Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Clinton: The comeback kid

PAUL KORING

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 12:20 AM EDT 11/01/08

Democrat Hillary Clinton dramatically rescues bid for White House in tense battle with Barack Obama; McCain back in Republican race ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Brian Van Ezel from Ottawa, Canada writes: I love Hillary....I'm not sure why!
    ...and we can get Bill Clinton in the white house again :)
  2. M Warren from Ottawa, Canada writes: ...and this is where Harper loses 'message control' for most of the next year. Hilary and Obama around every corner.
  3. Steve Durocher Neanderthal Hippie Slayer from Windsor, Ontario, Canada writes: Crocodile tears do work.
    Dupes!
  4. Mary Smith from United States writes:

    No dancing in the streets tonight for me. I LOATHE that woman. She will ultimately be defeated, but the sooner the smarmy Billary are gone, the better.
  5. Alberto Bayo from Canada writes: I think they both suck...Edwards in 2012
  6. Joseph T from Victoria, Canada writes: Mary Smith...tsk...tsk....Vote for Hillary to get Bill back into the Whitehouse! Yah!!!
  7. Globe Insider subscriber content
    Jim Summers from Waterloo, Canada writes: Did we really need to be told (twice) that the critical New Hampshire primary is 'a contest that carries significance far beyond this small and unrepresentative state'. I hope it has some significance, there have been an awful lot of stories about it.
  8. Steve Durocher Neanderthal Hippie Slayer from Windsor, Ontario, Canada writes: 'Clinton: The comeback kid'

    Barely into '08 and she already has the status that Billy Jeff had in 1992.
    Back then he was bestowed the title for finishing 2nd in New Hampshire.

    I wonder if Norman Hsu met with Paul Koring this evening?!
  9. spicydoc resurrected from none of your business, Canada writes:

    Are we really going to get this kind of stuff cluttering up the papers for another 10 months?

    Egad.

    Dion made an important clarification re his Afstan position, and the storie is already dead--comments closed.

    Harper is floating GHG test balloons re how to appear to be 'strong' on the environment file---second tier.

    People moan about how American popular entertainment drowns out made-in-Canada stuff.

    Now we have the same re politics. Even getting 'polls' about how Canadians would vote if we were American,,,,,,,
  10. Mary Smith from United States writes:

    Joseph T.

    I know this is hard to remember, but Bill Clinton is the REASON Gore and the Democrats lost in 2000. If Clinton/Gore were oh-so-wonderful, an incumbant VP should have won in a landslide. And Clinton never got the majority vote either.
  11. Yngwie J. Malmsteen from Toronto, Canada writes: The Republicans are hoping Clinton wins. She's quite defeatable with all the black marks and questionable dealings in her political past with Bubba Bill.

    Go Hil!

    haha
  12. Globe Insider subscriber content
    diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: spicydoc:-- The Dion thread is closed because 'my' nemesis made an appearance. The 'second-tier' GHG test balloons (are the balloons to test the presence of GHG??), by which I assume you mean Mr. Baird's announcement that he rejects a carbon tax but has yet another plan to be announced some day, are just more statements in an accumulation of same that, in sum, are so incoherent as to be yawn-producing. I completely agree, spicy, that the Globe is giving short-shrift to this file, but is it any wonder? From Day One, the CPC has been reacting to events, yet stalling, from time to time tossing out A-M chaff - the eyes glaze, which might be the whole point/strategy.
  13. Steve Durocher Neanderthal Hippie Slayer from Windsor, Ontario, Canada writes: Response to Yngwie J. Malmsteen

    Rising Force is one of my favs.

    One of those black marks is 'stand by her man'

    I did not inhale that woman!
  14. Pohaku Pohaku from Hawaii, United States writes: Mary Smith.... the reason Gore lost in 2000 was because the extreme left wing of the Democratic party thought Gore was too corporate, not cool enough, ect, and opted for Nader, the egocentric consumer safety guy of ' don't drive a Corvair' fame. The same left wing that was Naders base was until recently begging for Gore to be their 2008 guru. Afew billion dollars short and 8 years too late. Now they support Obama. I love HIllary. She is smart, tough, intelligent and capable of digging the US out of the garbage heap Bozo has left us in. ALl the spin about ' she can't win the general ' is pure Rovian spin. She just defied EVERY poll. She was down 12 points. Every paper had her funeral this morning. She is the Republicans worse nightmare. Their first line of attack is to convince Dems she is Cruella de Ville on steroids.
  15. Marlene W from Hamilton, Canada writes: Hippy Slayer - I suppose, since your from Windsor, you want Hillary to iron your shirts too?

