The Guardian Posits: Destroying Hillary Clinton [Updated]

The vanguard leftist English Press institution The Guardian in a two part essay covers what it entitled "Destroying Hillary Clinton". A must read for anyone who is interested in the historical nature of HRC candidacy. Penned by Maureen McCluskey and Melissa McEwan the article covers how some of in our blogWorld went after her including detailed links to the well known blog articles.  I'll let the article speak for itself.

The first part of the article is about "How a bitter primary campaign saw the right's discredited smears gleefully revived and reused by the left."

In 1998, as six years of a national campaign to demonize First Lady Hillary Clinton -- funded by conservatives and rooted in profound anti-feminism -- was reaching a fevered crescendo, then-conservative David Brock (now of Media Matters) penned a book called The Seduction of Hillary Rodham. The publisher's note for the tome says of its subject: "No public figure in contemporary life has elicited more polarized reactions than Hillary Rodham Clinton. The first presidential spouse who pursued a major policymaking role, the beleaguered first lady has been a heroine and role model to her feminist allies - and a malevolent, power-mad shrew to her conservative foes."

Sometime in the last decade, her liberal foes evidently decided that whole "malevolent, power-mad shrew" thing sounded pretty good, too.

Throughout the course of the Democratic primary, it was neatly repackaged as "wildly ambitious person who will do anything in her voracious quest to win including destroying the Democratic Party while cackling monstrously and whose womanness totally doesn't matter we swear." The classic misogynist charge once used against Clinton by the vast right-wing conspiracy became the rallying cry of large swaths of the erstwhile reality-based community.

Without a hint of irony.

Clinton was suddenly a bitch, a witch, the Queen of Hearts "who has parasitically attached herself to the legacy and record of" her husband, the screech on the blackboard with an elitist trademark laugh. "Hitlery," "Hildebeast," and "Billary" - staples of 1990s criticisms of the feminist First Lady have returned with a vengeance. She was a monster, the devil in a pantsuit, targeted with dehumanizing and eliminationist rhetoric to which liberal bloggers used to object when the right used it against liberals, but apparently now consider okay, as long as it's only directed at a candidate they don't like.

For more of the first part of the article follow the link :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ 2008/jul/01/hillaryclinton.uselections20 08

The second part of the essay covers " Why did the left uncritically accept the claims aired by Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh?

When I saw last year the article by David Broder in Washington Post where he referred to the Clintons as two headed monster, I had a good inkling what was coming..

It was an indication of how thoroughly the left co-opted the use of the GOP and media-created scandals, to smear Hillary Clinton during the presidential primaries, that the Republicans weren't even mentioning them much anymore, content to let the Left do its dirty work. There was little reason for GOP operatives to get their hands dirty reviving the villainous First Lady Macbeth caricature, when many liberals were happy to do it for them.

Not content to merely destroy the entire Democratic party single-handedly, Hillary Clinton was hell-bent on murder. Evidently having failed to satiate her bloodlust after murdering Vince Foster - or such was the claim of her ideological enemies, a charge still being chanted like a demonic incantation by rightwing pain-maker Rush Limbaugh - now she was openly lusting for the assassination of her opponent, Barack Obama. (That is not to suggest there were no legitimate concerns about her statement.) And Randi Rhodes - a "progressive talk radio personality" - fresh from calling Clinton a "fucking whore," fanned the same flames when she announced fearing for her life after delivering the insult to someone who routinely has her enemies whacked.

"Billary", the two-headed monster created by the rightwing to demonize the "two-for-one" presidency of Bill Clinton and his feminist, advisor wife Hillary Clinton, also stumbled out of its grave, given new life by liberals who defended the Clintons against the very same attack when it was her being used against him during his administration, but now found it politically expedient to use him against her. Billary was back in vogue, and infamous Clinton-haters in the media like Maureen Dowd or Chris Matthews (who remains as fixated on Clinton scandals, especially the Lewinsky matter - the scandal that made his career - as ever) accused Hillary of being nothing without her husband, only having come within inches of the presidency because her husband had cheated on her. The progressive blogosphere largely remained silent, or, worse, acquiesced by suggesting there was some truth to the categorisation.

For more of the second part of the article follow the link to:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ 2008/jul/02/hillaryclinton.uselections20 08

To quote the famed Harvard historian Laurel Thatcher Ulrich:

Well behaved women rarely make history.

Update [2008-7-3 18:1:9 by louisprandtl]: Well Folks, looks like this had generated lot of good discussions. It is clear that there are lot of bruises and emotions still out there. There is clearly a need within the party and the progressive community to address the sexism and racism that still pervades our country. Unfortunately we (and I mean collective We) progressive liberals/moderates perpetuate it sometimes unknowingly using rightwing frames. It is necessary for us to openly discuss these important issues so that the primary wounds can truly heal. We need to come together to fight the good battle for November General Election for our great nation and for our future in the World stage. But we need to understand and nurse our own bruises..calling each other silly names or troll rating or hating each other is not helpful, neither should we box anyone to a corner...hopefully time and camaderie would heal us..Onward...



Display:


What do you think about the article? (2.00 / 8)

Comments, Critiques all welcome..


by louisprandtl on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:50:29 AM EST

Obama the hypocrite ! (1.17 / 17)

He talks about lofty goals while his henchmen do the dirty work? So what is new! He has no integrity!


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:14:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Go back to Hillaryis44. n/t (1.83 / 6)


by Geekesque on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 08:19:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama the hypocrite ! (2.00 / 2)

Just ridiculous. No one in the Obama campaign called Clinton any names. The only people who did that were marginal at most in the process.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:16:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama the hypocrite ! (2.00 / 4)

Well, there was that one who called Hillary a 'monster'.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:18:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama the hypocrite ! (2.00 / 1)

And she was immediately relieved of her duties, is there something else you wanted?


by KLRinLA on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:26:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama the hypocrite ! (none / 0)

Nope, just pointing out that the meme that there were 'none' is incorrect.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:31:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama the hypocrite ! (2.00 / 1)

Lets do this: you point out all the smears in chronological order that Obama or people directly involved in his campaign made and I will repeat what Clinton herself said. Then lets evaluate for level of vilenes for each comment. Let's see who comes out looking like the scumbag that they are.

Lets start:
Samantha Power called Clinton a Monster.

Bill Shaheen and Mark Penn suggest the Black candidate may have been a drug dealer in the past.

Which is worse?


by TMP on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:33:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama the hypocrite ! (2.00 / 4)

You'd have a salient point if I had made the claim that none of Shaheen's or Penn's words were ever spoken.

I didn't.

You don't.

I was refuting this claim : "No one in the Obama campaign called Clinton any names."

Nothing more.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:37:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama Co-Chair Jesse Jackson, Jr. Questions (2.00 / 1)

Hillary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNrlSn7nd AA


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:44:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama the hypocrite ! (2.00 / 3)

Try reading RACE MAN by Sean Wilentz of the New Republic as he uncoveres some of the sexism of Jessie Jackson and others speaking for the Obama camp.


by hairspray on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:38:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama the hypocrite ! (2.00 / 2)

No, he let his surrogates and disruptors in the "netroots" do his talking for him.

Hey, it was a strategy and though I disagree with it, it worked for him in the short term.  But instead of recovering, his campaign continues to stumble along when it comes to Clinton voters, underestimating how much abuse they would take.

Not surprising, given Obama's lack of experience and sharp elbow-style politics.  Works ok in Chicago but in a national election its a failure.

A few mea culpas from Obama's surrogates and henchpersons would go very far in helping Obama raise money and win the election.  


by Betsy McCall on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 04:11:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think you can write an equally (2.00 / 7)

compelling piece on "Destroying Barack Obama"

The right is after him.

The left is after him.

 Is it some big surprise that the right didn't like Hillary Clinton and wrote nasty things about her?

Is it some big surprise that the right will try to destroy Barack Obama?

What is news is how the LEFT is enabling this meme, with an assist from some blogs and the likes of ex-Hillary supporters who are supposed brilliant like Wes Clark.

We need to focus on moving forward to elect a Democratic President.

That's what I think.


overthrow the government~participate
by missliberties on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:42:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Absolutely we can write a piece on that (2.00 / 1)

subject. We are also already writing those defending Obama.


by louisprandtl on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:17:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly, Hillary's people slander Obama... (2.00 / 2)

...to this day on the extremist sites where they still dwell after having done the same on MyDD and other popular blogs.

TexasDarlin, Alegre, and so many others here, with no integrity whatsoever, went out of their way to promote every right-wing smear and slander against Barack.


by DCCyclone on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:14:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Exactly, Hillary's people slander Obama... (2.00 / 1)

I'd like to see some examples, because frankly, I didn't see any during the primary. At least none that came from fellow Democrats.

How bad do you want him to win?  Bad enough to agree his surrogates and supporters should apologize and make amends for making half the Democratic Party the embarrassment of the country and the world?


by Betsy McCall on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 04:18:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow. (none / 0)

You must have slept through the primary.

...making half the Democratic Party the embarrassment of the country and the world?

Wow again. Where does stuff like that even come from?


by Mystylplx on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 05:38:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary's people slander Obama... (none / 0)

And they do it with real racist venom. Some of them appear to be pathological in their willingness to just make up all kinds of filthy lies and to willingly pass that filth on.
Just nasty people.
by Mae Scott on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 05:03:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's people slander Obama... (none / 0)

True, but with the emphasis being on the phrase "some of them."

This is the reason diaries like this make me uncomfortable. It's not that there's anything wrong with it per se, but it attempts to play into a narrative that was common during the primary--that Hillary Clinton had it much tougher than Obama. The truth is she got what was about par for the course for anyone running for President. Did she suffer from a lot of unfair nasty attacks? Yes she did. So did Obama. So did Edwards. So did John Kerry. So did Al Gore. So did Bill Clinton, etc. etc.

What I don't understand is why we are still talking about how poor Hillary Clinton was treated so unfairly while running for President when it seems abundantly clear to me that she herself is over it and is focusing on what the rest of us should be focusing on--getting Barack Obama elected.


by Mystylplx on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 05:46:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I can post links to other articles (2.00 / 3)

saying that Hillary Clinton was not a big victim of sexism.  There was one, in particular, in NY Times, that I'm thinking of.  This is more opinion than journalism, not that opinion doesn't have its place.

There is a lot of left-over bitterness about the primary season.  I tend to think this article is reflective of that.  The real fact is, the Clintons (PLURAL -- BOTH OF THEM) pissed off many on the left because of their stance on the war for five years.  It may seem unfair, but I think they have suffered more backlash over this because they were such important figureheads in the Democratic Party as well at a time when many of us felt betrayed.  Perhaps the most overused phrase on the left blogosphere in the past few years has been the one "Spineless Democrats," used to describe our own Representatives and Senators.  The Clinton supporters, sadly, ended up having to defend Hillary by saying, oh yeah, well, everybody else was just as bad, maybe Obama would have been too if he had voted for it.  Few ever tried to defend Hillary's vote because it was such an obvious mistake.

I remember, in 2004, election night, I was in the Bartcop chat room watching the returns (Kerry lost, ya know) with others and chatting.  When the news came that Daschle had lost in South Dakota, there was some dark rejoicing and Schadenfreude.  I certainly took some grim pleasure in it.  Daschle, Gephardt, Hillary, Biden.  They all voted for the war, but it was the high-profile Dems that pissed us off the most.  

I'm speaking for myself here and generalizing it to others, which is perhaps unfair because I'm no spokesperson for anybody.  But I am probably representative of many who opposed the Clintons.

Why did they vote for the war?  I am still convinced, to this day, that they knew that it was a bad idea, but they did it anyway for political reasons, out of calculation, rather than out of responsibility.  That is ambitious.  It is calculating.  It is immoral and a disservice to our country.  This was Bush's war, but our own Democratic leaders let us down.  They were supposed to be our guardians, the loyal opposition, and they weren't.  So there was bitterness over that, and it was allowed to stew for years.


by Dumbo on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:44:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Unfortunately NYTimes's own Ms Dowd got pulled (2.00 / 1)

by her Public Editor for her literal war against HRC. Especially when she was traveling with the opposite campaign.


by louisprandtl on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:25:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ah... Time to whip out my Google... (2.00 / 1)

I was hoping somebody else would link to it.  This is the NYT article I meant:

NYT article.

Media Charged With Sexism in Clinton Coverage

By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE and JULIE BOSMAN
Published: June 13, 2008

Angered by what they consider sexist news coverage of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, many women and erstwhile Clinton supporters are proposing boycotts of the cable networks, putting up videos on a "Media Hall of Shame," starting a national conversation about sexism and pushing Mrs. Clinton's rival, Senator Barack Obama, to address the matter.

But many in the news media -- with a few exceptions, including Katie Couric, the anchor of the "CBS Evening News" -- see little need for reconsidering their coverage or changing their approach going forward. Rather, they say, as the Clinton campaign fell behind, it exploited a few glaring examples of sexist coverage to whip up a backlash and to try to create momentum for Mrs. Clinton.

Phil Griffin, senior vice president of NBC News and the executive in charge of MSNBC, a particular target of criticism, said that although a few mistakes had been made, that they had been corrected quickly and that the network's overall coverage was fair...


by Dumbo on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:42:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Let me assure you..if I made some of the comments (none / 0)

that MSM made about HRC, about a female colleague who do not agree with our project goals, I would be fired..I don't know how folks like Olbermann, or Mathews got away with it, but GE has pretty strict guidelines...
NYTimes of course have a problem with NOW's Media Hall of Shame when one of their own star columnist is prominently featured in it. What else can one expect of NYTimes?
by louisprandtl on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:45:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

NOW's Media Hall of Shame (none / 0)

basically discredits itself.  It's sour grapes bullshit.


by Dumbo on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 08:30:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And you concluded so because..??? (none / 0)

So should we have Mr. Olbermann define sexism and that women should fall in line with that definition shouldn't they?


by louisprandtl on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:00:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Before you attack a progressive movement (none / 0)

like NOW on a progressive blog like MyDD, I would suggest little bit of self restraint...


by louisprandtl on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:02:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Before you attack a progressive commentator (none / 0)

like Keith Olbermann on a progressive blog like this one, why don't you restrain yourself.  This is an intramural pissing contest and little more.  NOW isn't necessarily right because of who they are anymore than Keith Olbermann is necessarily right because of who he is.  

I read the NOW list and commented on it elsewhere.  Not everything that criticized Hillary was sexist, as the author of that list seems to portray it.  If you define sexism down that way, then you make it only a tool for a personality cult.


by Dumbo on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:56:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As Jerome referred to Keith Olbermann (none / 0)

as a wanker in waiting..A progressive leader is somebody like Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Gore Vidal, or in previous years somebody like Martin Luther King Jr or Pete Seeger or John Henry or Susan B. Anthony...You need to get your Progressive hero role model a calibration.

Mr. Olbermann's progressiveness is illuminating when he encourages some "man" to take Hillary Clinton in an enclosed room and make sure he is the only one who comes out..His continuous sexist remarks against female actresses are also very illuminating..

You need to get educated on NOW's background..Good luck...


by louisprandtl on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:11:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I didn't say leader. (none / 0)

I said commentator.  And please don't assume I don't know the history of NOW.  I'm a gray-bearded baby-boomer, dude.


(The author communing with nature.)


by Dumbo on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:57:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No You said Progessive hero...thus my (none / 0)

serious suggestion that your hero worship is in a serious need for a progressive calibration..


by louisprandtl on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:16:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Reading comprehension problem? (none / 0)

Before you attack a progressive commentator (none / 0)

like Keith Olbermann on a progressive blog like this one, why don't you restrain yourself.  This is an intramural pissing contest and little more.  NOW isn't necessarily right because of who they are anymore than Keith Olbermann is necessarily right because of who he is.  

I read the NOW list and commented on it elsewhere.  Not everything that criticized Hillary was sexist, as the author of that list seems to portray it.  If you define sexism down that way, then you make it only a tool for a personality cult.


by Dumbo on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:25:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Good Sire, looks like now you need a memory toggle (none / 0)

You called him your "progressive hero" atleast twice...

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/6/28/0 4740/6528/87

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/6/28/0 4740/6528/86

Anyway..I'm need to get back to the netherWorld of Coaxials X2s...G'nite.


by louisprandtl on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:37:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I can post links to other articles (2.00 / 3)

And yet now you have the current highest profile DEM voting for the war again by approving funding, going to vote for FISA telecom immunity and other Constitutional compromises, wanting to expand Faith based inititives...all for what?

For purely the most transparent political reason.  To get elected.

I'll let you sum up the argument:

That is ambitious.  It is calculating.  It is immoral and a disservice to our country.  This was Bush's war, but our own Democratic leaders let us down.  They were supposed to be our guardians, the loyal opposition, and they weren't.  So there was bitterness over that, and it was allowed to stew for years.

It will only be a few months, but as Obama moves further and further to the right he becomes 'everything' the far left decried about Hillary.  And as the days close on the nomination we all have to wonder, which one would have been better.  The one we know who is more centrist, or the one who pandered left, and moved right for political reasons?


He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin
by TxDem08 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:12:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I can post links to other articles (none / 0)

Approving funding for our troops in an existing war is not the same as voting for the war in the first place. I wish people would just stop making that idiotic nonsensical argument. It's the same as the difference between making a mistake and taking responsibility for a mistake--a HUGE difference.


by Mystylplx on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 05:50:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I can post links to other articles (2.00 / 1)

Hillary took responsibility for her mistake many times, and said she would take that vote back if she could. But of course that's not the same as saying the precise words, "I made a mistake and I'm sorry", so apparently it simply wasn't adequate for many people-- including Tim Russert, Chris Matthews and their ilk.

For some people-- and I'm NOT pointing at you-- it wouldn't have made a difference no matter how she worded it.


by Swedie on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 07:16:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I can post links to other articles (none / 0)

I never heard her say she would take that vote back if she could. When was this? If I heard her say that it would have made a difference to me. But if she was willing to say that then why wouldn't she simply admit it was a mistake? No one was asking her to get down on her knees and grovel for forgiveness.

But my main point was that funding an existing war is NOT the same as approving that war in the first place, as many people continue to claim.


by Mystylplx on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 07:43:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here you go (none / 0)

Ohio debate 2/26 with Tim Russert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdWh8qOUA zk

Listen all the way through to about 1:45 where Russert says "To be clear, you'd like to have your vote back," and she says "Absolutely. I have said so many times."

I totally agree with your main point. However, reading or listening to Hillary's floor speech at the time she voted for the authorization calls into question the notion that she approved of the war itself. She, as Kennedy did with the No Child Left Behind debacle, made the mistake of believing Bush...

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_ 101002.html

Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

[...snip...]

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.


by Swedie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 03:48:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It wasn't clear and full-throated (2.00 / 1)

like Edward's "I was wrong." Or Obama's clear statement that this war was a dumb war and he was against dumb wars.

I was shocked to find myself so ready to forgive Edwards.  His apology was not craven at all.  It was sufficient, and suprisingly so.

Let's not forget Bob Shrum's book, which details the way in which Edward's vote for the war was crafted.  He states that Edwards and his wife were both opposed to the war, but Shrum told Edwards that if he wanted to run for President, he better vote for it because doves never win.  What an incredible profile in moral cowardice.

AND YET I STILL forgave Edwards because I still had more confidence in him that he finally got it, that the war was a huge error, that it had to be corrected, than I had confidence in Hillary because of her continuing hawkish rhetoric.

So I was ready to forgive Hillary all along the way, but she never properly distanced herself from the war.  She may regret that now.

I was dismayed all through 2007 and part of 2006 that it appeared Hillary was inevitable.  I believed it.  I kept hoping that she would finally face up to the fact that Iraq was a mistake.  And then came that famous "non-apology" where she basically TOLD US VOTERS to vote for somebody else if we wanted somebody who was against the war or will apologize for it.  She told us to vote for somebody else!  

The fucking chutzpah of that.  And you wonder why some people came to hate her so early in the campaign?  This was a fatal flaw in judgment that destroyed her.  And it had NOTHING to do with sexism.  

Or perhaps it did.  Perhaps she and Bill and Penn thought that it was necessary for her to look tougher than a man, tougher than the neocons even, so tough and uber-macho she couldn't appear the slightest bit doveish.  Perhaps.  If so, she misjudged, or this was just never meant to be her year.  Being hawkish is one thing.  Being hawkish about a blatant monumental strategic military disaster is another thing, and not easily corrected.


by Dumbo on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 08:28:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It wasn't clear and full-throated (2.00 / 1)

I thought it was actually (and sadly) funny when she tried to "take responsibility" for a mistake she wouldn't admit she'd made. I'm pretty sure the first step in taking responsibility is admitting you've made a mistake.

Three little words--"I was wrong"-- would have made a huge difference for me. But she wouldn't do it.


by Mystylplx on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:21:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It wasn't clear and full-throated (2.00 / 1)

she stated that in the Ohio debate.  

Look it up - it was the last question in the debates.


by colebiancardi on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:26:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, Cole, I remember that. (2.00 / 1)

But it was too little, too late. Not just for me, personally, because that's irrelevant, but for her, because by long before then she had already allowed an anti-Hillary movement to metastasize.

As for ME, well, I appreciated her comment, but it was so hard to pry from her.  A deathbed conversion.

Contrast that with Edwards.  I was mad at Edwards over that vote, as well, but his mea culpa seemed so genuine and unhedged that I felt like he finally got it, and that made him an acceptable candidate to consider, a threshold that Hillary never met for me.

Maybe Edwards merely made a calculated political move.  I don't know, although my gut feeling is it was sincere (although late).  But it was well-executed, and timely enough to keep him in the top three.  Still, if Finegold or Gore had been in the race, I wouldn't have wasted my money on Edwards.


by Dumbo on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:03:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It wasn't clear and full-throated (none / 0)

Question: When someone says many times "If I knew then what I know now I would never have..." how hard is it to understand the regret inherent in such a statement?

To my mind-- and this was before I became a Hillary supporter-- she was saying "I made that vote. I'm stuck with it. I take responsibility for it. But I wouldn't do it again." It seemed pretty clear to me that she was admitting a mistake.

To be sure, I also would have preferred a clear "I was wrong", rather than the way she did it. She rather annoyed me in that. And I do think that lack of clarity cost her votes, though from the comments here it doesn't sound at all clear that she would have gotten these commenters' votes anyway.


by Swedie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:26:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, you are right. (none / 0)

I agree with you.  I think Obama is moving to the right (or center, depending on how far right the pundit analyst is) for purely political reasons.  On FISA.  On the war funding.  On faith-based initiative.  I will grant you your point.

But NONE OF THAT reaches the caliber of cynicism that voting to start a needless war implies.  

I don't let Obama off the hook so easily on telcom immunity.  (I'm uninterested in the other two items.) But whether calculated or not, it can't be properly compared in scale to voting for the Iraq War.


by Dumbo on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 08:39:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's not too late! (none / 0)

Write to the SDs. We don't have to go with Obama since he's not the Obama we knew.

The good news is, all this is happening before the convention.

Bye bye evangelicals, welcome back blue collar workers, et. al.


by SophieL on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:04:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Mark Penn Destroyed Hillary (2.00 / 4)

he and he alone.

secondary blame belongs to the Clintons having Penn as both their pollster and strategist..

Grunwald -  hey Penn these ads and imaging aren't going to help our candidate

Penn -  our pollster says this is the message people want that Hillary is tougher than any man and never admits mistakes and is inevitable..

Penn -- see our strategist agrees with me


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:59:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Penn Destroyed Hillary (none / 0)

There are lobbyists for the disabled, childrens healthcare, the environment, etc. They do represent real people. Not all lobbyists are bad.

Considering that the race was so close, any number of things by itself would have swung the elction the other way. It is ridiculous to blame any one person.

Obama had a huge money advantage. I'm not sure he is doing that great in fundraising now.

Had the progressive media been even-handed Clinton would have won. Had the mainstream media been even-handed she would have won. Mark Penn made mistakes for sure but he's hardly the only reason she lost. It was a razor thin victory for Obama.


by mmorang on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:57:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Penn Destroyed Hillary (none / 0)

Had the media been even handed Obama would have won by super tuesday.


by Mystylplx on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 05:52:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama supporters can say what they want (2.00 / 2)

or even try to defend their egregious behavior but they can't change the fact their strategy has created a lasting backlash against both the liberal and establishment wings of the Dem party.

Obama supporters exposed the ugly, misogynist underbelly of the Democratic Party.  In the short run it will cost them the support of many women voters, plain and simple. Now that the ugliness has been exposed, real Dem leaders who want to see the party gain voters instead of losing them will acknowledge their mistake and clean up their act.

Or not.  Its up to them, they owe Clinton and her supporters a big apology.


by Betsy McCall on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 04:00:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What do you think about the article? (2.00 / 1)

Thank you for posting the Guardian article.  It says exactly what I think.  As for me, I have been and am...a true liberal. Not a phony-baloney "progressive" posing as a Democrat; there are many lessons from the year.  Sad ones that I thought we left behind after the anger-driven '60s. It will be interesting to see what happens with women (and their acceptance?) by the so-called "progressives" who seem more driven by testosteron displacement rather than historical and issue purpose.


by christinep on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 04:18:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Apparently, there are still primaries going on (none / 0)

Otherwise, I'm not sure why we have to all have the same discussion for the 8 millionth time.  


John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way
by bosdcla14 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 05:40:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you (1.71 / 7)

It's been about 10 minutes since we last re-fought the primary wars and I'd forgotten already how horribly Hillary was treated.


by Can I Haz Moar Snark on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:52:31 AM EST

History unfortunately sometimes can be very (2.00 / 1)

unkind....


by louisprandtl on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:54:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: History unfortunately sometimes can be very (2.00 / 5)

Okay, so I fully expect you to include the Clinton camp's embrace of right-wing talking points about Obama into your diary.

If you want to re-fight the primary wars with every single diary you write, have the courage to criticize your own, as well.

I realize how it's fashionable to rail against the "left" around here, but frankly, it's pretty goddam tiring.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:13:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well there were few things done by Clinton camp (none / 0)

that I didn't agree with. I have pointed them out of and on in my comments (you can go back and check the comment history in Kos and MyDD)


by louisprandtl on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:23:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

He's not a Muslim... as far as I know... (2.00 / 3)

The Guardian posits that Hillary lost because of sexism. Not only is this myopic, but a sexist assertion per se.

Sen. Clinton lost because she ran a miserable campaign (in the first "half" of the primary). Ignoring a women's failure on her own merits is as sexist as ignoring her accomplishments.

Moreover, both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama will be faced with sexism and racism. All is fair in love, war, and politics. Both campaigns walked the line, and for good reason: they would surely face worse in the general.


I attended PUMACon '08!!!
by iohs2008 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:39:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He's not a Muslim... as far as I know... (none / 0)

There were detailed discussions between Obama supporters and HRC supporters on that particular comment that you quote in your comment title. If you read the whole transcript and the questions of Steve Croft, you'll find yourself surprised. I myself held the same view till wellknown Obama supporters corrected me on that.
 
by louisprandtl on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:20:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He's not a Muslim... as far as I know... (none / 0)

Please elaborate.

And after all, it is just one of many right wing lines of attack used by the Clinton campaign against Obama.

Two wrongs don't make a right.


I attended PUMACon '08!!!
by iohs2008 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:29:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

read this diary and the comments thereof.. (none / 0)

watch me getting corrected by Obama supporters in this blog...

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/6/17/1616 4/3739


by louisprandtl on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:45:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

tl;dr (none / 0)

I'm not sure where the counterpoint lies in all that, but (again) what the Guardian ignores is that:
  1. tepid racism / sexism was tossed around by both campaigns. Two wrongs don't make a right.
  2. Blaming Hillary's loss purely on sexism is as sexist as saying she only won because she is a woman -- it ignores the actual merit of the feat (or in Hillary's case, lack thereof)

I attended PUMACon '08!!!
by iohs2008 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:09:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Please tell us how they were racist (none / 0)

in their campaign. I think that's been proved to have been a ginormous fairy tale.


by catfish2 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:08:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How were they sexist? (none / 0)

Winning does not make one guilty.


I attended PUMACon '08!!!
by iohs2008 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:53:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If you do not read the text because (2.00 / 1)

it is too long, how would you know the context
in which your quoted originally comments were made? That HRC was somehow smearing Obama because of what she said to Steve Kroft was not right. And originally my reaction to her quote was similar to yours but I did get corrected in that diary by an Obama supporter.

Answering your comments:

  1. Agreed two wrongs don't make right. However the charge of sexism wasn't directed at Obama campaign in the Guardian article..
  2. No one claimed that Hillary's loss was purely based upon sexism. It was poor planning and strategy of Penn et al company + sexism + misc things that contributed to her defeat. I think you need to read the full Guardian article to understand its focus.


by louisprandtl on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 05:26:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He's not a Muslim... as far as I know... (2.00 / 3)

At least she didn't use an actual Republican attack ad, and then endorse the use of it during a debate.


He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin
by TxDem08 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:15:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He's not a Muslim... as far as I know... (none / 0)

So we found out early that Hillary can't defend herself against Republican attack ads.  How is that a bad thing?  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:21:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He's not a Muslim... as far as I know... (2.00 / 2)

Hillary defended herself well and totally debunked Obama's attacks and pointed out again and again his faux health care plan.

That in addition to the Canada-gate episode is what lost Ohio and Texas for Obama.

And it's not about who started it...it's about who actually used a Republican attack ad.  One that Republican's used themselves against a Democrat and Universal Healthcare with just a refresher for the clothes and medium.

Hillary may in your opinion have used ad's that seemed like Republican attacks...but Obama actually used a Republican attack ad.

BIG DIFFERENCE


He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin
by TxDem08 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:51:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't tell me one side was more "fair" (none / 0)

It's like the "They started it!" defense of children.


I attended PUMACon '08!!!
by iohs2008 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:47:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Less Than One Second (2.00 / 2)

Media Matters on "He's not a Muslim":

Less than one second. That's how long it took Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to answer, "Of course not," to Steve Kroft's question on 60 Minutes about whether she thought Sen. Barack Obama was a Muslim. You can time it yourself by watching the clip at YouTube.

Still, that didn't stop MSNBC's Chris Matthews from complaining on-air last week that it took Clinton "the longest time" to answer Kroft's question.

Lots of eager, tsk-tsking pundits and reporters agreed. They said Clinton was guilty of "hemming and hawing" in response to Kroft's peculiar, repeated insistence that she make some sort of declarative statement about her opponents religious beliefs. And then when she did, Kroft asked that she do it again. That's when Clinton, looking befuddled by the multiple requests, added some qualifiers to her response, including "as far as I know." What stood out in the exchange was not Clinton's responses, but Kroft's weird persistence in asking a question that Clinton addressed unequivocally the first time, as though he was trying to draw out something she was not saying. Even more peculiar was Kroft's obsession with the Muslim question amid a 60 Minutes report that was about Ohio's shrinking working class and what Clinton and Obama were going to do to try stop of the overseas flow of U.S. manufacturing jobs. (Note to Kroft and the rest of the media: Obama is not a Muslim; Clinton knows Obama is not a Muslim; Clinton does not believe Obama is a Muslim. Clinton made this very clear.)

After parsing Clinton's answer and then conveniently setting aside key sections of it, journalists at NBC, MSNBC, The New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Time, The New Yorker, and The Washington Post, among others, declared her response had been wholly deficient. Worse, Clinton's answer simply confirmed that she was running a "slimy," "nasty" contest. It was a "galling" comment; "the sleaziest moment of the campaign."


by catfish2 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:05:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

WITHOUT re fighting the primary (2.00 / 5)

we need to acknowledge that the progressive / workers / socialist / liberal movements have their roots in the Victorian era, and certain strains of those movements have always retained Victorian attitudes towards sex, sexuality and women.  We need to acknowledge it, challenge it and over come it.


John McCain says he would stay in Iraq for 100 years? That's crazy talk!
by kosnomore on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:23:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WITHOUT re fighting the primary (2.00 / 5)

kosnomore--this is an acurate and cogent indictements of the sexism on the left. So many forget that the second wave of feminism came out of the left and anti-war movement because of the mysogyny


by linfar on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:50:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

thanks linfar! (none / 0)

... i didn't know that. like, at all. before my time, I guess... but the background is well appreciated!


His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?
by RisingTide on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 04:27:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

without pointing fingers (2.00 / 1)

one would like to point out that there are many democratic groups that are substantially lacking in color.

If you aren't addressing all women's issues, what kind of feminist movement is it?

... same goes for tons of other movements, so nothing singled out, ya here?


His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?
by RisingTide on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:53:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Agreed - - Victorians are . . . Victorian (2.00 / 1)

on race, sex, sexuality, etc etc etc
We reject his 18th and 19th century racism but embrace Jefferson's populist / democratic ideals.
Similarly, we need to be ever vigilant in rejecting the racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. of OUR movement's 19th and 20th century roots.
John McCain says he would stay in Iraq for 100 years? That's crazy talk!
by kosnomore on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:30:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

and everyone wonders why (2.00 / 6)

Bill Clinton hasn't endorsed Obama yet. Why should he? really, for what his operatives have tried to do, and successfully done in some quarters to their reputation. And the media is trying to tell the former President of the United States what to do, especially after THIS. Bill is such a nice guy he doesn't let them have it worse than he did this year.


by Lakrosse on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:55:09 AM EST

Well the destruction of Clintons had to be (2.00 / 4)

accomplished to replace them. Unfortunately it came from the left this time...


by louisprandtl on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:57:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I hope Chelsea runs for Congress (2.00 / 2)

I really do. She could get elected easily, and help redeem them in the press a little. I want to see her as POTUS when my kids are around. She'd be great. The only thing would be to keep the Clinton name going, she'd have to retain her name, and I wonder if America will vote for a woman who kept her name, and if the man she wants to marry will accept it.


by Lakrosse on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:03:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

She seems to be very natural speaker but (2.00 / 1)

she seems to be a very private person..


by louisprandtl on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:49:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

she knows the dynasty (2.00 / 2)

must go on. She obviously was public enough to go all across America for her mother. That was a task, and she camped like a Presidential candidate in terms of schedule. She's got to kinda break outta her shyness shell tho a bit. She'll have to eventually deal with the press.


by Lakrosse on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:54:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

We'll see whether she takes to politics or (none / 0)

would she be more like Caroline Kennedy..on the periphery...only future will tell.


by louisprandtl on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 04:08:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: she knows the dynasty (2.00 / 5)

"the dynasty must go on"

I think the explicit support of a dynasty is pretty creepy.  Chelsea Clinton is undoubtedly a very capable young woman, but she isn't owed the presidency.  

If she wants to pursue a career in politics, more power to her.  The Clinton name, however, doesn't give her any magical powers of governance.


by Can I Haz Moar Snark on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 04:16:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

As far as democracy goes, dynasty politics (none / 0)

can be detrimental. Whether we like it or not, a famous last name and the contacts that come with it gets somebody a huge start in their initial political life. Of course later they'll judged more by their actions and politics..


by louisprandtl on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 04:36:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Doubly creepy (none / 0)

On July 3rd.


by JJE on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:34:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Why? (2.00 / 1)

And what dynasty?

The Clinton name will be laid to rest in history with all the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Is Chelsea even smart enough or qualified to be President?

Last names, genders, and races a President do not make.


I attended PUMACon '08!!!
by iohs2008 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:12:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope Chelsea runs for Congress (none / 0)

I have to ask though, what do you base you belief that she would be a good politician on? Why Chelsea? Because she is a Clinton? That is pretty poor reasoning to think that she would make a good president.

Perhaps she would be, but no one in the public can possibly know this. She is a hedge funder, works for a major Clinton donor/supporter. In fact the majority of her life is dominated by her parents in one fashion or another, from work to volunteerism.

She would need to do/have a lot of independent work/experiences before she would be anything but the mouthpiece of her parents.

I hate to say it but the Bush twins have actually done a better job in avoiding the shadow of their father and living their own life then Chelsea has.


by notedgeways on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 05:04:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope Chelsea runs for Congress (2.00 / 1)

so if she was a drunken slut you would approve of her?


by zerosumgame on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:53:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope Chelsea runs for Congress (none / 0)

I'm sorry... where you one of the Clinton supporters talking about sexism?

I don't mean for this to turn into a defense of Bush's daughters, but your comment is pretty offensive and ignorant. Besides I'm not sure which one you are referring to.
Jenna? Who has worked with UNICEF, and is currently teaching grade school.
Or Barbra who is working in the Smithsonian, and had been working in Tanzania, South Africa, and Botswana, with AIDS patients.

The point is, no matter how you emotionally feel about someone, that doesn't in-of-itself  make them fit to hold office. Chelsea seems like she may be a nice lady, but has been so sheltered and cut off from everyday life I just fail to see what her qualifications would be, to hold senate, let alone president.

The idiotic "drunken slut" comment aside, yeah you know if she has pushed back, rebelled a little, tried to distinguish herself a bit from her parents I would think a little more highly of her.


by notedgeways on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:18:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope Chelsea runs for Congress (none / 0)

sorry but using the SS to get around underage drinking laws and to ver their sexual escapades puts them right in the drunken slut catagory...


by zerosumgame on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 05:15:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is about Obama & his operatives (1.00 / 2)

Don't change the subject!


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:17:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is about Obama & his operatives (none / 0)

This is rich coming from an Obama-basher. That's a favorite tactic of ghe trolls and PUMA types. Come into any thread that has positive things to say about Obama and try to derail the discussion with old, worn-out talking points and complaints from the primary.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:38:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe she can run against Jeb (2.00 / 1)

or George P. Bush.  Or maybe Laura.  And then maybe they can all support Gulf War III, which will be against Saddam's secret surviving nephew or niece.  And Tim Russert's Son can moderate their debate on Meet the Press.  


by Dumbo on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:49:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope Chelsea runs for Congress (2.00 / 1)

Why what has Chelsea ever done? What great volunteer work has she done? Was she in the peace corp., or spent her summers volunteering in countries that needed help? As far as I know she went to college and then went straight to Wall Street to cash in on her fathers connections. I coculd be wrong but that's all I've ever seen from her.


by venician on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:40:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

She went to Stanford (none / 0)

it's entirely possible they hired her because she's smart as hell. I think she demonstrated that during the primary. But you can write her off as a dim bulb .


by catfish2 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:32:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She went to Stanford (none / 0)

As you well know I never said anything about her intelligence. Also look up who hired her and then see how much money he donated to the Clintons.


by venician on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 04:41:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope Chelsea runs for Congress (none / 0)

She is a very nice person, and seems very genuine.  However, I'll actually wait until she does something of substance before I start making hopes and dreams on Chelsea running for any office.

I don't think she really wants to be the front 'man' for any political position.  At least not right now.  


He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin
by TxDem08 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:17:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope Chelsea runs for Congress (2.00 / 1)

I can honestly say that I'm not in the least bit interested in continuing a trend where a few select families hold the reins of power.  

Apply that x100 to a potential JEB run.  


No way. No how. No McCain.
by freedom78 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:08:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ONe critique (2.00 / 2)

of the article is that how do we know that the Drudge leaked picture about Obama in Somali garb was debunked.  My understanding is that Maggie Williams initially neither confirmed or denied that a junior staffer did that; even if a junior staffer did do that, I find it pretty hard to hold HRC responsible.

The only bad comment made about the Obama photo was by Stepanie Tubbs Jones when she said on MSNBC that the photo was harmless because Obama was in his "native dress."  That was an unfortunate statement to put it lightly.


by Blazers Edge on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:06:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ONe critique (none / 0)

Link?


Mooseburgers? Careful Sarah. Moose bite back!
by spacemanspiff on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:08:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ONe critique (2.00 / 1)

For this :

My understanding is that Maggie Williams initially neither confirmed or denied that a junior staffer did that; even if a junior staffer did do that.

Overzealous staffers exist in every campaign and I'm positive Hillary had nothing to do with it.  I wonder how Clinton supporters would of reacted to "overzealous" Obama staffers.


Mooseburgers? Careful Sarah. Moose bite back!
by spacemanspiff on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:10:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ONe critique (2.00 / 1)

To the Stephanie Tubbs Jones comment: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 208/Not_quite_the_talking_point.html

Of course, HRC had no greater control over what her supporters said than the amount of control Obama had.


by Blazers Edge on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:12:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ONe critique (2.00 / 3)

STJ was a Clinton campaign nation co-chair. She was a high-ranking, official member of the campaign.

That's a little different that random people on the street or in the interwebs who support Obama (or are just campaigning against the Clintons).


by Can I Haz Moar Snark on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:18:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ONe critique (none / 0)

No that is another furthering of the smear......

Here is the statement:

"Enough.

"If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him [BELOW THE FOLD] wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.

"This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry.

"We will not be distracted."

Obama pushed the Drudge story, just as they pushed the "fairy tale" and racism remarks in SC.


He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin
by TxDem08 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:21:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Bill Clinton endorse (2.00 / 1)

Former US president Bill Clinton has offered his support for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Two weeks after his wife ended her White House bid, Mr Clinton's spokesperson said he is committed to doing whatever he can to ensure Senator Obama is the next president of the US.


Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that the