The Politics of Fear---Again
Although I have supported Barack Obama in the primaries, I would not be devastated if Hillary Clinton should turn out to be the Democratic nominee. What does upset me, however, is how Clinton is employing the politics of fear and how much she emphasizes national security in order to mobilize support for her campaign.
The politics of fear worked wonders for Bush and Cheney. I'm genuinely saddened that Hillary Clinton would reach out to tell us, "be afraid, very afraid." Her ads warn us about our children's 'safety at 3 am in the morning and do nothing more than employ the politics of fear. Her relentless assertion that only she will be a strong commander-in-chief makes my blood boil. In response, Barack Obama must rejoin her attacks and convince us that he, too, would be a fine commander who can deal with crises and war.
Excuse me, but is this what we want from Democrats? Fear mongering? Haven't we had enough from the Bush administration?
Of course we need a strong president who can protect the American people. Of course there are terrorists who are planning attacks on the United States. But no president can prevent a surprise attack. All a president can do is to ensure that our intelligence is excellent and that we are cooperating with nations around the world to prevent terrorist attacks.
So why do need a strong Command-in-Chief? To make war? Haven't we had enough wars in the last 7 years?
. What so disturbs me is that Hillary Clinton has created a debate that is irrelevant to our true domestic and economic security. Both Democratic candidates will be able to handle a crisis, but who among us, wants them to start and command yet more wars?
Let Senator McCain stress national security for now Let him defend the Bush military debacles. This is not the debate Democratic candidates should be having during the primaries. They should be arguing about how to end the war in Iraq and how to prevent future wars through multilateral diplomacy and negotiation. They should be talking about how the current wars are bankrupting our economy. They should be explaining how 12 billion dollars a month would support universal health care, as well as child care for working parents. They should be promising to remove the Social Security cap that allows a CEO to pay less social security taxes than his secretary. They should be promising to end the Bush tax cuts. They should be pledging to restore all our civil rights and liberties.
Instead, Hillary Clinton has set the terms of debate and is challenging Obama on the ground that she is more capable of making war and addressing national security. Well, our national security is not simply a military matter. Our national security, as any good Democrat should know, depends on the health and welfare of the nation's families and communities.
Exactly. This is one of the points I was trying to make in my post today.
March 5, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, I made a very similar point on my own personal blog today (nathanhj.livejournal.com)!
Great minds and all that...
March 5, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, our national security is not simply a military matter.
Yes it is, if you subscribe to neo-con philosophy. And so yet again we see Hillary coming down on the side of neo-con foreign policy.
March 5, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Obama has two young children that he will want to protect much more than Senator Clinton would. Hillary's scare ad is disgusting.
It Takes A Clinton To Raze A Village, In Order To Capture It.
March 5, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't agree more. Why is Clinton aligning herself with the neo-cons? Do we really want more of what they have to offer?
March 5, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another annoying thing is that all of her surrogates last night were referring to her being elected "commander-in-Chief," not "President."
This has been my number one issue with her all along. I really don't see much difference between her and Bush on foreign policy, and I think the odds of us getting into another major cockup in the Middle East or some other hotspot is exponentially more likely with her in the White House instead of Obama.
March 5, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sheesh, get a grip people. You'd think the red telephone ad was the lowest blow imaginable the way you're talking about it here. It wasn't that harsh.
March 5, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Harsh isn't the point. It's fearmongering. It's the Republican's 2004 campaign. It's everything I've loathed about the Bush administration since 911. It brings out the worst in Americans - emotionally driven reactions against religious and ethnic minorities and mindless devotion to war. It is simply the antithesis of what I want in a President and what I want for our future. I won't vote for it.
March 5, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about this one dest,
"I don't think it was by accident that al-Qaeda decided to test the new prime minister immediately. They watch our elections as closely as we do, maybe more than some of our fellows citizens do. Let's not forget you're hiring a president not just to do what a candidate says during the election, you want a president to be there when the chips are down."
- Hillary Clinton in NH before the primary.
In other words, the terrorists will surely attack us if a "less experienced" president is elected. So vote for Senator Obama if you want the evildoers to kill us all.
