"You are lying" and "Clinton is too hawkish"...

Cross posted at Daily Kos and Clintonistas for Obama

This is merely my opinion regarding Clinton as SOS and therefore I cannot speak for everyone who did not support her in the primary (I did not support her, I was first an Edwards supporter then moved to Obama rather quickly despite some of my reservations).  From some comments (by others) in various threads there are some very interesting themes emerging.

One... many at Daily Kos "hated" Clinton, so that anyone that now supports her appointment as SOS was lying then or lying now.  

Secondly... Clinton is so damn hawkish because of her support and vote for the war she is completely unfit to serve in Obama's administration.

So, here I must refute these ideas...

Clinton fought hard during the primary and said some things that really pissed me off, just as many here were pissed.  Some chose to express that anger in ways that might not seem as productive as other means but things were said during the primary, we all know that.

But when Clinton conceded and endorsed Obama, I was a bit shocked.  I did believe she might keep fighting until the convention and even challenge his nomination at the roll call.  But as history now shows us, Clinton not only endorsed Obama, she campaigned for him and urged her supporters to vote for him.

How much clearer could she have been, No McCain, no way, no how?  She was very clear that McCain was not an alternative to Obama and by Republicans picking Sarah Palin as the VP choice (Sure, we all know McCain did not get his way) they gave Clinton an even bigger bat to hit that point home ; McCain/Palin were not an alternative to Clinton either.  

I teared up when Clinton stopped the roll call and spoke those words that ended it as clearly as anyone could have, she will forever have a huge part in history for many different reasons and I think one of the most important was the grit and class she showed after she had lost the primary.  It turned my head and it gave me the ability to forgive and forget.  Yes, it can happen in politics as well, some things are just not worth hanging on to.

Is it possible that I might be the only one whose opinion of Clinton was drastically changed?  I highly doubt it and I'm hoping that is the case, that many allowed themselves to be won over by her ardent support of Obama and her ability to be a "team player".

Obama is also playing the game and he has given her a great opportunity to be a tremendous Secretary of State to put forth HIS agenda on Foreign Policy not her own.  That's where her perceived hawkishness is irrelevant to me, ultimately Clinton was chosen for her standing in the international community and relationships between world leaders that already exist.  It is also a nod to her competency as a Senator and an opponent.  It was a brilliant move by Obama in my opinion and a deserving position for Clinton as well, in my opinion.

But do you really think that Clinton would have enough sway over Obama to start another useless and illegal war?  Really?

I know many here admired the fact that Obama stood up and spoke out against the Iraq war when it was not the politically expedient thing to do. I was also one of the many who never supported this war and I still feel betrayed by all that allowed themselves to be swayed by the bullshit meme put forth by the Bush Administration, either you are for us or against us.  Clinton is not politically un-savvy, she knew she had to support the war, at least in her mind and at the time it was what she felt was necessary.

Clinton also knew (yes, all supposition on my part, I admit it) that she could not fully repudiate her stance on the war, it would mean admitting she did not do her homework and that she was possibly like every other Democrat (according to the right wing) soft on national security, etc.  Clinton was in it to win and she made a calculated decision (just as John Edwards did, by the way, but he had nothing to lose in saying he was sorry, I wonder even now if he ever meant to see it through Super Tuesday).

Obama has proven that you can be for America and be against stupid wars.   He's held his own in showing that inexperience doesn't mean dumb and that his intellect far outweighs the experience of the many people who supported this war in the first place.   Clinton in his Cabinet will not overpower Obama nor will her "hawkishness". Obama will not allow that to be the driving force of his Foreign Policy.

It is possible for former Clinton skeptics to support her appointment as Secretary of State without it meaning that we all lied just a few months ago.  And by her full throated support of Obama during the general election she's also proven that his agenda can be her agenda if it means improving our standing in the world and helping America be a better place for all of us.

Just call me a pragmatic optimist, I would much rather give people the benefit of the doubt and hope for the best once Obama is sworn in rather than mope about something that is completely out of my control in the first place.  (Yes, the left has every right to speak out against the perceived move to the center, which is still more left than McCain would have ever been if he had won).

Tags: Barack Obama, cabinet, Hawkishness, Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, SOS (all tags)



Good diary

I can't wait for Jan. 20 when we have actual decisions to criticize or praise rather than this all this dumb appointment handwringing.

by JJE 2008-12-02 05:09PM | 0 recs

I want to hold my wrath (or my praise) until President Obama is actually in office and makes his move on Iraq, the Employee Free Choice Act, universal health care, ENDA, a DOMA repeal, and a climate action plan. ;-)

by atdleft 2008-12-02 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Good diary

Thank you.  It's getting old, he's elected, lets wait until he's sworn in and actually has a chance to do something before we start the useless hysterics.

I think the guy deserves a chance at least and I think he chose wisely with Clinton.

by Ellinorianne 2008-12-02 06:09PM | 0 recs
Not one anti-war voice!

What a hypocrite - you are all so accepting now but where were you all during the primaries? Had he took this stance or told you the names of his present appointees, he would not have gotten your votes! Where are your principles? If she was unacceptable as our nominee how can be she be acceptable as our SOS and this is from someone who wrote in her name on my ballot?

See www.counterpunch.com article on "Obama's kettle of hawks" by Jeremy Scahill

Obama's starry-eyed defenders have tried to downplay the importance of his cabinet selections, saying Obama will call the shots, but the ruling elite in this country see it for what it is. Karl Rove, "Bush's Brain", called Obama's cabinet selections, "reassuring", which itself is disconcerting, but neoconservative leader and former McCain campaign staffer Max Boot summed it up best. "I am gobsmacked by these appointments, most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain," Boot wrote. The appointment of General Jones and the retention of Gates at defence "all but puts an end to the 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, the unconditional summits with dictators and other foolishness that once emanated from the Obama campaign."


by suzieg 2008-12-02 07:53PM | 0 recs
Is this snark?

Serious question.

And if not, then please read my diary from yesterday on Obama's foreign policy. No one on his team is neoconservative, so there's NO WAY his foreign policy will be anything like Bush's. Even his most conservative Cabinet members are as good (Gates) or better (Jones, everyone else) than the most liberal Bush Cabinet members..

by atdleft 2008-12-02 08:19PM | 0 recs
Of course Rove

is going to claim he's happy about the Obama appointments. The smarter Republicans have obviously decided to co-opt Obama's victory, rather than see it for the rejection it was.

Remember, this ia the same GOP who said Obama was left of Castro, a marxist terrorist socialist, and now they're all happy about his cabinet? Did they imagine a WH full of Naderites? McKinney as SecDef?

At best, that speaks to a woefully inadequate ability to judge character, at worst they were lying then and they're lying now. In either case, their opinion can reasonably be ignored. Watch this - these same republicans will find a way to claim that nationalized health care is some sort of conservative repudiation of liberal thought. They will spin it that way, and the TradMed will lap it up.

As far a HRC being good enough for SoS, but not good enough for nominee, what possible correlation do the two have? If a few hundred thousand more people had voted for her she would be our nominee, and this is coming from an Obama supporter. It's outright silly to pretend that small a margin disqualifies her for SoS.

by Neef 2008-12-02 08:28PM | 0 recs
Don't tell me what I would have done

you blithering idiot.

by JJE 2008-12-02 08:32PM | 0 recs

Neither of them is going to usher in a new golden age where everyone has cheap healthcare, the war in Iraq has ended, and gas is $1.50 a gallon.
one out of three ain't bad...

by semiquaver 2008-12-02 09:11PM | 0 recs

So, Obamaboyz and Hillshills, chill the fuck out and realize that no politician really gives a shit about you.  None of them will do half of what they say they will.  You're just choosing the lesser of several evils.  In fact, should either of them be elected, you'll probably be completely pissed at them by this time next year.

The candidacy of your preferred Democratic candidate is not a moral crusade.  It's not the civil rights struggle, nor is it women's suffrage.  It's just two cynical but reasonably decent politicians, either of whom will be significantly better for country than the douchebag that is John McCain.


You went ahead and made me cry.

by spacemanspiff 2008-12-03 08:21AM | 0 recs

HAHAHA!  You cried?  That's special, spaceshit.  Now add extra cheese to my order, and I want extra ketchup for my fries.  Oh, I'm in a hurry!  :)

by ChitownDenny 2008-12-03 11:27AM | 0 recs
by policechief 2008-12-03 11:31AM | 0 recs

Hey, sillyfuck, er spanishmosquito, er spacemanshit, complain about goldtoes (men's hosery, einstien!, otherwise referred to as socks).

by fireman 2008-12-03 11:35AM | 0 recs

Hey Chitown. You accidentally posted with your sockpuppet again.

by dtaylor3 2008-12-03 12:05PM | 0 recs

Accident?  Or moose repellant?

by ChitownDenny 2008-12-03 12:24PM | 0 recs
Ashley Todd is that you?

This is just ...

... sad (unhinged?).


Seek medical help Denny.

by spacemanspiff 2008-12-03 12:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Ashley Todd is that you?

Your response proves my point, you idiot! Your long-time contributions are fabulous!  EOM!

by ChitownDenny 2008-12-03 12:10PM | 0 recs
( yawn )

by spacemanspiff 2008-12-03 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: ( yawn )

If you and your sockpuppets are not happy with me take it somewhere else and out of this diary.

It's a great content filled piece and you're crapping all over it.


by spacemanspiff 2008-12-03 12:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Not one anti-war voice!

I don't understand why someone who wanted Hillary Clinton as the nominee would quote people who can't stand her.

What's the message here?  I could understand your pain and frustration if you're a Naderite, but you're not.  We tried to tell you that Obama was a centrist - just like Hillary - all along.

Anyway I didn't listen to the people at Counterpunch before or during the election, and I'm certainly not going to start listening to them now.  They're kneejerk contrarians.  And why Max Boot is supposed to have any credibility is beyond me.  That goes for anyone else on the who actually thought that Barack Obama was an Islamic Marxist and is shocked that he hasn't replaced the Presidential seal with a picture of Che Guevara.

Also, there's a difference between Secretary of State and President.  By the way.  Besides Barack Obama always said that he'd want to have Hillary Clinton as an advisor - even during the primaries.  It's not our fault that you weren't paying attention.

by Jess81 2008-12-02 09:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Not one anti-war voice!

another thing that was missed by some of his most defensive supports - Barack was always going to give something to everybody, he wasn't going to make any group of Americans 'wrong' or think he's better than any group, he's not like that. it's the empathy thing.  

He and Hillary like each other, he's a more reticent person, Bill is effusive, Hillary is in the middle, she's nice and she's trustworthy, what she says she means.  and she sticks to it, unless she's convinced otherwise.

She said she voted to get Saddam to understand that Bush (madly) meant it, and inspectors had to be allowed everywhere. That vote got Saddam's attention, he let in inspectors even in his private living quarters and he turned over his documents.  And he agreed to go into exile, but Bush didn't use the act and accept his win, he ignored the fact that he got what he wanted and bombed anyway. she said she underestimated his obsession.  

Barack isn't going to remove guns from hunters and those Americans who think they need arms to protect themselves, but he'll go for sane gun regulation. He picked Gates so that everyone would know the guy who is tasked with getting us out has been there, knows the scene, and will advise him about facts in the military, knows where are troops are, what they've been doing and by extension how to bring them out safely. He also has many other military advisors who can fact-check gates for him.

He's not going to push through the liberal agenda I'd like best because he thinks it would backfire, make his administration intractable enemies who will want to stop him from getting anything done. He's going to get the most fair and level headed government he can, and work to get stuff done. He isn't into being right, he's into being effective.  He won't make choices based on ideology, but on practicality and the knowledge that everyone needs to feel respected, even if he disagrees with their positions.

He's said that from the beginning too.

If you want to help him get a more liberal agenda, then do some grass roots and get a hunk of voters behind it.  Show him that voters do what that and that it won't be shoving something down their throats that they'll always feel pissy about.  So, whatever he does, he'll first let us know and let us debate it, and then when he reaches a decision, he'll explain, and his explanation will be respectful of differences.

by choosing Hillary he not only chose the most qualified and likely most effective person for the job, he gave something to me, he showed that the primary is truly over, and that he didn't mean exactly everything he'd said, as indeed she didn't mean exactly everything she said either.

This is the real get over it. But if you want to participate and not just get over it, do some community organizing.  

by anna shane 2008-12-03 05:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Not one anti-war voice!

Very well said!  Thank you!

by Mags 2008-12-03 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Not one anti-war voice!

Oh, and she wasn't unacceptable as the nominee - half of us just preferred someone else.

by Jess81 2008-12-02 09:23PM | 0 recs

because Rove is all about doing the right thing.  Did you every think that Rove is trying to undermine Obama by saying his picks are "reassuring".  When do progressives look to Rove to soothe their worries?  Please.

I would have still voted for him in the primary.

And you can actually want someone to hold a cabinet position and not be President.  I don't see them being the same and you are seriously oversimplifying things.

by Ellinorianne 2008-12-03 06:01AM | 0 recs

Great diary.

by Jess81 2008-12-02 06:48PM | 0 recs
On Lying

You're missing the point.  The the most qualified person to arm-twist a recalcitrant right-wing Israel to the bargaining table is the 'darling of AIPAC' and she'll rightly deserve a Nobel Prize for her trouble.  Ironic, well, yes.  Brilliant?  We'll see.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-12-02 07:08PM | 0 recs
the real issue

that's a very thoughtful post, but I do think it makes things more complicated than they are (or were).

bottom line is the differences between Obama and HRC were more of image than substance, and the rhetoric of 'haters' on both sides were overblown. their policy debates during the primaries were mostly over semantics, and for all the rhetoric of hawk vs dove etc, their policies toward Iran, Pakistan, and Iran are basically the same....and throw in virtually every other situation, too.

i think rather than forgiving HRC when she so warmly endorsed Obama or forgiving Obama now that he appointed HRC to SoS is to miss the point. Many -- myself included -- were very politically naive in taking political rhetoric and button pushing too literally, or in responding too emotionally.  there was never anything to hate in either (though each had/have their faults). i happen to think it worked out swimmingly: Obama's the right person to be president, and while I prefer HRC more on the domestic than the foreign policy front, she has the smarts, gravitas, and political moxie to be a very good SoS who is clearly in sync with Obama on policy.

Now I just wish they were in office already!

(though, to give credit, so far as I can tell, the Bush Admin is handing India-Pakistan as well as could be hoped)

by CalDem 2008-12-02 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: the real issue

Thank you, thank you. A voice of common sense in the wilderness!  Who knew?

by Denny Crane 2008-12-02 08:35PM | 0 recs
Re: the real issue

Hey Denny! Nice seeing you around.

by spacemanspiff 2008-12-03 08:16AM | 0 recs
Re: the real issue

You said a mouthful.

by Jess81 2008-12-02 09:25PM | 0 recs

"And by her full throated support of Obama during the general election..."

Maybe if you keep saying that enough times (and you probably believe it) maybe you can convince the rest of us, too.  

If you want us to get over the primaries and accept that Clinton is going to be SOS and move on from there, fine, I can do that.  But please don't try to sell me this crap.  Even John McCain joked about Hillary's tepid support at that roast dinner.  Calling off the roll call vote at the last minute is hardly full-throated.  And Bill's many bitter comments over the summer and even into the fall served the purpose of spreading an ambivalent message about the candidate that had beaten them.

Perhaps we both feel like we are talking to stone walls at this point.

by Dumbo 2008-12-02 09:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeez...

I question whether any candidate in history has gotten as much support from a narrowly defeated primary candidate, particularly so soon after conceding the nomination.  But as you demonstrate, there are still a tiny minority who can't put the primary behind them and accept reality.  Haters will hate.

Just because you, yourself, did everything in your power to ensure that Clinton supporters would never want to vote for Obama, don't pretend like Hillary did the same.  "Even John McCain joked about it."  Now there's evidence, my friends!

by Steve M 2008-12-03 03:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Jeez...

take off the O in your name.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-12-03 04:46AM | 0 recs
Open Left user FuzzyDunlop said it best

http://www.openleft.com/showComment.do?c ommentId=73792

Its also worth keeping in mind  (4.00 / 12)
that no candidate with a position nearly as strong as hers (and many with positions much weaker) has not taken the fight to the convention.  I don't expect Clinton to do that, nor do I think she should.  But people need a reality check.  If she ends up dropping out and not bringing the fight to Denver, that will be a move that is historically unprecedented.  If anything, she should be lauded for not prolonging the fight, as all her forebearers in similar positions have, rather than being skewered at every opportunity for not dropping out sooner or for using her leverage to win some concessions.

by desmoinesdem 2008-12-03 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: You are lying and Clinton is too hawkish

Then again, many of us knew all along that Obama and Clinton are not that different. Being perceived as the "anti-war" candidate was great for the Obama campaign, but that image won't serve him nearly as well when he's President. And being perceived as "tough" was important to Clinton as the first female presidential candidate, but she's no more hawkish than most of her colleagues (and a heck of a lot less hawkish than our dear Senator DiFi).

Obama and Clinton are politicians, and politics makes strange bedfellows. They both played the game to win, and now it's time to set aside the exaggerated differences and go about the hard work of governing. Obama apparently trusts Clinton, and vice versa. Now it's time for the rest of us to learn from their example and trust that both of them will do what's best for our country.

by LakersFan 2008-12-02 09:54PM | 0 recs
Re: You are lying and Clinton is too hawkish

I agree and I had no reservations about supporting Clinton if she had been the nominee with the same gusto as I did Obama, that was never a question for me.

by Ellinorianne 2008-12-03 06:09AM | 0 recs
Re: You are lying and Clinton is too hawkish

That's basically what we should expect from all Democrats. That's why I tend to be very suspicious about "supporters" of any Democrat who refuse to accept that we're all on the same team.

by LakersFan 2008-12-03 08:22AM | 0 recs
Revisionist History Kossack Style

I never cared much for Hillary Clinton but anybody who claims she wasn't demonized over at Kos during primary season is indeed lying, or not a bona-fide member of their ironically named  "reality-based community." The vitrol directed at Clinton supporters was enough to send many away to the bullying by typical smug Kossacks. A random perusal of the site will show this.

But the phony pwogs who make up the core of the "liberal" blogosphere now bend over for the right and use their memes like "radical left" and "far left" to demean the actual liberals. But then, the biggest pushers of this centrism tends to be former Republicans turned Democrat like Kos or Huffington...funny dat.

by cad 2008-12-02 10:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Revisionist History Kossack Style

Yeah, it was a bitterly fought contest.

by Jess81 2008-12-02 10:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Revisionist History Kossack Style

it really was quite amazing to see self-professed progressives out wingnut the wingnuts when it came to hating on Hillary.

by Todd Beeton 2008-12-03 12:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Revisionist History Kossack Style

Only if they thought Clinton was progressive. However, it appears some progressives don't think that and don't think Obama is very progressive either and they're going after him now.

by LiberalDebunker 2008-12-03 05:52AM | 0 recs
Both candidates were demonized

Hillary was evil at Dkos and TPM, Obama was evil here (and at TalkLeft, TaylorMarsh, Hillis44, No25cents, etc.).

It was a tough, polarizing campaign, stuff like that is going to happen.

by Neef 2008-12-03 02:40AM | 0 recs

by LiberalDebunker 2008-12-03 05:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Revisionist History Kossack Style

I stopped posting there about the primary and concentrated on my husband's campaign.  It saved me from having to go through that and I really didn't think demonizing either candidate was going to be the best route to the nomination.

I lost people online because I moved to Obama, really?  It was just silly and I hope we can all move past this.

But I never thought Obama was "liberal" or progressive as much as others wanted him to be.  So now that he is being exactly who he is, EXACTLY WHO HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO BE, they are having fits over his appointments.  

But what they fail to admit or realize is that Obama is still moving everything to the left as compared to what we've had in the last eight years and to me it's progress.

Progress not perfection, Obama gets that too and he understands how averse to change the American people can be even though he won't on "change", it was more like, just a little change at a time.

by Ellinorianne 2008-12-03 06:12AM | 0 recs
It was a Primary War

Please, let's stop the crying over who was treated worse and where.

And mind you, many Hillary sites, like The Effluent, Hillaryis404, and NoKKKwarter were also founded by Republicans*.

All that tells me is that Republicans turned Democrats like to start web sites.

I can't speak much about Markos, other than he was, well, right. That's why he is writing for Newspapers and appearing on television and we're just writing comments.

by iohs2008 2008-12-03 08:10AM | 0 recs
Markos was right?

Exactly how? He didn't jump onto Team Obama until it was safe for his sports-pick sensibility.

Markos has been proven more wrong than right. And he's one of the least insightful political bloggers out there. I haven't seen much of him in Newsweek lately. I guess one Rove was enough? Plus, Kos' inner Republican is still very much alive as he rails against actual elected progressive Democrats like Kucinich -- why? And he fosters all sorts of division at the site as in the primaries. He's a shit stirrer and a bully. Ugh.

by cad 2008-12-03 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Revisionist History MyDD Style

Talk about revisionist history.

Yeah I remember Alegre's temper tantrum strike over on KOS. I also remember countless shill diaries living on the rec list here. I got banned from talkleft for having the temerity to point out what a cesspool Armando and Jeralyn were allowing to fester by tolerating all the anti-Obama nonsence and running off all their Pro-Obama readers.

The biggest break between the Obama camp and the Clinton camp in the primaries was that the Obama side could do basic arithmatic.

For the record it never bothered me that Clinton didn't conceed. What bothered me was that she tried to delegitimize the democratic nominating process which she and her husband were instrumental in devising to begin with. That she wanted the rules to be changed midgame when it became obvious to anyone with half a brain that she had no chance otherwise.

What amazed me about the Clinton "supporters" was how often they could go off about kool aid drinking Obamabots and not see the log sticking out of their eyeballs. That they couldn't see the irony of that while Obama was saying "we we we" Hillary was saying "me me me" and they were bussy screaming "she she she".

That they could pretend that somehow Obama would get destroyed in a general election but Clinton would somehow get a magical free ride from the people who impeached her husband for a blow job?

That they could with no shame claim that it was wrong to disenfranchise voters in Florida and Michigan where Clinton agreed to disenfranchise them back when Obama wasn't considered a serious contender, But perfectly OK to disenfranchise the millions who voted for him in legitimate primaries by asking the "Super Delegates" to over turn our choice.

Clinton wold have been a fine candidate and you'd have a hard time passing a hair between them on policy differences. There voting records in the Senate for the time they were both in are damned near identical they were co-sponsors of each others bills in most cases.

But Obama is, was and will always be the superior politician and when it comes to winning the presidency the best bet will always be on the better politician.

I saw that early and that's why I supported him over her. That and her ties to the DLC which I've always viewed as the defeatist wing of the party.

I'll admit I have reservations about Clinton at State and keeping Gates on at Defense. But one thing Obama demostrated to me conclusively in this campaign is that he's sharp as a tack and doesn't take these decisions lightly. And everytime I thought he made a mistake I later looked back and said "yep he did the right thing".

You gotta get elected first to get anything done and while my sympathies will always live with the Gravel's and Kuciniches of the world it'll be the Obama's and LBJ's who make things happen (Yeah I think of Obama as more of an LBJ than a JFK).

by Skex 2008-12-03 10:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Revisionist History MyDD Style

Way to go on fighting those primary wars!!! Most people have long forgotten all of the stupid things said and done during the primaries. Not only is the primary over, the Democrat already won the GE. What do you, Obama, the Democratic party, or the country stand to gain by endlessly rehashing these points?

And by the way, not being able to discuss someone named Clinton without mentioning "blow job", is a symptom usually associated with chronic CDS.

by LakersFan 2008-12-03 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Revisionist History MyDD Style

This diary and the entire contents of the comments section is nothing more than a rahash of the primary fight.

I fail to see how pointing out that thinking that people who were petty enough to impeach a president over something as inconsequencial as a consensual sexual affair would hardly give Hillary a free ride is in any way indicative of CDS.

If Hillary had won instead of secret muslim conspiracy nonsense it would have been wall to wall Vince Foster, TravelGate and Monica. That's just reality

My point was that many people pretended that stuff like that wouldn't come up. That somehow Obama was more vulnerable than Clinton was as if she wouldn't have been named the most liberal senator if she'd have won the nomination.

That somehow the Republican attack machine would be any less brutal towards Clinton this nonsense that she had been more thuroughly vetted which was nothing more than the fact that her baggage was already researched.

That sort of crap goes with the territory as a progressive and a democrat pretending otherwise was naive.

But all that was simply normal acceptable politics, Even her tacit endorsement of McCain over Obama was just the usual campaign rhetoric.

That's expected. It was her and her supporters attempts to undermine the democratic nominating process which earned my ire and contempt. And that is something I do not as easily forget or forgive as the normal nonsence spewed on the campaign trail.

by Skex 2008-12-03 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Revisionist History MyDD Style

I thought your CDS was chronic, but now you're showing symptoms of the acute phase of the disease. Good luck with that.

by LakersFan 2008-12-03 12:27PM | 0 recs
I agree.

The Koolaide did that to them.

by KnoxVow 2008-12-03 04:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Revisionist History MyDD Style

Translation: You can't actually argue on the merits so you're just tossing out outlandish crap.

Most of the Clinton bagage was nonsence, The GOP spent 40 million dollars investigating them and the worse they could come up with was an affair.

But to pretend that it and all the other garbage wasn't going to come up was simply stupid and accusing people who pointed that reality out of CDS is equally stupid.

Had the situation been reversed during the primary and Clinton been winning in March and had mathmatically eliminated Obama I would have been just as irritated at him for attacking the process.

Because attacking a candidate is one thing attempting to deligitimize their victory was something else all together. And that is what the Clinton camp did.

Now don't get me wrong I had other policy issues with her that made Obama my prefered choice in this race. But I've spent plenty of my life defending both Clintons from baseless attacks and would have done so again happily had she actually won the nomination.

But she didn't and the fact that she wasn't going to was obvious to anyone who could do some basic arithmatic that she wasn't going to be able to after the Texas Primary.

Yes in the end we won anyway inspite of many of the commentors and diarist who tried to undermine the cause here and on other supposedly progressive sites.

But that does not mean that you get to just rewrite the history of what happened in the primary to make Clinton die hards look better.

I've backed far more losing candidates than winning candidates in my lifeso I know what it means to be on the losing side of a fight.

But ignoring the reality isn't going to help going forward.

Obama won, he won because he was the better candidate who ran the better campaign than all his competitors he won because he motivated enough people to get out and vote who normally sit on their ass and let history pass them by. He won because millions of people chipped in their hard earned money because their desperation for a better path out overwhelmed the desire for consumer goods.
He won because thousands of people got on the phones and out on the streets to fire people up.

He did not win because of the economy cratering he did not win because McCain ran a terible campaign. It wasn't luck it wasn't chance, and it wasn't destiny.

He won because he had the skill to make all the things happen that needed to happen. Which is why people like me supported him in the first place. Because we could see that and you couldn't. Not because we had drank any kool-aid or hated Clinton.

And all this nonsense about kool-aid drinking and cults of personality is nothing more than projection.

by Skex 2008-12-04 03:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Revisionist History MyDD Style

Let it go already. Obama's the President-elect, and Clinton is going to be the SoS. If you think he's great, then trust him already. If you don't trust him, don't use Republican talking points as your arguments. As a person who supported Clinton during the primaries, I could spend my time fixating on the less-than-fabulous and gossipy items from the primaries, but that would serve no purpose because I'm a Democrat and I want Obama to succeed (plus, I don't suffer from ODS). Unless you are trying to undermine the Democratic party and the incoming administration, there is nothing to be accomplished with your continued fixation on the irrelevant.

by LakersFan 2008-12-04 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Revisionist History MyDD Style

Oh yeah and it's fault of us Obama supporters that the primary wars are continuing when we respond to some nonsence posted by a Clinton supporter who hasn't gotten over the fact that their candidate didn't win.

by Skex 2008-12-03 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Revisionist History Kossack Style

see this comment rocks.  yet you mojoed a really really crappy comment upthread.  strange indeed.

by canadian gal 2008-12-03 04:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Revisionist History Kossack Style

this comment rocks as well canadian gal.But you gave mojo to spaceman shit upthread. strange indeed.

by KnoxVow 2008-12-03 04:30PM | 0 recs
not really.

not sure if you haven't been around for a while, but its warranted i assure you.

by canadian gal 2008-12-03 04:36PM | 0 recs
Re: not really.

giving mojo to spacemanshit???That is never warranted.You are acting trollish when you do that.

by KnoxVow 2008-12-03 04:44PM | 0 recs
Clinton is a monster

Clinton will say and do anything.

Clinton only cares about politics.

We don't want to go back to the 90s again.

We don't need all the "issues" and "distractions" the Clintons will bring.

.... As a Clinton support I am lovin' it.   She gets the prime slot.   Hey John Kerry, you couldn't deliver MA and you got totally faced by Obama.   Richardson ... you got hosed too.

by RichardFlatts 2008-12-03 10:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton is a monster

Meanwhile die hard Obamamaniacs are left to explain it all away and convince themselves why it is all well and good.


I love politics.  

by RichardFlatts 2008-12-03 10:18AM | 0 recs
This is good

Great, in fact.

You're happy.

Karl Rove is happy.

Obama is President.

It's like a win-win-win-lol.

The lol is because Karl isn't really happy.

by Neef 2008-12-03 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: This is good

I'm just saying it is entertaining.

People were forced to turn their opinions on a dime.

She is, for instance, either a "monster" or she is not.  If she is and you embrace her anyway because she is Obama's pick you are a sellout.   If she isn't and you were pushing that anyway you are even worse.   Because you were pushing politics as usual attack BS during the campaign, AND you are selling out now.

Its fun to watch.

The chick from Salon who come on Hardball regulary has been very entertaining.   Practically in tears a couple of weeks ago at the mere thought of Clinton at State, now she is defending it for Obama.   Thats good tv.

by RichardFlatts 2008-12-04 07:24AM | 0 recs
"you are a sellout"?

Come on, of all the political commentary this season, the "pointing out hypocrisy" brand is the very worst sort. It assumes a consistency of behavior and emotion that is completely at odds with being human. It's inherently disingenuous, we ALL understand that you can believe someone is an asshole on Monday, and then be happy with them on Tuesday.

One might say emotional consistency is the hobgoblin of small arguments.

Here's a thought...maybe Joan Walsh got over it. Whoa. Maybe she got drunk one night and made crank calls to her Clintonite friends, maudlin calls to her fellow Obamanauts, and woke the the next day with a hangover and a new respect for HRC. With people, that happens. Implying it's "hypocrisy" isn't analysis, its laziness at best.

by Neef 2008-12-04 08:50AM | 0 recs
the irony....

is that joan walsh was one of the few commentators that was actually fair and balanced.

by canadian gal 2008-12-04 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: This is good

Joan Walsh was a Clinton supporter, you dimwit.

by Jess81 2008-12-04 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton is a monster

That's quite an active inner life you have.

by Jess81 2008-12-03 07:13PM | 0 recs
Hillary was a Republican when it was not cool. Hillary always has known the threats facing this country and has not placated to the left. That is why she got up a and cheered the success of our troops at the state of the union while Obama sat on his hands. I personally have been both a Reagan and a Clinton Democrat.
The fact that Hillary,Reagan and myself have been both Republican and Democrat makes me think that she will be pragmatic and a realist concerning the threats this country faces.
by KnoxVow 2008-12-03 02:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes.

There is no such thing as a Reagan Democrat. Most of those people have been staunch Republicans for 28 years its time to call them what they are. Republicans.

I too have been on both sides of the ideological devide. I was a rabit right wing libertarian in my youth but became a left liberal as I got older and actually saw what a failure Conservative policies and ideas are.

Hillary followed a similar path being raised republican but coming to her senses when she became mature enough to see the world for what it was.

She is not a right wing democrats she's no blue dog either. She's a yellow dog dem who made some calculated decisions regarding foriegn policy that she thought would bolster her electoral chances.

She bet wrong on the Iraq war then she repeated the mistake with the Iran bill. and that more than any other reason was why she lost the primary.

She allied herself with her husbands inner political circle and was not well served by them.

I've always considered Hillary to the left of Bill. And thought that could she divorce herself from the DLC crowd she'd have been a hell of a politician. But she didn't and she isn't.

This is part of why I'm ok with the SOS position. She'll be able to get out of campaign mode and away from the triangulating DLC twits who have served her so poorly.

So while she may not be a great politician she may yet be able to be remembered as a great public servant.

by Skex 2008-12-04 05:40AM | 0 recs
The best thing about Obama's speech

Is how he said Hussein would just dissappear into the dustbin of history if we did nothing at all.

by iDemocrat 2008-12-03 11:37PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads