my post is that Hillary's stumbling and dishonesty can cause the Democrats problems in the General Election. In case you missed it, I said the General Election. Is the General Election happening yet? Has Hillary made a debate gaffe in the General Election? I'll say no, since the General Election is not underway yet.

Your posting of current polls is a non-sequitor because the risk I was raising was in the (say it with me) General Election.

[cali]

52. I don't think you get it, and clearly the fact that practically no one

on your thread agrees with you, is turning you very nasty indeed.

You don't get to say the shit you're saying which btw, is simply a variation your theme of Hillary is not electable, and then dictate HOW people respond to your post. That isn't the way it works.

You want to focus on the debate? Fine. Let me suggest that the way you perceived her performance, and I perceived it, and many other DUers and *some* pundits perceived it, is not some holy and infallible writ. Many people thought she did just fine. Your perceptions are yours, not something that's universal. that's a huge mistake to make. YOU perceived her as being stumbling and dishonest. The general public may very well not have- at least those relative few who saw it. And the pundits did not have a uniform opinion. She appears to have come through that debate, relatively unscathed. And truly, how good are your perceptions? Not very, as evidenced by your bizarre insistence that the audience was laughing AT her. Grab a clue: that is not what happened, and others can see that, and no they're not all "hillbots".

You might also wish to consider that she was in a debate where she was being attacked by several people for 2 hours. How many people are in the debates in the general election, jgraz? Two. That's how many, and that's one reason why trying to extrapolate from the debate the other night is a flawed construct. Furthermore, have none of the others had poor debate nights? Is it really worth worrying about Clinton's performance in one debate, and trying to say ooh, this could happen in the general? ANYTHING could happen in the general.

Oh, and yes polls are germane to the general. They may just be a snapshot, but they show that if the election were held today, she'd beat her opponents.

And one more thing, on more than one occasion in this thread, you claimed to speak for the whole board. As practically nobody in this thread agreed with you, you looked particularly silly. As I said before, you might want to drop that.

[jgraz]

55. Starting a post with a clearly false assertion doesn't gain you any points

"fact that practically no one on your thread agrees with you"

Two things here: 1) nine recs so far is a prety good indication that more than a few people agree with me. 2) Regardless of what the Hillary supporters would have you believe, truth is not subject to poll results.


"You don't get to say the shit you're saying which btw, is simply a variation your theme of Hillary is not electable"

Again, the point I'm making is a little complicated, but I think with some effort you may be able to comprehend it. It's not that she's simply unelectable, it's that her dishonesty puts her at risk for a catastrophic flameout after the Democratic convention.


"and then dictate HOW people respond to your post. That isn't the way it works."

I'm merely pointing out that you don't seem to UNDERSTAND my post -- something you continue to prove with each response.


"You want to focus on the debate? Fine. Let me suggest that the way you perceived her performance, and I perceived it, and many other DUers and *some* pundits perceived it, is not some holy and infallible writ.'

Hang on. So you can rely on poll results but the rest of us can't? Following the debate, the Greatest Page was covered in posts deriding Hillary's performance and the pro-Hillary crowd was all but MIA. Why do you think that was?


"You might also wish to consider that she was in a debate where she was being attacked by several people for 2 hours. How many people are in the debates in the general election, jgraz? Two. That's how many, and that's one reason why trying to extrapolate from the debate the other night is a flawed construct. Furthermore, have none of the others had poor debate nights? Is it really worth worrying about Clinton's performance in one debate, and trying to say ooh, this could happen in the general? ANYTHING could happen in the general."

You think Hillary will somehow be attacked LESS in a two-person debate with a Rethug? She will need to fill 50% of the time with something that does NOT set off alarm bells in voters. If she turns in a performance like she did last night, she's finished.


"Oh, and yes polls are germane to the general. They may just be a snapshot, but they show that if the election were held today, she'd beat her opponents."

Which is emphatically NOT germane to the point I was making.


"And one more thing, on more than one occasion in this thread, you claimed to speak for the whole board. As practically nobody in this thread agreed with you, you looked particularly silly. As I said before, you might want to drop that."

