When Republicans Quake and Tremble, or Why I'm Afraid of the Clintons

In yesterday's NY Times, a Republican columnist admits why he really supports Obama:

So throughout the Democratic primaries, I've been rooting for Barack Obama. The nobler side of me admires him, even across party lines, for the tremendous interest and enthusiasm he has engendered among younger Americans. But the larger, less decent part of me believes that Hillary Clinton would be a more formidable general election opponent for the Republican nominee. She's certainly on the ropes right now: her campaign has been flailing through the last few rounds of primaries in a way that Clintons are usually able to avoid. But we've been losing to Clintons for a long time now: I'd still just as soon avoid her in a general election campaign.

There's something other than superstition at work here: there's also a question of ideological positioning. Many of my fellow Republicans don't believe it, but Mrs. Clinton has actually fashioned a relatively centrist career as a senator. By contrast, Mr. Obama's voting record has been designated by the respected and nonpartisan National Journal as the most liberal of any of the Senate's 100 members. This is not merely an epithet: it represents a series of policy choices and legislative votes that leave Senator Obama to the left of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. Even the most inspirational and inclusive language in the world will face a stern test in the face of accusations on that front.

Dan Schnur, "Why I'm Afraid of the Clintons,"The New York Times, February 28, 2008

Hillary will still prevail!

Tags: Dan Schnur, Hillary Clinton 2008, republicans for obama (all tags)

Comments

36 Comments

Re: When Republicans Quake and Tremble, or Why I'm

Barack Obama is too liberal.

No wait!  He's not a real Democrat!

He's a too liberal non-Democrat!

...

Try to find a consistent line of attack.

by Skaje 2008-02-29 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: When Republicans Quake and Tremble, or Why I'm

He's a liberal who is conservative with details.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-29 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: When Republicans Quake and Tremble, or Why I'm
Good job!!! Exactly right! BO is whatever you THINK he is or WANT him to be. He is a kiss ass
and will never get my vote.
by IndyRobin 2008-02-29 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: When Republicans Quake and Tremble, or Why I'm

That's exactly what terrifies me about him. He's like George Bush...I have no idea what the guy stands for. He doesn't use his own words, doesn't talk about what he's fighting for, he advocates transparency but won't comment on the phone call made by his finacial advisor to the canadian conscilary. He says he shows superior judgment but makes bonehead decisions sometimes.

Aggh...no way do I want another one of those kind of presidents in the white house. no way.

by seattlegonz 2008-02-29 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: When Republicans Quake and Tremble, or Why I'm

No wait!  He is too much like George Bush.  That is the real reason Republicans support Obama.

by macmcd 2008-03-01 08:21AM | 0 recs
When Repubs Quake and Tremble

I really don't think there's a definitive answer to who is the more formidable candidate, depends on who you ask.  Some say Clinton and that Obama's name would easily do him in, others say it's Obama b/c the republicans are salivating to get Clinton.  Who knows at this point.

by venavena 2008-02-29 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: When Repubs Quake and Tremble

I happen to believe this guy. That's why I posted the snippet.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-29 12:41PM | 0 recs
Re: When Repubs Quake and Tremble

Well, I figured as much.  I don't really know what to believe so that's why I posted that it's basically open to interpretation depending on who you support.  Each candidates' supporters have a good argument on this issue.

by venavena 2008-02-29 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: When Republicans Quake and Tremble, or Why I'm

I'm glad I skipped posting a diary about Coulter and Limbaugh endorsing Clinton. Any such diary would have been as inane as this one.

by Bob Johnson 2008-02-29 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: When Republicans Quake and Tremble, or Why I'm

Yeah, that tells you something when diehard Repubs are supporting Hillary, as opposed to rank-and-file Repubs or Republican-leaning indies like the guy wrote the above article who will turn around and vote for McCain in Nov. But they won't get their way!

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-29 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: When Republicans Quake and Tremble, or Why I'm

Heh.

Are you saying Hillary happily accepted the endorsements of Coulter and Limbaugh?

by Bob Johnson 2008-02-29 12:41PM | 0 recs
Re: When Republicans Quake and Tremble, or Why I'm

No, but I feel more confident about the sincerity of the Republicans for Clinton club than those in the Republicans for Obama cabal.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-29 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: When Republicans

Do you know why Republicans are for Hillary?  They want her in the White House so she can screw up and wreck the party and Republicans can come roaring back and take Congress in 2010, just like in 1994.  

by Toddwell 2008-02-29 12:53PM | 0 recs
Re: When Republicans

They want her because at least they know what they're getting: practical centrism.

The Democratic Congress in 1993 was the most corrupt political entity since, like, ever. If you want to conveniently blame the demise of corrupt, out-of-touch Democratic pols on the Clintons, then yeah, I'll accept that.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-29 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: When Republicans

The Democratic Congress of 1993 was very much like the one we have right now.  You put another Clinton in there and we will lose it for a generation and will have to wait for another Mark Foley scandal before we get it back.  

by Toddwell 2008-02-29 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: When Republicans Quake and

So you want Hillary, who is would basically just govern as a Republican-lite President while throwing the party under the bus like her husband did?

by Toddwell 2008-02-29 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: When Republicans Quake and

Republican light?

I'd rather be assured of a GE victory with Clinton and know that liberal rule will be restored to the Supreme Court.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-29 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: When Republicans Quake and

Republicans will filibuster any liberal nominee that she would put up.  

by Toddwell 2008-02-29 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: When Republicans Quake and

Wouldn't that be for any Democrat's nominee, or just hers?

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-29 01:06PM | 0 recs
Re: When Republicans Quake and

Especially hers.  Republicans hate her and will do anything to make sure that she fails in every way.  

by Toddwell 2008-02-29 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: When Republicans Quake and

You are cutting off your nose to spite your face.  Hillary would likely get four years in the White House and be turned out by a Republican revolution in 2012.  Im not going to give up all we have worked for just to have Hillary in there for four years.

by Toddwell 2008-02-29 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: When Republicans Quake and

Well, if Obama is the nominee, you're going to have eight years of John McCain.

Good luck!

by PlainWords 2008-02-29 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: When Republicans Quake and

I would rather have that than having Clinton for four years and seeing Republicans take back EVERYTHING in 2012.  

by Toddwell 2008-02-29 02:29PM | 0 recs
Message to Republicans...
Be careful what you wish for.
by PhilFR 2008-02-29 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Message to Republicans...

What do you mean?

by Toddwell 2008-02-29 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Message to Republicans...
If the Repubs are hoping to go up against Obama, they may be in for a surprise. (HRC certainly was surprised!)
by PhilFR 2008-02-29 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Message to Republicans...

I agree.  

by Toddwell 2008-02-29 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Message to Republicans...

Yes, he will go dirty, as he has against Clinton.  But when they fire back, you won't even believe how much mud and sh** will hit him.  And he'll whine like a baby.

by PlainWords 2008-02-29 02:21PM | 0 recs
Re: When Republicans Quake and Tremble, or Why I'm

I'd like for that to be true, and I do believe the Republicans are hoping Obama will be the nominee because they believe they would beat him and that Hillary would be a tougher opponent.  That's why until recently all their efforts were to build him up and trash her, e.g. David Brooks and the crossover primaries.

The problem I've always had with the "Obama is the most liberal..." thing is that he isn't.  I think Obama and Hillary are both left of center, but Obama has compromised principles more.  Don't expect him to stand up for unions or workers if it will cost him.  On other issues too, he is willing to throw working people overboard.  For example, as has been pointed out in another Diary here today, he voted On February 10, 2005, in favor of the passage of the misnamed Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 which seriously hampers the rights of ordinary citizens to challenge corporations. Senator Clinton voted against it.

by PlainWords 2008-02-29 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: When Republicans Quake and Tremble, or Why I'm

Was Clinton not compromising principles when she voted to go to Iraq?  Was Clinton not compromising principles when she voted to give Bush the first step to go to war with Iran?  Was she compromising principles when she allowed her husband to sign the job killing NAFTA?

by Toddwell 2008-02-29 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: When Republicans Quake and Tremble, or Why I'm

Even Kennedy (before he embraced Obama), not to mention Republican Senator Hegel who drafted the resolution and always opposed the war, said that the resolution was intended to force the inspectors back in, not to permit preemptive war.  And that is what the Administration also assured the Senate at the time.  

In case you forgot, HRC was a Senator from a state where people were jumping out of windows to avoid being burned to death by mass destruction.  Her constituents wanted to be sure that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.  Barack, on the other hand, was a STATE Senator, with little to lose, and after he entered the U.S. Senate, he said he pretty much agreed with the way Bush was proceeding with the war, and he voted the same as HRC.  He pretty much goes the way the wind blows.

No one has voted to allow Bush to go to war with Iran, and HRC has actually been trying to stop him from giving assurances to Iraq that we will stay there, while Obama has been doing, well, by his own admission, NOTHING.

As for "when she allowed her husband to sign" NAFTA, are you crazy?  You do know that he was President, and she was not even in the Cabinet?  Do you need me to explain how our government works?  She argued against it.  That was all she could do.

by PlainWords 2008-02-29 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: When Republicans Quake and Tremble, or Why I'm

Clinton herself said that she and Bill were "co-Presidents".  

by Toddwell 2008-02-29 02:31PM | 0 recs
Re: When Republicans Quake and Tremble, or Why I'm

I find that hard to believe.  Do you have a source?

by PlainWords 2008-02-29 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: When Republicans Quake and Tremble, or Why I'm
Yeah, neither of these candidates have sterling records in my book. But they're both formidable, and I continue to feel good about our chances in November, regardless of who gets the nomination.
by PhilFR 2008-02-29 01:49PM | 0 recs
Case for Hillary

Hillary is the stronger candidate. This has been obvious. Some Democrats and Greens just choose not to see it.

by grlpatriot 2008-02-29 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Case for Hillary

Why is she the stronger candidate?

by Toddwell 2008-02-29 02:00PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads