« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
LIPSTICK ON A PIG
We've been here before.
It's all wearyingly familiar.
Faces twisted in rage, insulters shouting down those with a Roberts Rules of Order right to speak, angry threats and snotty comments to reporters...and for those of us on the sidelines, that same sickening feeling as we listen to or watch or read news reports...that feeling of frustration and anger, the urge to shout at the TV or radio, the moody preoccupation with events over which we have no control--and last, but not least, that miserable knowledge that this whole thing is, yet again, not even a real controversy, but a frenzy whipped up for political theater, with the passions of innocent victims used and abused as weapons for the personal gain of those at the top of the heap.
And as before, the principals involved are busy blaming everyone else under the sun for their travails but themselves, giving partisans on either side something else to argue about.
I'm finding cherished friendships now under significant strain over something that has nothing to do with the relationship between the two of us, and again, we've seen all this before.
Remember the '90's?
I mean, REALLY remember?
It started--and perhaps those of us who voted for him should have been paying closer attention--but it started during the Clinton campaign of '92. "Bimbo eruptions." Gennifer. Paula.
The Clintons, even then, vowed to FIGHT this Republican Attack Machine that was trying to destroy them.
Everybody likes a fighter, right?
So boy, we all joined in the brawl, didn't we? Faced off our conservative friends, flocked to the polls, all tuned in to 60 Minutes after the Super Bowl. Thought the Clintons were so cool.
Delivered them the White House.
And almost immediately, there were more eruptions--Travelgate, White Water.
Republican opponents accused the Clintons of withholding important documents; we countered that the whole thing was a fake-controversy engineered by partisans who hated the Clintons with such mad-dog intensity that you found yourself fighting for the First Couple in sympathy even if you weren't that crazy about them to start with.
Bill put Hillary in charge of health care, and suddenly, it was all about Hillary more than about health care; all about whether it was a "co-presidency," all about her charming Capitol Hill, and how smart she was, and what a good job she was doing.
But all along, under the surface, massive resentments grew within the Democratic congress because she was acting behind closed doors without any of their input, and when the Big Plan was sprung, she refused compromise of any sort even within her own party, and set the whole debate up as a "with us or against us" showdown, forcing conservative Democrats to vote against it, handing the right-wing their biggest victory, and contributing to a takeover two years into the Clinton administration of Congress by Republicans which led, ultimately, to the debacle of a government we see today.
We need to remember. REALLY remember.
It dragged on, and dragged on. More bimbo eruptions, and as the accusations from the right-wing grew positively Machiavellian, we knew that this wasn't about any failings of the Clintons but was about shoving a right-wing agenda down the throats of a populace easily manipulated by soundbite sloganeering.
We just knew it. We were so sure of it.
For eight years, we seethed, shouted at the TV news, argued with relatives, defended and defended and defended the Clintons against the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy,
Then came Monica.
This time, we raged, and with good reason, because Ken Starr was so overtly a political hack, and because his dumping of the Clinton Grand Jury testimony on the Internet before even Clinton's own lawyers had seen it, was so unseemly, such a disgrace, such a travesty of the law.
And we fought with and for the Clintons. Boy did we fight. We fought to prevent an impeachment over something we found ridiculous, especially in light of, you know, INVADING A COUNTRY AND LYING TO YOUR OWN PEOPLE ABOUT THE REASONS WHY.
After all that, we cheered Hillary on when she put in for the Senate run--even when she sucked all the oxygen out of Al Gore's campaign room by stealing all the biggest fundraisers for her own Senate campaign and didn't really campaign for him because she was so busy with her own run.
And Gore--he was in a tough spot. Embrace Bill and risk being CRUCIFIED by the Attack Machine, or distance himself and insult many in the party.
Bill put him in that position, simply by his own inability to harness his appetites. Narcissists tend to do things like that.
When Hillary got elected, we swore to our conservative friends that noooooo, she was not looking to take over the White House.
But we were exhausted, man. Worn out with all the battles and all the anger and all the fights--especially when a tiny cadre of judges who'd been given their jobs by the Republican candidate's daddy handed Daddy's Boy the White House, oh man, were we ever demoralized and devastated.
Of course, if Bill had kept his pants zipped in the first place, Gore would most likely have won with plenty of votes to prevent such a scenario. And just think where this country might have been by now.
We need to remember. REALLY remember.
Do you know what the Clinton's were doing in the news right before the Monica story broke?
I do. I remember it vividly.
First, they were filmed from a distance, dancing together in their bathing suits on a beach during a vacation. The big controversy was whether or not they knew they were being filmed in this romantic moment.
And second, the White House was holding a contest for someone to come up with a name for Bill's new chocolate labrador puppy. (He wound up naming him "Buddy" after an uncle, but still.)
This was what was dominating the news about the Clintons. Whitewater had not stuck--in spite of the much-vaunted Attack Machine and their Attack Dog Starr--tens of millions of taxpayer dollars and virtually the entire FBI in their pockets, and they could find NOTHING.
Until Bill lied about a blowjob.
We've spent seven years in hell since Bush was selected president. That miserable feeling of rage and frustration and the utter depression of feeling we have no control over events that define our lives has continued this entire time.
This political season started as one of unprecedented hope and excitement and energy for the Democratic party, raking in hundreds of millions of dollars, pulling in millions of new voters, energizing the base and bringing in Independents and moderate Republicans. All of our candidates were outstanding.
We could not lose.
Until Hillary started to.
In spite of the fact that her campaign badly misjudged the American mood with their campaign message of experience over change; in spite of the fact that they blew through money like water with unneccessary luxury spending; in spite of the fact that they had no organization on the ground in place to even consider having to go beyond Super Tuesday; in spite of a lackluster Internet organization, in spite of backbiting and infighting within the campaign--much like there was within the Clinton White House--in spite of monumental gaffes committed by the candidate herself...well, it wasn't their fault.
SEXISM!
MEDIA BIAS!
THE DNC HATES US!
And so the nasty set in. As soon as Clinton set herself up as Joan d'Fighter, then here came all the old familiar standbys: snotty surrogates making sensational claims on talk shows, enraged supporters baring their teeth at detractors, Republican opponents launching snide countersnarls, and phony issues getting whipped up by partisans into a frenzy of outrage completely unrelated to the problems at hand.
Only this time, it was the Clintons themselves egging the whole thing on.
So here we are, back again in ClintonLand.
The land of anger and misery and division and depression and anxiety. And friendships driven apart.
I don't begrudge her supporters their rage--I've felt a fair amount of it myself when my candidate gets dragged into racist smears.
(Maybe they haven't received in their Inboxes the forwards I have from conservative friends, depicting such things as color caricatures emphasizing not just his ears, but his lips dontcha know.)
But I do think that they are being used, and the fact that the candidate has stepped back into the shadows and allowed them to surge forward into near-hysterical demonstrations of outrage and hate is a disgrace on her part. She should be ashamed.
Even if she had a true case in the Michigan/Florida debacle--which she does not, for so many reasons you could write a whole book on it--she does not honor her supporters by encouraging this dramatic display, and they don't honor her when they claim Obama's supporters are a "cult," that primary elections are being "rigged" for him, that he is a socialist like Hitler was, and that they'll vote for McCain no matter what unless Hillary gets her way.
They only wind up looking crazy, and she winds up looking desperate and mean.
And now, the divisions are borderline psychotic. Hillary supporters have banned online news sources because, you know, the ENTIRE media is biased. One said they only pay attention to BBC reports.
Which means, I guess, THAT THE WHOLE COUNTRY is against Hillary and, by extension, identification, and classic psychological transferance--THEM.
When you're in ClintonLand, compromise is absolutely out of the question. It is considered a form of weakness. Paula Jones, for example, offered to settle the lawsuit against Bill, and he was ready to do so. But nooooo, Hillary said, LET'S FIGHT!
And so fight they did--all the way to impeachment.
In the Florida/Michigan impasse, to Clinton and her mad-dog supporters who showed up for the meeting, there was to be no compromise. Either they got their whole way, or it was nothing.
Even after DNC lawyers released a 38-page memo stating in clear terms that, legally, only half-votes could be awarded to the delegates--that was shoved aside as though it did not exist.
Anything less was a personal attack on the Clintons and Hillary's campaign.
We've been here before.
It's all wearyingly familiar.
We need to remember. REALLY remember.
The big question all Democrats everywhere must ask themselves now is, DO WE WANT TO GO THERE AGAIN?
Because we already know what a Clinton White House would be like. We already know about the us-against-them battles, the rage of supporters, the partisan political divisions and government lockdowns and inevitable scandals.
We should have been paying attention in the primary campaign of '92. We should have realized that the way a campaign is managed gives us a pretty clear picture of the way an administration will govern.
And if we hadn't figured it out then, we most surely have after seven years of a Karl Rove administration.
Barack Obama's campaign has been streamlined, efficient, well-organized. Its message has been clear, concise, and consistent. His team is close-knit and not divided by backbiting and infighting. He's done his best to maintain his dignity against unconscionable racist attacks, some launched by Hillary's campaign.
He flat-out told his supporters not to demonstrate during the DNC meeting. Over and over again, his campaign offered scenarios for compromise, all of which were rejected by Hillary and her people.
He tries to take the high road. He tries to keep people together. He is no saint, and he's made mistakes, and he will make mistakes in the White House.
But wouldn't it be nice if we could go into a new administration with a feeing of hope, excitement, and peace of mind? A feeling of fresh change and new direction?
Of looking forward and not behind?
Hillary has made herself ugly with the nastiness of this campaign. Her supporters only reflect the bitterness she has enflamed.
Even when the Rules Committee tried to find a fair solution, one of her noisier supporters--many of whom repeatedly shouted down Committee members who were trying to do their jobs--yelled, "LIPSTICK ON A PIG."
That's what Hillary's campaign has come to resemble.
Do we really want to take this into the White House?
AGAIN?
Comments (197)
We remember, although we have tried to forget. Thank you for refreshing that memory; yours is a cautionary tale that bears re-telling until everyone gets it. Thank you.
June 1, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
First post I've ever actually put in a personal archive. Thanks so much!
June 1, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, we remember and no, we don't want it again. The people have spoken.
You've got the gift of word, by the way.
June 1, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome! I almost never read a post this long but damn it if you didn't suck me in.
I've been blaming the Republicans for the sorry state of American Politics since 1994. People like Gingrich, Bush, and Frist. You've just brained me with the Cudgel of Truth. The blame really should be placed squarely on the shoulders of the Clintons for enabling fools like Gingrinch, Bush, and Frist for rising to postitions of power in the first place.
This divisivness has resurfaced before our very eyes during this primary. The shocking thing is that this time, it's not between Republican and Democrat, but Democrat and Democrat. Anybody who thinks the Clintons won't carry this back into the White House either needs to open their eyes, or read your post and have them opened.
The Clintons really do have one talent though, don't they?
June 1, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to disagree. I think it's time to realize that the blame lands squarely on us. We were the enablers of the Clintons.
We indulged our own opportunism when we defended Bill Clinton as he indulged his. We may have believed we were justified for any number of seemingly good reasons, but in so doing, we opened the door that George W. Bush waltzed through.
Until we take responsibility for our opportunism, we will continue to pay the price for everyone else's.
June 1, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point and reality check.
June 2, 2008 4:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Deanie - when I heard the "lipstick on a pig" comment yesterday, I figured that would elicit a response from you. You sure didn't disappoint. As usual, a wonderful read. Thanks!
June 1, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You could have just said, "I've hated the Clintons forever and don't really understand why" and saved yourself a lot of lines.
June 1, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could have, but that wasn't the point of the post.
June 1, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I understand. Feeding the lions. 175 Recommends.
June 2, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You suggest visceral minimalism then. Works.
June 1, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
But she does really, really understand why. It is you who are in the woods here.
June 1, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't hate Des, its fatigue.
June 1, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the author was quite clearly a Clinton supporter for many years. If you can't see that, then I'm not sure you're really qualified to comment here or anywhere else. The hardcore Clinton supporters seem to live in some strange reverse parallel universe where up is down, left is right, right is wrong. Please, just once, try a little reality. Who knows, you might like it.
June 2, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm really so embarrassed. I had no idea we had to somehow qualify to post comments here, or anywhere else, as you suggest. I'd appreciate some direction - do you have a link that describes the qualifications?
June 2, 2008 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Qualifications = not in the rabbit-hole w/ Alice - somewhere that logic still prevails.
June 2, 2008 4:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wait until the press turns its collective contempt on Obama. It has started already and they're too dumb to see it. Look at what they did to Gore and by extension all democrats and no matter how often you point it out, they think it will be different this time.
June 2, 2008 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
"One said they only pay attention to BBC reports."
And Fox News - they called Fox the only "fair and balanced" network on tv.
June 1, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, have any of you seen the BBC lately? They also believe that Obama has the nomination all but sewn up.
So I guess that leaves the interesting combination of Al-Jazeera and Fox Noise...
June 2, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Deanie, you've outdone yourself!
Yup, you've got the "gift of word," as Lookingin said above.
Rather than do over again a bunch of comments, I'll refer anyone who cares to take a look at some "shrink analysis" of what you've so well described to this thread on the rec list by Kate O'Hara:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/thanks-to-my-new-tpm-friends.php
Just scroll down for the "musical note" or read the whole thread, which is fascinating and very related to this one.
I also made some similar comments here this morning and I recommend that thread by emptywhell as as well:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/06/01/a-recap-of-the-rbc-meeting/
Alas, FDL has no way to identify posters visually, so you'd have to search for me. (or read the thread if you've got the time)
I think you did us all a service here, Deanie. I am convinced we need to take hard looks at how certain "leaders" have done damage to the American electorate (for starters!) and learn from this. So as to (hopefully) prevent this in future.
Deanie, you'll likely recognize some of what I've said it. But it seemed that the time was ripe for making it clear how astute and wise and also humble is our candidate, Obama. I cannot doubt the man's character as I have personal knowledge of one of the "campaign" shrinks. (not me, by the way)
Folks, let's all learn from Deanie's well-written tale as from a parable. Whatever clinton/bush has done... flee from it!
June 1, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, emptywheel, I made it look like "emptywell."
Proof-reading.... I need to be more careful!
June 1, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Desidero, I haven't hated the Clintons. I fought for them, voted for Bill, cheered Hillary on in her various runs. I read both of their autobiographies, enjoyed both, gave copies to family.
When the local, conservative, library refused to stock even Bill's book, I protested that he was a two-term president, and when that didn't work, donated a copy myself. Told them it was not for sale in the annual fund-raising book sale, but for the stacks.
Every week for years and years, I'd go to the "new releases" shelf, scoop up the hate-Hillary books, and hide them back in the shelves.
I've blogged for them and fought for them and donated to them. I'm still on Hillary's e-mail list. When her campaign cranked up, I had only just gotten high-speed Internet and delighted in being able to listen to her couch-chat broadcast.
But your comment that I must "hate the Clintons" is sadly representative of that of Hillary supporters everywhere. You're either for us or against us, and if you are against us, it is because you hate us.
I, for one, am sick of it.
June 1, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
From his comment it looks like he never read your post.
To be honest, my dear, your post makes you look like a really, really die-hard Clintonite. For which I forgive you, as you've seen the light now. Though there is nothing like a person who's been a die-hard supporter finally seeing the light and leading a charge in the opposite direction!
June 1, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Deanie decimates Desidero.
June 1, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The hatred accusation, also launched against those who critical of Bush over years, really rings hollow and Rovian at this day and age.
June 1, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ugh - "those critical of Bush over the years"
Too much elitist Sunday afternoon rosé.
June 1, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know, Deanie. Down thread a bit, you use one of Maureen Dowd's little cutting phrases on Hillary. Your main post seems like the Clintons were just one disappointment after another for you. Might it have gone better? Sure, but might have gone worse as well. (Remember the 70's? Now those were bummer years). Do we all wish Monica-gate had never happened? Sure, wasted a lot of time and energy and political capital. But you've swallowed both the Republican and Obama spin on the Clintons, and then you seem puzzled by opposition rage. Example - who put the kabash on a Paula Jones settlement? Hillary? I seem to recall it being Ann Coulter, a little achievement she enjoyed bragging about. I can find other examples, but I think if you're honest and look at your post, you'll realize you're in a bit deep. Not saying there's nothing to what you write, but you've framed it in a perfectly contrived Hillary-is-awful framework when I think you realize that nothing is that black-and-white. As Zappa once said, "Suzie Creamcheese, what's gotten into you?" Someone on another post seemed to imply you were really trying to strike up a heartfelt dialogue. I don't see it, but if you really want to chat about what went right and what went wrong in the Clinton years, how we got to "HillaryLand" and what it all means, let's chat.
June 2, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I checked out those links you provided, TheraP, and they're really good, very interesting. I thought the comments on KatyO's post were so good, really substantive and interesting.
And I really liked what you said about Obama's deliberate efforts to keep his supporters and his staff calm in the midst of all this stress.
I keep thinking about the fact that, according to his doctor, his blood pressure at the time of his most recent physical was 90/60. When you think about the fact that blood pressure is especially problematic for black males, especially after the age of 40, then I think that, apart from his overall good health, this is indicative of the fact that he really has remained remarkably serene in this highly-charged superstressful environment. This bodes well for the way he would handle the stresses of office.
June 1, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the Dalai Lama works for him too!
Meditation is known to lower blood pressure. Or maybe it's the genes. But wow!
Thanks for the info.
June 1, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Deanie, I was planning to eventually elaborate on the subject of that 90/60, cool as a cucumber character.
June 1, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't worry.
The Clinton's are not going back the White House (or even the Naval Observatory).
It's all over now except for the crying.
June 1, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most excellent, telling post. I agree, it's a keeper and should be broadcast. Thanks, Deanie!
It's in a nutshell but a big one. You might see if you can cut it down in size -- a condensed version -- but that may not be possible, and it certainly can't replace the long form. Maybe post to other forums with the condensed version and link to the full deal here?
June 1, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Plutodawg, I'll see what I can do; could be my editors at HuffPo might be interested...
Thanks!
Deanie
June 1, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Clintons have put us over a barrel, in that if Obama loses due to the accumulated bitterness from the primary fight, they will say Hillary would have won.
Harder to predict is whether they will help at all in the general election. I can't imagine how Hillary could switch to supporting Barack, after the belittling and baiting.
June 1, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good to see you, Tom. Things seem to be calming down here a bit. And actual conversations can ensue, from time to time.
You're right about the "over a barrel" business. Ditto your second paragraph as well.
June 1, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"And we fought with and for the Clintons. Boy did we fight. We fought to prevent an impeachment over something we found ridiculous, especially in light of, you know, INVADING A COUNTRY AND LYING TO YOUR OWN PEOPLE ABOUT THE REASONS WHY."
Dear heart, the invasion of Iraq came long after the impeachment of Bill Clinton. It came during the Bush years. If you think real hard you will remember that Clinton left the White House in January of 2001. The invasion of Iraq was in 2003. But thank you for a long and lame post.
June 1, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Otto, I think you sort of missed the point. She wasn't saying that Bill invaded another country. She was saying that he didn't deserve to be impeached unlike Bush who does deserve to be impeached because he invaded Iraq and lied about it.
June 1, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spade, you can just plain give up trying to get OTTO to understand simple English, his comments consistently confuse the posts and comments like this.
June 2, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent, excellent post Deanie thank you. They're two peas in an ugly pod, rotten pod. And has Hillary said anything to her supporters about their demeaning behavior yesterday? Women are claiming sexism yet they call insulted female RBC members!! I see.
And, by the way Otto, you're right Bill didn't invade a country, but he did bomb Yugoslavia. A pretty fucked-up thing IMHO.
June 1, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess that depends on your opinion on ethnic cleansing.
June 1, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Bill was sent as an ambassador of sorts for the Bush war drum. Even wrote an article in the Guardian in Britian to urge the British people to "Trust Tony's Judgement" and go to war.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/mar/18/foreignpolicy.iraq3
June 2, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
One helluva great read. One helluva great writer.
Wow.
June 1, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been thinking about what Maureen Dowd calls the Clinton "hostile takeover" of the vice-presidency. It's as good a term as I've heard for what we've heard outta them lately (even tho Dowd usually pisses me off).
Call me crazy but I'd rather see him take somebody--anybody--else than Hillary. Esp. after her assassination comments, but also because of the whole thing that, it would be about HER again and about BILL and whether they would "accidentally" sabotage the campaign with gaffes or whatever. We'd still have that whole mindset gripping the campaign.
I just want a fresh start. But like I told my husband--Obama's got a whole lot better campaign advisors than me ha ha, so if they think that it would be the best thing to do, then so be it. I just think that it would be an act of political courage to resist the pressure.
I really don't think she wants the VP job anyway. She's already been a "co-president."
June 1, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, dear God, save us from her as VP!!!
June 1, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The smart money's on Brad Henry (D-OK) to be Obama's VP.
June 1, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
"And so the nasty set in. As soon as Clinton set herself up as Joan d'Fighter, then here came all the old familiar standbys: snotty surrogates making sensational claims on talk shows, enraged supporters baring their teeth at detractors, Republican opponents launching snide countersnarls, and phony issues getting whipped up by partisans into a frenzy of outrage completely unrelated to the problems at hand.
Only this time, it was the Clintons themselves egging the whole thing on. " Luv it.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, this allows those involved with the HRC campaign, to comfort their conscience in deceiving themselves, that they fought the good fight. Professional victims, in all their splendor, striking the martyr pose.
June 1, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow - are you walking around inside my head? You just said every single thing I've thought about all of this and tried to say myself.
This is a wonderful post. It's the truth - we owe them? What? Bill Clinton almost ruined us - we almost lost everything because he wouldn't keep his penis in his pants.
And he's worse now, by all accounts.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/07/clinton200807
And they really have the nerve to claim the Republicans have already said everything they have to say about the Clintons -
June 1, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you actually critically read that article? It clearly states that he has not engaged in any behavior that would be in any sense of the word scandalous or criminal, and yet, that entire article hints that he might have, some think he might or he has, or that maybe he will.
Do you not understand that this is exactly the kind of journalism that was practiced on the Clintons, Gore and Kerry and put George Bush in the White House?
June 2, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you read it Bev? We are going to skewer McCain for having lobbyists on his bus writing his policy. How different is that from Bill negotiating trade deals with foreign countries and Hillary being "against" them. Which by extension makes me wary of Hillary's healthcare policies when she takes more money from Big Pharma and insurance companies than any democrat. Are we just supposed to take her at her word that these "lobbyists" will not have any influence? Maybe in the 90's that might have been true, but post white house, Bill and Hillary have been nothing but "if you can't beat em, join em". That is evident in everything they done so far in this campaign. To complain that Bill and Hillary are victims of the same republican smears that they experienced in the 90's, and that they are now actively participating in against another democrat, is the height of hypocrisy.
June 2, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
He didn't negotiate any trade deals. That's just stupid. He has neither the authority nor the mandate to negotiate trade deals with any country.
June 2, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is just a technicallity and you know it. Introducting certain investors to certain countries and adding an air of legitimacy to them to help the deal along is brokering.
Notice how Hillary did not deny that his speaking engagements were in support of a trade deal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tngWyRHIjYU
June 2, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Next Clinton bestseller: How to Destroy a Legacy in Five Easy Steps.
June 1, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just read this a third time. It's a great post. Thank you. And I'm posting this so you know that the Cudgelling you gave me didn't knock me out permanently (or the sense out of me), you just dazed me and I floated around my apartment like a love-struck 12 year-old. Thanks again.
June 1, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh for heaven's sake OttoF, you can't really believe I was referring to CLINTON in that passage? Of course I meant that Bush's offenses were MUCH more worthy of impeachment, but that's okay, you'll read what you want to into it.
Deanie
June 1, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
THANK YOU!
A succinct review of the issues that plagued us while we loyally defended the Clintons.
Some attacks were unwarranted, some outrageous, some "just because they could" ala Newt -- BUT
Although Bill led a more progressive agenda for America to our benefit, he and she also led America away from the core values of integrity and toward the selling of our capital and industry to others for political gain.
Hillary has now demonstrated a toxic resemblance to George Bush II through her intransigence in the face of reality and a sense of entitlement to the Grand Prize.
Intransigence and belligerence were clearly evident during the first Health Care initiative so long ago, causing it to fail, despite her hard work and diligence.
Time to "Turn the Page" as my candidate, Obama states.
June 1, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm always amazed at people who can remember the most irrelevant shit about historical figures. Like the Clintons dancing in their bathing suits (which, if I ever knew this, I quickly forgot because it is such a non-event in my life) or the contest to name Bill's dog.
June 1, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most people just remember the BJ. A blowjob is forever.
June 1, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently.
June 1, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course they always remember the most inconsequential things - and they can't even get that right. In this whole rant, the lesson she learned isn't that the press drummed up pseudo scandals, non issues and attacks and a few of them built their careers on attacking the Clintons and democrats, the lesson learned is to throw the Clintons over the side and start with someone else the press can manufacture pseudo scandals, non issues and attacks.
What did they learn from the 2000 election? Why they learned to blame it on the Clintons, of course, because that is the true lesson learned from that era - everything is the Clintons' fault.
June 2, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is too profane a comment for such a well written post, but what the hell
Lipstick on a Pig
http://oldbluejacket.com/images/lipstick_on_a_pig.jpg
June 1, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
readytoblowagasket,
The reason I remembered that "irrelevant shit" about the Clintons dancing in their bathing suits was because at that moment, they were completely on top. They had beat off all the critics, had survived a govt. lockdown, had proven the conspiracy freaks wrong. Their press was positive. All was well.
THAT could have been the legacy they had left to Al Gore and to history, along with a record of achievement.
But because of Bill's hidden tendancy to self-destruct, that peaceful and productive interlude was ripped apart by his own unimaginable arrogance in thinking that he could carry on an affair with a woman 20 years younger from the Oval Office while surrounded by enemies--and somehow get away with it.
He didn't, and THAT became history.
But for that one brief shining moment, they had triumphed, and that is why I remember it, which makes it VERY relevant to the events at hand.
Deanie
June 1, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to ignore the fact that Bill and Hillary came back. Hillary embarked on a senate career, Bill embarked on his post-presidency foundation work. Then Hillary launched a bid for the White House.
Now they are back. I guess you don't want them to be back, but they are, and they are staying. I heard someone on CNN say Hillary has "rebranded" the Clintons (it may have been the odious Alex Castellanos, I can't remember), updated them, brought them contemporary relevance. I think this observation is accurate.
June 1, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
If she has rebranded herself and her husband, then how is it that the country (with certain demographic exceptions) is tired of them both?
I wouldn't say that becoming known as liars, cheats, and psychological cripples is the legacy of a successful rebranding.
June 1, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
TPM isn't "the country." You need to get out more. Meet some live humans.
June 2, 2008 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. Mind if I borrow your term "psychological cripples" to describe a few TPM readers I encounter in my travels? It makes me laugh.
June 2, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
They have rebranded themselves as the new George and Cornelia Wallace, perhaps?
Truly, they appear to have rebranded themselves as the champions of the Not-so-silent Minority: those older, whiter Americans from the Entitled Generation who are not handling aging particularly well, and are exceedingly cranky about the presumptuous generation of eager beavers coming up behind them, a younger generation that didn't wait its turn, that listens to that awful hip hop, and that refused to acknowledge the continued claim of the Entitled on perpetual national dominance.
June 2, 2008 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought you were smarter than this comment demonstrates. I stand corrected.
June 2, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. I think it's a wonderful moment in their very public domestic relations and their relations with the public, as well.
June 1, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
With a young woman, let us not forget, practically the age of his daughter at the time! (think on that one for a bit!)
June 1, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell it to Keith Olbermann & his 24-year old girlfriend.
June 1, 2008 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, Monica was 22 & Chelsea was 15 at the time. Not even close to the same age.
But thanks for playing. You've won an "I Heart Newt" T-shirt.
June 2, 2008 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
What does that have to do with traumatizing a young girl?
June 2, 2008 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you ask why TheraP is citing GOP Talking Points circa 1998?
June 2, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
John McSF--thanks for the link, but I did not mean to imply that Hillary herself was a pig in lipstick--not at all--only to say that her divisive, angry, negative campaign had come to resemble the image put forth by one of her supporters at the Rules meeting.
The point is that it didn't have to be that way.
From the beginning, it could have been--and should have been--so much more. Embracing Rovian tactics, blaming Obama's campaign for her own campaign's racists references, and passing talking points back and forth with John McCain was beneath her. Egging on supporters to the ends that we witnessed yesterday was just plain wrong. She could have set an entirely different tone at any point, and she chose not to.
And it's just ugly, now.
Deanie
June 1, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent - Simply proves that if Hillary were winning this nomination fight what the Republicans would be talking about - her latest wins would have been impossible.
I too voted for Bill Clinton twice and to this day I believe THERE actually was a concerted effort to destory him. I think the impeachment was a disgrace, BUT, every time I see him wag his finger it brings back the image of "I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN"
Bill Clinton disgraced his office and Hillary was his enabler. That can not be disputed. That is why I have been so against her in this primary. She is NOT a good role model for women.
June 1, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Way to go, great granny! Americans just love to place blame!
Americans act like this is a vote on American Idol. Sheesh! I don't buy any of this crap. Compared to the Reagan, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, Bush II presidencies, Clinton's two terms were nirvana. He was better than all of the republicans and he was one of us--an ordinary guy, not born into wealth and privilege. But we are americans after all, we love royalty (Princess Diana anyone?) and celebrities. All of this hatred is based on media propaganda and you all just eat it up!
June 1, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Substitute the words "welcome relief" for "nirvana", and I'd agree completely with you.
The Clinton preisdencies were a moderate 8 year interruption of a 20-year string of successively more and more Conservative administrations.
IMO, the public is more in mind of a Roosevelt-style change of direction, particularly in the wake of the Hoover-like performance of Bush 43.
June 1, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant. Simply brilliant.
June 1, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great read - I bet it felt good to get all of that out. Really well said.
June 1, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post!! Thanks. Yes, memory serves to remind us of where we have been and where we should be going.
June 1, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your bitterness and hatred are astounding. What exactly were you hoping to accomplish with your post? Win us over? Make us think better of Obama or the Obamaista cadre? I don't get it. If your not a Republican you ought to be one. Anyone that can rant like that against the Clintons is ONE. You are patethic and disgusting. You seem to want continue this "gang rape" of her Character. Why?
June 1, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
blah blah blah...you are all haters!...blah blah blah...in a democracy Hillary would be the winner!...blah blah blah...it's sexism!...blah blah blah blahety blah....it's a Conspiracy, I tells ya!...blah blah blah...Obamabots are big meanies!....blah blah blah blah....etc. ad nauseum
June 1, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
As usual it is great to have actual examples to back up ones arguments. Thanks Hussein.
June 1, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Good to have my point [your pathetically weak BS] confirmed"-- you have said that time and again here.
Can't you think of something different?
June 1, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the second time I've seen "gang rape" to refer to this situation with HRC! How dare you really!!??? How dare you suggest that what she has experienced is anything like a "gang rape". What a disgusting pig your are.
June 1, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look around. What else would you call what you see here? You tell me.....Honestly, tell me what you have witnessed here day after day for months now if not gang rape of her CHARACTER.
June 1, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't give a fuck what people "around here" have said about HRC. I'm talking to you about your use of a horrific, act of violence to describe Hillary's experience. You think she's been vilified, fine that's your opinion, but don't throw around such loaded language. It's truly offensive.
June 1, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
And all the LOADED language you and your cohorts throw around is OK? You are actually giving me moral indignation?
June 1, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
My cohorts! LOL!!! Don't deflect. This is about you trying for shock and faux outrage by being careless and insensitive. What I think is that you insult Hillary by presenting her as a rape victim--I doubt she would call herself that. You also demean people who actually have been raped. With all the words in the English language, can't you at least try to be a bit more decent. You're as bad as Clarence Thomas crying "high-tech lynching."
June 1, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't be that thick can you? All anyone that supports Hillary could ask for now is for the lot of you to tone it down a bit...maybe think twice about posting that nasty post or maybe not calling her despicable names. Or not calling her supporters names. Maybe just maybe win with a little bit of grace? How do you expect any of us to think we are welcome in the "tent" if this keeps up? Its not as if all of us haven't asked for just a bit of slack.
But if you want to keep throwing bombs, we will most likely throw bombs back. Since we are vastly outnumbered here the leadership should come from your side.
June 1, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Crying "rape" gets you nowhere. Clinton ran a poor campaign against a better candidate. Time for a reality check. How dare you use the word "rape." Shameful.
June 1, 2008 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check the name on top of the Post Kate, And thousands of others that have been posted day in and day out taking every kind of shot at Hillary. What do you call this? Is it right? Does she deserve this from people that supposedly are in the same party as her? Goodness your sense of right and wrong are incredible.
June 1, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do realize that "Lipstick on a pig" was what on of HRC supporters screamed at an HRC supporter on the RBC? So, a Hillary supporter calls another Hillary supporter a "pig". Classy.
June 1, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
We both know what the lead in was intended for .....and a recap of yesterday wasn't it.
June 1, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, we all know it was meant for your mother, but what's she have to do with Clinton?
June 2, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
You do understand what that phrase means don't you?
June 2, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I get alright. Hillary and some of her supporters can be a nasty bunch, hence the title of this post. So, when Hillary and her supporters lose with grace, perhaps we can all get past this. In the meantime, why don't YOU try not to use such inflammatory language. Why don't YOU stop pretending that you and your candidate are victims of brutality instead of losers in a fair competition. True, HRC came close, but she lost. Deal. With. It.
June 1, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good luck trying to win without US.. DEAL WITH IT
June 1, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
IMO McCain will lose to Obama by about 40 electoral votes. You are useless now, and you will be superfluous come November, by which time most sane people will have re-evaluated their agonized accusations. There will be left out in the rain no more than a few hundred thousand like you and your partisan lady in the video.
June 1, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Opinions are like noses. we all have one.
June 1, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blackmail is not an admirable trait. You really going to vote for McCain. And, please, what is your beef with Obama? No, be honest. Really honest. And don't throw the word rape around or I will come through the screen and bite you.
June 1, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
No beef with Obama at all. He has run a good race and is a good Candidate. Unfortunately, I don't think he is the best candidate in the race. His lack of experience, lack of specifics in proposals, and lack of determination under fire don't inspire me. He will be my party's nominee. I vote with my party. That is why I was asking that most of you try to cool it and talk about something else, anything else. But, it seems that you really do hate Hillary more than you like Obama. Its a very very strange and troubling phenomenon. Can you explain the sheer amounnt of daily vitriol that is shot her way even today when things are seemingly over?
June 1, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I actually support Obama with all my heart and I'm deeply disappointed with Clinton. She failed me in so many ways, and perhaps could have won me over, but only made me more and more angry with her. I worked for her in the mid 1990s, so I don't need no lectures about her, believe me. She has run a negative, dishonest, and racist campaign. As a Democrat, that is unforgivable. Period. End of story. She blew it. And now she is ramping up fantastical sexist anger. It makes me sick to my stomach as an older white woman who really hoped for more. These last gymnastics to bend the rules in her favor and trump up fake numbers deserve vitriol. Can't you see that?
June 1, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you admire her in the past? If so, why would you ever concern yourself about Campaign rhetoric. You and I have been in the game long enough not to get too concerned with what is said in a campaign.....I would think.
June 1, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I never really did admire her, but I cared about the issues she cared about. If a person is not being well reflected by their campaign, that's a sign that they don't know how to manage. And that s my impression of her, her ego gets in the way of her ability to manage.
June 2, 2008 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was at the RBC meeting yesterday, and the Clinton supporters were repulsive. I've lived in DC for 30 years and I NEVER saw so much disrespect at a public meeting. What's the problem? Displaced anger. Get a shrink.
June 1, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Umm...showing my age...but support for your position under duress of all sort is party of the Democratic Party legacy. Looked tame compared to other times.
June 1, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You weren't there watching women screaming at other women under the bathroom stalls. Don't lecture me about activism. Don't even go there.
June 1, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Relax Kate, not here to lecture you. Congrats for being there in person. Just telling you we've had bigger fights than that one. But honestly, Obama and Axelrod always talk about honesty and transparency.....where was that in those proceedings?
June 1, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, most certainly, have your petulant frenzy. Pick up your marbles, go home, and let Bush III happen. YOU will be responsible, not Obama supporters.
BTW: I was a Hillary supporter after my guys (Dodd, Biden) failed, but her lies and divisiveness led me to Obama. When I heard her say, with my own ears, on NPR that 'I didn't takemy name off the ballot in Michigan because it won't count anyway' and then heard her crow 'we won Michigan!' (yes, lets support democracy by having a Stalinist primary with only one name on the ballot, by all means!) I switched.
Yes, cut off your nose to spite your face. Sit on your hands 'cause your candidate didn't win. Watch Roe V. Wade get obliterated, trillions more spent on a futile war that grinds our kids (and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraquis) into hamburger. Watch more deficits, more tax cuts for the super-rich, more 'do as I say not as I do' on climate change.
Sure, for your selfish, churlish little hissy fit - fuck the whole country.
Wow, it is really hard to respect assholes who care about their egos more than the future of this country and the lives of our children.
GROW THE FUCK UP: Hillary's and Obama's voting records are almost interchangable, McCain's, almost diametrically opposed.
STOP THINKING WITH YOUR 5 YEAR OLD BRAIN and at least TRY to be rational and adult.
June 1, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Appreciate it. That certainly helped the decision making process
June 1, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Louisville, read my over-long comment way at the bottom here about how my relative Republicans feel about McCain.
Maybe it is YOU who needs US?
I think your arrogant persistent awarnings that Hillary's shrillest schills somehow represent all those who voted for her is just that... ARROGANCE!
LOOKS LIKE ONLY YOU AND YOUR FELLOW BITTERHEADS WILL BE THE ONES VOTING FOR MCCAIN!
SO GUESS WHAT ... we DON'T need you!
June 2, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Point taken, but comparing criticism of the Clinton Campaign to gang rape isn't exactly "toning things down", is it?
June 1, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Simply using silliness to go after silliness. But, honestly, day after day? Is that helpful at all? Or, hurtful
June 1, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it's her character you're worried about, tell her to stop nutting up in public with pathological lies. This is entirely self-inflicted-- as a man said some time ago, "Character is fate."
June 1, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Louisville has adopted the ideology that deliberately sexualizes every adversity involving a woman and a man, and when the situation (BHO the upstart beating the Establishment HRC) is beyond his or her ability to endure without cracking up, he or she naturally selects the vilest possible example of a male-female interaction as the simile.
Louisville is a lame dropshot specialist IMO.
June 1, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
And as a typical Obama supporter you seem to want to drop things as fast as possible to Personal attacks of the kind you have made against me. You can't logically argue anything so you go for the "person" you think you are talking to and attack has vehemently you can in your middle school bully style. You don't understand the issues so you revert to the personal attack. IMHO.
June 1, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The evidence is clear that you are screwed up. If you want courtesy or deference, or respect, reform yourself first. Meantime, all you get from me is what you see here. Your candidate lost, and she did it to herself.
Suffer.
June 1, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're probably right Wigmarx. I'm just going to step away from the edge and let it go. I'm just sick of the double-standards and histrionics. If only we could harness this hysteria we'd solve the energy crisis. Someone was going to lose. It happen to be Hillary. Geez, enought with the "Somebody's Done Somebody Wrong Song."
June 1, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish everyone could read this post. If Hillary was to be the winner you cannot help thinking, O boy, here we go again! You hit a grandslam & I, for one really, really remember it all.
Thank you for an excellent read, thank you very, very much.
June 1, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post.
I don't want to go back. The great tragedy will be if Hillary's divisiveness and ruthless drive to win at all costs does enough damage so that a truly forward-looking candidate who has a chance to change this country for the better is defeated in the next election.
If so, that will be the final Clinton legacy, as ugly and nasty as that would be.
June 1, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Louisville 1975, is this your view?
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Irate_Clinton_supporter_God_Damn_Democrats_0601.html
June 1, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Watch the video before you answer.
June 1, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, giving me actual examples to prove my above argument about you is just perfect. I do appreciate the assist.
June 1, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not an assist. But if you can't get thru the day without thinking it is, fine with me.
June 1, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
And your only purpose here is to try and jump on people that post things that you don't agree with. Again, you don't really understand the issues so you need to bully your way through it. Go ahead. Its free.
June 1, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may have the last word here tonight, I have better things to do (maybe re-arrange my socks?).
June 1, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a former Hill staffer I encourage Loujisville to review Deanie's comment at 2:39 pm (which you may have missed) and then reconsider your ad hominem attack on this poster.
I know whereof she speaks. I worked on the hill for a House Member, on a fellowship from a women's group; colleagues among these fellow invariably worked for her office nearly every year. I knew of her work on the Hill, I attended meatings where she spoke earnestly about issues close to mhy heart. She was and remains a hero in many respects. As for Bill, my feelings were [and to an extent remain] deeply respectful. I brushed aside qualms about Monica as extraneous to the great work he had done in the 8 years before my year on the Hill; he came to speak at an event I planned for my boss related to health issues [Traumatic Brain Injury] for which I continue to hold him in high esteem.
But on the campaign trail, on the day I heard Nita Lolwey claim "hillary won Michigan" - just before the Florida primary, I was confused. Hillary had so much going for her. She didn't need to spin that story to convince Floridians who might no know the whole Michgan story! They'd vote for her anyway - why shade the truth?
Each time Hillary put out some new half truth, I lost a little more respect.
Finally I had to support another. It was Edwards/Dodd/Biden/only 'maybe' Obama.
So I came late to Obama and wanted to stay a Clintonite bit could not stomach - finally the spinning of truth I'd known of so long but ignored.
So for those clinton supporters who do not know the history spoken of brilliantly by Deanie - hold your fire before you shoot the messenger. These are heartfelt statements not by a hater but by someone who - as with me [another who owns books by the Lintons and who 'back-shelved' nasty volumes in bookstores!] simply got tired of seeing a replay of spin, vitriol and sarcasm arising from the candidate's own mouth.
We are not haters - Deanie and I. We are saddened. And we are tired. And we want to be hopeful.
June 1, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and Obama gives us that. Let's run with it. Enough with the divisive, negative shit of Bush/Cheney/Gingrich, and yes, the Clinstones.
June 1, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kate,
the clintsones? Didn't we just go over that?
June 1, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
You want me to say I respect her? I don't. You want me to say I like her? I won't. I think it's just really hard for some Clinton supporters to accept that she is unlikeable and not deserving our respect. Just this morning she is running around saying she won the popular vote in Michigan. If she had ANY class, she would say, yes, I did receive 600,000 votes but we have to remember that Senator Obama wasn't on the ballot. But she cannot even be honest about that. Little liars are usually big liars.
June 2, 2008 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama took his name off the ballot, something he was not required to do.
June 2, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you really think that is an honest reply?
June 2, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course it is an honest reply. That is exactly what happened. He removed his name from the ballot. I didn't think it was a good idea at the time and I still think it was a bad idea. He should have stayed on the ballot.
June 2, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I feel sorry for you. You are delusional.
June 2, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't doubt they are heart felt. I just worry really badly that you could switch off of a Candidate based on a campaign. In your own words you knew of her work personally. You knew the truth of who she was and what she was. Yet, you allow the 24/7 news cycle to choose your Candidate for you? Surely you understood the context of what she was doing and why she was doing it on the Campaign trail?
"I know whereof she speaks. I worked on the hill for a House Member, on a fellowship from a women's group; colleagues among these fellow invariably worked for her office nearly every year. I knew of her work on the Hill, I attended meatings where she spoke earnestly about issues close to mhy heart"
If thats what your experience is...in those lines why would you let spin change your mind? When you know the good she has done and would do as President?
I don't get it at all.
And if you feel saddened all I can ask is why? And can't you imagined how a typcial Clinton Supporter feels at this juncture? One that would like to come and hang out with other democrats only to see words put on here that come straight out of the books of the Scaife machine? Why are you suggesting that you need our sympathy?
June 1, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Clinton had her meeting with Scaife, that was the end of any respect I had for her. And likewise for Bill when he went on Rush Limbaugh's show.
I just thought I'd blurt that out here.
June 2, 2008 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton never went on Rush Limbaugh.
That type of blatant lie, that is easily debunked, is one reason Obama supporters are alienating Clinton supporters.
Perhaps you are helping your candidate win the nomination, but you are ensuing that he loses the election.
June 2, 2008 3:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you count Rush's "sick days", no. If you count Mark Davis of WBAP filling in on The Rush Limbaugh Show, yes.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030408/home.guest.html
June 2, 2008 6:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Is that because unlike Obama you think it's a crime to discuss issues with your enemies?
June 2, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I don't get it at all."
Finally, Louisville says something we can all believe!
June 2, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find it interesting that a few of us who have actually worked in her circles don't like her. And to imply that we then make our decisions based on campaign rhetoric and the news cycle is the typical patronizing pap that comes from Clinton's "older women."
June 2, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post, Deanie.
Exhaustion, that's what it is. Pretty much all of us are "former Clinton supporters."
The movement from Clinton to Obama has basically been one of repulsion/attraction. We've grown weary of her while growing in our appreciation of him. For that, we are sexists and misogynists and elitists and "Obamabots."
How can one family lose so much loyal support? It really is incredible. I mean, if you add up all of the "former Clinton supporters" and multiplied them by the number of years they've stood by them, how many "loyalty years" would that add up to? Me, as do most of you, I go back to about 1990 in my support of Bill (and -- "two for the price of one" -- Hillary). She/they lost me in early 2008. So that's 18 years. Just from me. Multiply all the others around the country (and around the world) and add it up; it must be an incredible number!
And yet we, who gave them all those many millions of "loyalty years," are treated with less than zero gratitude. Where is the gratitude for all of us sticking by them for so long?
She came close, but she isn't going to win. So now tear down the whole party?
Where's the loyalty there?
June 1, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post! Too bad Hillary didn't go out on a high note. I too have stood up for and defended the Clintons over and over. Even after he was out of the White House I admired Bill's work to bring Aids medicines at low cost to patients in Africa and Asia. The thing that has frustrated me beyond measure is Hillary's current inability to STOP. She is far more irritating than the Energizer bunny. What doesn't she get about the fact that she has lost? It is just too bad. Instead of being thought of as a states(wo)man she will now be thought of as the person who was too egocentric to understand when the game is over. It is truly sad.
June 1, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the best posts I've read lately. I remember. All too well. I too came away from those years disappointed in Bill's inability to keep his pants zipped, but thoroughly disgusted with how the Republicans "set him up". Unfortuantely, my opinions about both Clintons have changed dramatically after watching them up close and personal over the last several months. I would still have voted for her over McCain because there is so much at risk, but I would have been holding my nose. Obama has allowed me to cast aside some of my cynicism and to hope again.
June 1, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
For some reason a lot of folks in the US right now have a hard time sleeping in and eating hope.
June 1, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't exactly eat experience, either.
June 2, 2008 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
And yet our change of opinion about the Clintons is seen by them and their supporters as betrayal, warranting a seething bitterness that is downright frightening!
Hey, I was a Dean supporter in 2004. I didn't have so much vitriol for John Kerry and his supporters. In fact, I sent him (too much) money, put up a sign, and voted for him with all my heart!
What gives? No one is entitled to the nomination. This was a hard-fought primary race. Barack Obama and his team have never thought that he was entitled to the nomination (in fact, most of us thought he'd never get it). But he played by the rules (set up by a Clinton-dominated Rules Committee) and took an early lead in garnering the delegates needed to win, and he has maintained that lead, putting in a remarkable showing.
Congratulations, Barack Obama!
Why, thank you, Hillary!
June 1, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
It looks like we won't have to.
Everybody, take a deep breath... IN.... out... Repeat.
Clinton is not going to be the nominee. Most of her supporters are realizing that in this game, many lose, but only one gets to be the nominee. I remember being sad that Dean didn't get it, and was a bit disappointed in Kerry. But damn it, he had to beat Bush, so he got my support. I would bet that 99% of Clinton supporters will, if they haven't already, come to such a realization.
As for ripping at the old scabs and wounds of the Clinton years.... AARRG!!! They're there, they hurt.
There's no need to inflame them, though. It's history. Clinton won't be the nominee. If there is to be a fight, it will be a desperate and sad-looking bout over, what, four Michigan delegates? That's not a threat to Obama, and after five months of seeing Obama fight McCain, it will be forgotten.
June 1, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Deanie, this was a comprehensive and perceptive,thought and memory-provoking there's one more bit of evidenct that you are spot-on in suggesting that the Clintons enabled the Republicans to their majority.. just evidence, off-handed at that , BUT...WHERE ARE FRIST AND GINGRICH NOW???
Like George "Macaca" Allen, these X-Clinton era one-time presumtive Presidential nominees have all bitten the proverbial political dust.
As a disgruntled and equally fatigued boomer who suffered through it all, I have some audasious hope that Obama represents a new generation sweeping this mixed cabal out of power, like Craig Crawford said yesterday. Obama is the new honcho.
On a sadder note; crossposted to the 2008 Presidential Blog at the Dem partybuilder site;
From the elephants' mouths;
Just got done with my sister's funeral in Tucson, (blogging from the condo computers right now) spent three days in AZ with four very conservative republicans who represent the libertarian, the fundamentalist, the fiscal and the family factions of the Republican party... while none of them will vote for a Democrat, NONE of them intend to vote for McCain. Two of them are from this McCain state, the other two are from Colorado and Iowa...
Go figure.
It may not actually say much about the Democratic candidates, but it does suggest McCain and the Republican Party have a lot more problems than the Democrats... maybe a lot of Hillary supporters will jump ship, but they aren't likely to fill the shoes of the many republicans who are completely dissatisfied with Johnny McFlounder (that it their only point of agreement, that McCain is a fake and a hypocrite,) though each has a different reason... and while one of them (the fiscal fellow from AZ) wishes Romney were still in it, another (the libertarian R from CO) pines for Ron Paul, another (the family man from AZ) yearns for Duncan Hunter (no kidding) and the fourth (the fundamentalist from IA) still has a hankerin' for Huckabee.
Not one of them has ANYTHING good to say about McCain. Esepcially the two from Arizona.
Considering they represent four very distinct party factions, I would suggest McCain has a real mountain to climb, while WE Democrats (does that really include most of you? I hope so...) are getting stronger every day.
I will accept that some of you Hillfolk bitterheads will vote for McCain, but I also have some very good evidence that a lot of Republicans won't.
Curious, isn't is, McCain seems to be getting more support from disgruntled HillDems than the hard core Republicans I am related to...
(shout-out to TheraP, thanks for the EW link!)
June 2, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just finished Matt Taibbi's "The Great Derangement," and he ended noting that Republicans are going through a crisis of sorts, where they realize they might have been played for suckers. He seems to base this all on talking to people at a Ron Paul rally. Still, it seems like something's in the wind. Many Republicans might not be as easily manipulated with God, gays, war, Mexicans, etc., when they also have to pay $4 for a gallon of gas.
June 2, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
A tour de force!
June 2, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have long said that she was using her supporters. I'm not sure what they'll do when she steps forward and says, essentially, "Never mind!"
June 2, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Clinton didn't recognize how tired the country, especially Democrats, are of being lied to by politicans. I am angry at how Bush lied and manipulated the country into war, and part of that anger is at myself. So while candidates are allowed to spin some, the Clintons just kept putting out lie after lie in their campaign and it was exactly the opposite of what the country wants right now. We want transparency and some trust in our leaders again. Anyway, I think that is where Hillary made her biggest mistake--not realizing how tired we are of being lied to by our government.
June 2, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
One pundit on the news said Clinton was using Enron accounting to come up with claiming the popular vote. Enron and other corporations are more examples of how the people have been lied to, in addition to our government, and we just wanted and needed some sense of honesty and respect shown to us from the candidates. Was that too much to ask? I would blush every time Hillary, Bill, or her staff would speak because it was so dishonest and disrespectful to us. Hillary just didn't have her pulse on the mood of the country, after all the lies we have been told.
June 2, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a great outline.
I was disgusted watching clips of angry Hillary Clinton supporters at the DNC meeting--not disgusted with angry supporters but at tactics which require working supporters into a frenzy.
Maybe Move On was a mistake. Perhaps I was delusional all those years and the now silent Rush Limbaugh had The Clinton's character pegged from the start.
June 2, 2008 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Deanie,
Posting Republican talking points from the 1990s is, in a word, disgusting.
Maybe you are just a typical Texas Republican stirring up shit in the Dem primary. You sure as hell sound like one. I'd troll rate this garbage if I could.
So much for unity. You're a GOPUSA divider. Congratulations.
June 2, 2008 3:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Refute the history before spouting invective. If you knew anything of the history or dignity of this poster you might begin to realize the ignorance of your ridiculous accusations.
June 2, 2008 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bless you–what a wonderful post!
June 2, 2008 3:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
All I have to say is girrllll - chapter and verse - beyond correct - you just gave the seminal definition of Clinton Fatigue.
Rock the f'on!!!
June 2, 2008 4:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Glad to see you come out swinging, Deanie. I am tired too. I am tired of extending a hand of a "gracious winner" to few Clinton supporters here, only to pull it back with a few fingers missing. Thanks.
June 2, 2008 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I for one will be enormously pleased if [this is a big 'if'] the Hillary supporters' passions will 'later on' help the Democrats win and win big in November.
I am purposefully using the phrase 'later on'. Right now, those passions FOR Hillary have devolved into toxic, hateful, ugly screeches AGAINST Obama and our DNC.... and, as such, are unhealthy to our Democratic party, to the Obama candidacy and to our chances to elevate political discourse in this country.
It takes time and distance and not a small amount of grace/maturity to change the valence of that bundle of passion from its present negativity into a positive force again. That valence can only change if those holding the negativity choose to let go of it.
The passionate-for-Hillary ones are asserting that Obama and his supporters 'have done this to them' [caused them to embrace hate] and now the Obama camp must somehow do the job of lifting out or erasing that hate that is inside their Hillary psyches!!! Bulls**t to that nonsense, which, as I see it, is either 1] another form of blackmail taunting [' Obama isn't a unifier since Obama can't even unify with us hateful ones, bwwaaaahaaa'] or 2] a sort of cry for help from folks who want to be rescued from their own processes, because they themselves don't know how to correct and redirect themselves after allowing their passions to turn destructive.
Only time will tell if the Hillary camp passions can be a positive force by fall. I think we Democrats best not count on that at the same time we pray for it to come about.
June 2, 2008 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are a wise woman.
June 2, 2008 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
One thing is certain. No matter what does happen, HRC is not becoming President. Not in '08. Not in '12 (give up her Senate seat to run? No way).
And, as whatshername says, this is a good thing.
June 2, 2008 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
That solution is liptstick on a pig. It is a bad decision that is going to come back and bite the dems on the ass.
June 2, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
One point I want to make regarding the impeachment of Bill Clinton. I received a call from Gallop during the proceedings. I had real difficulties answering their questions. "Do I support impeachment?" My answer, "Yes and No". I explained my reasons (though they weren't interested in hearing any explaination, just wanted a firm yes or no). I ultimately answered no as per the charges leveled against him I did not feel it rose to the level of impeachment. However, my yes answer was because I desire a president who can be intelligent enough to act according to the office. I questioned his decision making ability. To have an affair, with an intern, in the White House no less, was truely a very bad decision. This made me question his other decision making abilities.
However, this current resident of the White House demonstrates just how off track a country can get when the wrong "decider" is sitting in the Oval Office.
We can do better. We the people need to stop electing candidates at all levels of government who have questionable dealings, pending legal challenges, and who are outright liars.
June 2, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
WOW!!!
I'm gone from the computer for maybe 12 hours and come back to find WWIII has broken out! Smoke curling from my monitor! Desk vibrations from the explosions!
For the most part, I've been so impressed with the quality of comments, the thoughtful anguish of most everybody here. I'd like to address a few by name, but I appreciate all of you so much.
First of all, JEP07--everybody seems to have overlooked the fact that you mentioned that you'd been to AZ for the funeral of your SISTER. I am so sorry, and God bless you for taking time to give us a glimpse into the Republican turmoil you saw there. You pegged it head-on. I live in West Texas just a hundred miles from where Bush likes to pretend he grew up--the buckle of the Bush Bible Belt I call it--and conservatives really can't stand McCain. It is, as you so astutely pointed it, a real problem for him.
DSALEXAN, thank you so much for stickin' up for me, (as did DRPANGLOSS), and I do appreciate it. But you hit the nail on the head about disillusionment and disappointment among solid Clinton supporters. Has it escaped everyone's attention that PATTY SOLIS DOYLE has been looking into a possible staff position for the OBAMA campaign? Does that mean SHE hates Hillary?
I have indeed been a strong Hillary supporter for many many years. I thought it was GREAT when Bill said we were getting two for the price of one. I live surrounded by right-wing Republicans and I defended both Clintons for--as one commenter pointed out--YEARS AND YEARS.
Hell, I'm one of those over-50 "shoulder-pad feminists" everybody keeps talking about.
Where Hillary lost the support of even loyalists like Bill Richardson was in the method and the madness of how she has conducted herself and her campaign. It has been unneccessarily nasty and the longer it's gone on, the more it has appeared that she will say anything and do anything to get elected, no matter what destruction and damage she might leave behind within even the people who've worked so hard on her behalf for so long.
So it's getting a lit-tle bit TIRESOME to keep on being accused of being a Hillary-hater just because you point out the truth about what has killed her TWENTY POINT LEAD WITHIN HER OWN PARTY.
She tromped Obama for months and months and months. It was her nomination to lose, and she lost it the old-fashioned way--by mismanagement and by turning away supporters like me.
LOUSVILLE1975 and WORKERBEE, I can understand and emphasize with your rage and frustration and feeling left out or at least put-upon by Obama supporters. But this is the point where you need to examine what went wrong for her and why, and not be so quick to judge people who are doing the same. Immediately assuming we all hate the Clintons is not only wrong, but unfair.
The reason we can't just hang our hats on her many impressive accomplishments and ignore the campaign difficulties is that--what I was trying to point out in my post--these kinds of difficulties are exactly the same kinds of problems that plagued Bill Clinton's White House, and we can expect more of the same in a Hillary Clinton White House.
You have to understand that we who loved the Clintons for so long DO believe that his presidency was far better than it ever got credit for. The economy, bringing peace to the Balkans without losing a single American soldier or Marine, the budget balance, the surplus--ALL GOOD.
What was BAD was that the Clinton dramas and scandals just overpowered his record, just as this wildly off-the-mark campaign of hers has overpowered her own credentials. The past can be a good predictor of the future, and we have to ask ourselves what kind of future we really want.
I do not hate Hillary Clinton; I have never hated her. What I do hate is how she has conducted herself and her campaign. The fact that her supporters are so angry is, in part, because she has egged that anger on. I'm on her e-mail list and I know what she is saying--not just what is on the media. I visit her website. I gave her the benefit of the doubt for a very long time.
We've ALL given the Clintons the benefit of the doubt, as one commenter said, for almost 20 years. And the whole damn country is just tired of it.
We just want change. If she had cared more for the actual country and less for her candidacy, she'd have known that from the very beginning--when she first cast that vote for the war. But she cast that vote in order to position herself for the campaign.
My son and two nephews have fought six deployments in that war. One is there now. We've had family in that miserable desert now for almost six years continually without a break. All combat deployments. They've been shot at and blown up and injured and sent back again and again and again.
That's enough sacrifice for one family, enough for one military. And I care about that way more than about whether Hillary Clinton fulfills her ambition.
So don't be so quick to assume anything, when it comes to the Clintons or our reasons for turning away from them.
June 2, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know what is most depressing about this is the sheer naivete, lack of understanding of politics and the either/or mentality - Obama = good, Clinton = bad. It doesn't occur to anyone that both candidates ran the same kind of campaign, that both jumped on errors, mistakes and gaffes, that both were negative and positive and that both made errors, mistakes and gaffes.
This is why peaceful solutions to problems can never be found - neither side wants to admit that they both wronged and were wronged. You cast the worst kinds of accusations on Clinton supporters as though they, and only they, have ever engaged in any kind of angry, vindictive rhetoric, when I remember Obama supporters spouting the exact same kind of hyperbolic rhetoric - when Douglas Wilder promised riots at the convention if Obama didn't win the nomination because he had the "popular vote", or how unfair it would be if Clinton won because of the super delegate vote, or the Bobby Kennedy remark as wishful thinking that Obama would be assassinated, or the negative ad on youtube that started this campaign season - Clinton in a 1984 setting being destroyed by an Obama supporter, or the Clinton Death Watch site on Slate or any of the other negative and nasty attacks on Clinton by the other side which seem to have fallen down the memory hole by Obama supporters.
All of that is forgotten - the press's role in this, the press's role in attacking the Clintons and manufacturing scandals that were never scandals in the first place and a picture of them in their bathing suits on the beach in which you imagine they are dancing on hearing about Monica Lewinsky, when that wasn't the case in the first place.
You think Obama is perfect and that this kind of treatment can't happen to him, when it is already beginning and like all democrats he will be thoroughly and viciously trashed by the press corp just as they did the Clintons, Gore and Kerry.
You never, ever learn anything.
June 2, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent follow-through, Deanie! You're doing a great job here. You speak well for, I assume, most of us former Clinton supporters. The rage that our re-examination of the Clintons (in light of the way they have campaigned in 2008) is not surprising, but it is sad.
I just hope that I don't do the same thing in 2024 when Senator Michelle Obama runs for President and all the former supporters of the Obama Presidency go for some new phenomenon. Michelle will have had "35 years of experience" by then, but then along comes some "Hindu" with a funny name who speaks well and energizes the otherwise disaffected.
Instead, I just hope that I have the presence of mind, garnered from experience, to realize that Things Change, no one is "entitled" to anything, and that the old supporter who got sick of the Obama's over-playing their hand aren't a "cult" who warrant seething rage.
June 2, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've learned quite well, on the other hand, BevD. You've learned how to ignore the main point, and plow forward creating an imaginary strawman Obama supporter (one that believes Hillary = Evil, Obama = Savior and the press is in league with him) that believes in all of those things that you've mentioned.
There are a lot of very valid reasons to dislike HRC's campaign, and her being a woman and a Clinton are not among them. You can also believe that the press is sexist, misogynistic and patronizing, but again, that might have very little to do with why she won't get the nomination.
Hillary voted to give President Bush authority to conduct his adventure in Iraq and has never admitted her mistake. In the most important issue in the campaign, she has nothing to stand on.
June 2, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is the main point? The main point is that Deanie Mills is tired of the Clintons, that she used to defend the Clintons and now she supports Obama. She has posted this time and again, the same inflammatory, hyperbolic rhetoric guaranteed to stir up passions, alienate Clinton supporters and spout republican/press canards, allegations and accusations and they always start in the same language - "I used to defend the Clintons..." and then the recitation of the Clinton sins.
Like the Bourbons, she never forgets anything and she never learns anything. All these accusations, allegations, rumours and smears made up by the likes of Maureen Dowd, David Brooks, Andrew Sullivan, Keith Olbermann, Chris Mathews and their cohort will be manufactured against Obama just as they were against the Clintons, Gore and Kerry and as usual, the liberals will be stunned. If you're going to buy into it now because it hits the candidate you don't support, then come the fall, you will have no moral authority to complain when it happnes then - (and it is happening now) because you're unable to think beyond the next primary or the next convention.
The Clintons haven't done anything the Obama campaign hasn't done, the race has been so close that it has been difficult to call for one candidate or the other and supporters on both sides have managed to alienate, anger and aggravate each other to the point of no return for many. All this does is add to the misery.
June 2, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought it was a super read.
I remember listening to Bill Clinton in the fall of '91 declaring his candidacy and his promise of a "New Covenant" between government and the American people. I was sold on him because of that, and I supported him through the'92 campaign. Our family went to see the Clintons and Gores during their bus tour through York, PA after the convention in NYC, and later went to DC for the inauguration.
However, once they were in power -- it's like they didn't know how to govern. It was one cave-in after another- gays in the military (which started on the day of his inauguration), and their prime issue, medical care - it all came across as narcisstic. And then, once the GOP won in '94, instead of doing the Harry Truman thing and saying, "To Hell with them, I'll do my own thing," he caved in and became a neo-rightie too.
I was hopeful about Gore, but I agree he was put in a no-win situation. And I liked Kerry too, although he was much more wooden than Gore (think: scarecrow in Wizard of Oz, while still on the pole).
There is a time for war and a time for peace. The Clintons, (Chelsea included- see her recent campaigning for her Mom???) can't seem to realize there is a time for peace. That makes her/them (as in Clintons) less prepared to be POTUS.
To borrow another phrase from the Wizard of Oz (and Maureen Dowd): Surrender Hillary.
Now.
It's no longer about you.
June 2, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
What was narcissistic about "Don't Ask Don't Tell"? What peace are you talking about? Premature Armistice? Lay down arms when challenged? Is this what you learned in ROTC?
June 2, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
very well written
June 2, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Obama is perfect, BevD, and everything you've said has truth in it, BUT, altho there have been vicious attacks from Obama supporters and from Clinton supporters--we must all be careful at branding every single solitary supporter on either side with the extremist brush.
You think I don't know fake controversies can happen to Obama? Where were you when for TWO SOLID WEEKS all we saw ad nauseum on every single talk show and news broadcast and e-mail, the endless and constant replaying of Jeremiah Wright?
I get the Post, Times, and Boston Globe every day, and on the Post politics/opinion webpage that was sent to my e-mail box--on one day ALONE, I counted TWELVE stories about that and nothing else. It absolutely dominated news coverage. My TIME and NEWSWEEK arrived in the mail and what were the opinion-makers writing about?
Was it positions on the war by the candidates? The economy? JOHN MCCAIN'S CRAZY PREACHER SUPPORTERS?
Of course not. Only the black guy had crazy preachers we must all fear.
It had nothing to do with anything that matters to voters in this campaign, but it scared away many primary voters.
He not only WILL BE trashed by the press, he HAS BEEN, over and over and over again, from way back when he wasn't black enough to whether or not he was Muslim--which is STILL being debated as tho it's actually an issue, even in the NY Times (just yesterday in fact) and on and on.
Absolutely the press helped make the Clinton Crucifixion, just as they helped make the Iraq war.
But as Democrats, we don't need to be resorting to the same tactics we've had to put up with from right-wingers for the past 20 years. I thought we were better than that. And for Hillary Clinton to not only take up but embrace those tactics was the last straw for me and many of her supporters.
I'm sorry about the tone that has permeated this entire campaign season, especially from Democrat to Democrat.
I've read your comments many times, BevD. I find you thoughtful and intelligent, and I understand your anger very well because I've felt it on behalf of my candidate as well.
It's time for all of us to try and find common ground, because a McCain presidency would be a profound mistake for this country, and for my family, a personal disaster.
June 2, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
This illustrates my point. My candidate is the candidate who is nominated in August. That is the candidate I support. That is why I made it through the entire political season without trashing either democrat and why I can be objective about the race. I am completely aware that both sides have employed the same tactics, both have gone negative, both have gone positive, both have spread rumours about the other campaign and both have played the game exactly the same. I don't fault either candidate because I know how the game is played and I understand it.
You appear to me to be incapable of understanding it any context other than those perceived wrongs against your candidate of choice and I see it as typical campaign rhetoric where both sides deliberately stir up passions and support by employing the same tactics. This is wrong, just as your laundry list of "sins" by the Clintons is wrong - after a 100 million taxpayer dollar investigation of the Clinton administration do you know what it turned up? Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. Not one member of the Clinton administration has been indicted for malfeasance or misfeasance in office. Not one. Now contrast that with the Reagan administration, where 178 members of that administration were indicted for malfeasance and misfeasance in office, so despite your argument to the contrary, there were no scandals, there were the pseudo scandals cooked up by a press corp and the rightwing nuts whom you've helped with this post to spread the notion that democrats are corrupt. They then proceeded to make Gore the victim of their vitriol and hatred which helped to put Bush in the White House. And do you know why this succeeds? Because liberals not only fail to stop it, they actively help it along as you have with your post.
All you're doing is making it that much harder to protest against this kind of press treatment and for both sides to reconcile. The only way a reconciliation is possible is for both sides to recognize that they have wronged and been wronged. It's a damned shame that people can never, ever learn this lesson in life.
June 2, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I finally got your number, BevD.
You are arrogantly posturing yourself as an objective overseer who will never deign to take a position except to paint all others with your overused broad brush....'all lesser beings who have made choices among candidates, from my lofty unengaged perch, are naive and equally faulty'......ergo, of course, all candidates are equally 'faulty'. Isn't that your logic?
Of course, in making your solemn judgments, you, in trying to hide your cowardice against taking positions and your adoption of defeatist 'nothing changes' pseudo-safety cynicism, must stretch the truth into falsehood.
If you really had an objective bone in your body, you would admit that there has been and is, in fact, a strong contrast to be made between the behavior of these last two Democratic candidates themselves in how they respectively have run their campaigns which includes how they have treated each other.
June 2, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very well said, Navy Gray, and may I be the first to thank you for your service?
The Navy hasn't gotten a lot of PR for their work in this war, but without those aircraft carriers launching air support to our grunts on the ground they'd be in a real bind.
I remember my former Marine son saying that, once in Fallujah, (he fought in the Battle of Fallujah Nov. '04) they about had a riot on their hands from a large crowd of Iraqis. They called a Navy pilot who was circling the area in his jet, and said they didn't want anybody hurt--didn't want any bombing or strafing--they just wanted a show of support to kind of quiet down the crowd.
He says that guy flew so low over the crowd they could see him waving and grinning from the cockpit. Worked quiet nicely to settle things down!
Of course Navy's done much more in this war, but I just wanted to recognize you and toss you a salute from a Marine mom.
June 2, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Deanie,
Can you please write a post on Fallujah?
I really think it's important we discuss what Americans did there in 2004 than rehashing Republican talking points about the Clintons from the 1990s.
The use of white phosphorus in Fallujah really upsets me.
Thanks.
June 2, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Deanie, I just emerged from taking a (delayed, thanks to bleeding ulcer) final exam in math, and don't feel too good about...and then I saw your kind words. Thank you so much. Definitely lifted my spirits.
I have a lot of respect for the jarheads myself. Please pass on to your son my thanks to HIM for putting his pink fanny on the line while we sit here at home. I can't thank him enough. And I know you must have been sweating bullets every day he was deployed, so thanks to you too.
I was in 1978 (note the zoot suit uniform at left) through August, 1983. We did an Indian Ocean cruise in 1981. Nothing as exciting as now, of course. I have excerpts from an uncompleted novel about it at scotdouglascelley.com
I also strongly recommend you take a look at the PBS show "Carrier" which was EXTREMELY well done. It was, by far, the best documentary about being at sea on a bird farm yet (mostly because the crew stayed with these people the whole way through). You'll be crying by the end of it.
June 2, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dearest Louisvill1975,
The major problem with your petulant objections to the likely outcome of the Democratic nomination process is that you make women look bad. You put forth the image that WOMEN are supporting Hillary because she's a WOMAN. And if the first WOMAN to be a serious contender to be the Democratic Party's candidate doesn't win the nomination it is because of Sexism, Gang Rape, and Hatred. Because of all these, if Hillary doesn't get the nomination (she IS A WOMAN and she SHOULD be nominated) then you and all the other WOMEN who support Hillary and ONLY HILLARY will take your ball and go home.
You'd give up Roe v. Wade. You'd give up every bit of progress made for feminism and go back to the stone age just to get your own way.
You sound like SHRILL, HYSTERICAL WOMEN.
You turn women into mindless, idiots incapable of making their own decisions who should listen to the sound wisdom of men because WOMEN ARE HYSTERICAL AND INCAPABLE OF WINNING IN POLITICS. You really do yourself and the cause of all women a huge disservice.
June 2, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
What really upsets me, readytoblowagasket, was my son watching his buddy get his head blown off.
What really upsets me is the IED that blew up the Humvee my son was driving.
What really upsets me is the 165 Marines killed in Fallujah in one month alone.
What really upsets me is the three fine young men who died in three days in my son's unit, two weeks before they were due home, in their second deployment, leaving six children fatherless.
What really upsets me is my friend Morgan's son watching an IED blow up the Humvee in front of him and burn alive FIVE of his buddies; and three days later, his own Humvee was blown up and he tried real hard to save his best friend's life but was unable to, and then, after he spent five days in a Baghdad hospital they sent him BACK to patrol the same streets.
What upsets me is the American army truck filled with school supplies heading to an Iraqi school that was blown to smithereens by rocket-propelled grenades.
I would go on, but I really do not wish to dignify further your ignorant and hateful remarks.
What really upsets me is that Fallujah never would have happened if Hillary, many Democrats, and most every Republican hadn't given Bush a blank check to invade a country and wage war there for five years.
Visit http://deaniemills.com and read all you want to about the cost of this war.
You want to launch a personal vindictive hateful attack on me because you disagree with what I said about Hillary you go right ahead but when it comes to discussing this war, you are sadly out of your league.
This is the last comment I will post in response to you. You really disagree with how American troops are fighting a war they've been ordered to fight, then put on a damn uniform yourself and go over there yourself and see if you can do any better.
Or pay a visit to Arlington National Cemetery and criticize THEM.
Send snarky anonymous comments to THEIR mothers.
You do your candidate proud.
June 2, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not attacking you, Deanie, and have no intention to. I am challenging you to be honest. There's a difference.
Meanwhile, you are attacking the Clintons. I am objecting. It's as simple as that.
Since you brought up Fallujah, I brought up how Americans have committed documented war crimes there. Not everyone knows this. But you do.
Those war crimes have nothing to do with Hillary Clinton. NOTHING. You know this as well.
War crimes. Americans in Iraq have committed war crimes.
In Fallujah and Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. You are upset with me for pointing out a real issue to be upset about.
There is no excuse for our forces to commit war crimes in Iraq. There is no one but ourselves to blame for what has transpired on the ground in Iraq.
Your son represented me in Fallujah. I'm sure he represented me honorably.
But it's time to move on from the Clintons and take responsibility for our actions in the world. That's what's important to talk about. You cannot cover up the present by retreating into the melodramas from a decade long over.
June 2, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You blame Clinton for the 'blank check' when Obama says (in 2004) he's not sure how he would have voted if he had been there? And you look at his votes for funding after he did arrive in the Senate?
June 2, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with a single statement in your extremely excellent post:
Pathetic. The word is pathetic. She has made a tragic, pathetic public fool of herself.
June 2, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I realize my above post is not close to the level of civility and intelligence in Ms. Mills' post. I agree with what she said.
I hadn't really heard of "Clinton fatigue", it's just that I will live a long and contented life if I never have to hear about the Clenis again. Thank you for giving me more civil words to explain my dissatisfaction.
My fatigue has grown as Senator Clinton's campaign has used spin, half-truths, and slime to keep in the race. Senator Clinton and the way she has run her campaign are the reasons I no longer support her. It's not Bill - it's Hillary. It's not the blowjob - it's the refusal to denounce her vote to allow the invasion of Iraq. It's not Obama - it's all the lies and "nuanced" evasive half-truths.
The point of my above post was that the continued vicious support for Senator Clinton and the hateful vitriol directed against Senator Obama demean those who participate in such tactics. The petulant animosity does nothing at all for the Democratic Party or the feminist cause.
McCain must be defeated. The Constituion and the rule of law must be restored. The reign of the Bush/Cheney proto-fascists must come to an end. Hillary's actions sealed her own fate in not winning the nomination. So now we must keep moving forward and help return our nation to a land of true freedom, fairness, opportunity, and compassion. It's time to throw the bums out and reclaim America for all Americans.
June 2, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
thank you deanie for your comments about the clinton years I was fatigued while they we happening. Also thank you very much for your comments about Fallujah and your families sacrifice for us. I'm not a clinton supporter after bill clinton's first term, he seemed to me to be to conservative.
June 2, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Hillary got elected, we swore to our conservative friends that noooooo, she was not looking to take over the White House.
Why would you swear that to your conservative friends? It makes no sense.
Of course, if Bill had kept his pants zipped in the first place, Gore would most likely have won with plenty of votes to prevent such a scenario.
Considering that Clinton left office with a higher favorable rating than Reagan, it wouldn't seem that Clinton cost Gore anything. It was likely Gore's refusal to use Clinton to campaign in strategic states (not to mention making an ass out of himself in the debates) and media bias that kept Gore from decisively winning the election such that the SC would never even have been involved.
Perhaps all of your time invested in the Hate Hillary websites is showing up in your writing. No problem. You can go your way and I'll go mine.
June 2, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Deanie, first the original post was outstanding. As a former clinton supporter the agony of defending people who have betrayed your trust was not only palatable but personal for me. However I was even more afflicted then most. I was willing to let all past 'errors' in judgement go if, man I really didn't think this would be a reach at the time, my candidate ran a good campaign.
Notice I didn't even say a winning campaign, just a good one that I could be proud to say I supported. Who gives a floss if you lose but maintain your dignity? At the start of this primary I was so ginned up! Not only was my candidate going to have a great chance to win but her opponent was an incredible new talent. Surely this was going to bode will for our chances in November, heck how could be lose with either of these candidates?
Then a strange thing happened. The new guy was really good. Smart, articulate, passionate, thoughtful and inspiring. He started to win. Well heck as a former Big Ten athlete I realize sometimes your opponent is just better(sometimes a lot better, a story for another day losing to Nebraska by 50pts!) So what? I didn't go on to the field looking for the weakest player, I went looking to the strongest. If by his skills and talent he beat me, so be it. He was gonna know his whole life he went up against a guy who gave every ounce to win fair. The operative parameter being 'fair'. It wasn't and couldn't be when at all cost. Why not just put poison in his Gatorade?
Anyway back to the current primary. So the new guy starts to win, I don't hear anything congratulating the new guy for being a worthy opponent. No talk of 'hey we took the guy lightly and now we'll have to buckle up if we're gonna win this thing'. No all of sudden I got Bubba droppin' dimes about how the new guy hasn't won nothin' that Jesse Jackson didn't win'. WTF?! Letters emailed in New Hampshire that the new guy was soft on choice. How as far as my candidate knew 'he was christian'. (Would it really have been so hard to say not only is he christian, but anyone who votes for or against a candidate based on is religion is un-American and ignorant?)
I watched in horror as Senator Clinton morphed into Lee Atwater, with the I'm winning the 'hard working white American vote', culminating, (please lord) with talk of assassination.
How disingenuous as pointed out by psmealy and
donna G for BevD to spin this as politics and suggest that both campaigns went to the gutter.
I hope and sincerely believe that Senator Obama is better then me when considering our future. He has the ability to get past this moment and do what is necessary to move us to a more perfected Union.
Me, I'm stuck on that old school, what goes around comes around and second times a bitch. That why I wouldn't make a good president. I think there should be a price to pay. Obama just wants you to get on board for a better future, rather you deserve it or not.
June 2, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never been to a Hate Hillary website.
My comments come from watching her, reading her words, and reading the e-mails her campaign sends me, as well as things on her own website.
Sorry to disappoint everyone who wants to paint me as a Hillary hater.
June 2, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never been to a Hate Hillary website.
Huh??
By the time I decided to drop in on some of the more colorful hate Hillary websites out there, I was braced.
June 2, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hope you'll be back to clarify your own "sniper fire in Bosnia" moment.
June 2, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aww Indiex I'm so sorry to deprive you of your big GOTCHA moment, but in that particular context you quote, as was clearly stated on the very first sentence which of course you chose to cut out of your quote--I happened to mention that I was visiting those websites ON ASSIGNMENT by HuffPo. It was the very beginning of the campaign.
In my reference of never visiting a hate-Hillary website, I meant, of course, BY CHOICE. You had made it sound as if I like to hang out there trading hate-remarks. In point of fact, I have never visited them, either before or since doing that assignment and have no idea what they are saying about Hillary now.
As I said, my comments came strictly from Hillary's own sources.
But thanks for reminding us of the sniper incident.
June 2, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah...if was interested in deceiving anyone, why would I link the article? I didn't say you liked to hang out there trading hate quotes. I merely stated...
Perhaps all of your time invested in the Hate Hillary websites is showing up in your writing.
I knew you had invested much time in visiting hate Hillary sites because I read HuffPo and for you to claim to have never visited any of those sites was way too much to let pass.
Your original post on this thread was nothing but a litany of all the recycled republican smears of the 90s which is what the hate sites are all about anyway. I think you cribbed parts of your rant from some of those sites but I don't want to take the time to research it.
You lied. I called bullshit. It's that simple.
June 2, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought HuffPo *WAS* a Hate Hillary website.
June 2, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a lot of that there I would agree.
June 2, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
First - I was enlisted, not ROTC. ROTC is Army anyway, not Navy. And, not taking anything away from any other service, I was very proud that I was Navy. My Paternal grandfather served as a Seabee in World War II (there's a picture of him in the Boston Globe just after Pearl Harbor showing him carrying my young father on his shoulder as he marched off to join), and my father, who was a boiler's mate on the USS Diamond Head (AE-19). I served on the USS Manitowoc (LST-1180) and the USS America (CV-66) and at NAVCOMMSTA Keflavik. Again, I was an enlisted radioman, not an officer.
Second - "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," was BS. The original plan that was released either Jan. 20 or 21, 1993, was to allows gays to serve in the military without fear of retribution. The firestorm over that was enough to make the Clinton Administration quickly retreat. It kept people in the closet and more in fear of discovery than before. As a matter of fact, if my memory serves me correctly, the number of those being discharged due to homosexuality ROSE after the imposition of the Clinton policy.
Third - let's be clear here, Hillary Clinton is NOT supposed to be fighting for herself. She is supposed to be fighting for the Democratic nomination, so that John McSame doesn't get a third term for Bushie. That's the ultimate goal here.
As for surrendering, think of the USS Pueblo incident in 1968. The ship, which only had a machine gun for defense against numerous North Korean gunboats, was outmanned and outgunned. So the captain had no choice but to surrender. Yes, the men were tortured in North Korea until they were returned before Christmas that year. While they didn't go with their ship, most of them were able to see their families again and be with them for that Christmas. The captain of that ship later went on to command U.S. forces as they cleared mines from Haiphong Harbor in North Vietnam after the 1973 Paris Accords.
You don't go down with your ship, you live to fight another day. Hillary has needed to save herself politically so politically she can live to fight another day. Apparently, from what I just heard from the AP, she has seen the reality.
June 3, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment