Today's Goal: Get One Hillary Supporter to Denounce the Kitchen Sink
"We have seen election after election in which candidates have won by fanning the anxieties of voters. Elect me, or something terrible will happen to you!
That is now the Clinton mantra, which is a measure of how grim our politics have become."
Okay, not exactly an unbiased source. But I don't think it's a novel concept that there is something wrong with what Hillary Clinton is doing.
Obama supporters are not guilt-free, but most of us will admit that the personal attacks from some posters are wrong. As much as Clinton's actions have bothered me, I think it is hypocritical and unproductive to attack other Democrats.
What strikes me about different posts I've read is that Clinton supporters rarely if ever admit that what she is doing is wrong. If you truly believe it is okay--just normal politics--than I submit that there is a serious rift in our party.
But if you have a problem with it--as a Democrat--say so. Here, I'll even give you a template:
"It bothers me that she has chosen this type of destructive politics. I don't condone it. But [insert poster's name] is naive, cultish, [insert further recycled descriptors]. Obamabots are all selfish, need to grow up......[continue with whatever you want]"
I will repeat: there are a number of Obama supporters who are just as guilty when it comes to blind insults. I think it is obvious, reading various posts, that most of us don't do this (we may not post as often, but we're here).
However, despite the many sane Hillary supporters I've seen, none address her current strategy other than to say it's "normal politics".
So, if just one of you--ONE--will denounce, reject, hesitantly suggest--whatever-- that the kitchen sink approach is wrong, hurts the party, or is counterproductive, it will restore my faith in the party.
Please. For my own peace of mind.
You could make a list of things Clinton has done to win this election you think are wrong and I could make a list of things Obama has done that I think are wrong.
If we have similar liberal values and goals and you looked at the list of Obama I think you would probably deny some on that list as trivial and agree that some are wrong but say you forgive him.
I would look at Clinton's list and deny some as trivial and agree that some were wrong but forgive her. But I would also look at the Obama list and say some of these are too trivial to matter and the others I forgive him for.
You want an example? I think Clinton went to far in linking herself with McCain on crossing the threshold on national security. I also think Obama went too far with his gay bash tour.
But, well, politicians do what they think they need to to win. They play to the unthinking mob sometimes because they need the mob's votes to win. They pander to the worst impulses of the mob at times. They are both intelligent and articulate though neither has much of a resume. I'll vote for whoever wins the nomination. I forgive both their mistakes.
March 8, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I agree with most of what you say, but this is also indicative of my point. Obviously no candidate is ever going to run a perfectly clean campaign.
But do you really think each candidate is equally guilty of going "too far"?
If so that is fine, but I will again suggest that that means there is a serious rift in the party.
Any reference to Hillary's behavior is qualified away by her supporters. Either "politicians do what they need to do", or "it's a matter of your perspective", or "when someone's behind that's what they do."
This is a serious question: Do people really think Obama would be doing the 3 a.m. ad or holding press conferences to yell "Shame on you!"? Not to mention other things.
I don't think so. I feel that is fairly obvious but I'm curious to know if that opinion is exclusive to Obama supporters.
March 8, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
This post may just be a bit to cynical for you. Over 50% of the voters for both candidates are part of the unthinking mob. That's why we have these two to chose from. No person could tell the American public the truth and get elected. You want to talk about what they do to appeal to that mob. You want to discuss the relative value or harm of their bullshit.
Hillary lacks charisma so she feeds the mob bitter gruel. Apparently this grates on you. Obama is so very smooth the way his voice soars as he reads from the teleprompter on his left and then his eyes shift to the teleprompter on his right. He feeds the mob pablum and it slides down the throat warm and sweet. It seems as though this inspires you.
Apparently you think pablum is good and gruel is bad. I think both are equally harmful. But this is a democracy and the public can make their decision based on the commercials they see during a football game and still vote. So I don't fault the politicians for their pablum or their gruel. I'm a political junkie since before Carter and I pay attention to the bullshit. But I don't get inspired by it and I don't get upset by it. I make my decision on who to vote for based on other information.
March 8, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see where I've said any of the things you attribute to me. I also don't see where you've answered any of my questions. You ignore specifics in order to make some grandiose attack on what you percieve to be my worldview.
How hypocritical that you would decry "pablum" while attempting a metaphoric argument that lacks any substance beyond "you're naive."
I fail to see how any of your post relates to the strategic value of Clinton's current campaigning.
Nobody could go through the last 16 years of American politics and not be cynical.
But there's a difference between being cynical and immediately insulting somebody when you disagree with them.
If you would like to make a cogent argument suggesting that personal attacks by politicians within their own party is understandable and, in the grand scheme of things, harmless, go ahead. That's one thing.
All you've done so far is prove my point.
March 8, 2008 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guess you didn't read the "gruel" part.
March 9, 2008 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry if you feel I've insulted you. That wasn't my intention. When I insult someone its clear and direct. I don't see where I called you naive. I think there is a case that can be made for Obama on the substance even though I think Clinton has a better case. Maybe in some other thread we can dialog about that.