See, if you actually pay attention and use basic reading skills, you can pick up a sense of how many people feel on the board. You may not agree, but you haven't really demonstrated a lot of skill in this area.

[cali]

56. one false statement after another is what YOU are doing.

And avoiding the points I made. You are adept at that. All you have to do is count the posts in this thread that agree with you and the ones that don't and you'll see that the majority here do not agree with you. What do recs mean? Not much; not even that people have read the OP.

"truth"? truth is highly subjective. Poll results from a broad array of polls, less so.

As for your not-so-subtle continuous insinuations that I'm stupid, they're nothing but ad hominem attacks. I'm not going to defend my intelligence to you. I'll let my posts in this thread speak for themselves. And I'm not going to stoop to your level and return the insult. I don't think you are stupid, so why say it?

You state that the reviews on DU for Clinton were poor. Yep. And that means waay less than poll results. DU, after all, consistently votes for Kucinich as their favorite choice. In the real world he gets from 2 to 7% in those nasty polls you so deride.In other words, DU's collective "wisdom", is usually off base on these matters. And no, I didn't notice that the Hillary supporters were MIA. I saw plenty of them defending her performance.

If you can't grasp that a two person debate is wholly different structure than a 7 person debate, you really should think again. And let's not forget that before the other night, she evidently did just fine in the debates. You insist that this one debate carries far more weight then those that preceded it.

You're desperate. You look desperate. You have nothing but cheap insults. You're not making your case that she's the worst possible candidate. You are, in fact, all over the map.

I'm done here, but have at it. The last word is all yours.

[jgraz]

59. NOW you're playing the vicitm card?

You've followed me around all day on this board making snide comments and posting non-sequitors and NOW you want to act like some sort of victim?

The fact is you either understand exactly what you're doing and you keep doing it, or you really think that you're actually responding to what I've posted. Either way, it doesn't reflect well on you.

[cali]

60. Well, I said I wasn't going to respond, and here I am.

No, I'm not playing the victim card. I pointed out that you repeatedly called me stupid in this thread- and come to think of it, not only in this thread. Sure, you cloaked it in snark, but it wasn't disguised well, now was it meant to be.

I'm not following you around either. That's just lame. And yes, with the exception of my first post in this thread, I AM actually responding to what you posted. You may not like my responses, but they are not, as you claim, missing the point. I made several points about why you're wrong, and you had a hissyfit. In fact, if you review your posts in this thread with any kind of objectivity, you'll see that you threw one hissy fit after another. I'm not quite sure why.

Have a good night.

[jgraz]

61. Here's where we started

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2180743&mesg_id=2181059

And now you're complaining about the tone of the debate. :eyes:

Here's an idea: if you don't like nasty comments, you can start by not making them.

[cali]

62. OK, I snarked in that thread. But that's hardly where we started.

Here's what I said:
oooh, grazzie has a crystal ball.
the truth is, we don't know how many people are like the OP's wife. And your dire prediction about the base could be right or it could be wrong. You don't know. You're simply blowing hot air.

And no, I'm not complaining; I'm calling you on your repeatedly saying that I'm stupid.

But let's grant that we've both been snarky and nasty. Except for my first post in this thread, I haven't been. And I'm willing to say to you that I'll try not to snark at you in the future. I'm sure we'll disagree, because, well, we don't agree on just about anything. And I'm not going to ask you to follow suit. That's up to you. Furthermore, I will call you on it if you keep slinging it at me.

[jgraz]

63. Note the change in tone following that comment

Your comment seemed to come out of the blue in response to what I thought was a reasonable post. If you accuse another poster of "blowing hot air", chances are that your comment will result in a coarsening of the conversation. Not really an excuse on my part, but more of an explanation.

All in all, not really the best day for either of us. Luckily, everyone else probably stopped paying attention hours ago. ;)

[cali]

64. LOL! That's probably true, and thank the gods for

small mercies.

:hi:

[Clintonista2]

57. Jgraz, give it a rest. You look more and more foolish after each post. nm.

[jgraz]

58. Thanks Lirwin. I really spend a lot of time worrying about what you think

As do all of the adults on this board. Your approval is sooo important to us.

[illinoisprogressive]

67. It will be awhile before any damage done is going to show up. then we will know.