Clinton Donor Predicts Loss in November

By
Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 7:00 am
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (Campaign Photo)

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (Campaign Photo)

DENVER, Colo.–Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild sat in total darkness, the curtains of her downtown Denver hotel drawn closed. It was late in the morning of Monday, Aug. 25, a day before Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, whom de Rothschild had raised vast sums for as a “HillRaiser,” was slated to take the podium at the Democratic National Convention here. Clinton is to speak to the 18 million people who voted for her on behalf of the man who’d outlasted her during the Democratic primaries, Sen. Barack Obama

But de Rothschild was having none of it — none of the reconciliation efforts that had been going on since Clinton stepped away from the race; none of the measures the Obama camp had made to spotlight the Clintons during the convention, and none of Obama and his supporters within the Democratic Party.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

“It feels like this is the last big party before a general election that the Democrats are sure to lose,” said de Rothschild, who was wearing a button honoring Stephanie Tubbs Jones, the late Ohio congresswoman, and fervent Clinton supporter, who died last week from a brain aneurysm. “It’s the political equivalent of re-arranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic. It feels like that because of the polls. The pick of Joe Biden telescoped that Barack Obama knows his weaknesses. He doesn’t have experience in foreign policy and he does not connect well to ordinary people, and Joe Biden doesn’t fix that. He just magnifies the problem. He’s a fine guy. I want him to go back to the Senate.”

The fact that the rhetoric by de Rothschild and others like her remains so virulent exposes the obstacles that the Democratic Party faces as it tries to move forward to a historic presidential victory. As of this writing, Obama and McCain are in a dead heat. Now while some like de Rothschild find themselves at a loss at what to do, others have made the decision to move forward for the sake of the party or leave it to its own devices this time around.

This standoff might only be a fleeting moment–something Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, could wipe away with their appearances here at the Pepsi Center. As Obama demonstrated with his galvanizing speech four years ago, speeches can have great effect. Hillary Clinton could well display that same kind of power — and in so doing re-energize her supporters, commanding the different factions of her alliance to put aside harsh feelings and come together in support of Obama.

“I think the majority of Hillary supporters are coming back and coming home,” said David R. Gergen, director of the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, who has previously served as a White House adviser to Presidents Richard M. Nixon, Gerald R. Ford, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. “The purpose of the convention is to help bring back that group who’s undecided since they’re persuadable. [Clinton] has to say in a full-throated, emotional way how strongly she feels about the party uniting.”

For quite some time now, de Rothschild and other prominent Clinton supporters — including Jill Iscol, the New York political fund-raising power, and Susie Tompkins Buell, the co-founder of Espirit and a power in her own right — had pushed hard for a place for Clinton on Obama’s ticket. It would unify the party, they said, and heal the wounds of what had been a vicious primary contest. Moreover, it would allow Obama to reach the millions of working-class men and women that Clinton had brought together during her campaign.

But with the selection of Sen. Joe Biden on Saturday, that dream is dead. Now, as delegates readied themselves for their four-day festival, de Rothschild was among the 27 percent of Clinton supporters still undecided about whether they should throw their support to Obama.

As much as anything, she represents a new, fundamental rift within the party that was no longer about Obama vs. Clinton, but about an existential crisis of Clinton supporters themselves. On one side, according to a recent Wall Street Journal Poll 52 percent of Clinton supporters polled now support Obama, just as Clinton had asked them to. But 21 percent had told The Wall Street Journal they would support McCain. Another 27 percent, like de Rothschild, were uncommitted.

“I didn’t think it would happen because it is not in the character of Barack Obama to admit his weaknesses,” de Rothschild continued, analyzing the Biden choice. “I think his ego is sooooo out of proportion — so he could not admit he needed her so. I never thought he would do it. He doesn’t even reach out to the largest Clinton fund-raisers — he doesn’t think he needs them. So he shouldn’t be surprised that they’ll write a check for him out of party loyalty — but they won’t work hard for him.

“Short of having her on the ticket,” de Rothschild noted, “the rest is window-dressing. He doesn’t like the Clintons. And the people in the smoke-filled rooms of the Democratic Party, the super-delegates, have given the nomination to Barack Obama. And people who are not going to agree with the choice of Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean will do so because Hillary tells them to — because she loves the party. There’s no question that she loves her party.

“The loyalty of the Clintons to the Democratic Party is bullet-proof,” de Rothschild said, “They are showing more loyalty to this party than anyone could expect them to. The people who are disloyal to the principles of this party are Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi. Howard Dean did nothing to speak out about sexism during the primary. Howard Dean contrived a rules committee meeting that was the ultimate corruption. Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi took 18 million people and trashed them by saying, ‘You don’t matter. Obama is our man. The left-wing has won.’ So there’s no one more loyal to the Democratic Party than the Clintons.”
Historically, no matter how mad party members are, they’ve usually come back to their roots. But perhaps that era has passed. Beginning in 1980 with Ronald Reagan and the advent of the Reagan Democrats who were fed up with the incumbent President Jimmy Carter, we’ve seen a weakening of the traditional party system. More people consider themselves independents than at any time in U.S. history. As a result, Americans are much more drawn to the man or, in the case of Clinton, the woman, rather than which side of the isle he or she chooses to represent.

Yet as Clinton takes the stage tonight, and division within her party still looms, some of her major supporters have already accepted the party’s likely choice. Though they once worked closely with De Rothschild, they now stand on the opposite side. This includes well-heeled supporters like Bal Das, the New York attorney, and Christina Lurie whom, alongside her husband Jeffrey, owns the Philadelphia Eagles.

In a phone conversation Sunday evening, Das shared none of the animosity that de Rothschild expressed the next day. From the first conference call Clinton held with donors to implore them to support Obama, DAs has been the most-loyal foot soldier. He met with the presumed candidate when Obama visited New York for a fund-raiser and came away satisfied — his doubts about the young senator’s ability to govern gone. Das was further encouraged by Obama’s selection of Biden — a sort of older adviser and sounding-board, the Alfred to Obama’s Bruce Wayne.

“My own personal view,” Das said, “has been, up until the last minute Sen. Clinton would have — in one strike — added the most advantage to the Democratic ticket. That said, Obama had the advantage of having a selection of many very good people. Short of Sen. Clinton, I think Sen. Biden was the next best choice.

“I had the chance to meet him in June,” Das continued, ” and I think he is someone who has a wonderful life story and, more importantly, not only will help Obama as an experienced running mate but also will help Obama rebuild bipartisanship in Washington. There has been a small set of people who don’t believe this. But, as momentum begins to gather I think more and more of that sub-section will rally around Obama. When people begin to look at the positions of Sen. Clinton versus that of Sen. McCain,, I think they will find the similarities in positions between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama quite amazing.”

Lurie echoed that sentiment when she said, “I think picking Joe Biden is a very sound choice. He’s a sound pick. I think he’s a really decent person…. Obama picking him is reassuring. It shows that he’s surrounding himself with strong people.”

As for the split among Clinton supporters, Lurie said, “People have to decide what they want for the next four years. It is time to move on. This race is between John McCain and Barack Obama. It’s no longer about Hillary Clinton.”

Ah, if only it were that easy. For nearly a year-and-a-half, this election was all about Clinton. It was about Clinton’s failure in Iowa, about her finding her own voice and personal strength at different moments when she’d been declared politically finished. It also showed the great schism that existed among voters in big and small states, as Clinton steamrolled through big states while Obama methodically won a collection of smaller ones.

Now, without her, one is right to ask whether Obama can win in places where members of his own party chose his opponent by telling margins. An even deeper question is whether he can shed his sometimes ultra-liberal label to move to the yellow line – to be considered by independents as one of their own, a centrist.

“States like New York and California that are deeply Democratic states will go for him,” de Rothschild said. “What he cannot win are the states John Kerry lost. He’s not going to win Missouri. He’s not going to win Florida. Hillary won West Virginia by 30 points. West Virginia is McCain because we didn’t put Hillary there. So many Republicans would have come over to vote for Hillary Clinton, but the left and Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi wouldn’t let it happen. So we’re going to be the minority party. The loyal Democrats, the true Democrats, are going to be the ones that are going to be upset by that because we want to win. We don’t want a loser. We don’t want somebody who’s not qualified to be president.

“He’s trying to aggregate all of his principles to the center but it’s not going to work,” she continued. “People aren’t stupid. They think people are all fools who are going to not go beyond Obama’s words and not look at a Democratic Party that’s putting its cigarettes in the eyes of the Clintons. This party wins when we care about people’s problems deep down, not only when we think people’s problems are the price of arugula or say they’re ‘bitter’ with their religion and their guns. We don’t connect. We don’t work that way as a party. Maybe there’ll be some miracle and those impressions will all be erased, but I doubt it.”

So, um does that mean de Rothschild will put her robust financial backing and influence behind McCain?

“I haven’t decided,” de Rothschild said. “I’m going to wait for both vice presidential candidates and I’m going to wait after both conventions. It would feel awful. I have been such a loyal Democrat my entire life. I’m proud of what Bill Clinton has done for this nation and I feel so good for being a tiny, tiny part of giving America the best president we’ve had since F.D.R. To leave that party, for even one election, would hurt me. It would be based much more in sadness than anger. But it’s a principled decision. I’m going to deal with the facts as I see them.”
Such sentiments only reflect how much work the Democratic Party has to accomplish and how much work Obama needs to do. A large group of Democrats still believe that Obama was naive to think that he and Biden could do it together without Clinton’s help.
In many ways her role in this election has only grown since her concession to the junior senator from Illinois. She is, after all, a force who built a coalition of women and working-class Democrats that needs to stand together should the Democrats put Obama into the Oval Office.

Beginning Tuesday evening, Clinton must do more than be a surrogate. She must be a new kind of power broker. Clinton must give a speech greater than the one she gave at the National Building Museum in Washington, when she officially ended her campaign, putting a temporary end to the Clinton Dynasty. Because it’s only through her words and actions, that she can heal fractures within the base that she built.

Comments

211 Comments

homer
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 9:13 am

good lord. all you hear from this person is

“blah blah blah, me and my good friends the clintons. clinton, clinton, clinton, me, me, me.” nothing about “oh, i support john mccain because he's pro-life, and he'll balance the budget by cutting all social spending and selling florida to china.” nothing but “I'm leaving the democrats because of what they did to my friends.”

and this plutocrat pseudo-noblewoman thinks she can relate to the american middle class? what a selfish whiner.


homie
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 10:04 am

A Rothschild musing about Obama's ability to connect with the little people. Humor.


pablito
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 10:11 am

What about the millions who voted for Obama in the primaries? How would these “Hill Raisers” deal with those individuals? Why should Hillary get de facto preference over Barack? I am sooooo sick of these idiots who think it is more important to prop up Hillary's ego (and their own, via projection) than it is to vote the Republicans out of the White House. If I may borrow a line from Keith Olbermann: SHUT THE HELL UP!


Ferd Pilzwick
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 10:15 am

Hmm….. so, she feels slighted, and that Hillary was slighted. Nothing about the disparity in positions between Obama and McCain. She needs to get this into her head: this election is between Obama and McCain. Whom would she rather have in the White House? Whose principles are closer to those of Hillary? Financial policy? Health care? A woman's right to choose? Judicial nominations?
She says that “it's a principled decision” Oh, is it really? She is using the wrong principles.


ajm8127
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 10:15 am

Das said, “When people begin to look at the positions of Sen. Clinton versus that of Sen. McCain, I think they will find the similarities in positions between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama quite amazing.”

This is a good observation. I don't understand how a Clinton supporter can actually support McCain, just because Obama didn't select Clinton as his VP. Are those 21 percent of Clinton supporters really that juvenile? Sure, there is going to be a singular person who ends up in the White House, but the choice of that person should be based on policy and personality, not animosity over a lost primary election. And the person is not as important as the policy, which Clinton and Obama's are very similar. This was actuality commented on numerous times during the primary, where Clinton and Obama didn't have enough points to contrast with each other because their policies were so similar.

And I totally agree about de Rothschild. she sounds like a stubborn Clinton cheerleader who is too bullhead to admit that Obama and Clinton really aren't that different.


agio
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 10:15 am

Cliffnotes version: Rich white biddies don't like Obama.


concerned parent
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 10:19 am

Agreed, this so called hillary supporters saying they are going to support mccain is
like a non-violent activist taking out a gun and starts shooting. mccain has long been against
womens' rights, strange since he wouldn't have his wealth without his wife. So I say go ahead,
if you feel mccain represents your corrupt morals, then vote for him. That being said, this will not
get hillary elected president, because if obama were to lose, I and many others will point at these
treasonous (so-called democrats) and ensure that hillary never, ever gets elected to anything for the
rest of her life. So take that, stop your whinning, and lets prevent another 4 years of bush bs.


p-rex
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 10:20 am

and if obama loses, it will be the fault of de rothschild and those like her. what she fails to say here is that she wants obama to lose, out of spite.


Jefferson
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 10:22 am

“Lady” de Rothschild? Is that her given name, or does she consider herself some sort of European Rothschild hereditary noble? The last time I checked, the United States had abolished titles like that. Const. Art. I sec. 9.


Melanie
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 10:24 am

People like Ms Rothschild remind me of a lot about high school – the cliques, particularly the privileged clique who looked down on anyone not like them. They were better than everyone. The Clintons have developed this clique for their ultra wealthy circle of friends.

What brings a smile to my face is that most of these clique type members in high school that I knew have turned out to be the biggest failures later in life. Their arrogance and unkindness towards other people came back to haunt them in real life.


Northern Observer
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 10:24 am

Cue Rodgers and Hart:

I get too pissy, when I can't have my way
I like when the little people do what I say
I just can't seem to give up my bile and hate
That's why the lady is an Ass…..


Northern Observer
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 10:24 am

Cue Rodgers and Hart:

I get too pissy, when I can't have my way
I like when the little people do what I say
I just can't seem to give up my bile and hate
That's why the lady is an Ass…..


glchuck
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 10:24 am

De Rothschild was walking a fine line throughout the interview, but her Hillary winning West Virginia Republicans comment betrayed her lapse with reality.

I'm tired of hearing about these obsessed Clintonites. Nevermind asking the majority of Democrats who supported Obama throughout the primaries why they didn't want Clinton? Nevermind wondering what the state of the party would be if Clinton had edged out Obama? Or how about acknowledging that an Obama-Clinton ticket would represent to them a total betrayal of his message?

But conflict is what sells isn't it? Hence Ms. de Rothschild's soapbox.


glchuck
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 10:24 am

De Rothschild was walking a fine line throughout the interview, but her Hillary winning West Virginia Republicans comment betrayed her lapse with reality.

I'm tired of hearing about these obsessed Clintonites. Nevermind asking the majority of Democrats who supported Obama throughout the primaries why they didn't want Clinton? Nevermind wondering what the state of the party would be if Clinton had edged out Obama? Or how about acknowledging that an Obama-Clinton ticket would represent to them a total betrayal of his message?

But conflict is what sells isn't it? Hence Ms. de Rothschild's soapbox.


ex-Clintonite
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 10:26 am

“it’s only through her words and actions, that [Clinton] can heal fractures within the base that she built.”

I think the writer meant (heal fractures) (within the base that Clinton built), but this could easily be read as (heal fractures that Clinton built) (within the base).

Bill, I'm looking at you here.


Alice
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 10:27 am

Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, paragon of working class waitress moms in Apalachia! The funniest thing I've heard all year. Please get a grip. Actually, check that. Please leave the party. Your money's no good here, and neither are you.

Buh bye…


ibc
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 10:31 am

Just so, so narcissistic and self-absorbed. Because, you know, it's not about effecting change, and working to get political power in the hands of folks that agree with you on 99.9% of the issues. It's about having my personal feelings validated…

Petulant little shit.


ibc
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 10:31 am

Just so, so narcissistic and self-absorbed. Because, you know, it's not about effecting change, and working to get political power in the hands of folks that agree with you on 99.9% of the issues. It's about having my personal feelings validated…

Petulant little shit.


Boris
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 10:41 am

Sheesh, what a moron! How much you want to bet that she takes home the gold medal in the Olympics of Stupid?


nathan
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 10:50 am

This is about mrs. rothschild seeing whatever dream ambassadorial position she thought was coming her way w/ a president clinton, extinguished. absolutely pathetic.


Jonze
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 11:00 am

Lady Lynn forested De Rothechild is apolitical and simply wants influence and to be invited to the White House parties. She had that “in” with Hillary and doesn't have it with Obama, which is why she keeps raising a stink, and playing nice with the McCain camp, where I'm sure she's have a lot in common with Cindy McCain and could probably weasel her way into the parties.

She's filthy rich (gee I wonder how she came into her money) and thus doesn't worry about politics as her wealth makes her above politics. She wants connections and influence and will sell out to whoever gives it to her.


Peter Principle
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 11:01 am

This whole thing is a joke, right? Now way there is a real person named Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild. People like that only exist in Monty Python sketches.


SpaceCat
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 11:03 am

People like de Rothschild are completely delusional. Get over it and grow up if you really are such a loyal Democrat.


joshquasimoto
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 11:05 am

Seriously, if this women was concerned about the candidates and their stance on the issues then she should be hard pressed to find anything worth a note in John McCain's plans for this country. Come on, on the issues Hillary and Obama are much closer than Hillary and McCain, yet some still find themselves reluctant to support Obama? Give me a break if this person had one ounce of intelligence then the choice should be easy, of course all of this is much more complicated in the case of the Rothschild, with their wealth because they realize electing Obama means higher taxes. And then when you put it in that frame of reference her arguement is simply one of chossing the better candidate based simply on money rather than substance. Many of us do not come from such priveledge backgrounds, many of us do not want to aquire great wealth, many of us simply want the goverment and our communities to make better decisions when dealing with the issues we face such as poverty, global climate change, foreign diplomacy and our economy. On all of these subject matters Obama's plans are much more equitable to the majority of Americans, so when you say that some of Hill's biggest donors are having a hard time finding out who they should support then the issues are not one of simply choosing a candidate who best reflected Hillary's stance on the issues but some other facet which is not explored in this article.


Sims
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 11:08 am

Obama's lost certainly will not help Hillery get elected in the next four years or even eight years. She will have her negative suppoters to think for that. Obama supporters will not vote for Hillery because of the negative divisiveness of her supportes in this convention and in the primaries. What a shame, they do not realize that Hillery can not win without all of the Democratic support. Right now she has lost it. Democrats don't care for warmed over politicians much. Maybe they will be able to get enough Republicans to vote for her since they seem to be following the Republican talking points.


jh
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 11:12 am

Jesus Christ! Grow up already.


Tracy Taylor
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 11:13 am

These people are using Hillary in order to get media attention. If they say they support Obama, the mics will stop being shoved in their faces and the newspapers will stop calling them. They just want to be relevant, and throwing hissy fits gives them the spotlight that they seek.


c4logic
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 11:14 am

Good Grief! All reasonable, rational analysis has vanished. What is left is a shell of bitter spite and hatred. Dear Lord, with her money, I would think she could afford professional help. Please, can't her friends and family get her some counseling? Time to put the knives and scissors away… the Dems can build a ruling coaliton without the Mentally ILL fundraisers.


Joe Klein's conscience
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 11:19 am

Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild sounds like a spoiled clueless rich brat she is. She isn't a Democrat. If she was, she'd put her personal feelings aside. All this does is make Obama supporters work harder and want to sign up more voters.


PaminBB
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 11:35 am

“So many Republicans would have come over to vote for Hillary Clinton”

The woman is clearly delusional. Republicans hate Hillary with a white-hot passion.


Grace
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 11:42 am

Lady de Rothschild, who claims to be such a supporter of women, has myopically chosen to support just ONE woman — all the rest of us, apparently, can go hang.

John McCain is pro-life. He is VEHEMENTLY pro-life — we're talking not just no abortion, but no contraception. He has avowed to be a pro-life administration appointing pro-life judges, he promises to overturn Roe v. Wade. And these Hillary supporters are so tunnel-visioned and bent on “teaching the DNC a lesson” that they're apparently willing to burn four years on a Republican president. Only it's NOT burning four years; it's handing them to a man who will do everything in his power to limit choice worldwide.

I'll admit, I have a bigger stake than most: I'm 28, right in the crosshairs if contraception suddenly comes under the gun. Don't be so confident that a pro-life administration can't make my next few decades tyranny.

So ladies, both titled and otherwise? STEP UP. Defend your sisters, not just your favorite.


chupacabra
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 12:13 pm

Everyone needs to chill and be a little understanding. She is not bitter about Hillary, or angry at Obama. What she is really feeling is scared. She is in a hotel in Denver, doesn't remember why and cannot for the life of her remember how many houses SHE owns.

What is this, high school? If you are a democrat, there is no way you can align yourself with McSame.

Get over it, clinton lost.


Emily
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 12:17 pm

What's the matter…..No ambassdorship. She and rest of this horde of hanger-ons, Carville, Begala, and their ilk screaming sexism and whining worse than two year olds.

Don't they realize how they have undercut their cause for her? Why would anyone want to put up with their constant bitching and moaning? If she was on the ticket, they would still be bitching and moaning and leaking to the press about how Hillary would have done so much better with this and that.

As scared as I am, Obama should win / lose on his own. I am so tired of them…..

BTW, Someone should tell that dame, having a title and being a lady are not the same thing.


HelenBack
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 12:29 pm

If indeed, Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild is a Democrat she must support Democratic principles such as a woman's right to choose, affordable healthcare for every American, the belief in the U.S. Constitution, fair taxes for all Americans and a respect for our environment. If Lady Lynn believes in these basic Democratic principles then she see the vast differences between Barack Obama and John McCain. Moreover she can deduce the tragedy that will occur if McCain is elected in November.

Instead of sitting in a hotel room, whining like a schoolgirl scorned, perhaps the good Lady can help defend all of our Democratic principles and foundations by coming together as a party to prevent the continuation of this eight year nightmare of vacuous republican nonsense? In the end this is not about Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton but it is about our Democratic way of life and ceasing America's failures of the last eight years.

Anyone who will give up their ideology and principles because their feelings were hurt did not have an ideology or principles to begin with in the first place.


Ranchero
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 12:30 pm

“I think his ego is sooooo out of proportion…”

Excuse me? This coming from someone who actually calls herself Lady blah blah blah de Rothschild? Is this some kind of parody?

Oh excuse me, m'lady, while I make a leg.

Go step on your head.


JW
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 12:41 pm

If Obama had picked Hillary, she would have carried Arkansas in a closely divided electorate, but as it is, Obama has alienated a large portion of his base and is an idiot.


Chuck
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 12:45 pm

Bill was the best president since FDR? I'm not buying it. I can't think of a single piece of significant legislation that can even be included in the same breath as the Civil Rights Act 1964 or Voting Rights of '65-LBJ. Or Truman. Obviously her selfishness is more important than her dedication to the Democratic Party of which she claims to love so much. I guess she would rather see McCain as president? Rothschild or not, money doesn't =sense.


Victor Thompson
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 12:58 pm

I just googled her.
Apparently she is a real person.


C. Davie
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:16 pm

I believe that the precedcent for the 2008 election is the election of 1928 when Alfred Smith was deserted by many Southern (and border) states' voters over the issue of Smith's religion (Roman Catholic). As was the case with the election of John F. Kennedy in 1960, we are probably a generation away from having 'racial' issues affectSouthern voters' choic in national elections.

'Tis sad but true…even as we hurtled toward disaster in 1928 from 8 years of Republican Harding-Coolidge ineptitude, we are now going down the rocky road of Republican corporate greed-driven disaster, but we are too infected with racism to 'do the right thing' and alter course..


c4logic
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:22 pm

It seems a rather large portion of the USA is completely CRAZY. With McCain, and his plan for endless war and endless deficits winning something like 45% in the polls, and a significant portion of former Hillary supporters unhappy that SHE DID NOT GET ENOUGH ELECTORAL VOTES–it is beginning to look like a majority of Americans REALLY wants a McCain presidency–which means that America is certain to continue on to HELL in a Handbasket. Why should this be? Why do so many Americans want the trend of the past 8 years to continue? BECAUSE THEY ARE COMPLETELEY INSANE. Oh yeah, that's the answer. Lady de Fru Fru is exhibit A for the prosecution.


Oliver Klozzoff
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:22 pm

If she's so rich, how come she's not smart???


berliner2
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:22 pm

Nice little Gothic touch here. “Lady de Rothschild”. Si non è vero è ben trovato.


berliner2
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:24 pm

As John Kenneth Galbraith put it, it is a popular misconception, particularly in the United States, that wealth has something to do with intelligence. There is no such connection.


Oliver Klozzoff
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:27 pm

Wake up, bucko; McClain IS what we all used to call a Democrat. He's a Zell Miller Democrat. McCain is much closer to, say, John F. Kennedy, than either Clinton or Obama. So we are talking a choice between a Liberal McCain and a Radical Obomber. (In case you didn't know, that was his high school basketball nickname.)


jim
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:31 pm

I am printing this article and will read it the day Hillary runs for office again and will do everything I can to help her opponent.

Obama / Biden


Chris
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:35 pm

One angry woman, so much undeserved press coverage. What's she done except be born rich?


K
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:38 pm

These selfish, selfish people have no concept of the harm they are doing to themselves and the entire country if they let their personal feelings help put John McCain in the White House.

I, too, am heartbroken at many of the wrongs done to Hillary. I believed in her candidacy and, to this day, believe she would have been a better president. However, there's no doubt in my mind that Barack Obama would be at least a gazillion times better for the country than John McCain.


M. Berube
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:38 pm

To me, it seems that all the people who can't get behind Obama because of their undying support for Clinton, must never have listened to her message. The policy positions between the two democrats is minimally different and the distinction between both democrats and McCain is profound. I think that the blind loyalty to Clinton belies the fact that it didn't matter what she said about her policies and about the issues facing the country. Shame on them. It is a great dis-service to the intelligence of Senator Clinton.


edwcorey
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:38 pm

His base? I thought the PUMAs et al. were the base (or crack, the other name for it). Clinton's followers are like people whose team lost the Super Bowl and two months later are still babbling about the fumble that cost them the game. The office of the president is, or should be, about getting things done. Obama came out of nowhere, with no money, no name recognition–and a funny name, to boot–and defeated the “incumbent” who had every advantage, by running a disciplined, organized, brilliant campaign. That's the mark of a leader: he got it done. She didn't. Not now, not when she had the health-care assignment. Not when she voted for war or for Lieberman-Kyl. Follow the leader, not the failure.


cindyv
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:41 pm

One of my co-workers, a republican said that he's voting for McCain only because Hillary is not the democratic nominee. I feel he's not alone.


joyce
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:42 pm

Pass the barf bag, please!!!


jim
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:42 pm

This just adds to the bad stereotypes of women. Sounds like the Wives of Orange County — caddy, shallow and out of touch. If we don't get our way, then it's a scorched earth policy! They are basically telling us the hell with all of you because their money and prestige didn't get them what they expected this time. It does show the elite section of the democratic party where they are used to getting their way. They give lip service to equality for all and blah, blah, blah, but when a black man comes up for nomination, the don't walk the walk or talk the talk. Instead, they come across like sore losers who aren't used to getting what their money usually can pay for. Hillary stands to be the Ralph Nader of 2008 and I for one, who staunchly supporter her nomination, am completely and utterly disgusted with her. Can we form a support group that gets air time for all of us who now find her and Bill to be small and unseemly.?


jim
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:42 pm

This just adds to the bad stereotypes of women. Sounds like the Wives of Orange County — caddy, shallow and out of touch. If we don't get our way, then it's a scorched earth policy! They are basically telling us the hell with all of you because their money and prestige didn't get them what they expected this time. It does show the elite section of the democratic party where they are used to getting their way. They give lip service to equality for all and blah, blah, blah, but when a black man comes up for nomination, the don't walk the walk or talk the talk. Instead, they come across like sore losers who aren't used to getting what their money usually can pay for. Hillary stands to be the Ralph Nader of 2008 and I for one, who staunchly supporter her nomination, am completely and utterly disgusted with her. Can we form a support group that gets air time for all of us who now find her and Bill to be small and unseemly.?


Suz in KS
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:43 pm

Seriously, these people are either insane or the penutimate in childishness. It does a GREAT disservice to the legacy of the Clintons to see supporter behave this way. I'm just appalled at how foolish they are making the Clintons look. Bill and Hillary Clinton are party loyalist. They will support the candidate with their whole being. But women who would behave like these women say to me “Your daughter's right to make decisions about her own body don't matter because I didn't get my way and Hillary is not the nominee.” They say to me “The life of your son who will need to be drafted into the next McCain war means NOTHING to me because I didn't get my way!” “Your mother's medicare benefits mean NOTHING to me because I didn't get my way!” “Your abilitly to keep your house means NOTHING to me because I didn't get my way!” “Communities affected by job losses mean NOTHING to me because Hillary is not our nominee!” Its shameful. These Clinton supporters should hang their heads in shame for this kind childish of behavior because its a shameful reflection upon the legacy of Bill and Hillary Clinton within Democratic Politics.


Dave
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:45 pm

Great synopsis


OBXartist
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:45 pm

This woman obviously has no concern for the future of this country. She's just another loony infected by the Clinton cult of personality syndrome. I used to think these PUMAs were just angry, vindictive modern Medea's trying to make everyone else pay for their unhappiness. Turns out they're just NUTS!


Dave in ME
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:46 pm

What a bitter bitter woman. Sad, pathetic and out of touch – she'll fit right in with the McCain campaign.


Dave
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:48 pm

Reminds me of Ms. Teen South Carolina


Jacklyn
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:48 pm

How pathetic. I really feel sorry for the Hillary supporters. They are correct about the sexism, but why do they take the idiotic pundits or anchors so seriously? Most of us know we have to dig for the truth and actually come to our own conclusions, otherwise we are just following poor leadership. As much as I admire Keith Olberman, I don't base my allegiance on his opinion. I agree with “Concerned Parent”. If Hillary supporters really think she would make a great president (I do too, actually) they better hope Obama wins. Hillary won't have another chance if it appears her supporters are to blame. Just like Ralph Nader, spoilers end up doing worse the second time around. There will be another competitor Hillary will have to beat whenever she runs again. Hillary and her supporters can't expect other potential party leaders to step aside just because she wants the job. We the people decide who we want to lead us. Unfortunately, it wasn't Hillary this time for the Democrats. I pray in the end it won't be John McCain, either.


Jacklyn
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:48 pm

How pathetic. I really feel sorry for the Hillary supporters. They are correct about the sexism, but why do they take the idiotic pundits or anchors so seriously? Most of us know we have to dig for the truth and actually come to our own conclusions, otherwise we are just following poor leadership. As much as I admire Keith Olberman, I don't base my allegiance on his opinion. I agree with “Concerned Parent”. If Hillary supporters really think she would make a great president (I do too, actually) they better hope Obama wins. Hillary won't have another chance if it appears her supporters are to blame. Just like Ralph Nader, spoilers end up doing worse the second time around. There will be another competitor Hillary will have to beat whenever she runs again. Hillary and her supporters can't expect other potential party leaders to step aside just because she wants the job. We the people decide who we want to lead us. Unfortunately, it wasn't Hillary this time for the Democrats. I pray in the end it won't be John McCain, either.


Bo Vandy
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:49 pm

I've never seen so many adults act like total children. I remember back in the early part of the campaign when the pundits were all talking about how Obama's and Clinton's policies were virtually the same. How is it now these people can talk as though McCain's policies are Clinton like with a straight face?

Get the F**** over it Clinton supporters!


robert
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:49 pm

I completely agree. They come across as arrogant and out of touch with reality. They want to be the torch-bearers of the struggling class, but they have done everything they can to diss a black candidate for president. They do look like the Orange County housewives! Hillary could put an end to this in one second if she wanted to, but she won't. She wants to bask in the limelight of 27% of the followers left who find her still viable. She should do some math for the other 60% of us who now see that the Clintons' only interest is about power. So sad your rich friends couldn't buy you the nomination. So sad you couldn't win a nomination that was handed to you on a silver platter. I too, once a supporter, find her to be self-engrossed and petty.


Wllie
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:49 pm

I luvs that little de Rothschild lady. She be my lady someday, I hope. She be my Burger King sweetie. A cardboard cutout of a woman…..flat but predictable. So glad she pullin' on Hill….
Chill,
S. Willie


Jaid
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:49 pm

This woman engages in tremendous projection. She is the one with the large ego. She's the window dresser, she's the titanic, she's out of touch and she is but another example of those people (Carville, Clintons, Lanny Davis, Begala, etc.) who think they own the party or the people in it. They act as if the people in the party belong to them. The people in the party believe in what are suppose to be democratic ideas not some oligarchy. Get over yourself, or better yet stay in the literal darkness that you find yourself –and good riddance! Just another elitist bore.


judiadg
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:50 pm

You're exactly right. Apparently Rothschild has forgotten McCain's reaction during a town hall when a woman asked “How do we beat the bitch”. He laughed rather than tell the questioner that her words were crude and sexist and had no place in the presidential campaign. That's who McCain is. That's what he thinks of Rothschid's beloved Hillary and women in general.


Dave
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:52 pm

Or take out stock in wire coat-hanger manufacturers. ;)


OBXartist
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:52 pm

Yes, McCain is somewhat like an old time Southern Democrat. Back in the day, many Southern Democrats belonged to the KKK and believed the occasional lynching was good for social order. So, I see your point there. But I think you go too far trying to connect the enlightened beliefs of John F. Kennedy with the Neanderthalish platform of John McCain.

BTW – Zell Miller is a crackpot.


Dave
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:54 pm

McCain is NO Democrat – NOT even close. If you were to actually look at the platforms of both candidates, then you would realize this, but evidently you are too…….hmmmmmmmm……what's the word I'm looking for……..DUMB?


Jett1
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:56 pm

Oh please. Rothschild sounds like Howard Hughes, sitting alone in the dark, drinking bottled milk and letting fingernails grow 12 inches long. WTF.


mamaspiffy
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:56 pm

And what was your high school nickname, KrazzyKat? If you think McCain is liberal or anything at all like JFK, you are seriously deranged. Ditto if you think Obama is “radical!” He's pretty darned close to the middle of the road, and McSame has sold out to his party's radical right because he needed their evangelical oil money.


Inks
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:57 pm

I find it funny when people comment that Obama did not seek the advise of Pres Clinton in choosing his running mate etc. They forget that you seek advise from someone you trust and know has no biased view regarding the desired advise you are seeking. Pres Clinton is hardly unbiased about this decision and no one in the world believes that the Obamas trust both Clintons as far as they can throw them.
It is a tragedy that someone like this so called Lady Rothchild with all the money in the bank and more power than she knows what to do with, is bitter about it. When was the last time someone forced her to do what she did not want to do. Whatever the outcome in November, choosing Sen Clinton may have been the easy choice, but going with someone he is more comfortable with and who has tonnes more experience than the Junior Sen from New York Sen Clinton is certainly the better choice.
Sen Obama has worked hard all his life to get where he is today and not by always choosing the simple or most convenient choices but by making choices that he believes are strategically better to get things accomplished. Now one thing I will say is, these people forget that Sen Clinton is also only a junior senator and that she is more likely to get the experience and power she craves with a Democrat in the white house.


reality
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:57 pm

no Obama will lose on his on merit.


TexGator
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:58 pm

cindyv,

Did he tell you about the time he saw Santa Claus coming down his chimney?

It's called patronizing, you dolt! Of course he can say he would've voted for Hillary because he knows he can't vote for Hillary. And he gets to confuse and depress poor-little PUMA's like you so that you won't be enthusiastic for the candidate that he knows has your best interests at heart.

Obama 08


jeanrenoir
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:59 pm

It's like the Theater of the Absurd, or reductio ad absurdum, that the subject of this interview is a Rothschild, since she so perfectly personifies the fact that Hillary's bitter dead-enders are NOT “feminists” but rather very rich, bi-coastal Jews who are, in effect, now the neocons of the Democratic Party, the Joe Liebermans of the Jewish donor class. Starting with the mass neocon Jewish defection to the Republicans under Reagan, in angry reaction to Carter's “weakness” in the Middle East, wealthy neocon Jews like Rothschild have bought the services of the leading candidates of BOTH political parties for Likud in Israel with their huge donations. The Democratic neocon donors were the ones who were so wildly overconfident about the power of their money and Hillary's prestige in the party that they blew the primaries by not having a game-plan for the caucuses or the phase just after Super Tuesday, when Obama wrapped up the nomination. These people are used to getting everything their money can buy all the time. They were stunned that Obama outmaneuvered them on the Net, raising more money from Tom, Dick, and Harry, than they could from Rothschilds. Now these neocons are determined to destroy Obama by any means necessary, since if he wins, they and Likud are toast in America. Not Israel, but Likud. My girlfriend is a wealthy typically liberal New York Jew. All of her wealthy family and friends are classic Democratic liberal Jews, all gung-ho for Obama, overjoyed by his brilliance and character, and by the chance for such radical progress in the quest for racial justice in America he represents. They also support his analysis of the total stupidity of the war in Iraq. There's a kind of Armageddon taking place in American Jewry now, because of Obama. It's as if the huge political split within Israel itself between the morality of Likud and that of Peace Now has been transferred to American domestic politics. At least 60 percent of American Jews, the polls tell us, will support Obama's vision of justice at home and peace abroad, including in the Middle East. But, sadly, more Jewish neocons than ever, in both parties, will do all they can to defeat both, all in the service of the twisted and counter-productive logic which brought us the neocon proxy war for Israel in Iraq, and now wants a second proxy war for Israel in Iran–all fought with American bodies and debt. For the good of Israel, as well as America, Jews of goodwill must do all they can to stop these people before they kill again.


Dave
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 1:59 pm

Oh come on now, he signed into law DADT and DOMA (which both are extremely discriminatory)! Back in the 90's it was racially motivated tensions it was gays, so he caved into Republican threats.


Rick
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:01 pm

Let's get this straight…. She thinks OBAMA has the ego problem?????


Dave
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:02 pm

Agreed 100%


JACK
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:02 pm

WHAT AN ELITIST SNOB. SHE IS EXACTLY WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY.


nostraboris
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:03 pm

wow, this blinding spite makes you wonder if sexism has merit after all.

Consumed with anger, she is willing to enable 4 years of mcCain, just so Clinton can have another shot at it.

ZERO integrity this woman


Rich
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:04 pm

OMG Somebody take her out of time out!

I judge Hillary people like this… Name a policy NOT a personal trait of HRC that you agree with… then compare that to McBush's plan for the same policy… is it the same? Most likely they are completely different… Obama's policies are, for the most part, exactly the same as HRC policies. So to say you aren't going to vote for someone because you dont agree with them you need to look closer at the differences.

So when you dont vote for Obama then your probably a Republican in disguise following HRC because she is a woman only… not because of the policies.


Dave
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:05 pm

Although I agree with the first half of your post, I no longer share your disgust with Hillary Clinton. I never really cared for Bill, but I do like Hillary Clinton. She is doing everything that she can (in my opinion), it is Bill who is the major hold out.


jeanrenoir
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:07 pm

This comment is SO on target. What these people want is not justice but their own personal power and control. They are totally arrogant brats. This is Armageddon within the Democratic Party. Obama terrifies these people because he alone does not need to kiss their rears and beg for their money, both because of his personal charisma and his use of the Net for his movement. THIS is what drives these fat cats nuts. Obama's revolution in the financing of presidential campaigns is actually even more historically significant than his race. The Rothschilds of the world are determined to destroy Obama by any means necessary, because if he wins, they are helpless, and they simply can't endure that. It's up to the rest of us to make sure that Obama wins and these jerks LOSE big, for the sake of the future of the Democratic Party, the nation, and the world, all of which are menaced by “Rothschilds” running the show. Let's all fight with the liberal Jews, the clear majority, who fervently support Obama, against these Rothschild neocons.


joshquasimoto
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:07 pm

Maybe you are right about the fact that McCain seems to be like Zell Miller, here are some highlights form Mr Miller's past,

In 1964 and 1966, he unsuccessfully sought the Democratic nomination for a seat in the United States House of Representatives. He endorsed segregation in both races, a move he later publicly regretted. He later served in several positions in state government and in the Georgia Democratic Party.

While governor, he established a special office to promote the use of Facilitated Communications in the schools of Georgia. The rise of sexual abuse cases arising from his controversial efforts eventually brought an end to the program.

In 2004, he cosponsored a proposed Constitutional amendment[2] that, if ratified, would have prohibited government, at any level, from recognizing any homosexual domestic partnerships. On March 11 of that year, he introduced legislation[3] that would have created a board of “shapers of opinions” (as he called it in his introductory speech) to advise broadcasters on content the government deemed acceptable or unacceptable, and to make automatic re-appropriations of some of the revenue generated from media-”indecency” fines to pay for federal services directed through religious establishments.

And if McCain is just like Zell Miller then I can guarantee you that many in the progressive, liberal and democratic base would enjoy having these sort of distinctions between democrats and Republicans.

The Republicans are proud of what their lack of following the true prinicipals that used to guide their part, small government and fiscal constraint. Between Reagan, Bush I and Bush II the goverment has not gotten any smaller and spending has only increased during all three of their tenures. In fact the only person who was president over the last thirty years who came close to abiding by the traditional principles of the Republicans was Bill Clinton by balancing the budget and slashing the defense department, of course then he had to ruin it and creat an opening for the family values Americans by having an affair while in office. But that is neither here nor their because ultimately the Republicans issues are being largely ignored by the current Republican party for entertainement issues such as immigration, welfare reform and patriotism. Oh and I forgot their agenda on Homosexuals but once again they have had a hard time using it in the last couple of election because so many of their party members and other influential people keep getting caught doing homosexual things in their private lives. It would be nice if Republicans respected the right to privacy maybe that way we wouldn't know they were such hipocrits!


Dave
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:09 pm

I too agree that there was some examples of sexism in the race, but it was not from the Obama campaign. Some of his supporters made sexist remarks, but it was nobody from his campaign. There were equally as many if not more racist remarks made toward Senator Obama, and exit polls in West Virginia proved that to be true. 20% of the people who voted for Clinton in WV said that they would never vote for a black man……THAT is the epitome of racism. That was 20% who admitted to it. I have been a proud 37 year old, white male who has supported Obama throughout this entire campaign, and have been following his career ever since his 2002 anti-Iraq war speech in Chicago.


willy
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:10 pm

Just more people that simply want their ass kissed because of money. Hillary lost you elitist old bitch. Get over yourself.


JIM WHITTAKER, Hemet, CA
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:14 pm

This de Rothschild woman is living on another planet, she certainly doesn't live on Planet Earth.

Her, and the lemming dead-enders like her, are like the same types of people who still worship
O.J. Simpson and Charlie Manson.

And, if Barack Obama does wind up losing, it will be because of people like her. And Hillary will
be through as a viable political force in this country. She will be damned, shunned and ignored
by the Democratic Party forevermore.

But, as a Republican, I'm sure loving it! Hell, McCain doesn't even have to campaign, they're doing
all his heavy lifting for him, they're all but guaranteeing his election.

Thanks, bitter old harpies!


Steve
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:14 pm

The notion that anyone named “Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild” could possibly be representative of ordinary Democrats is patently ludicrous. She wanted to be an Ambassador, and now that Obama is the nominee, that isn't going to happen.

In other words, she didn't get what she wanted, so she's going to take her diamond-studded marbles and go home. I hope she doesn't stumble getting into her Lear Jet.


j ferguson
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:14 pm

DENVER, Colo.–Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild sat in total darkness, the curtains of her downtown Denver hotel drawn closed.

Miss Haversham, I presume?

Reminds me of the Dickensian wedding feast awaiting the groom who doesn't show.


Nadomom
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:14 pm

To Ms. de Rothschild: Grow up, Lady! With the title of “Lady,” I gather you got her way whenever and wherever you wanted. Well, things don't necessarily work that way in politics. To paraphrase Mick and the boys: “You can't always get what you want; but if you try sometimes well you just might find , you get what you need!” Okay, so you can't vote for Hillary. But a vote for Barack Obama is a vote for an agenda much close to Hillary's than John McCain's. Think about it!! If it's the agenda you want to see changed in this country, then vote for Obama as his agenda and Hillary's are closely related. If you are voting by PERSONALITY, then God bless you. Maybe you should change political parties.


JW
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:15 pm

I don’t see why posters here should be surprised that there are Clinton supporters that have written Obama off when so many Obama fans have written off Clinton supporters. It’s the same thing. There’s also another factor. There are independent and conservative women who wanted to vote for a woman. They were voting for the gender although Hillary was more liberal than their preference. My daughter was one of them.


eagleye
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:15 pm

Dear Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild,

Stop whining, and grow up. Go polish your jewels or something.


Wllie
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:17 pm

Great post!


Ron
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:23 pm

WAKE UP!

It is illusionary to think that ANY republican would have voted for Hillary Clinton. From both Obama is the better pick. Unfortunately John Edwards couldn't get the VP ticket.


D. Darney
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:25 pm

It is striking how these die-hard Clintonistas don't remember, because they refused to recognize it in the first place, how downright dirty, dishonest and relentlessly negative both Clintons were in regard to Obama in the primaries. It was obvious he wanted to avoid that (which came from some of his still-lingering naivete), but Hill and Bill forced the issue. If Obama went negative it was in defense. The fact that he doesn't feel the two would be trustworthy in the White House–and might not even be an advantage in the campaign–is not surprising. And I say that full-hoping if he's elected he will offer Hillary an important Cabinet office–because the woman is brilliant when she's focused on the issues rather than winning.


Janet
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:26 pm

What a hateful, hateful woman! I am afraid that those who would vote for McCain and not Obama for the sole “reason” that he is not Clinton have other issues at play. And we all know what they are and they should just be honest and admit them.


cheo
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:27 pm

Apparently having some kind of title in front of your name and having a gross amount of money allows you to think you can suck opinions out of your thumb based on no facts whatsoever. I guess it has left her obviously selective memory that Bill had little more experience than Obama when HE ran.

And as many have pointed out, she seems not at all concerned about the damaging positions of McCain. This woman claims to have been a loyal Democrat for years? This woman is NO democrat.l She is an idiot with a lot of money.


Origood
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:27 pm

What's the best way to fight your opponent? Pretend you are one of them and criticize from within, create havoc and rifts… these gals are not really democrats… no true democrat would switch to McCain.. they always were GOPs


John
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:28 pm

Talking about sexism:

Which president used his office to seduce a female-intern? Who was friends with sexist Boris Yeltsin? Instead of seeing history through purple binoculars people should start for a better future!


NavyMom44
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:30 pm

She is just one of the cherries on a nut sundae. What these idiots fail to realize with their McSame '08/Hillary '12 crap is that Obama supporters WILL NOT support her run, she will not win the primaries let alone make it to the finish line. These twits are acting like two year olds not getting “their” way, you can mark my words if, a very big if, Obama loses Hillary's political career will basically be over not just her presidential aspirations.


pacopete
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:31 pm

If Obama isn't “connecting” well with Lady LMNOP De Rothschild, it would naturally follow that he is not “connecting' well with ordinary people. What in the hell does Lady Lucy LMNOP De Rothschild know about ordinary people? Her problem is that she invested her money (and a lot of it) in the wrong candidate. There is not a hill of beans difference between Obama and Hillary on the issues and the fact is that Obama has shown far better judgement during in his ten years in politics than has Hillary her entire adult life. Hillary has been wrong on Iraq, she set back the health care reform effort by sixteen years, and she continues to trust some guy named Bill who isn't worthy of the trust of a carny-barker.


Dick Hertz
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:34 pm

Because it is still okay for elitists to be racist against Africans? Because she is an amoral dingbat with more money by far than sense?


brian gause
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:35 pm

de Rothschild is a rich, spoiled, Clinton-loyalist. She's also delusional or lying when she says, “So many Republicans would have come over to vote for Hillary Clinton, but the left and Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi wouldn’t let it happen.”

The others quoted in this piece seem reasonable, if conflicted…de Rothschild is just bitter. I feel sorry for her…that anger must make her fundamentally unhappy.


Peter
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:35 pm

I am full agreement with you, NavyMom. I try not to be vengeful but if Obama loses this race in part because of Hillary and Bill's tepid support (or worse), I will work actively against them in the future. She is done if that happens. I think he is already done!


iclaudius
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:35 pm

Lady Lynn grew up decidedly middle class, and worked cleverly and diligently to make her millions way before ever meeting de Rothschild scion. If you earned great wealth, wouldn't you be dismissive of people claiming that you merely inherited it?
We should certainly listen to an American who has a broader world view than we ourselves do.
I think her concerns are misplaced, but not because of her wealth – more likely, because of her loyal friendship to another over-acheiver.


scoobydubious
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:37 pm

Jesus H. Christ, it is way past time for these crybaby people to SHUT THE F*CK UP.

Is she voting on issues or genitalia?


Sandi
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:41 pm

Ouch! Well said!

I can't believe someone actually said that and McCain laughed?????? OMG!!


drambo
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:41 pm

Instead of continuing on this fruitless quest, Senator Clinton's diehard supporters would be better served, & would better serve, by helping her pay off her campaign debt. Now THAT is support that would mean something.


chicagoexpat
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:42 pm

People like de Rothschild bought and paid for the Democratic party, and by gawd, they're not gonna let democracy steal the nomination away from them!

Oh, durn those Democratic activists and voters who don't follow her wise, $$ ways! Why couldn't they just bow to the “inevitable candidate”?


Wesley
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:42 pm

The fact that your daughter and others like her voted for Senator Clinton based solely on Clinton's gender is even worse. This means that these folks have absolutely no clue about the issues that affect women most, that the Republican party have continuously fought against women's rights over the decades and are prepared to strip women of one of the most important rights women have – the very personal right to control what they do with their bodies. And now these “women” are going to vote for the party that does not have their best interests at heart? That is so very sad…for them!


dan
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:42 pm

The Bitter is STRONG in this one….


BuckWild
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:42 pm

Anyone who calls themself a Democrat an believes in those ideals can't possibly vote for McCain and reject Obama and call that taking a principled stand… Making such a choice should be considered the polar opposite of making a principled stand… Helping to elect McCain and foresaking the direction of the country, making the rich more wealthy, making the poor less able to make their way through life, paving the way for more wars, more of a downward spiral, etc, etc, etc…. Just because the candidate YOU wanted to represent Democrats didn't win… is deplorable!!!! This election isn't about YOU or about Hillary it's about all of us in this country…. OBAMA is the clear choice vs McCain… If you can't see that you aren't a Democrat!!!!!


MP
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:43 pm

My mother was pulling for Hillary all through the primaries, even though all her children and my dad were Obama supporters from the start. I said to her that from the beginning, whoever won the primaries would get my vote, and as things went back and forth, conversations between us never got heated or nasty, and even now, she and I can talk frankly about what went wrong during the primaries. Not all Obama supporters are counting out Clinton supporters, just this Lady de bla bla bla.


ellen
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:44 pm

why dont the dems run an ad that reflects the woman in a town hall meet calling Hillary a “b” to MacCain and he just laughed heartily along with the crowd?

And Hill's surrogates want to vote for him? right ladies, great awareness of what we would endure with another 4 years, maybe worse!!


j ferguson
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:45 pm

It's wonderful to read something so informative. I suppose the subject is a bit too twitchy for the regular news which might account for why I've never seen anything like this recently. thank you


BlueStarMom
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:46 pm

As Linda Sanchez said to Loretta Sanchez… time to put on your big girl panties and act like an adult!

PUMAs! Get over it already and don't allow your personal pettiness to drive us further toward the abyss that will be a McCain presidency! I supported Hillary AND Barack – would have been over the moon with either of them – up to the point where Hillary started to get into the mud. Everything pivoted on that one moment because I knew she was serving up bull crap on a platinum platter to the Republicans. She violated Taboo #1 in primary politics! And, sure 'nuf, we're paying for it now!

I have two soldier sons! One will be on his NINTH deployment as a US Army Ranger soon and probably many more to come! Is your absurdly gigantic ego more important than his life and the lives of all the others, as well as the welfare of every person in this country (and around the world)?

What in the world is WRONG with these people!?! It's beyond comprehension! Barack is NOT the problem. It's people like you on the Democratic side and your ridiculous counterparts on the right that exemplify everything that is so wrong with our political system!


hipocampelofantocame
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:47 pm

Electing Mr. McCain president would be a great disservice to him personally and to the country as a whole.
I changed parties to support Mr. Obama, but voted for Mr. Bush twice. I'm sorry; I try not to repeat my
mistakes. As far as the Clintons go, they've already done enough damage. I would find it difficult to vote
for Mr. Obama with Mrs. Clinton on the ticket.


oaklynne
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:47 pm

This naysayer and doomsday predictor/Hillary supporter provides plenty of evidence why Clinton didn't win her campaign: she is rooted in the politics of the 20th and not 21st century. This whiny attitude coming from the holdout Clinton supporters is so consumately bitter, defeatist and stupid. De Rothschild should go join the Republican party where she clearly belongs.


iclaudius
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:49 pm

Lady Rothschild is not Jewish. She was born and brought up Lutheran.


Becky
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:49 pm

Lady, its golddiggers and Money for access wackos like you who stuck a fork in Hillary's career…We want to turn the page and you are part of that….Sorry we couldnt bow to the whims you and your highness, but money apparently can buy the Clintons but it cannot buy you class.


ann
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:51 pm

There are other sides to the Clinton story.., and there are those of us women who would have supported her, instead of Obama, if she would have divorced Bill right after the Monica debacle. As a symbol of feminist strength, she could have role modeled a graceful exit from a disrespectful husband, That would have shown our nation's young women what is sometimes the hardest, but the best way to deal with deceit. By hanging on to him, rather than taking her chances alone, she would have made it to President. She didn't need him, as the campaign dislayed.


John
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:53 pm

This woman is so full of herself that she makes me want to puke!


ordinaryguy
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:54 pm

blah blah. anybody can forget where they come from, especially if they call themselves “LADY” in the USA. talk about pretentious and pretentious water carriers.


Cathie
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:55 pm

I am starting to wonder what Clinton promised de Rothschild. You would think that someone in her financial position would lean towards the Republican economic policies and not the Democrats. Frankly, the story is getting old. If de Rothschild and others believe that Clinton will make it to the White House in 2012 if Obama loses, then I would think they will once again be disappointed.


marie
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:55 pm

More irrational Clinton supporters determined to set back womens rights and achievements a half century.
Not very good role models for my three daughters but somehow they have convinced themselves they mean well.
The Washington Post reports that Hillary was depressed throughout the month of July because of her loss in the primary? Well that's helpful to know that someone who was “inevitable” to run the country is prone to depression. If I was Hillary I would nip that story in the bud because that info fits in with every gender stereotype that is being promoted. The story is that all her supporters are “hurt, emotionally drained, post-irrational” women not accepting reality.
How does that positively promote a woman running for office. I think it sets back the whole thought decades.


pacopete
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:57 pm

This is a fantastic idea — seriously, someone needs to share this with the Obama folks!


Grace
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 2:59 pm

We need to leave this woman in the dust.

Reach out to all Hillary supporters — yes, and to everyone persuadable. Who knows how Barack Obama would have done with the working class if Hillary and Bill were not there as known quantity and generic Democrat?

Reach out to everyone, but grovel for the support of the delusional like Lady Lynn? Don't think so.

Have any Edwards or Richardson or Biden “rainmakers” gone on record with anything along this princess's comments?


Sean
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 3:00 pm

That's funny. This from the same person that predicted a landslide victory for Hillary Clinton. So her opinion is about as valuable as the lint in my pocket.


Steve
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 3:00 pm

How comes this woman is quoted so extensively and her picture is missing?

I would be peeved too if my ambassadorship is taken away from me.


KBishop
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 3:00 pm

New like this is disheartening. I can only hope, that like Hillary Clinton herself, these people can see the bigger picture at stake. It was a bitter primary for the Democrats, but never in my wildest dreams did I think that this would be possible. McCain is a farcry from the ideals that Hillary stood for, namely his philosophies on health care and the economy. If they truly supported Hillary Clinton, they would respect her wishs and put their faith in the party. Right now it seems that they are just doing this to spite Obama, and the Democratic Party for his presumptive ascension to the nomination spot. I dearly hope this is not the case.


SolomonOf Delphi
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 3:01 pm

How entitled is she, upset that Sen. Barack Obama the biggest political underdog in american political history, choose to pick someone other that a Clinton as VP. You and your people made it impossible for him to pick her, blame yourself for being so self-righteous and smug, you of all people have no idea what its like to actually pick yourself up by your own bootstraps and define your own destiny. Sen. Obama Michelle and 90% of the American public will have to make there own destinies for their children. We only seek a equal opportunity to fairly create the same wave of progress your ancestors created for you when things were even less fair. So you have some audacity to spout your pompous hubris as though anyone who rises to power must be knighted by some dynastic royalty. If you and the other PUMA's (whom I've always thought where nothing more that Rush Limbaugh's Chaos banditos) would just make there case and either vote McCain or stay home as is there constitutional right then the party would be all the better. Why are you so hostile to Sen Obama's success, was Hillary's presidency part of your father and the other 299 or so Bilderburger Group member's plan of global dominion, are you going to have to find some other method to to bend the globe to the will of the corporatist agenda and faciliate the you and power elite's long time goal of ushering in the onset of global plutocracy.
Get a girp all the wealth in the world will never silence the voices of the American freedom project, we may fight amongst ourselves and you may have been able to misdirect us at will in the past, but as Sen. Obama's campaign has proven, there is an untapped power amongst us, the power to collectively analyse corporate spin and governmental dis-information, the ease of mass organization through technology, we are the truly many yet one, we are the future, we are all seeing, all knowing, we are in every city, town, state, cafe, school, etc. You can not control us with all your connections and powers, we are the antithesis of what you , your father, and the Bilderberger's sek to eventually create.


anghiari
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 3:02 pm

Mrs. de Rothchild,

How many houses do you have you silly silly woman? And by the way Bill Clinton had an affair with a 20 year old girl the same age as his daugher, lied under oath and had his law license revoked for five years. Lousy human being…but a great President. I have no doubt he would attract a woman like you.


jen
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 3:03 pm

Lynn, Your candor is wonderfully refreshing, thanks for telling it like it is.

From a fellow loyal Hillary supporter, who will never vote for a race-baiting, shallow, narcissistic Obama.


ChiTown60622
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 3:03 pm

Independents, too, don't forget…


dawg
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 3:03 pm

Who really cares?


JW
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 3:06 pm

People vote for those they have an affinity for. It’s not immoral. So whether it is race, gender, the environment, or whatever, people have the right to vote for those they want for whatever reason they choose. It's called freedom.


lis60
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 3:06 pm

I have zero respect for incredibly stupid women like this. How can she talk about women and women's opportunities and then even consider voting for John McCain. She must have a screw list. The best thing all of us (INCLUDING THE MEDIA) can do is ignore racists like this. Racism is the only explanation for the behavior of this woman and those like her. Thankfully they are a SMALL number, but the media makes a bigger deal out of them then they truly are. They don't deserve it.


judiadg
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 3:07 pm

The video of this moment was posted yesterday on Talking Points Memo but can also be accessed on Youtube. Type in 'How Do We Beat the Bitch'. These women will set women way back if they vote for McCain out of spite.


jmonto
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 3:08 pm

As a civil rights and women's rights worker since the 60s, I am totally fed up with the whiney women such as Lady Lynn who think they deserve something special such as extra attention, endless thanks, and ego-strokes. Wake up and join the real world. Her attitude (and apparently the rest of her lifeis not the same as those brave women who won us the right to vote and who face daily inequalities and misogynism.

Of course, this self-centered woman can help make this a self-fulfilling prophecy by not knowing how to be a team player and look to the future of what is the likely outcome of a McCain presidency. Then she'll probably be whining about the further demise of women's rights, conservative court-stacking, women's lack of equal pay for equal work,and all the rest and claiming “if only HIllary had won.” She can listen to McCain's chuckles as he tells sexist jokes, wring her hands as he vetoes against equal pay. and lament how life just isn't treating her right. Yuk!


Clifford Dias
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 3:08 pm

I have nothing bad to say about Obama and Biden both can do the job. What got my goat is that the DNC (Dean & Pelosi) had chosen Mr. Obama years ago and nobody else had much of a chance. This smacks of cronyism. I will vote the democratic ticket and just not vote for President. I can't bring myself to vote Mc Cane. I do hope you are right about the disgruntled being a small number or Mc Cain will take it. This should be an answer to why any Democrat would not vote for Obama. and I feel a good one. The DNC pulled a swift one on us. I for one will not forget


Bernard
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 3:09 pm

The real issue here is that these people are mad because they no longer have influence. They didn't finance Obama's campaign so they feel that the power of their wealth was usurped by that of the people. Wow, they actually hate Democracy. As far as I am concerned, she can go to hell. Obama will win and these Hell Raisers will retire in the sunset.


eronbo
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 3:10 pm

Who really cares what Lynn Forester has to say? She is mostly about Lynn
Forester. If she is so estranged, why did she feel compelled to be in Denver and at the heart of the action? First Andy Stein then the aging Rothschild. There is an unprintable word for her type.


Joe Brown
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 3:16 pm

Sims:
Thank you so much..you took the word out my mouth. The winner in this so called conflict between Obama and Clinton is the Republican party. If Obama has to lose because of Clinton suporters..there is NOWAY CLINTON WILL WIN IN 2012!!!!. Democratic and Obama suporters will NOT vote/suport Clinton..this means Republicans will rule for the next 8 years. Democrats/Clinton suporters who cannot see the game Republicans are playing to divide the party not in this election but future elections should think twice!. When did Republicans start like the Clintons: what name did MCcain call Clinton'd daughter?..or Hillary?. Please, Clinton suporters may not want to hear it but their hate for Obama is more than Clinton losing to Obama..how about race????.


sdot
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 3:16 pm

white woman angst run amuck. i write over and over again, that white women are not the only women on the planet! There are women of color who have long supported Hillary Clinton. There are women who supported Bill Clinton (although his welfare-to-work program was ridiculous pandering to the right and that under Bill Clinton more fed'l prisons were built that predominantly cage men of color). Women of color have overwhelmingly supported the Clintons-no questions asked…If Hillary had won the nomination we would not be marching in lockstep to divide the party-we would throw our full support behind her….it is sooooo very interesting to me that me and my friends are never polled or asked our opinions re the toxic political atmosphere that has been created by pumas no scratch that white woman angst because if someone dared to ask our opinion we would say we are firmly behind Senator Obama, want nothing but the best for Senator Clinton and are 100% in support of the Democratic Party. In the end, isn't that what really matters??????????


homer
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 3:20 pm

iclaudius, I am well aware of Lady Lynn's (i just gave a small laugh while typing this) work in earning her millions, but her current status as a wealthy, connected political donor qualifies her as a plutocrat.

And I don't dismiss her because I assumed she inherited wealth. I dismiss her because she presumes to speak for a middle class she hasn't been a member of for a quarter of a century, since she married a NY politician, and later a deRothschild. I do not agree that her views are broad – on the contrary, her constant whining indicates she has a narrow world view limited to her own circle of fellow power brokers.


RememberNovember
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 3:21 pm

de Rothschild- that's French, right, as in roll over when something big and bad comes your way then spend your peasant's dowry tut-tutting how the world isn't the way you want it. The mysoginist pig in me wants to pay her a booty call and make her my little crepe….


mel
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 3:27 pm

Obama won the democratic nomination fair and square and for the first time in my democratic voting and activist life, I am proud of the choice democrats made. Get over yourselves already. This is not about you, nor is this about the Clintons. What happened is for the first time in history, some wealthy influential people in the democratic party did not get their way, they were instead pushed aside by the millions of us who gave our $10 to Obama.

Yes this country is the titanic about to hit an iceberg. That's exactly why so many of us have become involved in this campaign.


DeWitt G Gravink
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 3:32 pm

Ms. de Rothschild is emblematic of the dead weight that the democratic party needs to slough off.


Tuesday
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 3:33 pm

Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild is rich, what does she care or know about the fact that Obama has reached people like myself who work pay check to pay check, who payed attention for almost eight years to the criminal activity of the current administration and called-emailed and wrote my reps when I saw something wrong going on in our country and in Washington. To people like me who don't have the luxury of just thinking about what I want but what is best for the country. I am sorry but if Hillary Clinton wanted to be president so bad for all the right reasons, she should have prepared her campaign better than she did, the Clintons assumed because they are the Clintons that they would win. Personally I don't want a president who can't manage their campaign funds, or doesn't come to class prepared.


JW
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 3:36 pm

I hope McCain picks a woman for VP.


Clevelanded
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 3:45 pm

As it turns out, it's Hillary that is the messianic figure. After all the articles and commentary about Obama's throngs of star-struck disciples, it is Hillary's supporters who aren't interested in policy or practicality, only membership in their cult of personality.

Hillary didn't win. She has conceded and stated as much herself. These narcissistic zealots think sabotaging Obama in November is worth doing on the outside chance that Hillary will succeed in 2012, but they fail to recognize the animus their actions and each article of this sort and this tone feeds. This sort of publicity can only succeed in increasing the negatives for Hillary and further decreasing her viability as a national political figure.


diana
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 3:47 pm

Pathetic. I lived in D.C. for 36 years and have met most of Clintons supporters. I am really disappointed in the whole group. I would think they would have some pride.


BlueStarMom
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 3:48 pm

This makes YOU part of the problem. If you think Obama's a race baiter, you haven't been paying attention or you don't know what the definition is. If you buy into that Fox/McCain crap about Obama being arrogant or narcissistic, you're really gullible. He's never done a single thing to suggest such except behave confidently, express himself articulately, seek the counsel or those who disagree with him and serve the interests of his community. Is it possible that you're really one of those people for whom the word “uppity” might be a substitute for the adjectives you use?

I hope you're willing to kiss your reproductive rights, your paycheck, and many of your constitutional rights goodbye because the gutting of our Constitution will only continue under McCain. You may also be able to kiss your own ass goodbye along with the rest of us as our planet continues to disintegrate under the burden of fossil fuel pollution.

I also hope you enjoy the SHAME of being a citizen of a nation that condones and engages in torture, that denies the right of habeas corpus, that thinks that war is the answer to every international dispute. Proud now?

As someone who greatly admires Hillary Clinton, I feel it's people like you who dishonor her hard work and the contribution she has made to our consciousness and to history. There is no loyalty to Hillary in your words or your actions if you vote McCain or fail to vote at all.

Shame on you.


beasleysbrother
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 3:54 pm

Amen Baby


Nate
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 3:54 pm

If these people cause Mccain to win, there won't be a democrat elected for a generation, because blacks will abandon the democrats. It's people like Ms de Rothschild that will be to blame.


brantl
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 3:56 pm

It's a shame that money doesn't come with common sense, isn't it? What a waste for space this woman is.


Linda
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 3:56 pm

Mrs. Rotschild (we don't have royalty in the USA) shows that this election is about her rather than anyone else. What kind of lifelong democrat could consider supporting the policies of Senator McCain? Iraq War? Overturn Roe v. Wade? She is an extremely rich woman who won't be hurt by a Republican President. Unlike Senator Kennedy, she has no concern for the other Americans who will face more personal crises if McCain beats Obama. As another former Jersey girl, I will proudly cast my first vote for a Democrat (Senator Obama) and cancel out her McCain vote. With all her money and talk, her vote counts for no more than mine.


Jey
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 4:02 pm

You can't change stupid. If she really cared about Hillary and what Hillary has worked for all her political life she would vote for Obama. Just another stupid American who's probably hiding behind the Rush Limbaugh Operation Chaos fiasco.


melodyfair
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 4:03 pm

She won't get invited to the good parties, so she's going to the newspapers and crying like spoiled child. And you're giving her coverage, as if it means anything. Pathetic.


Nganenu
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 4:08 pm

Poor and despirated loser. Let Barack lose and what will the like of hypocrite like you gain. Nothing. I pity. You are in a dark hotel: a doom. Everybody have to dream. The White is the property of no family. Let that be clear.
Nganenu


Linda
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 4:09 pm

It should be noted that this woman is so tight with the Clinton's she spent her honeymoon at the Clinton White House. Her motives are more than likely very personal.. She wants the financial boost and personal ego boost that she would have with another Clinton White House.


lisa
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 4:12 pm

Obama does not need Hillary. If working class, white democrats can't move beyond race to vote for Obama it will be their loss. For every one of them, there is a Republican or Independent to take their place and Hillary NEVER could have secured THOSE votes. That's the hard truth. The Clintons and their supporters need to GROW UP.


bonniesmom
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 4:15 pm

That's not all – about 10-12 years ago McCain actually told a joke that was widely reported on that goes something like: “Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father.”
I can only think that these pumas are actually closet republicans. A president McCain will likely have the opportunity to replace John Paul Stevens, who is in his late eighties, on the Supreme Court. There will be a solid conservative majority for at least the next generation…. bye bye Roe v. Wade.


Bill
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 4:16 pm

“Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild”…………sounds like ruling class material. Lady Lynn just shut the hell up and vote for McCain. He is more appropriate for you.


judiadg
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 4:22 pm

I agree, I think they are really republicans. Remember Rush Limbaugh told voters to cross over and vote for Hillary in the primaries. A couple of “Pumas” were on MSNBC last weekend and utterly unconvincing. There's a terrific video from yesterday, accessible on Huffingtonpost in which Chris Matthews smacks down a “Puma” over the muslim smear. he was great.


JG
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 4:38 pm

This article fails to mention important facts about Lynn Forrester. When Lynn Forrester married old dude Rothschild in the late 90's, they spent their honeymoon at the White House as the guest of Clintons. They have donated to the Clinton Libarary and Foundation. They were hoping to make a good return on their 'investment' with HRC as president. Of course, this woman is pissed. It is all about her money.

Think about it, people. Who gets to honeymoon in the Whitehouse? And this woman is talking about Obama's ability to get in touch with common folks. He who was raised by a single mom.


Chandra
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 4:39 pm

If that is so (meaning Dean has so much power), then how come Dean couldn't pick himself in 2004?


Chandra
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 4:46 pm

She is also upset because she twisted so many arms, getting friends to donate to the Clintons. She probably told those people, “A Clinton victory is in the bag”. Now, after the friends wrote huge checks, and in turn persuaded other people to donate, she has a hard time looking them in the eye and admitting she was wrong. All the attributes she assigns to Obama – arrogant, bull headed, proud, etc – are really the guilty attributes she applies to herself.


Hill Harpy
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 4:50 pm

cunt


Marlrat
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 4:52 pm

What these people don't realize is that there are enough of us voters that would never vote for Hillary. Obama would have lost many votes if he had put her on the ticket.


Mark Webb
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 5:00 pm

Why would not this dumb blond vote for McCain and just shut up her big mouth?????
Obviously, she doesn't care about American families who are struggling to bring food to their kitchen table.


Clifford Dias
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 5:03 pm

He wasent head of the DNC then.


THarrison
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 5:06 pm

Here's the fundamental problem for me with this election. The GOP is a pure evil abomination declaring war on all humanity. So where does that leave us? With the only 'other' party in the two party system – the Democrats. As far as I can tell to the hardcore Democrats, this is all about control of the “Party” and there is absolutely NO REGARD FOR AMERICA.

I don't claim a party affiliation because I don't care about the parties. I care about America. I have loyalty to my country and my constitution and the principles of why the “New World” was founded in the first place.

Who gives a flip about the “Party”? Oh yeah, the Democrats.

Am I the only one beginning to feel like we are completely DOOMED?!


southernman
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 5:35 pm

I'm 60 and a life long Democrat since I was 12 and JFK was running. But that will all change if Clinton supporters are in my opinion are responsible for Obama losing and she runs in 2012. I will not vote for her or anyone in that election. Like Obama says if you are stupid enough to think the last 8 yrs have been good then vote for McCain


Trevor
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 5:48 pm

So a Rothchild is against a candidate, and as a progressive interested in a society of equality, I am suppoesd to therefore be against that candidate too. Talk about the wrong messenger!

Clinton's failure to cinch up the victory she was supposed to have signaled that (gasp) maybe she wasn't the superwoman so many expected her to be. Perhaps we will be looking at a different woman to take the nomination in 2016.

Now were these women just voting for Hillary as a friend like a big high school election or over issues. If they care about Hillary's issues they sould be looking forward to working like hell to defeat McCain, because the guy stands foursquare AGAINST everything Hillary talked about.


Christopher London
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 6:01 pm

Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild is deeply disturbed with some outdated sense of entitlement. Some of these people like her and Allan Patricof who have exhibited disdain and contempt for Obama so publicly wonder why they find themselves outside the Dems big tent. Maybe your ass was not kissed because the next President is not offering sleep overs to people like you who feel you are entitled to own the party. You are a pig and should go vote with the Repiglicans.


Kim
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 6:13 pm

Hillary did NOT get 18 million votes by any legitmate counting other than her own funny numbers. Hill and Bill are just bitter because the party, the country doesn't want them. It's the next generation's turn. Hillary had too much baggage , she would have lost BIG TIME once she was out there and the Repubs started their attacks on her. That's why the media laid off her because they really wanted to run against her. Those who understand a little bit, know that our present economic crisis is directly due to Bill Clinton's banking de-regulation, crafted by Phil Gramm but signed by Clinton. It's sad that the donors are taking this so personally but the Clintons aren't — it's just power — lost or won — to them. They don't give a damn about making this country a better place for the “regular” people.


Christopher London
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 6:16 pm

Folks like Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, Alan Patricof and Clintonista's: Paul Begala, James Carville, Howard Wolfson & Edward Rendell are more consumed with their relative standing in the party with Clinton at the head of it. Their standing is less clear with Obama at the head of it. The insurgent campaign being waged against Obama has more to do with Clinton loyalists, especially the big money loyalists, wondering what kind of access they would have under an Obama Administration with the knowledge that they are many ahead of them online. They do not care about America. What they hope is that they get lured to McCain's coalition so that they can become insiders where they are more desperately needed.


alison
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 6:19 pm

We does Lynn Forrester get press?
She married a Rothschild 30 years older then herself
She slept in the Lincoln Bedroom on her wedding night

This is about her own access to power and she is a good case why the Clintons cannot be back in the white house

If Ms Forrester cared about Sen Clinton and womens issues she would support Sen Obama
Period


Stephen Cohen
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 6:25 pm

It's interesting that you talk of Hillary's “loss” in Iowa. How is it a loss when she got the same number of delegates as Obama? Do you go by the tiny amount of votes in caucuses compared to the general election? Please. She did not “lose” in Iowa since she got more delegates than #2 Edwards and the same number as #1 Obama.


Stephen Cohen
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 6:37 pm

Both of you are precious. You have such hatred for the Clintons. You are ignorant of history. Stop assigning motives to people that you don't know. I think her arguments against Obama are rational. BO has no foreign experience. Just because you are ga-ga over Obama doesn't mean the rest of the country knows him or his policies. He is a cypher to many and while Biden is great, it does point to his weakness. That's what she felt.

Also, the Clintons devotion to the Democratic Party is second to none and they will work tirelessly for Obama and the party. They, unlike many of you that will carry your pique with you forever, see the big picture. Constantly dumping on the true 18 million people who did vote for Hillary is not the way to heal. The blogs were filled with HRC hatred and Dean and Obama did nothing to stop it. And the comment below is just one of the names she was called over and over again. New way of doing politics — NOT. Bush and company started it in 2000. You guys are late to the game. Still the same stink whether it comes from Bush & Co. or the Obamatons who feel entitled. I am a Hillary supporter but I am voting for Obama.


JRM
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 6:41 pm

That's just so wrong. Dean has nothing to do with it. Iowa, South Carolina, Super Tuesday and Nine Victories in a row settled it. After that Clinton couldn't catch up in regular delegates, even with MI and FL, which provisions she AGREED TO by the way. She just got massively out-organized and out-manuevered Obama got things done… which in fact, is his modus operandi…. despite what people say, he has many accomplishments to point to, and has accumulated those accomplishments just as fast as Mrs Clinton or Mr McCain, he's just a bit younger. I would agree that Obama is less seasoned than I'd prefer, but he's light years better than McCain in both judgement and intelligence. As an Independent I could not vote for him in the primary, but I certainly will now. Obama-Biden 2008


Stephen Cohen
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 6:44 pm

How do you know Obama will lose and it will be because of HIllary supporters. If you put the number of votes both of them received, 36 million and compare it to the app. 110 million votes in 2004 — and there will be many more this year — you realize the struggle that is out there. Obama is a cypher to most while McCain is dubbed the maverick and the straight talk express even though it's been shown he is neither. That's what's stuck to him and it will be tough to sully that ill-gotten moniker. After all, if you didn't know it, he was a POW in Viet Nam!

It's funny when posts here say that “Obama supporters will never vote for Hillary” because of the negative divisiveness of her supports at the convention and primaries. This is the biggest example of the pot calling the kettle black. HRC's supporters will vote for Obama en masse. Don't believe the MSM that goes after, and creates, conflict to get ratings. And you people fall for it. Those puma and others are Rovian plants. Shameful that Chris Matthews gave them any air time but you can see these people are few and they are insane. They are not Democrats and they never supported Hillary. We can start groups that say they are leaving the RNC if McCain is nominated because he is a fraud a liar, misanthrope, sexist and wrong on almost every policy.


JRM
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 7:04 pm

Whether they hate the Clintons or not, they are right that L.R. is acting like a petulant child. The aforementioned attributes may have some truth to them (never met an accomplished person for which that wasn't true) but it has never been an issue when it came down to getting things done. Obama has done a lot more than he gets credit for, and I believe he will be a terrific president. However, you are right, that there are a lot of pure Clinton haters, some of whom just seem to be misogynists, & some of whom (like myself) are not haters, but are just tired of the Clinton baggage, and frankly don't trust her policy intentions). I'm Ind by the way, so between her and McCain it would have been a tough choice for me. Probably would have gone Dem, but cried while doing it. I will say that there is no doubt that Hillary was treated unfairly and with malice, and i think there should have been more said about it. I don't think it would have changed the outcome, but failure to condemn it just encourages it. Or you could vote for McCain who calls his wife the 'c' word (geez, I that word is so ugly I've used it once in my entire life, and it was painfully justified. Anyone who would call his wife that… ugh!!!)


CHARLOTTE
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 7:10 pm

IF YOU THINK MCCAIN GOING TO DO SOMETHING FOR US MIDDLE-CLASS YOU ARE DREMING. YOU PEOPLE NEED TO GET OVER THIS AND DO THE RIGHT THING. IF, MCCAIN GET IN THE WHUTE HOUSE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE IN SERIOUS TROUBLE. HILLARY SUPPORTERS MUST GOT GOOD JOBS WE DON'T? US AMERCIA HAD BEEN IN ENOUGH OR HAVE ENOUGH PROBLEMS. SO, PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING FOR MR. OBAMA HELP GET HIM IN THE WHITE HOUSE TO GET US BACK ON THE RIGHT TRACK.


JRM
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 7:14 pm

Actually, Obama got 16 Pledged delegates to Clinton's 15, but the margin wasn't important. The fact and the margin of the caucus results, even if the votes were few, were shocking. Iowa gave Obama legitimacy that he did not have before, and started the cascade of support he received in South Carolina by proving that he could win on a level playing field. Iowa was a huge loss for Senator Clinton, much bigger than the numbers show.


dutschke
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 7:37 pm

I think it's time to move on. Whether you preferred Clinton or Obama, he did win the primaries fair and square. Why is the reality now being warped almost into this conspiracy as if a few patriarchs decided to unfairly take Hillarys prize ?
Obama won the most delgates by elections and caucuses. That makes him he nominee. That has been the rule for the primaries forever. So how come, that this is now being made a discussion ?
I think it would be perfectly fair, to talk about changing the rules for the primaries – but it needs to be done before the primaries – not after.


rp830
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 7:53 pm

I read in an article on the Huffington Post a few months ago and de Rothschild stated she did not like Obama. She is also the same b*tch that donated a $100,000 of her own money to Hillary without batting an eye, but yet she calls Obama an elitist. The real issue is…she does not want to vote for a black man.


rp830
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 7:57 pm

LOL…my sentiments exactly!!


rp830
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 7:57 pm

LOL…my sentiments exactly!!


rp830
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 7:57 pm

LOL…my sentiments exactly!!


rp830
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 8:07 pm

Jen, you're a fucking idiot just like lying lynn rothschild.


janet norris
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 8:10 pm

Where is the good of America in her thinking?


Pat
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 8:16 pm

No matter what Clinton does, there are still going to feel that they know her heart of hearts and refused to believe she really means it. These are people that supported her because she was a Women and NOT for what she believed. Why is that true? Because, these Hillary supporters would rather vote someone in that will take women's rights back to the stone age than a person who has all of the Same High Ideals that Clinton had.


Love America
Comment posted August 26, 2008 @ 11:12 pm

You know this is to much – you can't help but loose when you don't read the instructions and follow the rules.

AMERICA is all about following the rules, working hard & never giving up.

de Rothschild this is a generation gap issue for you the Woman thing & I'm a woman but you should fund raise for McCain and stop whinning.

People died to vote.

Maybe its time her to change her Party.


MaleJiggolo
Comment posted August 27, 2008 @ 3:17 am

Good article. I am so sick of Obama and his ego. A man who has done absolutely nothing except run for President, and yet he has written two biographies. I remember the night after he spoke at the DNC in 2004, I was with a room full of crestfalled Deaniacs that were already talking about him running for President. At that time, he wasn't even elected to the Senate yet. The Democratic Party needs to get its mind right. This is the same country that would not elect John Kerry four years ago. Now here comes the chorus of 'But so much has changed since then…' Sadly, not enough. I hate Bush, but I probably dislike Obama almost as much because he is an unqualified Pied-Piper of the Loony Left.


ddc
Comment posted August 27, 2008 @ 7:19 am

Okay, you don't support Sen. Obama. Why are you in Denver at HIS convention? Please go away!


Kb
Comment posted August 27, 2008 @ 3:05 pm

That's right. And John McCain didn't even make predictions for 5 & 1/2 years!

Am I clear about this: 5 & 1/2 YEARS!!!

That's a really, very, long time.

5 & 1/2 years.


nsiah7
Comment posted August 27, 2008 @ 3:12 pm

So what? Go on madam vote for McCain. Explain the rest to the future generation when McCain plunge America into a war of no return and would not be anything left for the children of america


PF
Comment posted August 27, 2008 @ 3:48 pm

this is just a very thin veneer to cover the truth. Some (not all) of these women are simply using Hilary Clinton as a cover for their racist mindset. The thought of a black man in the white house so upsets them that they put aside reason and policies. Any thing but the black man. And De Rothschild is certainly no lady. I wonder if we would be singing this song for so long if Obama had lost. PATHETIC


Ed
Comment posted August 27, 2008 @ 4:18 pm

Madame Rothschild…quelle imbecile, which in French is a polite way of saying: What a fucking moron!


Mark Heyrman
Comment posted August 27, 2008 @ 4:53 pm

Neither Lady Lynn nor Hillary are loyal Democrats. Hillary made a speech during the primaries expressly telling voters that McCain woud be a better president on foreign policy than Barack. Unsurprisingly McCain has made a commercial out of this speech. Can Hillary and her supporters point to any speech by Barack or any commercial the Obama campaign ran during the primaries in which he said that McCain would be better than Hillary? Can any Clinton supporter point to any speech by any of the Republican candidates in the primaries which suggested that any of Democrat candidates would be better than any of the Republican candidates? Of course, you can criticize your opponent in a primary. But loyal party members do not give speeches in favor of the other party's candidate. Barack needs to be nice to her now, but I hope she gets the Lieberman treatment after the election and joins the party she and her husband actualy belong in–the Republican party.
Lady Lynn shows where her loyalties are when now, even after Obama is the nominee, she says he is unqualified and a loser. Can you imagine Barack saying that about Hillary had she won? Can you imagine Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani saying this about McCain? No you can't.
Hillary is no Democrat and neither is Lady Lynn.


Mark Heyrman
Comment posted August 27, 2008 @ 4:53 pm

Neither Lady Lynn nor Hillary are loyal Democrats. Hillary made a speech during the primaries expressly telling voters that McCain woud be a better president on foreign policy than Barack. Unsurprisingly McCain has made a commercial out of this speech. Can Hillary and her supporters point to any speech by Barack or any commercial the Obama campaign ran during the primaries in which he said that McCain would be better than Hillary? Can any Clinton supporter point to any speech by any of the Republican candidates in the primaries which suggested that any of Democrat candidates would be better than any of the Republican candidates? Of course, you can criticize your opponent in a primary. But loyal party members do not give speeches in favor of the other party's candidate. Barack needs to be nice to her now, but I hope she gets the Lieberman treatment after the election and joins the party she and her husband actualy belong in–the Republican party.
Lady Lynn shows where her loyalties are when now, even after Obama is the nominee, she says he is unqualified and a loser. Can you imagine Barack saying that about Hillary had she won? Can you imagine Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani saying this about McCain? No you can't.
Hillary is no Democrat and neither is Lady Lynn.


Chris Herz
Comment posted August 27, 2008 @ 9:33 pm

People like Lady de Rothschild SHOULD be Republicans (why anyway does she use a title of nobility in the USA?). So should the Clintons. They are the reasons why I am a Green.

To compare Bill Clinton to Franklin Roosevelt, except invidiously, is absurd beyond belief. Nor does he measure up to Truman or even Carter, who at least was a person of character. The only reason why Roosevelt was elected was the emergency of the Great Depression and the obvious alignment of most big money in those days behind Hoover and the Republican Party; that is when they, like Bush's grandad Prescott or were not outright sympathizers for Mussolini or Hitler!

In 1932 the situation was so dire that in the convention the factions of Garner and Ritchie, supported by Joe Kennedy and the DuPonts were roundly defeated. They were the DNC, the corrupt and monied wing of the party in those days.

Maybe when one third of us are unemployed and starving we will see nominated a Democrat worthy of the legacy of the New Deal. Do that and I will stop trying my level best to rain on their parade.

Chris Herz
cdherz44@yahoo.com


politicsiscrack
Comment posted August 28, 2008 @ 12:45 am

lady rothschild converted to judaism when she married her 3rd husband, (Rothschild) in 2000. They honeymooned in the White House. Wwith friends like her, who needs enemies. obviously she can't respond to hillary's question (were you in it for me, or for the people and causes i believe in) with anything other than a whine about the loss of her ambassadorship (London, St. James Court, or France, perhaps)


Baron de Rothschild
Comment posted August 29, 2008 @ 10:37 pm

Rothschild is just a damn idiot who only warrants a news article because of her social connections. Her statements illuminate one thing beyond her sophomoric knowledge of politics – her bitterness about being dismissed by Obama. Clinton, I'm guessing, kissed her butt in exchange for the donations. Obama, by Rothschild's admission, seems to want none of her.


Gerry
Comment posted August 31, 2008 @ 9:26 pm

de Rothschild seems depressed. If she votes for McCain, one has to wonder whether she was a true democrat in the first place or whether she was simply attached to Hillary through influence strings, particularly since Hillary and Obama saw eye to eye on 90-95% of the issues. She has to decide for herself what she will do, but I would differ with her that Obama is going to lose. The key to this election, when all is said and done, is that the Obama campaign's discipline and ability to implement their plans has been impeccable, particularly as to changing the electorate through registration drives, fund raising, and get-out-the-vote machinery. The only reason this race will be close, truth be told, is because many Americans (about 15-20% of the old electorate) will not vote for an African American. The saving grace is that a large portion who would not vote for a black man have already been voting republican for the last thirty years(often against their own economic interests), and a good portion of the rest will be offset by larger democratic base turnouts, new registrants, disaffected republicans and open-minded independents. But this election like all close elections will be won or lost with the ground games and who wants it the most. Right now the republicans trail the democrats considerably in terms of enthusiasm and this will like be the difference.


stevetalbert
Comment posted September 3, 2008 @ 1:58 am

too bad the Rothschilds gave a bunch of money in hopes of getting a european diplomat position and had be have been proven to bet on the wrong horse. maybe next time they might look at the issues and see who actually made the better judgements in the past.
people keep saying Obama has to work so hard to get these donors on his side when actually he has more of a lead in his home state than McCain has in his. Where are all the articles about the 'rupture' in the GOP?.


stevetalbert
Comment posted September 3, 2008 @ 2:07 am

It is obvious from her comments she or her husband were planning on being diplomats because of their donations. they should have bet on judgement and not payback if they really loved this country. my family came over on the mayflower and about 100% prior to the Civil War. most people in this country were just trying to have a good life and helping out. She is a big complainer.. These kind of people just give Hillary a bad (undeservered) reputation. I think Hillary actually thinks she is doing what she can do. … people like this are just users. Why don't they report on all the GOP people feeling 'left behind' my McCain picking Palin?……


cheflito
Comment posted September 18, 2008 @ 7:13 pm

This titled woman who carries her title around claimed she's a Democrat all her life. the party have grown and moved and won and lost through the years and she apparently stayed around. what changed this time? not only that her candidate lost but lost to a black man!! this woman, whose family's wealth included the use of slave labor, cannot see herself sitting next to a man whose race they abused in the past. she and her cohorts should be exposed as they are – a bunch of racists!


cheflito
Comment posted September 19, 2008 @ 12:13 am

This titled woman who carries her title around claimed she's a Democrat all her life. the party have grown and moved and won and lost through the years and she apparently stayed around. what changed this time? not only that her candidate lost but lost to a black man!! this woman, whose family's wealth included the use of slave labor, cannot see herself sitting next to a man whose race they abused in the past. she and her cohorts should be exposed as they are – a bunch of racists!


SC Democrats Throw the Black Man Under the Bus « Barbed-Wire Telegraph
Pingback posted August 13, 2010 @ 9:58 pm

[...] Hillary Clinton publicly declared that Barack Obama was  “an unqualified black man” (Clinton Donor Predicts Loss). Like the HillRaisers ( as Clinton’s supporters called themslves), Ms. Fowler predicts doom [...]


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.