How did McClinton do it?

How to lose by winning

What was the key to Hillary McClinton’s success last night? She proved – again – fear works, thus demonstrating why she’s already conceded to McCain. And she won big where Democrats are sure to lose in November: rural America. That sounds, at least to me, like the definition of a pyrrhic victory.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

6 thoughts on “How did McClinton do it?

  1. halfnhalf

    Sure that 3 a.m. TV commercial was strongly fearful, but is she implying that while in the White House, she was answering the phone at 3 a.m.? If not, then why is she any better than Obama would be?

    911 was horrifying, but the point is that more people are killed each year by hand-guns. Ditto auto accidents. No, it wasn’t the death count that spurred Washington into action. It was the financial blow that did it.

  2. Phil Sheehan

    fear works
    conceded to McCain
    where Democrats are sure to lose
    pyrrhic victory

    In four neat phrases, you sum up what the MSM complicate or overlook.

    Hillary’s campaign — its motivation, rationale, methods — derives more than most Democrats are willing to acknowledge from the Rove playbook. If she wins the nomination, the rest of us will be put to the test: Can we jettison our misgivings and hustle up enthusiasm, once again, for the lesser of two evils? And what of Obama? Should he lose, will he cave in, turn obsequious, and cuddle up to the Clintons as McCain did to the neocons? I think not, but I sincerely hope we will not have to find out.

  3. Paul Woodward

    McClinton didn’t have a security clearance – Bill couldn’t even repeat what those 3am callers had to say. And let’s face it, she didn’t even know what was going on under her own roof much of the time. If eight years living in the White House was as invaluable an experience for a would-be president to have, does that mean Hillary would favor Laura Bush over Obama?

  4. Enzo

    It would be nice if Obama and team were to take this opportunity to become practised in annihilating or deflecting spurious attacks without compromising their integrity or ethics while they’re at it.

  5. Russ

    Short and to the point, Mr. Woodward. I do not believe that Mr. Obama has it in him to fight the despicable falsehoods and garbage being thrown at him by the Clinton camp. He may either be too timid, easily shell shocked or too decent to descend into the muck with those who would do anything to gain power. I would hope the latter.

    Mrs. Clinton compared her fellow democrat with John McCain, touting the latter as far better qualified to rule than Obama. Never, ever have I seen a Republican engage in such despicable behaviour. What Mrs. Clinton and her people are saying, loud and clear, is that if they cannot have the nomination, then better be it that Mr. Obama be so ruined by November that John McCain coasts toelection as the new president.

    I have never seen such cynicism and raw greed for power in anyone in American presidential campaign history. Her behaviour and actions tell us a whole lot about the character (or lack thereof) and personality of this person who seeks the highest office in the land and control of the most power ever held in the hands of anyone or nation, in history.

    Woe be on America if she should, by some miracle, win, but I agree with you completely, whether she is the nominee, the democrats will NOT win. Welcome to the era of the new one hundred years war.


  6. carol Elkins

    Clinton’s experience shows in her knowledge of how easy it is to blow the breath of fear into the American people’s brains. This is Obama’s blind spot. When the red phone ad came out, he said he didn’t think the American people would buy it. They did. We are not a nation of men but a nation of mice.

Comments are closed.