Hillary Clinton’s Texas Two-Step
From the you’ve got to be kidding me section of the election, I’m sorry but Hillary is going too far. I was watching the McNeil/Lehrer Report on PBS this week and Hillary Clinton was being interviewed. In the interview Senator Clinton had the nerve to say that she knew back in the fall of 2007 that this election was going to turn out like it has. She stated that she knew she was going to be in a tough fight with Senator Obama and she told her campaign to prepare for Texas and Ohio. I am not even going to tear apart the complete absurdity of this statement. There are countless links I could include that contradict this statement, but hopefully they are not necessary. The point that I want to discuss is that if this is in fact true then how would she explain the following.
Texas' odd system of allocating delegates has flummoxed the Clinton campaign. Clinton told reporters over the weekend that her aides were still struggling to understand how the state operates.
"I've got people trying to understand it as we speak," she said. "Grown men are crying as we speak. I had no idea it was so bizarre."Asked by ABC News how the Clinton campaign would define success in Texas, Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson said he wasn't sure
. ABC News
So my question is this, if you knew as you said that Texas and Ohio were going to still be in play last fall and you had your campaign staff studying the process how can you now say that you and them do not understand it? Are you saying that after almost a year of research and not to mention your experience from two previous Presidential elections that you don’t understand the process? I find this a little bit incredulous to believe. I think the truth is closer to what you predicted last fall that this campaign would not go past Super Tuesday, so Texas would be inconsequential. It seems the Senator would like to have it both ways that she knew it would come down to this or that she expected it to be over by Super Tuesday. I can understand her logic not wanting to acknowledge that she was overconfident and ill-prepared for this contest.
However this type of doubletalk only reinforces a common criticism against the Senator which is she is living far removed from the reality on the ground and an inability to honestly assess her situation. The situation in Texas is not the only problem for the Clinton campaign, her leads in the remaining states have all but evaporated and she is hemorrhaging super-delegates. Because of its size and diversity Texas I don’t think can deliver what Hillary needs. Because delegates are allocated based on participation in previous elections even if Hillary keeps the areas of her previous strengths she could still lose the delegate count. I agree with the Senator that grown men in her campaign are crying but not due to the complexity of Texas election laws. I think they are sobbing because they realize that her strong support areas will not deliver the requisite number of delegates needed.
So, okay. Here's what we've learned this primary season from the Clinton campaign. Some processes (primaries) are more important than others (caucuses). Some states (Massachusetts, California) are more important than others (Virginia, Utah). Nevada teachers are more important than Nevada hotel and casino employees. And now, voters that vote in the daytime are more important than those who vote at night. Huffington Post
The strategy of trying to marginalize and dismiss the supporters and voters for Senator Obama has backfired significantly and has only helped to cause division in the Party. I find it very interesting that the supporters for these two candidates have developed so much discord and rancor. One would think that the supporters for these two historical candidacies would have more in common, but this primary season seems to have uncovered some deep divisions within the two camps and maybe the Party. It is not that there isn’t disagreement or deep support for their candidates, it has escalated to an almost malicious level with each side accusing the other of outlandish charges. If this continues I fear that there could be some lasting damage to the eventual winner.
The problem is that it took a historical candidacy to defeat a historical candidacy. Who could have predicted that we would be presented with these two candidates at the exact same moment in history. It seems that supporters of both candidates wants their candidate to be the first to make history and each somehow feels betrayed by supporters of the other candidate who selfishly want to do the same thing. Because they are similar candidacies any perceived or actual differences seem to be exaggerated to the detriment of the electorate. Minor miscues have been escalated to the point far exceeding their importance. I guess familiarity does breed contempt.
False history gets made all day, any day,
the truth of the new is never on the news - Adrienne Rich
- Forgiven's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
Deep divisions?
I honestly don't see this. There really is not a huge policy difference between the two candidates, and any "deep divisions" you might be seeing are, I think, really just superficial. They may seem deep because of the strength of support that each candidate is receiving from their base, but in almost all cases, that strength of support has more to do with personality issues and individual traits of the candidates themselves, not any major disagreement on matters of substance.
