Hillary's Record of Failure

many supporters cite hillary's experience as a reason they support her.  i have a little test when i want to understand something -- i ask my neighbors.  what, i asked, is hillary's experience?  first lady (most common answer).  hillarycare (second).  senator.  sure, what did she do as senator?  she voted for the war.

this is not a record of accomplishment.  now let's be upfront.  i'm not talking about hillary's actual experience, which is certainly something she can be proud of.  i'm talking about voter's impressions of hillary's experience.  the reason for this is that hillary is so well known that people have firm impressions of her, impressions that they are unlikely to abandon, no matter what facts are presented to them.

hillary's experience, from the electorate's point of view, can be summarized in two words: iraq and hillarycare.  this is not a record of accomplishment or a record that democrats want to run on.

hillary's work on national health care probably makes her most vulnerable.  in a secretive commission, much like cheney's energy commission, hillary devised one of the most complicated and convoluted health care initiatives ever.  president clinton, if he had one, had a mandate for delivering health care reform on the national level.  but the problem, the failure, was the lack of leadership that followed.

i'd mention that hillary was an awful saleswoman for her health care proposal, but that's not important.  what was important is that it gave her a reputation for being extraordinarily secretive and for not building coalitions behind her initiatives.

hillary's attitude was, 'i solved the problem, here it is.'  oh, and accept it.  you're either with me or ag'in me.  does this sound familiar?  when the bushies did it, we were up in arms.  well, lots of people where up in arms when hillary did it, too.  health care reform was defeated by a broad coalition of opponents, not because health care reform was a bad idea -- even major corporations support the concept -- but because hillary exhibited inept leadership.  she didn't build a broad coalition and she didn't think she needed to.  she was the decider.  and she was stunned when democrats in congress didn't fall in line.

is there anything to learn here?  i won't pretend that hillary didn't learn anything from this debacle.  but she never learned to build broad coalitions in the proposal process.  she's still secretive about policy making.  she still feels that she needs to be.  she's still arrogant about her own analytical abilities and doesn't really appreciate the legislative process (at least that's what the senators i talk to say).  she is still seen as a bully.  hillary did learn that you need to count votes, and it seems that she's gotten better at this.  but this doesn't make up for the other weaknesses that still continue.

then there is hillary's vote on the war.  i don't need to mention that she didn't read the nie.  she was pre-disposed towards attacking saddam, who had been a thorn in the side of the clinton administration.  she shared the pent-up anger at saddam with the bush administration.  this guy had been poking the usa in the eye for more than a decade.

i'm sorry, but i'm not impressed by anyone who gets conned by a guy with, what, a sixth grade education?  there was plenty of reasons to doubt that iraq had wmds or that they had any connection with al qaeda, including the fact that her church declared an invasion of iraq immoral and sought to involve her in delivering that message to the president.  but if you are pre-disposed towards seeing them, that's what you see.  hillary wasn't objective and she exhibited poor judgment here because she had (too much) confidence in her own experience as first lady.

what is more problematic is that hillary refuses to learn any lessons from this failure.  she wants to blame someone else.  bush misled her, she says.  hillary relies on fatally flawed logic to reach that conclusion.  she bullied others with her own experience in the white house, talking about all the intel that the white house has access to, spinning a yarn that helped bush mislead the nation.  she forcefully argued for the invasion, based on her experience in the white house and how saddam acted during that period.

hillary's experience, meaning the experience that the electorate recognizes, is a record of failure.  by devising an extraordinarily complicated health care proposal, she reinforced the narrative that liberals want to increase taxes and institute big government programs.  she did not build confidence in the fact that there are things that government needs to do, including health care, and that they can't be done more efficiently by the market.  and she was just plain wrong about iraq.  unlike edwards, hillary forcefully argued the case to invade iraq and used her own white house experience to back it up.  this is not a record to be proud of.

hillary has more experience than the other candidates, there is no question about that.  but she has demonstrated bad judgment in the course of that experience, which negates any natural advantage that her experience brings to the table.  one of the things i see when i look at hillary's experience is some of the worst things i see in the bush administration -- secretiveness, arrogance about their own decisions, stubbornness, and an unwillingness to build broad, even multipartisan (because i'm thinking internationally, as well) coalitions to achieve their goals.  clinton partisans will no doubt be offended by comparing a hillary administration to the bush administration, but will hillary really be different from the bush?  really?

how can we tell?  because i don't derive that difference from her record...

Tags: 2008 Presidential Elections, Hillary Clinton, Presidential Campaign (all tags)

Comments

63 Comments

what is Bill's biggest accomplishment

apparently "don't ask don't tell" was a mistake and so was NAFTA...

so If I could ask Hillary a question it would be what was Bill's biggest policy success from two terms?

by TarHeel 2007-06-19 05:45AM | 0 recs
Re: what is Bill's biggest accomplishment

Bill's biggest success was prosperity: 22 million jobs created, the first budget surplus in 30 years, the biggest and longest stock market boom in histry, and an economy where most people benefited (not just the top).

The biggest failings, strangely enough, were political.  Bill was never able to build Democratic party strength.  After losing the House in 1994, Clinton never was able to win it back.  My feeling (right or wrong) was that he played it safe in 1996 instead of turning up the heat, thus losing his best opportunity to win back the House.  BTW, his pay back for squandering this opportunity was the impeachment mess.  At the time, on election night in 1996, I said he might as well resign because the Republicans will never let him govern.  Nor was Bill Clinton able to pass a single major social initiative.  No medicare for all (or at least all children).  No expansion of environmental protection, certainly no reform of health care.

The prosperity and the surplus was good but fleeting.  The damage done by George W. Bush seems far more lasting.  I guess history will tell.

by David Kowalski 2007-06-19 06:05AM | 0 recs
Okay so what

policy of Bill's created the dot.com explosion?

I know the economy did well.  Was it the tax hikes on the rich?   what policy..?

cause obviously everyone's bailing on don't ask don't tell and NAFTA ..

by TarHeel 2007-06-19 06:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Okay so what

Don't ask don't tell was never meant as a final solution. If it gets removed and Gays can serve in the military nobody would be happier then Bill. It was an intermediary step that helped grow support for an actual bigotted military. As such it was succesful. and as such now it is time to move on.

And bill's involvementin the economy is wildy known as well as well documented. Woodwards first book about the Clinton administration gives you a good view about the attention Bill gave to the economy.

by Ernst 2007-06-19 06:28AM | 0 recs
I guess you dispute

one of Shrum's claims that he told Kerry to throw gays under the bus and to support DOMA

by TarHeel 2007-06-19 06:47AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess you dispute

So you try to discredit one act by mentioning something tangible related and making it about me instead of actually discussion the point.

Don't ask don't tell was something Bill Clinton felt as an unavoidable compromise due to both pressure from the generals and the senate. As he campaigned for gays in the military without stings attached I can't see how he would feel different now. If you have other information about that I would certainly be interested.

And about Shrum claims, the conversation in question has been public knowledge since right after the election. It certianly wasn't new to me. I have heard it slightly different though.

Kerry asked Clinton how he could win certain states with the anti-gay marriage law on the election slate. and Clinton told him that as long as Kerry was against the local ballot initiatives he wouldn't. And that Kerry faced a choice between supporting all of those local ballot initiatives or writing off those particular states.

That isn't telling or dvising Kerry what to do, that was describing Kerry what choices he had in this case. Fortuneatly Kerry made the right choice, unfortuneatly Bill was right in his assesment.

by Ernst 2007-06-19 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: what is Bill's biggest accomplishment

I agree with everything here.

He was not able to build UP the democratic party.  It showed in the mid-terms, 2004.  And we are just starting to re-coup.

If you can not build up the party, it will disintegrate, simple as that.  

Look at the Republicans.  Bush is doing nothing for "the party" and Republicans are livid.  

Bill Clinton will not be remembered for NAFTA, at all.  And for his moral issues, which we as democrats look at personal issues, nothing to do with effectively governing.

by icebergslim 2007-06-19 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Record of Failure

"but will hillary really be different from the bush?  really?

how can we tell?  because i don't derive that difference from her record..."

Just another hit-diary.   Sigh.

by georgep 2007-06-19 05:49AM | 0 recs
Defend your candidate

Your chief complaint against MyDD supporters of Barack Obama is that you
claim to believe they spend too much time arguing against other candidates
(read "Hillary Clinton") rather than making the case for their own.

Why is it, then, that you label so many diaries that express critical views of
Hillary Clinton's record "hit-diaries," then sniff and walk away?

Isn't a diary like this one an opportunity for you to correct the record (if it's
mistaken); defend your candidate; make your own case for Clinton?

Of course, Clinton observers will recognize your strategy as textbook
Clintonian: Criticize but never deny. The non-denial denial. Most recent
example: the Clinton campaign's response to the Obama memos.

What are we to make of your name-calling silence on these
anti-Clinton diaries, criticizing the fact of them but never
addressing the substance?

Are you ashamed of your candidate?

by horizonr 2007-06-19 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Defend your candidate

there is an alternative explanation: there is no defense.  hillarycare won't be used against hillary even though it was used against john kerry in 2004.  the democratic base won't hold her vote for the war against her even though they held it against john kerry in 2004.  it's hard for me not to see her campaign as a replay of kerry's presidential campaign.  same themes: inevitability and we're stronger against the gop; the assumption that progressives can be ignored and they will eventually have no choice; policy specific but inspiration-challenged; etc...

by bored now 2007-06-19 07:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Defend your candidate

Or perhaps we're simply tired of you not listening.

by Ernst 2007-06-19 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Defend your candidate

Exactly.  There are worthy Obama diarists, even horizonr has posts that at times make decent points and make for decent discussion.  This diarist is just not that way.  I tried to have a decent discussion with him once and he is as rabid as they come.   It is essentially trolling, so not really worthy much comment.   That is just me.  I am sure he can find many likeminded people here who are more than happy to discuss the Clinton evils with him, so it is all good.    

by georgep 2007-06-19 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Defend your candidate
There are worthy Obama diarists, even horizonr has posts that
at times make decent points and make for decent discussion.

Oh, George, you're gonna make me blush.

Love,

horizonr

by horizonr 2007-06-19 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Defend your candidate

I said "every once in a while."   Don't grow a big head now.   And I'll still call you out when I see a gratuitous hit-diary or a conspiracy yarn.   But I am sure you would not want it any other way.   :-)

by georgep 2007-06-19 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Defend your candidate
Just so.
by horizonr 2007-06-19 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Defend your candidate

don't blush yet.  he said he almost like me, and then we got to fightin', again...:)

by icebergslim 2007-06-19 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Defend your candidate

My truces with George usually last about a day, if that. We annoy the hell out of
each other. But we're also each getting a pretty good idea, at this point, where
the other is coming from. That, at least, keeps us talking, which I prefer....

by horizonr 2007-06-19 01:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Defend your candidate

Sorry for the terse tone of my comment. I let my tiredness and frustration get the better of me.

by Ernst 2007-06-19 07:44AM | 0 recs
Far worse than Kerry

While progressives were not thrilled about Kerry, I believe most of us felt that deep down, he was one of us but (thanks to jerks like Shrum) was afraid to go too far in expressing his true inclinations (losing the election seems to have liberated him and confirmed this point).

Progressives genuinely distrust Hillary, and with good reason. Ironically, right-wingers hate Hillary with a passion too. She is guaranteed to motivate THEIR base like no other candidate we have while at the same time depressing our base. So she really presents the worst possible scenario.

If Gore cares about this country (and saving the planet), he HAS to get into the race. We cannot afford another Republican in the White House. I understand Gore biding his time right now while the current candidates make fools of themselves (e.g., Barack's "Punjab" memo). But I hope he doesn't wait past Labor Day. Even for him it will take some time to put a campaign together....

by Jim in Chicago 2007-06-19 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Far worse than Kerry

Has the Punjab deal been flooding the airwaves?

by annefrank 2007-06-19 05:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Defend your candidate

express critical views? this is a diary saying without any real foundation that hillary is excatly like Bush. All points mentioned here have been debunked dozens of times. I know that because I've done it, just like you said I should do. And you know what? they don't listen, they simply copy and paste their old diary again and again and again. It's been denied, the record has been corrected, time and time and time again. The case for clinton has been made. By me and by others.

And when we're fed up by the same repetition again and again, and say so comments like yours come along. "See you aint denial it, so it must be true!

Whatever.

by Ernst 2007-06-19 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Defend your candidate

ahhh, no.  it is my style to write provocatively.  i tend to have a provocative headline and endline.  what i said is that i don't see a difference, which i've already mentioned previously, because i have a severe problem with the clinton and bush dynasties.  i won't vote for jeb for president and i won't vote for hillary, either.

but what the diary was discussing is how voters view hillary's record, not how i view it.  i actually respect her record and am glad that she will stay in the senate.  but if it gives you an out for not defending her record, then so be it.  her record is a weakness, not a strength, afaict.

while i certainly don't expect you to repeat your comments and no doubt terrific defense of hillary over and over, it is part of what i am criticizing.  it's part of my point as to why hillary will lose.  you don't have the discipline to win new hearts and minds, and neither does her campaign.  that's why i say i know that she will lose.  presidential politics may be too exhausting for democrats now (ohhh, there's another one of those provocative endings!!!)...

by bored now 2007-06-19 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Defend your candidate

while i certainly don't expect you to repeat your comments and no doubt terrific defense of hillary over and over, it is part of what I am criticizing.  it's part of my point as to why hillary will lose.  you don't have the discipline to win new hearts and minds, and neither does her campaign.  that's why i say i know that she will lose.  presidential politics may be too exhausting for democrats now

Let me add a clarifier to "over and over" it should read over and over to the same person(s) I would have thought it self evident from the context but obviously not.

I've got no trouble trying to answer the same questions again and again and again. But when I get the same challenge again and again from posters here to explain something while I know they've both already heard the answer and know the facts but are simply not interested in it, only because that would mean less sticks to hit her with? Then I'm not interested in playing that game anymore.

You are creating strawmen just for the sake of having us rebut them? And then try to smugly disqualify us on not playing your game?

You're not being "provocative". You're being a troll. Either start a discussion on a basis honesty or choke on your arrogance.

by Ernst 2007-06-19 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Defend your candidate

hmmm, i don't recall ever talking to you, so i find that confusing.

and i earned my arrogance with my first presidential appointment.  i've added to it since then...

by bored now 2007-06-19 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Defend your candidate

Hah. Good for you, (and I'm serious about that)

But with that knowledge I'm actually more disappointed with this post, with that history you don't need to be "provocative" or let people jump trough hoops to proof themselves worthy. It's a weakness just as bad or worse then my perceived lack of discipline.

And as for Person(s) I do believe I've talked to quite a few of the regular anti-crowd about Clinton multiple times on the same subject. My contact with you has been limited, so maybe I've lumped you into  that group quite erroneously. I hope so, but as I don't derive that differences between you and them from your record...

by Ernst 2007-06-19 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Defend your candidate

not everyone can be provoked into thinking.  that's ok.  i doubt i will write to satisfy people who can't.  but as those who know me understand, i don't think like everyone else.

and i would hope that people wouldn't think that i believe anyone needs "to proof themselves worthy."  we are all equal here, and even if i have more experience at presidential campaigns than you, i can guarantee that you have more experience in some other area that would interest me.  different does not mean better.  now that we both realize that you have lumped me with people who i don't know, nor know of their arguments, all i ask is that you be patient when i ask questions because i don't know what you are talking about.

personally, i am seriously frustrated that democrats are about to nominate another candidate like john kerry who brings obvious and self-evident weaknesses to the race and makes it easy for the gop to beat them.  you know, i'd actually rather have a democrat nominating the next supreme court justice.  it won't be hillary...

by bored now 2007-06-19 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Defend your candidate

I see we have a different view, It's more that I see you provoking people out of thinking as well. And that's my problem. Your diary is unfortunately rather common. Luckily your commenting is rather different. I concede to being to quick to judge, and hereby make my (somewhat) humble apology.

I understand that you're worried that the candidate will have self evident weaknesses. But when did a candidate didn't have that? I can't seem to remember any successful candidate and only a few unsuccessful candidates that didn't have self evident weaknesses. I can see no such candidate in the current democratic field. Luckily neither can I find one on the republican's side. So I'm rather more positive at the moment. If you have a different assessment about the other candidates I'd like to hear about it.

by Ernst 2007-06-20 01:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Defend your candidate

i'm more interested in the conversation than pontificating.  in my experience, strong opinion reacts to strong opinion.  that's when the real conversation begins...

by bored now 2007-06-20 04:31AM | 0 recs
Rumblings of Discontent...

The MSM continues the Hillary likeability theme with a pretty negative Howard Kurtz piece in today's Washington Post with links to several other equally downbeat sources.

Makes you wonder where these little eddies and undercurrents of discontent are coming from, is it the GOP or other Democratic campaigns?  Why does the establishment periodically question the electability of it's own anointed candidate?  She must be rubbing some people the wrong way somewhere.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-06-19 05:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Rumblings of Discontent...

There's an upside to the media's treatment of Hillary. Discussing her "likability factor" and "electability factor" while deeming her "presidential" and discussing what the male spouse of an female president would be called - isn't all that bad.
None of that goes to character or trustworthiness.

Hopefully, you can see the difference in the media's assault on Edwards' character by questioning the sincerity of a rich candidate with a big house - advocating for the working poor.

by annefrank 2007-06-19 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Rumblings of Discontent...

Look, Hillary Clinton, may be the nominee.  But do not think for one iota, that democrats are not thinking electablity, they are.

Ask democrats.  They like her, but can she win, ALWAYS COMES UP.  Many think she can not.  And don't think democrats are not looking at the polls they are, but looking at her negatives too.  That bothers people.

She and only she, has to sell her goods to the party.  They are not coming in poll numbers.  I was watching MSNBC this morning and just about every analyst said this, forget the national polls.  Too early.  Look at these early state polls.  And watch them.  Also, many are cautious and leary.  Many went back to the early poll numbers, read Markos on this, and said this is too early.  That democrats do look at who can WIN, period.  And that many democrats, though like Hillary, are weary of her and doubt she can win.  Yes, on MSNBC, they said that.

So, if there is discontent, yes there is.

by icebergslim 2007-06-19 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Rumblings of Discontent...

electability challenges her inevitability strategy.  i can't think of any clinton supporter that takes this seriously.  they especially are not interested with what it does to down ballot candidates.  there must be some kool-aid somewhere...

by bored now 2007-06-19 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Rumblings of Discontent...

Or we do take it seriously, but see her perform roughly the same/within the error of margin as other Democratic contenders.

Sure "forget the polls, they mean nothing yet" could be correct but as there is nothing else to replace the polls but "this feeling I have" what then do we use? I try to avoid that myself. The gut doesn't have a good reputation as a thinking device.

Or we could wait until the polls do mean something for sure. Then we can settle it with real data. That is taking it seriously. Until then any other I fail to see how any other decision on electability can be made.

by Ernst 2007-06-19 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Rumblings of Discontent...

first of all, polls this far out are factors of name recognition.  do they mean something?  hell, yes.  i believe i've said this before (but i might have not posted this): polls right now are really good for benchmarks.  hillary's numbers, because she is the only one who has basically universal name recognition, tell us more about where she will end up than any other candidate, but that doesn't help much (because you can't really compare her results to other candidates who do not have 98% name recognition).

the problem here is that hillary, because people have such strong impressions of her, really needs to be doing better than she is because she's polling against people who don't have her name recognition rates.  but that's a technical argument, and i don't think anybody here cares about that.

that's not even taking into account the potential for a serious third party candidate.  who does that help?  or hurt?  we really don't know right now.

what we can predict with a fair degree of accuracy is that hillary will energize the republican base.  hillary clinton is like cat nip to conservatives; say her name and they go wild.  none of these polls seek to measure intensity, which is what i am really more interested in right now.  john kerry was ahead of george bush in florida in 2003 (sun times) and both kerry and dean were ahead of bush in ohio (plain dealer).  polls are great sources of information if used correctly.  otherwise, they can bite you on the rear end...

by bored now 2007-06-19 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Record of Failure

And she kicks puppies! (At least that is what the senators I talk to say.)

Actually. I have a lot of trouble with your usage of rightwing framing and misinterpretation. Al these thing you mention have been rebutted time and time again. You're a broken record that repeats a tired and old tune sung by republicans.

you don't see, you don't "derive" because you don't want to. Your whole comparison between junior and HRC excests purely at using terms for her that apply to bush and hope they stick.

Indeed. as georgep said. It's just another Hit-diary. and not even based on anything resembling reality. I expected this sort of distortion from the other side. I believed Dems were at least interested at being fair.

by Ernst 2007-06-19 06:04AM | 0 recs
i have a lot of problems...

with the fact the democrats continue to believe if they refute what voters think that voters will just change their minds!  the sorry implication of this is that hillary will always be on the strategic defensive after she wraps up the nomination.

one of the problems with hillary's high negatives is that they are structural.  they won't disappear because they are ingrained in a certain segment of the population's consciousness.  this isn't true for any other candidate, as near as i can tell.

this makes it easy to typecast or stereotype hillary.  this makes her the easiest candidate for republicans to run against.

i am completely agree that the dominant frame about hillary is this "rightwing frame."   this not only hurts hillary, it makes her loss inevitable.  i'm merely pointing out that voters accept it.  hillary is easily framed by the opposition, and her ruthless attacks against the rightwing conspiracy only make her seem coo-coo (to non-partisans).  she is easily the democrat's most vulnerable candidate in this regard...

by bored now 2007-06-19 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: i have a lot of problems...

"this isn't true for any other candidate, as near as i can tell"

this isn't correct. her numbers are almost exactly the same as Gore's and better then Kerry's. These numbers reflect that Hillary has been a figure on the national stage for a long time now. This probably isn't a function of hillary herself as a function of the two party system.

Her numbers look odd because you are comparing them to people who are busy breaking into the national stage. If you compare them to figures already there, she simply doesn't do as badly as you proclaim. And seeing the last couple of elections it is quite likely that any candidate will score relatively the same as she will around election time.

You aren't pointing out that voters accept this, because if that was true, her head to head numbers would be worse then they are. Instead they're almost completely identical to Obama's.

As for swiftboating, You might not have noticed that recently Hillary has been under more attack then any other political candidate. And if you did notice that, you are one of the few.

The rightwing framing has had an unexpected side effect. Instead of making her more liable for shiftboating the right wing invented such a caracture that people don't take it serious anymore. They simply don't register hillary bashing anymore.

by Ernst 2007-06-19 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: i have a lot of problems...

i was talking about actual presidential candidates, not past presidential candidates.  and, as i've mentioned over and over, i understand that hillary has universal name recognition.  that's why i consider a large part of her negatives to be structural.  no one else has this structural base of negatives that can be easily exploited.

i don't see any evidence that republicans have started to go after hillary.  if anything, it seems like they are holding their fire.  rightly or wrongly, i have a strong feeling that republicans want to run against hillary...

by bored now 2007-06-19 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: i have a lot of problems...

"I was talking about actual presidential candidates, not past presidential candidates."

And I've just explained why that is a wrong comparison.

"and, as i've mentioned over and over, i understand that hillary has universal name recognition.  that's why i consider a large part of her negatives to be structural.  

And I've just explained that likely hood is that every candidate will have those numbers after they've had universal name recognition for a longer time.

""no one else has this structural base of negatives that can be easily exploited."

i don't see any evidence that republicans have started to go after hillary.  if anything, it seems like they are holding their fire.  rightly or wrongly, i have a strong feeling that republicans want to run against hillary...

You've just proved my point. If you count instances that hillary is mentioned in a negative way vrs other Democratic candidates you will find that she has been mentioned more and more negatively by them.

you might also notice the two negative books just out. Etc. Etc.

Yet they've made no impact on you. That disproofs that she her negatives are more easily exploited. Attacks on her don't register anymore.

by Ernst 2007-06-19 09:54AM | 0 recs
I'm really sick of this kind of comment

What exactly did you say in this comment? You don't like what bored said. No evidence to refute what he's saying. No analysis beyond you having trouble with how he's framing the issues. Just attack the author and claim there is no basis for what he's saying. Where have any of these been rebutted except by comments like this which basically say you don't agree because... you don't like what he's saying.

This is why Dems lose. Who do you think is going to frame the debate if our eventual nominee is Hillary? It will be the Republican noise machine. What frames do you think they will use? Ours? Hillary's? Get real. It will be all right-wing talking points.

Just try and convince voters they don't understand Hillary and have it all backwards. Just try and explain, politiely, that everything they know about Hillary is a right-wing smear, and oh so very wrong. Go ahead. Canvassed much?

What I want to know is how are we going to combat these statements? How are we going to overcome HIllary's high negatives. How does she overcome her own image. How do we sell her Iraq vote as change? How do we sell her Hillarycare failure as a sucess?

These are the points raised in this post. Agree with them or not, they are reality. How does she overcome it? Saying "that's right-wing framing" is a cop out. It's a preview, and a mild one at that, of what is comming.

So I don't care if you don't like it or can't "derive"  the liabilities of a candidate. If you can't see the reality in Hillary's liabilities then you are the one not dealing with reality or fairness.

by michael in chicago 2007-06-19 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm really sick of this kind of comment

You didn't make one point in that post. You also had no analysis or persuasive arguments. That my friend, is why democrats lose. They expect to say "Candidate X sucks. Its self evident that you shouldn't vote for them."

Like "George Bush sucks. of course you shouldn't vote for him." He said she said doesn't win elections and neither does preaching to the choir.

by world dictator 2007-06-19 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm really sick of this kind of comment

He himself admitted that what he said was right wing frame, he himself admitted that her actual record is something to be proud of. He knows what he's saying about her isn't the reality but what voters think.

Was this diary meant to help establish how are we going to combat these statements? How are we going to overcome Hillary's high negatives. How does she overcome her own image. How do we sell her Iraq vote as change? How do we sell her Hillarycare failure as a success?

No. He wasn't interested in those things, this diary was meant to enforce those conceptions.

Perhaps that's why dems lose, that instead of being honest about their own people they fight each other tooth and nail just to get that extra dig in.

So yeah, I'm really sick of this kind of dairy, a hundred times over. And if you'd dig down in my comments you'll notice that I've actually spend a lot of time doing just what you asked. I've even done it in this diary. I have explained to people how HillaryCare was developed what the pro's were and the cons and that no, it wasn't a success but that she learned from that and that she vastly increased Healthcare for children since then. I've also spend time explaining how her negatives stack, How we can change that, etc.

But you know what, if you've got to do that time after time after time to the same people it grows old and it starts to feel you're asking to be an obedient pet and perform that trick just one more time. Just for their amusement because they're not that likely to do anything with it.

So sometime you just want to complain a bit. Everybody else gets to, Edwards supporters, Obama supporters, we all do. Problem is that Clinton isn't that popular here on MyDD, so there aren't that many to pick up the slack.

And of course I see the liabilities Clinton has, I just don't think they're bigger then the other candidates. And I make a point of it to try to help solve those liabilities as well.

But this dairy is just trying to be "provocative" and not solving anything. We know her weak points so a simple rehash doesn't add much to the solution. So because I'm tired, (and a bit bitchy) will you help me to come up with ways how are we going to combat these statements? In spirit of universal Democratic brotherhood?

by Ernst 2007-06-19 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm really sick of this kind of comment

No. He wasn't interested in those things, this diary was meant to enforce those conceptions.

I disagree. That, again, is your opinionn. I think the point, which I was making related to your comment above, is that these things need to be addressed now, in a proactive way, rather than just crying "it's a right wing smear" next year when things heat up or trying to shout down every post your disagree with. How to do this, I don't know, because a: I'm not the one arguing in support of Hillary; b: I have yet to read much in the comments other than people shouting "that's a right wing smear" or "Is not!" as a response to any line of questioning relating to Hillary's liabilities.

If you want to comment that he's wrong based on you disagreeing with him or the premise of his post and nothing more, than I'm going to question the comment.

Here's my take: being provocative challenges people. It pushes their buttons. It pushed yours. How did you respond? By looking defensive. By attacking the diarist. You didn't address the post. That's the GOPs game. If we want to win then we have to stop shouting down people who challenge us. What's the message you want out there? "Is not!"? I feel like complaining? Stop picking on my candidate?

Respond to the liabilities. That's not asking for tricks. There has to be responses out there and they need to be tested, debated, and pushed or they won't stand up next year when it matters.

by michael in chicago 2007-06-19 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm really sick of this kind of comment

You know what? I managed to make bored now's appearnt point in the comment just above. But somehow I managed to do that without repeating things I know to be false. But then again, I simply asked.

If you look at my comments here and hopefully my record You'll notice that I generally try to be constructive and adress the issues mentioned. At the moment however I'm more interested in how people are talking about her then what they are saying.

Where have I said that Healthcare is off limits? or that her liabilities don't need adressing? No where. And if you want me to adress her liabilities I will put up a diary on the subject of your choice. Unfortunatly I've got a limited expertise and on a lot of subjects I doubt if I have talent be truly convincing but I'll sure try.

I agree that there has to be responses out there and they need to be tested, debated, and pushed or they won't stand up next year when it matters. That why I asked you if you had any imput as well. Because I've noticed that not that many people will start debating and testing when I do adress liabilaties.

So if you're interested; name a subject and I'll take my best shot at it.

by Ernst 2007-06-20 01:01AM | 0 recs
Thanks

I appreciate your willingness to address this openly.

I want to know how do we (or more accurately Clinton supporters) address four things relating to Hillary as nominee:

1. The dynasty feel of 16 years of two family rule in the White House.

2. Hillary's very high and solid negatives. As a second part of this, the well established narratives by the right that have been time tested and well honed and are well established in the social lexicon.

3. Hillary's Iraq war vote and her lack of willingness to address her support of it directly.

4. Hillary's negative coat tails affecting down ticket Democrats, especially in purple or red states where a Hillary nominee would energize Conservative opposition.

by michael in chicago 2007-06-20 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm really sick of this kind of comment

yes, i'll be the first to admit that the dominant frame about hillary clinton is right wing.  so we should just ignore that?  and of course what i am interested in is what (and how) voters think.  i may be arrogant but i am not so arrogant as to presume that voters are going to think like me!  it's important to talk to voters in the language they understand.

this diary was in response to one of george's comments.  but it goes along with what i am doing right now: trying to lay out the case against hillary and why democrats should be weary of her.  in doing so, i definitely am interested in a.) what voters think, and b.) how republicans react.  again, i see way too many analogies to what democrats did in 2004 here; shouldn't we have learned from that experience?

while i haven't read your diary about hillarycare or how you would address her negatives, i still doubt that it corresponds to what i am talking about, because i am talking about voters, how they think, and why it puts us at a disadavantage if hillary is the nominee.  you don't seem to be interested in how voters think...

by bored now 2007-06-19 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm really sick of this kind of comment

I've always been a commenter not diarist. but due to michael in chicago's stern talking to I've reformed.

But yes, It would be sheer folly to ignore it, and it would be rank idiocy to think that voter will think like me. But you seem to confuse a discussion on MyDD with a discussion with a discussion with voters. I'm not limited to just have an interest in how voters think, I've also got an interest on how my current favorite candidate is discussed on this site. Just because I sometimes let the one trump the other doesn't mean my interest are limited, it simply means I'm not as good as multi-tasking as I'd like.

by Ernst 2007-06-20 01:18AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm really sick of this kind of comment

Getting beat up is part of blogging I think. I didn't mean to make it personal. Appologies if I crossed that line.

If you've got good ideas you find yourself repeating, it is worth it to put them in a post rather than the comments of another diary. Comments often get lost and not every reads them, let alone all of them. Nothing will refine your thinking or your talking points quicker than getting the immediate feedback you will get on a diary.

by michael in chicago 2007-06-20 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Record of Failure

Hillary will be different from Bush. Let's not exagerrate. Any DEm leader will be a vast improvement over Bush at this point.

But she will harm the Democratic Party in the long term by denying another fresh cadre of potential leaders a chance at power. We will be stuck with the same Clintonites for anther half generation.  Her type of people don't care about mobilizing other leaders in the party. She is about her legacy and nothing else. She will not spring to the defense of fellow democrats with the same vigor as a Wes Clark or Dean. She will have her fan boys and fan girls. She will also reinforce along with the Bush family a third world attitude of looking at the same old power families for a new leader.

by Pravin 2007-06-19 06:05AM | 0 recs
Hillary's Record

Well this diary certainly provided me with a good morning laugh!

"Hillary's Record of Failure" - hilarious!

By the way, I'm with Maya Angelou and so many other stalwart and respected Americans.  I guess they endorse Hillary because she's a failure huh?

Do your homework.  

by samueldem 2007-06-19 06:41AM | 0 recs
cut the echo chamber bullshit

"Q: I think Hillary can't win.

A: Gray establishment eminences have endorsed Hillary, they're smarter than you! Aren't you paying attention to what smarter people than you are saying?! Fall into line, damn you!"

Hillary's biggest "accomplishment," with Bill's help was incinerating a 40-year Democratic lock on Congress. The problem with Hillary's negatives isn't that she took lots of shit from the VRWC.

It's that she took a whole lot of shit, splashed most of it on the Democratic brand, and won absolutely nothing in return.

Just a lot of "Well, it's not my fault if your business is undercapitalized." A midterm meltdown. The Clintons destroyed so much of the Democratic Party that they were able to hijack the tattered remnant.

by jforshaw 2007-06-19 07:53AM | 0 recs
Re: cut the echo chamber bullshit

How much do you know about the democratic party in the 1980's and early '90? because for blaming the Clintons like this you really have to overlook a lot other very appearent factors.

the democratic party's problems started long before the Clintons, and while I agree Bill could have done more to reverse the tide sooner he was niether the cause nor is Hillary the result of it.

by Ernst 2007-06-19 08:13AM | 0 recs
oh, i'm aware

there was a lot of Rostenkowski and assorted corruption to go around. But Billary made it a hell of a lot worse.

by jforshaw 2007-06-19 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Record

Exactly!  the corporate media is anti-Progressive and promotes Centri$t and Conservative ideologies. Anything else is deemed "far left", "socialism" and "appeasement" - oh and grounds for bashing a rich candidate advocating for the working poor.

The media's propaganda has been successful and the public is now firmly convinced that Canadian drugs are "harmful" and medical malpractice lawyers are the reasons for high insurance premiums - ensuring the public will vote against their own best interests - once again.

With all the corporate and corporate media millions flowing her way and the media already crowning her as "presidential", Hillary's donors are obviously convinced she will continue the rightist agenda.

by annefrank 2007-06-19 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Record

"It is not her legislative record I don't agree with, but the type of people the Clintons are.  I think I would have respected Hillary more if she would have thrown Bill Clinton out of her life.'

What have these high and mighty progressives ever done for America? And how many have done it from the White House? Because i can give you a whole list of things the Clinton's have done as well as those "evil" centrists.

by world dictator 2007-06-19 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Record of Failure

Seriously?

the fact that their pet got run over tragically, something they had no control over makes them bad people?

How's does that work?

Btw, Chelsea is probably one of the more accomplished and stable children of a president out there, bad example or not, they raised her just fine I think.

by Ernst 2007-06-19 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Record of Failure

In 1994 Hillary sold us out and buckled to the powerful Insurance and Pharmaceutical industries who threatened to withhold contributions to congress critters. Her arrogance and management style have been cited as major reasons for a failure to obtain a healthcare plan. This is more obfuscation - cause the idea of a healthcare plan was more egregious to corporations and congress critters (losing donors) than Hillary's bitchy personality - blamed for healthcare's defeat.
So - now that Hillary has been properly trained and "learned" how to "cross the aisle" and compromise with Congress and Corporations - and is raking in lots of moolah from corporate donors - the corporate media is fusing her with a national healthcare plan - although she hasn't released one - but "promises" it in 10 years!
She's also "learned" that being a part of the DC corporatist elite is the preferred media model for successful candidates - including keeping our troops in Iraq for 10 more years and keeping her mouth shut about the "rule of law" pertaining to Republican criminals.

Hillary will buckle again on healthcare by producing the rightwing's corporate version of healthcare for all.
There is only one candidate with a healthcare plan for The People - and I'm supporting the plaintiffs' attorney - a Progressive and DC outsider.

by annefrank 2007-06-19 08:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Record of Failure

Simple question. How did the Clinton's sell us out on Universal Healthcare? Because I thought the $100 million dollars the insurance industry spent lobbying congress was the reason it got shelved. I also thought universal healthcare was one of the biggest defeats in the clinton adminstration.

by world dictator 2007-06-19 10:38AM | 0 recs
She has my support.

Go Hillary.  Ignore the haterzzzzzzzzz.....

by sterkt 2007-06-19 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Record of Failure

Interesting diary.

First off, I have posted, Hillary has no excuse, along with every other politician who voted for that war, that she was hoodwinked.  She and Edwards failed to read the NIE Report.  Former Senator Bob Graham, Florida, told his caucus colleagues to READ THE REPORT, which made his conclusion to vote no.  He stated the argument was not made.  She and others got caught up with the tone at the time.  "If you don't vote for this, not patriotic enough."  She and others got swept up with the theatrics of Colin Powell at the UN with Tenet behind him, aruguing the case to go to war.  She and others got blindsided by Bush's rhetoric of the "mushroom clouds", remember the pictures?  And she and others relied on briefings from the White House as being valid.  Her fault and others is a minor fault of "not reading", and a fault of making a "bad decision".

I am past Hillary not apologizing.  She won't.  If she did, it would mean nothing now.  But everyone must be realistic here.  Troops are not coming home when the POTUS is sworn in January, 2009, THAT DAY.  It won't happen.  Listen to this audio from Wesley Clark on Ed Schultz's show yesterday, it speaks volumes.  The war is not going to end in this administration or no time soon in the next administration.  And if we continue, militarily, we will have no option but a draft.  Why?  We don't have enough personel to support most of this, that is why.  This will be resolved by policy and diplomacy.

Hillary learned a lot from her health care debacle.  First off, she never should have been appointed to this position, by her husband.  They learned the hardway that the President and First Lady, have two DIFFERENT roles to the American public.  And she learned that she must WORK with people to accomplish anything.  Her initial attitude, "my way or the highway" did not go over well with sitting senators.  And justly, her heathcare was trashed.  Unfortunately, this is an image many "still" remember her by.  The Tammy Wynette "Stand by Your Man", not "baking any cookies, staying at home with kids", etc.  She learned.

I think she is an accomplished woman, on her own, but would not be in this position if she was not married to a former president, period.  If she is the candidate, I will support, but hopefully NOT.  

by icebergslim 2007-06-19 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Record of Failure

I don't believe Hillary was hoodwinked about Iraq. Everyone knew Saddam was not a real or imminent threat to the US. What was he going to do? Invade America? Launch nukes at the US? Even if he had had WMD he wouldn't have used them because of fear of retaliation.

No, Hillary voted for the use of military force and supported the invasion and occupation out of political expediency and bad judgment. She thought it would be an easy victory and wanted to be on the winning side and look tough on national security issues. And once in she didn't want to flipflop.

As for apologizing, I don't care either. The polls and establishment consultants (last I saw) say that the majority of Americans don't think Hillary should have to apologize for her vote, so what do people expect from her? Sure Edwards did apologize, but Tim Russert took him to the woodshed for it. (That MTP interview was ugly if anyone still remembers). Even if Hillary did apologize it would just be a phony apology at this point.

So I agree there's no excuse. She just went along with the establishment opinion and that's what she'll do again if elected. If DLC and Dem establishment could be trusted to get things right then so could Hillary, but as it is neither of them can.

Other than national security related issues she does have a very good (progressive) voting record by Washington standards though...

by End game 2007-06-19 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Record of Failure

I guess the time to be upset about all these anti-Hillary diaries will be when I come here and there aren't any- it'll mean she's no longer the frontrunner and the desperation to dethrone her by the most petty of means is no longer there.

by reasonwarrior 2007-06-19 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Record of Failure

I read diaries like this and wonder how the Hillary supporters got tagged as the low info/low education voters. Gees, this diary is almost as bad as the ones about her song choice. Her song choice for God's sake.  Were you all really waiting with bated breath for her song choice?

by Kingstongirl 2007-06-19 01:36PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads