« Clinton Campaign Memos: Cliff Notes Version
Civil Rights Roundup: 08/11/08 »



“At my signal, unleash Hell.”

August 11th, 2008
By TONY CAMPBELL, TMV Columnist

Print Print

200px-gladiator_ver1.jpg

Throughout the primary season, Senator Hillary Clinton has said time-and-time-again that she is a tough fighter who will not surrender until the very end. In about two weeks, we will see how many rounds she will be prepared to go in order to become the nominee of the Democratic Party.

In my columns, I have been consistent in my opinion that this race between Clinton and presumptive nominee Barack Obama is far from over. To this day Clinton has not ended her campaign, it is still merely suspended so she can raise enough money to retire her campaign debt and can be re-organized quickly dependent on what occurs at the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

The group P.U.M.A. is having their convention in Washington, D.C. this weekend. Last week, Senator Clinton made the following statement “I happen to believe that we will come out stronger if people feel that their voices were heard and their views were respected. I think that is a very big part of how we actually come out unified.” Here is the translation for those of who don’t speak Clintonese. Senator Clinton’s delegates will vote for her on the first ballot. This has been the plan as soon as Obama overwhelmingly won on Super Tuesday and the Potomac primaries, and Clinton supporter Lanny Davis, back on February 18th, just about assured us that Hillary’s campaign would not be over until Denver.

The title line “At my signal, unleash Hell” is from the movie Gladiator. Senator Clinton has a role similar to Russell Crowe’s character of General Maximus, a very popular leader who commands an army of followers who will support Obama only if she gives the signal. What Obama has to wonder is, on whom will she unleash Hell? John McCain has to be secretly-praying that Clinton’s forces stay focused on Obama until November.



This entry was posted on Monday, August 11th, 2008 at 7:18 am and is filed under Newsweek Blogitics, Conventions, Superdelegates, Denver Democratic National Convention, At TMV, Columnists, Politics, 2008 Elections, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Movies. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 9 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Just curious on how much $$ P.U.M.A. has raised so far to help retire HRC's campaign debt?
    • ^
    • v
    OMG!!

    I presume you'll be willing to eat a substantial portion of crow if Hell fails to be unleashed?

    Just to be sure, I've bookmarked this post.

    Catch ya later!
    • ^
    • v
    Were Clinton actually planning on showing up at the "PUMA convention" then Obama might have something to worry about. Since she has already effectively thrown them under the bus and begun working for Obama's victory, I'll be joining George Sorwell in bookmarking this post for the end of this month.
    • ^
    • v
    Superdelegates are who will determine who the nominee is. Superdelegates have a moral compunction to examine all facts with respect to both nominees. They are ethically mandated to consider which nominee represents the Will of the Democratic voters.

    Remember that. This isn't a skin-color contest and this isn't a gender battle. Superdelegates must examine QUALIFICATION and ELECTABILITY when casting their real, actual votes at Denver.

    What everyone reading this and superdelegates as well need to remember is one disturbing issue (amongst many) with the Obama palatibility....Hillary was picking up vast momentum TOWARDS THE END of the primaries.

    Why is "towards the end" in all-caps? Because that means that after having considered previous trends pro-Obama, the democratic populace was en masse beginning to change its mind about him and lean towards Hillary instead.

    And rightly so. Clinton comes with experience. Clinton comes with a track record of wresting back the economy to a SURPLUS while she aided her husbands administration. Clinton has spent 8 years immersed in Whitehouse politics, will hit the ground running not on vacuous "hope" but with concrete EXPERIENCE. We need that right now.

    Both Hillary and Bill Clinton are respected abroad amongst foreign dignitaries.....loved by them and known well by them... They already have an established working relationship with foreign dignitaries. In these troubled time we NEED allies in the world. We are not an island. And though Obama did his little field trip abroad this Summer, I couldn't help but notice how foreign statesmen smiled and patronized his speeches with tongue-in-cheek pats on the back. Some almost seemed impatient with having to be bothered by his transparent plea to americans that he has what he does not: World trust and respect.

    Another Clinton administration would mean a replay of the last time. Apart from Bill's sex life, how bad was that really? Did you object to the 22 million new jobs they created? Did you hate how they were pushing for affordable health care? Was it their special efforts with children, women and minorities that pissed you off? How about their bringing our economy back to the strongest its been in our history? That make you mad? I remember during their administration, my dollar went farther than it ever went before. My life was easy and good. I felt like things were being taken care of. The fact that the GOP hired a whore to tempt Bill into giving them the scandal they so badly needed to smear his otherwise stellar track record at the 11th hour didn't phase me a bit. I knew they had to find his weak spot. Imagine a man being tempted to sex by a younger woman! Well I never...lol...

    Clinton is a name you can hang your hat on. Superdelegates know it. Not one pundit will look you in the eye with a straight face and tell you that they think Obama has a better chance at securing a win this November than Hillary. Not one. McCain's BigOil camp is SCARED TO DEATH of a Hillary nomination. And for good reason. It's because when they were little they learned how to spell LANDSLIDE.

    And the superdelegates know about Sinclair. And this prelude to Sinclair: the Edwards scandal, has to be making them squirm in their chairs with dreadful anticipation of which democrat will be next...

    Superdelegates will be charged with nominating a candidate that will win. That is the very bottom of bottom lines when it comes to the convention. Otherwise we might as well call off the convention and hand the win over to McCain right now.
    • ^
    • v
    The only "Hell" that will be unleashed is the hell that will come just after an Obama nomination and democrats realize the full impact of the mistake they made.

    Can anyone spell "Sinclair"? At least Bill Clinton's alleged affairs were with women.. America is flexible and forgiving, but I think the Sinclair issue will test that limit to its maximum..
    • ^
    • v
    I sincerely doubt that anything that dramatic will happen in Denver. A freudian slip or two during Bill's speech? Maybe. A full-scale revolt against the Democratic nominee? Not gonna happen. And the reason why is pretty simple. Hillary Clinton would be a pariah within the party if she even attempted it. A heck of a lot of time and energy has gone into Obama's general election campaign and the DNC is not going to take it lightly if Hillary screws that all up. Plus, if you think the PUMA's and dead-enders are a bit crazy, imagine the wrath of a few million Obamatrons who suddenly find themselves without a candidate. Tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of his supporters would just not show up at the polls. Thousands more would vote for McCain or a third party candidate. A move like that is the surest way to hand the Republicans a victory in November and would probably sever the Democratic Party into two bitterly divided groups, perhaps permanently. It may be the fondest wish of some die-hard Clinton supporters, but if they truly considered the likeliest consequences, they'd shut up about it and accept the reality of Obama's candidacy.
    • ^
    • v
    There are a couple of problems with your narative, Sil. First, Clinton doesn't have any money. Actually, I suppose that should be points 1 - 10. Points 11-20 would be the pariah angle Amanda mentioned. I could add a few more, but the first 20 points make anything further rather moot.

    I appreciate your loyalty, Sil. And I too regard Clinton as a very intelligent, very knowledgeable person. Perhaps she'd make a good Sec of State. What do you think? But to the extent that she tries to take the nomination away from Obama, I would seriously question her judgment.

    You keep harping on the possibility that the GOP will try to run a smear campaign against Obama. My attitude is... duh. Will Sinclair be the nucleus of it? Maybe. But if not him, then someone or something else. The same is true vis-a-vis Clinton. You seem to be a conspiracy/rumor enthusiast... How viable are the rumors that Clinton fools around with her Saudi-born assistant -- who is of course a spy for al Qaeda? What about the rumors that ole Bill is still having problems keeping all his parts in his pants? I suspect whoever the nominee will be or could have been, they are going to be swift-boated in one form or another. That's just the way it is. Said in another way, unless Sinclair has high resolution videographic evidence of Obama snorting crack and/or getting his pole shined by someone, those rumors are no different than any others which may -- and probably will -- crop up. After all, that is the whole point of the present topic.

    I hate to say this, but I suspect that as far as negativity goes, we ain't seen nothing yet. And I don' t mean to accuse the GOP (or their cohorts) unilaterally. I think the smear potential is there on both sides. The only questions in my mind are how they pop up and how they're handled by the other side.
    • ^
    • v
    Sil said:
    "Clinton comes with a track record of wresting back the economy to a SURPLUS while she aided her husbands administration."

    huh? Cuz she was married to the President? I'll cede to some of your other points in her favor, but this one seems a bit of a stretch.
    Agreeing with Ricorun, we ain't seen nuthin' yet. Though I'm doubful as to this big "Sinclair Story" making much of a splash, his track record (and police record) seem to indicate that truthiness is quite optional in his world.
    • ^
    • v
    At this point the Denver convention may still be worth observing, but all the drama is gone. Obama is the nominee and Clinton shouldn't be so crazy as to wreck the party's chances for scoring well in all the elections this November, not just to win the White House. The Florida and Michigan follies don't even merit much of our attention any more; Obama reversed his position against seating those two states' delegates (it's the Democratic Party -- rules don't matter, there are no bad consequences of one's bad choices; indeed, there should never be such a thing as a "bad" or [gasp] "wrong" decisions).

    Even the anti-G8 Move On - ANSWER wacko types that are coming there won't merit much more than snickers. (Unless they get unruly, in which case we want to see a tough response.)