All of us have had to come to the realization that she is not who we thought she was. Welcome to the reality based community. For me it was when she voted yes on the iraq war.

Thanks. I'm sure that wasn't easy to write. I think you point on Penn is exactly right, in that he's giving her horrible advice and it doesn't speak well of her that she's agreeing with Penn's direction.

I continue to be baffled why politicians, from people running for the state legislature to those running for President, put so much stock (and money) in paid political consultants (like Penn) who I've found to be totally disconnected from reality. Gore and Kerry fell victims to the same problem.

I think more than anything voters want someone who is genuine and consultants are always trying to make their client into "someone else" - because if you don't have to change them then why are you needed?

If Hillary concedes and starts campaigning for Obama and other Democrats, I imagine that all of a sudden people will start saying "now that's the Hillary we wanted to see in the primary."

What you are seeing is desperation. No one turns to once and future enemies for aid without the expectation of a heavy price being extracted.

And the question we all need to ask - especially those who, like you, are Clinton supporters, is this: What is that price being extracted? We all know the invoice will come at some point.

I can see her justification for some of her tactics though. The end justifies the means. I do believe that she thinks she is the best candidate and will be the best president. It is from that belief that she tacitly allows for some of the tactics to be used, be it from Fox News, Scaife, or Limbaugh republicans pushing her vote totals up. The double speak about florida and michigan which Dean could have handled better back in 2007, but for which the ultimate responsibility lies with the state delegations.

One thing shows through, Obama has played by the rules set forth by the DNC, Clinton has tried to change them to suit her. You can make the arguement that Obama would have done the same if thier positions were reversed, but they are not and he has not broken with the DNC rules.

Another Clinton supporter falls...

If it makes you feel any better, I think you are just the start of something we'll be seeing more often, over the next several weeks.

In any case, it was a tough post for you to write, and I appreciate your honesty.

The Scaife photo is Clinton's "Lieberman Kiss," or "McCain Hug."

Hey destor23, just wanted to say that you've always supported HRC on this site in a positive way and for that you should be commended.

I think that your sentiments about wanting a candidate who is a "fighter" are shared even by Obama supporters. I know that I want a fighter in the White House as well, and I think that Obama has shown that he is that man. The difference is that when he fights, he just does it more cleverly than Clinton. As another_reader points out above, Obama is able to get away with taking little jabs at Clinton now and again, and poke hole in her credibility. Unfair? Maybe, but the guy is trying to win just like Clinton. To me, this ability of his is not the sign of media bias but rather political savvy on the part of the Obama campaign. The staffers working for him do not leak things to the press. They shut up and apologize when they say something inappropriate, and the top people never make the same mistake. Most impressively, they have stuck to their narrative which, if repeated often enough, gets stuck in our heads - Change. Hope. Unity. Progress.

Clinton has never been able to knock Obama off of his narrative. He is just a better politician than she is. I know that's hard to see (even for Obama supporters maybe), because we've been told so often that Hillary and Bill are evil political geniuses who can think 6 years in advance and have plotted out every single day from here until November.

It's not true. Obama is a fighter, too. He's just fighting smarter.

Props on this one. I'm for Obama, but I don't WANT to dislike Hillary (or Bill for that matter). I don't understand moves like this one, and I really, really don't understand Bill going on Rush Limbaugh during the TX primary. What possible benefit is there for Democrats to acknowledge these clowns? I don't get it at all. I'd prefer none of them even go on Fox.

"Dialing up Osama for a li'l chat"???

Louisville1975, what are you talking about?

destor, you should at least take solace in the knowledge that Hillary is tough enough to whup Ric Flair in a fair fight. With an arm tied behind her back, even.

"Have you noticed that the last few weeks Obama has launched character attacks against Hillary even after his promise that he wouldn't practice the politics of personal destruction? "

Everyone has their limit. Obama tried to run a polite campaign, but Billary's attacks made it impossible. If you signed a treaty with someone who then began attacking you non-stop, would you honor the treaty?

Ric, I started out a passionate Hillary supporter too, but she lost me quite a while back when she or her advisors felt she wasn't good or strong enough to run as the Hillary I thought I knew. They were wrong. I don't recognize the person running now. In the end you get a sense of betrayal because you wonder it that person was ever who you thought they were. I understand that she really wants to win and everything she does now appears to be out of desperation. But don't you think that Edwards was disappointed too and how do you think Al Gore felt. He actually won!

No, I really had not noticed that Obama had "launched character attacks against Hillary."

The onbly thing I've noticed are Hillary's & Bill's increasingly absurd attacks on Obama. Obama has of course defended himself against such attacks as necessary. If this is what you mean by "character attacks", I challenge you to show me one such comment by Obama that has not come in response to some outlandish criticism from the Clinton camp.

The Jeremiah Wright attack is one of the most vicious ploys that I have yet seen in politics. It was virulently racist in character. It went after Obama for being a member of the African American community with both barrels. They did everything short of calling him a "nigger." But clearly that's exactly what it was intending to do. It's appeal was to the lowest instincts of the electorate.

Any reporter will tell you that it was the Clinton which pushed this so-called story until they finally succeeded in getting someone to go on air with it. Then, the other lemmings in the media all fell in line.

In the wake of this assault & the exposuer of Hillary's numerous lies, it's a joke that anyone could accuse Obama of "character attacks." First they savage the man & then say that it was his fault.

Despicable.

When she said she was "experienced" she should have been talking about her political experience -- more about what she's seen and been through than what she's done.

Yes. The way that she has been pushing experience, and what she seems to mean by it, doesn't really hold up under scrutiny. The experience of withstanding a virulent right wing, and a disastrous scandal created by her husband--that's important experience, even if people want to diminish it. But she really hasn't run on that.

And even if she is the nominee (which, let's face it, seems increasingly unlikely to happen), she's never going to overcome the repeated misstatements about her Bosnia experience.

I'm voting for whoever the Democratic nominee is. But the gross campaign mismanagement, the reliance on the odious Penn, and the Bosnia flapdoodle make me question her ability. And that's one thing that I had never questioned.

And destor23? Your comments have always been positive, and your criticisms insightful.

This was a great post. I think 'toughness' and 'fighter' are terms warped by the Bush years. US culture equates tough and fighter too often with straight up a%$hole. That is someone who uses any means to an end, someone who can makes a virtue of self-preservation and power. We think "well, if they can play no-hold's barred' then I want them on my side. Well, truth is an a##hole will not 'fight' for YOU, or those without power.

Edwards did a great job presenting himself as a fighter. That's because he said explicitly that he would fight on behalf of the powerless. Clinton no such deal.

There is a gender aspect as well. Many women think this is how you have to behave to deal in a 'man's world'. I lived through Thatcher, let me tell you, she is a first rate wanker with ovaries. Not a model of women's power--she would sell-out any dame in a minute.

Obama, has in fact been much, much tougher. Staying cool in the face of an onslaught, maintaining some shred of dignity and reason while up against an idiot MSM, speaks volumes. He has consistently taken the more difficult path--speaking out against homophobia in the black church when that would gain him no political points--is a fine example.

Clinton's caving to the far-right is not an indication of toughness--it is as the commenter points out the ultimate political capitulation. A true mark against her character. It means she would sell-out her beloved white 'working-class' constituency in a heart-beat. That's what Sciaffe does anyway, sells them race resentment and librul hatred while he screws them economically. Clinton supporters want to believe this is just 'strategy', justified. Oh and the delusory, Obama would do it too. Well truth is NO, despite his shortcomings this is NOT his electoral strategy. It's Clinton's. Own it Baby!! But know one thing, she not a fighter for the 'little people'.

Ahh America, plus ça change...

destor, look at the ecstatic response. You're endorsement is in greater demand that of John Edwards. I think that you should hold off and play up your negotiating position.

The problem with "tough" is that it's in the eyes of the beholder. It's a vague term so if we don't define it when we use, it defines itself. Thus, Clinton is simultaneously tough and weak depending on who you ask and Obama is both a wimp and tough.

Clinton attempted to define herself as tough - unfortunately she is having trouble living up to her own criteria. And ultimately one can't define oneself as tough, others need to do that based on what they see.

