For some folks, it is a question of policy. They see Clinton as staking out positions based on the theory of triangulation, and conclude that she lacks principles, or at least whatever principles she does have always take a back seat to political expediency. I understand that view.
I struggle to grasp, however, the intense hatred that seems focused on Clinton by Obama backers.
I struggle to grasp, however, the intense hatred that seems focused on Clinton by Obama backers. They attack Clinton with a ferocity that far exceeds their arguments in favor of Obama, for example accusing both Clintons of lying about Obama and employing tactics of innuendo and negative politicking through surrogates that are unethical, and declaring that the cannot, as a matter of conscious, cast a vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election.
The attacks seem of a kind as those leveled against President Clinton by conservatives throughout his administration, although I do not think that Obamaites are coming from the same place as the right-wingers from the 1990s.
I hear that many think both Clintons are liars, but if you ask for specifics, beyond Monica Lewinsky, there’s not much there. Jake Tapper asserts that, viewed objectively, the Clinton’s lied about Obama’s statement on Ronald Reagan. But his case, in my view, is thin gruel.
Yes, both Clintons characterized the Reagan Statement in a manner designed to make Obama look bad, and on some level of specificity to be saying something he did not intend. Fair enough. But objectively, to call this a lie in the context of a political campaign is a absurd. If this is a lie, then perhaps every single candidate for office is a liar, and the term loses its meaning.
It is clear that Obama sought to advance an argument on behalf of his candidacy by favorably citing the administration of Ronald Reagan and negatively characterizing the administration of Bill Clinton, whom he compared to Nixon.
Were Obama’s comments accurate? I don’t think so. In fact, I think the clear weight of the historical record proves him wrong. Does that mean Obama was objectively lying?
By Tapper’s standard, yes it does.
Therein, perhaps, lies the answer. If you view every utterance through the prism of Hillary as a liar, then she is bound to lie. If you view every action by a supporter or campaign worker as part of a coordinated effort to smear Obama, then she is bound to employ tactics that you find repulsive.
This is a campaign where the stakes are high. Candidates and their zealots will straddle the line. Indeed, they will cross the line, on both sides (Obama’s people, for example, played the “fairy tale” fairy tale for all it was worth). Yeah, the Clintons are tough. They play machine politics. So did JFK. So did FDR. So did AL (we gotta get Abe a middle initial).
I am not here arguing for anyone to support Hillary. All else being equal, in fact, I would probably vote for Edwards over her, and possibly Obama were I convinced of his toughness, but I do urge folks to consider both Bill and Hillary Clinton in the overall context of their careers. They have been lifelong fighters for causes in which I believe, economic justice, to name the most significant one for me, and they have accomplished much in that area.
The venom directed against them is, IMHO, unwarranted. If she ends up the nominee, I will vote for her, and won’t have to hold my nose to do so.
Also, a lot of women don't like the way she is playing on her husband's experience instead of attempting to stand on her own experience. Many people don't buy the osmosis theory and think the reality is that a Hillary presidency will be a dual presidency. That seems to be what is being implied in the campaign.
Most companies have rules against nepotism and there is a reason why. We don't have that in the political process.
The other issue is the arrogance. Hillary's stated assumption for months that she "has it in the bag" insults many people's feeling that the people should decide. This has rubbed many people the wrong way for a long time. It is an insult to many who have wanted a choice other than Hillary.
Also, these are not the reasons cited by Hillary haters as the reason for their feelings. Most often, it seems to be that she is a liar and evil.
Rules against nepotism?: She can't help who she is married to and if she is married to an ex-President that is no reason to deny her a right to run for President. What rules are you thinking about?
It seems to me that you are very troubled by Hillary Clinton. I can respect your feelings but so far you haven't really let us know what specifics might have given your aversion to her. Sounds like you are going to sit this one out.
I personally recoil at such careerism, it tends to lead toward corruption. I don't want that in any politician and think most folks who don't hold politicians to a full accounting as fool hardy.
I would think different of Hillary if she had done what most any other self respecting person would have done years ago .... divorce her husband and make it on her own .... but she didn't. Apparently it was good for her career not to.
Yes, a lack of self-respect is one reason why Hillary might have stayed with Bill Clinton. But there are plenty of reasons why a self-respecting person might also choose to do what Hillary did.
Is Hillary calculating in working toward power? Sure. So is every presidential candidate with support broad-based enough to have a shot at winning. So, why single Hillary out for this?
And, I don't know how old you are, but in my years in campaigning you do what you have to do to win. It's up to us to discern the truth of what we're hearing.
Was it perfect? No. He gave us NAFTA which has hurt the economy and middle class workers immeasurably. His personal behavior was wrong.
But at the time of his administration, the economy was not only strong but the middle class was sharing its benefits. And he left office with a 66% approval rating.
In the Bush administration, we have had a strong economy ever since leaving the recession of 2001, but wages remained flat while prices rose, people have lost real buying power, pensions and health insurance benefits, and have generally lost ground economically. Now, we are entering another recession while those at the bottom of our society never left the first one.
I am reasonably sure Clinton would not have gotten us into Iraq. He would have focused on Afghanistan after 9/11. Nobody can know how successful he would have been at capturing bin Laden. He failed in the 1990s. But our foreign policy was more coherent and any military exercises were limited and had an exit strategy. And world opinion held the U.S. in far greater esteem than today.
Clinton left a strong country, economically and in terms of security and foreign policy. His was a competent administration.
To deny that is to fly in the face or recent history. And it proves aznew's point that this is irrational hatred and repeats basically rightwing talking points.
It's hatred without rationality or evidence for one's assertions.
January 23, 2008
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Two Against OneBy MAUREEN DOWD
GREENVILLE, S.C.
If Bill Clinton has to trash his legacy to protect his legacy, so be it. If he has to put a dagger through the heart of hope to give Hillary hope, so be it.
If he has to preside in this state as the former first black president stopping the would-be first black president, so be it.
The Clintons - or "the 2-headed monster," as the The New York Post dubbed the tag team that clawed out wins in New Hampshire and Nevada - always go where they need to go, no matter the collateral damage. Even if the damage is to themselves and their party. ...
If she's for it, I'm knee jerk against it. She's a liberal who will never find a real human being who measures up to her standards to run for office. In other words, she gets to play at being liberal while actually helping the right wing. She's the type of liberal who helped Gore lose in 2000.
To throw in someone who's not quoted all that much (if ever?) here on RK.
While preachers preach of evil fates
Teachers teach that knowledge waits
Can lead to hundred-dollar plates
Goodness hides behind its gates
But even the president of the United States
Sometimes must have
To stand naked.
For the record, you're a fine writer. I've turned my spousal unit onto your blog.
But, imho, you need to dig a lot deeper into what's wrong with our country and stop skittering around on the surface of things. And, specific to this thread, how folks like the Clintons -- blinded by ego -- have become part of the status quo and, through that, are perpetuating the problem.
On a generous sliding scale -- since, in truth, he's just another politician -- Senator Obama at least holds out the promise of structural change.
My nihilistic side says the window for turning things around is closing fast. Another President Clinton will slam that window shut.
Toward focusing this scattergun response, I'd be interested to hear your opinion on why polling shows more voters are willing to accept a black president than a woman president.
Doesn't the same song you quote also say, "Propaganda all is phony."
You mean like their proponents suggesting that his refreshing openness that he -- like just about every other thinking person in this country -- smoked pot or tried cocaine makes him vulnerable to Republican attack dogs?
As to Maureen Dowd, she makes a good living as an entertaining wordsmith humorously trashing everyone -- left, right and center -- and anyone who thinks that her thing is factual accuracy is, at best, naive. That said, well done artifice can be a portal to better understanding what passes for reality.
Call me a skeptic, but that usually tends to be the result of astroturfing.
I'd add that Clinton idolatry is real enough from the evidence that I've seen.
It is not part of any organized effort.
So Bush's people can insinuate that someone like McCain might have a black illegitimate child in the 2000 South Carolina primary. Based on your rationalization, I take it that these lines of attack are perfectly above board and serve the interests of the American people.
Does the candidate frame issues honestly, and take on the hard argument? Or does he or she dodge and weave and misrepresent an opponents position based on a belief that voters will be too stupid to distinguish fact from fantasy?
This is a fair question to ask in my view, because it goes a long way towards telling us how that candidate will actually govern. Does the candidate engage in habitual distortions?
If so, I would NOT expect that candidate to pivot once elected. That has certainly been part of the experience of the past several years.
In reference to the Clinton arguments that Obama endorsed the ideas of Republicans, this is claim is patently false. Obama made a statement about how Reagan's presidency resulted in a long-term re-alignment of the national parties. This is demonstrably true (from 1980 forward the GOP made huge inroads both at the presidential level and within congress up until 2004. That constitutes a generational realignment. So it's fair to ask -- even with all of their bad ideas, why was this the case? The Clintons dodge this issue, which is probably one of the reasons that 47% of the electorate right now says it will vote AGAINST a Clinton candidacy -- 1% higher than Kucinich numbers http://www.rasmussenreports.co...
).
I think your claim that "hatred" is at the root of Clinton disgust is disingenuous at best. I reminds me a little bit of the 30 percenters who ascribe dislike of George W. Bush's administration to "hatred" -- that it is solely based on irrational considerations. Of course, someone might believe this if they ignored some inconvenient facts along the way.
I think there are many of us who do not trust the Clintons because they surround themselves with union-trust busters like Mark Penn -- someone who has done lobbying work for big pharma and companies like Blackwater. People like myself don't think Clinton will fight for my interests, because she to a greater degree than any other candidate funded her campaign with the aid of New York and Washington's corporate lobbies.
There are people like myself who do not think Clinton has been straight on her 2002 AUMF vote. We do not believe that her decision to back the 2007 Kyl-Lieberman amendment reflected a willingness to take the right stand on hard issues.
The Clintons themselves HAVE engaged in dirty politicking this year in areas ranging from race based appeals, to gross misrepresentations on Obama's "present" votes, Obama's stance on abortion rights, etc.
In the end, candidates who are habitual liars, tend to lose broad popular support. If a president is not seen as a truth-teller, then the president will have hard time rallying support for their initiatives once he (or she) assumes the office of president.
I personally have had enough of lying politicians based on just the past 8 years. I don't think that the Clintons offer the U.S. anything different in this regard -- neither shoots straight with the American people. You might call this "hatred" but I would say that there is a paper trail -- including the Tapper article that you cited -- which lend a factual basis for these claims. Buyer beware.
I believe there is such a thing as "spinning" the truth to put the best foot forward. And then there is simply distorting the truth to serve some political end. The Clinton regurgitations concerning the "present" vote are not a line of argument that I would consider made in good faith. The arguments over the "party of ideas" which I see as just a bizarre line of attack, are gross distortions. Even though the Clinton claim has been rebutted by several news sources and the Obama campaign, the Clintons keep repeating it.
In the context of a political campaign, there can be blatant lies (John McCain has an illegitimate child, for example) that the speaker knows to be false, and statements that get branded as lies as a rhetorical matter, but fall more broadly in the category of interpretation and argument.
I urge you to read the Somersby piece so you understand that the statements by the Clintons regarding Obama's Reagan comments clearly fall into the latter category.
Also, I don't say hatred is at the root of Clinton disgust. I simply say that I don't get the hatred. I fully understand there are many reasons why one might not support her. I have real problems with her AUMF vote, and for her Kyl-Lieberman vote (which I have written critically about).
Then you go and call her a "habitual liar." That isn't argument, that is a expression of hatred that is not supported by the record. That is the leap that I don't get.
Similarly, you say the Clinton's engaged in dirty politics, but your examples are thin, IMHO. If the Clinton's personally engaged in race-based politics against Obama, I missed that.
And how have they misrepresented Obama's present votes in Illinois? All they have said is that he voted present 150 times. Is that inaccurate?
Maybe there was a good reason for everyone of those "Present" votes -- in fact, I'm sure there is -- but that is Obama's job to explain, not Hillary's. It's in his record though, and it's fair to raise it as an issue. I don't know Illinois politics well enough to know whether the inference she drew was justified or not, but that is an issue for the candidates to debate and put before the voters. I don't see how it is dirty.
Indeed, if there is one thing I don't like about Obama, it is that he can be disingenuous about his voting record when it comes to tough votes.
By the way, you brought up Hillary's horrible vote on Kyl-Lieberman. How did Obama vote on that? Well, he missed, claiming he was sick.
And Obama's explanation of why he voted against an amendment to the Bankruptcy Bill capping interest rates on credit cards -- because it was too high, so he chose instead to vote in favor of no cap, was so patently absurd even John Edwards started to laugh at him.
1. I do not believe politicians who lie do so just because they are "evil" -- i.e. that their intent is to do harm to their opponents. I think the bottom line is that there are Washington politicians who lie because they see that sometimes lying works, and because it is useful in winning elections. Frankly I don't think they really care what the impact of their lies are, so long as the means serve their ends. That's all that matters to them.
2. What exactly constitutes a lie? I think an intent to deceive and play off of voters' ignorance is a form of lying.
The "present" votes issue is a classic example.
Someone who is completely ignorant of the way that the way that the Illinois legislature works could be led to believe that a "present" vote is evidence of a candidates unwillingness to take a stand on hard issues. This is the line that the Clinton campaign has been pushing.
However, as Illinois planned parenthood president has stated, this is not always the case. In the Illinois legislature a present vote can be used as a procedural maneuver, not unlike a filibuster, to stall legislation, so that a more favorable outcome can be achieved on a later vote. This was exactly how Obama employed the "present" vote in Illinois. Of course most voters know absolutely nothing about the procedures of the Illinois legislature, so in their ignorance, they can be led to believe whatever it is that the other side wants to demonstrate. Up is down, down is up.
Never mind that Obama also voted on something like 4,000 other votes. This context isn't even mentioned in the Clinton attacks. Never mind that his colleagues in the state legislature say that he was one of the hardest working members -- someone who never shirked taking on hard tasks (like ethics legislation, or getting the police to videotape interrogations).
Attacks that are made without any reference to the broader context are gross distortions in my view. The purpose of these attacks isn't to shed light on what the real intent of the "present" votes was, it was used to demonstrate a point that was patently untrue. (e.g. that Obama really didn't believe in a woman's right to chose).
The fact that the Clinton campaign continues to repeat this gross distortion demonstrates to me that they have absolutely no interest in what the substance of those present votes really meant -- they are simply interested in making people believe that the present votes demonstrate whatever it is that they want to demonstrate. I consider these kind of actions to be a demonstration of bad faith. The intent isn't necessarily malicious. Their campaign just thinks that voters are ignorant and can be played for fools, so they exploit those gaps in understanding. I think that engaging in these kind of distortions does not serve the interests of American democracy. These kind of actions reveal character, or the lack of it. This is no different than the kind of sales pitch that some mortgage bankers used to suck home buyers into getting homes that they couldn't afford with rates that they knew the buyers would never be able to pay. These kind of actions may pay a short-term dividend for the person who engages in these kinds of exploitation, but I think it reveals a certain lack of character and short-sightedness.
I have real problems with this approach. I don't excuse the approach just because "it's politics and everyone does it".
I think at the end of the day voters must hold candidates to standards of conduct -- when they fail to do this, they are being played for fools. They should not be surprised by what they get. It's a shame that there are a lot of good people caught in the middle, but this is one of the risks with a democratic system of government. You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time.
In reference to a couple other points:
The racial attacks these days aren't as obvious as "n-word, n-word, n-word". Instead we have appeals to soft prejudice along the lines of "so and so is lazy" or "so and so is getting a free ride". My generation, which has its ears a little more attuned to these kinds of statements is wise to exactly what those attacks are saying. Is Obama lazy? His record says the exact opposite. Is Obama getting a "free ride"? Last time I checked it was another candidate who had the institutional and financial advantages going into this election. If Obama pulls off the party nomination, it will be an incredible achievement on his part and on the part of his campaign.
Even this issue about capping credit card rates, goes to prove the point yet again. Who were the Senators who voted with Obama against the cap? Sarbanes, Leahy, Kerry, Durbin, Reed, Cantwell, Wyden -- with Feingold and Iohyue abstaining.
Now the natural question would be here: Why is it that ALL of these pro-consumer Democrats ALSO voted against the cap? If this measure was so good for voters, why are Feingold and Leahy, and Durbin opposed to the measure? Lord knows, these folks aren't getting large handouts from credit card companies. The real question here should be "Why did Senators like Clinton vote for the measure?"
In my view a 30% cap on interest rates isn't exactly sticking it too the credit card companies. Some states have caps that are at 22%. Why didn't Senators like Clinton fight for a better deal for consumers? I'll at least give her partial credit for saying she would have voted against the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005 -- even though she voted for an earlier version in 2001, which she hoped wouldn't pass.
The big issue with the Bankruptcy Reform Act isn't whether some provision in the bill could have been better; the entire bill stunk. It should never have been voted into law, and I hope that it will be repealed swiftly. There is one candidate in this election who has been absolutely consistent on this issue, and who I would trust to push for more consumer friendly legislation. Based on the record, and the evidence, that candidate is not Hillary Clinton.
That doesn't help the candidate you support. And if what you are after is unity, nasty tirades against another candidate do not foster unity.
On top of all this, Obama supporters claim that he is beyond politics and he is changing the tone. If that is something that you admire, then it is really odd that you would wallow in the mud everytime you feel slighted by a candidate. That seems like politics as usual; it doesn't change the tone at all.
My challenge to the Obama supporters is be the change you want to see in the world. If he is the uniter, the tone changer, the man who stands beyond petty politics; then live that creed! Teach the rest of us the righteousness of a true believer!
http://www.observer.com/2008/f...
NYC's New York Observer hits the nail on the head . . .
New Yorkers might ask why they should not pull a lever for our junior senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton. While Mrs. Clinton is an extraordinary United States senator for New York, we believe that Mr. Obama can be a great president for the United States of America.. . . . . . . . . . .
Mr. Obama would also be the most formidable Democrat in the general election. He has demonstrated a capacity to energize young people and attract new voters, and is the only candidate in the Democratic Party who attracts independents, who are the fastest-growing part of the electorate. His refusal to demonize the Republican Party as a right-wing attack machine will appeal to those independents as well as moderate Republicans.
Mr. Obama, it is true, is hardly an experienced Washington hand, which surely explains the freshness of his vision and the power of his life experience. His opponents have hit this issue hard. But as far as experience goes, to those Americans who celebrated finding ourselves with our first M.B.A. president in 2000-we can only advise them to look at the $9 trillion national debt in 2008.
And when George W. Bush was driving a bleary, shocked nation into war with bait-and-switch deceptions in 2003, where was our experienced leadership? Meanwhile, in the west, an Illinois state senator-who has since served three years in the Senate, the same Congressional period that a fellow Midwesterner, Abraham Lincoln, had served when he sought the presidency-rose to exhibit courage and public judgment on that deceptive adventure, stating, "I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."
Now we have paid the price many times over, and there are no clear paths in Baghdad. But there may be one in Washington. Mr. Obama is the emblem of a new America. He has risen too quickly for his opponents' taste; that fact is nothing less than a recommendation.
His relationship to truth and plain speaking and public transparency is the first step toward reviving democracy in the United States of America.
Barack Obama of Illinois is the future. New York's Democrats should embrace him.
I'm not going to decide who to vote for until it's time to vote. I figure the more information I have, the better decision I can make.
Right now we are collecting some data points from these early primaries and caucuses which give us a sense about where each Democratic nominees strength and weaknesses are likely to be going into the general election. I don't think that the evidence is the final story, but it tells me a lot about where openings are likely to be in the general election, and what kind of challenges a candidate is likely to face.
And regardless if you can't understand the hatred some express towards the Clinton's, you cannot deny it exists. And that is the problem. As our nominee, and with Bill Clinton campaigning across the country for her, that hatred will compel millions of voters to cast ballots aginst her who might otherwise stay home in 2008 after the last 8 years of George Bush.
And her poll numbers across the country with independents are horrible - and they would side with McCain over Clinton, if they were both nominated.
The Clinton's carry way too much baggage - it's too risky to nominate her.
And they're STILL talking about Obama's Reagan quote weeks later? This despite the fact that Hillary has expressed admiraion for both Reagan and Barry Goldwater in the past? Heck, Daniel Patrick Moynihan said the EXACT same thing that Obama did before he died.
People have no patience when it comes to blatant hypocrisy. ZERO.
And if you want to see "hatred" go check out the diary sections at MyDD and DailyKos. There's plenty of hate to go around for all the candidates. But Hillary has come a loooong way on DK, where she used to be a 4-letter word. A pro-Hillary diary on that site used to be a mirage, now they're plentiful.
I liked Hillary's campaign, a lot in fact, until Obama won Iowa. What the Clintons have shown me is that they want back in the White House BADLY and they don't care who they bring down with them.
But it is not like these things have to happen. Each politician obviously has to answer for themselves. But it does seem fairly universal, at least when you get to the national level.
I have always seen the Clintons' ethics as alternatively sloppy and situational, as opposed to venal, but being honest with myself, that could be a rationalization.
Regardless, however, Hillary Clinton is still light years better on ethics and hypocrisy than either Romney or St. McCain. And Guiliani, of course, is in Nixonland.
First let me be clear about something, I do not hate Hillary Clinton. I do not hate anyone. I think she has been a skillful politician and has done a lot in her life that deserves admiration. What has disappointed me most about Hillary is that she was one of the first to take the campaign to the gutter.
No one has tried more than Obama to keep race out of the campaign. He hadn't launched any personal attacks and did his best to discuss the issues. At the beginning Clinton was doing the same. When it became clear that Clinton was up against a serious challenger she transformed into someone that I didn't know. She began distorting Obama's record, his statements, and doing all the things that I hated about past campaigns. The media and others have tried to say that "oh well both sides are being dirty" but if we go back and examine the historical record I am confident that you will find that most of the personal attacks and distortion came out the Clinton campaign.
The thought of another four years of Republican White House control is something that brought me a lot of anxiety yet here I am seriously contemplating whether or not I can vote for her. In my opinion she has defamed and distorted the character and record of a good man. I think she has taken on the idea that the ends of winning the nomination justify the means that she is employing. I disagree.
Just so I am clear about what it is that she has done that has disappointed me, I will list them.
1.) The vote present thing has been something that has been explained over and over again. Either they are not interested in the facts or they are intentionally trying to misinform voters.
2.) The Reagan controversy. To say that she took his words out of context would be an understatement. For her to point to his statements and make a big deal of it is hypocrisy.
3.) The accusation of using race. Like I said before, Obama has tried repeatedly to keep race out of the campaign. When Bill and Hillary Clinton accused him of playing the race card on several occasions, I again found it incredibly dishonest.
4.) The accusation of voter suppression in Nevada. Bill went in front of a crowd and basically said that there was voter suppression in Nevada. If this was the truth why wouldn't they file a formal complaint? Maybe because it wasn't the truth. Maybe it's because what he was saying was a lie.
5.) Tag-team. Obama is running against Hillary, not Bill. She has the luxury of having a spouse who gets an enamorous amount of media attention. For the two of them to exploit that is completely unfair. Bill has launched many of the personal attacks while Hillary has pretended to be above it all know full well that the attacks are having the same impact on Obama as they would if she made them. On political grounds, I can understand it. On moral grounds, I do not.
6.) I still remember when she went to a southern black church and changed her accent all of a sudden. This may sound petty but I just found it incredibly insulting and saw it more as mocking then her being true to who she was.
So back to the issue at hand. I have now found myself in the same shoes as Republicans. I now see what they had to put up with when a candidate that they supported and believed in was up against Clinton. If what they are doing to Obama is any indication, it's not enough for them (the Clintons) to disagree on the issues. They go above and beyond what is necessary by attacking personally and distorting reality. I do not like it when Republicans do it and I do not like it when Democrats do it. She seems like such a great person which is why I expect more from her.
My question is -- If it comes to pass that Clinton beats Obama for nomination, would you vote for her in November? Assuming that vote Republican is out of the question for you, are there circumstances that could cause you to sit out the election?
Sounding all high-minded 'n stuff when she was the self-declared front runner was easy. But as soon as she got a whiff of the grapeshot, then it's politics as a contact sport.
The end justifies the means is how politicians of all stripes rationalize doing whatever it takes to win. And there are very few exceptions, Senator Webb being one of them.
Taegan Goddard's Political WireWhat They Talked About
We previously noted a private meeting between Sen. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards after Monday night's Democratic debate and wondered what they talked about.
A source who attended a fundraiser this week for Edwards tells the New York Observer: "He said that Hillary and Obama have true dislike for each other and that after the most recent debate Hillary mentioned to John in passing that there's more about Obama and that 'slum landlord' [Rezko] that has yet to be disclosed to the public."
An Edwards spokesman replies: "Edwards has told reporters he's not going to talk about conversations with other candidates, but based on Monday night's debate with Obama using Wal-Mart and Hillary using Rezko, anyone who thinks this is over missed Senator Clinton's statement that they're just getting warmed up."
Not saying that Howard "hates" Clinton, but it's this type of campaigning that is turning people off from her.
After reading most of the HATERS on this blog, I am 99% sure they are Republicans campaigning for Obama because he may be the easier candidate of the three to beat in November.
Since Martin Luther Kings birthday just pasted, all this hatred reminds me back in the 1950's-1960's. Every where King went there was always violence breaking out. Those of us that had a back seat and read the stories would wonder, "If this man is so Peaceful. why all the violence".
It wasn't till after his death that pictures of FBI agents showed up as some of those starting the violence, which traced back to J. Edgar Hoover. Others were traced to other violent organizations in this country.
Many of you do not remember that part of the Civil Rights movement, but I am old enough to remember. And if what is happening on this blog doesn't remind me of those days, nothing else probably ever will.
If you are truly an Obama backer, you will stop all this hatred in this campaign and start policing your own rhetoric.
Just remember one thing, " Obama could fight back without throwing fuel on the fire". If he really wanted too.
"McCain is the strongest Republican in head-to-head polls. Hillary beats the others by 10 points; she leads McCain 46-42. Obama trails McCain 42-41%, and beats the others by 10 points or more."
I hope it is not about the FBI and their Informant groups creating the violence that followed MLK marches. There is documentation of what I say.
Now if those photos etc. of individuals who worked for the FBI are bogous, then I may be a fool for believing recorded history and documentation and reports that J.Edgar Hoover gave the orders.
Below this post someone basically states that the "aggressiveness of the Obama supporters" turns them off. How can one defend Hillary Clinton and then in the same breath complain about the aggressiveness of the other side?
If someone wants to miss read or insinuate anything it could be taken that I insinuated that Obama supporters were like Hoover. In no way did I even want to insinuate that.
Just because I used the name Martin Luther King, all of a sudden I am making racist remarks. Young man I would suggest you get the chip off your shoulder and not try to put accusations where they were never intended.
Now if you want to hear someone elses racist remarks; lets look at Obama's yesterday.
He said " If Hillary wins the nomination, she will never bring the country together"; "BUT if I win the nomination I will bring the country together".
That is as racist as anyone can get in an off handed way. In other words after the bickering only a "Black Man" can heal this country.
Now, maybe I should have kept my mouth shut, but when you accuse me of Racism, you are accusing the WRONG person.
As far as your accusation of racism on Obama's part, I think we both know that you twisted that statement to get what you wanted out of it. Obama knows that Hillary is polarizing and that it is her personality and campaign tactics that is the cause, not her race.
..............
Rasmussen link not working.
................
USA and Hotline percentage numbers did not add up to the questions asked.
................
Hotline;
#20. If the 2008 Democratic presidential primary were held today, whom would you support
Hillary Clinton 38%
Barack Obama 35%
Regardless of who you are planning to vote for in the Democratic primary election, how likely do you think it is that Barack Obama will be able to win.
Very likely 30%
Somewhat likely 52%
Not very likely 10%
Not at all likely 5%
Don't know/Refused
HILLARY
Very likely 38%
Somewhat likely 51%
Not very likely 7%
Not at all likely 1%
Don't know/Refused
.......................................
USA
Based on what you know now, whoever wins nomination for president, do you think would win the presidential election in November?
2008 Jan 10-13 Yes,would No,would not No opinion
Barack Obama 55 36 9
Hillary Clinton 50 43 7
John McCain 45 46 9
Both of the percentages had Clinton losing to McCain and Obama winning over McCain, but when questions are looked at Clinton beats McCain. The USA has Obama winning by more then Clinton over McCain, but she still beats McCain.
"Core Favorability/Opposition Among All Voters
Candidate
Def. FOR
Def. AGAINST
Net
Obama
29%
36%
-7
McCain
22%
33%
-11
Huckabee
21%
34%
-13
Thompson
21%
34%
-13
Edwards
23%
38%
-15
Clinton
30%
47%
-17
Giuliani
23%
42%
-19
Romney
19%
47%
-28
Paul
10%
48%
-38
Bloomberg
5%
49%
-44
Core Favorability/Opposition Among Unaffiliated Voters
Candidate
Def. FOR
Def. AGAINST
Net
McCain
20%
26%
-6
Obama
22%
31%
-9
Edwards
20%
31%
-11
Thompson
18%
31%
-13
Huckabee
16%
34%
-18
Romney
18%
38%
-20
Giuliani
18%
44%
-26
Clinton
22%
48%
-26
Paul
14%
43%
-29
Bloomberg
8%
42%
-34 "
It seems to be that they just don't understand that being so aggressive for your candidate turns people off. For example, my wife listens to Obama, and she warms up to him. She sees Obama supporters attack other people, and she gets turned off.
A lot of politics is group identity marketing. We want to root for people that we identify. So supporters should make it easy to get people to identify with them by being nice. :)
After all, wouldn't we rather join a group of nice people than a group of hostile ones?
For example, from what I heard, we Edwards supporters bake brownies to share with strangers. We also help old ladies with their groceries, and tutor children with their homework.
And we will stick with our candidate as long as he sticks fighting for regular folks like us. And we do it because it is not about us, or Edwards; it is about hope in America through economic fairness.
Now, who wouldn't want to join a group like our, especially when we love babies and cute puppies?
Some of the inane and irrational remarks by semi-hysterical types, one person in particular, seem to suggest that what really they are angry about is either their jealousy that Clinton got what they would like to get or that Bill chose Monica over them. Their inability to accept this is expressed in their writing--I don't even see that anger for the Chimp and his lies that got 4000 troops killed. Tell me that isn't irrational. Same for Dowd, always a serial Clinton hater. See her in person, a woman who barely can utter a word, it's like pulling teeth to get her to respond, her face a mask--then taking out in print what she represses in public. Freud, we need you for a diary about the Clinton haters.
As you look at this madness, AZNEW, reflect on your folly of trying to make your respondents see beyond the shadows on the walls of the RK cave. Tune back to Rush and Sean for the "truth" about Hillary and you'll see the type of thinking that spawned the RK arguments. Then reflect on how you cannot argue against such thought processes (if you can call it that) and impress reason on them.
One last word: Bill Clinton and Hillary DID NOT interject race into this debate, Obama's people did, along with the spurring on by pundits. This idea that saying "fairy tale" was racist, when seen in context, is as dishonest and lousy as the old argument that Bill Clinton ruined the morals of a nation by doing what HE did, or had done to him. What was done was a group of swine-herders passing along slop to a public more than willing to read, salivate, and God knows what as they read the tabloids in their bathrooms--I can hear vibrators buzzing and hands working. This was a private matter made public by reporters and pundits who would not make that kind of effort to find the truth about the buildup to the war in Iraq.
"Some of the inane and irrational remarks by semi-hysterical types, one person in particular, seem to suggest that what really they are angry about is either their jealousy that Clinton got what they would like to get or that Bill chose Monica over them."
Who would have guessed that an election that touched so closely on issues of race and gender would hit such a pronounced nerve this election cycle.
As the Clinton Team said earlier this year "Let's have a conversation". Needless to say, it's definitely not the one that any of us expected.
Most of the anti-Hillary comments were thoughtful. I still don't think actual facts justify some of the strong reactions folks have toward her, but for what it is worth, here is what I take away from all this.
Obviously, people have different expectations that they want their leaders to meet. What some here see as unethical excesses of the Clinton campaign I see as pretty standard stuff in the political arena. Sure, Clinton is worse than some in this area, but she is better than many than others.
But in the main, I see Hillary Clinton as a person who aspires to do good for her fellow human beings, and her idea of what is good, in the main matches mine. End the war, economic justice, health care.
Incidentally, I think the GOP candidates (except for Guiliani, and for that matter, Bush, neither of whom could care for anyone outside of their immediate circles) also want to do good, but their perception of what is good doesn't match mine.
As for Obama, I saw him speak this summer at the Take Back America Conference in D.C., and it was inspiring. So I can understand the passion his supporters feel -- he does make you believe we can turn the page to a different kind of politics in this country, and it is a great feeling.
But it is chimera. I happened to have to drive to Florida and back last week, and so I passed the time doing something I never do - listening to right-wing talk radio. A few days of that was clarifying.
So, in the end, my ultimate vote is a no-brainer. It will be for the Democratic candidate without any reservations. And it just seems to me that if you support Obama and care about the issues he cares about, that should Hillary Clinton get the nomination, anyone would do the same, without reservation.
Now that all said, reading the comments of those folks who say that politics as usual need to change, I can't be too critical of that sentiment, even if I think it is unrealistic in the short-term.
But the raw dislike, expressed in name calling, or allegations of lying and tactics, no matter how deeply or sincerely held, that are not merely unsupported by the record, but fly in the face of facts and more than 30 years of the Clinton's being in the public eye -- the allegation that the Clintons are using race as an issue, for example -- are a waste of time.