MyDD :: Current talking point attack lies about Hillary Clinton's campaign

Current talking point attack lies about Hillary Clinton's campaign

by Tom Rinaldo, Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:13:59 AM EST

Current Attack Meme Lie Number One:

"Hillary has no chance of winning" feeds into...

Current Attack Meme Lie Number Two:

"Hillary must now only be in this to make Barack Obama lose the election" (so she can run in 2012) which feeds into...

Current Attack Meme Lie Number Three:

"Hillary really wants McCain to become President and hopes to be in his Administration"

These are the current talking points being used to take down Hillary Clinton. They have been seeded into the echo chamber. It doesn't matter that they are lies, they are good ways of tearing Hillary Clinton down.

These smear talking points ARE a scorched earth policy, because they insult the intelligence (literally) of the half of the Democratic Party that wants Hillary Clinton to win the nomination and become our candidate in the Fall Election. Repeatedly call the Democrat who half of the Democrats in the nation want as President a complete traitor and double agent working for the Republicans, and see how easy it will be to win Clinton supporters over to even vote for Obama in November if he becomes our nominee, let alone actively work hard to get him elected. Good luck with that.

I would work for Obama because I know how important a Democratic victory is in the Fall. The inverse should also be obvious to Obama supporters who are recklessly tearing the party apart with their constant demonization of a Democrat who has massive grass roots support. McCain wins a majority of Latino votes when he runs in Arizona. Latinos overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton OVER Bill Richardson when he was still in the race. And then there are female voters who see Hillary being taken down with every trick in the book and don't exactly like the implications of that. I am not even bothering to talk about white voters in general.

It is the same passive aggressive campaign being waged against Hillary Clinton on discussion boards across the nation. People honestly prefer Obama over Clinton for any number of reasons, and then they go in for the kill. The passive aggressive part is the constant accusation that Clinton is doing terrible things that in fact THEY are doing with their accusations. Accusing Hillary Clinton of wanting to divide the Democratic Party so that she can throw the election to McCain IS dividing the Democratic Party, and that MAY throw the election to McCain.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Presidential Race, 2008, Super Delegates (all tags)

Permalink :: 140 Comments :: Post a Comment

On Meme Number One (2.00 / 20)

This of course is the lynch pin. Without it the smears of numbers two and three can't take hold. Of course it is realistically possible for Clinton to still win the nomination, and the only way it is possible is if the Democratic Party would legitimately be better served by having her as our nominee rather than Barack Obama.

So all of the doom and gloom pronouncements about how the Party will be fatally wounded if Obama has more pledged delegates than Clinton does when the primaries end, but she gets the nomination instead, is total bull. She won't get the nomination instead under that scenario unless there are darn good reasons for her to get it.

The Super Delegates aren't in Clinton's pocket. The ones who have pledged are pretty closely divided as it stands and some have shown a willingness to move away from Hillary Clinton. And if the ones who are still undecided didn't jump to Hillary long ago when it seemed like she was the sure winner, they sure as hell aren't going to jump to her late in the game for no good reason. Hillarr is not the big bad Democratic Party Machine candidate.

So what could happen to make them vote for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama? We may have a clear favorite at the moment, but that is far from the race being over.

If Obama loses 8 of the last 10 contests, if the voters of Michigan and Florida do not get the delegates they selected seated or a valid revote instead and polls there continue to show her more popular in those states than Obama, if Obama screws up royally around any new controversy and/or is running ten points behind Hillary Clinton in the national polls for the Democratic nomination, and 8 points worse than Hillary Clinton in polls of match ups against McCain...

Obnama would then no longer seem so inevitable, especially if the pledged delegate count falls under a hundred delegate margin by June.

Under those circumstances the Democratic Party would be foolish to feel bound to nominate Obama if he could not win a majority of the delegates just because he piled up a slim pledged delegate lead early in the contest.

The odds may not favor all or most of that happening. Obama is the clear favorite now, but this race is far from being locked in stone, and there is no reason why it should be.

Have you noticed the latest update of a national state by state electoral map comparison of how Clinton and OBama fare against McCain? Here:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

It projects McCain with well over the electoral votes needed to defeat Obama, and Clinton leading McCain soundly. If trends like that continue you can bet your bottom dollor Obama does not have a lock on this nomination. That is why his side is trying so hard now to shut down the contest and call victory while they still can.

Yes Clinton needs some big wins, not just squeekers. So far she has that chance in both PA and WV, which both are states that polls show she can keep or bring respectively into the Democratic column but which Obama would lose to Republicans.

She also needs to show strength is States where it is not automatically assumed that she has the demographic advantage already; Indianna, North Carolina, and Oregaon come to mind. Depending on other variables she probably needs to win two out of those three, or come extremely close to doing so at the very least.

Not since immediately after the NH Primary have we experienced this election campaign as one in which all the momentum is running in Hillary Clinton's direction. People are living in the bubble we find ourselves in now, one that fosters thinking that Obama is the presumptive nominee. That is one reason why Super Delegates began to break his way before TX and OH.

Clinton slowed down that momentum and gave reasons for some people to hold off thinking that this thing is all over, but that is not the same shifting to a political climate in which Obama seems clearly to be sinking while Clinton is rising. In the scenario that I outlined above however, that is exactly the impression that start to take hold.

Obama built on momentum, fueled in part by his massive money advantage advantage fundraising in January, to put together his streak in February. That gave him the aura of a winner, and that is a key intangible which drove up his support.

I remember a number of folks on message boards a while back coming out and saying they were choosing Obama because he seemed to be the only Democrat who would defeat McCain. That worm in reality however is starting to turn. There is increasing state by state projections that appear to indicate that Clinton is the Democrat who will defeat McCain.

If it comes down to Obama losing most of the important contests from here on out and falling behind in national opinion polls both among Democrats and in relative matchups with McCain, and if his claim to overall popular support in votes cast is premised on not having to take Michigan and Florida into account, and if it seems Clinton could carry those states in the fall and Obama wouldn't, Clinton will be our nominee. And that would be the correct choice under those circumstances.

Blogging at http://www.aleftturnforclark.com

by Tom Rinaldo on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:24:55 AM EST

Re: On Meme Number One (2.00 / 4)

Tour de force post.

david

by giusd on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:06:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Meme Number One (2.00 / 2)

Do you pull polls out of thin air?

To suggest that the polls reveal truths about the possible November match-ups is silly.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/pennsylvania/election_ 2008_pennsylvania_presidential_election

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/national.html

HRC was recently caught fibbing about N. Ireland, SCHIP, Bosnia, and FMLA. You may want to add some nuance to your comments about HRC momentum. Her whole argument has been experience, but all her specific experience claims have been shown to be exaggerations, if not lies. It's not unreasonable to presume this is a problem for primary and SD voters.

--1jphusseinb-- she's not a monster, as far as I know--diplomat Sinbad, making the world safe--all bluster, no cattle--

by 1jpb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:58:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Meme Number One (none / 0)

You can't tell the painful truth to those who aren't ready to listen.

"we have the most radical president we have ever had, leading our country right now, and he is completely uneducable." - Seymour Hersh

by Lefty Coaster on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:18:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Meme Number One (2.00 / 6)

It's a moot point right now. If virtually all fair oobservers don't agree that fortunes have shifted and Hillary is most likely our strongest nominee and most favored by both Democrats and the public in general by the time the primaries have ended in June, Obama will get the nonination.

I was just pointing out indications that it is possible that might become the case and why it is premature to think it can't.

Blogging at http://www.aleftturnforclark.com

by Tom Rinaldo on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:19:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Meme Number One (none / 0)

But you invent things, why not stick to polls.

Further, even if the polls had HRC significantly ahead (which they don't) the HRC folks have reminded us since New Hampshire, it is sensible to be skeptical of the polls anyway.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/pol itics/blog/2008/03/obamaclinton_tie_in_n ew_poll_p.html

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_20082/daily_preside ntial_tracking_polling_history

--1jphusseinb-- she's not a monster, as far as I know--diplomat Sinbad, making the world safe--all bluster, no cattle--

by 1jpb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:48:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Meme Number One (2.00 / 4)

Of course we can agree to disagree. Her fibbing is you view. I think most indy and reagan democrats think this is a political based smear by BO and his campaign to hide from BO support of Rev Wright. Again you can think what you want but so can i. However, going negative is always tricky and IMHO BO has picked some attacks that dont really regester with voters and if that is true than his attacks will end up hurting his campaign more than HRC.

And all you have to do to see this is look at the head to head matchs with McCain. Three weeks ago BO was ahead of McCain and Hillary was just even and now they are both even or based on Rasmussen Hillary is doing sightly better.

And i didnt say anthing about "may want to add some nuance to your comments about HRC momentum". But if you say she has the momentum i will take you word for that since you support BO.

david

by giusd on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:40:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Meme Number One (2.00 / 1)

I'm not talking about opinions, I'm talking about whoppers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It6JN7ALF 7Y&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/stor yonly/2008/3/23/95418/5038/471/482606

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/03/hillary-clint-1.html

The documents offer no support for her claims, made during the presidential campaign, that she helped to negotiate the Irish peace accords or facilitated the flow of refugees in the Balkans. Neither is there evidence in them to back up her claim that she helped pass the Family and Medical Leave Act, the first legislation Mr. Clinton signed as president. The legislation, sponsored by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, sailed through Congress and landed on Mr. Clinton's desk 10 days after he was inaugurated. Indeed, on the day Mr. Clinton signed the bill into law, Feb. 5, 1993, there is no indication on that day's calendar that she attended.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/us/pol itics/19cnd-archives.html?pagewanted=1&a mp;_r=2&hp

--1jphusseinb-- she's not a monster, as far as I know--diplomat Sinbad, making the world safe--all bluster, no cattle--

by 1jpb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:53:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Meme Number One (2.00 / 2)

Again that is your opinion and could you provide some proof that some voting block agrees. Really this is sad. It is like some poor grammer school kid screaming in the playgound and no one is listening.

HIllary is a lier, lier, lier, damn it dont you see that. But this is no smear everyone thinks this.

david

by giusd on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:58:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Meme Number One (none / 0)

You are an "interesting" person.

--1jphusseinb-- she's not a monster, as far as I know--diplomat Sinbad, making the world safe--all bluster, no cattle--

by 1jpb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:00:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One more time on Ireland... (2.00 / 3)

Once again, let's remove that particular non-fib from the roster, shall we? I'll actually copy part of the article I cite because it has been my experience that simply posting a link to it is a waste of time since the purveyors of such unresearched memes rarely seem to click on such links. At least, they never respond in any way to indicate that they actually read something that contradicts their meme. Who knows why?

Trimble's dismissal was enough, however, to draw other Northern Ireland politicians to Clinton's defense.

John Hume has been one of her most ferocious defenders and Trimble's jibe drew swift rebuke from the man who was Trimble's nationalist Nobel partner.

"I can state from first hand experience that she played a positive role for over a decade," Hume told the Derry Journal.

Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness told the Echo that Hillary Clinton was someone who was "extremely well informed" on Ireland and its peace process.

McGuinness described Trimble's remarks as "mean spirited."

Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams, speaking in New York during his St. Patrick's Day U.S. visit, was reluctant to be drawn into a U.S. political debate, even if Ireland was the subject matter.

Adams explained that Sinn Féin preferred to stay clear of American party politics for the simple reason that it drew support from Republicans and Democrats.

"I've met the three presidential candidates and I wish them well," he said. Trimble's comment, however, had crossed the line.

"I did take exception to David Trimble saying she (Clinton) had played no role. That isn't true. For the record she did play a positive role," Adams said in response to a question from the Echo during a meeting with reporters in a Manhattan hotel last Friday.

The URL to the whole story in the Irish Echo, which addresses both points of view, is
http://www.irishecho.com/newspaper/story .cfm?id=18659

I wonder how many more times I will have to post that before the Hillary bashers begin to admit that they might just possibly, maybe, perhaps, be a little bit wrong on that particular issue.

by Swedie on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:18:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One more time on Ireland... (2.00 / 1)

The problem is exaggeration.

She says she was "instrumental" to the piece process, and that has been shown to be false.

There is no indication that HRC had any part in the negotiations. Even those who you quoted will acknowledge that she never participated in the negotiations.

I think Adams gave a fair representation, she did play a positive role. Why can't she just say that? Why does she need to say she was instrumental, when that's not true? Mitchell's book doesn't mention her. Yes, he has said she met with the women's groups. Everyone acknowledges that. Yes, the the women's groups were a positive factor. Everyone acknowledges that. But, everyone also knows that HRC wasn't in Mitchell's book because SHE wasn't instrumental to the peace process.

She pushes this exaggeration stuff, hoping nobody looks too closely. But, as the Bosnia video and her schedules show, she is taking a huge risk because there is a record, and it doesn't support her exaggerated claims.

Her true record is good enough (not very extensive, but it's not bad), why does she shoot herself in the foot with her embellishments? Can you tell me?

--1jphusseinb-- she's not a monster, as far as I know--diplomat Sinbad, making the world safe--all bluster, no cattle--

by 1jpb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:10:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One more time on Ireland... (2.00 / 2)

If the problem is seen as one of exaggeration, then that's how it should be posited. Not as a lie. There is a big difference. And it is not correct that "everyone acknowledges that" as you state. Many someones seem unwilling to even acknowledge she could find Ireland on a map. (smiling ruefully)

Who's to say that she didn't really believe her work to be "instrumental"? Behind the scenes, perhaps it was instrumental in its own way. Perhaps the women's groups and others also saw it as "instrumental". That isn't the same as saying that it was "crucial" to the process or even front and center. (Oh jeez, are we back to the meaning of "is"? lol)

As for her schedules, they only tell you so much. They do not tell you everyone she talked to in a day, or what she said, or what she and Bill discussed in their private quarters, for instance. My daily schedules are a mere skeleton of my actual daily activities, for instance, and I'm a mere nobody. We should be careful about reading too much into them, though they definitely have some value.

Alas, I cannot tell you why she shoots herself in the foot with embellishments. Having done that ocassionaly myself in my life, I can't even tell you why I did it. But I'm not running for President, so it's hardly the same thing, is it?

by Swedie on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:53:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One more time on Ireland... (none / 0)

She has definitely lied about Bosnia.

And, nobody says she had anything to do with the negotiations in Northern Ireland. The peace process has been well documented, and HRC was not mentioned as a player. I'm sure she was a helpful and positive, but I don't know why she feels compelled to take the credit of others.

I'm sure there are things you like about HRC, but you must be disappointed that she uses the kind of politicking where dissembling about the meaning of 'is' is perfectly reasonable. Both Clintons have shown that they get too cute when they're parsing language.

The schedules of a First Lady are considerably more definitive than a personal schedule you or I may have.

--1jphusseinb-- she's not a monster, as far as I know--diplomat Sinbad, making the world safe--all bluster, no cattle--

by 1jpb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:22:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One more time on Ireland... (2.00 / 2)

And, nobody says she had anything to do with the negotiations in Northern Ireland.

Neither did she, actually. To the contrary, she freely admits she was not front and center, did not have a place at the table and did no negotiating. She did perform well behind the scenes and I don't see why she shouldn't take some credit for it.

Both Clintons have shown that they get too cute when they're parsing language.

So do supporters of both Hillary and Obama. Just look at what we're doing.

The schedules of a First Lady are considerably more definitive than a personal schedule you or I may have.

You've never seen my schedule.

I've been disappointed in Hillary more than once, but I've likewise been disappointed in Obama-- and in every other politician I've ever known about, including Lincoln, FDR, JFK, and RFK. I look at the entire picture as well as I am able and make my final judgment from that.

All of what I've written should be taken as offered without rancor and in a soft tone, please... I am not here to start an imbroglio.

by Swedie on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:07:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One more time on Ireland... (none / 0)

We can certainly agree on no imbroglio.

--1jphusseinb-- she's not a monster, as far as I know--diplomat Sinbad, making the world safe--all bluster, no cattle--

by 1jpb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:29:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them (2.00 / 0)

Al Franken would have called you on this if he were still on Air America:

HRC was recently caught fibbing about N. Ireland, SCHIP, Bosnia, and FMLA....Her whole argument has been experience, but all her specific experience claims have been shown to be exaggerations, if not lies.

Your comment is the very definition of a shameless lie.

Sen. Clinton has not been "caught" exaggerating or lying about anything. In fact, the proof that her statements are completely accurate has come from John Hume and Bertie Ahern in Ireland--both involved in the peace process, as well former Northern Ireland Secretary Mo Mowlam and others in Northern Ireland. Her involvement in SCHIP has come from none other than Sen. Ted Kennedy--who is on the record saying that if it weren't for Hillary Clinton pushing the bill from the White House, it wouldn't have happened. Her trip to Bosnia is well documented by Alegre and a Nexis Lexis search of the articles at the time proves she was flying into a COMBAT ZONE with snipers in the area--the first time a First Lady has flown into a combat zone since Eleanor Roosevelt flew into London during WWII. And Clinton flew to two outlying bases in the area to visit combat troops personally, a trip which Crowe and Sinbad did not accompany her on.

"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman

by Tennessean on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:21:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them (2.00 / 0)

HRC's schedules have shown the truth:

Northern Ireland:
She claimed she was instrumental to the peace process. Everyone, including those you mentioned, agree that HRC was never part of the peace negotiations. Mitchell and others who wrote about the peace process never mentioned her in their writing. Everyone, including those who have minimized her role in the peace process will acknowledge that she play a positive role in the process because she met with women's groups. The problem is that it is silly, and politically stupid, for her to claim she was an instrumental part of creating peace--everybody knows that this is taking credit for the work of others.

SCHIP:
The bill was initiated in congress, with support from Hatch. The Clinton administration was opposed, for budgetary reasons. The budget and funding issues where worked out in congress. As part of the lobbying effort to move the White House, HRC was recruited by those in congress to help get WJC to support the legislation. HRC didn't create SCHIP, she didn't work to get congress to pass the legislation, she was recruited to get WJC to accept what congress was doing. As much as her persuasion of WJC, SCHIP was accepted in the White Hosue because it's funding was changed so that WJC the initial budget issues were removed. But, HRC was a helpful advocate in the White House, why can't she just stick with the truth? Why does she need to take credit for the work of others? HRC has been caught exaggerating on this when she takes credit this legislation.

Bosnia:
You're joking, right?

WJC was in there two months earlier. HRC had her teenage daughter with her.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It6JN7ALF 7Y&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/stor yonly/2008/3/23/95418/5038/471/482606

You need to acknowledge that she invented this story (which she repeated more than once) if you want to have any credibility.

FMLA:
you didn't address this one.

--1jphusseinb-- she's not a monster, as far as I know--diplomat Sinbad, making the world safe--all bluster, no cattle--

by 1jpb on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:00:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them (none / 0)

**Lies can be small and lies can be whoppers. Hillary has tried to give the impression that she was more involved in the peace process than she indeed was. Hume was being kind. He named people who were especially helpful in his Nobel acceptance speech. Bill's name came up. Tony Blair's name came up. Mitchell was named. Didn't see Hillary mentioned. I'm certain that Tony Blair's wife was also quite hopeful that there would be a meaningful peace. Do you think she claims to have been instrumental in the peace process? I think those of us who are/were FOB admired his diplomatic skills. I don't think they should necessarily be extended to his wife. Hillary is being rightfully pilloried for this series of "exaggerations." It's probably helpful that this isn't an October surprise.

If the choice is between hope and fear, always choose hope. BC

by greylox on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:27:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good to see you Tom. (2.00 / 3)

You make a lot of good points. I support neither Clinton nor Obama now, but will vote for either in the general election.

Having no favorite, it is easy to see the games and misstatements of both campaigns.

The so-called "progressive netroots" has been pathetic in this election. They are mertely an echo chamber for soem of the most obious falsehoods.

It's not about issues or real change.

by TomP on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:10:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Stick to Reality (none / 0)

"There is increasing state by state projections that appear to indicate that Clinton is the Democrat who will defeat McCain."

You didn't cite any, and I'm not finding any polls to back that up.

by McNasty on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:09:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Current tal (2.00 / 14)

The more BO, his campaign, and his supporters go negative the more it hurts BO approval numbers, his poll number match up versus McCain, and makes him look like a typical politician.

There is no bigger sin in running a campaign then being seen as a hypocrite and BO has run the "I am a new kind of candidate who unites and doesnt go negative". But now voters are seeing that he and his campaign will go negative and this will hurt BO and not HRC. Or better put it is looking like BO will say whatever to get elected.

Remember BO supporters you all started the HRC will do anything to get elected and now - well you get my point. But IMHO keep doing this because you are helping my candidate and not yours.

best david

by giusd on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:32:01 AM EST

Hillary is Huckabee (1.14 / 7)

This is so rich. First Obama isn't a fighter and now when he fights it's not fair. Again, stop drinking the kool aid it only lands you back in your fairy tale world where up is down, and lies are truth.

by munodi on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:39:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary (2.00 / 7)

Please take you time and re-read what i wrote. I didnt say BO isnt a fighter (and in fact i think he will do anything to win, and i am ok with that) or that he is unfair. What i said is the negative campaign by his crowd is hurting his numbers and his campaign more than HRC.

And i dont think your insulting me is approprate and maybe you might want to step back and rewrite. What exactly is my fairtale.

If you disagree that the new BO attack campaign is not hurting his numbers make you case or if you dont think his campaign is pushing the HRC is a lier than again make you case.

But if you want to insult me that is cool but look out i can defend myself.

david

by giusd on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:10:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary (none / 0)

So your original post insults Obama supporters. Then, someone calls you on it (albeit somewhat rudely). Finally, you claim that HE is being rude and that his insults are inappropriate.

Fun times in Clinton land.

And I love how all of the Clinton attacks on Obama (the 3 AM ad, the hints that he used drugs in his teenage years, the hint that his black-ness helps him, etc) are legitimate criticisms in your eyes while Obama's criticisms of Hillary are considered "smears."

by ckd5555 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:08:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary (2.00 / 0)

Ever heard John Kerry? Do you know who he is?

"Because he is an African America. He is a black man!"

Not my words, someone elses. TYpical hypocrites.

by Sandeep on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:55:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary (2.00 / 1)

Funny i dont remember "So your original post insults Obama supporters". Could you reread this???? What i said was BO supporters attacks on HRC our hurting their candidate. I guess i dont see that as a insult. But again i guess we can agree to disagree.

And the 3 am ad was imho legite. I dont think BO is ready to be president. That is not a smear i just dont think at 47 years old and 2 years of senate expereince he is read. And no one hinted he used drugs it is in his book.

Finally, Ferraro is not part of the HRC campaign and BO staff pushed this story big time and it is not my fault that right when the BO campaign was calling HRC a racist again the Rev Wright tapes came out. That was FOX and Drudge.

so whatever.

davdi

david

by giusd on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:47:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary (none / 0)

You've used this same " I'm concerned that Obamas going negative is hurting his numbers" theme before. It's called concern trolling.

by munodi on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:42:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

HRC & Co. drink Ensure, not Kool-Aid... (1.00 / 1)

because they're antiquated and soon to be expired in terms of their old political mindset and ways.

*VOTE DEMOCRAT! - HRC or BHO* Obama '08 - Full of reason / Hillary '08 - Full of treason (Gallup Poll, March 26 2008) / McCain '08 - Diaper's full of Bushit.

by VT COnQuest on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:01:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Offensive on so many levels (none / 0)

that I probably should have dropped a donut on this comment and not just troll-rated it.

by OtherLisa on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:29:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Take this poll and shove it into your... (2.00 / 0)

memory bank - "In the Keystone State, Clinton is now viewed favorably by 68% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters. That's down from 76% in the previous survey." - http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_20082/2008_presiden tial_election/pennsylvania/pennsylvania_ democratic_presidential_primary

*VOTE DEMOCRAT! - HRC or BHO* Obama '08 - Full of reason / Hillary '08 - Full of treason (Gallup Poll, March 26 2008) / McCain '08 - Diaper's full of Bushit.

by VT COnQuest on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:29:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Current talking point attack lies about Hillar (2.00 / 13)

very good diary - regardless of who wins the nomination (i hope its HRC) - BO, his campaign and (many) supporters demonization of HRC and her supporters are in fact what i tearing the party apart.

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." Plato

by canadian gal on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:57:57 AM EST

Re: Current talking point attack lies about Hillar (2.00 / 1)

Or how about, "Both candidates and especially their supporters should stop going negative and trying to smear the other candidate"?

It's a two-way street.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:07:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No, Bob. It isn't a 2 way street. (2.00 / 1)

by internetstar on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:28:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, Bob. It isn't a 2 way street. (none / 0)

Bwahahaha!

Oh my lord, internetstar, you are my favorite MyDDer ever. So now I'm Bob Johnson, too? What happened to Tony the Mutt? We're all Bob Johnson?

Do you dream of Bob Johnson? Do you check under your bed at night to make sure he's not there, ready to pounce on you with his scathing anti-Clinton bon mots? Does Bob Johnson transmit hateful coded message through the fillings in your teeth? In fact, is your life like that scene from 'Being John Malkovich,' where everyone in the restaurant--women, men, children--are all Malkovich?

Do you know if you're not Bob Johnson? Can one ever really be sure?

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:44:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

YOU ARE ME! (none / 0)

I KNEW IT!

by Bob Johnson on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:45:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

BO, his campaign and (many) supporters demonizatio (none / 0)

"BO, his campaign and (many) supporters demonization of HRC and her supporters are in fact what i tearing the party apart." The only thing tearing this party apart is Hillary "I don't have a chance in hell to win this thing legitimately so I'm gonna throw this kitchen sink - with the Bosnian girl and scary snipers still in it - at Obama because I'm a Clinton... a Clinton damnit!... and I am ENTITLED to this presidency because my husband got his turn and we HAVE to make sure to match 12 years of Bush in the past 20 years with at least 4 more years of Clinton to tie the score... who am I kiding?... 8 more years for the dynasty WIN!" Clinton.

*VOTE DEMOCRAT! - HRC or BHO* Obama '08 - Full of reason / Hillary '08 - Full of treason (Gallup Poll, March 26 2008) / McCain '08 - Diaper's full of Bushit.

by VT COnQuest on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:38:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BO, his campaign and (many) supporters demoniz (2.00 / 5)

and VT thank you for so eloquently proving my point!

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." Plato

by canadian gal on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:44:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BO, his campaign and (many) supporters demoniz (2.00 / 4)

LOL nice one.

He showed how some Obama supporters live on Clinton hatred. Lack of hope from Obama I guess:-)

by Sandeep on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:57:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My dearest canadian gal... (none / 0)

we are not "demonizing" Hillary. It just so happens that she IS a demon and her supporters get upset everytime either we expose that fact for her or she exposes it herself and we call her on it. Saying "Hillary's a demon/monster/banshee/etc.!" is akin to proclaiming "Water is wet!" or "The sun is bright!"

*VOTE DEMOCRAT! - HRC or BHO* Obama '08 - Full of reason / Hillary '08 - Full of treason (Gallup Poll, March 26 2008) / McCain '08 - Diaper's full of Bushit.

by VT COnQuest on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:27:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My dearest canadian gal... (2.00 / 0)

again VT - thanks!

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." Plato

by canadian gal on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:15:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Canadian girl is flirting with me. ;) (none / 0)

*VOTE DEMOCRAT! - HRC or BHO* Obama '08 - Full of reason / Hillary '08 - Full of treason (Gallup Poll, March 26 2008) / McCain '08 - Diaper's full of Bushit.

by VT COnQuest on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:40:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Canadian girl is flirting with me. ;) (none / 0)

you see - HRC and BO supporters can get along! :)

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." Plato

by canadian gal on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:55:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

More evidence of Hillary being smeered (2.00 / 13)

The entire rational behind a line of attack on Hillary saying that she wants Obama to lose so she can run in 2012 is fatally flawed. If she in fact thinks Obama would lose this election to McCain, and that she did not have a plausible chance of winning the nomination herself, she would be dropping out right now. If she dropped out now, the impact of her doing so would win her a great deal of sympathy and it would inoculate her against accusations that it was her fault that Obama could not defeat McCain.

Sure, there would be some who would continue to blame Hillary if Obama lost, but that would be a much smaller number of Democrats blaming her for his loss than would do so if she kept her campaign going through June.

To explore the conspiracy theory further, if Hillary already knew that she can't win the nomination then her only real chance to have a shot of running again later would be to drop our right now. Democrats don't as a rule throw their support 4 years later to a candidate who was deeply involved in a presidential loss four years earlier. Gore was urged not to run in 2004. Lieberman did run in 2004 after being linked to the failed 2000 election and he got nowhere. Kerry could not get enough support to run again in 2008 . Edwards did run again in 2008 but could not win a single primary. Ted Kennedy never ran again after he challenged Jimmy Carter in 1980. Bill Bradley never got talked up big as a candidate in 2004 after he failed to knock off Al Gore in 2000. There was no "Draft Bradly" movement in 2004.

Hillary Clinton's best chance to win the Presidency is now in 2008, and her only other remote chance to win it say in 2012, would be to drop out now and throw her support to Obama now. The entire conspiracy theory being pushed that she is trying to make Obama lose is a smear against Clinton to help Obama now.

Blogging at http://www.aleftturnforclark.com

by Tom Rinaldo on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:11:36 AM EST

Excellent analysis, Tom. (2.00 / 2)

I'm not a Clinton supporter (or Obama supporter) and I will not leave logic and evidence behind for faith.

I believe this is being orchestrated by the Obama campaign and picked up by their netroots surrogates. They are trying to push it from netroots to media.

The so called "reality based" community is not.

Besides, 2012 will be Clark v. Edwards. :-)

by TomP on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:16:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton/Clark 2008 (2.00 / 0)

by Shazone on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:24:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL!! (none / 0)

Good line.

I suppose it is possible if she prevails.

I wish Clinton and Obama were fighting on issues like class stratification and how we reverse the last 30 years of it. Making a fair society.

by TomP on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:47:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe they would if BO and Friends... (none / 0)

would stop yelling racist everytime she opens her mouth.

BTW...she's been talking substantitve issues for weeks now...but Obama and the MSM can't seem to focus.

by Shazone on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:25:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Current talking point attack lies about Hillar (2.00 / 0)

Repeatedly call the Democrat who half of the Democrats in the nation want as President a complete traitor and double agent working for the Republicans, and see how easy it will be to win Clinton supporters over to even vote for Obama in November if he becomes our nominee, let alone actively work hard to get him elected.

Hate to tell ya, but this junk has been said about Obama, especially around here, for a while now. Every time he gets the independent and crossover vote, he's lambasted in the same way you describe in the quote above.

This race has gotten FAR too negative, on both sides, and even more so among the blogosphere.

Donate to Obama, Today!

by freedom78 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:32:52 AM EST

Re: Current talking point attack lies about Hillar (2.00 / 8)

There is some truth in what you say, more so at this web site perhaps than most. But the predominant commentary is that Hillary is dividing Democrats by daring to still oppose Obama with roughly half of Democrats now backing her, and I have never seen a single poster say Obama wouold rather have McCain win than Clinton.

Both campaigns have played hard ball, only one of them tends to get accused of it.

Blogging at http://www.aleftturnforclark.com

by Tom Rinaldo on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:40:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Current talking point attack lies about Hillar (none / 0)

I think part of the reason for this is because Obama's ahead, so it's a much harder sell that he's hurting Hillary's chances.

But I have seen a good deal of commentary about Obama bringing the party down in November or destroying the party, etc.

Let me sum it up thusly: I REALLY hope, should Obama win the nomination and not have Hillary as the VP nominee, that her spirited campaign for the nomination becomes a spirited campaign to get a Democrat elected.

I don't necessarily think it will be otherwise, but considering the tone this campaign (again, on both sides) has taken lately, you're going to get some rash accusations about her intentions. I'm hopeful that they're completely unfounded.

Donate to Obama, Today!

by freedom78 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:53:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Current talking point attack lies about Hillar (2.00 / 0)

But you do understand without HRC as his VP it is very likely he will lose. Just saying. BO will lose a great number of HRC supporters (not me) if he picks someone else. Reagan and Bush managed to do this as did JFK and LBJ. If BO doesnt pick HRC as the VP imho it will be a sign of huge ego and will cost him the election.

But we shall see but IMHO if BO loses greater than 12% of democractic voters (and these will be reagan dems) he will not be able to make up the difference in indies.

david

by giusd on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:18:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Current talking point attack lies about Hillar (2.00 / 1)

I would agree that that 12% would be crucial. Of course, they BECAME Reagan Dems because of Carter's economy. Will they stay Reagan Dems considering Bush's economy? And Iraq? That's a tough sell, even if you don't like the Democrat (EITHER Democrat).

But I've said may times that a unity ticket will do more to increase the chances of a Dem winning than any other "strategic" VP choice. The home-state advantage in a VP nominee's home state is 0.3%, since the 40s. That's not enough to swing a state in most cases, except perhaps if Gephardt is still popular enough to get that or a larger swing in Missouri.

Compare that 0.3% to the advantage of making those in the party who are angry and want to "hurt" the nominee that defeats their candidate (again, this applies no matter who wins the nomination). If you can make "hurting" the nominee the same as hurting what was formerly your chosen candidate...well, that makes it a lot less likely that it'll happen. So, yes, a unity ticket could mean a lot. If it's Obama at the top, Hillary would still be younger in eight years than McCain is NOW.

Donate to Obama, Today!

by freedom78 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:34:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Current talking point attack lies about Hillar (2.00 / 0)

I disagree. I think Obama would be better off picking someone else as his VP and having Clinton as the most powerful voice for a Democratic agenda in the Senate. As I've commented elsewhere, she has too much of an independent power base for him to be comfortable with her as his VP. As a long-term lion of the Senate, though, she'd be well-placed to use her considerable political skills to negotiate a strong slate of Democratic bills through Congress.

Cosmetically, for campaign purposes only, Clinton could make sense as a VP pick. (Although barely--I think he'll be better off without such a prime target for Republican vitriol, and Lord knows he's going to get enough himself.) But in terms of picking the best actual vice president, I think it would be a waste of her skills and power.

The other question is: who should she pick? Richardson's out now. Another woman, eg Sebelius, is highly unlikely. So who?

What is The October Protocol?

by Koan on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:05:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Current talking point attack lies about Hillar (2.00 / 1)

She should choose Obama if she won and if they can stand each other and if he agreed. Otherwise she should choose Wes Clark.

Blogging at http://www.aleftturnforclark.com

by Tom Rinaldo on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:14:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Current talking point attack lies about Hillar (none / 0)

She should not be on any ticket with BO. He is poison in the GE he needs to pick someone who has no future like Kerry!

"RedStateLib-The condition of being a Liberal who finds themselves living in a state that never should have gone to Bush in 2000."

by RedstateLib on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:17:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wes Clark (none / 0)

Obviously.

by Montague on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:13:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bosnia footage may be helpful (2.00 / 8)

I know her "embelished" war story is being used against her, but it still shows how very brave she was to be in a WAR ZONE.

My husband, a VN vet, said you're always hearing live rounds no matter how secured an area you're in.

Nor does the media show the other areas she visited on that trip. Chances are she did indeed walk from her transport to the troops rather quickly sometimes, you don't want your VIP to be a "standing target".

Anyhow, hubby's a McCain Republican, and was impressed to see Hillary in the field :D

As for myself, still an Edwards Democrat, I'm leaning towards her spunk, fight and toughness against the moronic media mudslinging ratings war. You go girl !

by catchawave on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:41:52 AM EST

Hillary is Huckabee (none / 0)

Bravery is not standing WITH Bush to send 4000 troops to their death. Bravery is standing up and saying NO WAR.

by munodi on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:48:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nor is bravery giving a safe anti-war (2.00 / 5)

speech a very liberal anti-war crowd, then not having to vote until it's time to fund the war?

by catchawave on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:07:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nor is bravery (2.00 / 5)

Nor is bravery blaming HRC for Bushes war or bushes uccupation.

david

by giusd on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:20:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary is Huckabee (2.00 / 2)

Would it be possible for you to point to a particular vote that Obama cast since he has been a Senator that did that? No. Hmmmm. I didn't think so. It seems to me that I, myself, saw Sen. Obama make the statement at one time that there wasn't much difference between his position and President Bush's.

by macmcd on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:36:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary is Huckabee (2.00 / 0)

Fact: Hillary voted for War.

Fact: Obama did not vote for War.

by munodi on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:45:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary is Huckabee (2.00 / 0)

He certainly would have if he had been in the Senate at the time. You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. Look at how he voted on every other vote he voted. He never once voted against any part of it. His tactic is to vote last so see how everyone else has voted or to vote present. He never votes his conscience.....whatever that may or may not be.

by macmcd on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:38:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary is Huckabee (none / 0)

Would haves and could haves are not FACTS kids,

by munodi on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:45:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary is Huckabee (none / 0)

Another fact: Obama didn't do anything.

by christinep on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:35:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are winning a prize tonight, Munodi (none / 0)

Obama wasn't in the Senate. Therefore, he didn't vote one way or the other.

He made ONE SPEECH against the war. A speech for which no actual record exists. One that he rerecorded with sound-effects to make it sound live for his latest political commercial.

A true profile in courage.

by OtherLisa on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:28:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bosnia footage may be helpful (none / 0)

The facts remain that she traveled to a very unstable part of the world. She read as many situational briefs as she could. When she was meeting with Bosnians she was representing and embodying America. And what sort of experience in this situation does Senator Obama have?

by pan230 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:46:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary has no chance of winning (none / 0)

I prefer the way the Clinton campaign itself describes this -- Hillary's chances are 10% or less. However, that estimate occurred before new votes in MI and FL were taken off the table. Thus, I would expect that the Clinton campaign estimates have been revised downward.

Hillary cannot win without completely fracturing the democratic party unless Obama is caught with a live boy or a dead girl, or so the political aphorism goes. For all practical purposes the race is over. The delegate math is inexorable. Superdelegates will be loathe to override a substantial pledged delegate lead, and Obama is going to arrive at the convention with a substantial pledged delegate lead.

by Quarterbackjoe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:06:57 AM EST

Re: Hillary has no chance of winning (2.00 / 1)

The race for the delegates is so close that one could also say that upstart Barack Obama is splitting the democratic party through his overriding desire to win at all costs. Hillary is staying in long enough to be able to be heard on a "level playing field" in MSM coverage.

by pan230 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:49:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary has no chance of winning (2.00 / 1)

Since you are so sure--by repetition--that Hillary Clinton cannot get the magic majority in the coming primaries, tell me how Obama can get that magic majority number in the same set of remaining primaries? Hmmm? I suggest that this is all puffery by Obama supporters and Republicans. If you claim that you have the numbers in the remaining primaries to reach the magic majority number required by rule, then demonstrate it--stop try to shift the burden of proof. Hmmmm?

by christinep on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:40:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well ... (2.00 / 1)

#1 is pretty damn close to the truth. She's only going to win if Obama destructs. Any realistic scenario in which he doesn't take far harder hits than anything so far will have him still over 100 pledged delegates ahead by the end of the primaries. Despite the theoretical possibility, I don't believe for a moment that she can overcome that deficit with super-delegates.

#3 is obvious nonsense. Hillary has no interest in being in a McCain administration.

I really don't want to believe #2 either, but I'm getting some doubts. The way her campaign has played up McCain's qualifications is very disturbing to me - it's the Lieberman sin, reinforcing Republican memes. If her chances aren't markedly improved by the end of April and she's still doing this, I'm going to have to reluctantly conclude that her strategy has morphed to a 2012 campaign.

by jrooth on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:40:20 AM EST

You're missing the point (2.00 / 1)

Most fair-minded observers agree that Hillary's chances are not as good as Barack's. There's disagreement over the degree of this disparity. Most of the objections to her current tenacity have less to do with the fact that she's not dropping out of the race, and more to do with how destructively she continues to campaign.

Especially when the odds clearly favor one Democrat (Barack): to impugn that frontrunner's ability to protect the country, to be patriotic, etc, simply crosses the line of fair play and propriety. It's overwhelmingly destructive. You'd see far fewer calls for her to quit if she were running a different sort of campaign -- one that didn't seem to favor McCain over Obama.

Now I know folks here will argue that the Obama camp gets nasty too. But history is clear: he has done his best to elevate this campaign. Getting in the trenches has always been a repugnant, but necessary occasional response to those who constantly goad him for not being a tough enough, down-and-dirty politician. If he didn't respond immediately and vigorously to dirty tactics, he'd be dead in the water, branded as another Kerry. Certainly every chance he gets he attempts to elevate the conversation. Unfortunately it's a gradual process because of our entrenched political habits over the last couple of decades. But, as president, I'm confident he'll continue this movement in which he so sincerely believes.

by Petey on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:49:36 AM EST

Re: You're missing the point (2.00 / 1)

I disagree on 2 counts.

First, the goal is to select the best candidate to be DEM nominee. Obama problem will not disappear simply because Hillary has dropped out. He will still have problems with Wright, Rezko, Ayers, Aunichi, Odinga. Remember that the wright wing media Fox was the one that first broke the story of Wright. They will move to other story in due time.

When they start to cover the story that Obama went to Kenya and campaigned for his counsin Odinga who is the leader of the opposition party and responsible for the riot and genocide of Kikuyu people in Kenya, Obama will look more and more like a damage good. By the time it will be so clear without dispute that Obama's judgement is extremely questionable. He is unfit to protect this country because we don't really understand his morale compass.

Second, I disagree that Obama has done his best to elevate his campaign. It started with D-Panjab memo. Then in NH, Jamal made comment that Hillary didn't cry when Katrina hit. I didn't know that Obama did anything to help the folks in News Orleans. Hillary went there a couple of times. Bill run a campaign effort to rebuild houses with Brad Pitt.

Then in SC, Obama camp framed Billy Clinton as racist. Obama even got caught during the debate that his campaign pus the racist story by sending out 4 pages memo to his voters. Obama said that going forward he will stay with the issue as this kind of story is not what the voters wanted to hear. But then in MS, he brought up the story claimed that Hillary circulated his picture in muslim garb. It fully contradicted to his stand in Ohio when he accepted that Hillary campaign didn't circulate the picture.

So in summary, I don't believe that he honestly agree with anything he said in public, because his action and his words are contradicted. As president, I'm confident that we will see him unable to take a stand and make tough decision. We will hear a lot more of "I don't know/I'm not aware" excuse from him.

by JoeySky18 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:09:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're missing the point (none / 0)

It's good that you can see Obama as president, it's shows you might be awakening.

by munodi on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:27:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're missing the point (2.00 / 1)

"Especially when the odds clearly favor one Democrat (Barack): to impugn that frontrunner's ability to protect the country, to be patriotic, etc, simply crosses the line of fair play and propriety. It's overwhelmingly destructive."

No, what is immensely destructive is running for president and commander in chief at a time of war when you are not qualified or experienced enough to do the job, and viciously running a campaign that relies on painting your opposition racist simply because they oppose you.

Using that nuclear option against people who have been on the front lines of the battle for everyone's civil rights is pyrrhic victory at the cost of trust and goodwill that is essential to the continuation of the party. The destructiveness of the Obama campaign to Democratic Party core beliefs and principles and destruction of the bridges between people that have been lovingly forged over two generations is the most divisive ugliness I have ever seen.

Obama is not a progressive, he lauds Reagan, has right wing advisors, extraordinary support from Washington lobbyists, and is about the last person who will be able to make any change that will benefit our country. His campaign is words only, to an extent his supporters are blind to.

Threatening to bus loads of Chicago Obama supporters to riot at the Denver Convention if they do not get their man in as nominee is heinous. It sickens me. I believe anyone who holds the threat of violence against the Democratic Party automatically disqualifies himself from the presidency, and deserves a primary challenge to his Senate seat, big time. Talk about divisive? I cannot imagine anything more divisive, and destructive.

Not only is Obama not anywhere near ready for the presidency, he doesn't have the ethics to be considered as a candidate. I haven't seen scorched earth tactics like this be levied against the party in years and years.

No one should honor any nomination gained by disenfranchising MI and FL, and the Obama campaign's deliberate obstruction of revotes in those states is anti democratic. We are not a banana republic. If Obama doesn't believe in democracy he shouldn't be running for president.

by 07rescue on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:53:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're missing the point (none / 0)

This would be really bad stuff, if any of it was more than opinions and falsehoods based on innuendo.

by shalca on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:02:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Where have you heard those? (2.00 / 0)

I know the idiots at MSNBC spewed that bile yesterday (led by the Head Pinhead, Chris Matthews), but as I asked yesterday when I saw this story, what evidence did the TV talking heads have that this was Clinton's plan? Or the even more outlandish claim made by Matthews yesterday that her campaign was coordinating attacks on Obama with the McCain campaign?

As is usually the case with Chris Matthews and company, the bullshit is so deep, his eyes are brown.

by Bob Johnson on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:00:54 PM EST

Re: Where have you heard those? (1.00 / 1)

And what lovely brown eyes you have too, Bob!

I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.

by KnowVox on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:13:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Tell you what, Know... (2.00 / 1)

These clowns on TV are clueless. And they're monumental asshats. To have Matthew claim, as he did yesterday, that the Clinton campaign is coordinating attacks on Obama with the McCain campaign and not have any of the other pinheads even pipe up to ask, "Seriously? Do you have proof of that?" just shows how inane the whole group of them are.

Jackasses. Every one.

by Bob Johnson on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:43:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary is Huckabee (none / 0)

Well Mark Penn does work for the same P.R. firm that McCains campaign director does.

by munodi on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:48:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where have you heard those? (2.00 / 3)

Whether by design or circumstances the campaign that Axelrod is running for Obama is benefiting greatly by a strategy initially developed by the Republican right, not so ironically, to use to take down Bill Clinton.

Internet message boards pave the way now, much as the Right wing radio shock jocks and the Drudge Report have for years for Republicans. They either "break" a dubious story or create enough of a stink about something that others in the media become free to pick up on the fuss. All three Attack Memes are repeatedly being posted on political message boards now. Tim Mathews is playing the role here that FOX news has played for Republicans, the first quasi serious Main Stream Media outlet to give real credence to what is bubbling up from below.

In the case of the Right it is pretty well documented by now that these stories are intentionally seeded and watered at a site like Drudges first so that they can be picked up by their allies in the Main Stream media when they sprout. I suspect the same holds now with this type of anti-Clinton campaign but only can rely on cirumstacial evidence for proof that it fits an intentional pattern, so there is not much gained by going there at this point.

For now the strategy playing out in the Main Stream Media is just moving beyond Attack Meme Number One and into Attack Meme Number Two. I don't think it will move into Attack Meme Number Three in much of the Main Stream Media, but that fits the pattern for this type of smeer.

I believe that there has been a conscious constant effort madeto shift the range of discussion about who Hillary Clinton is, how she acts, and what her intentions and motivations are throughout this campaign, constantly toward further and more negative extremes.

It isn't a one step process, it works more through acclimation, like that famous frog in a pot that is slowly brought to a boil. More and more outrageous charges keep getting thrown out against Hillary Clinto and gradually the garden variety only somewhat outrageous attacks on her start appearing relatively moderate, and by comparison reasonable. It reaches a point where in either an a) unguarded or b) planned moment a key Obama advisor calmly calls Hillary Clinton a monster while another Obama advisor equates Bill Clinton with Joe McCarthy.

Blogging at http://www.aleftturnforclark.com

by Tom Rinaldo on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:25:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That goes on on both sides, Tom. (none / 0)

Wouldn't you agree? Bill Shaheen, Bob Johnson, Carville of late...

To claim that it's a strategy exclusive to the Obama campaign is disingenuous.

by Bob Johnson on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:39:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That goes on on both sides, Tom. (2.00 / 1)

We can talk about negatives from both sides yes, but I am not talking about the same thing here at all. I am talking about overt direct full accusations of Party treason, after a campaign that openly broadcast ads saying Hillary Clinton would do or say anything for power, which is a direct rip off of the Hate Hillary meme that the Republican right planted and spread against both Clintons for 15 years.

And I am talking about the methods being used. MSNBC has been extremely Obama friendly and anti-Clinton all year, and most message boards are dominated by Oboma supporters.

Blogging at http://www.aleftturnforclark.com

by Tom Rinaldo on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:51:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Tom, you're not looking. (2.00 / 1)

My god, look at this board o a daily basis. People citing World Net Daily for talking points about Obama. Or go read Taylor Marsh or NoQuarter. Or look at the mailers Clinton surrogates distributed in numerous states claiming that Obama would not defend a woman's right to choose.

You just aren't looking. But that doesn't mean it's not happening.

by Bob Johnson on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:53:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tom, you're not looking. (2.00 / 1)

My post was prompted not by Attack Meme Number One, but by attack Memes Two and Three.

I am not attempting to comprehensively address all of the negative or misleading things said by or about either candidate or campaign. Clinton is being accused of wanting to throw the election to the Republicans.

If the only argument going on in this context was whether or not Clinton should leave the race now my apparoach to the discussion would be different, even though strong disagreements would still emerge.

Blogging at http://www.aleftturnforclark.com

by Tom Rinaldo on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:08:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Current talking point attack lies about Hillar (2.00 / 1)

The bottom line is Obama's various problems will not magically disappear once Hillary dropped out. He created this problem by himself. And if he's unfit to be president or unelectable in GE, we need to know now.

by JoeySky18 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:14:41 PM EST

Hillary is Huckabee (1.00 / 0)

Nor will magic wands work outside of my pretty pony land, to make Hillary's negatives go away. The Repubs desperately want her to win the nomination so they can start rolling out their war chest of Clinton controvercies.

by munodi on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:42:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary is Huckabee (2.00 / 1)

Can you provide some proof???? IMHO right now the GOP would much prefer BO to HRC. And let us not forget the only person and campaign to beat the GOP for the WH is the last25 years is called the Clintons. But you are telling me the GOP wants HRC??? Funny i would not have guess that.

david

by giusd on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:52:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary is Huckabee (none / 0)

Go read, oh, I don't know, any conservative website and see who they're attacking. The pundits/shills like Hewitt and Powerline have been running hard with Wright and Rezko, as well as attacking Obama's foreign policy as anti-Israeli. Hardly a peep attacking Clinton.

Go read the comments section at RedState or Free Republic. Since the primary season began, they've been salivating over a Clinton candidacy, and deeply disturbed at the prospect of running against Obama. In fact, it was one of the Romney team's main anti-McCain themes: "if it's Obama, we are going to really have to step up and not run an old fogey."

Actually, I recommend that everyone on MyDD read those sites daily. Ad hominems, bad faith arguments, binary views of the world, my-team-versus-your-team mentality, threats to leave the party if your candidate isn't nominated--squint your eyes and you'll see the similarities.