Keith Olbermann caught her in all of her fearmongering glory. It really is a must see for anyone who does not believe she is Cheney-lite.
The above quote happens about 2:20 into the clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BB4Vvgn_4k
March 6, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to agree with destor23. I mean really, talk about a case of the vapors! Just who was actually frightened by this ad? Was it intended to scare a certain demographic?
March 5, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Security Moms."
March 5, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
exactly.
March 6, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of those phony demographics??? I mean really, who was REALLY frightened by that ad?
March 6, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am fighting back today with the DNC, making sure they know the future of their party is at stake...
"Dear DNC --
As a "latte liberal" with a very decent liberal, who is an Obama supporter, and donating to a campaign for the first time in my life, I have only lived under a Bush or Clinton in the white house, I want to make it abundantly clear that should the DNC undermine the rules that it has established prior to the onset of this campaign. When the Super Delegates are making their determination on who to support for the final election, I hope they take in consideration the substantive fund raising ability of Mr. Obama and how that translates to the DNC for the future. If the Clinton's manage to muscle this election a la Rove/Bush from Obama, you can be assured that I will never financially support either the DNC or another democratic candidate.
Karena in SF"
March 5, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
So many Obama supporters seem to be echoing this sentiment. Either they get their candidate or they're sitting the election out. Hillary's supporters, meanwhile, seem willing to support the nominee. Obama bugs the heck out of me but I'll vote for him over McCain.
What is it with Obama supporters that it's their way or the highway?
March 5, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has already endorsed McCain over Obama.
March 6, 2008 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not that at all. It's a matter of principle.
If Hillary would win it fairly then Obama supporters would hold their noses and vote for her. Same as Hillary supporters would for him.
But winning it by cashing chits in the SD to throw it against the elected delegates, or using sleazy tactics to smear the opponent (which are her only chance at this point) is self defeating for the party ad our democracy in the long term.
Cashing chits in the establishment to maintain the party bureaucracy is anti-democratic and leads to rot and more politics as usual. Sleazy politics only creates more partisanship, fails to inform the public on important issues, and creates an apathetic and non-participatory electorate. Those are fundamental problems resulting from the politics as usual, rotting both parties to the core, and they have to change.
Those tactics only works for elections and won't work to make the economy better, fix Iraq, prevent or win other wars and terrorism, help the environment, etc. If sleazy politics and establishment dynasties made great leaders
then Bush would have brought us a utopia.
So no, I and other Obama supporters won't vote for that. You can't hold your nose and vote for a candidate if they're part of a system producing ever stinkier government.
March 6, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well that'll give them a good scare.
March 5, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everytime I think it can't get any sillier, it does. Think of it this way - maybe Clinton answering the phone will prevent a war. Couldn't it just as easily mean that?
March 5, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
They refuse to imagine anything but Hillary picking up the phone, listening ominously and then in a Governator voice saying "Terminate Them," and hanging up.
March 5, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Snicker...
March 5, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House."
"I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say," she said. "He's never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002."
These are quotations from Hillary Clinton made in the last week. Even overlooking that she used the words 'will bring', I am at a loss for words to describe how way too far these go. She is writing McCain ads that she has no business writing. Yes, I have heard the arguments that this is a 'service' -- that the toughening up to handle Republican attacks best happen now.
However, I think having these words in the mouth of Hillary is a whole different weapon. I agree with those who see the Clinton campaign as having evolved from 'kitchen sink' (permissible in a primary) to 'scorched earth'. Not permissible.
I don't know where this goes. I hope there is a way to counter, best if it also educates the public about what is really at stake here. But if Obama is the nominee, which I still think is likely, then she will have directly contributed to weakening the position of Democrats in the general election. If she wins the primary, she will have significantly contributed to weakening her own position in the general election.
I say this, because people like me, try as I might, will be disadvantaged to make the argument for electing her. I will still be able to make anti-McCain arguments and I will. If that happens I will grieve that I can't enthusiastically make the argument that people should vote for the Democrat.
Bill Clinton was enormously popular, but he never particularly did anything to build the Democratic Party. Two years in, we lost the Congress. Right now is the first major party building breakthrough moment since that time. Top down politics of political calculation (seven states are important, the rest are not and it's okay to say that loud and clear) do not set the stage for the longer term.
So, today, before getting on with it, I take some time to grieve that the scorched earth approach is seeming to work on Democrats. Because the longer term implications of this election have a very big upside, and one that isn't only about Barack Obama. It's about us, what becomes possible for all of us over the next few decades if the politics of destruction is actually not allowed to win.
And yes, I know that the Obama campaign needs to pass some crucial tests in the next days and weeks. No victimhood here, the fight to prevail needs to fight every inch of territory with a narrative that makes more appeal and garners more trust.
March 5, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said ktmseattle. What is discouraging is the devolution of political discourse into this language of the politics of destruction--even given the observation that politics is a "dirty game" and that Clinton's comments are part and parcel of her being experienced and a fighter--and the implications for a future politics of inclusion that is threatened by an approach that undermines not only the position of her opponent, but her party and its principles.
March 5, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not true. In fact a recent poll... I'll find the reference for you said that 25% of Clinton's supporter won't support Obama in the GE. Obama's support of Clinton was somewhat lower.
That said, I am one that hates the Clinton way of things. Its not that she uses these tactics - I don't mind if its against a Republican. She's using it against a fellow Democrat. That's low in my book. Whether it is in your book or not, that's why we agree to disagree.
March 5, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you find that poll, I'd love to see it. I'm writing based on my experiences here at TPM and you really don't see Clinton supporters saying "I won't vote for Obama if he's the nominee." At least not around here.
March 5, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a link to the Pew poll in question, destor.
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=1254
The %s of democrat "defectors" to McCain if Obama is the nominee was 25 vs 10% of dems if it's Clinton vs McCain.
Such sentiments are freely expressed on hardliner Hillary supporter sites such as TM, noquarter and the most rabid-of-them-all-blog, Hillaryis44.
March 5, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm shocked but I stand corrected.
Okay Democrats, I don't care who which candidate you like but if you're willing to vote for McCain over EITHER Hillary or Obama, then you need serious help.
March 5, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, that's not exactly what it said
Overall, more dems would vote for McCain if Obama wins the nod.
However among Hillary supporters, you are correct, 25% of HER supporters say they wouldn't back Obama in the general.
Certainly surprising considering the posts around here.
March 6, 2008 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama still beats McCain by larger margins than Hillary, because he draws Indies and expands the youth vote enormously.
We're seeing a major realignment of the parties. Some are going to switch parties both ways for different reasons. Whover can win more of the indies and exapnd the vote will be the winner.
Obama has done that. McCain can to some extent though he's saddled with Bush. The only person who hasn't been able to is Hillary. she's still running a big state and DLC base strategy thats failed repeatedly.
March 6, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this should be a two-pronged attack on Hillary:
1) The Obama campaign has this about right. WTF is Hillary's actual foreign policy experience? According to her Foreign Policy advisor (Jamie Rubin) she gave a speech in China. (A speech? How ironic).
2) Obama is the only candidate left in the race, who has said he is willing to go after Osama bin Laden in Pakistan! This is a huge advantage. It plays into his toughness AND it's the right position. Targeted attacks against al Qaida are the exact thing EVERYONE in the country agrees (that is except Hillary and McCain) we should have done prior to 9/11 and ever since. Why does he not go after her on this!?
Sure she might say he's "naive" but the response to this is devastating. Something along the lines of "had we done this prior to 9/11, the WTC would still be standing, 4,000 American Soldiers would still be alive, and we'd have about $500 Billion dollars still in our treasury." Or something like that.
March 5, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
destor23, the reason you don't see Clinton supporters saying that they won't support Obama is that Clinton supporters are largely older Democrats who want to "play it safe" - are either hawks, or want to present an appearance of hawkishness - and who tolerate things like Clinton's support of unconstitutional flag burning legislation, the Kyl-Lieberman vote, either of which is repulsive to some Democrats like me, who - I as someone who will vomit while voting for Clinton (over McCain). The fact is, I hate her now that she's pursued a scorched earth policy against Obama. She's vile. Yes, I'll vote for her, but many young people and those who are not so knee-jerk as I will not.
March 5, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yes, ktmseattle, at 3:00 a.m., Clinton wakes up bashing Obama before McCain. What kind of a Democrat is that to inspire loyalty from Democrats?
March 5, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices, but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence and fulfills the duty to express the results of his thought in clear form. - Albert Einstein
March 6, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look, the poll numbers are very clear. People don't know Obama, and they have doubts about him on that level. You can scream about it until you're blue in the face, but that does zero to change the perception. It isn't true, but Obama hasn't communincated it yet. All Hillary did was drive a truck through those poll numbers, and a large number of people have more confidence in her as commander-in-chief. This is not Rove. This is Reagan and Mondale. Mondale's ad failed, because, in fact, people were confident he'd face up to that. It's a perception. It's real.
March 5, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Instead of bashing Hillary (although I will admit to great temptation), I take a bit of exception to your ad.
Yes, the ad brought up fear. But then Hillary reassured folks that she would keep your kids safe. It was the reassurance that voters would remember. There is also the tie-in to Hillary's long-time commitment to children.
Instead of whining, I would like to see Obama address the issue of reassurance in fearful situations. Hillary presented fear and then reassured folks. Can Obama do the same? I think he has to address this.
We have to admit to ourselves that a good number of Americans are fearful of an unexpected attack and that this may be one of the legacies of 0911. I think the ad was effective because that fear is present in a lot of Americans.
March 5, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting point. Security is always at the top of all people's minds. Reinforcing that sense is important.
The concept conflicts with the "auto-rage at use of fear" in advertising. Which side of the coin can you leave them thinking about - fear or security?
Obama needs to do an interview type commercial contrasting his willingness to strike as needed to WJC's failure to strike bin laden, the with drawl of forces from afghanistan. Mix shots of him with contextual clips - but always keep his voice the center.
He needs to put the sub committee position to rest - the damage is well done and will take more than a sub-committee to fix it. Show a bit of disdain about why anyone thought this problem could be solved at such level - hence the run for president. Action.
Show a graduation from words to action - hence the presidential run. (drifting off topic...)
March 6, 2008 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Her Royale Crownship, Fascist Plutocrat in a pantsuit . . .
And you are shocked that she is running a Republican campaign . . .
Have you been asleep for the last two and a half decades?
March 6, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
“A phone in the White House–and its ringing.” “Something is happening in the world.”
“Red phone.” I guess that is the acronym for the “hot line,” first instituted in 1963, it was a direct line to the Kremlin. No red phone in this ad.
Something is happening in the world. Perhaps those nasty food riots led to outright revolution in the Middle East, perhaps the Asian and European stock markets went into crash mode, and the dawn will soon break here in America, perhaps a rouge terrorist group with a nuclear device just leveled Singapore, and all those chaotic butterflies are now taking flight.
Amazing how some minds work, and read something that just isn’t there.
Scared? Try the Cuban Missile Crisis, duck and cover drills, or those schoolroom maps marking radiation and blast parameters with concentric rings. And Sister Jean all about, a civil defense manual in hand. As it was once said across the early boomer time line: “child is father to man.”
And our leader was a nun.
March 6, 2008 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
How insightful. We used to get under those desks and pray the Hail Mary. Now and at the hour of our deaths, Amen. Texas City was 15 miles up the road. When it exploded the windows in my school blew in. The problem that Senator Obama's friends here have is he answered that ad eloquently. He said someone with his superior judgment should answer that call. The voters disagreed. They will continue to disagree until and beyond November. I doubt the Obama phenomenom has ever been about winning the White House. It has been about winning the Democratic Party. You can't win the White House by pretending to be smarter than 85% of the American people.
March 6, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everywhere I go I see; Clinton this, Clinton that, Obama this, Obama that. Whether Online, on TV, or in the newspapers, Clinton, Obama, babble babble babble. Enough already. I'm off to live in a cave with no electricity until after the election is over!
March 6, 2008 5:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just a few days ago, Hillery endorsed John McCain over Senator Obama.
March 6, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
BevD, 3/5 @3:56 - In the good old Cold War days, it was assumed that 20 minutes was the time it would take for a launched missile (by the Russians) to reach here. Whoever will answer the 3am call on the 'red phone' better pick up before the 5th ring (as shown in the ad).
March 6, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
You say that both candidates can handle a national crisis, but what (other than you own opinion) do you offer as evidence of this?
I'm not saying that one or the other can't handle a crisis, but I don't think it is at all a given that they can. I don't want Hillary to win, but I don't share the Obamaite view that raising the issue about who you trust most in a crisis situation is in any way fearmongering or unfair. It is perfectly legit to raise this issue.
If the issue hurts Obama then maybe it's a learning moment for him and his minions that not everyone is convinced he's the man for the job. Maybe Obama and his minions need to reassess what appears to be their posture of the nomination being theirs already and a foregone conclusion because he has a 100 vote delegate lead over her? Maybe the Obama crowd needs to get real and face the fact that neither their man nor Hillary are in a position to win enough elected delegates outright to clinch the nomination? Maybe instead of just howling about "Hillary is worse" Obama and his minions should start talking about how they are going to take a cowardly, fearful and timid Democratic majority in Congress and get even a single progressive initiative made into law? I think any of these alternatives would be better than the carping and kvetching and resentment coming out of Camp Obama these days.
March 6, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me say right at the beginning, I support Hillary Clinton. I am dismayed at the "wussy" nature of many Obama supporters about nastiness, and "politics of fear" and more of the same bull*&^%$. Politics is, like life, rough andd tumble, but gracious, and I'm sure that the fair-haired Barack has thrown a few punches on his way to stardom in the Illinois legislature. One would have to admit that he has not starred in the U.S.Senate. And it certainly would be nice if the committee he heads (Afghanistan)would meet once in 18 months. But to me, he fails on one major issue - health care.
My small company received our new health insurance rates from Oxford, a division of United Health with a premium increase for the new plan year up 17.5% to $520 per month for a sungle. A family would pay $1612 monthly, or $19,344 annually. This is for a middling plan with $2000 deductible and high co-pays. This is absolutely crazy!! I'm afraid that Barack's approach to health care - courtesy of his conservative economic advisor Goolsby - would continue the existing system, which is unacceptable.
March 6, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is my take as well.
March 6, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I very much dislike the politics of fear, but I utterly detest the Fascist Republican Party. I'm not at all happy that the Clinton camp is using the politics of fear, even the very mild forms they are using, but of Obama loses the nomination in the polite patty-cake that is passing for the Democratic Party campaign, he will certainly lose against McCain and his supper rich Republican swiftboaters who know no limits of decency or even legality.
The Democratic primary campaign needs to prepare the ultimate nominee for the general election against the criminals, totalitarians and super rich tycoons and bankers who are running the Republican Party and who have spent the last thirty years destroying America, the U.S. constitution, and the Rule of Law.
If Obama can't win against the very mild competition he faces inside the Democratic Party, we don't want him representing us in the General Election. He won't be able to win there, and that's the test of our next leader. Not how nice he is, not if there is really a credible Black candidate for President (Great as that is), not whether he can sing Kumbaya at the campfire and channel Mother Teresa, but can he WIN IN NOVEMBER!
I don't like it, but if that's what it takes for Hillary to win, and she succeeds, then she is the one we want to send against McCain and the Fascists. But I have been impressed by Obama's organizing skills, and I really expect that if he is not too trapped into his own rhetoric to deal with reality, he will come up with a master stroke that deals with negative attacks. That's what I'm looking for. And if he fails, then Hillary is our nominee.
If you are an American and a Democrat who believes in the Constitution and the Rule of Law and recognizes that the Republican Party has totally gone off the rails, that's how you want it to work.
If you think that being nice is more important than winning, then go home and complain to your mother. You aren't suited for participation in politics.
March 6, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good points! But the real problem, IMO, is that our choice is so narrow and between two centrist, corporate Democrats. If we had a real Democrat to choose, when they did that Survey USA poll in all 50 states we would have seen one candidate stand out by being able to cream McCain all over the country. As it is, with the two milque toast Dems we're stuck with, neither one of them can beat McCain convincingly.
2008 should have been a watershed election year where Democrats slaughtered the Republicans up and down the line. That opportunity has been lost now because of the irrational exhuberance of so many voters either for the woman or the black candidate instead of the Democrat most able to win and win big in November. Progressives and liberals all but forgot their goals and indulged their emotional response to two new packages that represent all the policies, tactics, and positions they've so bitterly complained about especially since the Democrats won back Congress in 06.
Sad to say, but now because we have no real choice the only factor we have to consider at this point are the odds of winning. If we had a strong candidate in the race there wouldn't be any question, but when you look at the SUSA numbers it becomes clear how utterly weak both of them are as national candidates. I submit their biggest weakness is shared and unrelated to gender or race. Their biggest weakness is that they are Republican lite and it is going to be difficult for them to draw meaningful contrasts between themselves and McCain.
March 6, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Richard. All of that needed to be said, IMO. Obama has issues to deal with and he needs to deal with those issues right now. I'm waiting for him to do that.
If he doesn't, then Hillary will be the candidate. And although I said a few months ago that I would not vote for Hillary, I have now officially changed my mind. I have my concerns but I do know that she will respond effectively and quickly to any attacks. And I liked the 3AM ad because I thought it was something that should have been addressed.
Obama steps up or he's the VP candidate at the most. He has told his supporters twice now that he would become more aggressive. It's not so much aggression as it is PR smarts.
Get in front of Rezko. This reminds me of the mishandling Hillary did early on with Whitewater. Every little bit of inaccuracy makes it seem as if there is a fire under that whiff of smoke. And it all starts feeding on itself.
And get ahead of your religion, your race, your trying on a tribal costume, your saluting or not saluting. Ignoring this or just having it brought up in interviews is NOT ENOUGH!
Hillary certainly came back and fought for her gals and her older voters in Texas and Ohio. A good number of these folks were already moving to Obama, stayed there, and then moved right back to Hillary. Obama needs to take a lesson from that. He has to keep those voters for himself.
This is the second chance I'm giving Obama. If he can't deliver, then my support will move to Hillary. I'll make this decision after Pennsylvania.
And, believe me, this is a HUGE change for me.
March 6, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, this "front pager" seems to ignore the rampant sexism that rears it's ugly head whenever Ms. Clinton wins anything.
How about that Dee Dee thread saying it's OK to use the "B-word"? Or the nonsense about Hillary only getting where she is because of Bill?
No, no, we will feign OUTRAGE because Hillary Clinton did what any MAN would do and went after Obama on National Security.
Sexism from the usual quarters is expected, but I get absolutely ill when I read self-hating feminists.
Shame on all of you.
March 6, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh give it a rest. The people most likely to be sluggish on the issue of women's rights are the older generations forming the bulk of Hillary's voting block! Obama draws much of his support from young progressives, and unless I've missed something, I don't think there's been any strong movements to put women back in the kitchen among under 30yr olds.
As it is, many gunning for gender equality felt a little betrayed by Hillary's pandering to a 50's stereotype. We've seen how she reacts when "the chips are down"; she bursts into tears and calls hubby to come bail her out. Helluva message for America's daughters, there. "You can do anything you want! Just marry well!!!" Hillary is pimping that message, not her opponents.
And that is, of course, the answer to her recent add. On the basis of what we know about the Clintons, the experienced hand picking up that phone in Hillary's White House is likely going to be none other than Bill's.
March 7, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is now repeatably endorsing John McCain over Senator Obama. I do not give a rat's arse about what genitalia any of them are equipped with. She is a traitor to the party.
March 6, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
And it wasn't fearmongering when Obama boasted about chasing Osama over Pakistan's border whether the Pakistanis objected or not?
Like it or not, McCain does have military expertise --denying this in public would just make the Democrats look ridiculous. The argument has to be over what the military should be used for.
March 7, 2008 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
And it wasn't fearmongering when Obama boasted about chasing Osama over Pakistan's border whether the Pakistanis objected or not?
Like it or not, McCain does have military expertise --denying this in public would just make the Democrats look ridiculous. The argument has to be over what the military should be used for.
March 7, 2008 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink