Reader Posts

« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »

WOW, IT FINALLY HAPPENED

I just knew that the Hillary campaign was saving something to dump today as the last message before the PA primary tomorrow. Here is the ad that is Hillary's last-ditch stand:


Is that what it's finally come to? Usameh Bin-Laden? She has to invoke Bin-Laden? How utterly tragic. Here's the woman who has been running for president unofficially for the last 8 years and officially for a year and a quarter. She had nearly instant frontrunner status that lasted for nearly a year but since Obama won Iowa has plunged so far and so fast that now in a desperate last convulsion of negativity she pulls the ultimate fearmongering card? Wow.

To be honest though I've been bagging on Hillary a lot lately I never really thought she'd go this far.

And hasn't she basically run out this "ready on day one" meme by now? She wasn't even ready on Super Tuesday. Her campaign is run into the ground and running at a deficit, she praises McCain over Obama, she says how honored she is to be in the race with Obama one day and the very next day is shaming him, and now she finally uses the same vile fear-mongering Rovian atacks that gave us an 8-year Bush presidency? Is that how she's ready?

At one time I actually thought that the democratic ticket would be strong no matter who was the nominee. The field of candidates seemed equally strong -particularly the top 3. How deluded that thought was. I used to say that she wasn't my favorite, but that if she was the nominee I'd proudly vote for her in November. Then after a few of her antics I said that I wouldn't prefer it, but that if she was the nominee I'd march in lockstep and vote for her as a loyal democrat. Then after more I said that "well I hope she's not the nominee but if she is I guess I'll hold my nose and vote for her" (though in private in a few brash rants I threatened to sit out the election in November but I didn't really mean it.)

Now I honestly don't know what I'll do if she somehow pulls it out. I have ranted nonstop about the fearmongering tactics of the Bush cabal and how there used to be something to the idea that there were some things that were worse than death. FDR said "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, and I took him literally. For the last few years I've used this as my "signature line" in emails and online: "In slightly over 200 years we've gone from "Give me liberty or give me death" to "Give up your liberty or you'll die". BushCo have turned the country so into a bunch of simpering terror pansies and the discourse into the black and white McCarthy-ite "you're with us or with the terrorists" tripe that passes for politics that I have to restrain myself nightly from tossing my TV out the window just to try to find out what's going on in the world. How can I countenance a candidate from my own party that uses the same dog-whistle scaring tactics as the people I've despised for the last 8 years? How can I rationalize that enough to vote for them?

crossposted at http://obsessiveprogressive.blogspot.com/


Comments (20)

Did you notice how comments aren't permitted on that video? Guess they can't take the heat.

avatar

HILLARY TURDBLOSSOM CLINTON HAS PASSED THE FEAR MONGER IN CHIEF THRESHOLD!!!

avatar

I feel just as strongly about Obama's gun-seizing robocall. Now that's right out of the rethuglican playbook. What could possibly be more fear-mongering than calling people and saying "Clinton's going to come and take your guns."

You refer to her antics, but are you so lacking in empathy, so blindly devoted that you don't see that both sides have done it?

Empathy has nothing to do with it leroy. Ok robocalls suck, you've got me there, but are you telling me that you equate one candidate's citing another's voting record with another's dropping the UBL bomb? What's she going to do next reprise the 2004 GOP 9/11 convention chorus? When does it stop?

BTW -you put quotes around "Clinton's going to come and take your guns." that wasn't a quote from the robocall at all. What the guy in the call did say was: "Senator Clinton voted to allow guns to be confiscated, and this raises real doubts." to imply that it's a distinction without a difference is disingenuous at best.

avatar

In just the last week Obama's used an Annie Oakley reference. this robocall is right out of the repub scare the rubes playbook. Axelrod, yesterday, made what we see as a very specious, underhanded and mendacious attacks on Clinton. He said point blank in response to a rare unambiguous question from Russert that if elected, Clinton cannot make the necessary changes to move the country forward in a positive way.

My point here is that at least in your original post, you only see one side. By any realistic measure, anyone who thinks that only Clinton does the attacking or only Clinton is playing politics is delusional. Both sides do it.

In Susan Wolcott's model, people who only see one side of everything are called Biased Jumpers. Biased Jumpers leap to a conclusion, look only for evidence that supports their claim and ignore any evidence that runs counter to their claim. According to Wolcott, as academicians we have to help students move up to the higher rungs of the ladder (Biased Jumpers are on the 2nd of five levels).

And this is more than an academic exercise. As a longtime progressive who was seduced by candidates like McGovern and Dukasis, I suspect that Biased Jumpers comprise an overwhelming majority of the 28% of Clinton supporters who won't vote for Obama and the 25% of Obama voters who won't vote for Clinton.

I will throw you a bone and admit that the Clinton campaign does slightly more attacking than Obama. In my opinion she has hurt herself in many occasions by attacking him. Even in the debate the other night she would have been better served by shutting up and letting the moderators do the damage.

The claim was not made that she is the only one who attacks or that she is the only one playing politics. The claim is that her tactics are unacceptable. She is doing the equivelent of hitting below the belt or eye gouging in a scuffle between friends. She is not behaving apropriatly for the venue.

avatar

In the original post I didn't see anything that admitted Obama and his campaign have attacked her and used negative, over-the-top references. I only saw references to what Clinton did wrong.

Just because one does not mention a thing does not mean that one is making the claim that it did not happen. The post was about how Clinton has crossed the line. It is not making the claim that she is the only one making negative points. She is however making negative claims about issues and in a way that is not cricket. Her attacks differ from Obama's to such a degree that they have become different in kind. He has never said that McCain was better than her in any way but she has said that about him.

avatar

Hillary Clinton will become EXPONENTIALLY more negative with each passing primary. Making war at the convention if she has to - and she will have to.

avatar

Empathy? As in, feeling what she feels? Well, then I would feel consumed with lust for power and contempt for all in my way. That's not a pleasant feeling.

The poor democratic party. We seriously can't have them hitting at each other like this for the next two months. Here's hoping that PA will put us all out of our misery.

avatar

pulling out tricks like this will decide the DNC leadership more quickly than ever - to endorse Obama.

How is this suposed to convince people to vote for her? The people who think she has what it takes and that he does not are already voting for her. I think there are few people I would trust less with those decisions than HRC.

avatar

What was so terrible about the ad? The two second picture of Bin Laden?

How can this possibly be considered a negative ad?

Dude, if you can't figure out you must be bias-jumping.

avatar

redstateleroy:

Very sad if you do not see what is wrong with this ad. I guess the past 7 years of bush-Cheney fear mongering have been more effective than I thought since a democrat can now use those tools and people do not notice it.

Sad that America has changed in this way.

First -the Annie Oakley line was a joke poking fun at Senator Clinton's apparently newfound love for guns ("You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot"). Cmon, it was a pretty good one liner.

Next:

Axelrod, yesterday, made what we see as a very specious, underhanded and mendacious attacks on Clinton. He said point blank in response to a rare unambiguous question from Russert that if elected, Clinton cannot make the necessary changes to move the country forward in a positive way.

How is that "mendacious" when it's his opinion? Where is the deliberate falsehood?

Finally -let's take you at your word and compare their insinuations at their worst:

Obama's insinuation: Hillary's coming to take away your guns -based on her vote.

Hillary's insinuation: Vote for Obama and we might be attacked by UBL again -based on...what exactly?

You tell me which is more despicable. Isn't hers the exact thing Cheney was trying to say in 2004?

I've never said that Obama hasn't attacked Hillary, but you have yet to prove how anything he's disseminated comes close to the fearmongering of dropping the UBL bomb.

Oh BTW this was supposed to have been in reply to redstateleroy's comment calling me a "Biased Jumper" above.

avatar

Its about the ability to do the job from day one on. Obviously Sen. Clinton thinks she is the person to do it. The Ad gives examples that has happened to this country over the years. Should Bin Laden be off limits to any discussion of security in this country? Who else do you put in that Ad to represent Al Queda. Would it be better to show the Twin Towers crumbling?

Its squarely her view that she is the best Candidate.

avatar

The same terrorist organization that struck the twin towers on 9/11/01, had truck bombed them in 1993 when the great "Two for the price of One" Clintons were running the country.

That same terrorist organization went on to bomb American Embassy after Embassy, and the US Cole, while the Great Clintons were in charge. That same terrorist organization was left intact by the Clintons, and therefore were capable of bringing down the Twin Towers on 9/11/01 because The Clintons did not take effective action to destroy those Terrorists.

Ready from day one, my Arse. Hillary Turdblossom Clinton is lying her arse off as is her custom.

Post a Comment

Cafe Features



Cafe Features


June 30-July 4

Steven Greenhouse The Big Squeeze

July 7-11

David Sirota The Uprising

July 14-18

Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam Grand New Party

July 21-25

Bill Bishop The Big Sort

August 4-9

Book Cover

August 11-15

James Galbraith The Predator State

August 25-29

Book Cover







Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall

Site Editor
Lila Shapiro

Intern
Al Shaw



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