Its fair to argue that the Bosnia thing was blown out of proportion in terms of importance (like flag pins and former Weathermen, it doesn't need a debate question).
However, there does seem to be a difference in kind between a silly but grounded-in-fact issue and a wholly unsubstantiated smear. I can handle people bringing up Rezko - at least we can have a serious discussion with facts about whether there was/was not a conflict even though I personally think its a Whitewater-esque non-starter. I cannot stomach stuff like "the bird" or "Obama is secretly muslim" etc. Its just as insulting as if someone posted a "Hillary had Vince Foster Killed" diary.
I posted this above in a reply but no one bit, so I'll give it one more try...
I would argue that I have not seen any significant equivalent to these sort of smears coming from Obama supporters. I define significant as (1) directly connected to e-mails/posts/etc from campaign supporters (2) being a recommended diary on a major liberal blog and/or (3) making it into the traditional media world.
If someone could share some (cited) examples of Obama supporters pressing diaries/smears of this caliber, I'd be willing to admit I'm wrong on this point...
I think Todd's sentiments would apply to Hillary as well. I imagine he posted it as such because (1) Obama is more likely to win the primary than Hillary and (2) there has been an intense focus on this site as of late over the bird "issue".
That said, while I think we should be concerned about this stuff for both parties (Hillary and Bill got some brutal smear whisper campaigns in the 90s), I find it bubbling from within the liberal blogs to be disturbing and depressing.
Finally, I would argue that I have not seen any significant equivalents coming from the Obama camp. I define significant as (1) directly connected to e-mails/posts/etc from campaign supporters (2) being a recommended diary and/or (3) making into the traditional media world.
If someone could share some (cited) examples, I'd be willing to admit I'm wrong on this point....
And note that Jerome has not come out and said whether or not he thinks the debate moderation was appropriate. And I say that not from a "poor Obama" perspective, but from a "poor America" perspective since we were treated to gossipy BS that passes as politics to the elite press. Heck, Clinton supporters should be likewise pissed since she clearly kicks Obama around a bit when she actually gets to discuss, you know, the issues.
Hillary is going to win PA by 5-10. Obama will win NC by 15-20. Hillary will win Indiana by 5-15 (its very variable). That said, the delegate totals are going to stay basically the same and the superdelegates aren't heading en masse to Hillary, but rather, seem to still be trickling over to Obama. In fact, it seems like a lot of them are getting pissed off at Hillary attacking the Democratic brand writ large.
At the end of the day, the only question is what Hillary will do after these last few primaries and she is still behind in most (if not all) types of vote counts.
First, you still haven't answer my question: if I said "Hillary's remarks about X are lies," have I called Hillary herself a liar?
Second, and more importantly, my precise point was a response to the original post (quoted fully below). I don't care whether "that's politics" or not - thats a separate argument. What I object to is claiming that she never labled Obama as an elitist. Whether you say "his remarks are elitist" or "he is an elitist" is irrelevant - either way she is saying I MYSELF belief Obama is an elitist. People hiding behind "other people will say" or "republicans will say" is what offends me because its simply not correct. She professed her individual belief that he is elitist.
We can debate the merits of whether its "fair" for her to say it, but one must at least admit she actually said it.
Senator Clinton wasn't maligning anyone, she was stating the obvious. That the republican machine and the media were successful at labeling Kerry and Gore as elitist and out of touch with the average american. She wasn't saying they were. And Obama will be easily labeled this way as well. The Clintons know hot to combat this and will be able to win in November.
Lets get back to my original argument - she labled Obama as elitist. Not other people. Not rural Americans. Not the Republicans. She, Hillary Clinton, called Barack Obama elitist and out of touch. To say she only called his "remarks" elitist and therefore not Barack himself is silly. If I said "Hillary's remarks were lies" but then claimed I did not call her a liar would be ludicrous parsing.
"people are trying to change the substance of what Clinton says to her criticizing Obama. himself, personally. She didn't do that."
I'm not going to post the quote again, because I posted it below, but she specifically said "Obama is elitist and out of touch." This is a direct quote so you still fail to respond to my original point.
I think its totally fair to read it the way you do (and appreciate having a sane conversation for once here) though I think reasonable people can vary in their degree of how bad they think it is. Clearly, even BO conceded he didn't say what he wanted properly.
But my question is whether how Hillary is handling is acceptable? Putting aside "all's fair in love and politics" or whatever, doesn't it get equally under your skin when she uses a statement in a way she knows is not how he meant it? Put aside the "But Barack did the same thing when he said..." argument for the time being, because I might agree with you that he shouldn't have attacked her for a particular item. I just don't see how someone who wants to have the Democratic Party as a whole improve in the three branches can feel good about the way Hillary is handling this issue.