Reader Posts

« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »

BACKLASH

avatar

The Clintons not only never know when to quit; they also never realize when they've gone too far--and that has been the Achilles heel that has tripped 'em up every time.

Some little girlie down in Arkansas wants to sue Bill for allegedly exposing himself to her when he was governor; Bill says, Let's settle; but Hillary says, NEVER!  LET'S FIGHT! 

(All the way to impeachment--two years of a national nightmare that gave grade-school kids a shockingly clear understanding of just what was meant by the term, "blow job.")

Special prosecutors ask for all the documents pertaining to a loser land deal, which the Clintons both know full well will reveal no wrongdoing; but Hillary says, NEVER!  LET'S FIGHT! 

(And we get Whitewater, which dominated news coverage for months on end and put an innocent woman in prison for a year and a half of her life because she wouldn't lie to Ken Starr and say she'd witnessed wrongdoing on the Clinton's part.  All of which they'd've known if the papers had just been released up front.)

When The First Black President begins to complain before the South Carolina primary that race is going to hand the victory to a REAL potential black president--he is warned, not just by Clinton campaign insiders and civil right leaders, but by the old lion himself, Ted Kennedy, to back off.  He says, NEVER!  LET'S FIGHT! and does not back off. 

(Obama wins by a landslide and Kennedy gives his endorsement and blessing to Obama.  And offended African Americans, who had been pretty evenly split on who they were going to support up to that point, flock en masse to Obama and pretty much stay there.)

Then, when the Kitchen Sink Strategy was cooked up behind closed doors of the Clinton campaign to throw anything and everything they could think of at the charismatic young candidate in order to bring him down; they started with theatrics--whining that "the media" was unfairly attacking her and going easy on him and then turning around and shaking his hand and kissing up all in one night; raging in front of the cameras in a fire-engine red suit about a two-months' old campaign mailout as though it were a brand-new outrage the next day; sarcastically mocking him--and by extension, his supporters--on the next; accusing him of sleazy real estate deals (hmmm) the next; making wild accusations that Obama was "imitating Ken Starr" the next; leaking a scurrilous (though innocent) photo of him in a head turban the next; and unveiling a McCain supporter's purloined YouTube ad the next couple of days before the primaries that was deliberately designed to frighten people in the best tradition of Karl Rove--to "scare up votes" as Obama put it. 

Finally, Hillary winds up her happy-warrior week by telling 60 Minutes that, no, Obama was not a Muslim..."as far as I know."

Bull's eye.

And it was working.  This Kitchen Sink Strategy.

Newspaper and network newsies, thus scolded by mama and Saturday Night Live, didn't want to get into trouble again, so they worked to prove how very fair they were by dumping scores of stories designed to cast doubt on Obama, from articles about his Chicago church, to articles about the Rezko real estate deal, to articles examining what he had--and had not--accomplished in state government (even if they did quote mostly Republican colleagues)--and in the U.S. Senate, to more tiresome examinations as to whether or not he really COULD be a Muslim, to whether or not he was tough enough to beat Hillary--let alone answer the red phone at three a.m., to snotty op-eds about all those crazy fainting fans (which never mentioned that those same supporters had probably been standing in line or on their feet at a rally for hours, and that the room gets hot with thousands of people in it, and that they don't sell concessions, so you don't eat until it's all over, but whatever.  We're aaaaallllll "Obamamaniacs.")

And all's fair in love and campaigning, said political junkies.  After all, he'll face much worse from Republicans (I doubt it) come the fall, and if he's not tough enough to handle HER, then he doesn't deserve the nomination.

Okay.  Fair enough. 

And fair enough, I guess, that rather than answer attacks from a candidate and her surrogates, he ALSO had to answer attacks from a candidate, her surrogates, a popular former president who happened to be married to her and his surrogates, and a Republican nominee and HIS surrogates.

He lost some steam.  Lost some votes.  Lost some primaries.

News footage and cover stories and front-page headlines coughed up hundreds of photographs of a shining, beaming, triumphant Hillary.  Time even went so far as to put a gloriously happy Hillary on the cover with the headline, THE FIGHTER.

Obama was on the defensive--never a good position for a candidate in a long and exhausting race.  He still had plenty of money and plenty of supporters, but his famous momentum was arrested, if not halted altogether.

And then, because she is a Clinton, she had to go too far.  

And she didn't just do it once--she did it three times in a row, in full view of reporters--because she was so sure of herself that, when in fighting mode, you just keep on fighting even when you're winning.  You don't let up until your opponent is not just down, but DEAD.

Problem with that is that, even in bare-knuckled street fighting, there are always at least one or two rules.

And in politics, if there is one rule and one rule only when it comes to the presidential race, it is this:  YOU DON'T GIVE THE OTHER PARTY AMMUNITION TO USE AGAINST YOUR OPPONENT IF THAT OPPONENT HAPPENS TO WIN THE NOMINATION.

Because the bottom line is not personal ambition.  The bottom line is that Democrats wind up in the White House.  Not Republicans.  So you pull up short, for the sake of the party and the nation--if you are anybody but a Clinton.

It's a very simple rule, really.  And even if it didn't exist, most people with any sense of character and honor wouldn't cross over that line anyway.  The stakes are just too high, not just for our party, but for our country.

But when Hillary smells blood in the water, she's going to slice through the water for the kill.

(Shark fishermen, you know, put bloody meat in the water to attract the sharks, and then they catch 'em.  The sharks, intent on the smell of blood, aren't alert to the fact that they are about to get caught by their own greed.)

Heading straight for the blood trail, Hillary gives a cold-eyed unblinking stare and says something to the effect that, THE ONLY PEOPLE REALLY QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT ARE ME AND THE REPUBLICAN.

She says it several different ways.  She talks about the "commander-in-chief" threshhold, whatever that is.  Where, someone tortured in a prison of war for five years, who goes on to serve 25 years in congress and the senate, many of those years on the Armed Services Committee--is actually EQUALLY qualified to be commander-in-chief with someone who slept with a president.  (As far as we know.)

President Laura Bush, anyone?

One way or the other, she repeats the claim, over and over again, that "Obambi," as Maureen Dowd of the NY Times likes to call him, could never be trusted to answer that big red phone in the night.  Only Hillary.  And if not Hillary, then the Republican opponent.

She is warned--just as the Clintons are FREQUENTLY warned when they are going too far, but she ignores the warnings and keeps on saying it.  To add confusing insult to injury, she and Bill then begin repeating to reporters that Obama would make a FINE vice-president to a President Hillary.

(So...I guess...if she has a heart attack and dies after taking office...then an unqualified LOSER would be answering that phone?  I'm just asking.  Not sure how you can have it both ways.)

And then comes the inevitable Clinton Backlash.

The party faithful begin to rise up, and say, WAIT JUST A MINUTE HERE MISSY!  What the hell are you doing?  If Obama gets the nomination, you just gave John McCain half a dozen campaign ads to run in the fall.

But in Hillary's Kitchen Sink Strategy, it's like, you throw everything but the kitchen sink at the man, but he keeps comin', so you rip out the sink and throw IT too, but he STILL keeps comin,' so what the hell? 

You tear out the gas stove.  Now, you know that by tearing out the gas stove to throw at him, you run the risk of blowing up the whole kitchen and whoever's in it, right?

But you don't care.  You just want the m-f to DIE!

Sniffing danger, bloggers begin to cry FOUL!

Op-eds start to say...Fighting rough and tough is fine; we LIKE fighting rough and tough...but giving an edge to the opposing party just so that you and ONLY YOU can benefit?

Even if it destroys the party or the first real chance Dems have got to take back the White House?  Even if the whole thing explodes come November?

That kind of ambition and lust for power, they say...That's just CRAVEN.

Others chortle, NOW DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT THE NINETIES WERE REALLY LIKE?