But this thread wasn't about the substance. This thread is about the tactics used to sway the votes of those who don't read, didn't even watch the debates, and get all their news in two half hour blocks at 6 and 11. This is about the sound bites created for that.
I didn't attack your world view, I gave you mine. If fact I prefaced it with an acknowledgment that my world view was probably too cynical for you.
I didn't decry Obama's or anyone's tactics. But if you feel what I said did decry then I decried both sides equally.
As for specifics, I could make my list of specific tactics Obama has used that I think are wrong and we could compare that with your list of Clinton tactics you object to. We could see what kind of agreement we could get on which crossed a line and which were within reasonable bounds. But I don't think that's a substantial or worthwhile discussion in the case of either Obama or Clinton. My post to you was my attempt to explain why. I'm sorry I was unable to achieve the necessary clarity to avoid a misunderstanding.
March 9, 2008 5:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough. I should have been more clear in my original post that my concern is focused more on party strategy than anything. I fully expect to see much worse this fall and the negativity doesn't surprise me. I do think, however, that there should be a different standard within the party when each candidate is attempting to accomplish similar goals. My surprise is that there aren't any Clinton supporters who think--strategically--this is a bad move. I'm not really surprised by the actions of the candidate herself. My politics are far far left of the party so I have no hope of being completely satisfied four years from now, unfortunately. I didn't mean to sound so touchy; in the context of the other responses I was probably reading with an expectation that there would be no attempt at discussion. My fault.
March 9, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me that the intellectual elites of the democratic party want the candidates to campaign just for them, in the way that appeals to them. On a certain level I would like that too. But on a more pragmatic level that feels like unilateral disarmament.
This discussion would not be had among republicans. Did you watch the republicans debate? Did you pay attention to the republican primary? They mocked and insulted each other, Romney especially was the butt of most of it, distorted each others record in ways that make the democratic primary look like a love fest. The republicans had no issue with any of it.
Over the years I have watched the democrats fight nicer and fairer every year. Its like they think the obvious intellectual superiority, vastly greater knowledge of policy, and clearly greater competence of our candidate is enough to win elections. After the election of Reagan, who was of average intelligence and superficial knowledge, and Bush, who is a moron, one would think democrats would have learned something.
There's a theory I agree with that our long primary season is useful because the stress, lack of sleep, and the rough and tumble of it tests the candidates and gives the public some idea of how they will cope with the much more difficult GE as well as some idea of how they will handle the stress and rough and tumble of international crises. Some want to remove that rough and tumble if it hurts their candidate. I think that is to the detriment of the democratic party.
I will support Obama if he wins whole heartedly but his response to Hillary's little taps leaves me very nervous about his ability to win in November. At any rate I'll finish with this interview with Dean on hardball which I totally agree with.
Matthews: Okay, you’re on offense, but you don’t believe that the Republicans are picking up useful material in these weeks of combat between Clinton and Obama?
Dean: I can’t imagine that what we’re seeing now between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is anything but a tea party compared to what the general election’s going to be like in the fall.
Matthews: Is there any rules that are being broken? The Republicans have this Eleventh Commandment that Reagan sort of codified. Is there anything that’s improper in the way you’ve watched this campaign? Is either side, Clinton or Obama getting a little too dirty for you?
Dean: Chris, four years ago, my opponents got together and had a political action committee, all four of which, uh, contributors contributed to the thing, which morphed me into Osama bin Laden, so this is patty cake. This is a tough campaign between two well- well-spoken, smart people, either of whom are capable of being president of the United States. But this is not, by and large, out of bounds.
IMO nothing Hillary has done approaches the level of that ad which I think was way over the line. How nice do you want the democratic primary to be and what purpose do you think that will serve?
March 9, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oceankat:
The two styles couldn't be more different:
Obama tries to appeals to our noblest of aspirations.
Hillary tries to appeal to our basest instincts.
The ugliness that Hillary continues to promote to win, will, in fact, in Malcolm X's words, come home to roost.
In terms of style, Hillary is nearly identical to GWB.
Remember, there are people in this country that admired and respected him as well.
March 8, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"nearly identical to GWB"
I agree wholeheartedly. Here is just a short list of how they are alike. Lets compare Hillary's preparation for this campaing and GWB's prep for the Iraq war:
1. Both were arrogant enough to think that they will just walk over the competition.
2. Both had the unfounded confidence that once they beat the so called opposition they will be greeted with flowers, no matter what it takes to win.
3. Both did not do any grass root work to find out what the ground reality is.
4. Both are adamant that their strategy was sound.
5. Both never anticipated a long drawn out battle.
6. Both surround themselves with 'yes-men' and appoint incompetent loyalists to important positions.
7. Both are reluctant to change their strategy because that would be tantamount to accepting that there was/is something wrong with it in the first place.
The list can go on and on.
March 8, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right on the money!!!
March 8, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, absolutely not. You say GWB but what you really mean is Rove. What Rove would do, and what I think might be done if Obama wins, is funnel some money to that asinine limo driver. If you don't know what I'm talking about, good, because you'll never get me to link it. Spruce him up, get a couple of collaborating sources and make an hour long movie to be sent out to all the churches in America. Though you'd never see his finger prints on it. And that's just one of many things I think might happen. By the time we have a new president the average American's vocabulary will be increased by one word, madrasa, with all that comes with it.
That's what was done to the Clintons. That's what I think many Obama supporters don't get. It just doesn't seem like you understand what the republican hate machine is capable of. If you think Hillary is identical to Rove you just weren't paying attention during Bill's presidency or are to young to know.
March 8, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this says it all.
The goal will not be reached.
March 9, 2008 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Asinine limo driver? WTF?
If you are defending Hillary by saying she is NOT acting like GWB, but IS acting like Karl Rove, well, that says it all!
March 9, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, Oceankat. I really did mean that HRC's style is nearly like GWB's.
Please do not presume to speak for me in the future.
March 9, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you meant GWB and not Rove then I have no idea what you're talking about. Its impossible for me to separate the puppet from the puppet master.
March 9, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why, clearthinker? You presume to think for other people all the time. It's one of your consistent if less endearing traits.
March 9, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's counting on the Supreme Court and related appointment issues, to say nothing of fear of the war-mongering insanity of the man she insistently pumps up as a qualified CiC, to bring people she's pissing off back to the party she's doing her best to tear apart.
It's a stupid, cynical strategy. She's contemptible.
March 8, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
So true. You'd think she'd want a working majority to actually get things done if she wins the presidency, but it is now obvious that none of that matters: she just wants to get there. After being there already. For 8 years. Nothing, and no one matters. There is no parallel in American history for this breathtaking arrogance.
It won't even occur to her to try to win back the 50% of the party she has alienated. People who supported and defended the Clintons for years.
The slimy ease with which her campaign conducted itself this week -- I thought I'd seen everything. From a democrat against another democrat.
She's not fit.
March 8, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary:
C allous
U nethical
N arcissistic
T wo faced
March 8, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Flag tool TPM? Andrew?
March 9, 2008 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
YUCK
Young
Unsupervised
Crude
Kommenter
That, or Roger Stone needs to take away his brat's computer privileges.
March 9, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
tpmblogger1,
Not funny, not inteligent.
To whomever is in charge,
Can this kind of filth be erased from here? Please!
March 9, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Send an email to tpm comments. Look on the main page.
March 9, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. I just did.
March 9, 2008 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is what I don't understand. Why hasn't there been an huge recoil from Hillary Clinton? Why haven't her supporters - and in particular, the super-delegates - rejected and denounced her negative campaigning and her praise of the Republican candidate? Why aren't they all turning to Barack Obama instead?
I just don't get it. They're Democrats, too, right? How can they stomach this stuff? I really don't understand it. As disgusted as I am with Hillary Clinton, I'm almost equally disgusted with her backers. What would it take for her to lose them? (God, that's what I've been saying about George W. Bush for years! What would he have to do to lose the 'true believers'?)
March 8, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think to a large degree many within the party are preparing to do just what you suggest. The problem for the Democrats is they are having to act carefully right now. Hillary Clinton realizes that she holds real power within the Democratic party. At this movement, she probably holds more power individually than any other Democrat, her husband included. And the most bluntly effective way to demonstrate power over something or someone is to show that you can hurt or even destroy that thing.
Hillary's latest statement about John McCain are more than just her attacking Obama. They're a warning to superdelegates within the party to freeze, or she'll burn down all the bridges she can reach. She's basically, and in no uncertain terms, prepping the voters that she controls (older white females, lower income working families, and to some degree Latinos) to vote for McCain over Obama in the general. The fact that she'd consider doing that at all, much less take public steps to highlight her earnestness is reprehensible, but even more so it represents a clear and present danger to the Democratic party's hopes in the fall.
I think a lot of party members woke up this past week to the knowledge that there is a viper in the room with them. Sam Power's comments didn't just appear out of a vacuum.
The problem the party faces is figuring out how to rid themselves of a pariah who holds real power with certain voters. Or conversely, what is the long and short term cost to the party if they acquiesce and just give into her demands. And probably most pressing, just how long do they have to decide before irrevocable harm is done. Move too fast, and they watch the party tear apart no matter what they decide. Too slow, and they lose whatever initiative they may still have and they eventually lose any ability to control the situation.
I'd like to see them take a stronger roll in this slow developing trainwreck, but Clinton has managed to ratchet the rhetoric high enough that a good percentage of her supporters will listen to her if she says that the party "chose" Obama over her, and these are people we can't afford to lose in November.
Obama needs to pull out the stops in Pennsylvania as that's his last best shot to pierce this perceptional race she's trying to run, and keep this thing from dragging into June when they'll both be too damaged from the political knife-fighting to beat McCain.
March 9, 2008 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ughh, I need to correct one error I made that's been bugging me.
March 9, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I may not support Hillary, but the comment by tpmblogger1 is completely reprehensible.
March 8, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, we've manage to prove part of my post. Unfortunately it's the opposite of what I was hoping for.
March 8, 2008 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oceancat, the problem is that Hillary has BECOME Rove. It's a battle not to become the horror that you have to fight, and I fear the Clintons have lost that particular battle.
I'm Jewish, so a little sensitive to slamming people on their religion, so this bit from Hillary's skillful interview with Steve Croft put me over the top today:
“You don't believe that Senator Obama's a Muslim?” Kroft asked Sen. Clinton. “Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that,” she replied. “You said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not…a Muslim. You don't believe that he's…,” Kroft said. “No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know,” she said.
As far as I know? As far as I know? WTF? If that isn't skilled Rovian rhetoric I don't know what is.
March 9, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, eliyah, you don't know what Rovian rhetoric is.
March 9, 2008 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oceancat, the problem is that Hillary has BECOME Rove.
eliyah, the only way I could show the difference between Rove and Hillary is to give examples of what Rove and the right wing hate machine did to Bill and others or speculate on what it will likely do to Obama. I already see it out there spreading like a plague. But I won't do that. Not that it really matters, since the republicans will have no trouble spreading the lies, but I don't want to help them. I've already said more than I wanted to in my post you responded to.
March 10, 2008 2:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's a difference between "real" problems and "fake" problems.
The stupid "kitchen sink" is not a real problem.
tpmblogger1, otoh, is a real problem.
March 9, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reality check: Some of the ugliest and most appalling comments I have ever read come from the keypads of the "inspired" Obama supporters. Life is funny that way.
March 9, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
in a community that is filled with un-identified people, who is to say anyone is? Are they real? Just trolls?
tpmblogger1 is an example
March 9, 2008 2:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
You *are* kidding me, right?
I wrote about Obama and HRC you are going to muddy the waters by talking about an anonymous poster who may well be for HRC but wants Obama supporters to look bad????
You are either deliberately not getting my point or you simply want to run another smoke screen around the real issue.
March 9, 2008 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
My kitchen sink works fine so no thank you. I can't ever tell whether Obama supporters are engaging in hyperbole or if they are being sincere. I'll assume that you are being sincere and try to address some of the points on the post.
I do feel that Hillary's approach is a lot more aggressive than Obama's approach, but I am not as judgmental as many of the Obamanauts. Critics will call it cynical, and supporters will call it realistic. I can accept both positions because both positions are true. With that said, I feel that claims against Hillary being too negative, that she is trying to destroy Obama at all costs, is unfair and exaggerated. If Obama attacks Hillary for being a Clinton by lopping the Clintons in as being part of the old guard, she has every right to counter those charges. Her response is that you are not experienced. The phone ad attempts to drive that point home. It doesn't portray Obama as being evil. Fear mongering in itself is not a bad thing. It is bad if you think that the ad is trying to take advantage of an uninformed and gullible public. And I think that most of the public understands the point of Hillary's phone ad. The public can then agree with her argument or disagree with it. But accusing it of being fear mongering, doesn't say much.
Obama's NAFTA ad was disingenuous and misleading. Obama's "new politics" when put to the test fails him. Hillary saying shame on you is a bit much but doesn't the Obama camp say shame on you against just about anything?
The impression is that Hillary has thrown more mud then Obama, true or not true, I strongly disagree with the notion that she has gone over the line of decency. Just because Obama says so, doesn't make it so.
I feel that the Obama camp is in danger of sounding arrogant by belittling and brushing off Hillary's character and tactics instead of just responding to the points.
March 9, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cool, we've now chucked the Rove playbook for the Goebbels version.
Frankly, I find this comment more offensive than the 4 letter word above.
March 9, 2008 2:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
clearthinker,
Nothing like real progress. LOL!
A local mayor of a small town nearby was re-elected despite being under indictment for murder.
A resident said he voted for da mayor because he had done a good job and if he was guilty of murder he would be convicted.
Actually everyone knows that a jury is composed of 12 people who decide which side has the better lawyers.
I really don't know if the mayor was guilty of murder but it seemed something worth discussing aside from all the good he had done and would propose to do.
This "Clinton-hater" thinks a record of corruption and deceit is not immaterial.
No I don't think Hillary murdered Vince Foster. I couldn't care less whether there was an affair anymore than I care about Bill's philandering that seems to exercise the Clintonoids so.
Others would just rather throw spurious charges back and forth.
As you wish. Way of things.
Best, Terry
March 9, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well of course you do, clearthinker! Because a) you're a man. And b) frankly, the basest, vilest sexist (especially sexist) language is not only dismissible but justifiable when compared to Hillary's campaign tactics! Nothing could be worse than Hillary's campaign tactics. Nothing!
March 9, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
readytoblowagasket,
I am sitting here with a bunch of women, all of them find this comment:
-"Fear mongering in itself is not a bad thing"-
more offensive than the 4 letter word above.
1) The person making the "fear mongering" comment is arguing its defense.
2) The message with the 4 letter word is devoid of meaning; and no matter what you say, that word is and has been used against both men and women.
Please stop playing the "gender card" to your advantage.
March 9, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the clear thinking!
March 9, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your very welcome, clearthinker.
I have enjoyed yours many a time :)
March 9, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS I like your trippy avatar.... very colorful!
March 9, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it trippy?
I chose it because I see a guitar in it. Oh, well...
March 9, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Lookingin:
Oh, really? It's devoid of meaning because you or your friends say so? Well, other commenters besides me apparently think it has meaning. Maybe you wanna to rethink this one.
No matter what I say? What are you, five years old?
In this case the c-word is used in reference to a woman, so your argument is irrelevant.
I'm not "playing" anything, and I have no more advantage here than anyone else. I'm intolerant of sexism. And you should be too.
March 9, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is just too much!
How did an incompetent boob get re-elected? From a non-gullible public? The President ON WHOSE WATCH 911 occurred (and who ignored warnings that it was coming) has successfully jerked the VERY GULLIBLE PUBLIC into believing that he is TOUGH ON TERROR! That only HE can KEEP US SAFE! I guess you think that is admirable, because he got what he wanted --> to stay in office (notice I didn't say re-elected)
That is what Hillary (who cares about the delegate count) Clinton wants too. She just WANTS it, and will do anything, including praising the republican nominee over her Democratic rival. But that's ok with you. Fine. Vote for her. I hope our children and grandchildren survive this mess!
March 9, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eliyah, in the U.S. religion is a personal choice. Obama says he is a Christian.
When asked, Hillary said in no uncertain terms that Obama says he is a Christian. So as far as she knows he is a Christian. Its not like the 2 go to church together and Hillary can testify to America about Obama's faith in Jesus. Religion is a personal and a intimate choice. It was an annoying question and Hillary answered it appropriately.
March 9, 2008 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
And as far as I know, Hillary hasn't abused Chelsea Clinton at home this year.
As far as I know.
March 9, 2008 2:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
As far as I know, Hillary is not a monster; I take her at her word on that.
As far as I know.
March 9, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno about *that* one.... ;-)
March 9, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
airwon,
I disagree with you. This would be an appropriate response:
"Obama has already clarified that he is a Christian, but whether Obama is a muslim or not is irrelevant. I reject and renounce this smear tactic."
(PS: as far as I know, she knows that he is a practicing Christian in a specific church in Chicago, with a specific pastor. She knows this because it is public knowledge.)
March 9, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearthinker, your logic fails you. It is not a crime to be a Muslim.
I know that we all support our candidates passionately, which is all great. But your judgment is being clouded by your passions.
March 9, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
airwon,
Let's change the example, so it doesn't refer to anything illegal:
"As far as I know Hillary is not a lesbian."
I can assure you that if Obama (the candidate I support) had made such a statement, I would be furious with him. I wouldn't be able to defend it.
March 9, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
airwon -
Re: your last post. Actually, Hillary has attended a number of prayer breakfasts with Obama. And be honest -- if someone asked her if George Bush, or Joe Biden, was a Christian, would she have answered in the same fashion? Be honest.
Re: your earlier post. I do, so completely, understand your post and your feeling that the candidates' respective 'kitchen sinks' are about equally dirty. I don't agree with you, by a long shot, but can certainly understand your feeling/thinking that way because at one time I did so myself and it was painful to let go of that belief.
(For the record, I agree that attacks on Obama's experience are certainly valid; the phone ad is in my opinion unduly emotional/fear-inducing - compare the emptional impact of Obama's, which is reassurance - but considering a candidate's likely reaction to a 3 a.m. is certainly valid and worth bringing up. Those are not the examples I would claim go over the line of decency. Unfortunately, there are others, too many, that do. Reagan comments? gender card - repeatedly? use of NAFTA-gate despite the fact that it stunk from the beginning and is now de-bunked? and so on....)
Here's an exercise:
-- Take the two Obama mailers against Clinton, on NAFTA and health care
-- Take two Clinton mailers against Obama from the NH campaign and elsewhere, on Social Security http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/on_eve_of_primary_hillary_drops_negative_mailer_hitting_obama_on_taxes.php
and on pro-choice:
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/hillary_mailer_hits_obama_on_abortion.php
-- Compare the accuracy, honesty of their respective mailers. (Yes, his on NAFTA did inaccurately put quote marks around the word "boon" - the mailer was created before Newsday issued it's clarification - but Clinton HAS said good things about NAFTA's effect and that is what 'boon' means: good thing.) If you don't see the problems with her mailers, I'll be happy to provide explanation.
-- Compare the fact that Obama's mailers were sent out as the campaign entered a state, well before the primary, and Clintons were sent out, respectively, 1 day and 3 days before the primary
-- Compare their reactions after the other candidate sent out the mailers**
**Clinton's reactions are well-known and can be found on YouTube. To my knowledge, Obama's consisted of 1) getting out a robocall in NH for the one sent 3 days before (but Clinton stopped that with complaints that the calls violated NH election law - they didn't - and that the caller took 33 seconds, rather than 30, to identify herself) and 2) sending out a follow-up mailer on pro-choice after she sent hers out in Nevada, hopefully hitting the same households --- oh, and 3) stating in a debate that he knew politics was rough and hadn't whined when things he didn't like were sent out against him.
I do agree with one thing you say: "Critics will call it [Clinton's style of negativity] cynical, and supporters will call it realistic."
By 'realistic' I assume you mean 'winning,' and you may be right. Techniques like hers have certainly won elections in the past, most notably in 2004. But I'm a great believer in the old maxim that "the end pre-exists in the means" George Bush has governed in the same manner as he campaigned. and I believe that Hillary Clinton would do likewise. So I guess it depends on what your definition of "win" is...
Personally, I don't think the country can bear another "winner" like GWB, and I don't want the Democratic Party to suffer from such a "win" as the Republicans have done.
March 9, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is one Hillary supporter and Women's rights activist who was absolutely disgusted that Hillary chose to use women's rights as a wedge making false accusations about Obama's record. Not only did she do it in mailings but in person as well. Women all over the country should be outraged that she has hijacked a real issue and turned it into a campaign trick:
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs
March 9, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mageduley, thanks for conceding that point; it's too rare for any of us to acknowledge a flaw in their candidate. It's too bad there are "sides" here or I'd ask you more about why you support Hillary. It seems to be impossible to have that conversation these days.
March 9, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll be really clear with you... Hillary hasn't done anything immoral in her campaign. What's really annoying is that she's be subjected to this kind of unprecedented scrutiny by a bunch of Obama supporters who really seem to believe, deep down, that nobody should ever actively campaign against their Messiah.
March 9, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
destor23,
I would prefer right and wrong, maybe even dirty and clean rather than moral and immoral. Morality tends to be situational, bound by religious codes that may not be universally acceptable.
Seems from some surveys that Muslims worldwide have now decided suicide bombing may not be a moral act when it was previously. There is a substantial part of our own population that finds torture not only moral but mandatory.
Given that, I find it hard to understand how anyone can claim that deceit and racism is in any way moral.
G. Gordon Liddy could reasonably be described as highly moral bound by rules that might not appeal to everyone. Liddy testified that there was nothing at all that was prohibited in his duty to the president.
Is that the kind of morality you were thinking of or is there some other kind?
Best, Terry
March 9, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
destor23,
Maybe she hasn't done anything illegal, but morals are subjective.
I find that her last minute NH mailers about Obama's position on abortion, smearing his "present" vote (which had been encouraged by Planned Parenthood) are immoral lies. More so when she prevented him on setting the record straight with robocalls.
I find it very immoral that while she is trying to smear Obama's authenticity, transparency and integrity she won't release her own Tax Returns.
As I said, morals are subjective and of course you don't have to find these immoral at all. That is why you will vote for her and I won't.
March 9, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
moral: the judgment of goodness or badness
ethical: a principle of right or good conduct
I don't think Clinton is a bad person. I think some of her conduct reveals questionable ethics. Everyone has their own understanding of what's ethical, and everyone tends to conflate the two: if you think talking on a cell phone while driving is unethical, do you think the driver is a bad person? Sure, I'm kind of a relativist, but I think not, unless you're infected with road rage because he almost ran you off the road...
March 9, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
eliyah,
No need to twist the twist. Is she a good person..? Is she a bad person..?
In simple plain English:
She ain't good enough for President.
March 9, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Herbert is an NYT Obama tool. Hillary should throw the kitchen sink at Obama and all dirt that comes up with Antonio Rezko's trial. This is an election for PONTUS not the Pope.
March 9, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is the second time I have seen you use the acronym, PONTUS. Is there something you know that I don't?
P resident
O f
T he
U nited
S tates
What does the "N" stand for? Narcissist just doesn't fit right there.
March 9, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You might want to take a look at this WaPo article from Friday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702899.html?sub=AR
Looks like you'll have to finally drop the Rezko thing. Well maybe not. The whole Clinton strategy is to try to muddy up Obama. Truth holds very little sway, as does ethics in Hillary supporters.
March 9, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will ignore the usual "Messiah" comment and ask you a straight question:
If the roles were reversed would you--as a Democrat--have no problem with the kitchen sink approach?
This is a completely honest question. Politics unfortunately has little to do with morals. But, from a practical, strategic perspective, it seems wrong to attack someone within the party with such ferocity.
March 9, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really wouldn't have a problem with it. I don't think rival campaigns should ever treat each other with kid gloves. Survival of the fittest.
March 9, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, you shouldn't ignore the Messiah comment because it has meaning -- Hillary is being criticized for treating Obama the way she'd treat any other rival. I'm merely poking fun at the idea that Obama is anything special. He's just an ordinary pol.
March 9, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's dignity in the face of public scrutiny is a big piece of why I support him. If he were smearing Clinton in the same way she's doing to him--that is, if they were both slinging the same stinky mud--I'd have to rethink the whole thing and maybe write in Al Gore's name.
March 9, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Elizabeth2-
To be honest, I don't know how Hillary would have answered the question if it was about Bush or Biden. But I do think that if she answered the question in the same way in regards to Bush or Biden, we would not be as judgmental about her answer. When it comes to the interview, my point is that our own suspicions, insecurities, biases...etc, is making a bid deal out of an annoying and a somewhat irrelevant question.
Regarding Reagan, gender, nafta. I think the Reagan attack was fair game. If Obama panders to republicans in Nevada (open caucus) by invoking Reagan, she can call him on that. It is true that Obama is not talking about policy, but Reagan policy is how Hillary framed the attack. Reagan represents more than being a good politician.
With gender. Yes she is unapologetically playing the gender card. I can't blame her. Obama is being careful not to blatantly target the African Americans while on the stump not because he is a nice guy. But because he knows that that tactic will alienate too many. And he doesn't have to target them on the stump only on the ground - very successfully. Hillary just puts it out there because that is the reality of how people are voting. Who is being more honest?
NAFTA. Hillary had a strong response to Obama's attack but it is not Hillary smearing Obama. It is Obama who shot himself with bad PR. I don't understand what your critique is?
Cynic/Realist. I'm glad we can agree on something. I am referring to how people perceive
the Clinton administration ("the Clinton Referendum", matt bai NYT) Yes, I tend to side with the realist camp. I think that both Obama and Hillary are equally trying to win. Obama wants to win clean and his critique demonizes the old way. But the old way isn't just the old way. Bill Clinton changed the way Democrats think about themselves. We don't always have to be the nice guy in the room, holding ourselves up as being better than everyone else in the room. We are allowed to join the fray, get a little dirty, and to fight back.
March 9, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>> It is true that Obama is not talking about policy, but Reagan policy is how Hillary framed the attack.
In other words, she took something reasonable that he said (about Reagan's changing the trajectory of the country) about a man that she herself had praised even more globally (on her own web site, in fact)- knowingly mischaracterized what he said (stating that he was talking about policy -- and then attacked.
You're right. If that is acceptable or even admirable to you, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. I see that as disrepectful of and dishonest to the voters. Yes, Obama can and should defend himself, but if the voters cannot depend on the truth of what she tells them .... how is she any improvement over GWB?
Citing Bill Clinton's 'change' doesn't really work, actually. The Democratic party has been in disarray and virtually poweless since the 2nd year he was in office. It isn't a victory if you become the opposition.
NAFTA -- Clinton began a full-bore attack, TV ads and all, immediately after the initial CTV report which 1) had no cooroboration and stunk to high heaven when it was made and 2) has since been totally discredited by everyone, even CTV. And she is still making the same attack (charging that he 'says one thing to voters and another to foreign powers') although the only 'transgression' - the meeting memorialized in the memo - does not contain anything different than what Obama has said publicly (that he is not a protectionist, wants labor and environment provisions changed, and is confident the changes can be brought about by negotaition).
And it's a pattern. A minor but clear example: jumping on Susan Rice's comments on Tucker to trumpet "Obama supporter says he has no experience in answering crisis phone calls!!" ... but neglecting to mention that in the same sentence Rice pointed out neither Clinton nor McCain had that 'experience' either. Of course, it's easy to find out the truth of what was said if you happened to see the show or know how (and have the time to) find the transcript online. But she knows that most voters won't, or can't AND that they won't believe she would so blatantly lie about something that could be proven wrong.
Same thing with her two flyers: they both contained factual lies, lies that made the prospect of Obama frightening, especially to women, lower income families, and seniors. Because I was informed and had checked out things myself, I saw them for what they were and they wouldn't work to change my vote. But .... look at her base: women, lower income, seniors. (Not all of us: I'm 2 out of 3, for example.)
If someone was applying for a job with you -- as she is 'auditioning' to become the voters' leader -- and they lie to you, making factual lies, at every turn, is it really going to work in the long run? Yeah, if you are gullible enough to believe, then they might get the job, but the trust will be broken quickly and you are left with ..... well, with what we have now.
And to address the "realistic" argument, certainly a strong one. There is no way to know until it's over, but I honestly don't think it will work this time. I think that we (the voters) have realized that we can and will be flat-out lied to by our 'leaders' and that we don't want another liar in the White House. The 'dirtiness' of her techniques isn't the unfair advantage it gives over an opponent .... it's the fundamental breach of faith with the people.
I have no problem with hard blows and slanted rhetoric, and may the best fighter win, but knowingly and craftily lying about facts (and laughing at the voters if they are stupid enough not to catch you)is not, in my opinion, acceptable in someone trying to become our country's leader. These campaigns are a preview of a candidates' style of governing, and for myself, I have to reject hers.
So - I guess it has to be agreeing to disagree, but thanks for the conversation.
March 9, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear readytoblowagasket,
a) You have no idea as to my gender making your comment sexist (although I can forgive that). Moreover, let me state I've heard *women* use that word -- so we can't even make assumptions about the gender of the original poster.
b) I never said I approved of the 4 letter word, I merely said I found the defense of fear-mongering *more* offensive. Do you not understand the idea of rankings?
c) Finally, let me say that I appreciate it when someone spends enough time to invent a moniker that is an accurate representation of the type of poster they wish to be.
March 9, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Elizabeth2
First, thanks for having the interest to continue the conversation. I respect what you are saying and the genuine concerns that you have about Hillary. As you say we can agree to disagree.
Let me just say that Hillary is not "knowingly and craftily lying about facts", and she certainly is not "laughing at the voters if they are stupid enough not to catch you". I think both candidates know that the voters are pretty smart. You certainly are an example and hopefully you think that I am as well. I think we have a difference on the level of exaggeration and the parsing of phrases that we can tolerate from the candidates. You obviously feel that Hillary has gone over the line. My tolerance is pretty high because I feel that the voters for the most part can see thru the spin from either candidate.
I have deep respect for Hillary's ability to survive political battles without loosing touch with her responsibility to the people.
Who ever comes out of this as the nominee, I hope that we both can embrace the positive side of either candidate in the general election.
March 9, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
to several contributors here today....
the comments I have happily been reading here today indicate more serious thought and examination in contrast to meanness, character assassination, name calling, etc and so on, that I have sadly been seeing as I wander through the various blogs. I have not been moved to respond to any of the others. I am so happy to have stumbled onto this blog. I will follow this blog from now on, and hope that the few who do post the inflammatory comments get involved in thinking along with those of you who actually nurture our careful thinking process as we prepare to elect another administration.
Many thanks to you for you ability to agreeably disagree, no matter who you are supporting or criticizing.
March 9, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome to TPM. Josh and the others do a great job here.
Hopefully the few (but loud) people uninterested in discussion don't drive you away before we have a nominee. Things are much more civil when Democrats aren't running against one another.
March 9, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
icia
thanks for acting as the welcome wagon ....
You are correct, and sadly much has been said BY Democrats running against one another....that is what this campaign has gotten so heated over.
I have found myself agreeing with those who have no desire to jump on the "realistic, pragmatic, cynical wagon" and hope that the new kid who wants to spark some real change can win out. I think he has every right to defend himself strongly, and I also believe he can do it without getting down in the gutter. People who are watching this carefully want to see him fight back with the good instincts and quick thinking that he has already demonstrated, while preserving his sense of humor and kindness.
He is not the messiah, but I feel he does offer so much more to be admired and subscribed to than any recent politician has since John Kennedy.
You can tell I am an Obamaphile ;-)
But I was waiting and so open to supporting Clinton until she started this ugly stuff, which just keeps getting worse and worse. She is not going to stop now, and tragically she is alienating so many of us who are desperately eager to boot the Republicans....but you are hearing it everywhere.....so many are threatening to punish the party if they reward her cynical political maneuvering with the nomination.
We just desperately want and need something so different for our country than what the last 20 years has done to our political process.
March 9, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor, you assume that we would not have a problem with her smearing another candidate this way with no direct proof. I hate this kind of politics. It is the reason I have not voted since coming of age to do so.
I do not think it is ok that our potential leaders think it is ok to lie as long as it brings them the win.
I would not find it acceptable against Edwards, Or Clinton, or even Mcain. If you find something true, then go ahead take off the kid gloves. However falsehoods and smears are just plain reprehensible.
Forget it's politics for a moment. Ask yourself how you would feel if you got a call from your childs school and they told you she was caught spreading rumors about the kid in class who looked different then everyone else. She helped to make everyone think he was a muslim and thought sept 11 was a good thing. This child had been beaten in the playgroound because of this.
Would you feel proud? Would you say, hey, that's just how school is? Would you pat them on the back and say, here's a presidential cookie?
March 9, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting post, icia. It doesn't sound like you've found many Clinton supporters who denounce and reject her tactics. It's like competing sports team: when a fan's team cheats, the fan does not switch to the other side. The typical reactions are the same ones we see here: she didn't do it, or this is how politics is (it's okay because everyone does it). I'm not sure why Clinton folks don't seem to realize that this an intra-team rivalry among Democrats.
I've defended the Clinton's in the past, but I do not support her current candidacy. I've never thought she could win a national election. To offer a fairly objective view from outside her camp: I'm appalled by her tactics against a Democratic opponent.
March 9, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It appears that it is more typical when you finally get fed up with Hillary's tactics, you leave her support structure altogether. There have been plenty of people posting along that line on TPM.
March 9, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're right, clearthinker. You've solved the puzzle, the elephant in the room of this post. Clinton went so bad so fast that those who weren't blinded by team or brand-name loyalty left her camp. That's why there's no pool of people who stayed but regret her tactics. Those who can recognize her tactics for what they are can't stay.
March 9, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I came to the same conclusion, especially after reading "Calling all former Clinton supporters".
I do think, however, that a number of the more modest Clinton supporters have taken a sabatical from TPM since becoming heavily outnumbered by Obama supporters.
March 9, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear clearthinker,
You're right, clearthinker: I should have stuck with what I knew to be accurate and simply accused you of being sexist, period. Your statement — Frankly, I find this comment more offensive than the 4 letter word above — IS sexist.
You ranked the c-word as less offensive than the defense of "fear-mongering" (you said it twice, for god's sake). The fear-mongering in question is genderless. The c-word is a prejudicial slur used not merely to insult women, but to define women (go ahead, look it up). In this case, a candidate for U.S. president. Just because the candidate happens to be Hillary Clinton does not make the slur less offensive. Just because a troll used it does not make it less offensive, either. The c-word is *more offensive* than fear-mongering.
I wonder if you think fear-mongering is *more offensive* than the n-word, but please don't answer! I'd like to think you don't want to be sexist or racist.
You are right that your gender, my gender, and tpmblogger1's gender doesn't matter for language to qualify as sexist.
Yes, I understand the idea of rankings (see evidence above). The question is, can you understand the line you crossed to preserve your stupid ego?
March 9, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink