Why Did The Democrat Party In 2008 Thow The Alleged Experienced Hillary Under The Bus For Inexperienced Barack Obama (Reid, election)

[Ponderosa]

All I can say is "what difference does it make? You need to get your head around this simple fact: if Hillary Clinton chooses to run, Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States. No amount of trolling for negative remarks about her from your conservative brethren on this forum is going to change that. Neither the Dems nor the Pubs have anyone who can stop her if she wants the job. She is the closest thing to a shoo-in we have had since Roosevelt.

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by Chimuelojones

It was to soon to go from Bush to Clinton to Bush...then back to Clinton. Hillary understood this. She has bade her time.

What do names have to do with anything?

[Volobjectitarian]

The stump speeches and debates nominated Obama over Hillary. On the campaign trail, Obama was smoother, more calm, affable and pleasant. In debates, Hillary made the same mistake McCain did - being more fired up, while Obama stood there smiling that half smile, so calm and poised he wouldn't have blinked if someone had tossed live grenades at him. In the entire campaign, he came off more presidential than his opponents. This is not surprising because campaigning is the only legitimate government function he does well.

And she wasn't vastly more experienced than Obama. She had four more years of US Senate experience, seven fewer years of state Senate experience, and her big claim to fame was being the the most famous woman ever for being cheated on by her husband.

Obama won that primary, she didn't lose it, nor was she thrown under any busses. He beat her just like he beat McCain. Like I said, campaigning is all Obama does well. He's never governed or legislated well, but he's a gifted candidate.

[Clark Park]

Originally Posted by Hyperthetic

So . . that's like democratical rather than republicanical?

You say potatoe, I say potato.

The sign above their headquarters says The National Democratic Party.

There is also The National Republican Party.

There is no Democrat Party.

There is no Repugnant Party.

Jews are members of the Jewish Religion, not the "Jew Religion."

Did you get that? Can I explain it to you in another way?

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

You need to get your head around this simple fact: if Hillary Clinton chooses to run, Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States.

Explain yourself, please.

Harrier thinks that you need to learn the definition of "fact".

Hint - it is not some delusion that you have running around inside your head.

[Clark Park]

Back on topic ...

No one "threw" Hillary "under the bus."

Obama won the nomination, Hillary didn't.

Later Hillary became Secretary of State under Obama.

What's so hard to understand?

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by Harrier

Explain yourself, please.

Harrier thinks that you need to learn the definition of "fact".

Hint - it is not some delusion that you have running around inside your head.

And methinks you need to learn the definition of "denial".

[Clark Park]

I think Republicans are trying to play some kind of childish game by calling the Democratic Party "the Democrat Party."

Do you think that is clever?

I don't.

[Britt Reid]

Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian

The stump speeches and debates nominated Obama over Hillary. On the campaign trail, Obama was smoother, more calm, affable and pleasant. In debates, Hillary made the same mistake McCain did - being more fired up, while Obama stood there smiling that half smile, so calm and poised he wouldn't have blinked if someone had tossed live grenades at him. In the entire campaign, he came off more presidential than his opponents. This is not surprising because campaigning is the only legitimate government function he does well.

And she wasn't vastly more experienced than Obama. She had four more years of US Senate experience, seven fewer years of state Senate experience, and her big claim to fame was being the the most famous woman ever for being cheated on by her husband.

Obama won that primary, she didn't lose it, nor was she thrown under any busses. He beat her just like he beat McCain. Like I said, campaigning is all Obama does well. He's never governed or legislated well, but he's a gifted candidate.

But as a candidate, what were Obama's past executive experience at governing, running a business, balancing budgets or dealing with fiscal reforms? Those are the most important you look at when chosing a good candidate.

[WilliamSmyth]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

She lost because Obama dominated the youth and black votes because he connected better with them given his age and of course ethnicity.

Playing the sax on saturday night live or shooting baskets on the court connect you with youth voters. Young voters looked at Hillary like she was going to offer them some penny candy and show them pictures of her cats.

But how did Obama come to connect with the Youth and Black voters? As late as Dec. 2007 Clinton was polling better than Obama with both groups. In fact, Clinton was ahead in every group except for voters in the Midwest.

Clinton Excels Among Seniors, Low-Income Democrats

I maintain the difference was the Obama team was prepared to compete in every contest from the beginning. Therefore Obama was able to build on his success in neighboring Iowa, where as the Clinton team was scrabbling in some states that they didn't think they would need to even bother with.