Finally, I think the internal contradictions of not really contesting the February caucuses/primaries, yet claiming to be a fighter make her case difficult to prove. I think she would be in a better situation today had she contested those states on issues and the "Real" Hillary. Instead she keeps building firewalls and throwing sinks.

Thanks for the comments.

I'd just like to add:

If Hillary had fired Mark Penn, she would probably be winning.

That would have been a sign of both "toughness" and "leadership."

This was difficult for you and I appreciate your well-expressed post.

That's why I like TPM -- I feel like I can have an intelligent discussion here. Thanks to all.

Sunday,
That's an intelligent post. I'm a HRC supporter but if Obama beats her it's because he's played a smarter campaign.

Prominent Clinton Supporter Flirts With Obama Endorsement

Earlier today, a prominent blogger and Clinton supporter, known only by a Ric Flair avatar and the inscrutable screen name, destor23, posted a public criticism of Hillary Clinton. Many within the blog community interpreted his remarks as preparation for an upcoming endorsement. Long considered one of them most intelligent and thoughtful of the pro-Clinton bloggers, destor23 has been aggressively courted by Obama supporters in recent weeks. While some well-known fence sitters, such as the Zaftig Redhead, have recently joined the Obama camp, destor23 would be the first prominent pro-Clinton blogger to switch sides. His (or her) endorsement would be significant because it could send a signal to other pro-Clinton bloggers that it's OK to switch. airwon, kensdad, and billy glad are also considered up for grabs.

According to sources close to destor23, he informed Hillary of his planned post during a very tense text-message exchange that reportedly lasted three hours and cost destor23, who does not have the unlimited text plan, $238.04. A spokesperson for the Obama campaign has indicated that Obama would welcome destor23, saying, "We invite destor23 and all other bloggers to join our movement to unite the country in hope". The spokesperson hastened to add, "But we reject and denounce all trolls, and we encourage Hillary Clinton do do the same."

Late update: Clinton pollster, Mark Penn, has downplayed the significance of the post: "destor23 is a two-bit blogger unknown by anyone outside a pathetically incestuous circle of geeks. None of his posts would have made the recommended list if Hillary had not been multi-recommending them on different computers."

Just another quick kudos for being willing to change your mind with changing facts, and having the courage to actually say it.

Thank you for keeping an open mind.

I don't see how much clearer a demonstration of strength you need than the way they handled their recent controversies.

Barack stood up and made an honest and insightful speech, spoke to the voters as adults, and invited dialogue.

Hillary's best defense was "I misspoke" (3 times) because of "lack of sleep". Even as more damning evidence emerges.

I not only know who I want in a general, now I'm sure who I DON'T want as well.

With Obama showing an uptick in the latest Gallup Polls, I wonder if the Wright fiasco might not actually work in his favor in the longterm. I think a lot of undecided Democrats were skeptical of Obama, wondering if he had a strong enough jaw to to get into the ring with the Republicans. They were waiting to see how he handled the first proverbial s-storm. I know many other "non-Obamaites" who think he handled the Wright situation with flying colors, perhaps giving the best performance by a Democrat Candidate under fire since Bill in 1992.

Thanks for your post, Destor. I admire your good faith and honesty.

I have personally got into it with you a few times Destor so I know exactly how hard that must have been to post.

I do think it is all a shame, I think Clinton could have been a far more inspirational and tough candidate if she had followed the polls and advisors less and just came out and fought to be who she is.

I know this post lessens my bitterness level a lot, not because of the possible support for the candidate I support but because part of my frustration and bitterness has come from constantly being told I need to look closer at my candidate while seeing people follow Clinton without ever questioning her whenever she made a misstep.

Whoever gets this nomination I look forward to supporting them with you.

Hi I'm new to this site. An interesting post destor.

One thing though. I mean no disrespect, but I do find it hilariously ironic that your avatar is in fact a pro wrestler and took you a long time to figure out that Hillary was not a "real" fighter.

It really irks me when people keep stating these kinds of things: you should play by your rules and let me play by mine.

As in personal attacks. It's okay for Hillary to do it, but not Obama, because he said he's against them, so they should stay and take the mudslinging and be quiet.

It plays with superdelegates: Obama superdelegates shouldn't go for him unless their constituency voted for him, but Hillary supers can do anything they want.

It's hypocrisy at its best.

Destor23,

I valued your comment about disappointment in Hilary so highly that I registered to say so. Although the reasons and the extent of disappointment may differ, I've been through a similar process. It doesn't leave a happy feeling.

Less than 3 months ago I was thrilled that we had a choice between two great candidates. What I valued most in Hilary were her experience, policy knowledge and ability to survive persistent unfair attacks by the rightwing attack machine. My teenagers preferred Obama; I defended Hilary and advised waiting to decide, though I saw the enormous potential in Obama's ambition to build a new, broader coalition of voters--probably the first for Democrats since Roosevelt--and elect working majorities for progressive causes. I also found Hilary a sympathetic personality, devoted to children's causes and addressing the healthcare crisis, and admirably preserving her dignity in circumstances that would devastate most people.

My recognition of problems with Hilary was gradual, I think like yours. Her campaign forced me to realize that what she learned from the bitterness of the 1990s, the Bush years and the rightwing attack machine was not the urgency of replacing it with something better but determination to perfect the politics of division herself. She's hired a bunch of prime practitioners, worked hard and, with great skill, succeeded in dividing the Democratic electorate. She has fractured the decades-old electoral coalition of African Americans and organized labor. Whether it's race, ethnicity, religion, gender or income-level, her campaign has worked systematically to expose and deepen divisions-- within the Democratic Party! A Democrat in the White House is no longer a sure thing. Her whole approach is based on division. She wants to divide the party to eke out a primary win by 1 superdelegate vote. If she does, I would expect her to divide the country to eke out a 1 vote win in November, a 1 seat majority in one house, and then to try to prevail in four years of endless partisan struggles through hardball tactics. I don't think that approach to politics can fix the array of problems we face after Bush and Cheney.

That's because the truly heartbreaking revelations about Hilary concern her contempt for democracy. As I see it, Bush and Cheney put the survival of democracy in American in real jeopardy. For me, the biggest issue in this election is not Iraq or healthcare or the economy, huge as those are--it's whether we can restore a democracy as good as the flawed one that existed when Bush took office. I don't need to list all the ways Bush and Cheney have worked to undermine democracy in the US while claiming they want to spread it elsewhere. Unfortunately, when Hilary has lost caucuses, she has denounced them. When she has lost primaries, she has said other candidates' elected delegates should vote for her anyway. When it appears she will lose the popular vote, most states, most caucus delegates and most elected delegates, and yet still she is comfortable with the notion of achieving some sort of "victory" by other means, what is it but contempt for democratic processes? When she had a "victory" celebration after an uncontested election in Florida and claimed "victory" in Michigan when hers was the only name on the ballot, it was the sort of electoral victory that used to be won only in the East Bloc. (Not that I like excluding Florida and Michigan if real elections can be held.)

From the campaign Hilary has conducted, I can only conclude that, for Hilary, no electoral process is legitimate unless Hilary wins. She's not a Democrat. She's not even a democrat. She's a Hilaryite. The right political system is whatever it takes to put her in power and keep her there. And that's why I no longer can bear the thought of her in the White House. What I've been forced to recognize is that Hilary is not the right person to undo the Constitutional mischief of the last 8 years.

My disappointment in this state of affairs is profound. Instead of choosing between two great candidates, we now have to worry about Hilary winning, making the Democratic Party in her image, with Carvilles and Wolfsons and McCauliffes spinning the populace into a stupor, and indulging all manner of undemocratic impulses if necessary to stay in power. Like what? Well, arm-twisting by big-money backers; maybe intimidating potential opponents in a 2012 primary; maybe creating a new class of Hilarydelegates whose votes automatically add up to whatever she needs; or maybe trying to out-Rove Rove. The last possibility seems a near certainty. Then, instead of a flawed two-party democracy we'll have two Rovian organizations, both seeking permanent majorities based on dirty tricks that manipulate people's worst instincts and dupe them out of their limited opportunities to influence their government.

I'm a 60+ white guy, a lifelong Dem very concerned about the corruption and decline I've witnessed in my lifetime--the adoption of torture, the repeal of the Bill of Rights, the unmaking of the Constitution, extreme economic inequities, and on and on. I find Obama a very attractive candidate because of his explicit strategy of building broader coalitions around solving problems rather than enforcing ideology or creating a division a day. I truly started out undecided between them. Yes, there is much about Obama that won me over. But there is even more about Hilary--based on her actions and statements in this campaign--that has driven me away. I was defending her often and forcefully and never had the least inclination to undermine her candidacy, quite happy to make the case for another Clinton in the White House if she was nominated. The nature of her campaign removed that option.

It's because I feel so bad about all this that I responded to your message. Sorry to be so long-winded about it.

I'll echo the compliments and also to other Hillary supporters who support her rather than oppose Obama or just want to fight. --- Wanted to add a note about that "the ends justifies the means" stuff. They don't - they just don't. I agree totally with the formerNCSteve about that.

A couple of decades ago I figured out what IS right, utterly reliably: Emerson's maxim that "the ends pre-exist in the means"

In the small focus of presidential politics, *how* someone campaigns tells you a lot, the most important part about *what* they will do as president. Early on I'd easily asssumed that I would be a Clinton supporter (if/when Biden dropped out) ... but I knew by NH that I never could support or even vote for her. Not because she's not bright or strong or has good policies or likeable or any of that ..... but her procedures are simply, and have been consistently, flawed and just plain wrong.

What's so odd is that she hasn't been like this as a Senator, not by anything I've heard or observed. There is some real disconnect there; I have no idea what it is, but we can't afford another 8 years of someone who just goes about it (whatever "it" may be on a given day) the wrong way. If she'd had the same good sense, collegial and let's-get-to-work attitude in this campaign as she's shown in her Senate career, it would be very different. But she hasn't - not at all.

I still privately think that *losing* this nomination might turn out to be the very best thing that could happen to her. She can finally be just herself in a place where she's earned respect all on her own. I don't know why she's been so tone-deaf here and apparently so on-track in the Senate, but that seems to be the case. ????

Making up your mind without all the information. The sign of an enlightened person.

"In the small focus of presidential politics, *how* someone campaigns tells you a lot, the most important part about *what* they will do as president."

Thanks for putting this so well and so succinctly. That sums up my fears about putting Hilary in the White House.

It also drives home the point that if not for the campaign and the way she chose to conduct it, we would have been in for quite a shock after her inauguration.

I mean this as no respect: Hillary is almost genetically perfect as a senator.

She's a very formidable debater.

(It was through the debates that I dropped my early support for Edwards and my early appreciation for Richardson; and it was through that process that I felt confirmed that the guy I loved in "Dreams from My Father" could really hold his own with a true political heavyweight. And it was also through the debates that I felt secure that the Democrats were being given an amazingly deep set of choices.)

And she has a phenomenal grasp of policy and governance. She is tough. And she supports her constituency. She has the biggest Rolodex of anyone so early in elected office.

My big worry (aside from her inflicting mortal wounds through a thousand cuts on Obama) is that she is making a grand ass of herself. She is going from somebody whom I didn't love but respected, to someone I can't stand and has lost all respect of everyone but her base. (Remember how much all of us loved Nader before he insanely declared Gore and Bush to be Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum? Hillary is verging on making Nader seem reasonable.)

Us Obama supporters are not setting out to DESTROY Hillary. Those who think we are must be projecting or something, because it totally belies how it is that we came to support him.

Typo: "I mean this as no DISRESPECT"

I guess I haven't been reading TPM so carefully recently because I hadn't realized you (Destor) were a big Hillary supporter. I understand your reluctance and hesitation about Obama, since I felt many of the same things. I know we want changes made today if not yesterday, but it seems to me the presidential election just distorts political campaign because they are so "big", with huge production costs, like a giant epic hollywood production...it is hard to get a real discussion of politics and political direction and change. So I am trying not to get too wrapped up in the actual presidential contest itself and trying instead how to figure out how we create a progressive movement outside of the iron railings of acceptable political discourse which careens between the DLC and the far far edges of the right wing. My biggest problem with Clinton isn't whether she will win or lose; her nomination will be a big loss for progressives and with our hopes of changing the political direction of this country. She will salute no-brain McCain, dish on the left, bring back Greenspan, Rubin, Colin Powell, O'Hanlon. She is death to any left movement for change in this country.

Wow, Destor,
I am shocked.
Not what I expected from one of your posts at all.

test

On my first visit to TPM, several years ago, workerbee was manning the barricades against an onslaught of Drudge Trolls, tirelessly and with good humor. She inspired me to register and follow TPM discussions. Whatever candidate she supports - and I hope it's ultimately Obama - will benefit from her energy.

I'm coming to this discussion late, but I'd like to add my thanks to destor for his thoughtful post, and for inspiring virtually all of us to a calmer and more healing discourse. (Also thanks to Genghis for, as usual, cracking me up.)

Me too, thank you Destor23, you're a classy Hillary supporter.

I was still suckered in by the "Proud to be here with Obama" moment and would have still voted for her, even though I had serious doubts about her competence after her campaign's fiascos. The great Josh Green piece - subsequently printed in the Atlantic - analyzed her management approach (surrounded and buffered by loyalists and cronies), detailed the gross mismanagement and lack of rudimentary structure of her campaign, and it wasn't a hitjob. If Hillary had heeded it, she might have salvaged her front-runner status in Feb. Instead the Clintons just ruthlessly razed any critical reporting and punched right back.

That was my moment of epiphany, I put aside my disenchantment with her pro-Republican votes in the Senate, started really looking into her records, and I'm finally convinced that there is very little substance to her "intelligent policy wonk", "detail-oriented competent CEO" reputation. The shock for me is that Hillary isn't that smart after all.

Couple of things:

chub -- " I know that Obama made his speech only because he was forced to--neither he nor Clinton want to point too strongly to their uniqueness for fear of alienating white males." Agree with the last part of your comment but not entirely with the first. Having read "Dreams From My Father" (which I gave to my son to read for it's own worth before I knew Obama politically was anything more that so-funny-a-name-he-could-never-succeed), I think he very much, very deeply WANTED to give that speech and knew that he would do so when the moment arrived. As he said, it would have been better if the whole issue was raised in a "calmer" fashion, but that speech has been in him all along, a gift, if you will, that we were going to receive at some point.

Interestingly - MLK's advisors didn't want him to give the "I have a dream" speech either, per Andy Young and a number of others. Problem there was that they had heard it before, but King apparently knew that was the moment for the world to hear it.

Another, totally different comment I've wanted to make and this wonderful discussion destor got started may be the place. Chub says "I couldn't care less about her Bosnia exaggerations--that just trivial." I don't agree - it strikes a really deep chord with me. (Apparently with Peggy Noonan also:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120663639483768965.html?mod=todays_columnists)(Oh, and Margaret Carlson http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_carlson&sid=a204mQ9_FgVY)

But my reaction was something different. When Hillary gave her account of events on St. Patrick's day (you can tell which one by the scarf) I thought it was one of her most human, charming, *real* moments. More genuine than the tears in NH (which I also thought were genuine in part). It was just the little touches and gestures, the smile - for a moment all I could think was how THAT'S the person who can make me feel really pro-Hillary again. ....... And then to learn that at the time she was looking so very real, she was actually lying, I've got to tell you it shook me. Still does. Maybe it's having dealt with a 'recreational liar' in my own life, but something about it just spooks me. I've been wondering if anyone else had that reaction?

Destor -

All I can say is WOW!

Having read many of your posts and comments and even occasionally parried w/ you re Clinton - as stalwart a supporter as you've been - I would certainly see you as a bellwether for gaging certain aspects of her campaign - even when I vehemently disagreed. So I would have to say she's probably got some deep s**t coming if she's started to lose you or has lost you.

Thanks for being so open - as we've all been particularly emotionally invested in our respective candidates' campaigns - this must have been a painful conclusion to reach much less share.

Respect.

Thank you for taking the time to write about your perspective here Destor23. That took courage and a stark honesty that speaks loads of your character. Some of the comments out there are somewhat off-putting, so when I get a chance to see someone like yourself talk honestly, it's a relief.

Off topic: what does it take for a user post to get on the recommended list and stay there?! You wrote this 24 hours ago, and it had 190 recs and almost 200 comments, and it's nowhere to be found on the lists.