That said, I don't think a long, drawn-out primary fight will do the Democratic Party any good. They need to start taking aim at the Republican nominee. To his credit, Obama has begun this already, and I think it would behoove Clinton to do the same. If she continues to beat the drum of "experience" for three more months, she is basically campaigning for McCain, no matter who is the eventual Democratic nominee.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I second that
it all looks the same to me.
At this point, the differences are too minute for the average voter to notice or care.
We're talking about a preference personality and taste. The party voters will vote for whoever wins the nomination.
Yep
I second this.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Bingo
However this type of doubletalk only reinforces a common criticism against the Senator which is she is living far removed from the reality on the ground and an inability to honestly assess her situation.
The way her campaign has been mismanaged highlights the characteristics that weaken her as a candidate: putting loyalty above competence (retaining Solis Doyle too long), lack of fiscal prudence (squandered millions in Iowa and on bad advice from Penn et al), poor judgment (failure to plan for a long campaign), opportunistic as opposed to principled positions (shifting rationale on strip caucuses in NV, the MI+FL debacle, alleged threat of lawsuits over Texas), and finally her embrace of the 50%+1 demographic calculus as opposed to the 50 state strategy that will grow the party.
She's a fine Senator but this campaign has demonstrated why she is not the best Democratic candidate for President.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Bah
Hillary came into this campaign with two things: high name recognition and high negatives. So she started out with a big lead (due to the name recognition) but she had limited upside (due to the high negatives). This is a recipe for starting out strong and having to hang on at the end (or falling behind at the end), as other candidates with less negative baggage catch up in name recognition. It really doesn't have that much to do with mismanagement of her campaign IMO.
I know that political types and the campaigns themselves tend to assign paramount importance to the tactical decisions of the campaign, but the reality is that as long as a candidate has enough money and/or a high enough profile that the voters get to know them, it really comes down to to the candiates themselves for most voters when they get into the voting booth.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
As Tlaloc will no doubt shortly inform you
her negatives with Democrats (and even independents) were never that high. On paper she should have been fine for the primary at least.
That it hasn't (so far) worked out as anticipated is due to two factors: her mismanagement of her campaign, and Obama's unexpectedly strong candidacy.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Even if there are polls that back this up
...I do not buy into it-- polls are not the be-all and end-all. Hillary went into this campaign with high negatives amongst Democrats I talk to and associate with, and I'm not talking about left wing blogging types, I'm talking about moderate, garden variety non-political junkies. The Democrats I was around simply didn't seem to want Hillary for their President. With that in mind, I only made Hillary a 5 seed in my "bracketology"
of the presiential race back in January of 2007:
I explained why I only made her a 5 seed:
I even had her losing to John Edwards in the Great Eight. So, she's actually outperformed my expectations. In my mind, she was always an underdog, even though the polls had her ahead-- I saw that as a function of name recognition. I had Obama winning the nomination and the presidency at that time, and it wasn't that he was my preferred candidate-- Richardson was. I described Obama then as having "all the intangibles" and a "superstar". That's why I thought he was the favorite, even back then.
Incidentally, I predicted Obama vs. McCain in the general back in January 2007. Pretty good, eh? You may think I'm full of bull now, but you can't say I didn't foresee basically what's happened ;-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
If your anecdotes
and the statistical data conflict you should always assume it is the former that is in error.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Polls are limited, especially early ones
Early polls are not all that meaningful in a primary, where those being polled don't even know many of the people in the field. Early polls are poor predictors of the ultimate winner. I trust my instincts ;-) I give high weight to what I observe.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Early polls
polls are poor predictors of the future, they are (if done well) decent indicators of the present.
When talking about Hillary Clinton's negatives you are talking about a matter of the present, not the future. How do people feel about her now (which is not necessarily a good indicator of how they will vote later).
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Point taken.
So where does the claim that she didn't have high negatives come from, anyway? I see polls from last year that show her with high negatives. In this Mason-Dixon poll from last summer, for instance, Hillary was the only candidate, Democratic or Repunlican, who got a net unfavorable rating from poll respondents.
http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/hillary_clinton12/
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Pollster.com
has her favorable and unfavorable (and DK) ratings going back to 1993 here.
If you look at the chart you can see that her favorables are generally right around 50%. The only time they approached 40% was back in 1996. Despite the largest smear operation in human history her unfavorables have never hit 50% and seem to average about 40%.
Unfortunately we don't have nearly so large a record on Obama (because he hasn't been in the spotlight as long) with which to compare.
When we look at just favor within the democratic party Obama has often appeared tied with Clinton. See here for instance (poll by Pew research, conducted jan 30 to feb 2 this year, ~600 Democratic Registered voters).
Obama does generally much better with crossover groups (republicans and independents) but you can expect this to change a great deal for the former group and somewhat for the latter as the republican slime machine turns its aim on him.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
But 40%+ is a pretty high negative rating, is it not?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Depends on who we are comparing it to
Compared to a lot of people yes a 40% unfavorable rating is through the roof. But most people do not have years of well funded mud slinging aimed at them 24/7. By contrast among the big name politicians of recent years 40% isn't so bad. Bush's unfavorable rating is 60%.
By Rasmussen Hillary's unfavorables are only 6 points higher than Obama's. And the rightwing slime machine hasn't even started on him yet.
Part of my worry is that while the right has tried every kind of slander against Hillary they have a full quiver when it comes to Obama. In other words, I think they have lowered expectations on Hillary so much that people who see her are generally pleasantly surprised if she's not a raging demon from hell, whereas the expectations on Obama are getting so high that he could cure cancer and AIDS and not see a significant bump. :)
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Hillary...overconfident... ill-prepared... hurting the party
How many times must I read the same diary over and over, Forgiven?
Tell me this: don't not most campaigns present a front of confidence at the start of a campaign? I mean, do you really hold all campaigns to this standard regarding expressions of public confidence in the early stages of the campaign?
OMG what happened to the Biden campaign? He predicted he would win in South Carolina
! Biden was obviously more "far removed from the reality on the ground and [unable] to honestly assess his situation" than Hillary, right?
And what happened to the Dodd campaign? Dodd said “I’m going to be the Democratic nominee, and I’m going to win the presidency."
How out of touch was that guy, eh?
What was Bill Richardson saying last October? "I’m going to win this nomination,"
Bill said. Wow, how absurd was that guy? Why wasn't he publicly discussing weaknesses in his organization in Iowa and New Hampshire?
It's pretty easy to say all these overconfident predictions from early in the campaign are absurd-- if you take them at face value. But when you look at them in context-- and the context is that they ALL make bold predictions of success-- then you realize that these bold, optimistic predictions are for public consumption, to create the appearance of a positive, winning, can-do attitude.
So what's absurd is to use expressions of confidence by the Clinton campaign from last year against her now as evidnece that she was far-removed from reality, that she was overconfident, that she was so confident that Obama wasn't a threat that she blew off all the primaries past Super Tuesday.
And, really, you need to cut out this kind of hand-wringing concern, because it's just silly:
The media would love this campaign to be a bloodbath, so they instigate in order to attempt to drive up interest... and ratings. And insulated communities like DailyKos tend to blow minor incidents out of proportion-- hype and outrage precious commodites there, rewarded with many mojos and recommends. But the truth is that this campaign has been fairly mild and moderate by recent standards, and considering how close the race has been, and how much is at stake, it could almost be described as restrained. Here's an excellent opinion piece
that quaoar brought to our attention a few weeks ago. I think you would benefit from reading it.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Weird logic
Of course Biden, Dodd, and Richardson were out of touch with the realities on the ground -- and as a consequence they are no longer under consideration for the nomination.
Hillary started with huge advantages none of those guys had -- big money, party insider connections, name recognition, a media narrative of inevitability. She was the presumptive nominee from day one (understandable, she is a strong candidate) but she ran a poor campaign against a strong contender. To me, it reflects on her qualifications and capabilities for President.
Anyway, all this is an aside to the main point, which is that Forgiven is not comparing past and present statements, he's comparing two recent and inconsistent events, to wit: her recent claim that her campaign anticipated a hard-fought primary in Texas contrasted with the evident lack of preparation for any such struggle.
IOW, the issue isn't that she said way back when that she would win Texas -- it's that she never did what was necessary to prepare to win Texas but is now claiming she always anticipated its importance. Overconfident and ill-prepared seem objectively accurate in this context.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Bah II
Bull. They are no longer under consideration for the nomination because they never had significant organic bases of support, were never able to get big name recognition, and were never able to differentiate themselves from the pack-- not because they were out of touch. If a 100 to 1 longshot like Dodd fails to win the nomination, why does it have to necessarily be because he was out of touch?
I don't buy that that was a huge advantage. Maybe in the Republican Party it would be an advantage, but in a Democratic Party hungering for change? Not so much.
I don't buy it. I have a much more positive view of Hillary than I did when the campaign started. I used to think of her as a kind of droning figure, with no star qualities, little personal appeal, and few inspirational qualities. I was still angy with her for her yes vote on the Iraq AUMF. She has won me over in some respects. She has become a very good speaker. Her poise in public was remarkable, especially early in the campaign. She had an ability to respond to questions on the fly that was similar to Bill-- I really liked that, it showed her intelligence. She won a lot of the debates that I saw.
That's the campaign that I'm watching, not all this trivia about who is raising more money and who opened more campaign offices in what state. That stuff might matter in the Republican Party, but I dismiss most of it in the Democratic Party. An appealing new change candidate has a big advantage amongst the activist base in the Democratic Party and can therefore generate a superior ground game over an "establishment" candidate.
So they're having trouble with procedure in Texas-- big deal! Has no campaign ever gotten caught offguard by soemthing before? It's a stretch to build this into an overall theme of lack of preparation and then build that into evidence of overconfidence. The fallacy here is that Hillary's campaign was ever some invincible machine to begin with.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I hate to say it, skymutt, but ...
you're startin' to sound like a sheep with all those bah's! :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4They keep giving me things to bah!
I can't help but bah at this nonsense that Brendan is spewing! It's so bad that I'm having to roman numeral the bahs!
By the way, sheep say baa, not bah :-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Ah, OK.
I though you were using the midwestern sheep dialect.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I'm flattered
and I intend to find out just how high you can count in roman numerals ;-)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
The flattery continues
Bah IV, downthread :-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Still baffled
How is a 100-1 longshot running for President not out of touch with the realities on the ground?! If Dodd were still in the race insisting he could win I would certainly question his capacity to impartially interpret evidence and yes, it would weigh into my vote.
Of course the best campaign doesn't always win because the candidates don't start on a level playing field, but I think it's perfectly fair to consider how a candidate campaigns when weighing the likely future performance.
(Note that this discussion is within the context of winning the Democratic primary and has little to do with political positions -- perhaps this is where the talking past one another is coming up?)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Bah III
Oh, come on-- they all do it! Are you telling me that you wouldn't support a longshot who you genuinely thought was the best person for the job, simply because they expressed some unrealistic optimism regarding their own chances?
True. And I believe that Hillary started out this campaign with such significant disadvantages that she was legitimately behind, in terms of her probability of ultimately winning the nomination. So, in that she still has an outside chance at the nomination at this late date, I see her campaign as far from a failure. I think the mistake people make is that they look at the early polls, and they label the person who is ahead in those polls the favorite. That's not true in every case. The favorite is the person who has the best chance to ultimately win the nomination, all things considered. You can't just look at the polls early in the primary campaign and say that the person who is ahead in the polls has the best chance to win the nomination, because that's not true in every case.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I'm telling you that expressing
unrealistic optimism to the point of remaining in the primary through all of February as a 100-1 longshot while insisting victory was at hand or some such nonsense would make me seriously question whether they were in fact the best person for the job.
An incapacity to face up to political realities during a campaign does not bode well for objective analysis of foreign or economic policy once in office in my book.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
3
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +43?
I don't see that in the key... does "3" mean "off base?" ;-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Sure, as long as "off base" means ...
"mostly agree" in skymuttese? :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Bah IV
I'm not talking about hanging around the primaries, still claiming you're going to win after you get 1% in the first 25 primaries. I'm talking about happy talk about your campaign before the primaries start.
Besides, Bill said that Hillary probably can't win unless she wins Ohio and Texas. That's about a big a concession to reality as you'll ever get from a campaign. So her campaign is certainly not guilty of totally manic happy talk about their chances. What more do you want? You want Hillary to come out and say that her campaign is just one big failure after another?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
At least
At least that would be more refreshing than saying I meant to blow this election on purpose from losing in Iowa and then losing 12 in a row. We can draw our own conclusions, but a little honesty might be refreshing.
From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth; from the laziness that is content with half-truths; from the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth – oh God of Truth deliver us!— Unknown (blog
)
Why
on earth would you look to a politician, and not just any politician but a major national politician in the middle of a hard fought primary, for honesty?
What worries me is I get the impression a lot of Obama supporters actually believe him. That's scary. To believe that someone can rise to the top of not only the incredibly corrupt Chicago scene and then the national scene while remaining pure and virtuous is more than a triffle starry eyed.
If you think that Obama is the best political option, I can understand that. I think a decent argument can be made for him, although I personally am unconvinced, but if you think Obama is something really new and genuine I have an amazing amount of beach property to sell you!
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Just fyi, I believe
that Forgiven supported Edwards until he dropped out.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Fair enough
it's more of a generalized comment than one aimed specifically at him (her?) anyway.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
lol
I agree that early national polls are misleading
with respect to ultimate likelihood of success.
But I think it's a reasonable way to define the favorite at any given time. One could also use the futures markets, which also had her well ahead.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
The smart money was on Obama all along ;-)
You can't tell me that Obama wasn't a great bargain in the futures markets in this campaign. The futures markets reflect the biases of the masses, and I believe I could beat the futures market by a wide margin. Only my own laziness and the dumb internet gambling law prevented me from making a significant winning bet on Obama in this campaign :-(
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
The little nit
that in order to win, Hillary has to tear Obama down.
And in order to win she needs like to win by a 65% margin in the remianing states.
I don't think Brendan is off base here.
I'm only half stupid
Meh
Not necessarily. Obama could make a major blunder on his own. But Hillary is probably going to take more chances and not wait around for Obama to make mistakes on his own. Does that mean more agressive challenges of Obama's record? Probably. Is it fair to call that "tearing Obama down"? All I can say is recite Tip O'Neill's quote: "Politics ain't beanbag"...
Hard to say for sure. We don't even know what the remaining states are. Word just came out over the weekend that there may be a do-over in Florida.
Brendan has a pretty good record for staying close to base, but he's so far off base here that he can't even see base! "Base" and "Brendan" should not even be uttered in the same sentence in this diary ;-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
What a debasing thing to say
Your conclusion is baseless!
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Hah, that's funny.
when Republicans engage in nefarious conduct like citing facts about a Democrat's record they (the Democrats) call that:
That's true. I've never seen him steal 2nd OR 3rd. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Don't forget slinging mud
also, "shameful", which basically means the same thing as "shameless" somehow-- never thought of that before...
If Republicans were actually known for sticking to the facts without embellishment or skew, you'd have a valid point here.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
What the HECK are you talking about, skymutt?
I always have a valid point! :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Aggressive challenges
She needs to come up with something better than trying to convince the voters that experience is the most important factor, because if she succeeds in making that argument, McCain trounces her in the general.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
She is....
She won't flat out say, "Of course Obama is not a muslim."
The implication being that muslims are terrorists and therefore a threat.
She keeps answering the question so you can drive a truck through it, then playing up her own victimhood
I find that quite unsettling.
If Obama can make it through Hillary's subtle implications, then he will be more ready for the Republican smear machine.
I'm only half stupid
Bah V
Except that's really what she did say, until it her words were spun into something dastardly and vicious...
See, I see these kinds of responses to Hillary as verification of my thoughts all along about her campaign-- that she really didn't ever have the advantage in this campaign, because so many people seem to have the most negative reactions to every minor thing she says and does.
Obama's campaign may or may not be prepared for future smears, but if they are prepared, it won't be because they've been hardened for battle by the mild, soft jabs which have come forth from the Clinton campaign. Obama has gotten a big ol' free pass so far in this campaign, and he's just sailed on thru. Maybe it's just because they got nothin' on him! Maybe he's squeaky clean. I'm hoping so.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
My anecdotal evidence says different
I know an elderly woman, who watches (librul) CNN constantly. After the Kenyan costume stunt, the flag pin riff, the pledge of alligance lie, the B. Hussein Obama riff shown repeatedly, and the Obama's church minister loves Farrakan..... and all the other implications, and questions left hanging in the air, to put a seed of doubt in folks heads..... this woman insists repeatedly that Obama is in fact a muslim. She has no doubts whatsoever.
Now, pico, yourself and others may see folly here, but Camp Clinton is counting on women like this to vote for her.
Clinton just got done saying that McCain would make a better President than Obama, who only is only good at making speeches.
This is good for the democratic party because......?
I'm only half stupid
Bah VI
Without looking, I know that this 1. is on the rec list at DKos, 2. that Hillary did not say that McCain would make a better president that Obama, but that this is someone's spin on something she said.
Oops, I just peeked over there... and I'm right on both counts.
It's all very predictable :-p Wow, 1000 comments, what a surprise.
As far as your elderly acquaintance-- all I can say is that Hillary Clinton is not the chief architect of the Barack Obama/ Muslim smear-- maybe she watches Glenn Beck :-p Hillary has her overzealous supporters who dishonestly spread rumors and smears, and that's a shame. But look at all the false and misleading stories put up on the liberal blogs by Obama supporters, and I really don't see one group of supporters or the other really having the high ground.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Uh huh...
But I am not going to argue the point any further.
Hopefully there will be no Bah VII
I'm only half stupid
I just want to point out ...
that despite the furor over how right wingers are using BO's middle name as a slur, who exactly has been actively contributing to this particular thread and what are their political affiliations? I don't see a lot of right wing interjections here. :)
But this thread inspired me to do a little research on the topic and I thought you might find the following interesting:
CNN, NBC blame Obama "opponents" for smears advanced by media
CLINTON BACKER BOB KERREY ON SMEARING OBAMA
Both from sources you are likely to trust. I find that interesting since it too points to who is keeping this silly and puerile topic alive.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Wow, you are correct!
I wonder why Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh and Bill Cunningham and Michael Savage and the rest of the right wingers on talk radio didn't come post in this thread?
But seriously-- Obama's backers are doing their candidate no favors by claiming that Hillary is implying that she has doubts about Obama's claim that he is not a Muslim. What they are really doing is to help keep this non-issue front and center. If they would have been smart enough to let Hillary's benign statement slide, this dumb diversion would not even be news. And as MissLiberties points out above, if some people so much as hear Obama's name and the word Muslim in the same sentence, they will end up thinking he is a Muslim, and they will vote against him on that fact. So Obama does not benefit from this being in the news IMO, and Obama's supporters had better learn a little discipline, or this campaign is going to become a series of silly side shows reflecting the agenda of the the likes of Savage and Levin and Limbaugh.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
The viral e-mail
and whisper campaign.
I guess we can thank 'whomever' for bringing it to the forefront to make sure Obama can counter it, in the General, if he is the nominee.
It was the 'as far as I know' caveat from Hillary that left just a little seed of a ?
Is Hillary a Democrat?
Well, I will take her at her word. There is no reason to dispute what she says..... as far as I know.
"I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002,"
Is Hillary running to be McCains VP? Not as far as I know.
Good news on the right wing radio front, Melanie Morgan, who has been in my view so offensive, is off the air.
I'm only half stupid
Melanie who?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I thought you didn't want a Bah VII?
Yes...? What about it?
The implication being that 'whomever', i.e. Hillary, is behind the viral emails?
I guess one person thought so, and obviously the Hillary-hating group-think wildfire exploded from there :-p
You do realize that this quote was in the context of Hillary surmising about the arguments that McCain would make in a campaign against Obama , and saying that those arguments would be more effective against Obama than against herself:
I saw several people say that Hillary's comment basically created a campaign commercial for McCain against Obama. Well, if that's the case, then the Hillary haters have edited the commercial for McCain by consistently taking the quote out of context-- editing the quote so that it sounded like praise of McCain.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Bah.....
What you don't think Republicans know how to edit?
Hillary did not answer the question, if she had ever had to make a midnight decision. She did not answer the question how why she is better on national security. All she did was tout McCain's experience while criticizing Obama.
Bah Vlll...... coming soon.
Where I do agree is that Obama supporters have to be careful to not criticize Clinton except on the merits of what she says.
I'm only half stupid
There's a term for that
You do realize that this quote was in the context of Hillary surmising about the arguments that McCain would make in a campaign against Obama
Yeah, she or her surrogates frequently express concern about what Republicans, or McCain, or right-wing 527s will say about Obama. They are very concerned about the party not making a terrible mistake. They are concerned about him facing accusations he dealt drugs. Concerned about whether Latinos will vote for an African-American. Concerned about lots and lots of things that would provide ammo against Obama, were anyone to keep pushing them to Drudge or fueling whisper campaigns or completely distorting his actual record to score cheap political points.
Concern trolling the Democratic primary weakens the party for November.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Yes and
thank you.
The longer this type of dialogue goes on the worse it is for the democratic party.
I'm only half stupid
Bull I
So you're saying that a candidate should never say: "I'm better positioned to beat the opposition in the general election than my opponent, because [insert opponent weakness here]
Bull.
And I suppose nobody on Obama's side has ever said that Hillary is too polarizing to win the general because she will energize and mobilize the right wing base of the Republican Party? Of course they have.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Wow, now you're concern trolling too?
:) Oh the tangled webs we weave ...
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I like the bull more than the bah
It feels more concrete.
The statement in question throws support to John McCain as if she is trying to curry his favor.
I'm only half stupid
Is that what concern trolling means?
So you're saying that a candidate should never say: "I'm better positioned to beat the opposition in the general election than my opponent, because [insert opponent weakness here]
Of course not. I'm talking about floating a destructive smear under the guise of worrying about what the other side will say, that in fact provides ammunition for the other side.
By all means feel free to provide specific quotes for me to condemn from Obama or his surrogates, I'm quite confident they are out there, but I'm sure you realize that "too polarizing" isn't even in the same ballpark as the incidents I referenced in terms of being a destructive smear or in terms of providing ammo for the general.
That said, I'm cheerfully on record
opposing the use (from the left) of right-wing frames to attack Dem candidates.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I take exception to that characterization ...
These are not "right-wing frames". It is the Democrats, not the right, who are pushing these memes. Please stay accurate and give the credit where the credit is due. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Alas, if we only look at the past three months
that's basically an accurate assessment.
The Democratic Party -- snatching defeat from the jaws of victory election after election!
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
But it's people like me who are positive on both candidates...
...who somehow are misguided :-p
You guys (brendan, missliberties, forgiven specifically) are making GoRight rub his hands together with glee-- the defeatism is palpable!
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
"Too polarizing" isn't in the same ballpark as "inexperienced?"
They are in the same ballparrk.
As far as these other smears, are they coming from Hillary? Are they coming from overzealous supporters of Hillary operation outside the control of her campaign? Are they coming from third parties seeking to disrupt and divide Democrats? Hard to say in many cases, but Hillary personally gets demonized for any rumor or smear against Obama whether the source has any real ties to Hillary, or even in cases where the source is unknown.
And I agree that "too polarizing" isn't even in the same ballpark as "as far as I know," because "as far as I know" was absolutely nothing-- it would have never even made it to any ballpark, except for some hyperactive Hillary-haters on the left who don't feel alive unless they have something new to be outraged about.
On to your linked diary: what about those allegations of racism that were made against the Clintons? Were those allegations not in the same ballpark as some of the smears against Obama? When I spoke out against the race baiting by certain specific Obama supporters
, I was very careful to explicitly state that I did not believe that the smears were originating from the Obama campaign, and that I did not hold them against Obama. Why do Hillary's attackers fail to do the same in most cases when they make a charge against a Hillary supporter who has perpetuated a smear against Obama? Why is the implication usually made that these smears come from the top, even if there is no evidence?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
You spoke out against some random bloggers
They don't have quite the same relationship to the Obama campaign as do the Clinton supporters who made the remarks in question, do they?
If you reread my post I think you'll find my concern was the other smears. And yes, they come from Hillary's campaign -- here's just one recent example
:
That is textbook concern trolling. I'm sorry but it just is.
I can't answer for what all of Hillary's attackers do or say and I don't necessarily support it. Pico had a good diary on the rec list the other day about the importance of putting quotes in context. And like I said I'm happy to condemn the Obama campaign floating smears under the guise of concern for what Republicans will say. I strongly believe that I'm correct to characterize these attacks from the Clinton campaign as concern trolling.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Fine.
Yes, you are correct in saying that Phil Singer should be direct in his criticisms-- either an issue is significant enough to make a direct charge against Obama, or it's not. It was dishonest of him to back-door something meaningless like this. Stunts like this are worthy of condemnation, and I've never complained about critcisms of this kind of conduct. But it's a pretty minor thing to get too worked up about, and it's really best to keep both eyes on the big picture.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Well she has a point there
Primaries *are* more important than caucuses. Consider which nominee you would rather have- the one that wins only primaries or the one who wins only caucuses? Obviously the first for two reasons- primaries actually reflect the will of voters while caucuses do not and the ultimate presidential caucus is much more primary than caucus (granted the electoral college introduces some caucus elements but it lacks th behind the scenes anti-demoratic wheeling and dealing that are the very raison d'etre of the caucus system).
There are serious calls to get rid of caucuses entirely, there are no serious calls to get rid of primaries- there's a reason for that. Caucuses are an antiquated and unrepresentative system. I can't fault Hillary for pointing that out.
Similarly she ALSO has a point that dem voters in Utah do in fact matter less. Indeed when it comes to electing a president they don't matter at all. Not one democrat in Utah will have any say in who is the next president because the state's vote will go to the republican. Every dem in Utah might as well stay home. Doing so would not change the contest one iota. Now that's not a good thing by any means, but it is true, and it is the fault of the electoral system not Hillary.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
For those interested
For those who are interested in fact and not opinion or hyperbole I have had my crack research staff look at the primaries for Democrats going back to 1968 and here is what we came up with.
There were 5 elections that had frontrunners prior to voting:
1968 - Humphrey
1972 - Muskie
1984 - Mondale
1992 - Clinton
Out of those five contests three were won by the frontrunners, in the cases were the frontrunners did not win the nomination the campaigns were credited with imploding and blowing the nomination.
Those would be the 72 and 88 campaigns. The 72 would be known as the infamous Muskie crying and the 88 would be the infamous Gary Hart/Donna Rice scandal.
So yes having 130 million dollars, name recognition, and the whole Party machinery behind you and you don't get the nomination is a case of campaign mismanagement and the facts are starting to become apparent from campaign spending to firing staff. Not all of us are as smart as some of us...
From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth; from the laziness that is content with half-truths; from the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth – oh God of Truth deliver us!— Unknown (blog
)