    Would love to see both Obama and Clinton in the Whitehouse. Clinton as prez and 'bama as VP.

    Can't wait to see if Hillary will adopt social medicine...
  16. Steve Durocher Neanderthal Hippie Slayer from Windsor, Ontario, Canada writes: Response to Marlene W

    'I suppose, since your from Windsor, you want Hillary to iron your shirts too?'

    NO, but are you available to pinch hit in her place?!

    Social medicine has done real well in Windsor we have to ship chronic patients to Detroit, Michigan for treatment.

    If I truly had to pick from that field of 2 it would be Obama even though the Phantom of the Oprah has endorsed him.
  17. Mary Smith from United States writes:

    Sorry

    I will say it again and again. Hillary is a lying, conniving, power hungry politician. She will never, ever win a general election. Anyone who thinks so is as delusional as Hillary when she said 'it's a vast right-wing conspiracy.'

    And Hillary and healthcare reform? Puhleez. Bill Clinton ran on healthcare reform. He stupidly put Hillary in charge. It was an absolute circus; every way she handled it was WRONG! Her final plan was such a disaster that the Democrats, who controlled Congress and the White House (perfect time to get it done), wouldn't even vote on it. This is why we are still talking about it 15 yrs. later. Why does anyone want this incompetent fool?!
  18. Jedburgh Abbey from Canada writes: So not losing is the way Clinton wins? I guess when you aren't knocked out of the campaign after two primaries you do have a lot to be thankful for.
  19. John McCaffery from Australia writes: Is there anyone running in this campaign that has Presidential material? I guess you don't really know that until one gets the chance to actually be President, but by then it is a little late!
  20. Harper is a liar from Canada writes: Hilary Clinton is a disgraceful sell-out with nothing to offer and a campaign based entirely on who she married and the fact she is a woman. She claims to be a democrat, but every substantive policy stance that she has taken is tired, conservative politics that are indistinguishable from the Republican Party. She's little more than Mike Huckabee in a pant suit.
  21. Mary Smith from United States writes:

    This is my idea for a commercial:

    First you have a clip of Hillary saying, 'I'm no Tammy Wynette', as 'Stand By Your Man' is playing in the backround. Then...

    You have a clip of Hillary claiming, 'It's a vast right-wing conspiracy' as a blue dress flutters in the backround.

    So...she is either a liar, or will just say anything, or is delusional (I say all 3).
  22. Michael Leblanc from Toronto, Canada writes: John Ibbitson (aka a member of: 'The Obama Cheerleaders') I hope you are on your third bottle of cheap sherry, trying to convince somebody in a shabby tavern in Parkdale that your cheerleading 'journalistic' vision was somehow robbed. I am quite frankly, surprised that common sense somehow prevailed here. Not because I am a shameless H. Clinton supporter,,,,,,,rather because I was nauseated by the pathetic fawning of media maggots who do nothing but analyse and would never have the guts to stand for public office, or anything else that wasn't a safe-coffee-in-the-morning-certainty ------- any idiot who has read an iota of Obama's 'thought' and 'record' realizes that he has precious little of either. And anyone who has read H. Clinton, and has suspended the manufactured illusion that she is merely a power-hungry b-tch, will know that the woman very well believe what she says, and have the ability and experience to back it up. To re-iterate - Ibbitson is a bloody joke. I rarely denigrate here, but I will take this opportunity to voice my view that may he never darken these or other pages again. (How could he, when he's on the train to S. Carolina, with a big 'O' on his ill-fitting shirt) He is presently googling 'Britney' or 'Oprah' Pundits suck, polls should not be made public during an election,,,,,,,,,,,and I have not believed this much in democracy since my teen years.
  23. The true Neil-conservative from The West, Canada writes: Congrats to both McCain and Clinton for their respective comebacks after a summer of near collapse and a week of catastrophe respectively. It really makes one wonder just how exciting American politics can become if you spend just a little time following the candidates, the issues and the money.

    New Hampshire has once again chosen McCain as their GOP candidate, who lost in 2000 because of George W. Bush's popularity in the South, and would face a similar fate against Huckabee if the latter can gain the respect of the Republican establishment. Romney has the money to keep going, as he can dip into his personal fortune for campaign funds, but he faces a renewed McCain and a charming social conservative in Mike Huckabee. The former Mass. governor has zero momentum and an eroding base, as social conservatives are jumping to Huckabee and fiscal conservatives are going to McCain's side.

    For the Dems, with both Clinton and Obama holding one state apiece, the goal for both candidates is to keep momentum and bringing in the money; soon the smaller, more grassroots battles will be over as we near Super Duper Tuesday. Edwards is essentially finished, unless he wage an impressive victory in either Nevada or South Carolina.
  24. spicydoc resurrected from none of your business, Canada writes:

    How about this for an outcome--

    The Dems carry on with this duel between the two front-runners.

    The two camps become polarized; however, either Hillary or Obama will make a fine candidate.

    However, at the last minute, after a flurry of nefarious and sleazy deal-making, both Hillary and Obama are overtaken by a nobody who was first choice of about 17% of Dems when this all started.

    The nobody becomes the Dem Presidential candidate.

    Possible?

    No....the Democrats aren't that pathetically stupid.
  25. The true Neil-conservative from The West, Canada writes: Personally, I think McCain's relative popularity is something to be noted, as he is well respected among moth Democrats and Republicans. The question will become whether he will remain the maverick he once was, or if the GOP will make him the establishment candidate. If he remains a maverick, and goes without the support of the evangelicals, he won't have the money and organizational skills to wage as good a fight if he gets the nomination. Then again, he will have the ability to attract more independents and soft Democrats. With the GOP's blessings, he'll get money and volunteers, but fewer independents.
  26. James P from Spruce Grove, Canada writes: Hillary is so weird. She seems so fake and tired and wrong. I am a supporter of the conservatives here but in the states I'd vote Obama. I like to see fresh faces speaking from their hearts rather from the old Cambridge mantra.

    Anyone actually hear her speak? Shes a fake, yet I don't get that from her hubby. I'd vote for him wayyy easier than her. Don't get me wrong I love the thought of a woman as prez, and Obama is the closest thing to that.
  27. Karl Junkin from Toronto, Canada writes: Mary Smith from United States: Clinton never took the popular vote in the 90s because of Ross Perot taking around 15% of the pie. And Gore actually won Florida by 393 votes (or more if you analyze voting machine errors), it was learned after Bush stole the While House.
  28. Matthew Yeo from Edmonton, Canada writes: There is already some questions about exit poll numbers and the actual results, again with the areas of the state showing the worst discrepancies being where Diebold machines are used exclusively.

    blackboxvoting.org
  29. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Match ups:

    Ideal : Obama versus Paul

    Worst case scenario : Clinton versus McCain

    Its change versus status quo...

    I can see why Americans would choose the status quo since it has served them so well.
  30. Pohaku Pohaku from Hawaii, United States writes: Mary, discussion is nice, but throwing accusaiton as such'


    I will say it again and again. Hillary is a lying, conniving, power hungry politician. She will never, ever win a general election. Anyone who thinks so is as delusional as Hillary when she said 'it's a vast right-wing conspiracy'

    You have fallen for the Rovian line that Hillary is unelectable. She just defied all polls because she was ' so unelectable'. She has found her voice, especailly with women.Just as students found their voice with Obama and gave him a win, she has found her voice with women in NH and you will see a looser, more interactive answer the question Hillary instead of the tight, controlled one. She has taken control of her own campaign. The more people actually talk to her, the more they see she isnt what you say she is.-that it was all a 'right wing conspiracy' theory you deride her of. Its the typical Republican strategy. Repeat a mantra long enough ' Hillary cant win the general' and people will actually believe it. Her handlers kept her in a shell., reinforcing this Cruella de Ville on steroids image. She has found her footing. Who is your choice?
  31. larry hallatt from Canada writes: I tend to agree Hilary is a liability along with slick willy. If he had resigned when he should have after the first term Gore would have had two terms. The Democrats blew the integrity of the office of President and should have dumped slick will like the republicans did with Nixon.

    When they lied and played politics they brought on Bush and his lying crowd.

    Public option in the US now indicates both House and Senate Republicans and Democrats are both contagious lepers.

    It is time for the US to heal with a new player that will bring confidence to that nation and world opinon. Today the US is looked upon as an undemocratic and tyrant bully out of control that flaunts International Justice.

    Economically they are in free fall along with the greenback. They need to drasticly cut the corporate military complex and the huge burden on their economy. Like Vietnam, the false Iraq war will knock the US down further as it did Britain after WW1 and WW2. The Asian tigers are quickly replacing the US engine on the world stage.
  32. Michael Leblanc from Toronto, Canada writes: I remember seeing a book about H. Clinton in Chapters in Toronto about THREE years ago called 'Can She Be Stopped', with the obligatory mouth open eyes crazy photo on the front that may be taken of any person, if a thousand pics a day are taken of them. Those tired old men quivering in their Henry Hyde hypocritical boots. H. Clinton has been writing and publishing for a long time - back when she served on the Watergate hearings. But those who seem to believe they possess some kind of divine insight because they can eat pablum pundit tv and read papers,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,fair enough, rest ye easy in your linear one or the other world - don't let the time that it takes to really understand things stop you. Others may be inclined to take the time to understand the complex ideas and realities that the candiates are or are not offering. But it's so much more fun to vote for a neck-tie or, birthdate, gender, or race. I can accept anybody who disagrees with anything, especially/including myself. But to the haters from any camp - get laid, get drunk, read a book,,,,,,,,,,,whatever it takes........................THINK outside of your safe box,,,,,,whatever it takes.
  33. spicydoc resurrected from none of your business, Canada writes:

    Michael Leblanc says:

    'But to the haters from any camp - get laid, get drunk, read a book'

    I did what you said, but the hooker spilled my glass of Jack and coke all over my National Review!

    Thanks for nothing.
  34. Michael Leblanc from Toronto, Canada writes: spicy doc -

    you're more than welcome ----- !
  35. SN Dream from Canada writes: The ideal will be Kucinich verus Paul or at least having them as VP. I love where their idea are heading but their change might be too bold, so if I live in US, i will vote for Clinton.

    I love Paul's idea, but I still have no idea will it be even possible to switch to an 100% consuming base taxation system without creating a nightmare mess.

    Obama is no doubt a great speaker, but empty promise can't bring change. If you watch his speech, all he do is keep on drawing up a pie in the moon. Kucinich and Paul's idea might sometimes seem far fetch, but at least they tell us how they will do it. Eventually, ppl will realize that, then Obama will be in trouble. I just hope that happen become he became the dem's nominate
  36. fragglerock westcoast from Canada writes: Michael Leblanc, watch for John's expose on how several candidates have had their real estate lawyers rubbed out....What? Only one has? My bad.
  37. Paul B from Vancouver, Canada writes: McDonald's 2 for 1 special is BACK!...
    You buy one Hillary Burger, you get a Billy Burger for free!
    Be sure to supersize your order with fresh onion rings by Obama's farm.
  38. Brendan B from Vancouver, Canada writes: I think the main question here is why hillary is wearing a couch for a jacket...
    B
  39. Guy Olivier from Columbus, Ohio, United States writes: 'Mary Smith from United States writes:

    Joseph T.

    I know this is hard to remember, but Bill Clinton is the REASON Gore and the Democrats lost in 2000. If Clinton/Gore were oh-so-wonderful, an incumbant VP should have won in a landslide. And Clinton never got the majority vote either.'

    Mary... you forgot that Gore DID win in 2000. Also if the majority of the votes were that important, Bush would not be there now.
  40. John Williams from Ajax, Canada writes: Is the media going to be full of this nonsense for the next year?

    YES. Why?

    Its cheap, mindless 'content' that costs ZERO to put on the air. Guys like Henry Champ can just mindlessly repeat soundbites in an empty echochamber of catchphrases without meaning.

    Its a new type of Orwellian propaganda.

    Fill The People's mind with constant 'horseraces' about 'change' and Endless Wars against Terror.
  41. Claire Gillivan from Canada writes: The pre-New Hampshire primary polls may have predicted an Obama win on the Democratic side, that is if you tend to read polls a certain way and trust them to a certain extent. They are valid for analysis only to a point... /- 5% error, undecideds etc. On that point I thought it was somewhat interesting that most of the media had unabashedly reported the demise and unravelling of Hillary Clinton by the close of the weekend. From observing the tone levied against Hillary by the majority of the media ahead of the primary I imagine there were a lot of smug editorials pulled from print late last night.
  42. Raymond Johnston from Toronto, Canada writes: Being cast as the 'comeback kid' because Ms. Clinton won in New Hampshire is simply another in a long line of myths created by the media in America, which heretofore has gone absolutely ga ga over the prospect of a black man running for president. This is not to say that such a contest would not be life altering for a nation, clearly Mr. Obama's campaign has created a 9.0 seismic change in the politics of that country. However, Mr. Obama's coronation is a long way off and it behoves the media to appreciate that just because they really truly wish for something to happen, doesn't mean that the electorate will fulfill those wishes. Likewise, it appears that one other media generated myth, that the Republican party is dead meat and that whoever wins the Democratic nomination is guaranteed to waltz right into the White House, isn't about to happen any time soon. Politics in the USA is a marathon and while the media coverage is important and essential to the lifeblood of this race, those who have carriage of that medium must remember that polls and pundits and a dollar will buy a cheap cup of coffee, but one vote can alter the world! As for me, I'd love to see Mr. Obama run for president with Mr. McCain as his vice-presidential running mate. Consider the merger of Mr. Obama's life vision and Mr. McCain's life experience running the greatest democracy in the world. What a treat that would be!
  43. Northern Redneck from Canada writes: I knew America would start to do the right things , good to see your true COLOR shining through , go baby go.
  44. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Many wrote Hillary Clinton off too quickly. Her campaign is resilient. A close shave and a lesson for all sides. Perhaps a little revealing that 'women' votes are less easy to classify.
  45. Anthony B from Sydney, NS, Canada writes: What an interesting choice for Democrats! A black man or a white woman.

    And, as it seems likely that one of them will win the nomination, what a dilemma for US voters! A black male/white female Democrat or a candidate from the discredited Republican party.

    Can the American public see past skin colour and gender and join the rest of the world's democracies in voting for someone who isn't old, white and male? We shall see.
  46. Mark Mitchell from London, Canada writes: I had my suspiscions prior to last night, however now, I really have to question the validity of the pre-NH polls.

    Northern Redneck: Wow, that is really ignorant. Thet let people like you have the internet? Uncle Dad show you how it works?

    Honestly G&M.
  47. Andy Garrett: Minister of Neo Political Correctness from West Palm Beach, United States writes: To all my Liberal, NDP, Parti Quebecois, Bloc and Green friends: Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2008, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere. Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee. To all my Progressive Conservative friends: Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, Love to all from sunny S. FLA. Andy
  48. Anuradha Bose from ottawa, writes: Go Hilary go-all the way to the White House!
  49. spicydoc resurrected from none of your business, Canada writes:

    Hey!

    The 'Keen really isn't a Liberal troll doing her best to smear the CPC thread' is fully moderated all of a sudden.

    Wonder what Hillary and Obama would think about that?
  50. Atlantic Geezer from Canada writes: Obama or Clinton? the real question is whether or not those who can see a lady or an afro-american gent in the white house bother to vote. We know that those who see only wealthy WASP males in power will be out in force.
  51. Terry Andrus from Canada writes: The american population has proven time and again, their unwillingness to promote an aging candidate to their highest office, but while demonstrating this have also shown the conservative leanings of the voting majority, inclinations which are often accompanied by unflinching prejudices and stoic ignorance. The bottom line is this, these primilinaries are an indication of only the support these candidates boast among the politically active in a few states. A race between either Obama and the 71 year old McCain, or Clinton and McCain will prove an exciting and unpredictable event, and the excitement about a first either Black President or female President may yet prove fruitless. We are still in the audition phase of the search for the next American Idol-ommander in Chief, merely weeding out those who can't sing.
  52. Bill Garrison from Tuttle, Oklahoma, United States writes: I don't know who I will vote for when it becomes our turn.
    I DO know that if the Venezuealan Government had an election like New Hampshire had, there would be accusations of 'voter fraud' and the like and the American Government would refuse to recognize it as a 'real' election.
    Why?
    Because when one is able to vote on the same day he registers, it will certainly lead to double votes and the like
  53. David Simon from Canada writes: She should have a new campaign song-Roy Orbison's 'Crying'.

    It saved her campaign.
  54. Paul F. from Toronto, Canada writes: I think what this result shows is two things. First, the punditry on TV that claims to know what the American people are thinking is just wrong. Second, the shift in opinion in the US is really a reflection of the lack of policy in both the Republican and Democratic races. First, to listen to pundits talk is just a little hard to bear. Why does CNN and Fox keep insist on refering to themselves as the 'best political team on TV'. By saying it, does it make it so? I mean the commentary last night is so dumb it makes you wonder who actually thinks this stuff. For example, they set up these false dichotomies: Obama is for change, Clinton is for 'electability', Edwards is 'finished'. All these things are value judgements based on nothing really. First, I was incredulous when they analysed the exit polls and they claimed suprised that Obama got more votes than Clinton based on healthcare. Why is that suprising? Clinton hardly has a health plan, Obama's is also vague, the only candidate to state specific policy is Edwards. Plus look at who they have working for them as 'pundits'. There is William Bennett (former education secretary under Reagan) who is famous for saying: 'If you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose; you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.' He is a viciously partisan commentator. Most of the 'pundits' are of the same ilk. Partisan and not particularly accountable to the truth. So political conversations is substituted with the musings of political hacks. I think it is quite clear Americans want to eradicate the memory of the Bush administration, but for all the talk about 'how' they are going to do it (the Democrats) we are left with vague platitudes. Even though McCain has compromised his reputation as a 'moderate' within the republicans, it is clear he won handily because he is the most moderate and least bush like in the Republican field.
  55. Philip Raitz from Davoe City, Philippines writes: The reality is that Hillary might be able to win the Democrat nomination but could not win a general election and just about any other Democrat but Clinton would.

    In the end the Democrats want to win the Presidency and won't go with Clinton.
  56. Orange Latern from Canada writes: Maybe on Super Tuesday Barack should cry Croc tears so the rednecks warm up to him. Although Hillary is looking more and more like a man in drag with each passing day.
  57. F E from Ottawa, Canada writes: The more I read the comments on this page the more I realize how dillusional people really are. I guess some of you folk really have nothing better to due than spew hate and self proclaimed witty remarks. Does it make you feel any better as a human being after you post such things? Perhaps you can spend your pent up energy doing something helpful like volunteering for local charities, rather than spending it on a comment-media rampage.
  58. Sandra Hamilton from Canada writes: 'I will say it again and again. Hillary is a lying, conniving, power hungry politician.'

    Ha ha ha - I always thought that's what Americans like and want in their president!!! When it comes to politicians - are there any other kind?
  59. Globe Insider subscriber content
    Steve D from Canada writes: Headline should have been, 'Polls wrong: Hillary does eke out small win over surging Obama, Sandbagging by Press gives False Expectations.'

    I hope Hillary wins and I can't stand either her nor her perjuring, philandering hubby and there is no way she can win a general election.

    One advantage that she does have is an unlimited amont of cash. If she runs short she can take $1K and turn it into $100K in cattle futures. I suppose she could turn $1 Million and turn it into $100 million using the same method.
  60. Mary Smith from United States writes:

    Pohaku Pohaku

    We've been 'discussing' this woman for 16 yrs. ALREADY, which is why there are plenty of accusations.

    Hillary is a lying, conniving, power hungry politician. She will never win a GENERAL election. WOW, she barely scraped by in a small state primary vote after campaigning for 16 yrs.

    Karl Junkin

    Thank you for reiterating my point that Bill Clinton never won the majority vote.
  61. Anthony B from Sydney, NS, Canada writes: F E from Ottawa, Canada:

    And your insightful comment on this article, before you rush off to do some charity work, is ....?
  62. Mary Smith from United States writes:

    Guy Olivier

    Wow, I know this is hard but Gore did not win in 2000.
  63. Pete Sake from Vancouver, Canada writes: I'm surprized no one here is talking about the polls leading up to this Primary which put Obama 13 points ahead of Clinton and comes out 2 points behind. Makes me wonder (not really) about our polls that find the Libs tied with the Cons even when the Libs don't have a leader.
    Bring on the next election and lets see what the REAL polls tell us in Canada. I pick Harper wins easily.
  64. John Smith from Ottawa, Canada writes: Mary Smith from United States writes:

    Sorry

    I will say it again and again. Hillary is a lying, conniving, power hungry politician. She will never, ever win a general election. Anyone who thinks so is as delusional as Hillary when she said 'it's a vast right-wing conspiracy.'

    And Hillary and healthcare reform? Puhleez. Bill Clinton ran on healthcare reform. He stupidly put Hillary in charge. It was an absolute circus; every way she handled it was WRONG! Her final plan was such a disaster that the Democrats, who controlled Congress and the White House (perfect time to get it done), wouldn't even vote on it. This is why we are still talking about it 15 yrs. later. Why does anyone want this incompetent fool?!

    So why are you telling Canadians this? You're from the U.S.A. Can't you tell your fellow countrymen? There, unlike here, it makes a difference.
  65. Simply Red from Canada writes: I'm a big fan of Hillary's but she needs a better speechwriter. Obama's speech (which sounded like a victory speech, other than mentioning Hill off the top) was far better written than the one Hillary used.
    And she needs to use a teleprompter.

    I was up until midnight watching the returns! How exciting this was!
  66. Ray Keating from Canada writes: 'Mr. Romney, a Mormon who spent tens of millions of dollars in New Hampshire...' Just once, I'd like to see an American election devoid of religious posing. I'd be willing to bet that a number of the politicians running rarely graced the inside of a churgh before taking up politics nad are now just doing so because the public is easily duped by these displays of 'faith'.

    I would think that the best politician would be one who has no religious affiliation at all. This way they would be best able to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States' without imparting their own religion based moralistic interpretation on it.
  67. L.A. Sellers from Toronto, Canada writes: Wow! Just yesterday most of the media had practically declared Obama the next president. They are like flies flitting to the freshest droppings.
  68. Cryin Outloud from Canada writes: Funny that anyone still believes that the masthead makes a difference in how politics is done in the world. I see the masthead as someone chosen for their ability to distract while the real business goes on in boardrooms around the world and we all argue about and analyz the distractions they throw at us so we keep believing that we actually have some say in the direction our country is moving. Funny.

    When that becomes obvious to the majority of the monkeys will we finally have the reaction we need to really make a difference? A peaceful revolution?
  69. Philip Raitz from Davoe City, Philippines writes: Anthony B from Sydney, NS, Canada you ask a good question for F E from Ottawa.

    His self-righteous post was quite something. I think people come to internet comment forums about political articles to express there opinions on politics. Perhaps F E from Ottawa is vague on the concept.
  70. Phil King from Ottawa, Canada writes: Paul F. from Toronto, Canada writes: '... the punditry on TV that claims to know what the American people are thinking is just wrong...'

    I don't think it's that simple, and to understand why you need to look at average opinion versus the ability of candidates to get their supporters out to the polls.

    The simple fact is that while everyone has an opinion, not everyone is willing to get off their duff to voice it.
  71. The Skipper from Canada writes: Good For Hillary !
    Women of America - this is your voting opportunity !
  72. Mary Smith from United States writes:

    Ray Keating

    Thank you for showing you have no clue about the US Constitution.

    First Amendment: 'Congress shall make no LAWS respecting the ESTABLISHMENT of religion, nor PROHIBIT THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF'.
  73. Globe Insider subscriber content
    Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Andy (=Chuckles Martel): The ONLY reason why Hillary C. won was because the people who ordinarily would want to vote for someone who wears a dress . . . voted for someone who wears a dress most of the time (Hillary C.) instead of voting for someone who wears a dress (and a blonde wig) only sometimes (Rudy). Since cross-over votes (interesting term, eh ?) are permitted in NH, this is probably what relegated your Rudy to such a bad showing.
  74. Globe Insider subscriber content
    Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Mary Smith: GWB won in 2000 because the Republican-controlled US Supreme Court ordered that vote-counting in Florida STOP. Please stop lying about all of this; it's tedious.
  75. Globe Insider subscriber content
    Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Mary Smith: . . . I know this is tough, but . . . ALL religions have equal value.

    Here is the entire text of the First Amendment: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'

    You could look it up.
  76. Globe Insider subscriber content
    Tyler Williams from seattle, United States writes: Interesting.

    Mr. Justice is wrong when he claims 'GWB won in 2000 because the Republican-controlled US Supreme Court ordered that vote-counting in Florida STOP'.

    To the contrary, a group of newspapers including the New York Times (which has not endorsed a Republican for President since the 1950s) spent many months after that election carefully tabulating the results on the ground.

    Their conclusion: Gore could not have won Florida no matter which of his proposed methods of recount had been fully implemented. In other words, that recounting would not have won him the election.

    So YOU stop lying, dude - it IS tedious.
  77. Phil King from Ottawa, Canada writes: F E from Ottawa, Canada: Perhaps you should consider that while these comment boards are somewhat juvenile at times, they are also in my opinion the first inklings of what direct democracy will look like some day.

    Already there are policy discussions in European countries structured like wikipedia to gather public opinion and direct buy-in.

    The internet has not only brought us the ability to give everyone an easy way to congregate and debate, but has also levelled the playing field in terms of locasion and opportunity.

    People and people FE and I think you will discover that as this medium develops things will progress on the whole for the better.
  78. John Silverman from Canada writes: Hilary is ok but I really hope they go with Obama. He is such a powerful force and a great speaker, and I think everyone deep down kinda knows he could beat any of the Republicans. But I'm not sure Hilary can. Too many people hate her, and she seems to much like the 'same-old', when they really really need some fresh blood in there.
  79. J Law from Canada writes: Same old people with the same old arguments. Count the number of people who are actually on this comment board commenting on this article. Each one has only one vote and this being a Liberal newspaper and th enumber who are suppoting th econservative party here, well, folks you do the math. is it really going to change the governing party of this country. Not likely.
  80. Pete Sake from Vancouver, Canada writes: Sorry Tyler Williams but you are wrong. The Supreme court stopped any recount in Florida and who did the Gov. of Florida happen to be .....Jeb Bush...GW's brother. He is not lying.
  81. Rod Foote from Rome, NY, United States writes: “Mary Smith” (yeah, right. And I’m John Smith-but not from Ottawa.) Get over it and go get some rest. You’ve been up all night with Faux News swallowing whole all those “fair and balanced” reports. It wouldn’t be a surprise if by now your BP is probably totally out of control. So, OK, you’re not a fan of Hillary. We get it. I’m beginning to think you work for the Department of Redundancy Department. Now, why don’t you take a little rest, then pick up a thesaurus, and try to find a couple of substitutes for “lying, conniving” before you make your next…er….post. As the striking writers would have told you “if you’re gonna write drivel, make sure it’s erudite drivel. ' PS-Ray Keating: spot on and would it were so!
  82. Kim Philby from Ottawa, Canada writes: Has anyone else wondered why Obama, who is half black and half white, is always identified as a black man? If it's considered correct to describe him thus, wouldn't it be equally correct to describe him as white?

    I marvel at the astonishingly empty catch-phrases and buzz-words being used. Claims that this is about 'the future' of America. Oh really? Well, since we all agree that time doesn't run backwards, and the U.S. election comes later this year, I guess it is indeed about America's future. Candidates claiming they are about 'change'. Wow - how profound. Since we know Bush can't stay another term in the White House, well, yes indeed, there's a change coming.

    Anyone see Michael Moore's 'Sicko'? Strange that there's been little or no comment about how Hillary was bought and paid for by the corporate medical establishment. I guess it makes little difference, though, since it seems just about every politician in Washington has also been bought and paid for.
  83. Globe Insider subscriber content
    Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Tyler: The 'study' you refer to was strictly speculation; if you want to pretend that the votes were actually counted by the NYT, et. al., then: FINE. But they weren't. Whether you accept this (or anything else) is up to you.

    Your lying is tedious; please grow up.
  84. Globe Insider subscriber content
    Tyler Williams from seattle, United States writes: Interesting.

    Pete from Vancouver and Mr Justice in Canada appear to have an unsubstantiated dispute about Gore and the 2000 Florida vote.

    Here are the pertinent parts of the New York Times report, for your reading pleasure:

    'EXAMINING THE VOTE: THE OVERVIEW; Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote'

    'A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.'

    'Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.'

    So do stop lying people - it IS tedious.
  85. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: The only thing Hilliary had to come back from was a lot of ill-informed media hype by pundits who lacked even basic historical information. So what that 8,000 fewer Iowans voted for Hilliary - they were not her base of support. Urban America is. I expected Hilliary to win New Hampshire and lose in Iowa, as did nearly everyone I know of. Where is the surprise?
  86. Phil King from Ottawa, Canada writes: Tyler Williams from seattle, United States: And yet strangely it was only the third time in US history where the winning president did not receive the majority of the popular vote.

    Moreover, given the nature the failure of the democratic process in Florida, I question the fact that the election was essentially decided by the courts, rather than the people.

    It's all a moot point of course, but still not a good way to elect a leader who went on to be so controversial.
  87. Erik D. from Canada writes: To Mary Smith from United States writes: 'Hillary is a lying, conniving, power hungry politician.' And that is somehow different from any of the other candidates in either the Dem or Rep camps? I can't see the difference, they are all painted with that brush.