Yes, your bias against Clinton. Which is real and obvious. Do you deny disliking her?
I thought you meant against Obama.
And yes, you're right, I do dislike Clinton but not out of prejudice. I dislike her because I know how the Clinton's operate. I didn't dislike her in 2007, but by 2009, yes, I grew disdain for her having dealt with her people and her campaign.
She really is the Machiavellian politician of this era; and not only in the sense that she will do or say whatever it takes to get elected - but that she doesn't seem to care one way or the other.
Her positions are absurd, her politics are dirty in the worst way, and she has almost zero chance of rallying the population behind her which is precisely what will be necessary to get any of the changes any of the candidates are talking about.
YYou said embracing Obama's presidency is unimaginative and shows she will say anything to be president. That is ridiculous.
It's not remotely ridiculous. Why not actually understand what is being said instead of knee-jerkingly casting aspersions? I'm not the first poster to ask you to not do that.
But to answer your point, some of the very first questions posed to her were essentially along the same narrative. Anderson even asked her if she would "say anything to get elected" and you've actually said that my also questioning her on this is "ridiculous." C'mon.
Clinton is spring-boarding on the Obama Administration's success with the LGBT community when it is advantageous. She doesn't take positions unless they are politically expedient. She wants to argue against the War on Drugs when expedient but pull the "leave it to the States" argument when it isn't.
While she is beloved by the African-American community, she worked behind the scenes to challenge African-American votes during the 2008 primaries and to play racial politics against Barack Obama.
Her support for banking reform is a half-hearted joke, or didn't you notice? Who is she trying to fool?
She is a corporatist, DLC, New Democrat, centrist. To stand on that stage and call herself a liberal progressive is a complete lie, and contradicts statements she's made within the last several weeks.
Her campaign is claiming she is to the
left of Obama.
Fucking stop.
Gore's running away from Clinton's successful presidency is commonly thought of as a huge mistake.
Hindsight is 20/20.
Gore polled better than Clinton in early polls. You had polls showing that 74% of Americans, on average in early polling (Pew 1999), were simply "tired of the scandals of the Clinton Administration," and this included 64% of Democrats.
George W. Bush was a formidable candidate, and Gore decided to bet on himself. His bet seemingly paid off considering he won the popular vote and almost assuredly would have won Florida in a free and fair recount.
Now if you want to argue that he would have done much better had he run on a Clinton third term, well, that's largely fantasy. It might be true, but, it's impossible to know or predict with any degree of certainty.
However, if your argument is that Gore should not have asked Clinton not to campaign for him; well, you'll get no argument from me there, that was very likely a mistake. But that's a completely different question than running on your own platform. Clinton is running on Obama's platform, which is appalling considering their stated policy differences.
To get back to this election cycle, Obama is very popular among Democrats and is well liked by people in general. He would likely beat everyone from either party heads up in an election.
Clinton embracing Obama's platform and "going further" is a joke because anyone who actually knows Clinton's historical positions knows she doesn't really agree with Obama on most things.
Clinton understands that and doesn't want to make the same mistake. How is that unimaginative and how does that show she will say anything to be president?
Because you've contorted the argument into this framework about Gore which makes little sense. That isn't the dynamic at play here.
Clinton didn't agree with Obama while serving within the Administration. Not on a number of issues within and without her direct oversight. These two people do not share the same ideological positions or operate in the same ideological framework on a host of issues.
Instead of running on her traditional platform, the one she held in 2007, she is simply hoping to go through the motions five more times until the general.
She is essentially pulling a Mayweather to win the Presidency.
