Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Clinton Supporters Not Switching to Obama: Counterpoints
Lalo35adm posted his view on why he had not switched to support Obama (glad he was considering, though.) Since this is a long response, I figured I would post it separately too:
1. Many Clinton voters, myself included, feel strongly that the Obama campaign strategy has been to amplify the "Clinton negatives".
There are two things to consider about this: first and foremost, the standard must always be whether an accusation is true, not whether it is a "Republican talking point," a statement that in all honesty is losing all its impact from overuse. If we try to quantify the qualities you listed objectively, though, a site such as FactCheck is extremely useful and shows, rather starkly, that some of the attributes are indeed earned.
You really should provide specific examples of such quotes for credibility. In this case--while I still urge you to post some so that they may be discussed--I will certainly agree that the Obama campaign has portrayed Clinton as the "say anything, do anything" candidate although most of these have been implicit through, for example, showing two different policy positions rather than explicitly saying so. The supporters have been much more vocal in the latter sense.
The second notable thing is that if you research press releases from the campaigns throughout the last year, the more directly adverse comments toward Clinton have been a rather recent development on the Obama side. I would peg it just after Iowa. The Clinton campaign has used the standard attack tactics throughout the campaign although it was directed more towards Edwards at first (it all started with Kerry in 2006.)
Your #2 is actually two separate items, so let me split it up:
2a. Many Clinton supporters feel that Clinton-haters make a large block in the Obama campaign.
This, even if correct, should have no bearing on your decision on whom to support for the presidency. In my opinion, at any rate.
2b. We think that Obama keeps them by holding Hillary Clinton responsible for the problems and/or decisions of her husband.
Emphasis is mine. The problem here is that Hillary herself has offered no disclosure on those eight years. She has "35 years of experience" which (I would hope) include Bill's presidency. But she has never said which parts she agrees or disagrees with, nor which parts she can and cannot take credit for. Do you know how Hillary felt about the Brady law? Or DoMA?
Thus far it has seemed to me and many others that she is cherry-picking. She may well have been privately against NAFTA, for example, but it looks very opportunistic and rather suspicious to only say that after it becomes an issue in the campaign.
If she could produce a list of all the initiatives, laws etc. that occurred during Bill's presidency and how she stood on them it would reduce this.
Many Clinton supporters feel that Obama himself made comments about Sen. Clinton that were blatantly sexist, without any consequences ("When Sen. Clinton periodically feels down and depressed, etc....")
It would do you well to give some more examples instead of an "etc." Otherwise it looks a lot like he made <em>a</em> comment that could arguably be read as sexist--and that is quite arguable even if we forget the context in which the remark was made. I personally feel that assuming "periodical" to mean anything but "from time to time" is as huge a stretch as reading something racist into "fairy tale" in particular since we are talking about a post-menopausal individual here.
Now, the context in which Obama said this referenced a question about the pattern of Clinton going from positive to negative like clockwork in relation to election days. It puts quite a different light on the answer.
I do recall that Obama once said that Hillary was "skirting" an issue. I do hope that that is not one of your examples.
4. Many supporters of Clinton feel that Sen. Obama himself is not and does not believe in being tough and fighting for the Democratic programs. We feel that in his search for unity, he is prepared to compromise with the Republicans on some of the most important issues for our party.
This is actually the only one that I find to be a substative question. It is predicated, however, on a misunderstanding if an understandable one. For the past two decades, "bipartisanship" has meant Democrats doing what Republicans want. There is a second component, too: it seems many Clinton supporters, including you, somehow assume that Obama is talking about some magical overnight transcendence. We know exactly how much effort it will all take. "Change doesn't come easy," as he is fond of saying.
But the old-style concession and rolling over is not what Obama means when he talks about solving problems together. The most straightforward clarification is that Obama feels that he is able to convince a substantial number of our "enemies," that is, Republican voters (NOT Republican politicians) of the virtues of progressive ideas--probably incremental at first to break down some of the knee-jerk defensive barriers people have built over the past decades--which allows him to claim a sufficient mandate to really make some changes. The coattails effect is not to be marginalised, either.
Obama also listens to both sides. It is remarkable to hear, but almost without exception his opponents always comment on his ability to really hear them out respectfully and honestly consider their input instead of offering the tired platitudes of "reaching across the aisle."
And, if I may add in a completely non-snarky manner, the time of Bill Clinton's presidency was emblematic of the Democratic rolling over tactic. You do surely realise that both Clintons are still DLC members, too?
I am piecing #5 in parts, too:
5a. Much has been made about the "3 am" ad. In my view, the ad spoke about the strengths of Sen. Clinton, not the weaknesses of Sen. Obama, but I understand how and why it was interpreted as it was.It said that "Clinton has 35 years of experience" and that "Obama would not know how to handle this situation." I disagree, although I suppose that will not sway you at all--I would request that you review what that 35 years of experience really is and how she is using it. I must admit that, perhaps due to a fault of my own, I do not see where she has benefited from it policy-wise recently.
5b. I know Obama's claim of having had a better judgement on Iraq. I know that we will continue to disagree on that.
Do you, in fact, disagree that it was in retrospect a poor decision to authorize the war?
Should Sen. Clinton have read the NIE?
Why did she not vote for the Levin amendment if she was truly for diplomacy? In the debate she said that it would have "ceded decisions to the U.N." which it most definitely did not do. Is this just a case where Sen. Clinton did not read the Levin amendment either? Unfortunately she does not really have the track record of doing the work on that particular vote.
For me, his track record on Iraq actually undermines his claim to judgement.I do assume that you at least acknowledge that Obama was in fact opposed to the war from the start and that Clinton was not. I can provide quotes if you like.
Now, importantly, Obama also referenced this in his speech: he knew how much the bus weighed and how much effort it would require to get it pulled out once it was in. He spoke in detail about the years-long and billions-costing commitment it would mean.
Do I wish he had been able to get it done after he was elected? Hell yes. But here, as often is the case, he knew better all the way back in 2003. Once the bus is in the ditch, it will take time and the will of all the passengers to get it out.
I am sure you are also aware that the Democratic policy in Congress--the Iraq War De-Escalation Act--was authored by Obama (not that the spineless leadership are actually implementing it in any way but that notwithstanding.)
5d. The fact of Rezko and the latest admission on Rezko.
There is no "latest admission," unless I missed something. Obama just put the whole deal to rest with the Tribune and he said pretty much exactly the same thing he has been saying all along.
5e. The inconsitencies in his current and past claims about Rev. Wright.
Please provide quotes, I have no idea what you are talking about. Then please explain what Mr. Wright has to do with this.
5f. In my view, the fact that NAFTA and "monster" incident happened at all is proof that Obama judgement is not better or worse than the judgement of the majority of politicians.
I do not follow your logic. Sure, politically Power's comment was extremely bad but Obama did not bring her on for her skill in politics. She is one of the most respected people in what she does. So is Susan Rice. And I freely admit that Obama's campaign is not nearly as savvy as the Clinton side in day-to-day politics--but in my view that is if anything a bonus.
"The NAFTA incident" I do not understand. You must explain to me how it reflects on Obama's judgement? An advisor to Obama's campaign was invited to an informal talk specifically in his role as a professor, not an Obama advisor and that during the talk, Prof. Golsbee did in fact NOT say anything remotely like what CTV reported? An overzealous conservative activist in the Canadian government misrepresented the meeting as the facts now show and this is Obama's fault?
It is these types of accusations that dig the earth from under Clinton. She sure beat that horse until it was demonstrated false--and of course failed to provide any type of apology or "happy that was all straightened out."
Advertisement
Comments (36)
Clinton supporters won't support Obama, Obama supporters won't support Clinton. I think it may be time to shut the Democratic Party down and sue it for political malpractice.
March 17, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 17, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but we know Senator Clinton recently supported Senator McCain twice over Senator Obama. Obama is winning and is picking up more delegates seemingly every day. Fortunately it is highly doubtful that Senator Obama will chose Senator Clinton as his VP running mate.
March 17, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
35 years experience? 35 years experience and this is all the better she can do against an upstart freshman Senator. Has she learned nothing in those 35 years? What will it take for Mrs. Clinton to get enough experience to deal with someone like Putin, 135 years. Pathetic.
March 17, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally I prefer having a leader as President to having a fighter.
But if being a fierce tenacious fighter was my criteria, I would expect them to win the fight not just to be a great warrior doing battle constantly.
I would especially expect that a seasoned 35 years of experience warrior would not be in the fight of their life and having lost 6 rounds already with a 'rookie' that can only bring a speech to the fight.
What good is a warrior that if all they do is battle and never accomplish anything?
Clay's punch was so lightening fast that for years folks called it a phantom punch when it took down Liston.
March 18, 2008 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
The talking points evaporate into thin air.
I'm surprised whenever I read the stuff about her being a fighter. She hasn't really been showcasing it except in getting 'Obama Is A Black Man' stories on TV and the internet.
And that's not an element that I see as a strong asset to a campaign.
March 18, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the capper. You've got experience up the wazoo and you're having your wazoo handed to you in a fight with the guy you're claiming isn't experienced enough, isn't a fighter, isn't vetted. Okay, fair enough. Explain to me how a veteran, experienced, battle-tested fighter is getting her lunch eaten by a guy who has nothing but pretty speeches and a kindergarten fairy-tale of being the President going for him...
On paper, this should be a cakewalk! But as coach always reminds us, the games aren't played on paper.
March 18, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You point brings focus to a larger issue. If, as Clinton and her supporters suggest, that Obama is an empty suit, then they believe half of the electorate is naive and easily swayed.
What does that mean when a candidate basically calls half of the democratic voters naive? That she needs to take charge because obviously half of the electorate cannot be trusted to elect an "experienced" leader?
Obama believes in the intelligence of the American people. It is obvious that Clinton and her supporters do not.
March 18, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean 35yrs of LIES and DECEPTION on the part of the Clintons and there GOONS!!!?She even now is
going at it for example NAFTA GATE!After the Lies are found out She CRIES it was not me.It was one of my Surrogates.Then who should take responsibility for the actions of there GOONS?
So far BILLARY has not.
March 18, 2008 5:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
These hardcore Hillary people are so out of touch with reality...like they are so buried in Hillary's (or Bill's) ass that they can't get any perspective on anything. If Hillary says Obama has been negative, they believe it, they have no idea how negative Hillary has been, and how admirably nice Obama has been. Nearly every attack they use is blatant hypocrisy, a full 180 from truth, yet they aren't even aware of the irony. The ignorance, or blind allegiance, or whatever it is blows my mind.
Obama has done absolutely NOTHING to cause Hillary supporters to not want to vote for him, he has run a dignified campaign, a positive campaign, while the Clintons have been assaulting him from all directions since Iowa, and he still refuses to attack a fellow Dem. It is amazing, I love it, but I couldn't have kept above the fray, if it was me I probably would have taken her down a long time ago, I would have had much harsher things to say about her. I greatly respect Obama for not only talking about new politics, but actually living new politics, even when tempted by such a hideous showing of the old. I think there is every reason for Obama supporters not to vote for Hillary, she has pulled out every nasty stop, including endorsing McCain over Obama multiple times, how could you support someone like that? (Not that it will be an issue, since she can't win the nomination).
And meanwhile McCain is defending Obama over the Wright thing, and not in some kind of "as far as I know" kind of way. His strong push back against personal attacks against Obama has impressed me. I think he is flat out wrong in general like all Republicans, but I have no doubt that he is a far better person than Hillary, which doesn't say a whole hell of a lot.
Blah, I'm just sick of this goddamn primary, and I'm disgusted with what Hillary and her hardcore supporters have done to this party.
March 18, 2008 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
The real problem with the 35 years experience is when the person mentioning it then follows it by limiting Obama's experience to only the time spent in the Senate, and possibly the Illinois State Senate if s/he is being generous.
If you're going to count years spent outside of public office towards Hillary's "experience", you'd darn well better do the same towards Obama's "experience". When you do so, she doesn't really have that much more experience than he does in terms of quantity, and has arguably less experience in terms of quality. (E.g., I'd take Obama's legal career over Clinton's.)
March 18, 2008 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is extremely well argued. I enjoyed reading your thoughtful, intelligent analysis. This is my favorite of your points:
"But the old-style concession and rolling over is not what Obama means when he talks about solving problems together. The most straightforward clarification is that Obama feels that he is able to convince a substantial number of our "enemies," that is, Republican voters (NOT Republican politicians) of the virtues of progressive ideas--probably incremental at first to break down some of the knee-jerk defensive barriers people have built over the past decades--which allows him to claim a sufficient mandate to really make some changes. The coattails effect is not to be marginalised, either.
Obama also listens to both sides. It is remarkable to hear, but almost without exception his opponents always comment on his ability to really hear them out respectfully and honestly consider their input instead of offering the tired platitudes of "reaching across the aisle."
I think Hillary IS a fighter. She has been in rough spots politically. I bet if you'd asked around in 2000, nobody would have believed that she'd ever be running such a successful campaign for the presidency. But she knows how to move on and move up and get where she wants to be. This is admirable, but it also makes me suspicious that she'd bother to try and forge a new way of governing in Washington. She is good at the old ways, and they have worked well for her.
Your point above is excellent. Obama doesn't plan to be a pushover (as many fear) or do things the "old way." He has a new vision, and the skills for implementing it.
March 18, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Hillary supporters are lynching Obama on every website I've visited. It's lynching, I'm not exaggerating. The rightwing nuts are at it too. It makes me sick to the stomach. I will NEVER vote Hillary as long as I live and I'm gong to contribute to her democratic opponent in the Senate after she loses this Fall to McCain.
March 18, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
After she loses this Fall to McCain? You've been reading too much fan fic... She'll be back in the Senate figuring out excuses so as to avoid supporting Barack on the Campaign Trail in the Fall...
March 18, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
These hardcore Hillary people are so out of touch with reality...like they are so buried in Hillary's (or Bill's) ass that they can't get any perspective on anything.
Really.. I thought it was because we were to busy trying to stay a float that we don't have time for idealism. I think it funny how we are all supposed to be ignorant and stupid. But I am college educated , a few credits away from a master's degree, My undergradute work included a great deal of speech and rhetoric. That gave me an interesting perspective to view your hero. I also work with current college students and it is funny how they divided. Young students who have never spent any real time outside a classroom are obama supporters. The Adult college students I work with are either McCain or Clinton supporters. I speak with Clinton supporters who feel that Obama people just don't get it. But according to many supporters I am the one out of touch and I need to wake up and jump on the Obama bandwagon.
Let me tell you about the Clinton supporters I work with. They are trying to earn an education because they have lost thier jobs or can't make it on the ones they have. They are using many of the programs the B Clinton instigated while in office. They struggle every day to balance thier kids, jobs, and school often while taking care sick parents. Men talk about thier mothers who were abused by thier father and other men. I know people who live in poverty--real poverty. They support Clinton not because they are out of touch but because they felt the difference in thier own lives when Bill was in office. THey resent being told they have to "turn the page" and move on from a time they had not only hope but movement as well. We see that time in a different light and we resent seeing it trashed by a man who wants to start a movement. They look at the "college kids" in class and know that they don't have a clue. Its not about education because they sit in the same lectures and remark how nice it would be to so idealistic but all they have time for is realism. You see its not about her supporters being out of touch with reality but rather they are steeped in more reality than you will ever understand. They are not ignorant but rather they have been around that block, heard it before, and they are not about to turn the page on the things that cause the Clintons to be hated by DC poer brokers. You see when you try to effect change you usually make alot of enemies. We looked at those scandals for what they were. Nonesense and attacks meant to undermine the Clintons. Many of the Clinton supporters may not have gotten that degree but they are still educated. Its called life. My 62 year old mother with her eighth grade education is to reticuled in your eyes because her struggles to raise her family after she booted her alcoholic and abusive husband gave a much different education. She could care less about speeches but she knows how much better it is for single mothers today when she had to cheat a system that kept anyone from rising in order to keep us feed, clothed, and sheltered. I remember her working jobs which were under the table because she couldn't support us on her job alone not was she able to on welfare alone. All while my dad was pulling in over 30,000 a year in the 1970's-- The only dime she got of her court ordered support he had to pay back the $175 month check she got from AFDC THat was for 4 kids. She watched as men with the same education she had be able to earn good salaries but the only job she could get a woman was Waitress, cooking and cleaning none of which paid enough to keep us alive. Her greatest joy was to see me gain my degree. It not about the educated verses the uneducated but rather in our view its the poor verses those who cannot understand our life.
March 18, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thomas, your post would be more persuasive if it were not full of mispellings and other typos. Maybe you were in a hurry or something, but, if it is true that you teach at a college level, then your students and readers here deserve better.
I am also college educated [three degrees] and I have also worked extensively with just the same distressed folks as are in your classes. I suppose I could easily also match you anecdote for anecdote on personal history [cardboard in shoes growing up, etc] so why do you suppose that am I an Obama supporter?
Hint: it has something to do with Obama treating me like an adult who can make a difference for myself and my grandchildren's future by uniting with others in a citizens' movement- compared to being treated like a baby bird forever dependent upon the largesse promised by 'a fighter for me'.
March 18, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still members of the DLC. That's would've been enough to sour me to vote for HRC.
March 18, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is why I'm anti-Hillary.
#1 the U.S. presidency shouldn't be a royal succession. Bush2 proved that.
#2 Universal health care is NOT socialized medicine modeled after the UK or Canada. It's a corporate welfare program designed to subsidize the profits of insurance companies with taxpayer money.
#3 Hillary wants 'revenge' against republicans for shutting out democrats for so long, basically what Bush republicans have done to democrats. I'm not a big fan of revenge politics.
#4 I blame Bill Clinton for delivering the presidency to George W. Bush. Bill Clinton's stunning disrespect of the oval office fueled the backlash that ushered W. into office. Bill is more responsible than ANYONE for W's election. Hillary's refusal to acknowledge this is selfish.
One final note:
Over the weekend the Federal Reserve has been turned into a Corporate Welfare Agency, this week it now bails out investment banks, next week it'll bailout the airlines... all at the expense of the $1 we each have in our pocket.
In one weekend it sucked the value out of OUR dollar (and our savings accounts) to keep the Dow from falling. I'm sick to my stomach. Inflation IS the enemy but W. doesn't care.
Paul Volcker, (a democrat) the Fed chairman who, under Reagan, did the unpopular work of bringing value back to the dollar, has endorsed/advised Obama:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/01/31/volcker-joins-list-of-obama-backers/
The recession is real and happening right now, there aren't enough narcotics on earth to alleviate the pain of it. Only thing left is to rip off the band aid and get it over with.
In addition, Obama has talked a lot about the infrastructure bank, it is my firm belief that the only way out of this economic mudslide is to spend our way out of it.
By spending I don't mean social welfare programs I mean REAL JOBS for REAL PROJECTS. Today the much reviled 'earmark' provides the bulk of these jobs.
Transform the earmark process into a transparent, legitimate process via an infrastructure bank.
Funny thing about infrastructure spending, it's really hard to outsource the building of bridges, roads and schools. It's equally hard to argue that one class of American gains more than another in these types of projects.
March 18, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amazing then that your mom would support the Clintons who have slashed welfare payment to single moms who had more children:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983107,00.html
Or not too bothered by Hillary voting with the Republican bloc on the bankruptcy law that favors the banks and creditors in 2001, making it harder for consumers to walk away from debts, or the fact that she is backed by a number of financial institutions and banking concerns, not to mention countless lobbyists.
March 18, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm always disturbed when demonstrably false statements become "true": "Al Gore said he invented the internet", for example.
A cursory search on Hillary's alleged anti-NAFTA position during Bill's administration seems to be based on WHEN NAFTA was fought for, not whether or not she approved of it.
Statements I came across today:
According to then-labor secretary Robert Reich, Hillary's objections were all about sequence. Reich, who claims to "remember her position quite precisely," says on his blog:
HRC didn't want the Administration to move forward with NAFTA, but not because she was opposed to NAFTA as a policy. She opposed NAFTA because of its timing. She wanted her health-care plan to be voted on first. She feared that the fight over NAFTA would use up so much of the White House's political capital that there wouldn't be enough left when it came to pushing for health care.
In her own 2003 memoir, Living History, Hillary writes that she simply didn't want her health care plan delayed for the sake of NAFTA, but voices no objections to the trade agreement itself: "Creating a free trade zone in North America—the largest free trade zone in the world—would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization. Although unpopular with labor unions, expanding trade opportunities was an important administration goal. The question was whether the White House could focus its energies on two legislative campaigns at once. I argued that we could and that postponing health care would further weaken its chances."
Bill was adamantly in favor of NAFTA. Hillary certainly publicly supported it and stumped for it. So for her to disavow her position now is just not true. But her "I was against NAFTA" has become CW, and it annoys me.
March 18, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good stuff 57. You should add some links and make this into a post.
March 18, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good point. It's the fight that the Clintons love. They love teetering on the precipice and living to fight another day. I don't believe they look past that "thrill" at all.
She will be a disastrous president if it gets that far. I really believe that. She has never had to produce day to day, or react nimbly, except to protect her political behind. And call me crazy, but the presidency should be about a little more than that But it's clear that the Clintons have reduced everything to their own personal survival. Which cheats us as a nation.
March 18, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, going back and forth with people like Lalo35adm is a complete waste of time. People like that reason through a bodily orifice, certainly not with the brain. There is no reason to expect them to suddenly smarten up, reason better, or follow logic, and, to tell you the truth, not having their vote is no great loss.
March 18, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce,
Lalo35adm is one of the few on these boards that has a brain of his/her own.
Unlike most, who repeat Obama talking points, Lalo35adm thinks on his/her feat and advocates for Clinton in a interesting way.
March 18, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Lalo35adm thinks on his/her feat and advocates for Clinton in a interesting way."{
I read tha garbage post, and there was nothing interesing about it. The writer basically said "Hillary supporters won't support Obama. convince me." They then rationalized every criticism of Hillary or dimissed every point made in Obama's favor, moving the goalposts required to convince him or her the whole way (sound familiar?)
Sorry, I've been reading the comments back and forth between Clinton and Obama supporters for the last four months or so. And fidelity to the facts of a given situation, logical consistency and clarity, and just better quality of thought and writing, clearly distinguish Obama supporters from those of his opponent.
To put it in laguage you will understand, Obama's supporters on the blogs are better informed and more intelligent than Hillary's. In anticipation of the standard Hillbot reply, if that makes me an elitist, so be it.
March 18, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't flatter yourself. I don't think that you are an elitist. I think you are an hot-head that has lost all reason...
March 18, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Bruce. I certainly hope that I don't reason through the same bodily orifice that you used for your post.
But I will admit that my post was presented from a subjective Clinton supporter point of view.
I don't know if you have interest or time, but I would be interested to hear your reasons on the new post I put up today.
March 18, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't teach at a college level-- I am an advocate and peer advisor for adult college students. And yes I was in a hurry but proper grammer and worthy post can often be a bunch of sh*t My typing sucks-- pardon me so sorry. You know if all you so called smart asses would spend more time listening to what some people say instead of pointing out insignificant garbage like my typing and spelling then we might move forward. I am sick of seeing people work thier a$$es of only to have statements like this render them unimportant because they don't measure up to standards. There are peopel in this country that came from circumsatances that you cannot understand and you sit there and respond to thier lack of typing skills your own ignorant opinion on my so called "students" deserving better. The students I work with deserve to be listened to not belittled for grammer mistakes.
March 18, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh I also would like to ask about the "treated like a child comment" As a person who has studied rhetoric I see this for what it is--empty. I have seen no evidence where Hillary treats us like childern. I don't know why you are an Obama supporter but I know that this type of pitiful attempts to demean Hillary seems off hand to me. My reason for supporting Hillary is because I believe the we elect to much flash and not enough policy wonks. Why would you elect the person who takes others plans and just wraps them in more attractive packages--why not elect the person with the plans to begin with. I am a hillary supportor because in debate after debate Obama could only elaborate on what Hillary had already stated-- in effect admitting that she had it right. So I have to ask what is about Obama that is not there with Hillary. And don't give me the IRAK garbage. I would like for those who believe this line of crap to take a look at our history in dealing with rogue leaders. Failing that resolution would have undermined the effect that this president and future ones would have had. How much leverage would they have after such a vote. NONE. Bush abused the power.
March 18, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is wrong to say that Clinton "treats people as children." (Although I must admit that I found it in me to chuckle at your umbrage after you had just above explained that anecdotally the naive kids all supported Obama and the thoughtful adults supported Clinton and McCain.)
It is not an entirely unfair point to make that Clinton's campaign continuously uses tactics that can be described as targeted at the so-called "low-information voters." The "lowness" of information is not stupidity, it is ignorance. These tactics, such as quoting out of context, rely on the assumption that many voters will not obtain complete information about the situation but are likely to accept (to some degree at least) the information at face value.
As a recent example, we can use a few choice quotes from Penn & Wolfson (both of whom unfortunately talk all the time), you will forgive me for slightly paraphrasing:
1. "Obama's health care plan leaves 15 million uncovered." There are two interesting bits of information that completely distort the issue:
1a. "Leave out" implies that these people are not offered coverage. This is incorrect, since everyone is given the option. The people 'left out' are the ones who choose not to take the coverage.
1b. The 15-million figure is contested and it includes illegal and/or undocumented aliens. Either way, using the same math, Clinton's plan would leave about 8 million uncovered.
2. "Road to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. goes directly through Pennsylvania" is of course not true in the literal sense but, metaphorically, the road also goes through Wyoming, Mississippi, North Carolina, Indiana and so on.
3. "Obama cannot win general because Hillary is winning the 'big states' like New York." Statements such as this completely ignore the fact that primary elections cannot in any reasonable sense be used to judge who can win the state in the General. It is impossible to determine the result of a three-way race from the result of a two-way race (i.e., New York would be 1. Clinton, 2. Obama, 3. McCain.) There is no reason to believe that these typically strongly Democratic states would be in play.
Incidentally, there have been instances where the Obama camp has similarly left information out but I can count those on one hand (using the Sumerian way of counting, anyway), but these are aberrations--to which I try to always take exception--whereas they seem to be nearly the foundation of the Clinton campaign's public messaging.
Now, you may see straight through this and just chuckle at it as "standard campaign stuff" but not everyone does. Assuming otherwise would mean the campaign is expending all this effort on misinformation without a reason. This is contradicted by logic--and data.
March 18, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
a) Who pays for those who "choose" not to have coverage and then need healthcare?
b) That was actually a quote from the Kerry campaign, but obviously only those who followed it at the time would understand the intended irony.
c) "Big states like New York" is not a true or full quote at all
Finally, I find your point regarding "low information voters" a little condescending.
"If you don't like the People, then dissove them and elect new people" Bertold Brecht.
March 18, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have watched those same debates and have seen both Obama and Hillary agreeing with each other. Now, please tell me how Obama stole Hillary's plans, did he send in a theif in the middle of the night? Does he have an insider in the Clinton camp, please explain.
I have also watched Hillary attempts to steel Obama's style of speaking after saying that he is "only words," what is with that?
These two are democrates and I expected that their plans would be somewhat simular in natures since these are the types of issue that all demorcrats seem to run on. Although there are some differences in their plans.
It's amazing to me how we are taught all our lives that a college education is one of the most important accomplishments. However, when we have a very intelligent Harvard Law Review Predsident, Constitutional Law Professor, Great Orator (like Bill Clinton but better), self confident person running for President, we call him an empty suit, it leads me to believe that it is more about other things than the character of this man. Maybe his race? I dont know. An empty suit, I don't think so.
It also amazes me that every person Obama has ever had dinner with, talked with, of had any association with becomes somehow the person that made the most impact in his way of thinking. Yet, no one talks about Clinton's associations and what impact they have had on her life, and I am sure there are many.
I guess the bottom line is there is a double standard for the new comers or the black comers, we will see how it pans out.
April 18, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
What welfare cuts--- The single mothers I know are doing better on the system. Over half my family is dependant on welfare of some sort. Many are single mothers who are able to work above board and not loose thier benifets. My mother happens to see this as an improvement. My family has a long history with the welfare system. News FLash there were no slashes but only opportunity and incentative to get off it. Sorry but I live in an area were having a child just to get a welfare check was common. Having come provery, I fully support helping people rise out of it but there comes a time when you have to help yourself. Mnay single mothers made no effort to get off welfare and even worse had more childern they could not afford to support on thier own. I work with those that have made an effort to improve thier lives and I see a marked difference from the days were welfare was a career chioce for some and a damned if you do damn if you dont case. My mother would loved to have had the chances that the new welfare system offers singles mothers who are willing to imporve thier lives
March 18, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your comments about Iraq and welfare are spot on. I think the reason they are lost on everything is the same as the point you made earlier about fancy rhetoric.
The sad truth is that most people hate Bill and Hillary Clinton because they grew up with non-stop Republican smear and they internalized it and it became part of how they see things. For all the talk about the dirty Republican tactics, you have to give it them, they are unbelievably effective.
March 18, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dislike Bill and Hillary not because I grew up with non-stop Republican smear, but because they lowered the standards of what leadership is supposed to mean. I feel that they play by the same rules as George W. Bush, play dirty divisive politics to expand their own power AT ALL COSTS. Ask yourself why on earth someone would run for U.S. Senate in a state they have never lived in before?
I am a registered Republican, I believe in fiscal conservatism but I'm the furthest thing from a culture warrior. I don't think one should need Jesus to get elected, and that makes me a political orphan.
The only one offering me a political home at this point is Barack Obama. It's an imperfect home to be sure, but I dare you to find a perfect political home anywhere in America.
Obama might have politically incorrect friends, but so do I... dinner conversation is much more interesting when people disagree... otherwise what's the point?
Trying to scrub away all the Rev. Wright's of this country is no different than trying to eradicate homosexuality or teenage sex... its unrealistic and at its core its INTOLERANT.
I used to think the Clinton's believed in tolerance above all things, but they haven't demonstrated it in this campaign.
They have no tolerance for Republicans...
no tolerance for dissent within the Democratic party...
no tolerance for real, substantiative competition.
Who does that leave for the Clinton's to tolerate?
Only the Clinton's of course.
By the way I live in the 'biggest' state of all, Alaska... with one of the smallest populations and we were pretty excited that Obama bothered to set up campaign offices at all, that's why he won here.
March 18, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have watched those same debates and have seen both Obama and Hillary agreeing with each other. Now, please tell me how Obama stole Hillary's plans, did he send in a theif in the middle of the night? Does he have an insider in the Clinton camp, please explain.
I have also watched Hillary attempts to steel Obama's style of speaking after saying that he is "only words," what is with that?
These two are democrates and I expected that their plans would be somewhat simular in natures since these are the types of issue that all demorcrats seem to run on. Although there are some differences in their plans.
It's amazing to me how we are taught all our lives that a college education is one of the most important accomplishments. However, when we have a very intelligent Harvard Law Review Predsident, Constitutional Law Professor, Great Orator (like Bill Clinton but better), self confident person running for President, we call him an empty suit, it leads me to believe that it is more about other things than the character of this man. Maybe his race? I dont know. An empty suit, I don't think so.
It also amazes me that every person Obama has ever had dinner with, talked with, of had any association with becomes somehow the person that made the most impact in his way of thinking. Yet, no one talks about Clinton's associations and what impact they have had on her life, and I am sure there are many.
I guess the bottom line is there is a double standard for the new comers or the black comers, we will see how it pans out.
April 18, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment