At the same tame that I can state I am sick and tired of the Clintons, I can also state I fully understand the frustration of Clinton supporters:
Here are some of the rules that Obama and progressives should look to enforce through to the General Election:
1. Rezko is a nonissue and bringing it up is a slimy personal attack on Obama. This one has the virtue of being true. Let’s get that enforceable against John McCain and the other Republicans.
2. Discussions of experience and youth are, at the least, vaguely racist, and a personal attack. When a candidate touts experience or points to Obama’s lack of it, they are expressly arguing for a return to the past as opposed to looking to the future. It means they are opposed to change. Indeed, it expressly means for Republicans that they want to continue the policies of the Bush Administration. For Republicans, this also has the virtue of largely being true. The GOP field is indeed basically arguing for a continuation of Bush policies in most areas – tax cuts permanent, continuatio of the Iraq Debacle, less government regulation, etc.
3. What Obama Meant. Any review of Obama statements or past votes is subject to an explanation by Obama of what he REALLY meant. Any criticism of Obama’s statements which do not take into account Obama’s clarifications and explanations of what he REALLY meant are unfair personal attacks and the attacker is a “liar” who will say and do anything to get elected.
4. Obama’s attacks are always fair and merited. Any suggestion otherwise is, at the least, vaguely racist.
Can we get these rules enforced in the Media in a General Election? Let’s hope so if Obama is the nominee.
As for those of us who have been trying to push Obama to be more of an explicit partisan Dem well we can give that up now. He does not even have to give that concern a second thought. Obama can not be criticized period now. We must operate on faith now.
I understand the frustration. Obama is, in my mind, getting a free ride in the media right now, and the behavior directed at the Clintons has been unhinged. I saw this Craig Crawford piece yesterday, and thought there was a lot too it. It is amusing listening to Joe Scarborough, one of Gingrich’s foot soldiers, lament how “divisive” Bill Clinton can be. Actually, it is absurd.
I am tired of the Clintons, but I sure understand why they think they are getting a raw deal. They are. Maybe during the general election, when the Republicans are unloading some truly vicious bullshit on whoever the democratic candidate might be, the folks will look back and re-evaluate their attitude towards the Clintons.
SomeCallMeTim
How many other times in life do you think Cuomo’s used “shuck and jive”?
Daniel Munz
I am tired of the Clintons, but I sure understand why they think they are getting a raw deal.
Yeah, but what bothers me about the Clintons (I guess we’re not even pretending that only one of them is running for president anymore) is that the entire rationale for their campaign seems to be what kind of deal they’re getting. Personally, I don’t give a fuck what kind of deal Hillary is getting, and I certainly don’t “fully understand the frustration of Clinton supporters.” Politics is a contact sport. No one forced Hillary to run for president. What did they think was going to happen?
I have to say this is the first time I’ve seen a campaign just choose whining as it’s campaign slogan. Say what you will about the substance of Obama’s rhetoric, but at least it’s promising something that pertains to, uh, the actual state of the country. I’ll take that any day over Hillary “Isn’t It Sad When People Aren’t Nice To Me?” Clinton, and her, uh, charming husband.
Zifnab
Fixed, for realism.
For all its worth, I’m an Edwards supporter – or I was, until last night, when he got trounced in his next door neighbor’s backyard. The mud-slinging between Clinton and Obama is particularly foul to me because they seem unable to even invent their own smears. I’ve yet to see an insult or a barb leveled by either of the two – voter fraud by unions, Bill/Hillary (white Democrat) coded racist language, “you are unelectable” rhetoric, accusations of being too liberal, accusations of being “soft” on terror, accusations of corruption – that come straight from Republican talking points.
Dreggas
Sorry John, as soon as her advisors were saying they think they have Obama painted as the black candidate and as soon as Bill was out there saying she can’t win So. Carolina because of her gender and skin color the cat was out of the bag. The clintons’ aren’t racist because that would mean ignorance. They know damn well what they are doing in attempting to use race to go after obama all the while maintaining plausible deniability.
John Cole
I dunno, but I have used it on a number of occasions. I have also uttered the phrase “doing the toe-step,” said when people were bullshitting that they have “broken out the top-hat and cane,” and so on. I guess I am just ready for a fucking Klan rally, aren’t I?
Get out of here with that weak-ass bullshit. BTW- when you all are done fawning over Obama’s ability to “transcend race,” could you please come up with a list of phrases and words we can’t use lest we be accused of trying to “inject race” into the campaign? Thanks in advance.
John Cole
BTW- It is kind of cute how the mild criticisms of Obama are being construed as vicious assaults on his integrity. It is going to be amusing watching you all freak out when the republicans begin to unload in the general election.
demimondian
Heh. Zif, you’ll still get your chance to vote for the two-faced millionaire, either way. In fact, Edwards will continue to campaign actively up to your state and beyond. Silky Pony wants to play king-maker in the convention.
The primary season exists to find the best candidate for the party. That means two things: first, picking the best Dem candidate, and, second, picking the candidate who can best weather the attacks the other party will level. Guess what? The best test for that latter is to mimic the opp research the other party will do, and fight the battle out in miniature.
I’ll be seriously disappointed if the Republicans can dredge up a single charge against the Dem nominee which won’t be “old news”, having already been aired in the primaries.
demimondian
Actually, John, you’re seeing Obama’s defense in miniature. The Republican nominee will represent a genuinely racist party, and, unlike the counters to Clinton, the charges of racism will be valid and will stick. What we’ve seen so far is that the counter works, even when it isn’t valid. Imagine what the response is going to be when the counter *is* reality-based?
Dreggas
Ya know, after hanging out at the great orange satan for the past week I’m pretty much numb to it. Nothing like having to battle Hillbots to thicken one’s skin. The upside here is despite what the clinton’s did Obama came out on top and their entire strategy, media bias or no, since iowa has backfired to the point of being comical. It’s like watching the wicked witch of the west melt from nothing but as bucket of water.
The bitch can burn for all I care and just for humors’ sake I want one of those C.U.N.T t-shirts.
dslak
Even if the Clintons are getting a raw deal, I just want to know where their spirit was when it wasn’t their asses on the line. Sure, they can take on the right wing noise machine when it comes to “winning” on matters like sex in the Oval Office or seemingly crooked land deals, but where the fuck were they in 2004 or 2006, or anytime between or before then?
The Clintons only come out swinging for anything when it’s time to run for the presidency, and then they trade in their cautious triangulation for no-holds barred, scorched earth campaign tactics. It just galls me. The fact that I don’t get my news from TV probably keeps me from appreciating just how vicious the media are towards the Clintons, but I don’t doubt that the animosity is there.
CAVEAT: None of this should be taken as a defense of or support for Obama.
Wilfred
Me, neither. I also don’t get Cole’s concern trolling for Clinton and her supporters.
Yesterday I linked to an article about how Muslim-baiters in Florida were trashing Obama, something not covered by the MSM – this is protecting the guy?!
SomeCallMeTim
I dunno, but I have used it on a number of occasions.
Bet NY pol Cuomo hasn’t, and in particular hasn’t used it in reference to a black person. But, hey, maybe the important part of the “illegitimate black baby” smear in 2000 was “illegitimate,” and black was just used for color, as it were. And maybe the Bush team really did have nothing to do with it. Who can say?
Boy, people are mean.
dslak
From the perspective of the general election, if you what you most desire is that the Republicans lose, there is reason to be concerned that Clinton is getting a raw deal.
Why? If Obama gets a free ride at Clinton’s expense, but turns out to be inept at handling the attacks that come at him in the general, won’t you be wishing that Clinton had gotten a fair shake in the first place? Of course, I expect the Clintons are going to maligned so long as they’re in the race, with a crucifixion or two should McCain be the Republican nominee.
OxyCon
Mark my words. When the media is done promoting Obama all the way to the primary victory, they will do an immediate 360 and turn on him and totally destroy him. It’s all a game for these people. First they want to destroy the Clintons, which is obvious to any cognizant, sentient being. But the real prize will be destroying Obama in the general election, ala Al Gore and John Kerry, but on a grander scale because we can’t have uppity black men run for such high office in this country.
Stephen
John,
A while ago you wrote that the GOP slime machine was going to eat Obama for breakfast. “You ain’t seen nothing yet.” Many other observers (I think you as well) have extended this to “Look, the Clintons are doing everyone a favor by scorching Obama a bit.” Toughen him up a bit.
Fair enough. I submit to you that Obama is using his advantage (media darling) to scorch the Clintons. If SHE survives Obama’s ‘sneaky underhanded manipulation of the anti-Clinton media’ to win the nomination, SHE will simply be better prepared to resist the GOP’s use of that tactic in the general.
She should thank him.
Steve M
I still do not see just what experience Hillary Clinton is supposed to have that makes her more qualified for the Presidency than Barack Obama. She has served what, one term in the Senate longer than Obama? Being First Lady does NOT qualify you for the Executive Office, in and of itself. What elected office has she held other than a two term Senator from New York?
The Other Steve
I wonder if Team Hillary feels Whitewater, Vince Foster, Oval Office blowjobs, and Healthcare debacles are valid arguments against Hillary.
Can anyone answer that for me? I haven’t seen Hillary address these issues at all.
I haven’t seen her address the issue of Why people hate her.
I haven’t seen her address the issue of Why she feels entitled to win.
One can go on and on and on. She’s basically gotten a free ride from the media on the issues the Republicans will use.
dslak
She doesn’t have any experience that makes her more qualified. Nobody here has claimed that she does.
John Cole
I am watching MTP with pumpkinhead, who has Chuck Todd, Maureen Dowd, and Byron York, and all four of them are gleefully discussing the Clinton loss in SC yesterday.
When Russert, Dowd, and York, all Clinton haters (have you all forgotten the role of Russert and Dowd and NRo in the 90’s), are all up there salivating, my senses perk up. The fact that the Obama supporters have decided to group with these people to win it for their guy, the uniter in chief wannabe, it doubly perks my senses.
The notion that all these people, once the Queen is dead, are going to still support Obama, is laughable.
D. Mason
This primary election is simply a reflection of the real world in America. A white person who criticizes a black person on any grounds is racist.
dslak
The Other Steve, don’t forget “Some people say you stayed with your husband because you didn’t want to jeapordize your political career. How do you respond to that?” I expect that will be a popular one.
SomeCallMeTim
When the media is done promoting Obama all the way to the primary victory,
Jeebus fuck. HRC’s going to win the nomination. And almost all the Dems bitching about her are going to line up behind her. Which is to say that they’re going to show a fair bit more fidelity than Team Clinton has.
Oh, by the way:
Gawd, I love getting rolled.
Armand
How have Obama supporters decided to group themselves with Russert and Dowd? Just because they all might be united in having problems with the Clintons doesn’t make them “grouped” in any meaningful way beyond having a shared interest. I know a lot of Obama supporters. But I don’t recall having ever met a fan of Maureen Dowd.
SomeCallMeTim
Eh, my mistake. The quote above that I linked is from 2005.
dslak
Say what you will about John Cole, Armand, but I don’t think the man is so base as to accuse anyone of being a fan of Maureen Dowd.
jrg
It is amusing to read this intellectual joy ride over Obama and the Clintons. I’m not sure if it’s Sullivanesque excitability; or if John believes that the Democrats are unprepared for the general election, so he’s trying to probe the candidate’s supporters; or if he just likes messing with readers. I suspect it’s all of the above.
The Other Steve
It’s not that. I lived through the 1990s and spent 12 hours a day fucking defending Clintons against this crap on the internet.
I DO NOT WANT TO DO THAT AGAIN!
So you tell me how Hillary plans to defend herself against Whitewater, because as you will recall it was HER deal, not Bill’s.
I’m going to guess “That was already investigated and is old news, can we move on?”
The Other Steve
While Hillary is responding on Whitewater, maybe she can respond to the Vote Flick video that’s making the internets?
Hell, it was published by Slate.com.
Bob In Pacifica
The Clinton camp has to do what it can to make this victory in SC look insignificant. Three days ago when they were questioned about their sleazy attacks they countered that Obama was too weak and naive for the rough and tumble of a Presidential election. So today some Clinton surrogate says they’re picking on her, boohoo.
It seems to me that the sleaze factor actually did go down in the last few days, but maybe I just stopped paying attention.
But let’s not kid ourselves here. Hillary Clinton’s gotten a lot of “superdelegates” and has gotten a sweet head start in the delegate count, just like Bill in ’92. It’s not unanimous but anyone with half a brain knows what the ownership class wants in this primary.
in canaduh
Hillary should’ve gotten a negroplasty
Dug Jay
Interesting babble in this thread. It’s more than a little amusing to see some of the former “defenders of the Clenis to the death” suddenly see problems with his and her actions back in the 1990’s.
Keith
Hillary may be getting a raw deal, but not Bill. It’s his idea to play attack dog instead of elder statesman, so tough noogies.
John Cole
I want the Republicans to lose in ’08. Right now I see people so invested in Obama they will say anything about Clinton, and will make it harder for her to win against a Republican. I don’t think Obama is going to win the nomination, and watching people trump up all these bullshit charges of racism against Clinton makes it all the more easy for the Andrew Sullivan crowd to claim that Obama was robbed and they just can;t find it in themselves to support Hillary, so they have to vote for Romney or McCain (one of whom will be the nominee).
Not to mention, when your average Democrat around here starts to sound like unhinged Clinton haters like Sullivan, Dowd, York, etc., it makes me pause for a minute.
One last thing- aside from the ‘transcending” and the ‘unity’ yes we can change’ element, I don’t see what is so drastically different between Clinton and Obama. Which one is gonna get us out of iraq?
Oh, yeah. Neither.
John Cole
And another thing- you all mock Clinton for “playing the victim,” and I see two things going on:
1.) I see the Obama camp cleverly playing the victim far better than the Clinton’s ever could. Have you all forgotten the list forwarded by the Obama camp of all the alleged (and totally bullshit) racial slurs>
2.) The press fucking hates Clinton, and are happy to get him when they couldn’t in the 90’s. The Republicans are just too willing to join in. Don’t think they aren’t loving the sanctimonious “gee maybe the Republicans were right about Clinton” bullshit all you assholes are peddling (see Jonathon Chait’s La Times piece yesterday for more).
Adolphus
Personally, I think working the media is part of what makes politics “not bean bag.” Many Clinton supporters seem to be defending the Clinton’s “reversal” on Florida and Michigan delegates was just good old hard ball political maneuvering and she out maneuvered Obama’s camp on it. Okay fair enough. Then so is working the media. Is it fair? Probably not. But who said presidential politics is fair? The Clinton’s spent the better part of the 90’s blaming, in part, the media. Why did they think it would be different this time? A winning politician would have planned for the inevitability and dealt with it.
Bitching about how the media is treating you did not work for Gore or Kerry. It won’t work for the Clintons.
Now suck it up and get back in the game and deal with it.
John Cole
Not that any of this excuses the Clinton BS trying to frame Obama as Jesse Jackson.
Jake
Uncle Jake will tell you a secret: The media knows Hillary-hunting’s where the ratings iz at. People who love the Clintons will watch, people who hate the Clintons will watch and the people who support another candidate will watch and that’s all that matters.
In other words, you are expecting substantive analysis of the issues from a gaggle of Entertainment 2Nite wannabes.
That’s cute kid. Now get off my lawn before I tell you the truth about the Tooth Fairy.
dslak
The way each treats the electoral process and the notion of politics as a means of solving problems in a manner acceptable to a range of Americans, rather than just the ones most likely to vote. I expect a Hillary presidency to be a lot like Bush’s, only with the secrecy and clever lawyering used to push through liberal rather than conservative policies. There’s at least some hope that an Obama presidency wouldn’t be like that.
demimondian
John is genuinely conflicted, as any reasonable Democrat would be. I’m likely to caucus for Obama, for instance, against my better judgement: I prefer Clinton’s positions to Obama’s on a variety of foreign policy issues, and consider her 1993 health plan failure to be invaluable experience for the single most important domestic issue of the next several years.
Why, then, will I caucus for Obama? I don’t like her circle of advisers. If I knew that Clinton wouldn’t restore Terry McAuliffe to the DNC, and I knew that Mark Penn et al. wouldn’t dominate her administration, I’d support her. However, as I can’t be sure of that, I’m probably going to caucus for him, as a vote of no confidence in that part of the Democratic party.
The Grand Panjandrum
John, the fact that the tables have turned on the Clintons makes this even more delicious. This perception that Obama is the “teflon” candidate must be maddening to the Clintons.
Is your real concern that if Obama gets the nomination he won’t be tough enough to withstand the onslaught? Or, are you just criticizing Obama supporters? It seems to me that your real concern with his supporters.
Jay
If Billary wins the general will Gennifer flowers and Paula Jones get new spreads in Penthouse?
Daniel Munz
Okay, I take it back. Here’s why I support Obama.
Jen
Yglesias sums this up pretty well, I think.
The Clinton campaign has just taken a no-holds-barred approach to this election that is in keeping with their general attitude of feeling entitled to this nomination and offended at the usurper who some have the nerve to be more animated by. I would prefer that the dirty politics be confined to fighting the Republicans rather than infighting.
Rezco IS a nonissue, for pete’s sake, and neither JC nor his link listed any of Obama’s “attacks” that they feel are below the belt.
The mocking about Obama transcending race is a bit overwrought. I’ve said it, and all I mean by it is that he is able to project an image that is both black and deeply American, in which the identities are not in conflict with one another. It creates a powerful message of pride that has a broad appeal and resonates with a lot of people. He is not the only person to do that by any means and it isn’t like we’re elevating him to some rarified status because I would say that people like Oprah and a number of actors, musicians, and athletes do that as well. But there hasn’t been a presidential candidate to pull it off yet. You just can’t say it about Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.
And, yeah, particularly when referring to black folks, it’s time to retire “shuck and jive.” It’s tone-deaf.
KCinDC
Uh, if Obama wins the nomination, then obviously he will have handled the Clintons’ attacks effectively. What’s the problem?
dslak
The problem is that if he is successful in “handling” Clinton’s attacks because he has prominent media figures taking care of the mudslinging for him, he may be handicapped in a general campaign against a media darling like McCain. I’m not saying that I buy this view entirely, but it has some initial plausibility, if nothing else.
KCinDC
Let’s hope so. I’m afraid they’ll do a 180. Besides, watching Russert do a pirouette could be entertaining. Not that they could be any worse on Obama than they would be on Clinton, though I am worried about their McCain crush and still hoping for Romney as the opponent.
taodon
“Poor Hillary. The big bad media is picking on her. Don’t they know better to bully a poor, defenseless woman? Why, it’s almost as if chivalry is dead in this country or something. We should let her slide on anything she says, and certainly not hold anything her husband says against her, because, well, she’s trying her hardest to break through that glass ceiling and all. I think it’s sweet.”
Is that better? Give it a rest – Hillary isn’t a victim by any stretch, and bullshit like this just doesn’t fly with anyone who has actually spent five minutes watching her hawk her way through life.
Stephen
John,
If the Clintons ARE trying to play the race card, doesn’t the media have a responsibility to report that? Or, should they simply give equal time to Plouffe and Wolfson.
Seems to me, if there is an objective reality (or reporters have concluded that there is a certain FACT), they are obligated to report that.
Being imperfect humans, and if we might assume a little bit of ‘no fingerprints’ cleverness on the Clintons, then the story of the Clintons using race necessarily gets told in ways that might be picked apart.
Tom Maguire
As to the phrase “shuck and jive”, a moment with the Times archives pops up Abbie Hoffman and Bill Keller as having used it, not to mention sports columnist William Rhoden and the great Earl (the Pearl) Campbell.
This Harvard study on media bias from last fall found a huge tilt towards Obama. Well, if the HillBillys can’t figure out how to placate the press, then what is all their vaunted experience good for?
Last thought – do people who think that BushCo is a secretive, rule-bending disgrace really think Hillary will be an upgrade? Or will it be OK since she will be keeping Dem secrets and bending rules to the left?
ThymeZone
Say wha??
The whole country — the whole world — has been getting a Raw Deal for years now. So suck it up and deal.
And the Clintons are not exactly newcomers to the land of the knockdown pitch. They are seasoned and experienced dirty politicians, they can dish it out, and take it. They don’t need any whining from the peanut gallery.
They asked for the situation they have right now, let them deal with it. I gotta say, this is not the most important thing we can be wringing our hands about today. The Clintons, who will gladly use any unfair advantage to its maximum effect for their own purposes here, are in the thick of it. So what? Meanwhile the GOP Beast continues writhing in its grotesque agony with a list of candidates you wouldn’t want running your fucking neighborhood association.
Sorry, I can’t buy into the “poor Clinton” bloggorhea today.
It’s bullshit.
taodon
No, with all the advancement Bush Co. has made in expanding the Executive Branch in the last seven years, I would say she would be worse. It certainly explains why Bill is so desperate for a third term…
janine
This is the sort of sh*t that makes it impossible for me to vote for Hillary in the primaries or the general election. She hasn’t dug up skeletons. She floats blatant lies (that are easily verifiable on the internet) and repeats them over and over. “Obama loves Republicans and hates Choice.” I’m not stupid.
Dreggas
Ted Kennedy is Endorsing Obama tomorrow, out of courtesy he told the clintons. I am sure there was an STFU in there as well.
Oh and contrary to what some might think. I think Obama has handled the Clintons quite well.
As for why it’s easy to turn on them. Shiv me once and I will shiv you 10 times over. The Clintons made their bed when they made it obvious this was about them and hem alone. Not only can they lie in it, they can die in it.
ThymeZone
Not sure that politics is really your thing, John.
Obama in the White House, versus Bill and Hillary in the White House?
No difference? Maybe you are limiting your remark to policy issues, in which case, yes, they are both mainstream Dems. Other than that ….. OMG. You are talking about at least four years of fucking torture for us, or a possible 4 years of something new and potentially different from politics as usual.
This is not a trivial difference. It may in fact be the difference upon which the November election hinges.
Dreggas
sorry for the DP, that’s double post btw.
Jon H
Wow. John Cole seems to have become a “I used to be a Republican, but after the Iraq War I’m outraged by the investigations of Whitewater” Clinton-supporting Democrat.
Jon H
“Any review of Obama statements or past votes is subject to an explanation by Obama of what he REALLY meant.”
I take it this is in reference to the Obama ‘present’ votes, which Hillary has been touting, but which are in fact a tactic in Illinois, and Obama made them by the request of Planned Parenthood, a fact backed up by statements by PP representatives in stories dating back at least to 2004.
In other words, this Clintonite zombie is saying “DAMMIT, STAY DOWN! WHY DON’T YOU STAY DOWN! Don’t give us these ‘facts’! You’re just supposed to crumble before Hillary’s misleading accusation!”
Dug Jay
From today’s Chicago Tribune: “And she’s [Hillary] probably got some other images in mind — either real photos or word pictures — about Rezko and Obama that she’ll probably drop on the way to Super Tuesday….One image will surely involve the dream house that Rezko helped the Obamas buy. And another involves Rezko himself, about to stand federal trial in a huge political corruption case involving not only Democrats, but old bull Republicans in Illinois, with Rezko passing through the metal detectors in the federal courthouse.”
ThymeZone
Dreggas
Jeez Dug Jay if I didn’t know better I would think you are rooting for Hillary…
ThymeZone
He’s a spoofass ankle biter, mostly.
But, if Rezko is a disqualifier, then we are pretty much going to need to back to Watergate and start over after Ford.
I sincerely hope that the Rezko slime and the other crap the Clintons are pulling end up costing her what looked like a sure nomination only weeks ago. She has miscalculated the depth of HDS within the Democratic party. In a 51% world, it is risky to piss off your own party’s base. She is in that territory now.
ThymeZone
Your post sums up my thinking at this moment, pretty well.
And I totally agree that Obama has played excellent Rope a Dope on the Clintons.
And yes, fuck them very, very much.
Jon H
Note that in an Obama/McCain contest, Rezko can be countered by bringing up McCain’s own youthful senatorial indiscretions (Keating 5).
Damned at Random
At this point, the “Clintons are viscious” meme is just easy- like “Gore is stiff” and “Bush is folksy.” Actually covering the race on any other terms is SO HARD and the Clinton dirt is surely in a searchable database somewhere.
ThymeZone
Well, all memes are easy, that’s how they become memes.
And they’re even easier when they’re true.
dslak
There’s nothing even particularly wrong with a politician being vicious. My problem with the Clintons is what they’re vicious for. It’s never for anyone’s rights, it’s never while putting their asses on the line in support of an unpopular decision; it’s only when it comes to what will affect the next election. Viciousness that’s selective like that, we can do without.
ThymeZone
Nail, struck on head.
A lot of people are going from “meh” on the Clintons, just a short time ago, to “fuck the Clintons” right now, thanks to their recent behavior.
I think they jumped their own shark, they outsmarted themselves here, and it’s going to hurt them, and right now, I am starting to hope that it hurts them very much.
peanutbutter
It’s the “youth” thing I don’t understand. Wasn’t Bill Clinton the same age as Obama is now when he became president??
ScottS
The Hillary Rationale for Why She Must Remain Inevitable (beginning 2007):
1. The GOP and/or the media has and will continue to slime me. My negatives are as low as they are going to go.
2. The GOP and/or the media has yet to slime Obama. When they do, he’ll go from being an inspirational speaker who is driving massive new participation in politics to just another GOP roadkill. (Hmmm.)
3. After Iowa, it wasn’t clear that the public was going to buy this argument. So, out came mentions of “Hussein Obama” Robert Johnson, “fairy tales” and non-praise for Ronald Reagan. Basically, it fell to the Clinton team to slime Obama to protect us from the horror of having the GOP version of the slime cost Obama the general election.
4. When Obama people called foul, they were gleefully told: “politics is a contact sport! get over it! you have to play this way to win in November — despite the war, economy and amazingly unpopular Bush administration, propaganda decides American elections, didn’t you get the memo?? If you can’t win the propaganda war with us, you deserve to lose. If dividing the Democratic party by gender and race is the price we pay to reveal this great underlying truth, so be it.”
5. Obama plays just enough defense and the public comes to the conclusion that the Clintons were the ones that ramped up the hardball. Clinton loses by almost 30 points.
6. Now, the whining. Obama supporters are too… smug… or something. The media is helping Obama! This negative stuff will tear Obama apart! No, not now, why did you ask, but later! Eventually, dirty tricks and manipulative propaganda will win the election, and when it does, you’ll wish you had Hillary at the top of the ticket!
Come back to the reality based universe, people. The Clinton campagin is based on a presumption that attack politics will continue working the way it has in the past and that Obama will be another Kerry. This is stupid and cynical. Kerry got 47% of the vote, Obama is way better than Kerry, and we’ve had four more years of Bush to prove to the country that the GOP slime machine sounds good in the short term but doesn’t make for good goverment. Now that Obama took on the Clinton version of the slime machine and rolled it up while looking dignified in comparison, the entire political rationale for Hillary’s candidacy is gone.
Postgame sore-loser whining is never pretty but hearing Hillary types try to play both sides “politics is a contact sport” mere is just pitiful. You lost by 15 points more than the polls were predicting. Pretty much NH in reverse with undecideds almost all breaking against Hillary in this case. Why? Its the great media conspiracy! The media loves Obama now but will hate him later! The media is SO powerful, you see, your vote doesn’t actually count, you had better make your vote be for the person the media hates the most out of the whole field, just to stick it to the all-powerful media. (Psst! Obama won just because he’s black. Try not to notice that Hillary was up amongst black voters in SC a couple of months ago.)
No, no, no. Obama played clever politics by goading Big Bill C into overreaching and he played clever politics by counterpunching just enough to avoid a punching bag narrative without going down to the Clintons’ level. This is exactly the sort of thing that will work fine in a general election. It is not the 1990s anymore. There are millions of voters who realize they were conned by the BushCo noise machine who will vote for Obama. They will not vote for Hillary.
If the noise machine is part of the problem, be part of the solution. Sometimes when you fight fire with fire you just get fire, and no one can see. It doesn’t have to be that way.
ThymeZone
Another nail struck squarely on the head.
I am starting to think … speculation of course .. that Obama has played the Clintons. That he knew they would not be able to resist playing the meanies, and he just rope-a-doped em into it, and is going to let them fall on their mean little swords here. He has done a masterful job so far and I am doubting that it is by accident.
If I am right, and I love to think I am at all times, then …. good, very good, on him.
Chris Andersen
What a lot of people don’t remember is that, at one time, eons ago, Bill Clinton was a media darling. I can remember reading a Doonesbury cartoon during the ’92 race that was critical of the fawning coverage the media was giving Clinton.
Live by The Media. Die by The Media.
curtadams
I know the RW media will want to turn on Obama in the general but I think he is playing them. Obama is a master of manipulating power structures. He knew they hated the Clintons so they’d support him over her. But once they’ve convinced the country that attacks on Obama are racially motivated they will find it nearly impossible to shift that narrative back. Any petty attack on Obama now will be answered in the mind of the public as “oh, they’re just racist, trying to make things up”.
He’s already gearing up for the “liberal’ smear too. He’s picked his issues for the stump speech – healthcare and Iraq. But on these issues 70% of the population supports the “liberal” position. When all these “conservatives” and “moderates” hear Rush spout about evil libruls who support universal healthcare and withdrawal from Iraq there will be a loud clang of cognitive dissonance as they realize “hey, Rush is calling ME an evil librul!” Then they’ll hear Obama’s claim that he’s about unifying America to find solutions and they’ll leap to support Obama to relieve their cognitive dissonance, since Obama’s worldview allows “conservatives” to support universal healthcare and sensible military deployment.
What I find amazing about Obama is his ability to use the brutal and manipulative power politics in the service of the common good and laudable aims. The “unity pony” is more of a Trojan horse. He’s using it to get into the Republican coalition and attack it from within. Once “conservatives” no longer see him as an enemy the conservative leadership will have a hopeless struggle trying to keep “conservative” voters from defecting over issues they disagree with the leadership on. He’s using a call for compromise to achieve unconditional victory. Of course he knows this – but he’s going to use this ruthless deception to save hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives. Somehow he’s a master of the Dark Side and the Light Side all at once.
Mike P
John,
I love you but I think you’re off here. You are overlooking the fact that the Clinton’s 1) can get their message out whenever and however they feel like it and 2) they actively stoke the media hatred of themselves. It’s no secret that they (the media) sorta don’t like the Clintons. But the Clinton’s use that media dislike to their advantage…they say “look at how badly we’re treated! The press hates us!” and so it becomes a rallying point in her favor.
Obviously not everything that Bill or Hillary said during the “race/gender” phase of the campaign has been racist. But they did trot out Bob Johnson, Bill made dumb comments about Jesse Jackson, and then the Clinton’s spun last night’s loss and inevitable because Obama is the “black candidate”.
Obama is getting a “pass”, if you can even call it that, just because he’s new. John, none of us who want a magical unity pony think this will continue and you insult the intelligence of the Obama “fan boys” when you’re basically screaming “WAKE UP YOU IGNORANT FUCKS” every time you post on the subject. We know he’s going to get the kitchen sink thrown at him. You should also note that Obama himself said that this has been good for him in the sense that it’s making him tougher for the general, should he get that far.
John Cole
That must be what they call transcending race.
Jen
That could be. I do think that his strategy with this is quite deliberate; it is a well-known and very distateful Clintonian tactic to win at all costs against all comers, and I think Obama is naturally inclined to be aloof towards attacks against him. I expect he was probably advised to use that to his advantage and see how it played out.
I am probably hopelessly naive here. But if Obama gets the nomination, the Republicans will almost certainly gear up their slime machine on the only setting it has (11), but I think they’re going to have to be careful about it. If Obama can beat the Clintons at their own game, and with the odds already stacked against the R’s, they’re going to have to tread, if not lightly, then at least cautiously lest their last feeble hopes blow up in their face.
Just a cheerful statistic I like:
SC Democratic primary turnout, 2008: 500,000+
SC Democratic primary turnout, 2004: 290,000
SC Republican primary turnout, 2008: 430,000
SC Republican primary turnout, 2000: 565,000
Boom.
Jen
You’re a stubborn fucker, aren’t you?
Cain
Now the question is, if Obama wins the nomination will the Clinton fall behind and use their political muscle to get Obama the White House? He’s going to need a lot of help against the right wing machine.
cain
John Cole
I’m stubborn? Cripes, I have already said I will vote for Obama in the General, and if the nomination is still in play when primary season hits WV I will vote for Obama over Clinton.
But that isn’t good enough- I have to buy into the whole magical unity pony and the fanboy notion that Obama is gonna change politics in America FOREVERS and this is like camelot II. And if I don’t, and I call bullshit on this silliness, well, I am just a hater and in the Clinton camp.
Now- who is being stubborn?
Jen
You’re being stubborn about the transcending race thing and mocking it all the time. I have no idea what other people mean when they say that, I only know what I mean when I say it and I explained that, but you just used it snarkily again without ever acknowledging that at least one person tried to explain what that meant to her/him/it. I was not commenting on your larger ideas and that was the reason for the little block quote.
crw
Um, Obama got more votes than McCain and Huckabee combined. In South freaking Carolina. I think worrying about his performance in the general should be the least of our worries.
Barring some miraculous developments in the economy and Iraq later this year, this year is going to be a shoe in for Democrats as long as they can hold on to all those independents and young, new voters. Obama has a better track record here than Clinton. In all the exit polls, Obama’s base is predominantly young and independent. Clinton’s base is predominantly older boomers and party loyalists.
I don’t think all those young people and independents are going to wake up some day after sufficient Rethug smearing and say “Gosh, I never realized his middle name was Hussein before! Guess I better vote for the old white guy instead!” or whatev. With Obama, we have the potential for a realigning landslide. With Clinton, we’re more likely to get another 50+1 Rovian “victory.” IMO.
dslak
If Obama did not make his race an issue in the campaign, and the Clintons brought it in so that they could marginalize him as the black candidate, it’s not a failing on his part to exploit that against them.
Unless Obama is the black candidate, there’s nothing mystical or vacuous in saying that he’s transcended race.
John Cole
Because “transcending race” is such a patronizingly stupid saying, when what it really means is “He is a black guy a lot of white people feel comfortable with.” Which is cool and everything, and obviously progress, but when I watch his campaign cynically play the race victim as willingly as the Clinton’s invoke their own racial bullshit, it makes me laugh.
I am also mocking it because it is so trendy for everyone to use the word “transcend,” when they never did before. If I updated my transcend post from two weeks ago, it would be up to 100 references by now (I know, because I have a google alert for ‘Obama+transcend’). It is like gravitas in the 2000 election.
dslak
John, all of this sounds like it would do better as a criticism not just of Obama fanboys, but the formation of media narratives, as well.
D. Mason
One would think everyone would be sick of this kind of broad brush crap by now but I guess it’s just the Dems turn eh?
Seriously though, I think this is the exact thing that will fuck him in the end. There is a strong double standard when it comes to any white person legitimately criticizing any black person. It is impossible for him to be universally liked in everything he does and if someone gets painted as a racist every time they criticize him that will alienate everyone who agrees with that point of view since they are de facto racists by this logic.
I can only speak for myself but hinting that I’m a racist because I don’t lock step with Obama is one of the very few ways the Dems can lose my vote this year.
crw
Note, I’m not saying Clinton will lose. I’m saying she probably wont get as big a mandate. I think “electability” (and concomitantly ability to stand up to the Noise Machine) should be about 10 of 10 on the top 10 issues Democrats consider this year. Focus on policy stances, leadership style, the people each candidate is likely to bring into their administration, and other issues relevant to the actual job first.
Jen
I just don’t think he does, and I think you should cite some examples. I’d be happy to look at them.
And you have got to get that Republican punctuation (Clinton’s) under control! You’re a registered Democrat now!
dslak
‘Cynically’ is another word that’s trendy to use in political discussions, but it’s not clear that it applies here.
The Obama campaign had to know that, given that Obama is a black man, race was going to become an issue at some point in the campaign. So some way had to be found to make it apparent that, when race was brought into it, it would be by his opponents and not by him. They may have jumped the gun on some of Bill’s remarks, but as must be apparent by now with his Jess Jackson comments, they weren’t off the mark.
Would there be any way for the Obama campaign to use quasi-racist attacks by their opponents in such a way that you wouldn’t call it cynical? If not, then the word doesn’t really mean anything here.
dwightkschrute
Not surprised to see the link comes from TalkLeft. Spend just 5 minutes on that site reading posts and comments and you’ll get a max dose of everything that bothers people about the Clintons and their supporters. Jeralyn and co. are shameless in their support of Hillary and Bill. It can’t just be “of all the candidates we think she’s best”, they feel compelled to go right at the other candidates (mainly Obama) with passion and venom. And the dismissive nature with which Jeralyn and her commenters treat any endorsement or positive outcome for Obama borders on childishness. It’s the embodiment of “And right now, that status quo is fighting back with everything it’s got”.
biwah
Clinton Rule #1. Politics is a contact sport, ergo Obama calling out seemingly coded (but perhaps unintentional) racial statements and asides meant to pigeonhole Obama = PROOF that he is unready for prime time.
Clinton Rule #2. The media is so unfair to us. Whaaah!!!
Brachiator
It is interesting to see how stubbornly you cling to this wrongheaded assertion despite all evidence to the contrary, and also to see how you have been sucked in by Clinton-mania.
In earlier posts, you noted how Hillary was getting a raw deal. Now, it is “the Clintons.” But only one of them, which is no longer clear, is running for president. How could it possibly be that they are both getting a raw deal, unless you are buying into the BS that Hillary and her bestest most loyalest most lovingest husband ever is going to be co-president and un-elected co-advisor-in-chief?
You clearly ignore how Bill and Hillary’s advisors have deliberately decided to employ a slash-and-burn strategy within their own party, not caring that they alienate blacks, independents and possible Republican voters.
The Clintons attacks may have been “mild.” But it is noteworthy that it has been perceived as being POINTLESSLY negative and damaging by some of Bill Clinton’s own former supporters and cabinet officials. It is noteworthy that the Clintons only offer fitful ambiguous apologies and refuse to back off from their tactics even when privately advised to do so by other Democratic big wigs. So, even when they pull and ad or fire a campaign advisor for “inappropriate” remarks, they have another surrogate pushing the same negative message.
When Andrew Young tries to work the notion that Obama really isn’t an authentic black by suggesting that Clinton is “more black” because he may have dated more black women than Obama, the Clintons are working race in a way that you apparently don’t understand.
Is this what you are afraid of? Are you suggesting that Hillary or Edwards should be the nominee, not because of their virtues, but because they may be more able to withstand Republican attacks? If so, you have already admitted defeat. You are saying that the choice of nominee by the Democratic Party should be shaped by Republican strategy and talking points.
The Republicans can be counted on to be vicious. It is part of what they have willingly embraced in people like Karl Rove and Dick Morris, who used to work for Bill Clinton and has now found a more sympathetic environment in working the GOP side. The Democrats in the past have been disorganized, but rarely as vicious. Until now. Until Bill and Hillary decided to expertly deploy the same tactics that their adversaries once used against them.
I have already evaluated my opinion of the Clintons. It is time for both of them to go away.
biwah
I should add that I basically agree with this post, the Clintons are not catching any breaks. But neither are they showing that they deserve any. Both camps are playing the same game, but Obama is playing better, setting the hook for the Clintons, and they are falling for it, over and over.
And I though the Walmart finger-wagging jab was pretty weak, I don’t hear a whining tone in anything the O campaign is saying, as opposed to Bill attacking reporters head-on for asking questions. Indeed, WTF do they expect? – for the media to fall in line, apparently. How irreverent!
The media is no neutral institution (news flash – Cronkite is gone), but with New Media in the mix it is pretty diverse and lightning-quick, and overall well-informed. Given these circumstances, it is the Clintons who are looking sloppy and over their heads.
John Cole
For one, they could labeling things as racist when they are not. See “fairy tale” and “kid.”
I can agree with that completely.
Tom in Texas
The Obama camp’s argument was that these are part of a pattern and a strategy, not innocent slips of the tongue. By the Clinton’s own admission, this is true.
dslak
I already said that they might have jumped the gun, but there are going to be borderline cases. Other than the fact that these instances might not have contained racial innuendos (a contestable notion, to say the least), what about the Obama’s campaign’s reaction to them has been cynical?
carolyn13
The blogger you linked to in this post, Big Tent Democrat, is “a tepid Obama supporter.” He is simply fair-minded enough to see the truth of the manipulations that are taking place by the media and on behalf of both campaigns.
Jon H
“The blogger you linked to in this post, Big Tent Democrat, is “a tepid Obama supporter.”
Yeah, right. I think that means “I’ll vote for the uppity black guy if the rightful Queen of America is denied the nomination she earned through her 35 years of… whatever it was that she did.”
John Cole
You Obama supporters just can’t help yourselves, can you? How am I supposed to interpret this other than “If you don’t vote for Obama, you must be racist.”
Are you trying to get me to vote for Edwards?
demimondian
Well, aren’t you the mysogynist pig? Given a choice between Edwards and a woman, you immediately think of Edwards.
Conservatively Liberal
As far as the ‘racist’ crap, I don’t think HillBilly have a racist bone in them. But one thing they are is calculating, and while they are not racists they are aware that there are quite a few people out there who are. Politics has degenerated into ‘look how bad my opponent is’, not ‘look at my accomplishments and what I plan to do’. Campaigning has devolved into a slapstick sport where you do not run on what you are, but rather you run on what your opponent will or won’t do (as framed by you and your supporters).
Republicans have refined this into a blood sport, and the Democrats have adopted it like a long lost child. I don’t think there is any magic unity pony that Obama is riding on, but that things have become so bad for people that this is what they want to see. They want change, they want things to get better. Hope may sound lame, but after the last 28 years of unending political scandal and war, people want a change. I have seen this grow in every presidential election, and it is coming to a head now that BushCo has trashed the world.
I have voted since I was 18. I registered on my 18th birthday, and I have voted ever since. When I was younger, I would deride my friends about their not voting and not having their voice heard. They could care less about politics as they were young and busy experiencing life. No time for that crap, and things were running reasonably well.
Not any more. The young are seeing the mess we are in, and they don’t like it. The fact that Obama is bringing out young people in droves tells me that he is striking a nerve with them. They see that things need to change, and quickly, but they know that the establishment candidates are not going to be the ones to do it.
Thus you get the unity pony that transcends time and space. It is not Obama himself, it is what those who support want to see in him. And he ain’t stupid, he is going to ride that pony for all it is worth.
Personally, I am glad the Clintons are hammering Obama. It will only toughen him up, and it will get all of the crap out in the open so if he wins the primary wars it will all be old news that the right will have problems getting traction with.
I have said that I will never vote for the candidate that sucks less, that I would vote for Snoopy instead. Well, while Obama is not my first or second choice, I would not have a problem voting for him.
I can’t say the same thing for Clinton, that is for sure.
misc
Big Tent Democrat was known in a previous life as Armando at Daily Kos. Some consider him a duplicitous asshat, as he bent over backwards to disguise his profession (corporate attorney) and his clients.
Chuck Butcher
I’ll vote Edwards on policy.
I understand what John Cole is saying, and I also think he’s pushing the envelope in his theory. Hillary got all the good and the super-delegates out of the Press’ inevititable nominee mantra that was available. She got the big jump on the field in polling, making others look weak. John, the media gave and gave to Hillary; and it still does give and give. Her air time is extraordinary, nice free “earned” media exposure. Somehow, she’s the woman’s candidate. Everybody has given Hillary a pass on all the Clinton Administration didoes, Foster, Travel-gate, Whitewater, secret health care, blah, blah, while letting her have her experience mantra – a plain BS gift.
Yes, the Obama campaign has been skillful at turning Hillary and Bill’s swipes back on them. And, yes, there is a certain amount of absolute hogwash involved; I thought we were talking about politics – not church. Obama’s “trancendence” talk does not somehow rule out gaming attacks, what else can he do? Launch on Hillary? If their politics were different enough, neither would have to play at “attacking” the other.
How is any of this “ugly” for the Democratic Party? Nothing has been said to drive supporters into the arms of the Republicans or to stay at home in the face of the Republican “menace.” Keerist, I loath Hillary’s politics, but I’ll at least vote for her in a General – I’ll be damned unhappy and I won’t go into the field for her (that’s saying a lot as a very active Democrat). Hillary’s weakness with the right side will be a very large problem and she’s got problems on the left as well.
The Democratic Party is a damned contentious grouping, and unlike the Republicans we haven’t pretended for 20 years that it doesn’t exist. We understand the over-arching idea of the Party, but the rest is real messy. Try to get Republicans to conceive of a gun-toting Democrat, I can out shoot, out load, and own more guns than most of the scoffers. I am Baker Co Democrat’s Vice-chair, State Central Committee Delegate, DPO’s Gun Owner’s Caucus Vice-chair, author and motive force behind one of the best political party stances on the 2nd Amendment (including R’s) and all that in a Party that is denigrated as gun-grabbers. (the Resolution passed by 73% at State) I am a past US House Primary candidate and on first name basis with a large chunk of OR Dem political structure, friendly first name basis. We do not just roll over because somebody said, “Boo!” inside the Party.
You’d have to go some to be a “Democrat” and be more of an outsider than a John Cole. It’s not an insult, but you’ve looked at this Party from another side’s framing for a long time. Yes, the Democratic Party has exploded in the past, and paid for it, and yes, the Democratic Party has offended some of its natural base and is still paying for it – Hillary wouldn’t even be a candidate otherwise. Don’t worry, John, we can deal with the pukes this time around, Kerry also taught some lessons.
demimondian
Chuck, what do you say to the argument that Clinton’s health care plan — failure or no — at least constitutes real experience with a bitter legislative battle?
biwah
I don’t think that the lesson she learned was that one should deal transparently – but rather that you need to bury the details even deeper and do your horse-trading both earlier in the game and more secretly. I can’t recall my various sources, but that’s my impression.
BTD’s claim to be an Obama supporter, tepid or otherwise, is a highly concern-trollish attempt to co-opt just a bit of the passion in the Obama “movement” (which certainly has its cartoonish aspects) and blunt the obviousness of his own bias. As some have pointed out, the “tepid” comment serves as more of a neon sign pointing toward his bias.
Bias can be equated with opinion, but to label it strictl on whether you agree with the oipinion or not is just buffoonish. Per BTD, an opinion against Clinton is hatred/bias, whereas an opinion against Obama is a clarion call for fairness and justice in electoral politics. Pshaw. It’s getting very annoying to see his stuff posted on memeorandum and him swaggering through ever comment thread below his own posts.
AkaDad
Obama is so awesome that even racists support him.
demimondian
BTD? I confess that I don’t know what that TLA means.
demimondian
Oh…Big Ticket Democrat. Right. Obviously. [slaps forehead]
Let’s look at this more broadly, if we can. I agree that a lot of “tepid Obama” supporters aren’t; I myself am a tepid Obama supporter, as I consider the top two candidates to be roughly equal when it comes to experience and positions. (I prefer Clinton’s positions on the few issue where they really differ, bu have concerns are with the circle of advisers around both candidates.)
Seriously, which is more important to you: a successful presidency, or transparency? If I offered you the reductio ad absurdum choice between successful but secretive on the one hand and inept but transparent on the other, which would you take?
Darkness
This kind of evenhandedness is the main reason I check out this blog every day. John wins the award for “intellectual honesty as far as an opinionated human could pull it off” in my book.
Flashback to 2004. The press was half the problem. They write the memes and dance and lie and exaggerate and should have a big fat mirror held to their ugly faces every second of every day from now until November. This kind of post helps hold the mirror up because it is more powerful coming from John, who otherwise would approve of the effect this meme could have.
Chuck Butcher
Demi, her health plan involved being elected to what position? She campaigned it exactly how? She used what electoral mandate?
She was elected to the Senate 1 1/2 terms ago in NY and what her elected experience and responsibility amounts to is that. No more, no less. Want to know how she’ll act? She’s given you a record and hasn’t disowned it.
She stinks. I have exactly not one particle of use for her as a Democrat. If you like the plutocratic culture of the last 20 years Hillary will fix you up with some more of the same. gotta love it, read the goddam income tables for the last 20 yrs.
The Other Steve
In all fairness, Demi… McAuliffe is an Obama supporter.
demimondian
I remind you that the 92 campaign used the theme of “two for the price of one” a lot, particularly on health care. I’d say she had that mandate.
dnA
Am I the only one who likes Obama and thinks that the Unity Pony bullshit is just a clever way to pwn Republicans in the face and make them think that they liked it? Because I hear Obama signaling that all the time, but then I get confused because I hear other people who think he’s completely serious.
Compassionate Conservatism, anyone?
Chuck Butcher
Demi,
The Ballot said WJ Clinton, not Hillary. The impeachment articles were written on WJC. Vote and responsibility are the candidate’s not the wifey. Exactly one person has that role and it ain’t the wife. She gets a free pass on every damn thing. yeah, the nutjob right hates her for being out there. Out there is not the same thing. The President speaks for the President, sometimes the VP does it, the wife is the wife.
I have no idea what drum it is that you are beating. If you want to tout that health plan, then do it. It was a freaking disaster, at least partly because SHE laid no groundwork for it. Why? Because she had NO role that allowed for it, no hammer to swing and no favors to offer and NO constituency. NOT ELECTED, whatever bs campaign momentary slogan.
You want to toss around credit for that Admin for her? Well then how about the disasters? Since you seem to think she give’s a rat’s patoot about plain Americans, why don’t you check income growth by 20th percentiles and then take a look at the 0.1% during that Admin? Admittedly not nearly as bad as BushCo’s but take a gander and see how it makes you feel all warm and cozy.
You really want to take a stroll down the past? Why don’t you take a look at her voting record in the Senate? She’s real good at the earmarks trough, see who benefitted there. I don’t dislike Hillary because of anything the right ever had to say about her, I dislike her because of her voting record and her clique and their positions. Read some Howard Wolfson stuff, find out who her big dog is, you make progressive noises now and again, you won’t like him if they’re real views. He’s a DLC prick now, he was worse before.
The Other Steve
I’m fairly certain that is exactly what it is. It’s a giant smack in the face to what Bush ran on in 2000.
RC
The way I see it there are two kind of Democrats. Obama is one, Hillary is the other and Edwards straddles in the middle.
Obama is the first kind. Like a gentle Jesus like man he sees the world with rose colored glasses, where we can accomplish everything if the crooks and liars (Republicans) will just work together in a bipartisan manner. I don’t see anything about Obama’s policies or speeches that is combative, whether in foreign policy or for when the swiftboating and attempted impeachment starts. He’s great to listen to, and believes in the core Democratic principles. In most countries he would make a great left wing president or prime minister. The problem is the US has too strong a right wing, bordering on imperialism and I believe they would chew Obama up and spit him out. To me Obama is most like Carter, and would get mauled ready for the prince in waiting, Jeb Bush. Edwards would probably get mauled as well, but might be tough enough from his trial lawyer experience.
The second kind is the Big Dog, like Bill Clinton. These kind are tough and spend more time talking about how to keep the Republicans at bay, if they manage to survive. Hillary is this kind by association with Bill’s experience. The first kind of Democrat doesn’t like Billary so much, because they don’t seem interested in real reform like Obama. Most of their focus is on appeasing the Republicans, and sounding too much like them, or fighting back with the same dirty tactics. So they look nasty, especially when they attack Obama this way.
Probably the best team is a combination of the two. Gore was more like Obama, was protected by Bill Clinton, had great ideas and was for change, but didn’t know how to defend himself against the attacks of the Republicans which is why he lost. Obama would lose like he did, I wouldn’t be surprised if Jeb jumps into the race if Obama looks like he will be the nominee. With Hillary though as the Big Bitch (as in Big Dog no disrespect meant), she might with Bill be able to shield Obama enough for him to play good cop and effect some change.
People forget just how badly Billary were mauled by the Republicans last time, and how Carter was attacked, maybe even deposed by the October Surprise with the Iranians. Obama will get the racist treatment Harold Ford got for example.
Like it or not, in the US the nominee has to be the toughest one the Democrats can put up, and then hide all the reformers behind him or her. Wesley Clark was the toughest I think with his experience as a general, but Hillary at least knows how dangerous the job really is.
misc
At times, I wistfully hope Obama’s spiel is nothing more than a gigantic ‘fuck you, bitches’ bait and switch job.
In my non-cynical moments, I just hope that he is a better man than I. So far, he appears to be.