Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Superdelegates: Maybe Hillary Clinton isn't telling you the whole story.
Is she more electable in a General Election? She wants you to think so. Why? Because she isn't electable in the primary.
Here's how the Republicans will look at it should she even make it past August:
In a Washington Post survey, people were asked whether the following statement applied to Hillary Clinton: She is honest and trustworthy. There was a 39-58 yes/no split. This is only one of the commercials we can expect from the Republicans should Hillary become the nominee. Breaking the agreement she made with her own party about FL and MI is another one. I can hear the VO saying "If her own party can't trust her, how can America?" Or maybe they'll do one about her forcing the party elite to overturn the voice of the voters because she didn't quite like the way the delegate count turned out. If she puts herself before her own party, where will she put America? While she was giving a speech opposing Colombia free trade, her chief campaign strategist was in Colombia lobbying in favor of it. And her husband was getting paid a million to support it. If she wants change, why has she accepted more money from lobbyists and special interests than any other candidate? She tried to steal pledged delegates from a member of her own party. The most influential endorsement John McCain has to be commander in chief comes from Hillary Clinton. How does she debate someone about a war she authorized? Lying about "sniper fire" in Bosnia? That's gift-wrapping the election for an american war hero. And warning a country of total obliteration? Is this the diplomacy we've been waiting eight years for? There's a reason the Republicans want so desperately to run against her in the general election. She's become the most divisive figure in American politics at a time when Democrats are capable of uniting in unprecedented numbers.
Comments (50)
Compared to Obama who:
1) Is the most liberal senator in the US Senate
2) Has flip-flopped on his fair share of issues, including gun control, NAFTA, etc.
3) Has ties to the highly polarizing Reverend Wright
4) Has offended small town citizens across the country, jeopardizing his chances with Independents against John McCain
5) Has been in the national spotlight for a little over a year and has proven that he has many secrets to be dug up
6) Faltered in the most recent debate, in which he was directly questioned on numerous controversial issues
7) Has not won any of the big states other than his home state
8) Is polling to lose Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and possibly even Massachusetts against McCain
Yes, I think you've made a good case. I can't see why everyone doesn't dump Hillary and jump on the Obama bandwagon right now!
April 23, 2008 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh please. There's still so much about Hillary we don't know. The big states argument doesn't hold up. Recent polls show Obama beating McCain in PA and Ohio, while Hillary loses to McCain.
April 23, 2008 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
After at least 10 years in the spotlight, I'm wondering what you think we don't know about Hillary that will hurt her in the general? Compare that to Obama, who has ran his campaign on the premise that he is a transcendent politician. People base their decision to support Obama on his campaign of "change" and the idea that he will transcend old politics. Then, when he lies, flip-flops, etc. he loses that one hold he has on people.
Contrast this to Clinton. We know her; she's not a transcendent politician. She's down in the mud, dirty, and wants to win badly. So when she lies, flip-flops, etc. it's not as big of a deal to us since we are basing our support for her on experience, resilience, etc.
That's the difference. Obama has a lot of things in his closet, and with each new thing we've seen the electorate turned off of him a little more. Clinton's problems? Been there, done that. It would take something monumentally incriminating to affect Clinton supporters.
Recent polls show Hillary solidly winning PA (6% RPC avg) while Obama is within the margin of error (+2%). For Florida, McCain is +11 against Obama, even with Clinton. For Ohio, McCain is +2 against Obama, -5 against Clinton.
That's the big-state argument. It's not a bad one either. It's not often that a Democrat loses PA, OH, and FL and still wins. Superdelegates have reason to be cautious.
April 23, 2008 2:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
" She's down in the mud, dirty, and wants to win badly. So when she lies, flip-flops, etc. it's not as big of a deal to us since we are basing our support for her on experience, resilience, etc."
Hey brand812!
What a set of campaign slogans! Americans are going to flock to a candidate like that.
She's a liar!
She flip-flops!
She gets down in the mud!
Hillary: A woman to make us proud to be an American!
Hillary: A woman who can wrestle a nomination away with her bare hands!
Hillary: the Tanya Harding of Politics!
Democrats: We don't care if she's dirty she our kind of dirty!
Hillary: A woman you can trust--honest!
Hillary: An American Hero with real combat experience!
Hillary " We'll nuk Iran" Clinton: A Woman of Diplomacy
Hillary "Are you scared? Clinton: Better than Bush!
Hillary: I'm not as bad as everyone believes
Yep. Those older voters who are afraid of change are going to definitely chose her over McCain when they vote in the general and all those young voters are going to rally from one campus to the next because, well, it is no big deal that she is just another grasping politician. Yes, Hillary is a candidate who generates passion--unfortunately it is passion against her.
April 23, 2008 4:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
"unfortunately it is passion against her"
Except, that isn't borne out by what we know. Poll after poll has shown more Democrats would switch to McCain if Obama is the nominee, than if Clinton is the nominee. That disproves your premise.
I support Hillary based on policies - where her and Obama differ, eg healthcare and foreign policy, I think her views are stronger and smarter - and on her resilience. I don't think,as President, she'll ever stop fighting for universal healthcare, or investment in the environment. She won't take no for an answer, and she won't stop grudges from letting her do business. Contrast that with Obama - at the State of the Union, Hillary came over to shake Ted Kennedy and his hand, but Obama turned away. On the Senate floor, she went over to joke with Kennedy about the massachusetts primary result, Obama let Kerry lead him away. In the Senate, despite his talk of post-partisanship, whenever Obama doesn't get his way, relationships seem to permanently sour (cf McCain). Hillary, despite being villified by Republicans, forged cross-party connections, not letting the past get in the way of policy achievements.
I think she's a formidable politician, with the right vision for the future, and I think she'll achieve. And we'll all be better off for it.
April 23, 2008 5:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, you swallowed Hillary "Tuzla" Clinton's bait hood and sinker - now get reeled in for four more years of the same - but no need to worry. She will not be president, not no, not ever.
April 23, 2008 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Four more years of the same what?
April 23, 2008 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because her supporters are vindictive. Because she has played to the racist vote, to our lowest instincts. Those people are voting for McCain anyway.
April 23, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hold on a second. Let's look at your post, Foreigner.
"Poll after poll has shown more Democrats would switch to McCain if Obama is the nominee, than if Clinton is the nominee. That disproves your premise."
The polls don't evaluate a critical question. What happens to Clinton's support among Obama voters if she enters the convention behind in the number of pledged delegates and behind in the popular vote, but gets the nomination anyway?
"I support Hillary based on policies - where her and Obama differ, eg healthcare and foreign policy, I think her views are stronger and smarter - and on her resilience."
This is a fair point. However, I disagree on both health care and foreign policy - especially with regard to Iran. Obama's first step would be to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Logical, no? Clinton's first step? Establish the security umbrella over the middle east - and threaten to obliterate Iran if they launch a nuclear attack against Israel. Which approach is more productive?
"I don't think,as President, she'll ever stop fighting for universal healthcare, or investment in the environment. She won't take no for an answer, and she won't stop grudges from letting her do business."
Not taking "no" for an answer strongly implies an unwillingness to negotiate. It's the very thing that CREATES grudges.
Speaking of grudges...remember 1993? "Hillarycare"? She had every possible home field advantage: Democrats had the WH, 57% of the Senate, and 59% of the House. She had favorability ratings over 55%. She blew all of that - and helped cost Democrats both houses of Congress - because she was so secretive and because she refused to even allow Congress any input on her task force's deliberations.
"Contrast that with Obama - at the State of the Union, Hillary came over to shake Ted Kennedy and his hand, but Obama turned away. On the Senate floor, she went over to joke with Kennedy about the massachusetts primary result, Obama let Kerry lead him away. In the Senate, despite his talk of post-partisanship, whenever Obama doesn't get his way, relationships seem to permanently sour (cf McCain)."
Please post proof of any of these assertions.
On the other hand, I can show you LEGISLATION for which Obama had to build bipartisan support to have passed. Exhibit A: Coburn-Obama legislation for campaign finance transparency. Exhibit B: Lugar-Obama legislation to reduce WMD proliferation. Exhibit C: The American Fuels Act of 2006 (co-authored with Lugar again). NONE would have passed without significant Republican support.
I've said this repeatedly: PLEASE tell me where Clinton has EVER done anything like this, where she actually wrote legislation with a Republican Senator that passed Congress.
"Hillary, despite being villified by Republicans, forged cross-party connections, not letting the past get in the way of policy achievements."
What cross-party connections? What policy achievements? What has she ever achieved as a Senator that required Republican help?
I say Clinton has NO history of working well with Republicans. If you can demonstrate this to be wrong, please do and I'll retract it, in this same forum.
I don't ask these questions to be mean-spirited. But you're making contentions that I do not believe to be supported by fact.
My source for the legislation contentions is http://thomas.loc.gov - the THOMAS archive of the Library of Congress. They've got all the US Senate legislative history on both Clinton and Obama.
April 23, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pushed for time, but very quickly, she worked with Republican Senator Lindsey Graham to expand healthcare for National Guard and Reserve members.
http://www.clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=235550&&
Look forward to your apology :-)
April 23, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't promise an apology. :-) I'll retract that she has NO history. However, better health care for vets is hardly controversial legislation. Honestly, that's not even considered a major measure.
Take, however, WMD reduction and campaign finance transparency. Obama was getting heat from senior Senators to drop both of these. He didn't - and got them passed. Coburn-Obama or Lugar-Obama are on the same level as McCain-Finegold. There's no "Graham-Clinton" tag for that legislation. :-)
April 23, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was a poll a while ago that asked what would Obama supports feel if she wins with out winning popular vote or delegate count, the answer was something like 80 percent of them being pissed off.
April 23, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, you would disagree since you are not a Clinton supporter. But I can assure you that for myself and the supporters I know, these things are all common knowledge.
Virtually all politicians are dirty, particularly those running for the highest office in the land. The problem with Obama is that he tries to act like he's not. Please!
April 23, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You you trust the sleeze-ball who overtly ACTS like a sleeze-ball over the person who doesn't act like a xleeze-ball because you assume he must be a sleeze-ball.
How many other decisions in your life do you make in that context? Would you choose a spouse whom you knew to be unfaithful because "everyone probably is," and that nice person you've been dating is probably only pretending to be honest and true?
April 23, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
We know nothing about the last 7 years. We don't know who Bill's donors to the library and the foundation are. We DO know that he has lobbied on behalf of Dubai to buy our ports; been paid to shill for a trade deal with Colombia, has brought together Kazakhstan dictators with uranium miners, who then donate to his foundation. We DO know that of all the scurrilous "scandals" in the 1990's, what DID stick was campaign finance issues. We DO know she has more earmarks than any other senator. We DO know that she voted for the Iraq war and against a cluster bomb ban. We DO know that she is silent on the restoration of the Constitution or holding the Bush administration accountable.
We DO know she lied about NAFTA, she lied about Bosnia. She is silent on Rendell's glowing praise -- on tape of Farrakhan, while Obama has denounced Farrakhan, but she conflates Obama with Farrakhan at every turn.
She now is ready to nuke Iran; but has carried on about Obama taking stands on hypothetical issues.
We know she has taken more money from the defense industry than any other Senator, Democrat or Republican.
We DO NOT know how Bill's activities will impact on her decisions as a president. To not know where every dime comes from and how whether there are serious conflicts of interest, is a disserve to the American people and she should not even be considered for the nomination until we know these things.
Shall I go on? I'm just getting started.......
April 23, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"That's the difference. Obama has a lot of things in his closet, and with each new thing we've seen the electorate turned off of him a little more. Clinton's problems? Been there, done that. It would take something monumentally incriminating to affect Clinton supporters."
You have some points worthy of debate, but this is the weak part of your thinking.
First, you assume Obama has a lot of things in his closet. But that's an assumption only. It is pretty apparent that Clinton has pulled out all the stops to try and dirty Obama's image. It would be safe to assume at this point that she's used up the best of it. It is also pretty Obvious that the Republicans would prefer to run against Hillary. We can speculate all day about the reasons for that, but the point is, if they had any other dirt on him, they would be quite happy to share it at this point. Especially when Obama has a pretty solid shot at winning, this would be an excellent time to upset the apple cart. Of course, there is always a possibility that Obama has some really nasty skeleton hidden in his closet, but at this stage, one cannot assume it.
In addition, it is worth pointing out that we don't know as much about Hillary as we think. As others have already noted, there are some real questions about Bill's actions over the last 7 years or so. We also assume that because we know Bill very well, that we also know Hillary equally as well. Other than the healthcare thing, we actually don't know much about Hillary's role in her husband's administration. And so we can just as easily make assumptions about the dirt on Hillary that has yet to surface. A good recent example is her "F#@k 'em comments that three people have confirmed her saying about the small-town voters. (You don't think the Republicans have stashed that little gem away for safekeeping?)
But here's the interesting part, while Clinton has been throwing the kitchen sink and the media has been picking up the shattered bits of porcelain and throwing them again, Obama was still able to gain a little ground among nearly all the major demographic groups in PA, including Clinton's key groups. And, while poll numbers fluctuate from day to day and week to week, the overall trend in most states and nationally has been up for Obama even since the mudslinging first started in earnest. "Electorate turned off"? Not exactly. Maybe Obama's negatives have gone up, but so too have Clinton's - which is pretty amazing since they were bad to start with. Not a convincing argument, my friend.
At this point, it would also take something "monumentally incriminating" to derail Obama's nomination. Don't hold your breath.
April 23, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
"it's not as big of a deal to us since we are basing our support for her on experience, resilience, etc."
Good god, man, Bush has more executive experience than Clinton. That's worked out so well....
And really, truly, do you think Clinton will actually carry out *any* promise she makes if it becomes politically toxic?
April 23, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now, this is just getting silly.
1) Look at his voting record, and the "most liberal" label doesn't stick.
2) Flip flopped? As opposed to McCain was-pro-choice, now-pro-life; voted-against-Bush-tax-cuts, now supports them?
3) For every Reverend Wright that McCain wants to bring up, the Democrats can see his Parsley and raise him a Hagee.
4) The "small town citizens" business was a nontroversy.
5) What secrets has he got to "dig up?" If Wright and a loose connection to Rezko is the worst thing in Obama's closet, he's pretty squeaky clean by politician standards. McCain was censured by the senate for his part in the Keating 5, and he cheated on his first wife with the woman who became his second.
6) I cannot WAIT to see Obama vs. McCain in a couple of debates.
7) The big-state argument really doesn't hold. Historically, winning a state in a primary doesn't mean the candidate can take it in the general, or vice versa. Democrats resonate far better to Obama's every-state-counts attitude than the Clinton "triangulation."
April 23, 2008 5:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
And she lost the delegate count in TX that the Hillary camp is still spinning as a win.
April 23, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
You left out McCain's incredibly close connections with lobbyists (they're "on the bus"), including one where Tab A is likely being inserted into Slot B.
The guy's a crook, a liar, and a dangerous (and well-documented) hothead, in addition to being a philanderer.
April 23, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to add somewhere here - not sure where, but this seems just as good as any place - that much of the mud Clinton tries to throw at Obama will only come back at her double. A couple examples:
Wright: the Republican commercial will quote Clinton about her objection to Wright, and then point out that Wright was the man Bill brought in after the Lewinsky affair. (Not only do they get to connect the Clintons to Wright and make her out to be a hypocrite, but they remind everyone of the good 'ol tabloid presidency.)
Ayers: same thing. Quote Clinton, then point out that Bill pardoned two other Weathermen. More hypocrisy, doubt, etc.
Spit in the wind...
April 23, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"liberal" is a tag that Republicans like to attach to people who take the liberty to think, not to fall for their god,guns and gays rhetoric - not only would be McCain be more of the same, but so would Clinton. She would be a worthy successor to this brilliant military strategist Bush.
Liberal and liberty have the same etymological root - freedom. To free yourself from the empty rhetoric of Clinton, "ready from day one" (to fuck you up), "crossed the CinC threshold" (threshold set by GWB) to nuke Iran. I used to have a positive view of the Clintons up to this race, Ms. Clinton managed to change all that, "anyone but another Clinton".
She comes across as someone who will stoop to anything to mislead the people and get their votes. She ran the most depressing campaign in recent history, a campaign of smears, lies and manipulation - yet she is close to broke. She comes across as someone who felt entitled to be president and the change of things revealed her narcisstic, self-centered, egotistic character.
She had lead PA by 20-30 points in the not too distant past, yet she managed to eek out only some pathetic 8.5 point "win", despite desperately trying to pull Obama down to the gutter she inhabits. She felt the urge for fulfillment late in life, so she decided to audition for a guest role in "Desperate Housewives". Now she notices that she is in the wrong act and doesn't know how to quit. I guess she will try to run again in 2012 or 2016, with her excellent running mate Joe Lieberman, as candidate of the Republican party. Then she can also dump Mark Penn and replace him by a more kindred spirit, Karl Rove, a man who reflects her value system.
April 23, 2008 7:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brand, can you comment on the questions Gary raises about Senator Clinton without changing the subject to Senator Obama?
Gary's points about how the Republican war machine would focus on Hillary are worth examining.
We already know, in part because Senator Clinton has focused on them, what Obama's likely vulnerabilities would be, and they don't need repeating here. But I'd be interested to know what you think about Senator Clinton's likely vulnerabilities and whether you, who appear to be a Clinton supporter, think these should be addressed.
The point here is not Clinton vs Obama, but Clinton - if she is the nominee - vs the Republicans. How might that dynamic play out from your perspective, with specific reference to the vulnerability-points Gary raises?
April 23, 2008 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
thanks wingman2, I'm really trying to get people to focus on the points I've brought up in my post. We already know Obama's negatives and the attack ads.
Let's address the validity of the points above. How will the Republicans attack Hillary?
April 23, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll take on the challenge:
1) Breaking the agreement she made with her own party about FL and MI is another one.
If she is the nominee, the DNC will ratify the delegates, as they had actually been planning to do all along. Hillary standing up for Floridians' voting rights is not going to be a negative in the GE.
2) While she was giving a speech opposing Colombia free trade, her chief campaign strategist was in Colombia lobbying in favor of it. And her husband was getting paid a million to support it.
The strategist was forced to resign. The husband gave 4 speeches in 2004. McCain is pro-Columbian trade agreement. Unlikely to make any mileage as an attack thrust.
3) If she wants change, why has she accepted more money from lobbyists and special interests than any
other candidate?
Easy rebuttal as most of McCain's staff are lobbyists. She's going to change healthcare to give everyone affordable insurance etc etc. I doubt there's much if anything here, unions would all be behind here.
4)She tried to steal pledged delegates from a member of her own party.
Eh?
5) The most influential endorsement John McCain has to be commander in chief comes from Hillary Clinton.
She didn't endorse him. She said he had years of experience so had crossed a threshold. Being polite about your opponents veteran career isn't a negative.
6) How does she debate someone about a war she authorized?
Ummm, is this one serious? McCain wants to stay the course in Iraq, Hillary wants out asap. Polar opposite positions.
7) Lying about "sniper fire" in Bosnia?
Yeah, that one would be used. She just needs to keep apologising (as she's been doing) and move on. Plenty of McCain gaffes to counter with. It'll be old news come November.
8)And warning a country of total obliteration?
You think her being tough on Iran if they nuke Israel will be used against her by Republicans? THat statement will win her a lot of votes in November.
There we are. Bosnia's the only real hit that you've identified, a few minor ones that I doubt will make much leeway, and you've managed to identify a couple of big positives.
Happy?
April 23, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
(cough)
Contrary to almost universal blabbing, HRC did NOT win Texas. That's the problem with many of HRC's "talking points", they aren't true.
April 23, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama . . . Is the most liberal senator in the US Senate"
Sinply a lie.
http://www.acuratings.org/2006senate.htm
According to the American Conservative Union, Obama's lifetime score is 8.0. Dick Durbin's is 6.7. So Obama is not even the most liberal senator from his state, nonetheless in the Senate! There are a total of 14 other senators with more liberal voting records than Obama. So your first premise is just a flat out lie.
April 23, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. "Liberal" is not a dirty word or a bad idea. Conservatism, as interpreted by modern Republicans, has thrown us into more debt, and un-winnable war that is costing a fortune in blood and treasure. They have privatized the government to the point that no services work, we question the safety of our food.
Give me a good liberal who will make things right again in this country.
April 23, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this one would make the strongest McCain campaign ad--a series of Hillary Clinton quotes talking about how he's got experience and he's crossed the Commander in Chief threshhold, with a "his great service to our nation" standard that everyone says thrown in for window dressing.
To beat Obama, she's been putting herself forward as the experience candidate and the guns-and-beers candidate and, now, the national defense candidate--when McCain can smoosh her like a bug on all of those.
More electable my butt.
April 23, 2008 5:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jedreport has great videos using only the candidates own words and footage.
The republicans only need to point out the hypocrisy of Hillary that her supporters seem to be oblivious to.
Fox News is fair and balanced. So says Hillary the Hillary camps Terry McAuliffe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ2nVor0bSI
What is Hillary going to do when Fox tries to destroy her? Is she going to say Fox news is RW biased?
How about Nafta, Guns, out of touch, Bosnia all rolled into one - great commercial for the repubs to use
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exsmFDYyK4U
Well lets use her strongest point - Healthcare
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_mcgO3Iva0
How about all those voters having a right to be heard and be counted? But of course the superdelegates are much smarter than we are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xiiwWQSy8Q
How about the war? Makes you kind of wonder if she has an aversion to reading NIE's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGXQElOq-j0
Any of these lovely ditties will work for a great McCain campaign against Hillary.
Say hello to President McCain if Hillary gets the nom.
April 23, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone notice how, over the last 2 months, since McCain clinched the nomination, the Right Wing pundits have become strongly pro-Hillary in their chatter? Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough... even dick f'ing Scaife is endorsing her.
