Top 10 Inane Profane & otherwise Flame arguments used versus Hillary Clinton

I understand and accept that fair criticism of Hillary Clinton is certainly possible, including some on matters related to what I include on my list below.  But I think most folks reading this in good faith can acknowledge the difference between what I am discussing here and fair criticism.

Number One. Claims that Hillary Clinton is probably guilty of doing whatever terrible thing that happened, even when there is no concrete evidence that she, or even her campaign, is or was involved in that terrible thing. This includes what I call "Minority Report" crimes, ones that have not actually happened yet, but because "everyone knows" that Hillary Clinton "is capable" of doing something so horrible, we don't need to wait for it to actually happen before condemning her for it. I've seen Hillary Clinton raked over the coals for "being capable of" rigging voting machines in primaries that weren't even held yet. More typically though she immediately gets blamed for things like Obama's passport files getting spied on before the full story is known.

Number Two. Ongoing "speculation" over whether or not Hillary will run against the 2008 Democratic ticket if she loses the Democratic nomination. Questions like: Will Hillary try to become McCain's VP if she can't win the Democratic nomination for President, or will she run for President as an Independent, or might she become a Democrat in quasi name only, like a Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller? It doesn't matter that Hillary Clinton has been a bedrock Democrat for 40 years, nor does it matter how often Hillary Clinton says in public how very important it will be for all Democrats to unite behind our eventual nominee, whoever that ends up being. Why take her word for it? She must be lying (see Numbers One and Three).

Number Three. Claims that Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar. This form of smear was perfected by the Right wing media to help defeat Al Gore in 2000 but it has since been picked up and refined by the Left against Hillary Clinton. A very useful attack line because when all else fails it then lets Hillary Clinton's enemies dismiss everything she says as "probably just another lie". Never mind the fact that virtually every major newspaper in the nation has a regular feature that fact checks all political candidates because every one of them "lies" and "distorts" things about their and their opponents records and positions from time to time. Nor does it matter that human beings weren't prepared by evolution to have our every utterances recorded, and all our written words retrievable at the click of a mouse, in order to be matched up against all our other words and prior utterances for indications of dishonesty.

Somehow though, a resulting "honesty" issue is only Hillary's problem. Barack Obama can misremember the circumstances of his birth. He can misstate the role Kennedy played in his family's journey to America. He can keep revising upward how much money his campaign accepted from Tony Rezko. He can blame his old Illinois Senate campaign staff for incorrectly stating his positions regarding issues on a questionnaire he turned in during one of his Chicago political races, until evidence emerged in Obama's own handwriting showing Obama worked on those answers himself. Obama can take credit in speeches for passing nuclear related legislation that didn't actually pass the Senate. Obama campaigned saying his campaign had nothing to do with lobbyists until it came out that a lobbyist was a key part of his own campaign in a state he was hotly contesting (NH), at which point Obama simply said that he meant Federal, not State, lobbyists only. Bottom line; all candidates "lie" and virtually all message board posters do too. To update the old cliché: "Lies happen".

Number Four. Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater Girl, so there goes being a good Democrat out the window (See Number Two). When I was about a year older than Hillary Clinton was when she was a Goldwater Girl, I tried sleeping next to my Bee Bee gun one night hoping to have a dream about being a war hero. I planned to go to South East Asia to fight communists when I was old enough to. When the time came I burned my draft card instead. Meanwhile Hillary Clinton evolved to become a campus radical, after first exploring the left wing of what was then still a true Big Tent Republican Party, with honest to God Liberals still active inside it.

The same internet that so many of Hillary Clinton's enemies love to surf looking for evidence of her lying has plenty of biographical information available explaining how why and when Hillary Clinton became a Democrat. Many of he same people who gush over how Barack Obama can reach across the aisle to bring Americans together while appealing to Republicans to come vote for him in the primaries, still can't let go of bashing Hillary Clinton for supporting Barry Goldwater when she was 14.

Number Five. Hillary Clinton has no more experience than does Barack Obama, and possibly less because he has held elective office for more years than she (but only 3 in Congress). First the disclaimer; experience does not always equate with good judgment and wisdom. Dick Cheney for example has more experience than Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama combined, but Hillary Clinton definitely has more relevant experience than Barack Obama. My advice to Obama supporters who hate to concede any advantage to Clinton; It's a fact, deal with it. Barack Obama has and he stills makes a pretty good case for why he, not Hillary, should become our next President. Some kind of weird mirror dance goes on whereby many Obama supporters mock Hillary Clinton (with some basis) for inflating aspects of the experience she actually has while they are doing contortions to deny Hillary Clinton credit for relevant experience that she honestly possesses.

Number Six. The myth that Hillary Clinton is way to the Right of Barack Obama on the issues, making him a true Progressive and her a DINO. These are two Democratic Senators who have very similar voting records and positions on the major issues. It has often been commented that so much of this primary campaign has been focused on personalities and factors like judgment and experience PRECISELY because so little actually separates the two candidates when it comes to voting records, policies and positions. Of course they have some differences, but very few dramatic ones. Which is why anyone who watched any of the recent Democratic candidate debates can remember how common an occurrence it was for both Obama and Clinton to begin their answer to a question by first acknowledging their agreement with whatever the other candidate just said. Which is why it would be laughable to read all the posts trying to equate Hillary Clinton with George Bush, Joe Lieberman, and/or John McCain if they weren't so maddening instead,

Number Seven. Call this one; "Get out of the way Hillary". It's the claim that Hillary Clinton is simply dividing the Democratic Party by continuing to campaign for President against Barack Obama when she has no plausible chance of winning herself. Well, if the Democratic Party is divided, it is because it is dividing itself, not because Hillary Clinton is forcing it to be divided. And were the Democratic Party not very closely divided, either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would long since have been eliminated from this race. The Democratic voters, both those who have gone to the polls, and those who have answered the polls, have divided the Democratic Party by refusing to overwhelmingly throw their support behind one candidate at this stage in the race.

If Barack Obama had for the most part already united the Democratic Party behind him he would already have the delegates in hand now to win the nomination on the first ballot. He hasn't and he doesn't, and it isn't his primary opponent's job to do that for him - until the outcome is certain. There is a difference between someone being the favorite to win and the actual winner him or her self. Holding a three length lead going around the final turn in a horse race, holding a three run lead in the bottom of the eighth inning in a baseball game, these are desirable places to find oneself, but neither guarantees victory.

Number Eight. The endless bitter and/or sarcastic name calling against Hillary Clinton: Queen, bitch, monster, whore, murderer, Liar (with a very capital "L"), racist, neocon, power hungry sociopath (having no care beyond her own personal fortunes), etc. Words like these are continually hurled against Hillary Clinton. The level of intensely personal character assassination that takes place against Hillary Clinton daily on political message boards like this has surpassed whatever ugliness gets thrown against any Republican - and I'm including Joe Lieberman, over the last several months.

Number Nine. "Iraq is Hillary's war". No, it's not. Not any more so than it is Joe Biden, John Kerry or John Edward's war, and it's not those men's war either. Iraq is George W. Bush's war. If the blood of a million innocents is on anyone it's on George Bush; not Hillary nor Joe nor either John. Voting against the Iraq War Resolution - which authorized war with Iraq under certain circumstances but did NOT specifically call for or initiate it, is a mark of honor that many Democratic Senators earned in 2002. But relatively few Democratic activists or voters now claim that voting for the IWR at the time was such as grievous lack of solid judgment on the part of John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd that none of those men could have gone on to make good or even great Presidents. That accusation most often has been saved for Hillary Clinton. Which leads to my final numbered point.

Number Ten. "Hillary Clinton will do or say anything to become President". First, few actually give even a second thought to how utterly vicious an attack that sentence contains. In a world where a significant percentage of the planet's rulers gained power by literally murdering some of their opposition, this is not trivial accusation to make. Murder in fact was already among the charges that some on the Right claim Hillary Clinton was guilty of while trying to hold onto political power at the highest levels. This attack line is a retread from the Limbaugh School of Journalism. And for those who complain about this, that, or another thing that Hillary Clinton may have said that poisons the chances for Barack Obama to win the General Election should he become our nominee; none of it rises to the level of making this type of accusation against Hillary Clinton. Nothing gives greater ammunition for John McCain to use against Hillary Clinton should she become our nominee than the claim that she will do or say anything to pursue personal power, but that's a charge that Barack Obama has already made against her.

No attack on a fellow Democrat unleashes more potentially lethal fire than that one, and it is utterly false. Hillary Clinton's campaign may have or may yet cross one or more lines that some of her critics would prefer not be crossed, in her competition with Barack Obama for the nomination. Hopefully most of her critics also understand that sometimes that feeling is reversed. But this particular attack bluntly states that there simply is NO line, period, that Hillary Clinton won't cross at the expense either of her opponents or our nation.

I would not say that about John McCain, and maybe not even about George W. Bush. We have no business saying that about another Democrat. And one need just review point Number Nine to disprove the charge. After the Iowa vote certainly, but most likely well before then Hillary Clinton knew that her chance to win the Democratic Nomination to run for President was seriously being hurt by her failure to say the words "I'm sorry" about her IWR vote. Even at her first one on one debate with Barack Obama, after the momentum in the race had already shifted to Obama, after a first half of that debate where Hillary was considered by most to be winning based on a discussion of domestic issues, Hillary wouldn't say what Democratic voters wanted to hear when the discussion finally turned to Iraq, and Barack Obama scored major points as a result.

More recently though Hillary Clinton was almost out of the race for President as votes in Ohio and Texas loomed. A loss of the popular vote in either State would have led to increased calls for her to exit the contest and her fund raising would have virtually dried up. Obama had the momentum with 14 straight victories, and he had the money available to significantly outspend Clinton on the air and on the ground. There was no way Hilary Clinton could have been confident about winning both those contests. But Reverend Wright never became an issue in those primaries. That was a story the media had been holding back, but Hillary Clinton didn't force it out. Had Obama won solidly in Texas and held Clinton to a narrow victory in Ohio, the nomination contest would have ended right there and then. Hillary Clinton will not do or say anything to become President, but some of her critics feel free to do or say anything to prevent that from happening.

Tags: 2008, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Presidential Race (all tags)



Re: Top 10 Inane Profane

GREAT DIARY!!!  Yes, I am shouting :)

by colebiancardi 2008-04-07 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Top 10 Inane Profane

Then give it a Rec! :)

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-04-07 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Top 10 Inane Profane

For some reason i cant rec?


by giusd 2008-04-07 08:50AM | 0 recs
You left out Obama's deceptive healthcare plan..

and the little publicized fact that it can't work, that the model he is pushing was examined in European countries, one after another, years ago, and again here in the US in the early 90s, and found to have a number of weaknesses that will make it fail to do what people want to to do which is give them peace of mind that they wont be financially ruined by an illness or accident, and that they will probably have huge problems with cost shifting, for example, under Hillary Clinton's plan, people won't have to pay a lot of cost shifted expenses that Obama's 'affordable for employers' plans probably won't cover, in their quest to be 'affordable' to employers, like prescription drugs.

by architek 2008-04-07 03:24PM | 0 recs
surprised it was left out of the inane strawman


Most of those arguments are completely stupid but no one makes them and no one certainly states them as dumbly as the Author imagines.

For instance no one says the Iraq war is all Hillary's fault, that by no means absolves her of the real rebuke her vote on the IWR and against the Levin amendment deserves.

by DSloth 2008-04-07 04:54PM | 0 recs
Build up a Straw Man then knock him down

On #9  Joe Biden, John Kerry or John Edward's weren't still supporting the occupation in Iraq in 2005 like Hillary still was.

LOOk: 0/ftn/main675192.shtml?source=search_sto ry

by Lefty Coaster 2008-04-08 04:59AM | 0 recs

Each of them deserve to take a knock for that vote as well, but at least each of them had the good judgement to admit their mistake in hindsight.

by DSloth 2008-04-08 05:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Build up a Straw Man then knock him down

Anyone who did not call for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq (at that or any other time) can be said to still be supporting the Iraq occupation. Anyone who voted to pay for the bills that allowed the Iraq occupation to continue can be said to still be supporting the Iraq occupation.  That is the bottom line, the rest is argueing over details over how to best address our remaining legitimate interests in being inside Iraq before we leave. Obama entered the U.S. Senate in 2005 and his voting record on Iraq has been virtually identical to Clinton's (accept she opposed General Casey once when Obama supported him).

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-04-08 08:05AM | 0 recs
Obama, Edwards, Kerry, Clinton

have all 100% supported the war in the only way that matters: money.

by fairleft 2008-04-08 08:26AM | 0 recs
I just did...

Thank you, Tom. :-)

by atdleft 2008-04-07 08:57AM | 0 recs
The DNC is Dumb dumb dumb

this is all from fellow democrats, who somehow think I'm going to keep writing them checks.  Checks are mainly women's work, we're the ones who pay the bills and send off money to the DNC and guess what, Howard isn't getting that much money anymore, and he ain't likely to later on either. I will reluctantly, if I can force myself, vote for Barack if he's foisted upon me, but I won't donate, to him or to the party.  This is the time to speak out against these sorts of attacks, yet, nothing, and much of it comes from the so-called leadership of the DNC.  Obama has used it, but he's also spewed it, he won't be my president, he can't unite me, even were he so inclined.  if the party sinks in the Fall, I think it'll be time to start a new party, one that will hold Democratic values.  

by anna shane 2008-04-07 01:48PM | 0 recs
Excellent diary, Tom.

It would help unity so much if you could do the same type of diary for Barack Obama: Top 10 Inane Profane Attacks on barack Obama.

It happens by a few on both candidates.

by TomP 2008-04-07 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent diary, Tom.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-04-07 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent diary, Tom.

Only because people were polite enough not to attack the inane proposition that it's the same for each.

by Trickster 2008-04-07 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent diary, Tom.

I don't doubt that a similar Diary could be written in regards to Barack Obama - I have no doubt that unfair things are said about him also and I don't see any upside here and now debating with any Obama supporters about who gets treated more unfairly. We all have our opinions on that one.

I am not as well versed in defending Obama against unfair attacks right now as I am in defending Clinton against unfair attacks - though I do on occaision do so. It really took spending a lot of time thinking about and familiarity with attacks on Clinton for me to write this Diary.

Again, I tried to stay away from attacking Obama in doing so, but I simply am not the best person to write the same type Diary for Obama. I would certainly appreciate seeing a fair one written for him also though.

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-04-07 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: A parallel story is a nice thought - but why?

But doesn't Barack Obama already get the benefit of the doubt and the benefit of unconscious and implicit genderization by Main Stream Media?

by pan230oh 2008-04-07 02:01PM | 0 recs
Because he is a fellow democrat and

our common enemy is the Republican nominee so we need to beef up on preparedness against the Elephants.

Your comment suggests you are a only a HRC supporter as opposed to a democrat...Forest from the trees

by KLRinLA 2008-04-08 02:07PM | 0 recs
All the recs for the rest of my life!

Thank you for this diary.  Thank you for the sanity of it.

May we bookmark it and quote it and cut and paste it????

Oh, just thank you.!!!

by Shazone 2008-04-07 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: All the recs for the rest of my life!

Sure. You can also repost it with my permission if you like.

Thank you for the compliments.

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-04-07 01:07PM | 0 recs
Outstanding diary!!!!!

A tip and a rec from me.

by georgiapeach 2008-04-07 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Top 10

Super and should be recommended.


by giusd 2008-04-07 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Top 10 Inane Profane

how do I rec'd a diary?  Sorry, I've never done that before

by colebiancardi 2008-04-07 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Top 10 Inane Profane

You should see a button to the left of "Rate All".

The toggle lets you pick a number from Zero to Two. Avoid using Zero unless you really believe the post is truly malicious, One is typically the rating given to posts you think are particularly bad, and Two is given to posts you think are particularly good.

You can go over the whole thread and do that for as many posts as you want to rate, then after doing that hit the "Rate All" button once and your ratings for all the posts you entered them for will be registered.

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-04-07 09:05AM | 0 recs
look at the right hand column

somewhere near the top there is a radio button that says recommend.  Click on it.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-04-07 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Top 10 Inane Profane

Actually, Cole, the procedure Tom has just explained is for recommending comments within a diary. He is correct about that process.

To recommend a diary, if that option has been made available to you, there is a box at the very top of the right-hand column (the column with all the advertising), titled "Recommend Diary" that displays a recommend button.

That "Recommend Diary" header box does not display when you are in "Post Comment" mode. It only displays when you are reading the diary or reading comments below.

Look at Tom's diary again, but before you hit a reply button, look at the very top of the advertising column. You should see the Rec Diary button.

by RickWn 2008-04-07 08:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Top 10 Inane Profane

thanks!!  I was wondering why I couldn't see that option.  I have to be logged out.

by colebiancardi 2008-04-08 06:39AM | 0 recs
good diary

#ten is such a blatant replay of all of the right wing smears against her during the 90s, that even when friends and relatives say it I have to dismiss them as having spent too much time on the blogs.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-04-07 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: good diary

I dismiss similar friends and relatives for condescendingly assuming I don't know they've been secretly listening to conservative talk radio. How else could they come to such misinformed conclusions?  

by RickWn 2008-04-07 08:15PM | 0 recs
I agree for the most part

The only issues I have with your list is a counter point to number 5.  Sen. Obama also experience just in a different way than Sen. Clinton does.  Also with nubmer nine it did take her way too long to admit the vote was wrong so she deserves some of the flak she got from it.

Also Obama didn't open up a fundraising lead until February so both Sen Clinton and he had the same amount of money they chose to spend it differently.

Otherwise very good diary.

by Student Guy 2008-04-07 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree for the most part

Number five can be argued, but if I tried to take that on in detail in this Diary it would have spun completely out of control. It's pretty long now as it is.

Of course each candidate has some unique and valuable experience to bring to the table, I would never deny that. Cummulatively I believe Hillary has more. And I never argue that ultimately she was on the wrong side of IWR vote and is accountable for that action. She gets legitimate flak plus a whole lot of unfair singling out because of it.

Obama was raising much more money than Clinton all throughout January, and was able to spend it as fast as he wanted to as it came in. The figures weren't reported though until February.

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-04-07 09:12AM | 0 recs
Well, she's 14 years older

than Obama.  She has to have more experience at something.

I think you missed a big reason that many paleoDems such as my dad dislike about Hillary: she reminds him of the "feminist academic" types who see gender issues everywhere.  Which I think is unfair to her, irrespective of how her campaign addresses gender issues.  Opposing someone simply because their demeanor reminds you of someone you don't like is wrong. My Dad also follows the "she'll do anything to win" line, oin which I think you made a good point.

I happen to oppose Clinton's triangulating philosophy, bad habit of making excuses for past mistakes, appealing to pity and/or martyrdom and lack of original thought in her speeches.  I also believe Obama's conciliatory skill will enable him to better hoodwink enough republicans to get good legislation passed.  But I am aware that many people, including Democrats, are being swayed by too many bad arguments for voting against her.

by corph 2008-04-07 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Feminist Issues

If you listen to the Senator and/or read her statements, you will find very, very few instances where she plays the "feminist" card. She has plenty of supporters (myself included) that you might call a radical feminist, but she doesn't go there herself. I hear her talk about the rights of all people to decent health care, to jobs that provide economic ability to care for and raise a family, to have their children live better lives than they did, and to be treated with human dignity and respect. Last I looked those values far transcend feminism or Black Nationalism or whatever other "..ism" you want to apply.

by pan230oh 2008-04-07 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, she's 14 years older


"Triangulation" is, if I recall correctly, one of those subtle smear terms coined by one of Rove's conservative think tanks that smacks of Algebra and rhymes with "strangulation".

It always gets thrown out when someone, especially a candidate for office, can be gotcha'ed for espousing an opinion (conveniently assumed a conviction), later changing opinion (given different facts on the ground) and still later (given new facts) assuming a different opinion.

If "triangulation" is such a bad thing, than it would follow that the entire General and Admiralty staff of our military forces should be immediately dismissed for not following the legendary leadership example of one George Armstrong Custer.

How can we as a nation expect to succeed if led only by those so firm in their convictions or so afraid of being taunted and smeared for changing their minds, as "new information" and "new realities" become glaringly apparent?

Millions of previous Hillary supporters, sad to say, have switched allegiance to Barack. Should we call them "triangulators" for their change of position?

Barack's own self-admitted "bone-headed" mistake for getting involved with Rezko... should we accuse him of "triangulation" for trying to put a better spin upon or a dumb decision behind him? I don't think so.

We all make mistakes. We all gain more wisdom as we grow. We all change our minds about some things once in awhile. We all accept that among ourselves.

I think we should accord the same courtesy to our politicians sometimes.

by RickWn 2008-04-07 09:08PM | 0 recs
I was using shorthand

with the term "triangulation", I should have been more precise.  What I really mean is excessive "positioning" on issues an attempting to make sure one is covered from attacks on all sides.  This can work in some situations, but it's susceptible to republican extremists pulling the "center" position on the argument rightward.  Every time you try to find the middle, safe position ("triangulate") you end up losing ground.

I believe Hillary's most important character flaw is, ironically, self-confidence (ironically because her campaign has taken great pains to portray her as a strong, tough leader).  If she trusted her instincts more, she wouldn't need to give convoluted answers about illegal immigrant driver's license programs that she says make sense but that she doesn't support.  She could say that her healthcare "mandate" was necessary to make sure the system is solvent and risk is pooled adequately, instead of quipping that Obama's program also has a mandate when he draws the distinction.  She could just stand quietly and dignified when being introduced instead of doing the artificial "point and clap" her image consultants have undoubtly told her to do.

Above all, instead of trying to memorize every angle on every issue, she could start with a set of principles and articulate her positions through adhering to them.  We need a president who trusts his or her instincts and knows where to seek out advice, rather than blindly follow it from those who supposedly know better.  I saw this reasoned self-assurance in Kerry and Dean last cycle, and Edwards and Obama this one.  Hillary, I've concluded, simply doesn't have it.

by corph 2008-04-08 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree for the most part

Clinton has over 30 years of experience as a political activist.  Experience isn't everything, but it is important that both candidates have substantial political experience whereby the voters can determine HOW the candidate would govern once in office as well as the likelihood of said candidate to be successful, especially given the quagmire that is being inherited.

by jrsygrl 2008-04-07 11:38AM | 0 recs

But you should post this on Daily Kos. What's required here is a top ten list of scurrilous attacks on Obama. Stuff like, "No, he's not a republican infiltrator", "No, he's not a black nationalist or a racist", something along those lines.

by MBNYC 2008-04-07 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely.

Good point. Actually I initially posted this over at Democratic Underground, which is pretty strong Obama territory also, though not quite as overwhelmingly so as is Daily Kos.

I've been fielding responses over at DU since I posted it there in the wee hours of the morning, but figured it might be of interest here also.

I have been trying to decide if I am up for the stress of fielding replies at Kos also. That's a tough call, lol.

A Diary like this about Obama would be useful and valuable to post here at Mydd. I agree.

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-04-07 09:17AM | 0 recs
I think you should.

I actually don't think this is such a big deal, because we're just talking about blogs here, but you'd probably find a receptive audience there for some reality-based commentary. God knows we need more of that, no matter how loudly the zealots on the two teams like to scream about stuff.

by MBNYC 2008-04-07 09:24AM | 0 recs
"the zealots"??

Think you should have typed "we" instead of "the".

Triangulation, everywhere I read nowadays.

by RickWn 2008-04-07 09:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely.

I agree you should post this on DailyKos. There are, of course, legitimate attacks one could make on either candidate, and I think you've done a good job of expressing many of the illegitimate, and, in the end divisive and unproductive attacks on Sen. Clinton.

As an Obama supporter, I, too, would love to see a diarly like this about Obama on this site. While I'm certain some of Sen. Clinton's supporters might flame it, I have faith that many would see and recognize these attacks as baseless.

I think you'd find something similar at Dkos. Some of the more extreme supporters wouldn't like it, but many would. Let me know if you publish it over there. I'll rec it.

Good work.

by shef 2008-04-07 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely.

I'll give it a little more thought about doing so tomorrow if I have time, and I'll let you know here if I do. If I do I'll have to figure out a way up front of saying that I am not interested in spending time there debating every attack that anyone throws at Clinton, because I'm simply not.

Thanks for the encouragement

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-04-07 07:36PM | 0 recs
Don't do it, Tom Rinaldo.

I appreciate that you put so much into this, but trust me, don't bother posting it at kos. Don't put yourself through it. Not worth your time and effort.

by jen 2008-04-07 08:10PM | 0 recs

It wouldn't even get any attention there (other than some flame baiting). And besides, it seems like many of you come here anyways because we don't visit that orange sewer any more.

by atdleft 2008-04-07 09:18AM | 0 recs

Meanwhile, please ignore how Hillary supporters here are engaging in exactly the same behavior that they criticize about others on Daily Kos. You know, name-calling, defamatory diaries, ratings abuse, that kind of stuff.

by MBNYC 2008-04-07 09:37AM | 0 recs

I don't think this merits a TR it isn't nice but it isn't troll worthy.

by Student Guy 2008-04-07 11:58AM | 0 recs
then do it

why wait for someone else to do it?

by zerosumgame 2008-04-07 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: then do it

3 people object to encouraging a similar diary from Obama's perspective? tsk, tsk, those knees sure are jerking out there, or there are at least 3 jerks...

by zerosumgame 2008-04-07 07:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely.

BAH did not mean to rate that at all and now it won't let me take it back. sorry

by zerosumgame 2008-04-07 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely.

you can uprate or downrate, but not take it back. Throw him some mojo instead.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-04-07 12:33PM | 0 recs
You might want to

consider not automatically trollrating pro-Obama posts. Just saying.

But I'll accept the apology.

by MBNYC 2008-04-07 02:55PM | 0 recs
dude I said I was sorry

and am up-rating this attack by you on my apology so how about climbing down from that high horse and joining us mere humans?

by zerosumgame 2008-04-07 04:41PM | 0 recs
Response to Re: Top 10

1) I agree. Neither candidate should be held responsible for every reprehensible comment/action that emanates from the campaign.

2) That is ridiculous. No one with half a brain thinks she would do this.

3) The idea that Hillary is not trustworthy, I don't think is fair to put on Obama supporters. This is something that has polled at a relatively stable level for many years.

4) Agree with you.

5) The experience question. I think you concede that  there are genuine issues of fact - that it's not unfair to question her experience. What I think riles Obama supporters, and I would plead guilty to this, is that Hillary CONTINUALLY discounts and minimizes Obama's experience. When Obama counters on experience, he never says that her experience doesn't matter or that she doesn't have any. I think his point is pretty consistently that we haven't seen proof that the things Hillary claims as experience gives her some sort of competitive advantage. For instance why she feels as though traveling to 80 countries makes her a better person to "answer the phone at 3am." I think that is a legitimate concern- ESPECIALLY after the "exaggeration/misstatement" on Bosnia, and other reporting on some of her other claims (Ireland etc.).

6. I have heard both sides. If you go to Taylor Marsh and other sites, you'll read that Obama is wayyyy to liberal, that we need a DLC/moderate to win. If you go to another site or read Krugman, then Obama turns into a reincarnation of Reagan and that Hillary is the true progressive. I would mention that it was the Clinton campaign that tried to make the argument that Obama may be too liberal to win an election.

7. I think most of that has to do with candidate's supporters trying to force the other candidate out of the race. But one thing is not in dispute (at least among a wide range of Dems). If this race continues throughout the summer that the level of vitriol on each side may be so high that the eventual winner will lose a greater percentage of Dem votes than we may typically bleed during a typical election.

8. That cuts both ways, but I agree that those words are indefensible.

9. If you vote for a bill, then I don't see anything wrong with making the political argument that you "own" the vote. Obama voted for the energy bill and Hillary slams him, rightfully so. The reason I think it's fair that Hillary (and any Democrat for that matter) is attacked for that vote is 1) it would never have been authorized without Democratic support - and I think a Senator of CLinton's profile may have given some cover for other politicians to oppose the war 2) it has been such an unmitigated disaster that the politicians who authorized it should not be allowed any cover and 3) unlike some others who originally supported the war, Hillary, I don't think, has ever acknowledged it was wrong - instead she patronizes anyone who questions her by saying that she wasn't voting to authorize the war.

10. No one from the Democratic side ever suggests that saying Clinton would "do anything to win" means that she would murder her opponents. If you ask anyone who doesn't support Clinton what they think about when they hear that charge, they would talk about hardball political stunts/maneuvers. I think you're a bit off on that one.

by highgrade 2008-04-07 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Response

Thanks for a well reasoned and overall very fair reply.

Again I wrote this piece originally at Democratic Underground, and in regards to your comment about Point Number Two, then there must be an awful lot of folks over there without half a brain.

On Number Three, yes that meme has been out there for years and it has been out there for years because the Right Wing pushed it hard, along with the White Water investigation and the impeachment of Bill Clinton. But many on the left are riding that smear against Clinton now for every poll point they can get.

For the record, Obama himself, as an act of retaliation during a public spat with the Clinton campaign over a couple of negative ads that they ran against him, briefly aired an attack ad against Clinton that literally said she would do or say anything to get elected, and following the Fed rules for political ads, Obama "approved of" that ad in his own voice. Both campaigns soon yanked their negative ads, but it happened.

We agree there are plenty of legitimate ways to argue about Number Five, and I even noted that in point Number Five. Obama for the most part has played this one right, as you say. Some of his supporters have not. I found all of the attempts to equate Hillary Clinton's White House experience, for example, with Laura Bush's to be too stupid for words. And Clinton preceded that 8 year stint with a very hands on role as the wife of a multi term Governor and followed it with 8 years in the United States Senate.

You raise some interesting observations about Point Number Six, but bottom line again is I have heard both candidates described as being both to the right AND left of each other, while their platforms and voting records are remarkably similar.

On Number 7, I also think we need closure in June about who our candidate will be. I believe that Clinton saying this may go to the convention is leverage she is applying to get the delegate status of Florida and Michigan resolved before the convention.

On Number 8, yes ugly words have been hurled at both candidates.

On Number 9 however we slice it I believe Clinton is singled out disproportionately for blame regarding Iraq. She says had she known then what she knows now, she would not have voted for the IWR, and her voting record regarding Iraq since Obama entered the Senate has been at least as anti-war as his.

On Number 10, It seems maybe my most extreme example obscured some of my point from you, but I couldn't resist because in fact two Special Prosectors (not just your ordinary single investigation) looked into allegations regarding the death of Vince Foster and both Clintons possible role in his death, while Right Wing radio was actively pushing that Hillary was a murderer. The more garden variety charges of Hillary Clinton's unbridled ambition and her putting her own lust for power ahead of the needs of our nation are over the top enough to be condemned.

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-04-07 10:01AM | 0 recs
On #10

re: #10, I have heard the claim made, with a straight face, that she wants Obama to lose the general so she can run again in 2012.  Ridiculous, but that's the kind of "do anything" idea that's out there.

by lilnev 2008-04-07 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: On #10

Is it ridiculous?   I am not so sure.  We will see in June once the pledged delegate mandate is complete.     I dont trust her ... her campaign... or her husband ... and I would beg, nor should you.  The Clinton brand are dangerous narciscsts, protecting WJC's legacy at all costs.... lets be very careful what we wish to accomplish in November.  

by stryan 2008-04-07 10:00PM | 0 recs
Re: On #10

The Clinton brand are dangerous narciscsts, protecting WJC's legacy at all costs..


by grassrootsorganizer 2008-04-08 01:34AM | 0 recs

Can you substantiate any of this?

by NJ Liberal 2008-04-08 11:27PM | 0 recs
Re: seriously?

Sure, sorry this took a bit longer on my response.  

We should look at Clinton's presidency, being she is running on experience accrued through those eight years.  Fair?

I look at the failed misery of her health care plan.  Instead of engaging the disparate parts of the US GOV to create a bicameral, bipartisan approach to health care, she - and the Clinton administration - decided to go it alone, arrogantly refusing any help from others with similar goals.  This DIRECTLY led to the DEMs losing congressional majority until 2006, and any progressive mandate during the 90's.  Welfare reform anyone?   Or - NAFTA without US worker protections?   Right from Gingrich's talking points.  This IS Clinton's legacy, borrow from your enemy and make it your own.  Well done.  

Or - the Lewinsky ordeal.  Now - before you roll your eyes, follow me on the logic outside of the right-wing talking points.  WJC lied under oath, to the nation and his family about that relationship, while ferociously attacking the 'vast right wing' conspiracy and his accusers.  I do agree the affair was uncovered indirectly through Starr's investigations of other supposed indiscretions, but to me - they brazenly lied to protect personal power.  

I will never judge what happens within a marriage.  Rather, the sordid cover-up and lying to the American people gives an indicator of what type of people they are.  Dangerously amoral.   And - you have to include her because she is running on the 'experience' platform, this is fair game judging her on the good AND the bad of his presidency.  You cant cherry pick the GOOD, and turn from the BAD.  

Because of this, Gore - following advice - distanced himself from the Clinton brand.  The country needed to pivot away from personal baggage aired from the White House, at the time - a fair assessment.  We lost the election because of FL, sure, but the Clintons would have helped tremendously in TN, Gore's home-state and a state I believe WJC carried in 1996.  

At the time, WJC was more concerned about her getting elected in NY, than helping solidify the small gains he made in 1998.  Instead, we indirectly lose any progressive mandate until 2008, especially because an incumbent president was more worried about his legacy than helping progressive candidates across the country.  

All in all - I think it equates to an arrogance, similar to the Bushies.  They feel there is some birth right to them running  the country.  There was a tremendous amount of good in the 90's, with terrible valleys this country hadnt seen since Nixon, regardless of the means.  If he had kept his zipper up, we would not have had the absolute chaos in this country since 2000.  I havent forgiven him - and her unfortunately - for the overall CRAP they put us through.  Especially, for people like me - Clinton was the first president I ever voted for.  I defended him to the hilt to my family.  Remember, Clinton was Obama before Obama.  He oozed cool, sunglasses on Arsenio anyone?

I am 34 years old.  There has been a Bush AND/OR a Clinton on the Presidential ticket since 1980.  I am tired of the brand, the country needs to move on with new ideas and fresh thought.   She ran her campaign as an inevitable, front running machine.   Her overall management INCOMPETENCE reminds me of failed health care REDUX.  We need down ticket help solidifying the gains we made in 2006.  Health care  will need filibuster proof, bipartisan help to pass.  She cant win a large enough mandate - and help downticket races - to pass reform.   Look at what has happened with the Iraq debate since 2006.  We yell at the DEMs to cut off funds, bring the kids home.  It cant happen because our majority is not large enough.    Do you think Mrs. Clinton - and her 58% unapproval rating - can give us that mandate?  I personally think so.  Hell, she is having a problem within her own party, just think of what the country will do.  

This is a bit rambling, fact sprinkled with opinion and a number of non sequitors.   Please shed other light I may have missed ... =)

by stryan 2008-04-10 02:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Response to Re: Top 10

I have witnessed (ridiculous) GOP talking points used as arguments against Clinton.  No Democrat should ever validate these assertions by citing them as they are nothing but wild, unfounded & based in hate.

by jrsygrl 2008-04-07 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Response to Re: Top 10

No one from the Democratic side ever suggests that saying Clinton would "do anything to win" means that she would murder her opponents.

Words have meaning, don't they?  Hell, Obama ran a state-wide ad campaign in SC the entire week before the primary, saying that Hillary would "do anything to win."  I don't remember anything in that ad modifying or clarifying the normal meaning of the word "anything."

Also, on #3, it has practically been Obama's campaign theme at times during the campaign, e.g., again, the week before the SC primary.  What were his hoodwinked/bamboozled speeches to SC & MS voters about, anyway?  Yes, Clinton had the rep, but it was an undeserved rep pinned on her by GOP hit men, and the Obama camp rode that nag for all it was worth.

by Trickster 2008-04-07 02:10PM | 0 recs

I'm perpetually amused how some people complain incessantly about the Great Orange Satan and then turn around and do exactly what they criticize there.

Funny how that works, isn't it?

by MBNYC 2008-04-07 09:34AM | 0 recs

Sorry, this comment was intended as a response to atdleft, above.

How'd that happen?

by MBNYC 2008-04-07 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Eh.

That's the first time I've seen atdleft post.  He's constantly troll rating me for like NO reason, like I'll post something like "it depends - McCain is a tough opponent either way", or something totally innocuous and Bang I get troll-rated.

by Mostly 2008-04-07 12:59PM | 0 recs
Happens to me all the time.

Obama supporters get punished here. I seldom have a comment free of trollratings.

But the Hillary followers complain about how they're treated on DKos, of course.

by MBNYC 2008-04-07 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Top 10 Inane Profane

Number 10, and Obama's use of it early in the primaries is the one reason that I can't see myself supporting him should he become the nominee.

His statements on the campaign trail "she'll say anything to win" are, to me, the lowest of the low points of his own words.  Others in his employ have said much worse about Hillary, but he showed his true nature by that one often repeated as an invective statement.  Hope, audacity and 'change', not so much when you look at his campaign without blinders.

by emsprater 2008-04-07 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Top 10 Inane Profane

This is exactly how I feel as well.

This is the dirtiest kind of character attack based on.... nothing at all.

There is self-contained hypocrisy in making the accusation; it has been depressing to see his campaign use it on multiple occasions and particularly to have it come out of his own mouth.

by Apostle 2008-04-07 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Top 10

Well done Tom.

by durendal 2008-04-07 09:54AM | 0 recs

Wish I could recommend it twice.

by OtherLisa 2008-04-07 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Top 10 Inane Profane
by amde 2008-04-07 10:54AM | 0 recs
#5 is a fair argument.

I agree on the rest, although #6 would be difficult to prove one way or another.

by dystopianfuturetoday 2008-04-07 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Top 10 Inane Profane

Fantastic diary.  Really what I've been looking for from Hillary supporters.  With a minimal-to-none level of Obama bashing, you managed to address a lot of the criticisms that are unfairly leveled at Clinton and talk up your candidate...a lesson to those who think that bashing the other democrat is the only way to get ahead.

She'll certainly have my vote in the general election if she gets there!

by minnesotaryan 2008-04-07 11:39AM | 0 recs

1.) I'd agree that this has happened, to some extent.

2.) I've heard brief mention of this, but not much.  It's a ludicrous idea, and no one with any sense would think it likely.

3.) Pathological?  No.  But there have been lies of various sorts.  Some were part of normal campaigning...exaggerations of good aspects, minimization of bad, etc.

4.) I grew up in the red, as well, so I wouldn't hold anything like this against anyone.  As a kid, you assimilate the values of those around you.  It takes a while before you really come to own your own political identity.

5.) They have different experiences, that's for certain.  If elected experience was my main qualification, I'd obviously not be for Obama.  Probably Biden or Richardson.  I do take issue with her claiming to have the "most experience," back when those two (and Dodd) were in the race.

6.) Nope, they're pretty close on a lot of issues, except their takes on foreign policy.  Anyone who wants to call him an extreme liberal and her a very moderate Democrat hasn't taken a look at their respective campaign platforms.

7.) The idea that running for office is divisive is offensive to democracy, and I'd remind that to those who've lambasted Ralph Nader.  I am concerned that any negative campaigning hurts EITHER potential nominee, but that has yet to be proven.  It may serve to toughen and vet them, which would be a positive.

8.) None of those are appropriate, unless they can be proven true (some, such as "bitch," are opinion...others can be based in fact). None of them belong among Democrats talking about Democrats.  If you privately think someone's a bitch, then keep it to yourself.

9.) I do not solely blame Hillary for Iraq.  I blame Bush and Co., mostly, and Congress (or at least those who voted in the affirmative) for allowing it to happen.  I blame Kerry, Edwards, and Biden, as well.  I blame less those who've tried to get us out and who have rallied public opinion against it.  I forgive, as much as I can, those who admit their mistake and apologize for it.

10.) I think it's going too far to suggest that this statement includes the possibility of murder.  I see why you say that, but that's to take it out of the context of a US election.    

by freedom78 2008-04-07 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: #10

I included this in a post above to another reply but it fits here also:

"On Number 10, It seems maybe my most extreme example obscured some of my point from you, but I couldn't resist because in fact two Special Prosectors (not just your ordinary single investigation) looked into allegations regarding the death of Vince Foster and both Clintons possible role in his death, while Right Wing radio was actively pushing that Hillary was a murderer. The more garden variety charges of Hillary Clinton's unbridled ambition and her putting her own lust for power ahead of the needs of our nation are over the top enough to be condemned."

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-04-07 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Top 10 Inane Profane &
THANK YOU!!!! The points presented are valid and well arranged.
by ProudMilitaryMom 2008-04-07 12:50PM | 0 recs
I couldn't have said it better myself!!

Excellent Diary. Thank You.

by nikkid 2008-04-07 01:05PM | 0 recs
Rec'd by an Obama supporter

#4 (Goldwater Girl), I'd never actually heard.  Shrug, means nothing to me.
#5 (relative experience) seems more like a defense by Obama supporters, rather than an attack.
#8 (namecalling) is childish, and only makes the namecaller look bad.
#6 (progressive/DINO) and #9 (war support) have a lot in common.  There's not much difference between the two candidates on issues, and it's certainly possible to go too far, but overall I'd call this legitimate ground for drawing contrasts.  If it's done fairly (questioning her AUMF vote is fair, calling it "her war" is not).

And then there's numbers 3 (liar) and 10 (do anything).  Numbers 1, 2, and 7 seem to fall under 10 as examples of "do anything", specifically subvert the democratic process or destroy the Party.  I agree that these are the corrosive ones, the ones that collectively assassinate her character.  It's insidious, hard for her to defend against, and destructive, and it needs to stop.


by lilnev 2008-04-07 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Rec'd by an Obama supporter

I gave a collective thank you to some of the Obama supporters who have commented on this thread below this post, and had you in mind when I did so. I particularly want to thank you specifically for your understanding and appreciation of just how toxic some forms of character assassination can be, in this case directed against Hillary Clinton, but I know just as bad or worse is in store for Barack Obama if he becomes our nominee and I will stand ready to fight for him against them should that day arrive.

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-04-07 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Top 10 Inane Profane
Good list, and even as an Obama supporter, I get frosted when anyone goes over the edge against Hillary.  Having a few minutes, I'll comment on your list from what I see & hear among friends & co-workers.
  1. While there has been some of this from the bO side, I hear a lot more irrational non-sequiturs from wigers.
  2. Again, I've heard it mentioned; but never to any great extent or seriousness.  But yeah, I hate that one.
  3. Yep, that's nothing but a smear; but indicative, I believe of the irrational hate directed at HRC.  Jeez, this is a political campaign, I expect a bit of truth-stretching.  Anybody using the pathological liar epithet doesn't understand the meaning of the term or the nature of the game.
  4. Honestly, I'd never heard that.
  5. That one's open for substantial discussion on a lot of fronts.  No doubt she's been much closer to national policy for longer than BO; but as to how much the first lady stuff counts is subjective.
  6.  Another one I hadn't heard.  How odd.
  7.  FWIW, I don't believe many have a problem with her campaigning against BO or continuing in the race.  There are many positives that have emerged from the contest, not the least of which are media coverage, voter turnout, and voter registration.  It's been energizing.  The calls to drop out, I believe, arise when she is seen to be over the line into actually helping the R nominee (such as the ready to be CiC crap).  If she's going to trash BO in a way that actually strengthens McCain, then it's time for her to stop.
  8. That's another one that I think is a bit overblown.  Yeah, she's been called names; but endlessly?  No, I don't think so.  It's wrong, most who do it are chastised, and that sort of small-mindedness does seem to be in the minority in my experience.
  9. It sure as hell is Bush's war; but one can't ignore that a lot of Dems, HRC included did not stand up to Bush when the chips were down.  This war is a fiasco and was a mistake from the beginning.  Everyone in Congress had enough information to know that more questions needed to be asked; but damned few risked the political exposure to oppose it.  HRC was not one of those.  It's not her war; but she is partly to blame.
  10. That she is willing to fight hard, tooth and nail for this country and this nomination is one of HRC's qualities that I admire.  She's a damned tough cookie, and she'd be a great POTUS.  You can't accept that, however, without acknowledging that it also has negative connotations.  It's a two-edged sword, and both are sharp.
by rb608 2008-04-07 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Top 10 Inane Profane

I really want to thank you and a few of the other identified Obama supporters who have commented thoughtfully on this Diary. I can understand why some Democrats choose Obama over Clinton and vice versa, and I understand politics enough to know that all campaigns both get harsh and/or make mistakes sometimes.

Sometimes I get angry when my candidate isn't treated with the type of respect and tolerence for inperfections that I want for him or her to receive from the other side in a primary fight, but I know those feelings can flow both ways. The discussion on this thread for the most part has been a real morale boost for me to believe that we as Democrats will be able to come together to fight behind whichever candidate ultimately wins our nomination.

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-04-07 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Top 10 Inane Profane

I really think that 90% of both camps are sensible, reasonable folks; but the few outliers create the myths and hyperbole at the heart of your diary.  I really don't believe many of the folks who say they wouldn't vote for the other candidate really mean it.

by rb608 2008-04-07 07:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Top 10 Inane Profane

BRAVO!! You have said it all. And so well and clearly. This diary is a real gift.

by linfar 2008-04-07 01:31PM | 0 recs
This is the best debunk diary.

You covered everything that I have in my mind and did it ten times better than I could possibly do.

On the last point, I have thought about this myself.  If Hillary is so evil and will do anything to win, she could have brought up Wright as early as February and Obama will be out and have no chance on Super Tuesday.  Obama connection with Wright has been known since 2007.  When the story came out that Wright was not allowed to participate on Obama's announcement of his presidential run, Fox news covered the story but not on the full scale. They didn't play the tape of the sermon like they did now.

Hillary never touched the subject although it would be to her full benefit if the story emerged after Edwards had dropped out.  If she is evil and will do anything to win, Wright would be brought to the table a long time ago.

by JoeySky18 2008-04-07 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Top 10 Inane Profane Flame

Thank you for putting all of these arguments in one place. I see by the prior comments that at least a few Obama supporters have been willing to consider your point of view. While I know you'd get beat up at dailyKos, there is also the chance that at least one reader there will look at the post with an open mind. Great contribution to the conversation!

by pan230oh 2008-04-07 02:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Top 10 Inane Profane
Now that you have provided the Republican talking points against HRC.....
I have and had had only two  points against HRC..
1. Her leadership in the DLC
and her decision to have Mark Penn..and his anti-union connections...
A basic question...
Why is HRC in a position now, where she cannot win
Like it or not...the Obama campaign has established itself superior.
Just maybe HRC will take PA by more than 15%..
Cool if that happens...
We all want it both ways...
I have not been able to emotionally support any candidate beyond Edwards...
However,; I have been able to move beyond...
I am no better nor worse than those committed....
However,; I can what point in time are you committed to voting for Obama as opposed to not voting...or even for McCain?
by nogo war 2008-04-07 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Top 10 Inane Profane

I have always been committed to supporting Obama if he becomes our nominee.

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-04-07 07:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Top 10 Inane Profane

Any Democrat would be better than any Republican in November. You could put a Democratic chimpanzee in the White House and, as long as the chimp-in-chief didn't veto everything the Democratic congress did, I'd be OK with it.

by NJ Liberal 2008-04-08 11:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Top 10 Inane Profane &

Great post. BO took GOP Hillary-hate and spread it through the Democratic Party. His has been the most vicious, divisive and cynical campaign I have ever witnessed.

Talk about say or do anything -- how about preclude 2.5 million votes from being recognized, or using sexist rants and cries of McCarthyism and racism against Democratic leaders who have done more for economic equality than any democratic leaders in generations.

The reason why BO will never win the general election if the DNC makes the grave mistake of giving him the nomination is because he and his supporters have been disgusting and denigrating in their attacks on Sen. Clinton. He has taken for granted the Democratic base, thinking that we will of course vote for him in the end. However, even if Sen. Clinton asks us to support him, I'm pretty sure at least 25% of us won't.

I laugh when BO's campaign says he has an electoral map that has him winning even without FL and MI and PA and OH and MA and NY. I'd like to see that cannot attack the character of your opponent in a primary election and expect to win in the general. BO is a stupid, stupid man.

by seattlegonz 2008-04-07 03:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Top 10 Inane Profane &

I'm a Hillary supporter, but please good person. Put your animosity behind you.

If Barack wins the Democratic nomination then it is imperative and incumbent upon all of we fellow Dems to vote for him in the General election.

There is no way any of us could justify a position of "no vote" or "McCain vote" and allow the Repugs another four year control of veto power and Supreme Court nominations.

We Dems must absolutely win control of the White House come November.

by RickWn 2008-04-07 10:42PM | 0 recs
If Barack wins the nomination

I just don't know if I can support him. The way he has attacked and disrespected the Clintons will stay with me for a very long time.

by bluestatedude 2008-04-09 04:56PM | 0 recs
You need to get out into the sun Seattle

methinks your missing vital nutrients.  Yeah I support Obama, but your opinions on Obama's campaign are not shared by a majority of dems, including numerous HRC supporters.

Don't confuse Obama's campaign with mean bloggers/supporters/media who point out things that you don't like to read/hear/see.

Also your statement

"However, even if Sen. Clinton asks us to support him, I'm pretty sure at least 25% of us won't."

may haunt your for at least 4 more years. Go to, you will fit in perfectly... as someone mentioned here a while back, it's a site for those who are tired of the Obama-leaning sites like TaylorMarsh and MyDD (get it?)

by KLRinLA 2008-04-08 02:38PM | 0 recs
I'm with Seattle on this one

Barack has run a toxic and poisonous campaign and he will have a tough time uniting the Democratic party behind him.

by bluestatedude 2008-04-09 04:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Top 10 Inane Profane etc.

Fantastic diary and very well-written.  I recommend people link to this all over the place, in their blogs, on forums, and where ever you can. Let's get the great diaries here VIRAL.  Link to them outside of this site!  Not just on Daily Kos. On your blogs, on blogs everywhere.  Pass on the knowledge!

by shellius 2008-04-07 05:12PM | 0 recs

I wish you would add "walmart" to your already solid diary.  I'm a union organizer sick and tired of the "walmart attack" from people who understand nothing of the work she did changing Walmart at a time when precious few women were allowed through the doors of any boardroom unless they were serving coffee.  

Far too often Clinton is attacked by persons within her own party by taking some of her strongest moments or largest accomplishments and crafting them into simple-minded clubs to beat her with.  

Oh. While you're at it?  Add "failed to get universal healthcare in 1992 thus solely responsible for the state fo healthcare today."  It's another personal favorite of mine.  

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-04-07 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Walmart

Excellent additions.  Thanks.

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-04-07 07:45PM | 0 recs
Can I ask what she did do there?

Seriously, I am not rying to provoke, I'd like to know if she instituted good programs or had positive advisement that is not reflected in the current image of Wal-mart.  This is part of her resume and experience and quite frankly, the current practices of Wal-mart is the anti-thesis to her healthcare/blue collar platform, and deserves to be examined.  It is not like it's fabricated that she worked as a Board member.

Wal-mart sucks, when people think of Wal-mart, they think of a company that has worked as hard as it can to avoid providing health care, benefits, and good pay to their employees for the sake of the bottom line.  If she was part of the Board that actually confirmed/ratified the introduction of these policies, well I would like to know.

I am not saying she is responsible for any of these things, but you have to admit when people hear she was on the Board of Wal-mart and then think about Wal-mart, well, good things do not come to mind.

Also I know Walmart has an obligation to its stockholders... so do all of the other companies that provide benefits, good pay, and health care to their employees.

So can you explain a little more why Wal-mart should be on this list of things not to be used against HRC?  It doesn't fall into the fabricated, half-truths,  innuendo talking point file like most of the others in this list

Will you refuse to say anything that is from the past but true about Obama that conflicts with his current message?

By the way, as a BO supporter I tihkn this is a good diary on most points, we all share a common goal, get a dem in the office, and of course, one should be psted for Obama as a friednly reminder that this is a two-way street.  I think this should be posted at DKos, I'll defend most of the points here

by KLRinLA 2008-04-08 04:05PM | 0 recs
got fast hands at the end, sorry for your eyes

by KLRinLA 2008-04-08 04:07PM | 0 recs
Wonderful and thoughtful diary.

Your diary is excellent.  Thank you, thank you, thank you.  

I cringe whenever I think of the things that Hillary has tolerated in this campaign.  During the Bush campaigns, I came to the conclusion that in politics the one who is accusing the other of obscene and vile tactics is actually going on the offensive against what they are secretly doing to the other.  I have read several diaries lately about the specifics of Obama's having gone negative against Hillary very early on which documents my belief about Obama.

Finally, the reason I will not ever be able to support or vote for Obama is the racism that Obama injected into this campaign.  It is well-known that neither Bill nor Hillary are racists in the least.  Their lives have been open books for over twenty years and if they had been racists it would have already been claimed by now.  Once Obama stooped that low I knew that he would be dangerous to have as President because racism is the most virulent kind of disease that once inflamed is a nightmare to heal.  Of course, Obama did not hesitate to use it to get 96% of the black vote in the states in which he used it.  Now, only Hillary will be able to heal those wounds.  Shame on Obama and shame on his supporters who close their eyes to that behavior.

by macmcd 2008-04-07 06:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Wonderful and thoughtful diary.

Re: Racism

I think its debatable who injected race into the campaign first. I bet 9/10 BO supporters would say the Clinton's did, while 9/10 HRC supporters would say Obama did. Either she subtley and knowingly race baited and the Obama campaign (and some of the media) rightfully called her/him on it; or just just stated some innocuous facts and the Obama campaign cynically and knowingly pounced on it. A BO or HRC supporter can say it ten different ways on a dozen different blogs, but it doesn't change the fact that its highly subjective.

Secondly, I think you can not be a racist and still make racist or racially insensitive/charged comments. I've only recently started reading MyDD and DK, so maybe people there were flat out calling the Clinton's racist. I didn't hear much of that in the real world though. The only thing I heard that was pretty racially charged--overtly so--was Ferraro's comments.

I know this diary isn't the place for a rehashing of the racism debate, but its incumbent upon all of us to treat our opinions with a healthy dose of skepticism. Is it possible that you are wrong about the racism issue? Is it possible that your passion for your candidate is biasing you? Are you so sure that you'll vote for McCain or stay home (vote-for-mccain-lite).

by bigdaddy 2008-04-07 07:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Top 10 Inane Profane

*I thought I posted this earlier, but its not showing up. Sorry if its a repeat*

Full Disclosure. I'm an Obama Supporter, but not a rabid one.

I actually agree with most of your points. I will disagree with a few things you said in no particular order.

-I think its Bush's war, yes, but Congress--particularly when it was Rubber Stamp Republican--bears some culpability. For anyone in Congress to claim they didn't know what they were authorizing insults my inteligence and leads me to believe they are either 1) disingenuous or 2) incredibly naive.

-I think that there are more "attacks" on HRC's vote to authorize the war because 1) she's still in the race. Its hard to attack Edwards or Dodd on the issue since they dropped out long ago. 2) She's extolled herself as the 'ready from day one' 3-am phone call, decision making experienced candidate. Its a natural setup for the "you had your 3am moment and you were wrong" counter-argument. Dodd et al. dropped out before the 3am business. 3) AFAIK she's tiptoed around calling the vote a mistake, which brings me to my final comment....

-She gets hit with the "dishonest" tag partially, and perhaps unfairly, as the result of her husband. Unfortunately Clinton, as capable as he was in other areas, had a problem with being candid and honest IMO--all the lawyer speak, the word parsing, and so on. So when you hear HRC misspeak or tip toe around a direct answer, it invokes memories of her husband.

I have no axe to grind with HRC. I only got interested in politics post-9/11. I think when she's being candid she is funny and smart, but too often I feel like she's giving me some sort of pre-canned, polled-to-death, politically safe answer and that irritates the shit out of me. Maybe that was Mark Penn's doing, or maybe its my own biases or maybe I'm just wrong, but that's my perception.

by bigdaddy 2008-04-07 07:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Top 10 Inane Profane

I actually agree with most of your disagreements to a few things that I said, lol.

Thanks for your more than civil response.

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-04-07 07:51PM | 0 recs
Re: right

This is right on.  Thanks for putting it in the black and white.  

by Thaddeus 2008-04-07 08:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Top 10 Inane

I think you make great points here. The thing is, even as a Hillary supporter, if I'm looking at the race objectively, a similar list could easily be drawn up about statements made about Obama. The reality of the situation is that this democratic primary turned ugly and divisive, with guilty parties on both sides. Speaking for myself, I'm really disappointed that dems have not been focusing more on McCain. He has been getting a free ride while we fight each other.

How can someone who embraces a president with a 26% approval rating, and openly vows to continue his policies... how can someone like that currently have higher positives than either dem? If we fuckin' blow this, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

by HRC 2009 2008-04-07 11:27PM | 0 recs
I'll chime in as well

First and foremost, I think most of the aggregious displays have been amongst us blog commenters more than anything from the campaigns or candidates themselves.  While I dont think Ive been too ridiculous about my pro-Obama (or non-Clinton) stance here (maybe a bit snarky and needling at times - what can I say, Im a younger brother) I have privately harboured bits of all ten of the items you list.  I believe most of those are very temporary flashes of disappointment in my normally rational self.

In the grand scheme of things, I believe almost all politicians (including Obama) are a bit slimey and duplicitous.  I am a professional cynic and skeptic.  So I will tend to assume professional politicians are flawed people at best - I dont believe professional politicians are saints, will deliver me from evil, will put a car in my garage, put two chickens in the pot or make every day puppies, apple pie and pony rides.

I believe most will easily stretch the truth and contradict themselves and obfuscate whenever necessary.  I believe they will cozy up to money more quickly than feed the hungry and shelter the homeless.  I just believe democrats actually do try and do some good through government where republicans try to do evil.

I believe this even more so for those who run for very high offices (obviously including the presidency as well).  I think you have to have a screw lose to put yourself through that process.

So I believe Hillary, Obama, McCain, et. al. have traits, in varying degrees of 1, 3, 8 and 10.  They want to win a contest and they are smart driven people who dont like to lose.  Im not shy of hard political fights or below the belt tactics (well, maybe not too below the belt for dem to dem, but I reserve the right to endorse extreme below the belt tactics for neocons and their ilk).  So these dont bother me too much and I expect a bit of it from all candidates.

As for 2 - I dont doubt any candidate privately considers what ifs?  Technically Obama has said he will only run once.  So if Hillary wins the nomination and for some reason loses the GE would Obama really not run again in 2012?  Who knows.  I will reserve judgment on this point until after the nomination process if she is not the nominee.  I think we can judge both Barack and Clinton on who they really are after the nominee is decided (will they be good winners and losers or bad winners and losers?).  Right now I will assume the best of both.

4 means nothing to me personally.  I have a hard libertarian streak in me and I actually liked some aspects of Bush 41.  But the more I learn and grow the mare ardent a dem I become.  We shouldnt have lithmus or purity tests to become a D.

5 - I will be the first to grant Hillary her experience.  I think trying to deny what she has done is ludicrous.  People who deny this seem to speak out of both sides of their mouths where in one breath they say 'being a first lady is nothing' and then say 'she ran the white house'.  Which is it?  But I also believe Obama has experience and it should not be discounted either.

6 - this is silly.  They both are good progressive dems.  Hillary has been around a bit longer to cast votes that I dont like, but Im sure given time Obama would do the same.  Obama in some ways has the luxury of a clean slate, but at the same time it also hurts him.  But Hillary and Obama are essentially the same platform-wise.

7 - I disagree slightly here.  I dont call for Hillary to drop out, at least directly.  But she is in a precarious position in my opinion.  The unfortunate way these things work is there is a winner and a loser (and I dont use the word loser as an insult).  And right now she is not in the cat bird seat - she is trailing and signifcantly so.  I fully recognize the facts that she can still win and the supers will decide this.  But by most measures, Obama is winning.  Rightly or wrongly, the winner gets the accolades and the loser gets nothing.  The winner has the responsibility to be magnanimous and embracing of the loser and their supporters and the loser has to accept the outcome and rally behind the winner.  Hillary has every right to fight on as she is still viable, but if she loses and takes a negative approach, she will be viewed very badly.  And the same would apply to Obama.  So Hillary should do whatever she wants as far as staying, going, whatever.  But the winner and loser will have roles to play in this and right now Obama is leading and has the right to the benefits of the leader.  Hopefully, what I wrote makes some sense and isnt viewed as an attack on Hillary directly, but the realities of being behind in a competition.

9 - This is tough one for me.  The AUMF is probably the hardest thing for me to get over, it is why I am non-Hillary in the primary.  As I said in another post I dont begrudge either candidate voting for funding going forward (to fully write my stance on that would take way too much time and space).  Fair or not, Obama gets the benefit of not having to be tested by that vote.  Thats the unfortunate reality for Hillary supporters on this topic, no one knows how he would have voted so its an unknown, yet everyone knows how Hillary voted so there is no unknown.  I can not forgive on this.  To me a vote for the AUMF shows serious flaws in a person.  I have read all the details behind it and I still find it abhorrent.  And while I will forgive anyone who seems to truly be repentant, I will not exclude that original mistake in evaluating their judgment.  So Iraq is not Hillarys war alone, it is everyones who voted for it.  I of course hold some much much much much more responsible than others (Bush, Cheney, etc) but people who supported this resolution bear serious responsibility for the tragic outcomes.  Its just that serious of an issue for me.

Overall, I believe we are starting to see some softening between the Obama Clinton camps online (by that I mean us blog commenters).  I think we had a rough patch of tribalism to get through and I am not naive enough to think we are fully through the woods yet.  But I think we recognize we have two good candidates and both would be leaps and bounds better than McCain.

Hillary and her campaign have said some things in this primary process that have really irked me as a dem.  I dont mind the Wright stuff, the inexperience, etc.  I do mind the dissing of states, dissing of the primary process, praising of McCain over Obama.  These trouble me.  And in one of my rants to my brother about this threatening to 'not vote for Hillary ever' he simply said 'dude, its a campaign, things get said, youd honestly vote for McCain over Hillary, after the last 7 years of Bush, seriously?'.  It was that moment that I realized, this is the primary, I have made a choice, I support my choice, but Im a democrat and I will vote for either of our two great candidates in November over McCain.

by pattonbt 2008-04-08 12:20AM | 0 recs
Re: I'll chime in as well

Great post, and not only because of the arguments you make but also because of the openess you show about your own thought process and how it led you to your ultimate conclusions. For the record, my feelings about #9 are not that different than yours. It is a tough one for me also, but it is a bridge I crossed once before when I campaigned for Kerry/Edwards over Bush/Cheny in 2004.

I look at the list of Democrats who voted for the IWR at the time, including those men and others I listed above, and I can't say that I simply can not support some of them for President now. I do not get stuck over Clinton not literally using the words "I'm sorry" when she has used the words "knowing what I know now I would not have voted for the IWR". To explain why I think she uses the words she does use instead of "I'm sorry" would be another very long seperate Diary, but for me the bottom line is all of those Democrats would not repeat their IWR vote in hindsight.

When I look at Obama's and Clinton's voting record on the Iraq war in the U.S. Senate and their plans regarding it moving forward, they are remarkably similar. If I based my support in the Primary solely on Iraq, I would punish Hillary Clinton for her IWR vote by not supporting her now. I factored it in but when all is said and done came out supporting Hillary overall.

Both candidates and their camps have said and done some things I don't like but I will gladly work for either of them to win the Presidency if nominated. The big picture is too important and too clear to think anything else.

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-04-08 07:55AM | 0 recs
Hillary's war, too

I posted a response to your number 9 assertion in my diary here: /40569#commenttop

Hillary would've been a stronger candidate if she would have apologized for her vote on AUMF.

by mikeinsf 2008-04-08 01:33AM | 0 recs
She has stated

she would not vote for the war again if she had it to do over again.  I completely understand why she voted to give the CIC power to go to war, even if I don't agree with it. Believe it or not politicians have to make strategic decisions to keep their careers afloat. I have no doubt Bush would've found a way to go to war in Iraq anyway with or without Congressional authorization (although it was definitely going to be authorized - let's be real) & at the time it was political suicide to speak out against the war. And given the record of this administration I am truly surprised they didn't "find" WMDs after all. If you are a politician committed to certain principles you might decide to keep your career afloat that casting a vote that has zero effect is the way to go versus putting your future efficacy in jeopardy.  Of course revisionist history is 20/20 so... And really she can't really come out & say "Look this is politics you have to make decisions to stay in the game & when you know this war is going to happen regardless, committing what appeared at the time as career suicide, may not be the way to go if I want to be effective on anything else in the future."  

by jrsygrl 2008-04-08 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: She has stated

Speaking against the war turned out to not be political suicide. 23 Senators voted against it and none paid the price on this issue. They had the courage to speak and vote their conscience, and they didn't throw a bunch of American soldiers and Iraqi citizens into a meat grinder in order to advance or preserve their careers. It's an act of leadership I appreciate, and apparently it is one that Clinton lacks.

Oh, and no more talk about 20/20 insight; a lot of us knew then exactly how his would play out.   And, no, it's not because anyone claims psychic powers. Many people foresaw how it would play out because they were better informed, not caught up in post 9/11 hysteria, and knew what a person lying to your face looks like and weren't too afraid to call Bush out on his shit.

by mikeinsf 2008-04-08 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: She has stated

And how many of those 23 Senators were going to be pursuing highly visible initiatives or campaigns?  Good for you that you knew the GOP was not going to bother "coming up with" WMDs. Many others thought they wouldn't be that lax.

The war would have happened regardless & no I am not going to dismiss a candidate who is better qualified to get us back on track, when our country is in such precarious times, b/c I don't agree with a vote she cast during highly strained political times when her dissension would've made no difference. I guess I am just not singular enough in my train of thought...

by jrsygrl 2008-04-08 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: She has stated


>And how many of those 23 Senators were going to be pursuing highly visible initiatives or campaigns?

You are referring of course to her presidential campaign. No, best not let the lives of American soldiers and Iraqi citizens get in the way of one's political aspirations.

>The war would have happened regardless

Probably.  But that's not the point. When lives are at stake, a leader makes a stand. Period.

>I guess I am just not singular enough in my train of thought...

No.  it sounds like there's a lot of wiggle room for you in such small matters as war and death

by mikeinsf 2008-04-08 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: She has stated

I guess b/c I get that life has nuances & that sometimes people have to mitigate their ability to be in a place of influence, in the future, I am somehow a horrible person that supports an unjustified war. @@ Talk about a leap!!   Well I guess that means that the ONLY people who should be considered for the role of President are the ones who voted against the Congressional authority to go to war (despite the futility of such an act) regardless of any of their other qualifications or how effective they may be in office.

This is complete & total revisionist history.  What would have happened if the GOP had "found" WMDs as many believed they were going to do? Then what?  How could one have known they weren't going to "find" any WMDs? Or is principal most important even in the face of handicapping oneself?  

by jrsygrl 2008-04-08 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: She has stated

>ss b/c I get that life has nuances & that sometimes people have to mitigate their ability to be in a place of influence

True.  Perhaps I need to reassess Bush himself.  I'm sure there are all kinds of nuances I've been missing. What fun.

>Well I guess that means that the ONLY people who should be considered for the role of President are the ones who voted against the Congressional authority to go to war

No.  But everyone who did deserves a harder look. If a candidate voted for that war, and then against the Levin Amendment, and then failed to apologize for those, and even after that, voted for Kyl/Lieberman, well, that's about 4 strikes on the war issue.  Buh-bye.

>This is complete & total revisionist history.  

It's not revisionist history. Plenty of people knew it was a horrible vote at the time, including a majority of congressional Democrats.  I knew it was a betrayal then as much as I do now.  Maybe you and Hillary figured out a few years late that Iraq was a fiasco, but a lot of us knew very well that it would be before the first bomb was dropped.

>What would have happened if the GOP had "found" WMDs as many believed they were going to do?

You keep bringing up something that never happened as a justification for something that did.  totally illogical.

Anyway, you're down with Hillary's war vote, so I suppose she's girl.  On to Iran!

by mikeinsf 2008-04-09 04:25AM | 0 recs
Re: She has stated

Yes b/c I support Hillary Clinton I must be for a long protracted political war. This is of course in the face of everything she has stated publicly, including YESTERDAY.  

by jrsygrl 2008-04-09 11:10AM | 0 recs
My 10 problems with HRC
  1. Obama should be my VP (when he is winning).
  2. Obama says he's a Christian, not a Muslim, I think (wink-wink).
  3. The uncontested primaries are fair and should be recognized, but contested caucuses are unfair and shouldn't.
  4. If I loose (and are loosing) the delegate count, the super-delegates should ignore the will of the people and select me anyway.
  5. If I loose the popular vote (and are loosing, even if you count the two rule breaking uncontested primaries and undercount the caucuses) the super-delegates should ignore the will of the people and choose me.
  6. If Obama does better in polling than I do, or if the results are inconclusive, against McCain, the super-delegates should ignore the will of the people and support me.
  7. Just because I questions why he chooses to stay with the hate mongering Rev Wright doesn't mean I'm race baiting. Its just another example of boys not letting the girls on their glass ceiling.
  9. You never forget when you have been actually shot at, and you don't have to embellish it.
  10. I have more experience than Obama, but please don't use that as a reason to vote for McCain over me.
by IowaMike 2008-04-08 06:07AM | 0 recs
Re: My 10 problems with HRC
  1. She never specifically said she wanted him as her VP. Some supporters have speculated it would be a possible compromise.  I doubt he was on the radar initially to be a VP
  2. She has never intimated that Obama was a Muslim.  Some of this propaganda has roots elsewhere.
3- 6 She has never said these things.
  1. It was not exactly a major campaign statement - I believe she questioned it once & moved on.
  2. Never said to overrule the popular vote
  3. I'm sure there will be plenty of attempts at exaggerating misstatements made by Obama to make him appear like a liar.  
  4. Totally illegitimate to point out that one has more experience than the other possible nominee I'm sure.  Although she has repeatedly said she would support Obama if he were the nominee; that is just code speak for defect to the GOP if I am not the nominee I guess.
by jrsygrl 2008-04-08 07:59AM | 0 recs

1. She was trying to get people to support her suggesting they would get both, which is the implication that was so clear that the MSM ran with it (it was what they wanted).

2. She saw an opportunity to be less than clear, to tarnish him with plausible deniability. That was why she didn't just clearly state "he is a Christian" the second time. She, with all of her experience, knows better.

3. Called caucuses unfair and undemocratic, but now thinks that uncontested contests, she originally said she was against supporting, are fair? Come on, that is twisted logic.

4. The rules for nomination is the one getting the most delegates, who represent the people. And yes, she thinks the super-delegates should override the regular delegates and its her only chance of winning.

5. Even if you count her two best states, and undercount the caucuses, she still is behind in the popular vote. And, again, yes she has called them to do it.

6. Another reason she claims they should support her. I believe the super-delegates are undemocratic because they were not chosen based on what they are there to do, choose the nominee.

7. She denies race baiting (even though some of her supporters still are) yet whenever she starts to lose, she claims its sexism. And it has happened more than once (losing in NH, its the good ole boys club, by the way, I don't remember many black men in that club).

9. She restated it many times. The details are wrong, and honestly, it was a lie.  A rookie mistake that a person with her experience shouldn't have made repeatedly.

10. So when she said that her and McCain were the only ones that were qualified to be the commander in chief, you agree that was wrong? Good. And, by the way, they last president that was truly qualified to be the CIC, was Eisenhower. Few have been truly "qualified" for that job yet have done it well because of judgement.

by IowaMike 2008-04-08 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Clarifications
  1. No the MSM has been making the suggestion for awhile - she laughed & didn't say no but she has never specifically stated she wanted the ticket
  2.  I wasn't aware she had to research everyone else's religious persuasions & declare definitive answers re: their beliefs.  She has never called the man a Muslim. It is up to him to define his religious beliefs further.  
  3. She has been consistent throughout re: her stated beliefs as to how the caucuses should work
4-6 She has never said people's votes shouldn't count.  But yes shock of all shocker - she is fighting to be the nominee.  How atrocious!
  1. That is crap. I am a supporter (although I initially supported Edwards' bid) & have felt FOR YEARS that the smear campaign against her has in large part been successful due to America's tendency towards misogyny.  The point of view is not a new one. Further there has been NO racist implications made by her campaign or any Clinton supporters that I am aware of (note I can't speak for everyone though only comments I have read/seen by supporters). However there have been  leaps made for awhile that many statements re: Obama's electability/qualifications are somehow mired in racism which I have found ridiculous & insulting to say the least & I suspect is often intimated to try and make people less likely to raise valid arguments (something which I refuse to be baited into since I am confident that my points of view are nothing I should feel guilty for).  So to break it down - a misogynistic attitude towards Clinton has been prevalent for years & the claims of racism that I have seen made by Democrats has not had the ring of validity to me.
  2. I guess the rookie mis-statements/blunders are forgivable then by Obama b/c he is still learning?
  3. I disagree with your assessment re: all of our  former candidates for President or former President's qualifications since Eisenhower.  Furthermore, once again she NEVER said McCain should be President if it is between him & Obama. But yes the experience argument will have the air of greater legitimacy if it is between Obama & McCain & there is nothing wrong with pointing that out esp. since it is obvious.
by jrsygrl 2008-04-08 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Clarifications

1. she implied it, more than once. It was calculated and meant to encourage the idea of him being her subordinate.

2. She was asked about the idea, and again she gave a weak answer. She knew it was a controversy and either played games with it or mishandled a very sensitive issue.

3. If she had a better organized campaign, she probably wouldn't think so. Again, wanting to change the rules because you are losing.

4-6. Saying that super-delegates should overrule the other votes is overriding the rule of the people.

7. You are so right, white women have had it so much worse than black men in this country (tongue in cheek). May be the issue is that he has been running a better campaign than her. And, I just find her blaming sexism, when I believe to be just as much racism playing a part in this whole race, to be a bit of crying wolf.

9. A repeated  lie is more than a slip of the tongue. Especially since she has a credibility issue, much of it brought on by her own campaign.

10. I am focusing on her "qualified as Commander in Chief" comment where she clearly said that her and McCain were qualified and you would have to ask Obama if he was. That was the wrong thing to say as a Democrat, period.

by IowaMike 2008-04-08 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Clarifications

I'm not getting into a sparring match with someone over who has had it worse in this country but suffice it to say there are MANY who believe that woman are the lowest on the totem pole. Regardless that is not what I said nor the substance of the argument at all.

We will go round & round on the other points you are making; I believe them to be intellectually dishonest suffice it to say. Additionally. there has been a definitive double standard with how Hillary Clinton has been treated in this process & it has really disturbed me. Of course the manner which Hillary Clinton has been treated for so many years I have found disgusting, but even her own party, whom she has done so much for, seems to be less then concerned.

by jrsygrl 2008-04-08 12:23PM | 0 recs
One final thought

Hillary should have had this wrapped up from the beginning. She had the name, the money, and the polls. She has ran a crappy campaign. Why do you think she will run successfully against a decorated well respected  and known Republican when she does so badly against an inexperienced fast talking newcomer? Usually the candidate that runs the better nomination campaigns runs the better general election campaign.

by IowaMike 2008-04-08 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: One final thought
  1. She will be able to fight with a bit more unfettered access since her own party won't gasp any time she dare asserts her qualifications.
  2. She has dealt with the GOP targeting her & her family in the form of smear campaigns for decades - something tells me she is a bit more attuned with how to fight them (& who to hire to do the job) then a relative newcomer who has not dealt with this type of machine ever.
  3. If her nomination was such a given, something tells me their focus & $ was directed fighting in the G/E not scrapping in the nomination process with a new up/comer.
by jrsygrl 2008-04-08 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: One final thought

Lots of excuses for a lousy race. And she has had a lot of self-inflicted wounds. I see a lot of promises based on nothing.

by IowaMike 2008-04-08 03:48PM | 0 recs
Re: One final thought

I don't recall making any excuses.  I don't think Hillary Clinton has acted in an unethical manner.  I think what it comes down to is people got excited about an alternate candidate & reacted emotionally when they worried that a protracted campaign may, in their view, impinge his electability. Of course, a few key (imo incorrect) assumptions have been made, namely that he is a better candidate in qualifications and actual electability in the G/E (the primary is hardly the real deal). I find it audacious that so many have called for her to drop out so early on especially since this is something she has worked for decades towards & a nomination that she has earned the right to at least campaign for.  

by jrsygrl 2008-04-08 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: One final thought

A lot of excuses (explanation as you see it) of why she is losing. And the electability argument is in the eye of the beholder. Hck, the counter on the mydd main page has Hillary losing to McCain, so there goes that argument.

I haven't called her to drop out. But I don't like calling on super-delegates, whom I consider to be undemocratic, to overthrow the legally and rule abiding elected delegates. For an election to be fair, it has to be rule abiding, legal and ethical. I believe calling to overturn fair results to be unethical.

by IowaMike 2008-04-09 05:49AM | 0 recs
Re: One final thought
The counter has Obama losing as well so then it comes down to asking oneself 2 questions
  1. who knows/has experience campaigning successfully against the GOP?
  2. who, based upon their track record/experience, is more likely to be able to steer this country back on course, given the horrific state of affairs that is currently plaguing us?
by jrsygrl 2008-04-09 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: My 10 problems with HRC

yes, to 48 state Obama is totally in support of the legally elected fairly contested people.

MI and FL are swing states. Need them to win in Nov.

Above all we should all be working to win the presidency.

btw lose not loose

by nellre 2008-04-08 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: My 10 problems with HRC

Its the MI and FL legislatures that created this mess, and are preventing a revote. Candidates and the Democratic Party can't force them to do anything. They could hold Caucuses, but I'm sure you don't consider them to be legit, since you lose them.

by IowaMike 2008-04-08 09:47AM | 0 recs
As an Obama supporter your points are well made

there is a lot of unfair nonsense being thrown around and its not the way we should be making this important choice.

by newdealer 2008-04-08 07:07AM | 0 recs
HArdly likely

This is a beauty
"Barack Obama can misremember the circumstances of his birth."

Nah, think not.

by hebi 2008-04-08 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: HArdly likely

LOL. Are you sure he hasn't had Primal Therapy?

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-04-08 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: HArdly likely
Nah, that was Dea.
primal therapy, primal scream.
by hebi 2008-04-08 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Hardly likely
Nah, that was Dean.
primal therapy, primal scream.
by hebi 2008-04-08 09:12AM | 0 recs
Seriously, a final question.

I asked it earlier to someone specifically.

Hillary should have had this wrapped up from the beginning, but she has ran a lousy campaign. How can she beat McCain when she is losing to a supposedly inexperienced, fast-talking and untested rookie?

Those who run better nomination campaigns tend to run better general election campaigns.

by IowaMike 2008-04-08 11:21AM | 0 recs
Can I recommend this twice?


by NJ Liberal 2008-04-08 11:07PM | 0 recs
What a wonderful diary!

You have done a wonderful job analyzing this.  Thank you in particular for pointing out the echo of right wing talking points used against Clinton in this campaign.  I think that is what stuns me the most, and is what I find to be a most disappointing trait among many, but not all, of Obama supporters.

by cjbardy 2008-04-09 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Top 10 Inane Profane Flame Arguments

See Standard, Double.

Good work.  Rec'd and tipped.

by creeper1014 2008-04-09 08:52AM | 0 recs
Thank you!!!

Thank you!  I am so sick of this crap I cannot see straight and I was an Edwards supporter and have no preference at present. I cannot believe the vitriol from Obama supporters who then whine if even one word is uttered against their candidate. Thank you for debunking these ridiculous accusations.

by rubysjones 2008-04-09 11:28AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads