Hillary Clinton says Barack Obama Can't Win

By Erick Posted in Comments (35) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

And he can't. Hillary, for once, is right. Barack Obama may be cruising to a victory in the Democratic Primary, and we should be rooting for him. As Operation Chaos starts to wind down, with Democrats generally in disarray, Republicans look like they are on the road to defying history and keeping the White House at a time they probably should be losing it.

Obama cannot win because he is married to a Communist harpy who campaigns with Teresa Heinz. These two women are more out of touch with American reality than Paris Hilton and Britney Spears.

Obama cannot win because the more we learn about him, the more we learn he is a chronic, compulsive liar. And we will set the record straight. See here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Obama cannot win because, while he can sweep up solidly blue states and solidly red states that will never go blue in a general election, he cannot sweep up the states that he needs in order to be competitive.

And Obama cannot win because of all the albatrosses already weighing him down.

Therefore, the Republican Party, though recognizing that for once in her life Hillary Clinton is right, really needs Barack Obama to win.

« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | McCain Answers Hillary's CallComments (11) »
Hillary Clinton says Barack Obama Can't Win 35 Comments (0 topical, 35 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

in all that you have said. And, let us not forget the Clinton factor, if she can't have it, no democrat will have it.

She and the entire Democratic party are beginnging to unravel, and how there is this report in the Washington Times about how bickering among the left slanted bloggers is having adverse effects on the entire party.

Like I said in this post, she might just bring the whole thing down around her head.

.45 Caliber Politics

that far to the left. The majority of Americans also love their country and his minister and his wife and without a doubt he himself do not.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

I fully agree that Obama has way too many valid problems in a general election bid. Hillary does, too. And McCain (the 3rd Democrat in the race) is also very vulnerable.

We need to prepare for the next 4 years when there will be no one as President worthy to lead this nation. Our success in life may not depend on who sits in the Oval Office, but having a true conservative leader there and a conservative majority in Congress would make things a little better.

But we don't, and won't, have those advantages. Whichever of these 3 Democrats does get elected, liberalism will continue to roll on. Taxes will grow more complicated, and will increase. Our freedoms will be challenged, and we'll have to fight for them. Our economy will recover, but not nearly as fast, nor as much, with the liberals in charge. It is a good time to (persoanlly) get debt-free and learn to live within our means in order to weather any Carteresque economic bumps and build what personal wealth we can.

What we conservatives need to do is stay focused on the issues that matter. So Obama's pastor is a racist nutjob. Big deal. The social, economic, and national defense stands of the 3 candidates are what we need to be attacking, not whether Obama's wife is an airhead, or Hillary is a liar, or McCain loses his temper with a snot-nosed reporter.

Christian. Husband. Father. Grandfather. Conservative. US Navy Veteran - all by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

You're defintiely right on how McCain would be as bad-especially on winning the war, cutting spending, extending the Bush tax cuts, fighting pork and appointing solid judges with a 100 percent pro life record. But I understand-how in the world can America survive without Huckabee at the helm? I know, I know, all those gays by your house are coming to abduct your sons and perform abortions on your daughters. McCain is the nominee,and by far heades and shoulders above everyone on defense, the economy, and whatever your social issues are. Get over it, or don't let the door hit you..

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater
Rudy/Romney for VP-because someone's got to punch the hippies.

JD, you will never get your perfect candidate. Thus is the nature of working in a coalition. If you choose to say that McCain is a Democrat, then you deserve no seat at the table. Those conservatives who will not be flexible in their candidate selections will force the party away from them, not toward them because they will minimize their impact at the table.

Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.

However, I was looking for a candidate who would be better than Bush, not worse.

In many ways, McCain is Scoop Jackson Democrat. I am capable of voting for Scoop Jackson Democrats, and plan on doing so in November.

Nothing wrong with occasional humor about wishing there was a Republican candidate for President this year. I will pull the lever, donate the money, etc. In exchange for my loyal teamwork, I would like to be able to an impolitic off-the-cuff remark once in a while. So long as someone says they will vote for McCain, they shouldn't be harassed.

I am tempted to start a PAC called "Republicans for McCain"

McCain will do as good or better on the GWOT, he will fight the pokrladen spending that Bush let sit idle, he will curb the excessive spending, and he will extend the tax cuts. For those of you that care, he will even give you you g-d fence. What else would you like to see?

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater
Rudy/Romney for VP-because someone's got to punch the hippies.

Better on GWOT? What basis do you have to argue that? Closing down Club Gitmo and giving Constitutional rights to Jihadists is not an improvement. McCain is also someone who supports a broader reading of the Geneva Convention than Bush does. McCains views on war are similar to Powells, you need 500,000 to go in, or forget.
you do.

Tax cuts and supply side economics are more important to the well being of the country than eliminating $20B of pork each year. McCain does not really get tax cuts, why they are good, etc. In fact, he doesn't really get capitalism in general. Tax cuts for the rich, Big Pharma, etc. etc.

McCain + Democratic Congress = Global Warming policies that will be equivalent to a significant tax increase.

McCain will be worse than Bush. All Presidents disappoint, but Bush ran as a conservative, McCain is already disappointing, and there will be more compromises in the future.

Don't get me wrong, I am voting for McCain. But the only improvement we can count on will be on pork spending---a $20B issue in a $1.7T budget and $3+T economy.

There will not be a fence in 2012 no matter who wins in 2008.

... but if you think McCain is somehow anywhere near as liberal as Obama or even Hillary, your head's not screwed on straight. A consistent record of voting against every tax hike in 20 years does not a liberal make, nor does his rock-solid support for our troops and our mission in Iraq.

Man, I want to be reassured, but I'm not so sure. I remember when nobody I knew thought the American people would elect the other Clinton. What I'd like to see now is an equally persuasive list reasons why Hillary can't win the general.

Obama CAN WIN!!!!

His liberal views are going to be downplayed and all of his questionable associations ignored by the media. And while McCain will probably hit him on issues like the second amendment, he will not go after the Wright, Rezko, Ayers, etc. issues.

I don't know what the prevailing mindset is where you all live, but around here the standard lines of attack just aren't going to work anymore. People are simply far more concerned about the economy, and thanks to a grossly unprofessional media and an inexcusably incompetent communication effort on the part of the Bush Administration, they believe that we are in a recession, and that Bush is to blame, and protectionism, taxing the oil companies to death, raising taxes on the wealthy, etc. is the solution. This is the frightening reality-this is how incompetent the Republicans and the right(us included) are at communicating to the general public.

People see their price at the pump going up. McCain ignores the issue, Obama blames Exxon and vows to soak them. Guess who won that issue?

People around here see jobs leaving left and right. Instead of explaining to them that manufacturing output is higher than ever in the U.S., that we can compete with foreign workers because American workers productivity is so much higher, and that making ourselves more competitive requires lowering our corporate tax and allowing businesses to invest in more capital is the answer, and explaining to people here that PA and Ohio are among the worst business climates in country, which is why jobs are leaving left and right, McCain ignores the issue. Obama blames it on NAFTA and unfair trade practices. John McCain talks about "competing in the global economy"-which translates to Joe Union in Youngstown Ohio to "I'm gonna send more jobs overseas!" Guess who wins that issue?

People hear stories about lots of people losing their houses. McCain talks about the importance of not intervening, instead of explaining to people that many borrowers are responsible themselves, that government intervention now will cause problems later, and how government intervention is part of the problem, as government pressured lenders to lower lending standards and explaining that this is what happens when government tinkers where it shouldn't. Obama blames the problems on the usual suspects, greedy lenders, Wall Street, etc, and promises to bail out people. Guess who wins that issue?

OK, fair comments on McCain. I know Mccain is the Republican nominee. He won fair and square. Now, lets look at who we got behind door #1:

Let's see (in no order of importance):
1 - McCain wants to close Gitmo.
2 - He has a history of opposing the Bush tax cuts.
3 - He believes in global warming and the socialist solutions to the myth.
4 - He has a history of being weak on pro-life issues. McCain said, "I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."
5 - He focuses on pork (a small percentage) but would spend many times more on boondoggles like global warming.
6 - Without the support of crossover, liberal Democrats, including the mainstream media, McCain wouldn't be the presumptive nominee. This is nothing like when Reagan got the support of conservative Democrats, because Reagan didn't appeal to them by being liberal. McCain's appeal is that he is liberal and talks that way.
7 - He wants to punish the oil companies for fuel prices that they do not set. He also supported higher gas prices (McCain-Lieberman).
8 - McCain almost quit the Republican party in 2001 (Jim Jeffords beat him to the deal with Democrats).
9 - McCain actively sought the VP spot under Kerry in 2004.
10 - His economic stimulus plan (as I read it on his website) is missing the stimulus.
11 - His tax cut plan has nothing of significant value. Changing the AMT threshold? Now that took real leadership to figure that one out. I saw only the usual lip service to cutting spending.
12 - His health system reform issue page can be summed up this way: "Here is how government can solve the problem in a different way.". How about just getting government out of the way? As Reagan said, "...government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem".
13 - McCain considers Christian conservatives "agents of intolerance."
14 - McCain has a history of not supporting the 2nd amendment. Gun Owners of America gives McCain a grade of F. McCain sponsored an amendment to S. 1805 that would outlaw the private sale of firearms at gun shows.
15 - McCain opposed a gay marriage ban before he supported it.
16 - McCain is anti-1st amendment, which he shows by still believing McCain-Feingold is good law.
17 - McCain is pro-illegal immigration. He hasn't rescinded his support for McCain-Kennedy or previous support for what is amnesty for illegal aliens.
18 - McCain voted against ANWR drilling in 2005.

My original point was that whoever is elected President out of these 3, the electee is a liberal. McCain, who has shown an unswerving willingness to cast aside conservative principles to work with Democrats ever since he escaped the Keating 5 scandal, cannot be counted on to be a bulwark of conservatism. His sudden change of views for this campaign are simply not believable to me.

McCain is the Republican nominee. The ones I supported lost, and I moved on. McCain is a RINO/Rockefeller/liberal Republican, whose views and practice are not that much different than Hillary and Obama. I think that conservatives ought to be smart enough to accept that we lost this one, and focus on weathering the consequences of liberalism the next 4 years. No "falling sky", just preparing for a few bumps in the road.

Christian. Husband. Father. Grandfather. Conservative. US Navy Veteran - all by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

if you think that there is no difference between McCain and Obama/Clinton.

Good luck in the wilderness.

Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.

While all that you list may or may not be accurate, their is a man in Tehran that is without a grip on reality, and within a few years of nuclear weapons. Of the 3, who do you think is least likely to let this happen?

John McCain is our nominee. When that became apparent, the Directors of this site, some begrudingly, endorsed him as our candidate. That being said, we all know who and what John McCain is, warts and all.

Some of our long time readers and contributors were not thrilled with John McCain and instead of coming onto this site and continually ripping him, they have chosen to take a sabbatical from commenting and are focusing their time and energy elsewhere.

Might I suggest you do the same? We have a long, hard road ahead and we really don't need any Eeyore's on board.

I am not pessimistic, gloomy, nor depressed (your perjorative Eeyore reference). I believe we can survive any bad President with a smile on our faces.

I have said nothing, since he became the presumptive nominee, towards the proposition that McCain should not be the Republican nominee.

My post was that we conservatives need to focus on preparing for 4 years of national liberalism running the country, not that one should or should not vote for McCain. Nothing in my original post can be construed as "continually ripping him". When challenged as to whether McCain was a liberal, I provided the information requested. Whether the truth offends someone, or some simply bury their heads in the sand, is not my responsibility.

It is unseemly of conservatives to resort to name-calling and trying to do the Internet equivalent of shouting down someone because they disagree with them. I read some of your responses, c17wife, and I understand McCain wasn't your first or 2nd choice. I understand if you want to do the best you can in avoiding Hillary and Obama, even if it is McCain. I have no problem with that. Some of my conservative friends will vote for McCain as the least of 3 evils, and hope for the best. Some are voting in every other item on the ballot, and simply leaving the President unchosen. Some of my Democrat friends really do want to vote for McCain. I remember how far left the national government went in 77-80 and again in 93-94 when Democrats controlled Congress and the White House. I sure don't want to see that again.

