Look, Hillary Clinton is my senator, meaning not only that I live in New York, but that I voted for her twice.
Edwards was my first choice for president and would still be if he were in the race. I now support Obama, not without wariness. But with commitment. And I'll sure try to stay engaged and watchful if he becomes president.
That said, I say this: Hillary's campaign tactics over the part few weeks have been shocking. I mean, scandalous. I mean, crossing some destructive Rovian threshold.
I know admirable people who are Hillary supporters. I just can't help wondering:
How can the recent tactics by HRC and some of her affiliates--the McCain and me stuff, the I-don't-think-he's-a-Muslim stuff, the Geraldine Ferraro stuff--not give her supporters profound second thoughts?
Or am I missing how this thing works? That essentially it's Mel Brooks' profound theory of the difference between comedy and tragedy, transferred to politics: If my candidate does something lowdown, it's a teensy mote in a grand and good eye. Whereas when your candidate does it, it's a godallmighty log--an ocular rotten redwood.
But surely, don't Hillary supporters not feel awful uneasy at what I've mentioned above? I've encountered a number of people over the last few days who've told me that they were still pretty undecided between Hillary and Obama--until now, when they regard her in horror.
If you're for Hillary, I'm puzzled how you reconcile these tactics of hers. Is it that she's been misunderstood? Is it that Obama has somehow done similar things too, eg, his stupid remark about Reagan's optimism? But surely these aren't equivalent?
Is this all just Hillary "playing hardball"? But there is hardball--and then there is Rovism. You don't think Hillary is getting awfully near Rovism?
Seriously, I'd like to know. Because I don't understand.
Appreciations to Uber.com, where this post appears in my blog Brain Flakes.
Also at.SmirkingChimp.com
Dear Media:
Thank you for your part in creating PASTOR-gate. Our fight against
the insurgent forces of Obama and his ranting Pastor will not be easy.
But with your help, we can do it.
The Clinton-McCain Campaign
It does not take a whole lot of objectivity to see that the Clinton campaign felt it was losing so badly through February (some would say lost) and became so desparate to reverse Obama's momentum that it traded away long-term viability and collective Party interests for any immediate short-term gain it could get over Obama, even if that short-term gain came by way of tearing Obama down and violating, in possibly unprecedented fashion, the sacrosanct unwritten rule of primary Party decorum that one does not compare the other Party's nominee as more qualified than your Party opponent (even more so if your Party opponent is the frontrunner and likely nominee). But anger, arrogance, and an establishment sense of entitlement obscures much.
Hillary doesn't belong to the Democratic Party; she belongs to the Clinton/Hillary Party. What matters in the end to her & co. is that she wins, not that the Dems win. Hence, her willingness to abandon decency and become sleazy.
As far as Obama "attacks" go, he's being roundly criticized--as he has been--from supporters and some critics, and media alike, that he hasn't demonstrated that he's tough enough by returning Clinton's fire with fire. He's been restrained. What has Obama himself said so negative about Hillary? She's said plenty herself, worst of all that he's not qualified to be Comm-in-Chief (though paradoxically qualified to be VP)--while her surrogates--very major surrogates--have made sleazy comments, too. Some Obama surrogates have made belwo-the-belt comments, but they haven't been central figures in RUNNING the campaign (as Penn, Shaheen, Wolfeson are/were0. Powers comment was belwo-the-belt only in the use of one word, "monster," her thought wasn't belwo-the-belt. That hardly compares to the racist thoughts and other sleazy comments of Clinton et al.
I think some have made more of the race issue in ostensible criticism of Obama--the MLK thing--in certain instances (not the Ferraro comments, though--def. racist) but I haven't seen Obama adn co. do it. It's been outsiders.
Hillary is making McCain's case against Obama. Self-defeating, also against herself. Imagine McCain’s ad: It's 3 am, who do you want answering the phone, me with my 25 year military career, and 28 years in Congress, or Hillary Clinton with her experience as lawyer, children's advocate, and 8 years in the Senate?
She’s breaking her word left and right. Will she do so with the UN, EU, NATO, Russia, Chinese, WTO, IMF and anyone she deems a barrier to her immediate personal short-term interest?
She’s a Republican in method, displaying a Bush/Cheney arrogance of "'I'll do whatever to get what I want."
Hillary, you're behind, and you'll lose. Don't ruin it for Dems and Obama. It's not whether you win or lose. All of your advocacy on behalf of children is being eviscerated everyday with the sleazy moral lesson you're teaching—break promises, do whatever it takes, etc.--them about how to conduct themselves in life.
Yes, we would always wonder where her loyalties lay, after herself, of course.
i'd like to request my fellow Obama supporters refrain from answering "for" Clinton supporters with snark... in the hope that a non-hostile environment might encourage some of them to actually answer this question.
like mr. yourgrau, i truly don't understand their continued support, so if someone is willing to venture a genuine explanation, i would be sincerely interested in hearing it.
Until 10 years ago - a woman applying for a job (no matter what kind) would be asked how many words a minute she could type. The only women who got ahead used sex. Most of us could never get a break and life was so hard that it was all we could do to say "yes sir" to hang on to our measily paychecks. Pay for women is still not equivalent to men - by the way.
It is women like Hillary that made enough headway to offer younger women a few opportunities. I am a secretary in a law firm and I can tell you that only in the past 5 years (with very few exceptions) have I seen young women attorneys. This is in New York. It is still bad in the rest of the country.
And as for Hillary's work at Walmart - how dare anyone judge her by today's standards? Just getting there was a monumental achievement. No man would let us really accomplish anything then. She couldn't have done any better. They would have fired her. As it is, she was just the token girl on the Board - and she probably endured insults and humiliation. But she got there.
Watching Hillary, I see other women stand a little straighter. This makes us all feel better though we are very angry about the way she has been treated by the media. It is as if they are beating her down. Whether on not you think this is legitimate, it is affecting many of us women. We aren't judging her the way you are. The success at all cost is more important because men have made every success so difficult to attain that when we achieve, there is no turning back. That is more important than anything else. We understand this better than the younger women.
I'm a woman and I've been in the job market for over 20 years - no one has EVER asked me how many words a minute I can type. While some women have gotten ahead with sex - it never seems to last for long, and everyone around them knows it - and disrespects them. The women who get ahead on their own seem to stay ahead - and get a huge amount of respect.
25 years ago, I worked for my father's DC area law firm as a "gopher" (these were the days before fax and email, when everything had to be delivered by hand). There were several young women attorneys in his firm then. Yes - the majority were men, but there were a substantial number of women too. I believe that today most law schools are now graduating an equal number of women and men. Perhaps the firm you work for (where they still call you a "secretary" instead of an "administrative assistant" or simply "assistant") is very conservative?
I don't see Hillary as some great feminist icon - she got where she was because she was married to a President. She was asked to be on the board at Wal-Mart because her husband was the Attorney General and then Governor of Arkansas (where Wal-Mart is based.) (Hillary Smith would never have been asked to be on that board.)
Granted, she has personal ambition too, which is why she pursued elective office when it was offered to her. Good for her. However, her tepid legislative record, poor judgment in advisors, and inept management of her own campaign disqualify her for the Presidency.
This is one woman (in her 40's) who does not stand straighter when I see Hillary. I am disgusted by her behavior. If she had run an above-board campaign, she would not have been attacked by the media.
I want a woman president - I just don't want this woman. Give me one who has gotten there on her own. Give me Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Christine Gregoire, Patty Murray, Claire McCaskill, Nancy Pelosi, Janet Napolitano, Kathleen(?) Sebelius, or any of the other worthy women who've made their own way. (I'd say Granholm too, except she was born in Canada) Give me someone who can tell me why I should vote for her, instead of tearing down the other guy. Give me someone who doesn't ask me to vote for her because she's a woman, but because she is the best candidate, with the best plans and policies.
And worse is that they're not doing it to take down the Bu$hitters but doing it against a rival w/i their own party. Anything to win!? Isn't that THE PROBLEM with our politics???
- Hillary agreed not to "campaign or participate" in MI and FL
- Hillary did not object to the rules up front
- Hillary admitted that the votes would not count on Super Tuesday
- Hillary's current claim that the votes in MI and FL were fair, legal and should be counted is outrageous, because they weren't and her shallow motive is clear based on her previous actions and remarks.
- re-votes would drain precious contribution dollars from the general election, (much like her destrucitve, futile) campaign.
- in order to uphold the rules, the MI and FL primaries cannot count.
- as a compromise, in order to seat delegates, they should be split 50-50
- revotes would drain precious contributions needed for the general election
- revotes would be incredibly expensive relative the number of delegages that might go to one candidate or the other (if OH and TX are any indication, $2-$3 million dollars each)
- Hillary, the state representatives who ignored the rules and the voters should be happy to have their delegates seated at all, based on the fact that the rules were well known.
- Hillary should be thankful she isn't fined for campaigning.
But acting as if one side is clean in this contest is indicitive of something, or some things. It sure is not an indication of clear and honest thought. The two most vicious Democratic candidates I have ever seen, and I remember back to 68.
As for myself, I liked Edwards. His healthcare plan as well as his desire to bring the troops home were sincere, but he couldn't get the votes. I'll vote for Obama where I see hope for change. Unfortunately Hillary has proven that she believes in change too. What happened to 1993 Hillary? I liked her ideas then, but today she seems to be just about where the republicans were in 93.
All I can say is that the media's handling of the Democratic campaign is guaranteeing a McCain presidency. I don't think our country can survive that reality. So, I'm thinking that the Democrats need to get their stuff together and tell the media to SHUT UP!