McCamy Taylor
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-23-09 02:37 PM
Original message |
Maybe Gillibrand is a placeholder for Clinton in case she decides to go back to the Senate. |
|
This Gillibrand does not sound like she could withstand a serious challenge from within the Democratic Party if someone with a big brand name (such as Hillary Clinton) decided to challenge her in two years. So, maybe she was selected as a placeholder in case Hillary gets tired of being SOS and decides to go back to the Senate.
Just a thought.
|
wyldwolf
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-23-09 02:39 PM
Response to Original message |
|
This Gillibrand does not sound like she could withstand a serious challenge from within the Democratic Party.
She won't be challenged from within the Democratic party, just the Democratic party of New York - and she has Chuck Schumer on her side.
|
lapfog_1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-23-09 02:42 PM
Response to Original message |
2. I don't think that's the case, though she is a big Hillary supporter. |
|
Funny thing... a lot of people that endorsed Obama in the early to mid primary phase are now prevented from helping Obama enact his agenda...
Kennedy, Kerry, Richardson, even Edwards.
All have gone down since "betraying" the Clintons.
|
TTUBatfan2008
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-23-09 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. Interesting observation... |
|
Edited on Fri Jan-23-09 02:45 PM by TTUBatfan2008
But hey, the guy at the top is implementing his own agenda. Does anyone think the Clintons would have immediately tightened the noose around the lobbyists' necks in the White House?
|
Metric System
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-23-09 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
6. Damn those evil Clintons with their voodoo. |
rvablue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-23-09 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
7. My god you are delusional |
|
All this Clinton conspiracy crap is getting down right weird.
Kennedy? I'm assuming you mean Caroline. She removed her name from the running. Or maybe you think she is a liar?
Kerry is chairing a very important committee and will be primary in "enacting Obama's agenda."
Richardson, if he was taken out, was done so by the Bush DoJ, not Clinton.
And did Bill and Hillary force Edwards to cheat on his sick wife? Nope.
|
PBS Poll-435
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-23-09 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
:thumbsup:
DAMN THE CLENIS
|
lapfog_1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-23-09 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
Kennedy? I'm assuming you mean Caroline. She removed her name from the running. Or maybe you think she is a liar?
- yes, she took her name out of the running, has anyone heard a definitive WHY? (being that she was the front runner just a few days ago). Also, does anyone think the replacement will raise a lot of money for the election in 2 years? Nobody has ever heard of her.
Kerry is chairing a very important committee and will be primary in "enacting Obama's agenda."
- ok, but why wasn't he offered some role in the administration? He was an early and vigorous Obama supporter and would have made a good Sec Something.
Richardson, if he was taken out, was done so by the Bush DoJ, not Clinton.
- No, there was an investigation that was going on for a long time before Obama tapped him to be a cabinet member, but something happened and he used this investigation (which will likely not even involve him) as an excuse to step down. After all, the new Sec Treasury didn't even pay his taxes and he got through OK.
And did Bill and Hillary force Edwards to cheat on his sick wife? Nope
- It's not that he cheated, it's that it was exposed. Everyone has stuff to hide. Sometimes phone calls to reporters are made to "out" someone. It's not like he hadn't been having the affair for some time.
|
McCamy Taylor
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-23-09 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
8. Get over it. Bill and Hillary are talented Dems. They are an asset. Not a dynasty. |
|
Obama is making use of a Democratic asset, the way that any smart leader would. You denigrate Obama when you claim that the Clintons are running the show like some kind of Democratic Bush Mafia style family. From what I see, Obama is in charge. Not the Daley machine, not the DLC, not the Clintons.
The real Kennedy politicians, Ted and Robert Jr. are still in office. Kerry is still in office and he killed his own career when he did not challenge the vote in Ohio in 2004. Richardson was attacked by the Bush DOJ, but he will survive. Edwards had an affair.
|
Skwmom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-23-09 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
|
No, they are the Democratic version of the Bush clan. They destroyed the Democratic Party and now that it's rebuilt, they seemed determined to do it again.
But, if you call talented destroying the Democratic Party and our country (with deregulation, "free-trade," etc.) then yeah, I guess they are REAL talented.
I guess you think Bill is paid all of those hundreds of thousands of dollars for delivering speeches? Even the most die-hard Clinton fans don't seem to be able to answer yes to that question. It should be outlawed b/c it is nothing more than a public form of bribery and pay-off.
|
TheWraith
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-23-09 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
11. What are you on about? |
|
Edwards did something stupid and got popped for it. In any event, he owed no loyalty to the Clintons. Kerry has got a sweet new committee chair. Kennedy is doing what he prefers. And Richardson punched out to avoid hurting Obama over state politics.
|
lapfog_1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-23-09 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
|
Everyone has skeletons in the closet, the issue is why the closet door was opened.
There are rumors that Caroline might have had a skeleton or two as well, but who called her up and threatened to go to the press with it?
|
cali
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-23-09 02:43 PM
Response to Original message |
3. nope. Hillary won't be returning to the senate |
|
and you are way underestimating Gillibrand, who by all accounts is a very skilled pol.
|
Metric System
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-23-09 02:46 PM
Response to Original message |
TheWraith
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-23-09 02:53 PM
Response to Original message |
10. Are you kidding? Gillibrand is far to the left of Clinton. |
|
She supports gay marriage, medicare for all, etcetera. She'd going to hold this seat until she gets bored of it.
|
WI_DEM
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-23-09 03:17 PM
Response to Original message |
14. Gillibrand will easily win the primary next year. |
Skwmom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-23-09 05:01 PM
Response to Original message |
15. It would seem to give Clinton leverage with Obama b/c she |
|
can always threaten to return to the Senate and make all kinds of problems for him. Kennedy would have shut off that option.
The Clintons keep a senate seat open for Hillary and payback two more Obama supporters (Caroline and Ted Kennedy) who did not chose Queen Hillary over Obama. They also get another favor they can cash in when Clinton runs for Bill's third term again. They sure did get a lot of bang for their buck.
The NY Gov probably struck a deal in return for a nice paying corporate job after his Gov gig is over. Oh I forgot - only the IL Gov engages in such deals. I wonder if the IL fiasco has made the Obama team shy about striking any deals while letting the Clinton crew go into overdrive?
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed May 15th 2024, 06:15 AM
Response to Original message |