Is it official that posters to Redstate are no longer permitted to post anything negative about McCain, no matter how truthful? If so, I will gladly abide by that.

Please keep in mind my original point is that while McCain is marginally less liberal than Obama or Hillary, the end result the next 4 years is a preponderance of liberalism in national government, and we conservatives can and should prepare in our personal lives.

Christian. Husband. Father. Grandfather. Conservative. US Navy Veteran - all by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

There is no need for you to come on here and post McCain's weaknesses. We know them full well. To do so is counter-productive. I am not blind, nor oae the others on this board. We are simply tired of people bringing out the negative. If you can not support McCain, fine, don't. But do not waste this bandwidth trashing him. If you truly want to do good for the conservative cause, then focus your energy elsewhere, like down ballot races.

My mama once told me if you can't say anything nice, then keep your mouth shut. That would be my suggestion here as well.

Christian. Husband. Father. Grandfather. Conservative. US Navy Veteran - all by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Eeyore happens to be one of my favorites, but I will not dispute that he is all gloomy.

Sorry that you are so touchy. I just call them as I see them.
Consider it Straight Talk (TM).

I really don't think you are reading what I wrote. Your responses do not match what is writen.

Christian. Husband. Father. Grandfather. Conservative. US Navy Veteran - all by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

I guess you are just too nuanced for us.

Why don't you list all the benefits of having McCain as the nominee and as the probable POTUS. It might help you get your head straight. I'll start the list thusly:

* Three openings on the Supreme Court, and McCain's crystal-clear pledge to appoint more strict constructionist Roberts/Alitos.

Rehashing all the shortcomings of McCain is so 2 months ago. I think we've all moved on and are excited to elect this imperfect person as President.

/I'm left-wing to someone, so to that person I'm a commie liberal.

"Why don't you list all the benefits of having McCain as the nominee and as the probable POTUS." And, BTW, my head is on quite straight, thank you.

1. He will prosecute the war on Islam, hopefully better than Bush and without the nation-building.
2. Of the 3 people who could get elected, McCain is the adult in the room.
3. Of the 3 people who could get elected, McCain will at least have someone in the Oval Office that respects the military.
4. McCain does at least understand we need lower taxes.
5. Of the 3 people who could get elected, he is the most likely to wake up and realize global warming is a hoax.
6. Of the 3 people who could get elected, McCain is the best spoken. Between Hillary's rants and shrieks, and Obama's airheaded generalities, McCain makes more sense.

However, as to "McCain's crystal-clear pledge to appoint more strict constructionist Roberts/Alitos", I also remember Bush 41's crystal-clear pledge of "read my lips, no new taxes".

Which leads to the 7th benefit if I am unfortunately right about McCain:

7 - McCain's failure as President will once again open the party back up to conservatives.

It is truly my hope that I am entirely wrong about McCain (on the negative things, not the 1st 6 benefits). McCain could choose to re-embrace the conservatism he had before the Keating scandal. Never would I be so happy to be so wrong.

One thing that would get me to vote for him would be if McCain would make a central national security commitment to increase the size of our military (quickly, and if Congress won't support it, to hold them accountable to the people as Reagan did) to what we need for defending our nation against Islam around the globe, and the growing Chinese and Russian threats. As many of you probably do, I know some families whose husbands were moved into active duty and have spent 1 or more years overseas. This has devasted them financially, and left the US shorthanded if and when China or Russia tries to exert dominance in the world. Bush 43 should have started building up our military after 9/11 so that the reserves are just that - our reserves. Our country owes the reservists and guardsmen a HUGE debt for what they have demanded of them and their families over so long a time.

Christian. Husband. Father. Grandfather. Conservative. US Navy Veteran - all by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

but the alterntive is far, far more dangerous. We are no longer arguing about who will be the Republican nominee. Its time to move on. Either of the Democrats will have disasterous consequences for the nation.

Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course

We are no longer arguing about who will be the Republican nominee

I never argued that point since McCain clinched the nomination, and certainly not today.

Christian. Husband. Father. Grandfather. Conservative. US Navy Veteran - all by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Just explaining (as asked) why I think McCain is liberal. If you read the original post, the original point was that conservatives should prepare for the natural consequences of 4 years of national liberalism in government, whether Obama is electable or not. Quite frankly, I am still mystified as to how the American people could have elected Clinton twice.

Christian. Husband. Father. Grandfather. Conservative. US Navy Veteran - all by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

you trot out that out, you lose all credibility.

And as we all know, the sky is falling now that America's Pastor has to go back to peddling snake oil out of his double wide.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater
Rudy/Romney for VP-because someone's got to punch the hippies.

He's much too nuanced for me, so I'll justhave to let the more edumacated deal with him. :>)

but I don't have to make it my own. I can disagree but not be disagreeable. You may be right, and time will tell.

I hope you will pardon me that my credibility is quite intact, whether you accept it or not. I find your views credible, just not ones I agree with in all cases.

I work from a long term view of American history, and it tells me that McCain (as is Romney and Guiliani) is liberal in the same context as other RINO/Rockefeller Republicans, such as Nixon, Ford, and Bush 41 (and Bush 43 in his last term).

A RINO/Rockefeller Republican is a different kind of liberal than the McGovern liberal (like Obama and Hillary), but when it comes to consequences, it is a distinction without a difference as far as I can see.

I sure hear a lot of other conservatives (ones I know and some of the pundits) share my skepticism on McCain. Maybe I am not so lost in the wilderness as one poster has assumed.

I would like your opinion on this:
Would it be easier or harder for Congressional conservatives, and conservative candidates in 2010 for Congress, to oppose liberal policies of a Democrat or Republican administration?

Christian. Husband. Father. Grandfather. Conservative. US Navy Veteran - all by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

What issues do they have in common with Rockefeller?

Rockefeller was a liberal who was tough on crime. Regardless of what you say about Rudy, McCain or Romney, they are clearly conservative on a lot more issues then that.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

For those unfamiliar with the traditional meaning of "Rockefeller Republicans", try:

If I understand correctly, you are asking what does McCain have in common with Rockefeller Republicans. I already posted, and dare not do so again, where I see McCain as liberal. That list is largely in harmony with traditional Rockefeller Republican views.

I hope this explanation helps. And even if one agrees that McCain is a Rockefeller Republican, it doesn't mean you shouldn't vote for him. I am not trying to persuade anyone one way or the other as to whether they should vote for McCain.

Christian. Husband. Father. Grandfather. Conservative. US Navy Veteran - all by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

*some* people think McCain is a RINO and some think he is a maverick who follows his conscience rather than conservative orthodoxy? Can we get back to the original (excellent) post?

There is an interesting question in the latest Gallup poll that asks the reasons for negative views of the candidates, which break down thus:
Obama : Inexperience (39%), lack of trust (15%) Muslim faith (12%)

Clinton: Lack of trust (24%) Don't want Bill C Back (18%) just don't like her (16%)

McCain: War in Iraq (27%) Need a change from Bush (25%) Republican (23%)

For mcCain, the good news is that his negatives pretty much overlap and are not going to increase as the campaign continues. If you don't like Bush, then you also probably don't like the war, etc, and vice versa. Better still is that these are not personal qualities but associative and issue qualities. Best of all, the age and temperament issues which were thought to be problems don't really measure at all. I think the vigorous campaign waged by McCain and his generally upbeat and statesmanlike conduct since the nomination was settled have benefited him.

For Clinton, it's all personal -- she's a lying retread rhymes with witch -- but that's not news and it's not really going to change too much in the general election. For Obama, though, the high inexperience number is very bad news. Add in his ultra-liberal record, his weird left-wing supporters, and more awareness of his lying and distortions, and you have a very weak nominee, especially up against a known candidate like McCain. Hence, while I believe McCain would beat either one, Obama is much more vulnerable.

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service