3AM Phone Call

`I'm honoured` - the vile insincerity of it, so transparent at the time when she gushed it yet again - confirmed the next couple of days with the `shame on you`
And the C-in-C threshold

I can't remember which of the two came first. I suspect it was the `honoured`

Her vote for the Kyl/Lieberman green light to attack Iran.

That told me that she is a War Monger at heart, and that she is just lying now about getting us out of Iraq.
If she were to become President she would not keep her promise.

Kyl-Lieberman.

I was not happy with the Kyl/Lieberman vote.
I thought "shame on you ..." was weird.
I got annoyed when a woman told me I should vote for her only because she is a women and ignore the rest.
I thought the Bill going on the Rush Limbaugh Show was offensive and stupid.
I was disturbed when she said "as far as I know".
I laughed about Bonsia because she was so studpid.
Her quoting Rovian math was absurd.
Her not paying her small family vendor bills pissed me off.
The "hard working white voters" was ugly and made me mad.
The assassin remark as provoked rage in me and her apoligists have driven me to thoughts of violence myself for only the 4th time in my life. Iam going to have to call for more medication.
I hope this does campaign does the Clinton's in and I never have to see them again. And to think I voted for Bill Clinton twice and defended him repeatedly and gladly - dang

"Words don't matter."

"I'm just afraid we're going to fall behind."

After Iowa there was nothing she could do. Nearly everything since then has been some sort of error.

Well, I think it was way back when she trashed the women Bill slept with.

Or maybe it was when she stole stuff from the White House.

Or when she moved to New York to be my senator (first time I didn't vote -- I couldn't quite bring myself to vote for Lazio either).

But it was long before this primary race.

NOthing she has done in this race has surprised me. What surprises me is that each thing is more over the top than the last and yet over and over she gets a pass. And last night, when the pundits were talking about the assassination statement, they talked in hushed, somber tones, as if they felt sorry for HER! And today, the only stuff you see on this is from the bloggers. The media seems to have moved on. How in God's name do they not take this statement seriously? Or rather, I think they do know it's serious and aren't covering it because they feel sorry for her. WHy, I don't know. Especially after she accused them of sexism.

I believe it was in October, 1947.

"waaaa"

For me, it was "if I had sat in that church for 20 years..." Since being from the Chicago area, while I don't know Rev. Wright or go to the church, I know of him. Both Hillary and Bill Clinton know him and I'm sure she's aware he's not the monster the media painted him to be.

Therefore, when she made that statement to the right wing media, I became convinced she would say or do anything to get elected no matter who it would hurt.

My mild preference for Obama became a strong distaste for Clinton when she started demagoguing on NAFTA. My distaste turned to hatred when she started her Farrakhan turrette's in PA. And she's steadily declined in my estimation since then ("choose your pastor, not your family", "I learned to shoot out back the cabin...", "let's debate in the flatbed of a pickup truck...", "gas-tax holiday....", "hard-working white Americans..." "assassination...")

Please, somebody make her go away.

The "as far as I know" got me started. She seemed to give a solid answer, then at the last second realized that she had to get an advantage, get a dig in. My jaw dropped when she delivered that line. She's had so many opportunities to show true leadership, stand above the fray, point to the truth, but she seems a congenital schemer. She can't stop herself. Sure, Obama's made some gaffes, but he certainly hasn't done these interparty attacks to the scale and volume of Clinton.

For me it was her pre-NH campaign fliers scaring women into thinking Barack Obama would not protect their reproductive rights.

And then there was Nevada, where she failed to speak out against a lawsuit filed to move caucuses out of the casinos, which would have disenfranchised many casino workers, even though the state democratic party had approved the location. (My recollection is that at least one of the plaintiffs in the suit was a clinton surrogate who had previously voted to approve teh location.)

I've been so angry for so long that I can't remember what drove me over the edge. I think it goes back to Iowa and the whole inevitability thing. The "35 years" of "experience." Or maybe in NH with the whole "it takes a president" thing. By the time, Bill started acting the fool in SC, I was disgusted with both of them and regretting the years I spent supporting them.

I was donating that way too. I realized that even with small donations, I was going to break my budget.

Mine was *exactly* the same as Fran's--the combination of "I'm honored" followed the next day with "Shame on you!" I think it's because I actually *bought* the first, and felt so happy for the party unity, so the second was an even bigger betrayal.

she had me at hello

Thank you to everyone above for sharing their epiphanies. I found myself nodding at many of them.

I vividly recall exactly when and where I jumped off her wagon. It was last December. Jeanne Shaneen's husband had just made the crack about Obama's past drug use and how it would hurt him in the GE. I was wearing a Hillary '08 button on my winter coat, walking down the street back to my office from a work meeting, and was just so embarrassed at the maliciousness of that remark that I literally had to take the Hillary '08 button off my coat and put it in my pocket. I didn't want to be identified with her or have someone come up to me and ask me to explain or justify her comment.

My gut feeling was that what he said was no accident and that she was having surrogates do her hatchet work. Hillary, wife of Mr. "I didn't inhale," questioning someone else's drug use? Please!

That disgust was soon countered by the joy of watching a video of his speech at Iowa's Jefferson/Jackson dinner. Those yin and yang feelings sealed the deal for me.

Everything since (especially her vote on the Kyl/Lieberman Iran resolution, when you'd think she'd have learned from her 2002 Iraq vote not to trust Bush) has merely confirmed what I thought on that cold winter day, and told me I was right. As I've gotten older, I've learned to trust my gut more and not agonize over decisions so much. This primary has been a case study for me in that regard.

Her Iraq war resolution vote was when I knew she was positioning herself politically rather than acting in the best interest of her constiuents and the American people. She lost me then.

That said, the Couric interview and that hideous yellow jacket with black trim that she wears confirmed for me that there could be no changing my mind.

Mine was different because I got push-polled by Clinton's people. At first, I thought it was McCain's people because I couldn't imagine a Democrat spewing all that poison into the air against another Democrat. The push-poll asked, among other things, if my opinions of Obama would change if I knew about his Muslim background, or that his church had honored Farrakhan, or that Obama has accepted contributions from the "Weather Underground," a domestic Muslim terrorist group in Chicago.

Soon afterwards, Drudge posted the picture of Obama in traditional Somali garb and attributed the Clinton campaign as the source of the pic, which her then-campaign manager didn't deny (instead, she attacked Obama for complaining about it). Then, Clinton brought up Farrakhan, Ayers, said, he's not a Muslim "as far as I know," etc., and, each time, my jaw dropped. I still haven't managed to pick up my chin completely off the floor. How anyone can support Clinton is way beyond me. Oh, and one last thing: if she wanted to bring up 1968, why bring up RFK again and again. Hubert Humphrey won that nomination. Not a word about him, huh? I do believe she was planting the seed of "anything can happen so I'm staying in."

"As far as I know"

That one said it all. Exploits an ugly rumor that is based on fear and predjudice.

One word. AUFMAI.

Way, way, long ago, back in January, I had the creeps about Bill going back to the white house. It's just icky to have a past president who, for many, is the reason to vote for Hillary. Just like Clinton/Gore, the Other Clinton would overshadow the VP, and often the Prez. Remember, the First Laddie will be a "government official" (see the 1993 case,American Assoc. of Phys. and Surgeons v. Hillary Clinton).

This goes beyond 'dynasty.' Father and son are one thing. The Shrub had no position in the Bush administration, no pervasive influence on policy and image, and did not publicly lead legislative initiatives.

Bill's influence on Hillary has popped enough to creep me out even more. The few times Hillary has softened and become more appealing, he's pushed her and the campaign to attack. He's the first one to offer damaging comments which were widely interpreted as racist and which he was never forced to retract. I don't think either Bill or Hillary is a racist, but her failure to rein him in is telling. Then the recent revelations that he's out there pushing the whisper campaign for the VP slot for his wife supported my suspicions.

I think there's good reason to hold presidents to two terms in office. The reason there's no law against it because the 22nd amendment was ratified by the states in 1951, when it was unimaginable that a woman could be president, let alone a women whose husband had held the office.

The "ready on day one" mantra repeated over and over, ad infinitum, ad upchuck-inducing.

For me it was a Bill moment. I defended them in the 90s because I couldn't stand the gop by that time, but was never a big Clinton fan. When he appeared on the scene after SC I realized that I did not want them anywhere near the WH again. It wasn't so much the Jesse Jackson flap...more the dynasty thing and sheer Clinton fatigue.

I was having serious doubt about HC's campaign but this one pushed me over the edge too, "As far as I know....". All she had to say was "NO!!!". She knew she had a wedge issue and she exploited it. She never once apolagized for it either in just the same way she has still not apolagized for her RFK comments. She's taken several leaves out of Rove's playbook and issued a non-apolagy apolagy. She still has not apolagized to the Kennedy family for bringing up RFK death at this the most difficult time for the Kennedy family. It just shows how little respect she has for any one. It's all about her and Bill.

I didn't support her candidacy initially because of her Iraq vote and her refusal to admit she was wrong, coupled with her call for Kerry to apologize for his 'stuck in Iraq' comment in the 2004 campaign. I didn't consider her to be Presidential material because she showed no leadership, had bad judgement, and didn't own up to or learn from her mistakes. But the series of events mentioned above shaped my view of her candidacy as toxic for the Democratic Party and the country.

This a good post Kash, not just a piling on of criticism of Clinton as some will likely view it. It's been cathartic for me as I ponder the effect her campaign has had on me as a woman and a Democrat, and as a citizen who personally experienced the turmoil of the 1960's. It provides a context for interpreting her recent RFK analogy. We can extend the benefit of the doubt in individual cases, but when the whole-cloth of her campaign (and the run-up to her campaign) is considered, the pattern that emerges is deeply disturbing. It's one for the history books for sure, and for political science and psychology texts as well.

If someone has time, putting all the incidents described above in a timeline (maybe with a ref for each) would be really useful.