Hillary Clinton's current ads seek to portray her as the tough leader who is ready on Day One to handle crises. Borrowing from a line made famous by Harry Truman, the tag line trumpets, "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen." The sub-text, of course, is that she will dish out a full plate of heat and if Obama can't respond on her gutter level, he can't handle heat.ﾠ
The truth is almost exactly the opposite. Hillary is nasty, but she is not tough. In fact, Hillary is a classic whiner. She and Bill whine about everything that doesn't go well for them. Unlike Harry Truman, who also said, "the buck stops here," she and Bill accept responsibility for nothing and blame others, especially the media, when things go wrong or their deceptions are exposed.ﾠ
Hillary and Bill whine about Democratic Party activists, young voters, running as a female, the media in general, the media catching her fabricating her history (bringing peace to Ireland, opposing NAFTA, facing sniper fire in Bosnia, etc.), the appeal of hope, Obama's eloquence, money, donors, Democratic Party rules. Last week, Hillary blamed the "activist base" of the Democratic Party -- and MoveOn, in particular -- for many of her electoral defeats, claiming, without a shred of evidence, that activists had "flooded" state caucuses and "intimidated" her supporters. Rather than accept responsibility for her campaign's well-documented failure adequately to plan for the caucus states, and despite her repeated claim she is the candidate "ready on Day One," she attacked core Democratic Party supporters. Rather than take responsibility for her inability to inspire the activist base with her ideas, she whined about their support of a more thoughtful, inspirational candidate. Candidates normally celebrate high levels of voter activism in the primaries, knowing these activists will work for the party's nominee in the general election, but Hillary is willing to burn the peasants in order to win the village for herself.
ﾠ
Hillary and Bill whine about young voters. Last week, Bill said in Pennsylvania that young voters are easily fooled and older voters are wiser -- too wise to be fooled by Obama's inspiring rhetoric. Of course, he forgot to mention that the most well-educated voters -- young and old -- heavily favor Obama over Hillary. Most candidates, and both political parties, yearn for support from young voters because young voters represent not just the present, but also the future. And, certainly if young voters were supporting Hillary, she wouldn't be whining about them. But since she is not very good at inspiring young voters, she chooses to whine about them. Thankfully, she has not yet proposed raising the voting age to 60, but that could be next.
ﾠ
Hillary whines about being a female candidate, as though it's harder to be female in America than black. Said Hillary, "It's hard. It's hard being a woman out there." [Add some tears and the picture is complete] Her surrogate, Geraldine Ferraro, even made the wholly implausible claim that the only reason Obama was succeeding was his race -- a claim Hillary never repudiated. Of course, at the same time the Clintons whine about misogyny, they argue to super-delegates that Obama is not electable because he is black and that, as a woman, she is the electable candidate. Neither Bill nor Hill can explain why all the white male Democratic Presidential candidates are out of the race. Could it be that Obama has demonstrated qualities to voters that the others lacked? Could it be that Obama has come from more than 20 points behind in just a few months because he offers qualities, such as hope and honesty, which voters, by large pluralities, think Hillary lacks?
ﾠ
Hillary frequently whines about the media not being "fair." This is an old Clinton complaint, going back to her stone-walling about Travelgate, Whitewater and the revelations of Bill's many sexual shenanigans. How unfair of the press to remember that she supported NAFTA, falsely claimed to have been a key negotiator in peace talks in Ireland, and lied about her Bosnia trip.
ﾠ
Caught dead-on lying about being under "sniper fire" as she landed in Bosnia -- when absolutely no danger existed -- she claimed she simply had "misspoke" [seven times?], then claimed she was tired by "lack of sleep," then Bill chimed in to attack the media for even covering the story. This was all taking place as she asserted her competence to answer that mythical 3 am phone call. So if we believe the Clintons, her "lack of sleep" caused her to fabricate a story about landing in Bosnia into hostile sniper fire and risking her life like a seasoned military veteran, but this fabrication should be disregarded because, despite her history of sleep deprivation, if a crisis occurs at 3 am, we can trust her to be awake and alert and respond truthfully and with good judgment. With leadership like this, we'll all be awake at night.
ﾠ
Hillary whines about Obama's inspiration and eloquence. Hillary whines about the very nature of hope. Despite the Clintons' history of playing the Hope Card (we all remember Bill's 1992 campaign biopic, "The Man from Hope"), when the other guy is offering it, all of a sudden, hope is suspicious. In fact, it is downright delusional. "I could stand up here and say, let's get everyone together, let's get unified and the sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing, and the world will be perfect," she said in mock sarcasm of Obama's message of conciliation and hope.
ﾠ
Hillary whines about the fact Obama has engaged more donors and raised more money than she. Of course, she didn't think it was unfair in 2007 when she had twice as much money as any other candidate. But as soon as she fell behind, Little Miss $100+ million War Chest was whining about being outspent. But isn't the ability to inspire donors and raise money part of being a successful presidential candidate? Isn't that a measure of electability, not something to be disdained?
ﾠﾠ
Hillary now is whining about Florida and Michigan, piously claiming that failing to seat delegates from those states would be fundamentally undemocratic. But when the Democratic National Committee's rules panel declared Florida's accelerated primary date was not permitted under party rules, all of Hillary's 12 representatives on the 30 member rules panel voted for Florida's full disenfranchisement, which, under party rules, applied to Michigan, as well. In October 2007, when she was far and away the Democratic front-runner, Hillary told a New Hampshire public radio audience, "It's clear this election [Michigan] is not going to count for anything." Oh, the sting of hypocrisy, but rather than accept responsibility for the obvious -- that she supported the very rule she now attacks -- she plays the "poor me" card and digs the Democratic Party into a deeper hole.
ﾠ
Do we want a whiner to be President? Commander-in-Chief? Do we want to live through more chapters in the never-ending, but never-changing, Clinton Drama of Blame, Attack and Half-Truths? Or do we prefer a president who has demonstrated candor, who is willing to treat voters like adults, who takes responsibility for his behavior and offers thoughtful commentary on serious issues -- as Obama did with his former pastor? Do we want a president who behaves like a mature adult or someone whose emotional intelligence is on the level of a spoiled, whiny teenager?
ﾠ
ﾠﾠ
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Saperstein is a whiner.
His blog reads like he prefers male candidates.
Funny!
Whiner does not a fighter make. Especially when there are two of them.
Amen- it's about time someone said this. I am really tired of the MSM spin that plays right into her camp & overlooks her lies, contradictions, mismanagement, and just pain meanness. She is a petty person- petty people are not leaders (though they can be bullies).
Brilliant Post.
I also thought it incredible that she whined about getting the first question when there were only two people in the debate.
You'd think that she could use some of that famed 'toughness' to steel hereself against the 50% possibility that she might be asked to go first.
Of course, if Barack had gone first and got an easy question, she would have whined about that too.
I'm an Asian(outsider) who has been utterly fascinated by the current contest and have been following it keenly.
The long drawn process you have of choosing the candidate for each party is very impressive, more so since in my country-India; we do not have a choice in matters of choosing our Head of State and more often than not have to settle for a mediocre PrimeMinister, often chosen by his/her intra and inter party clout and other barely democratic means.
The current contest which possibly could make a young black Senator or a Woman the 1st such President is IMO perhaps the best advertisement for Democracy (and, the USA).
Having said that over the last few months I've been shocked to see some of the statements from the Hillary Clinton camp- I honestly cant understand how any person can start a war of words and the threat of an actual Nuclear War even before being the President effectively leaving no room for negotiations and other civil ways of resolving foreign policy differences.
I've no business in meddling with your affairs or influencing your opinions but I do hope to God, that the world need not endure another 4 to 8 years of an unilateral American leadership which possibly could among other things, make oil 200,300$...A barrel in the very near future.
Thank you for writing ! It's good to hear an honest opinion from another continent and I want you to know how much your opinion is appreciated.
I'm so excited to believe we have someone like Barack Obama who will truly mend our previous Foreign Policy errors - it's so important to continue a relationship with your country, simply because you have so much to offer the world.
We the People of the United States are millions of people strong who are voting for Barack Obama because of his Diplomacy and attention to Foreign Policy.
Again - thank you for writing -
It's funny, but with all our freedom of choice, we often end up with a barely mediocre President as well.
"At the end of the day, all she had to do was open her mouth for me not to believe her," Louis-Dreyfus said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/25/AR2008042503707_2.html?sid=ST2008042504037
"Hillary's campaign has been a chaos of sacked managers, unpaid bills, gaffes and indiscretions, but she cries, "Americans deserve a president who doesn't quit." "The Clintons' motto is "do anything to win" and they are being true to it. They give the old Democratic Party an echo of the good times, of men who play mean and hard..."
Obama's point is that he knows how to compete in the destructive style of politics millions of Americans want to change the paradigm.
Although, there are Americans and the punditry who may prefer politics of personal destruction that the Clintons and Bush/Cheney/McCain republicans subscribe to it has turned more folks off.
Less than 30% of Americans who are eligible to vote do so as a rresult of the slash and burn style politics that the Clinton democrats and Bush/Cheney/McCain republicans practice.
Folks who say "nasty, mean and dirty," is what politics are all about are the people who benefit the most by the low voter turnout.
Low voter participation ensures that politicians will be less likely to be held accountable for their votes and actions. Low voter participation allows both parties to maintain power and entrenches the two party system.
Excellent post! Definitely a keeper. Thanks
"...Oh the sting of hypocrisy..." - perfect statement
This post is right on the mark. It's been hard to see through all the smoke being blown by the Clinton campaign, what with the lies, distortions, half-truths, threats and insults so dutifully mirrored by the media. And it's been hard not to respond viscerally to the shameless, gutless indecency of it all. But when looked at for what it is, which is what this post so effectively does, one sees that all of it is a cover for weakness. Hers is a campaign (and character) not up to it, which doesn't have what it takes to succeed and all they have is the nasty attacks. They're a paper tiger - they've already lost. It's all over but the crying.
On the art of diplomacy. Obama has impeccable diplomatic skills. Diplomatic skills are vital, whether it's the way we relate to family, friends, work colleagues, neighbors. Once we begin burning our bridges, we ultimately wind up burning ourselves. I say this because I need help in the diplomatic area in my personal and work life.
I've burned more bridges that I care to admit. But watching Obama has been a stunning lesson for me. It's actually influenced me in my dealings with people for the better. That's why I continually make the point that Michelle and Barack Obama are positive role models for us and our children. The Clintons, on the other hand, are teaching us that it's alright to lie, smear and steal to get what you want.
Withn 24 hours after the election in November when Obama wins, 50% of the world will will fall back in love with us again. The entire world has fallen in love with Barack Obama. That's diplomacy in action. I've been speaking with friends in Europe and they can't believe that Clinton announced she's going to obliterate Iran if they attack Israel. They're beginning to believe she's as crazy as GeorgeBush and his gang.
Devadasi: Thanks so much for reminding us all that politicians set examples not just by what they say but also by their behavior. Obama's behavior is the act of real leadership---leadership which goes beyond mere politics---and your comment is an absolutely brilliant observation. Guy [the author]
I refer bloggers to the links below for electoral maps showing the two possible scenarios for the GE.
For the Obama vs. McCain Electoral map:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Apr27.html
For the Clinton vs. McCain Electoral map:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Apr27.html
While these maps show Clinton winning the GE against McCain with 291 EVs (270+ needed to win), Obama gets only 243 to McCain's 269 with 26 EVs tied. The ties are NC and IN which McCain will most likely win, so Obama is losing to McCain.
Why does Obama's GE position look so weak?
It's PA and OH and FL, stupid!
Those 3 states represent 68 EVs. No Democrat will be able to win without at least 2 of these (besides winning in MI). Obama has zero chances in FL and near zero chances in OH and PA.
I suggest opening these two electoral maps and putting them side to side for easy visual comparison and electoral scenarios analysis.
To those who complain about the superdelegates using "Electoral Votes Math" as a metric, I"'l just say: That's the only math that matters in the GE!
Why?
It's the Constitution, Stupid!
All of that is conjecture. Obama will crush McCain.
If Hillary hadn't falsely blamed Obama for the situations in Fl and Mi, he would fare no worse than she.
Unfortunately, residents of these states believe her phony outrage. It was her campaign chair, Harold Ickes who voted along with other Hillary supporters to strip these states of their votes.
If anyone wonders if this race is doing damage to the dem nominee, you need not look any further than Fl or Mi, where Hillary has successfully pinned the blame on a candidate who was just trying to follow the rules set by the DNC, and agreed upon by ALL of the candidates.
But when the REAL general election occurs, there will be no clinton on the ballot. So my prediction is that mccain would beat her in a virtual shutout.
My prediction has one thing that yours doesn't.... a basis in the real world.
She could have possibly had a realistic chance at winning the nomination if she weren't a lying, scurrilous, vindictive, petty, incompetent tool of the corporatocracy. Because other than those things, she rocks!
Why is it always a Hillary supporter who resorts to name calling? Just an observation, but I see it a lot.
Wow. So, what you're saying essentially is... That that site can predict the future :-O
Unfortunately, your statistics there fail in a number of areas.
The site evaluates people on the percentage of votes cast in 2004. I think, most people can agree, that the dynamics of this year have tossed out the traditional evaluation processes. As anyone who has studied statistics knows, 'past performance does not guarantee a future result.'
With voter turn-out on the Democratic side blowing away all previous changes and with Republicans and Democrats defecting to Obama's Team, en masse............
I'm guessing, the Republicans and Clintons are grasping at straws.
Obama encourages people to vote for him. Clinton encourages people to vote against her. And regardless of what pretty maps you cite, the Dems have a huge majority in terms of votes this year.
Then we should just choose the democratic nominee by holding primaries in only these three states. Now why didn't anyone think of that?
You sound like the people that had called the primaries over a year ago. For Clinton and Guiliani. Wrong, again.
Clinton is done. Face it.
"That's the only math that matters in the GE! "
The fatal flaw in your argument, however, is that it is now April, we have no nominee, hence no general election campaign. You have carefully quoted a lot of links, good for you. These are not very meaningful now. If they were, why even have a GE campaign. If you carefully look at history, you will see there can be a lot of movement in the polls during the GE. Don't think that the numbers you site are cast in stone or will never move. To use your logic, a year ago when Hillary was up nationally 20% or more in every poll, we should have just skipped the primaries and nominated her then. The primaries, as things have played out, have proven otherwise regarding her huge lead. In sports, that's why they play the game, regardless of the betting odds or pundits' predictions. Ask the NE Patriots.
What KILLS me is that women (of which I am one thank you very much) defend her. This is a woman who sold her soul for this opportunity. This is a woman who lies along with her philandering husband. Clinton brought you "bitter" folks NAFTA, and will ensure that CAFTA is passed as well - if his bank balance has anything to say about it. This is the woman that promised you health care reform and couldn't "close the deal." This is the couple that was embroiled in REAL embroiglios from Travelgate, Troopergate, White Water, Vince Foster, trading secrets to China, Wu as a campaign investor. He is the only President that has been IMPEACHED. Bill Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 effectively allowing commeral and investment banks to consolidate and leading to ---you guessed it A MORTGAGE CRISIS.
In the words of Malcolm X you are being "hoodwinked." Whatever you THINK you know remember this - sometimes the "Devil you know" is just that - a Devil. Name recognition and a high "Q" Score do not make for a good President. They make for a good politician. There is a difference.
I love the Obama-mama Sisterhood! Thanks ladies!!!!
Yes, we need to organize women against her, and get them out for Obama. I'm a feminist, white, over 50, happy marriage and kids, and I cant' STAND HER!
Let me second your comments and join your group. I'm one of you although a bit older!
I wholeheartedly agree. I too am a women, white, over 50, married, kids, and I can't stand Hillary. I will say I voted for Bill Clinton and have been, up until recently, a supporter of both Clintons, but her (their) tone and basic character during this election has completely turned me off. I am 110% for Obama.
Ditto!
It is such a welcome relief to see that SOMEONE is not buying in to the Clintonian obfuscation of the facts. I think this woman has hired David Copperfield to replace Mark Penn. I cannot keep of with the verbal prestidigitation that has spewed forth from the candidate and her surrogates (that includes our ex-President - the grand poobah of alacrity).
Aside from the constant changing of the rules to confuse the voting public, the incessant use of the "I'm just a gal" defense, the rewriting of her personal history and padding of the ol "Commander-In-Chief" resume - she has benefitted from the "vast right wing conspiracy" machine that has taken on her cause and helped her rewrite the narrative of this campaign. Think about it - Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter spring to her defense on their vitriolic radio sludge fests, Limbaugh calls for Republican voters to switch parties in the Primary election and vote for Hillary, Richard Mellon Scaiffe the ARCHITECT of above referenced conspiracy ENDORSES HER IN PENNSYLVANIA and 160,000 Republicans suddenly switch alliegences to vote for HER. Is this a coincidence? The hubris of the Clintons in embracing the ethos of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" to win over the right. Whether she gets the nomination or not does not matter at this point. She will "obliterate" first and see to the reparations later.
Anyone who can use the words "prestidigitation" and "poobah" in the same sentence is someone I want to listen to. Guy [the author]
Good post! This should have been tagged as a "Favorite".
If Hillary was tough she would have stood up to the bully Bush and voted against the war in Iraq.
Excellent analysis! And a rare piece too while others within the media just recycled the Clintons's spins. Clinton lost more than 10% off her lead in PA to "win" a margin of 9% in her root country. She is still losing but asked why couldn't Obam close instead of asking herself why couldn't SHE close with all the advantages she got? The most disgusting thing is she claimed she won the popular votes knowing that Obama had 0 votes in MI so adding hers is blatantly cheating. That said something about her character! The Clintons haven't changed at all since the time they left the WH. In fact, since that time, they have more in their closets for republican to dig into with glee. She now goes around challenge Obama for a debate as if she has to act on the stage to entertain people who made donations.
It comes to the stage (I remember after the Bosnia sniper fire) that whatever she said, I immediately thought "lie/spin" and when I checked it out, it proved correct 100% of times: All she said are lies and spins!
Just to add one more. Clinton and supporters claim that because Obama has failed to win the big states (not technically true since he received more delegates in Texas then her, but abyway) that he is unelectable. Yet we all know that in all those big states, Democrats ONLY win by amassing large majorities in the big cities and keeping republican margins down in the suburban and rural areas, AND HILLARY NEVER COMES CLOSE IN THOSE BIG CITIES!!!!!
As I read in an article this am, even in Michigan, where Obama was not even on the ballot, Hillary did not win a SINGLE district in Detroit, so by her logic, how could she possibly hope to win Michigan?
It's worse, much worse...but this is closest I've seen anyone come in awhile, so thank you for making my morning.
Hillary and Bill - putting the "nasty" in Dynasty since 1992
We were told by the media talking heads Hillary had to win PA in double digits or she was out. She won with a 9.287% spread, anyone can do the simple math, yet we are told by everyone in the media that she won by 10%, just enough for her to keep up her Quixotic campaign. That's just an unvarnished lie. It's not that Obama can't "close the deal", it's that Hillary just won't go away, even though she has clearly lost. If the all the numbers were reversed Obama's continued campaign would not be tolerated by the media or the party, we all know that. If nothing else she has proven that she is too self
Posted April 27, 2008 | 12:18 AM (EST)