Reader Posts

« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »

HRC's "Dirty" Campaigning & Powers Resignation

I disagree with those that call for HRC to bow out because she cannot overcome the math.  That's not the way the game is played.  At the end of the day, Obama will not have enough delegates to lock up the nomination.  Hillary is, if nothing else, a viable candidate.  The Democratic primary is designed to produce this type of result and Hillary is playing the only hand she has... to the hilt.

Ego and ambition are the only two things keeping Hillary in the race.  She knows that due to a fatal miscalculation on the part of her campaign she cannot take the lead in pledged delegates.  She can deny Obama a lock, but, if the nomination goes according to delegates, she loses.  Her path to the nomination hinges on neutralizing Obama's lead in delegates and will, by definition, be very controversial.  Especially if tainted results from FL and/or MI play a role.

Hillary's running a tough, combative campaign because she's got nothing to lose at this point.  She's backed into a corner and needs to deliver the knock-out punch that people were looking for in the debates.  It appears as if Obama will have to overcome a down-dirty, rove like campaign of innuendo and smear from a fellow - democrat obsessed on winning the WH.  I hope he can do it.

Firing Powers was the smart thing to do.  In one stroke he showed  a true committment to the high road, made a quick decision, developed some good contrast with her semi-literate pit bulls and eliminated it as an issue.  I expect to see a re-grouped focus on responding to Hillary-ttacks.  I also expect we will see Ms. Powers return once the nomination or the WH is secured.

My biggest fear, if Hillary should somehow obtain the nomination, is that in doing so she will have alienated a significant portion of Obama supporters and wind up depressing the high voter turnout that will be crucial to her victory.  I don't like negative campaigns, I don't like Hillary's negative campaign, nor do I want to reward negative campaigning.  Yet I will vote for Hillary over McCain because she is better on the issues.  Obama is better yet which is why I am voting for him, but Hillary is playing the game by the rules that exist.  If you don't like her tactics, you have to change the rules.  Call her on it.  She'll stop.  She is only engaging in them because they work.

Which brings me to my final point, that Hillary would make a fine president no matter how she gets there.  I think she is smart enough and ambitious enough to take a victory as an enormous mandate for change and an opportunity to not only be the first female president, but, perhaps another FDR or LBJ.  With majorities in Congress, America can finally begin taking steps towards national healthcare and begin withdrawl from Iraq.

Despite what Hillary is suggesting as part of her campaign rhetoric, we all want a democrat in the WH.


Comments (7)

There's only one Democrat running. Hillary is a neo-con.

Hillary is not a neocon.

It's this type of hyperbole that is fanning the flames that are so destructive to both candidates.

Granted, Hillary's past stands have always been way too hawkish for my taste, but, as compared to the "shadows" of the neocons Hillary is fairly vanilla even compared to "hundred years" mccain.

she has campaigned on a promise to bring home the troops. i expect her to keep that promise.

avatar

Your biggest fear is a fact. Hillary has burned enough bridges that she will lose in the fall if she is the nominee. There is no way for her to get this nomination that won't result in a train wreck for the party. None. Black people will not just sit out the presidential election. You can count on a boycott all the way down the ticket. It would not stun me to see the Democrats lose seats in Congress over a Hillary nomination.

But go right ahead. Allow her to destroy the party. After all, she has every right to do so.

But go right ahead. Allow her to destroy the party. After all, she has every right to do so.

Sheesh quit the "attack anyone with doubts, make him a strawman to knock down" mentality. Can't you even see that this writer is basically on your side? He said he prefers Obama and doesn't like rewarding negative campaigning. Comments with this level of anger make reasonable people reluctant to post their thoughts on the internet, then you end up with an echo chamber of anger.

It's this type of hyperbole that is fanning the flames that are so destructive to both candidates

Precisely!

So many blogger supporters are what they hate and have helped create the atmosphere.

I just occurred to me yesterday how so many in the political blogosphere call themselves and each other "supporters." Even try to label others in conversations as such.

I, and I think millions and millions of other Americans, have never thought of ourselves as a "supporter" of any political candidate. I am a voter is what I am, not a supporter.

Political candidates are asking to work in a job for me, I am one of their possible employers. Few employers could be called "supporters" of employees, except those that fall for Amway-type shlocky motivation.

Sometimes I have sent donations to political candidates, that's always been because I think they need to stay in the race for one reason or another. Even that does not mean they have gotten my "support," does not mean I will not be watching their "work" for me at all times, does not mean I am giving them wholehearted "support" in everything they do and are.

I am not giving any politician my "support," simply thinking of hiring him/her.

They do not need my help in labeling their opponents with hyperbole nor my help in talking up how great they are. It is not a situation of rooting for my favorite sports team. They are asking for a job from me. Each and every one of them have to prove themselves to me every day.

I think that what many self-identified "supporters" fail to realize is that there are many of us "voters" just lurking in the blogosphere for the most part, watching a lot of the crap you are spewing, and associating it with the candidate you are supporting.

the above comment was a reply to the comment by "no exit" @ 2:52 PM.

Personally, I think the Nafta thing may have really been a difference of 3-6% percentage points from the spread.

It also appears that it was Hillary who told the Canadians to discount her campaign rhetoric, while obama's rep. conveyed the seriousness of Obama to address shortcomings in labor and environmental standards.

I certainly do hope these revelations serve to offer a boost to Obama in PA, but, I think it's going to be a tough state for him. Racism will boost Hillary, but, perhaps he can counter with his committment to labor.

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

Coming Soon



Nov. 30-Dec. 4



January 12-16



« Book Club ArchiveFull calendar »

Recent Reader Posts

All Reader Posts »





Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall



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