Die-hard supporters start having second thoughts.  Writing for HuffingtonPost.com, one lists the string of Clinton scandals and problems of the nineties--how he made excuses and apologies in order to continue to support them--but NOW?  

"I'm through apologizing," he says.
       
The Clintons...they can't seem to help themselves.  They gotta keep PUSHING.

And that Ken Starr accusation launched at Obama's head with the kitchen sink?

Obama, treating the campaign much like a courtroom battle, basically says, "You know, I wasn't going to get into all that, but since YOU brought it up..."

And he starts asking...What did Hillary actually DO on all those trips overseas?  Did she negotiate treaties?  Did she set policy?  Did she effect world peace?  Bring a war to an end?  Stop genocide?

Hillary starts stammering, Yes!  I did!

But those who were there say...Uh...nooooo, you didn't actually.

And Obama starts asking...Where are the records of your time at the White House?  Let's look at your appointments and see how many crucial meetings you actually took part in.  After all, you like to claim you were right in there, making policy, right?  So let's introduce the record into evidence and examine it ourselves.

Hillary stumbles and says, This stuff takes time.  Lotsa time.

And he starts asking...Let's see your tax returns.  You file jointly with Bill?  How much does he make and where does all that money come from?  Where'd you GET five million bucks to loan your campaign?

And she says...Later.

And he starts asking...Show us a list of the people who donated to the Clinton presidential library.  How many donated half a million dollars or more?  And what do they expect in return from yet another Clinton White House?  Stymied investigations?  Regulations overlooked?  Pardons for friends?  Special favors?  ACCESS?  Show us the list of donors and we'll follow the money.

She doesn't answer.

And he says, I got news for you lady.  I don't WANT to be your vice-president.  I am running for President of the United States.  

Sensing lurking fishermen everywhere...Hillary starts to back off a bit on the McCain comparisons but, as always with the Clintons, it's too late

Now half the party is livid with rage...and then...comes the whispering...

IS SHE DELIBERATELY DOING THIS SO THAT, IF OBAMA WINS THE NOMINATION, McCAIN WILL BE IN A BETTER POSITION TO WIN IN NOVEMBER...SO THAT SHE CAN RUN AGAIN IN 2012?

So that she can come back and say, See?  I told you he wasn't ready.  Now he lost and McCain is in the White House, so, aren't you ready for me NOW?

I'm trying very very hard not to be that cynical.

But I tell you one thing...If there is any truth whatsoever to that rumor...ANY truth...

Knowing that John McCain will continue Bush's War all through a first term in office and THEN some...

That means that, in a most conservative estimate imaginable...at least two to three thousand or more United States soldiers and Marines could be expected to die in Iraq during those four years.

Maybe my son or nephews.

For what?

Hillary's ambition?

I certainly hope that the rumors I'm hearing about Hillary's plan to cinch the presidency four years from now if we don't give her the nomination she thinks is hers for the asking RIGHT NOW--I surely hope they are not true. 

People get angry and frustrated and anxious and float these ideas that may or may not be paranoid.  Against all odds to the contrary, I'm trying to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt, here.

But I am vividly reminded of Richard Nixon's run for the presidency in 1968.

The country was ripped down the middle--those for and against the war--as well as generations and political parties and races and every other division you can think of.  A hugely unpopular president was on his lame way out.  A charismatic and much-beloved Democratic candidate had been shot down just after winning the California primary.  The subsequent Democratic convention two months' later was rent with controversy and violence.

Nixon exploited those divisions, and he promised the American people that he had a "Secret Plan" to end the Vietnam War.

That "Secret Plan" gave him a slim victory over Hubert Humphrey.

Yeah, and then, for the next three and a half years, the war dragged on and thousands more died.  Tens of thousands.

Then, right before the re-election campaign cranked up, the languishing peace talks suddenly--MIRACULOUSLY--picked up steam and the war began to wind down and Richard Nixon was re-elected in a landslide.  (And what a productive presidency he had, eh?)

But Nixon deliberately and cynically used the war as a political ploy, just like Bush did in '04, and I hope they both burn in hell for that.

I don't ever want to put Hillary Clinton in the same Rogue's Gallery as the likes of Nixon and Bush.  Like many, I supported her for many years and I, too, excused and apologized for the Clintons to friends who hated them.

But she's gone too far this time, and if there is any chance at all that she's doing it for her own political ambition and her hopes to run again in 2012--THE WAR BE DAMNED--Democrats be damned, Barack Obama be damned, and anybody else who gets in her way be damned...

If this is a political ploy to strengthen the Republicans in November if she does not get the nomination she craves--knowing full well that they are running their campaign on Bush's War...and they take over the White House, in part, because Obama got the nomination but was fatally crippled by the huge kitchen explosion that occurred when Hillary ripped out the stove to throw at him...and they continue this war for four more years...

Then Hillary Clinton deserves to have her portrait hung right on up there with Bob MacNamara, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Nixon, Karl Rove, and George W. Bush.

I don't wanna believe it.

But the Clintons just keep taking it one step too far.


Comments (35)

Wow, Deanie! Just Wow! You nailed it! You made "clinton stew" out of the "kitchen sink" strategy! You put it all together. Boiled it down.

Just in time.

Come to Obama, Mississippi!

♪♪♪

Excellent - you could be an honorary Republican if they only had honor.

Starting off with "just give in to Paula Jones" - fantastic, you're so insightful. I wish you were around in the 50's to tell Hollywood to just give in to McCarthy, or the 60's telling peaceniks to just give in to Nixon/Agnew. Life would be so much better now, we would all just get along. Actually things are pretty good now in 2008, now that Democrats have been giving in to Republican demands since 9/11. Republicans now respect us much more, we don't have anymore bickering, everything runs smooth and profitably and there's a chicken in every pot.

Just Give In. Words to live by. Once Winston mouthed the words, "Do it to Julia", it all became easier, the load was lifted, the path to take was clear.

Yes, thank you for your idiocy. You have thoroughly illuminated what is most wrong with Obama's supporters if not himself - they idea that there was no Richard Scaife or right wing conspiracy, that really it was only Clinton's "hubris" with Monica and Paula that caused all the problem (ignoring of course that the first dally with Monica came in a quiet White House when Gingrich had shut down the government). That the 90's were a disaster because of Clinton and we're still looking for a way out of the damage he caused.

In one election, Ross Perot scandalized the world by saying about rape that women should just lay back and enjoy it, and here we're codifying this not just as a campaign strategy but a way of Democratic life. Remember how Arnold Schwarzenegger got "elected"? That's Republican bi-partisanship. Republicans didn't like Clinton winning so set out to make his life hell. And they did. And the press played along, including the New York Times and Washington Post. No scandal too obscure and unlikely not to make it to the front page. Excellent. The Republicans got away scot-free with jamming phone banks in New Hampshire, got away with firing Attorney Generals for political purpose, got away with Scooter Libby lying to out a CIA agent, got an Alabama governor put in jail, lied its way into war, diverted billions of dollars into cronies' hands, and our national debate is whether we should get along and be less partisan. To quote Otto in Repo Man: "Fuck that."

They should read The Hunting Of The President. These posts are part and parcel of the ongoing hunt. Amateurish maybe, but determined. And they resonate with the hard core Clinton haters. You'e right about the provenance of the post, I think.

avatar

I'm beginning to think they don't read anything.

Huh???

He's referring to a book by Joe Conason, for those of us who paid attention in the 90's. You kids go back to sleep now, we'll wake you when the Obama show comes on.

If the sincere ones did read it, they would realize just how powerful the people pulling the strings behind the scenes in the this country really are, and they would be terrified. I've often wondered if Hillary's false hopes line was something fed to her by her campaign or an authentic warning about what she knows Obama's supporters are walking into.

obviously you people don't know how to respond to a post.... you're commenting below me!

So, huh?

They were wasting their time replying to you, just as you were wasting your time replying to me. Or maybe that's the general Huh? you respond to reality with, in which case, you put it in the wrong place. May I suggest a more appropriate location?

"I don't wanna believe it."

At this point how can we believe anything else?


avatar

Don't whine, Deanie.

The irony of this comment is so, so terribly thick.

LOL!

avatar

Look who's talking - after that last blog post you'd think you'd have some humility, but you're just going to plow on, aren't you? Redouble your efforts, so to speak.

avatar

Yes, but then I don't write big long screeds complaining that Clinton is whining and tough old broads don't whine.

If you make that part of the definition of tough old broad then you are excluding Sen Clinton from the set of tough old broads because she whines often and in public.

avatar

Deanie set up the rules for tough old broads and one of them was no whining. "Oh Clinton did this, oh, Clinton did that, my candidate is being tormented, absolutely tormented by Clinton, it isn't fair, it's so mean..." so who is whining here?

BevD

Try not to follow your candidate into the pit of self parody. You are better than that.

avatar

My candidate is the candidate who is nominated.

Good to see you supporting Obama. :)

Thank you for posting the obvious. Obama Is Winning.

avatar

I'll be happy to cast my vote for either candidate. I think they'd both be good presidents.

avatar

Well..... whatever her intention, that's what's being achieved, isn't it? Her purpose may be noble for all I know (or care) - I guess anything is possible in the alternative reality that the Clintons get to live in. But I can't see how the *effect* of what she is doing is anything other than wounding our party's likely nominee in any and every way she can; burning up energy and money that could better be spent shaping a campaign for the general; and postponing to a dangerous degree turning our attention to that general election campaign. Even if she should somehow succeed in getting the nomination, those last two things will hinder her as much as they will Obama.

I've been struck, over and over again, at how phenomenally short-sighted the Clintons are: everything is for the immediate moment, the immediate gain and worry about tomorrow, tomorrow. (REAL good reason not to want her as President.) I wonder, in fact, if there is a conscious purpose to what she is doing: just automatic movement. I got into this fight and I don't give up, don't change course once I set my sights on a goal. Every day, in every way, she seems more and more like George Bush.

If it becomes even more obvious that what she is doing has no discernable purpose but only hugely detrimental effect, will the party step in to stop her? She may not be able to stop on her own.

Great post, Deanie. Thank you. Feel like sending git off to the superdelegates en mass. They can't wait until August!

I sense a con here.

That is it? You sense a con?

Is your new avatar restricting blood flow?

Could be. But my bullshit detector is still working.

The short of it is: He will not be bloodied. The only thing that will happen is it will be a waste of money and a waste of time.

Most importantly a waste of time. The Republican Crew is already setting up McCain's photo ops. They are working him into the picture to make it seem like the only transition in November will be to someone older, more wise than the goofy Bush. Hence the tap dance scene prior to the "endorsement" Bush gave.

They are going to yank the heart strings of all the die-hard military supporters out there (especially those with kids out there that re-enlist to fight the good fight) and paint either one as the soldier hating commie pinko they are and play McCain up as the hero in this fight for our very civilization.

Waste of time will hurt either dem candidate in terms of developing the back story. The underlying tone of the campaign.

Otherwise - complaining/whining about letting this play a bit longer, overlooks the event that is most important. The victor needs to stand before the republic with blood dripping from her/his chin and the jugular dangling from their mouth. Without this, there is no coming of age for president. This does not mean that Obama needs to stoop their level, it just means that if he is going to make it to the GE with any chance of winning - it cannot be without a fight to the death of one contestant.

I want the Obama A/V team to play Hillary's mock scene before the rallies in the GE. He will have to rent stadiums wherever he goes.

Fly's expose on the inner workings of HRC remind me of the video on Indecision 2008 (pre-election season) and how human she seemed. The real HRC is seems like a great person to be president. But then you get kicked in the teeth with 90's style fighting. It makes Obama's response a relief - a relief from de ja vu. It is also refreshing because he is sharp about it. The real HRC gets votes. The Clinton Machine dumps votes like a Chinese Solar Power Plant dumps toxic waste. It is the same old thing repackaged, and it seems to turn people off. Those who pay attention perhaps. Hence the support seen on the caucus side. I have yet to see exactly why it is so undemocratic? People with health needs should be accommodated, and the nation needs a national vote day, but what is wrong about standing in a group of people with whom you agree? Something awfully personal about it all, and perhaps as a nation we suffer for a lack of such interaction.

I wander...

The Republican Crew is too busy posting here to do much of anything. I have some of them zeroed now.

Blowback. Repurcussions. Unintended Consequences. Ricochet. Well put! Anyone remember the 90s with Bill in the WH and the Democratic party in the wilderness? History will repeat itself.

What's with this wave of Obama supporters coming out in favor of people like Paula Jones? Did all the Obamanoids go prude last week or something?

No, we just see what you do not: The Clintons are more often than not their own worst enemies.

If they were obscure private citizens, this would not matter one bit. Since they are not, their indiscretions and self-destructive foolishness cause problems for the rest of us. The solution is for them to become private citizens at the earliest possible moment. Two months ago would be good.

BACKLASH

avatar

hello_world,

Thank you so much for the link to Politico.com--I had not seen that quote by Nancy Pelosi and I find it ominous for Hillary. In my heart of hearts I've always felt that Pelosi was a Hillary supporter--couldn't tell you why, exactly and I could be woefully wrong, but I just had this feeling that she was.

But her comments here are, to my way of thinking, titanic, because it shows that she is absolutely outraged that Hillary made the claim that only she or John McCain would be qualified to be president--and this is what I mean by backlash. She went too far and pissed off the Speaker of the House, who holds a great deal of influence with the super delegates.

Such a remark--repeated, as I pointed out, three times--is a betrayal of the party, because in such a tight election, then there is no guarantee that she would be the nominee, obviously, so by making such a claim, she pulls a Tanya Harding on Obama.

Nancy Pelosi understands only too well the repercussions for Democrats if a Republican gets the White House AGAIN--especially one who has embraced so completely Bush's agenda on the war, tax cuts, and reproductive rights (judicial appointments). She wants to see the PARTY win in Nov., not just in the House, Senate, but in the White House. Only then can we begin to undo the terrible damage of the Bush years.

But Hillary just wants to see Hillary win.

By going too far this time, she may very well have just knee-capped herself with the super delegates. I think, for sure, she has with the Speaker.

You know that I love you and your writing but these partisan screeds, well meaning as they are, are too negative for me...and I suspect for you.

I read this kind of "stuff" everywhere, by people on all sides and I reject their negativity, as I now reject this one. The trouble with writing in the negative is that it's never even-handed, despite our best efforts. IT'S ALWAYS PARTISAN!!

I'm gonna vote for whichever Democrat comes out of the convention and I won't have to bite a bullet; retract a rant; or explain my reasons.

You know that I love you and your writing but these partisan screeds, well meaning as they are, are too negative for me...and I suspect for you.

I read this kind of "stuff" everywhere, by people on all sides and I reject their negativity, as I now reject this one. The trouble with writing in the negative is that it's never even-handed, despite our best efforts. IT'S ALWAYS PARTISAN!!

I'm gonna vote for whichever Democrat comes out of the convention and I won't have to bite a bullet; retract a rant; or explain my reasons.

Post a Comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Book Club Calendar

This Week

Blood and Politics: The History of the White Nationalist Movement from the Margins to the Mainstream, Leonard Zeskind

Next Week

Henry Waxman, The Waxman Report: How Congress Really Works

July 13-17

Justin Fox, The Myth of the Rational Market: A History of Risk, Reward, and Delusion on Wall Street

July 27-31

Plenty Enough Suck To Go Around, Cheryl Wagner

« Book Club ArchiveFull calendar »

Recent Reader Posts

All Reader Posts »





Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall

Site Editor
Lila Shapiro

Intern
Versha Sharma



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address