Smells like a vast right wing conspiracy to prop her up as the Dem nominee. Or maybe keep the bruising battle going?
April 23, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. Have you also noticed that John McCain and his campaign don't say anything about her. They're always attacking Senator Obama. It's clear who the Republicans want to run against, they've been preparing for her for the past eight years.
April 23, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like a vast right wing conspiracy because they really want her to win. They hate McCain. They can't control him. Hill and Bill have proven the RW creds.
Remember when Bill said that his philanthropy buddy, Daddy Bush, was going to help president Hillary?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/18/bill-clinton-george-hw-bush-will-help-president-hillary/
or when he said she'd make a good president?
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/11/13/100701.shtml
I'll need a completely separate post to list all of the right wing crap they both have done, even before this election.
April 24, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will address gary's concerns:
Look, I could go in and attempt to defend Clinton on each of this issues, but it's beside the point. 2/3 of PA voters thought Clinton was dishonest, but they still gave her a convincing win. The fact of the matter is, people know Clinton. She has been in the spotlight for years. I admit, and people know, she is the definition of a politician. But she has never denied it. She has ran on a platform of experience (particularly on the economy) and her work-ethic.
Obama has run on a platform of change and transcending politics as usual. He is supposed to be the man that brings the country together for the sake of progress. So, as we've seen in PA, when numerous issues arise that question Obama's fundamental premise for his presidential run, it hurts him. When Clinton lies about Bosnia, she wins by 9-10 pts.
That's my point. Your issues are just issues that will be brought up, but as another poster has noted, McCain has his issues as well. There is a fundamental problem with Obama: he is running on rhetoric, his ability to be above the fray, yet he's already proven that he's going to be in the fray! What platform, then, is he running on? Change? To myself and most other Clinton supporters, he has proven himself just another politician.
And let me just say, I was giving Obama a chance for awhile, when I thought Clinton would not win OH by enough and would lose TX. I was prepared to support him. But his platform fell apart when he said he would try to wiggle out of the public financing agreement with McCain. He made a promise: he broke it. He said he wouldn't get dirty: in PA, 50% said Obama unfairly attacked Clinton. He's a liar.
So is Clinton! But she's a politician as usual and she admits it. I have faith in her abilities, whereas I have no idea what to aspect of Obama I would place faith in since he's a young senator from IL running on lies.
April 23, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You cant be a liar about something that has NOT HAPPENED yet.
Yes I know when asked about it after the fact he basically backpeddled and turned to "ill think about it" or figure it out when it happens.
But it hasnt happened yet. You cant burn a man for that. Not in the real world. We will see what he does when the primary gets here.
And Clinton backpeddled on MI and FLA.
What are you, 10? If Obama supporters went into the number of "promises" HRC and McCain have "broken", I am quite positive the numbers and level of "lies" will be higher for both candidates. So that just isnt logical, at all. Give us your real factual reasons for not supporting Obama and then we can have a good discussion on it. To me...its fine that you like Hillary, but your reasonings behind what I have read from you in this thread are extremely inexperienced.
Everybody on this thread has told a lie before, and now your trying to make it like you have to be "holier than thou" for your support? Get real.
And if "hes a liar" is the best you got. Shit.
Wait till they dig up McCains quotes on why Arizona wouldnt recognize Martin Luther King day their. I believe it was something along the lines of "I didnt really know who he was".
April 23, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
He said that he would go with public financing if an agreement could be made to make sure everything was fair and level. McCain could take public financing then have the RNC financed 527's do the dirty work. McCain would not agree so Obama would not either. Who would be crazy enough to make an agreement that could so easily be circumvented? Obama is honest, not stupid.
Of course the McCain camp spun it as Obama breaking promises. But what did you expect? He's a republican. Pretty sad when you'd believe a republican over a democrat.
Well, if you go by Hillary supporters assessment of what is dirty. Pointing out differences in policy is fair game and not dirty at all. Obama has stuck to that meme. Only when he is attacked does he point out obvious hypocrisy. If you call that an attack, that is your prerogative.
I'll give you a perfect example of how Hillary claims Obama is attacking her.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_mcgO3Iva0
If your criteria is not having a liar in the White House, I suggest you mull over the mounting evidence of Hillary's lies and spin. This footage of hers would make great right wing attack ads wouldn't they?
How about all those voters having a right to be heard and be counted? But of course the superdelegates are much smarter than we are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xiiwWQSy8Q
What is Hillary going to do when Fox tries to destroy her? Is she going to say Fox news is RW biased?
Fox News is fair and balanced. So says the Hillary camp's Terry McAuliffe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ2nVor0bSI
How about Nafta, Guns, out of touch, Bosnia all rolled into one - great commercial for the repubs to use
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exsmFDYyK4U
How about the war? Makes you kind of wonder if she has an aversion to reading NIE's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGXQElOq-j0
Any of these lovely ditties will work for a great McCain campaign against Hillary.
Say hello to President McCain if Hillary gets the nom
April 23, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
And now Clinton needs 71% of all remaining pledged delegates to catch up with Obama.
The only way she could accomplish that is to utterly destroy Obama. But to do so, she has to utterly destroy the Democratic Party.
Remember, when one Democrat attacks another, that lends automatic legitimacy to the attacks. You expect a Republican to attack a Democrat; you do not expect a Democrat to attack a Democrat, and you assume that if one does, it must mean that the stuff is really, really true. Therein lies the reprehensible nature of Hillary Clinton--she will take down her own party in order to win.
She needs to take her backstabbing politics and her neocon rantings about nuking other countries into oblivion back to NY.
April 23, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Peter Paul trial starts Friday. Perhaps you should tune in. Unless you are resistant to information.
April 23, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has tried to lay off Clinton's negatives.
There's PLENTY to talk about, if he chose to do that.
The Colombian free trade conflicts of interest in her own campaign - and how she indirectly became $800,000 richer because of her husband's lobbying in support of free trade with Colombia.
The Peter Paul trial. Imagine, if you will, a sitting President being convicted of election fraud (from ANY year). That's exactly the risk in Paul v. Clinton - if she's found liable in the civil suit, there are serious FEC charges that will follow straightaway. I think this blows away anything about Wright, Rezko, Ayers, or teen drug experimentation. Those are "boogeymen". Paul v. Clinton is a federal fraud case.
Tuzla. John McCain has a ready-made ad here. The "tough, experienced" Clinton lying - four times - in public - about facing sniper fire. That's about 10 seconds of footage. Plug in footage of Bill Clinton lying 8 times in 45 seconds trying to defend Hillary's lies. Now, lace in 10-15 seconds of McCain being interviewed by a French journalist while a POW.
The "commander-in-chief" test. How can she argue against McCain when she praised him - OVER her Democratic opponent?
The "lifetime of experience". Same problem.
Comparing legislative records. John McCain actually has experience in passing bi-partisan legislation. (So does Barack Obama.) Feel free to show Hillary Clinton's.
Foreign policy. Threatening to "obliterate Iran" is to the right of even Dick Cheney's publicly stated position. The only votes she'll get from that are the Ann Coulters of the earth. Moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats will cringe at the thought of putting her finger on the button.
"Screw 'em." Working white Southern Democrats - part of those same "Reagan Democrats" she claims she can get? Yeah...just wait until ads come up with THAT soundbite.
MoveOn.org. You want two-faced? Let's talk about the organization that was founded to save her husband from being convicted by the Senate. When they don't endorse her, not only does she slam over 3 million activists, she even blatanly lies about their position on Afghanistan. Then, when the media asks her or her campaign about the comments, and to clarify their alleged "policy differences" with MoveOn, all you hear...is the chirping of crickets.
"35 years of experience." This would include, say, Clinton being FIRED from the House Judiciary Committee staff investigating Watergate? Jerry Zeifman, her supervisor, fired Clinton and refused to even write her a letter of recommendation in 1974. Why? Because she tried to get President Nixon denied legal counsel. I'm no fan of Tricky Dicky, but he certainly had a right to be defended.
Taking money from IPA. IPA is a company that bundled about $170,000 in donations for Hillary. This is the same company that has been involved in a six-year lawsuit with the EEOC. What are the charges? Try 103 separate counts of sexual harassment. You can sure choose your donors, no? "Women's rights are human rights." Yeah.
These are all things Obama could talk about. But, except for the Iran issue, NONE of them are relevant to policy or improving anyone's lives. They do, however, go straight to Hillary Clinton's character. They also provide a stark contrast to Barack Obama. You can talk about former pastors and '60s radicals and influence peddlers - but he's not been accused of ANY wrongdoing at all. Not so for Hillary, though!
Obama's also following a tried and true approach. Ronald Reagan had a rule: "Thou shalt not hurt a member of thine own party." Obama knows that, if he hits her over the head with the above, if she becomes the nominee, she'll be massively weakened in the general election. However, if she keeps trying to smear him, he won't have much choice but to either go there with her or drop out.
As David Gergen said last night, "There are worse things for the Democrats than losing a general election in trying to rebuild your party."
April 23, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some interesting comments. I didn't know my post would actually evolve into real issues. I think that's great. I know it's obvious, but I should say I'm an Obama supporter. And like many other Obama supporters, I'm open to substantive debate. So why did I bring up the moral and ethical topics I think the Republicans will
pummel her with? Because Hillary, rightly or wrongly, made that part of this discussion.
April 23, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's an excellent post. And I think what it will do is give Obama supporters the chance to lay out, in massive detail, exactly just how much negative material there is on the Clintons.
We don't even need to mention Whitewater, or Travelgate, or the Rose Law billing records, or Vince Foster, or Monica, Gennifer or Paula.
No "Edmund Hillary", no "Chelsea at WTC on 9/11", no House Judiciary committee firing.
Just her lies from THIS CAMPAIGN alone are enough to sink her. Throw in Paul v. Clinton, and it's a slam-dunk. She's not even electable in her own party, and is viewed as dishonest by 60% of the public. SIXTY PERCENT! Electable? I think not.
April 23, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of "no" history, Obama doesn't "know his history.
Doesn't know if his dad was a goat herd or an accountant. Maybe he was accounting for sheep.
Doesn't know whether he was born before or after the Selma thingie.
Doesn't know if his parents met in Al or HI.
This guy has so many different versions out there. it's like spin zone with Oreilly.
But he has hope, and dreams, and he is getting yo $$$$$.
April 23, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
(1) These are actually non-issues.
(2) If you insist on making them issues, though, let's talk about Hillary's "memory".
-- Named after Sir Edmund Hillary - who didn't become famous by scaling Mount Everest until Hillary Diane Rodham was 7 years old.
-- Claimed her daughter was at the World Trade Center on 9/11. Truth: Chelsea was in Midtown, at a friend's place, watching TV. Guess it depends on what your definition of "at" is.
-- Sniper fire!
-- Sleep deprivation! (Which explains lying about it...four separate times...at rallies or news conferences...on camera.)
Now, would you like to drop this line of "memory" issues, or shall I continue?
April 23, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Depends on the spin you happening to be listening to.
His GRANDFATHER was a goatherder. His father was the academic.
I personally don't know where his parents met, but considering the spin on your first question, I have no doubt he was just as accurate with that one.
Try listening to Obama every once in a while. Maybe visit his website. Turn off Rush radio and Bill Orally. Oh I forgot...trolls don't want truthful information. Nevermind...
April 23, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think memory is the problem with ole Hussien, it's that constant dreaming.
Maybe caused by his early and often crack use, and he did inhale.
April 23, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least he admitted inhaling.
Feel free to respond to the truckload of Clinton lies I've detailed in this thread, by the way.
Oh...no response? Hey, you must work for the Clinton press operation!
April 23, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
you betcha
By the way, if you know anything at all about BHO, please inform us and we promise to use it in our next press release. No negative, only good positive stuff.
We prefer to stay above the fray, so we can smell the Wright Ayer.
April 23, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
When the Republicans elected McCain, he wasn't Right Wing enough for many of them. So, Hillary decides she is going to be their Right Wing candidate.
She is trying to out John Wayne, McCain. But, in the General Election she would lose that shootout. She is playing a very dangerous game.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Obama just keeps riding along talking about the issues, and how he wants to make our lives better. The audacity of him!
I was so depressed about PA today, that I went over and contributed more to Obama's campaign. I bet alot of other people did too. Hillary raised 10 million today? Obama probably raised 20 million without even asking!
April 23, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've pointed out many problems with Hilary getting the nomination. Let's not forget what the Republicans will do to her and Bill. The Republicans will come out of the woodwork to vote against her. They don't want Bill in the White House again. As for that matter, many Democrats don't want to go through those grueling times either. Yes, he did a lot of good for the country, but do we really want to rehash those years again? I have nothing against Hilary. If she gets the nomination, I'll of course vote for her. But I pray she doesn't get the nomination. I live in Atlanta, Georgia. You should hear some of these white folks down here talk about her. They really, really hate her.
April 23, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone up there said this --And really, truly, do you think Clinton will actually carry out *any* promise she makes if it becomes politically toxic? --I copied it and forgot where it was!
After her first term, she might actually do this, carry out *a* promise. The first term though, will just be one long re-election campaign.
April 23, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment