She has no idea.
She has no idea how many times I defended her. How many right-leaning friends and relatives I battled with. How many times I played down her shady business deals and penchant for scandals -- whether it was Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster, Cattle Futures, Web Hubbell, or Norman Hsu. She has no idea how frequently I dismissed her husband's serial adultery as an unfortunate trait of an otherwise brilliant man. For sixteen years, I was a proud soldier in the legion of "Clinton apologists" -- who believed that peace and prosperity were more important than regrettable personality traits.
And then she ran for president.
After seven years of George W. Bush, America is hungry for change. Big change. And let's face it -- Hillary Clinton, the party standard-bearer and former White House denizen -- isn't it. But even after voters coalesced around Barack Obama, handing him eleven straight primaries (twelve, if you count Vermont), she refused to accept the possibility -though math, money and momentum were clearly against her -- that the Bush/Clinton Family Band might not be #1 on America's Billboard chart anymore.
So, rather than step aside and become the hero of her party, she made a strategy decision to go negative in advance of Ohio and Texas. Not just negative -- personal. She cynically chided Mr. Obama's message of hope. She played the victim card. The gender card. The Muslim card. She cried "shame on you, Barack Obama" for his campaign tactics, while (if we're to believe Matt Drudge) simultaneously floating a picture of him in Somali garb to stir up questions of his patriotism.
She accused Mr. Obama of his own shady business deals (the irony of which nearly ripped a hole in the fabric of space/time). She accused him of being two-faced on NAFTA, when it was her campaign that had winked at the Canadians. She demanded that he "reject" the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, but remained silent when Rush Limbaugh stirred up votes for her in Texas. And she crafted the now-infamous "3am" attack ad -- which used scare tactics to highlight Senator Obama's perceived lack of experience in foreign affairs. Straight out of the ol' Atwater/Rove playbook. Of course, all of this paled in comparison to her husband's patronizing, racially insensitive comments earlier in the primary season.
Was this the same Hillary Clinton whose husband ran on the idea that hope was more powerful than fear? The wife of a president who had less foreign policy experience than Barack Obama when he was elected? And exactly which crisis is she referring to when she claims to have more experience? And while we're at it, where the hell are those tax returns?
It's clear that Hillary's back in this thing, at least for the time being. But at what cost? Short of some cataclysmic event, there's no way either she or Mr. Obama can reach 2,025 delegates in the remaining contests. That means she's accepted the inevitability of a brokered convention. A convention she'll almost certainly enter with fewer delegates than her opponent. That raises some important questions:
Will she subvert the will of the voters? Will she turn Denver into a series of shady back-room deals and arm twisting? Will she dispatch her husband to pressure superdelegates into switching allegiances at the last minute? Are we in for, as one pundit put it, a good ol' fashioned "knife fight?"
And if she does manage to secure the nomination, what about the scores of disenfranchised Obama supporters (many of them young people with little loyalty to the Democratic Party)? How will she bring them back into the tent? Hillary seems confident that this can be remedied by offering Mr. Obama a spot on her ticket. Really? And what would his motivation be for accepting? Playing third-fiddle to Bill?
However, if Mr. Obama goes on to secure the nomination, she'll have handed his rival a treasure trove of sound bites. All John McCain has to do between August and November is play clips of Hillary questioning Obama's experience and belittling his platitudes. In a way, she'll have become Mr. McCain's second running mate.
She's proven that she cares more about "Hillary" than "unity." More about defeating Obama than defeating the Republicans. She's become a political suicide-bomber, happy to blow herself to bits -- as long as she takes everyone else with her.
On Friday, one of Barack Obama's foreign policy advisors, Samantha Power, resigned after calling Senator Clinton "a monster" during an off-the-record exchange. It was an unfortunate slip, but one that echoed the sentiments of many Clinton apologists like me -- who've watched Hillary's descent into pettiness and fear-mongering with the heartbreak of a child who grows up to realize that his beloved mother has been a terrible person all along.
Are the conservatives right about the Clintons? Will they do and say anything to get elected?
I don't know.
All I know is...I'm through apologizing.
I couldn't have said it better myself. I used to be a huge supporter, especially of Bill during the impeachment, etc.
I'm ashamed.
I'm glad I smartened up in time to vote for Obama.
She is so clearly in this just for herself. The longer this goes on, the sicker I get, dreading what will be next from her campaign. I try so hard to remain hopeful as an Obama supporter, but her campaign sickens and scares me.
A few weeks ago I was thrilled to have Hillary and Barack as our two potential nominees. It would be an historic moment either way. I thought the Democrats couldn't lose. Now, Hillary has changed all that. She continues to chip away at Obama. And, she has alienated and continues to alienate even further the people Obama has pulled into the process from the sidelines. I have always voted Democratic for President. 7 straight elections. I have always wanted a woman to have a chance at the White House. The irony in all this, is if Hillary gets the nomination, I may end up voting for another old white man and a Republican at that!
[The Clintons] clear pattern is to campaign to the left, to get the People's support for political power, but once they get that power from the People, they use it to govern to the right [pandering to Big Money Interests] and screw the People that elected them.
Thanks!
I think my favorite line was: "She accused Mr. Obama of his own shady business deals (the irony of which nearly ripped a hole in the fabric of space/time)" (this last phrase was priceless).
Your honest comments will be welcomed and applauded by most.
But now the downside; they will also make you a target of some rabid Hillarite extremists, who now claim the "left" as their home (although they seem as out of place in the left as the radical neo-cons seem among geniune conservatives on the right). And truth be known, the "left" has extremists that rival any on the right.
I think the lesson is this: Extremists, whether they be on the right or the left, have much in common, including their intolerance for any dissent on matters of unquestionable doctrine in their tiny minds. If you question their unquestioning beliefs, you are a threat to their fragile, unrealistic world-view, and therefore you must be destroyed before you have any opportunity to be the splash of cold-water that wakes them from their blissful delusions.
You speak the truth Seth, and all that value the truth will welcome your comments.
Bill Clinton campaigned against NAFTA. He was our hero.
Then we elected him and he cheerfully signed NAFTA into law.
So the dream was over, and the ugly truth emerged: With the Clintons, it's always about the Clintons: What they want is all that matters.
And their clear pattern is to campaign to the left, to get the People's support for political power, but once they get that power from the People, they use it to govern to the and screw the People that elected them.
Obama could be no different. I don't know.
But I do know what the Clintons are like.
No more Bush/Clinton.
I, too, had spent so many years believing in Bill and Hillary, and after each crisis, TRYING to believe in them and making excuses for all their bad behavior- both politically and personally. But like a death by a thousand cuts, my continual disappointments with them gradually moved me away from him and then her.
IF she manages to steal this nomination, I WISH I could support her I WISH I could like her and forgive her. I WISH her good side (which is indeed there) were bigger than her bad side. But this election has shown me the lengths to which she will go to achieve what she wants. And it's not pretty. And it's embarrassing. And dangerous.
I will not support a Republican regaining the White House. But I cannot enable her disappointing me - and the country - again.
People are complex, and as the Bhudda said: The best person you know is not as good as you think, and the worst person you know is not as bad as you think.
I have absolutely no doubt the Hillary, and Bill, have many good qualities. Those were the qualities that lead me and so many others to support them in the past.
But it should be disturbingly clear by now, to anyone that wants to see, the Clintons also have a far darker side.
Further, their slash-and-burn, divide and conquer, run to the left/govern to the right (big money right) style of politics, hopefully, is becoming a relic of a darker past in our nation.
Our Nation is now facing an extremely challenging road to the future. Our prosperity, possibly even our survival as a nation is at risk. There is much to be done, and we are going to need the help of as many Americans as we can bring together in a common effort for the common good.
We need someone to bring us together, not further divide us.
Sadly, Hillary is clearly demonstrated that she is not that candidate.
As a black woman I was on the fence for along time - their platforms are symmetrical, so for me it is a question of personality, vision, skill. I wanted to see how Obama and Clinton would run their campaigns as a measure of their skills as the commander in chief. I was initially turned off by the racial politics surfacing around Obama's candidacy in particular the fact that his blackness does not emerge from the legacy of enslavement in American, thus making American whites more at ease in supporting him. But I decided that rather than focus upon the black/white dialectic of American racism, I'd consider him a global candidate (he lived in Indonesian and has Indonesian relatives after all) who brings a diverse legacy to his perspective on the world. He's done a lot in his career, self reflected quite a bit, and run a well calibrated highly successful campaign. For me he's shows a lot of promise and I'm confident he can do the job.
With Hillary I saw nothing at first except a smart professional trying to become comfortable with the public, with how she would come across as a leader.
Then she started playing the (white) feminist card of downplaying her own access to (patriarchal) power through her privileged upper crust white background and positioned herself as a victim - I started to shy away.
When Bill came out with his sloppy comments about his wife's chances of winning Iowa and then started to recklessly berate Obama as not being black enough during the South Carolina run - I started to cringe "do I really want 4 more years of the Clinton f-ups and apologies?"
Next, the dirty tricks, straight out lies, and unwillingness to backdown when Obama took her lead away - I realized how much her arrogance and ego (a product of privilege) are not that different from GWBs - I was disgusted.
Final straw the Rovian racist 3am ad (see Orlando Patterson's brilliant NYC op-ed) - its now turned to profound dislike.
Her campaign is in shambles, with staff leaving, stepping down and monies drying up. Her claims to real experience is certainly questionable. And her willingness to make those spurious claims gives me the sense that she would say anything to win. Her campaign has not been a positive measure of her skills of leadership, especially for a woman - I expect more from my sex.
And I still wonder the depth of her ambitions? Did she think all along it should have been her instead of Bill in 1992 - he's some poor hick from Hope Arkansas, while she's been groomed for the upper eschelons from day one? Would she stop at nothing to get what she feels is deservedly hers? Can "we" - meaning the world - afford to be lead by such blind ambition for another 4 years?
Monster IMO doesn't begin to scratch the surface!
Obamabot: used not for the well-informed supporter who actually is choosing to support Barack because he has many things of value to offer the country. It is and has been used for the follower who attacks Hillary and her supporters “in support of Barack” without doing their research on both camps. As Barack said in the first 1:1 debate with Hillary, “no politicians hands’ are clean.” Unless I am mistaken, he was including himself in that statement.
Half my family supports Barack. They do not apologize and defend him when he "acts like a politician." Why should they?
The NAFTA story, including the memo that was leaked:
http://www.slate.com/id/2185753/entry/2185754/
Sexism: http://www.madkane.com/madness/2008/02/17/obamas-words-a-textbook-case-of-subtle-sexism/
While the above blog covers some of the subtle remarks, it does not include those made by Jesse Jackson, Jr.(Barack advisor) when he commented about Hillary crying (far from it!) in NH. To say she was emotional about her “appearance?” Explain that.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/01/obama_campaign_cochair_questions_hillarys_tears.php
Marvin Bethea credits Hillary for helping him. While she approved and paid for this message, he has been an activist for those whose lives have physically and emotionally changed because of 9/11 and I don’t believe he’d provide his support and agree to do this if this wasn’t true.
http://www.wtcexams.org/pdfs/wtc_2006_fallwinter_newsletter_english.pdf
My primary issue with Barack is that GWB has ruined the credibility and careers of previously highly regarded people over the Iraq war. No one more than Colin Powell, duped into lying to the country. This war is not Bush and Powell’s, Biden’s, Hillary’s (list goes on) war, but that’s not what Barack is perpetuating. This is Bush’s war. Obama spoke out about the war at an anti-war rally, a group of individuals he needed to support his Senate campaign. I am not saying he didn’t mean what he said, but I have not seen evidence he went beyond this until he was running for president. Lucky him, he wasn’t in the U.S. Senate when he would have had to decide to support or not (one of his current advisors), Colin Powell.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/obamas-hollow-judgment_b_89441.html
Hillary’s attacks ads: Barack said his (misleading) ads had been out awhile before Clinton expressed anger about them -- and then retaliated with her own.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-campaign24feb24,0,7152756.story
http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=2&aid=138323
Last, a four page memo on how to exploit the racist angle was issued in Barack’s camp. It was brought up (held up) by the mediator in a debate. However the memo has been kept out of the media (therefore not attached). Honestly, if that was from Hillary’s camp, would the media give her a pass?
"Obama spoke out about the war at an anti-war rally, a group of individuals he needed to support his Senate campaign."
I can say with equal assuredness that HRC cast her vote to authorize the war with similar aspirations to be President (lest she be accused by the Right of being soft on terror). The question for my conscience and yours is who has had the worse ethical lapse? Given the devastation this war has caused, the thought of any candidate authorizing it for political expediency is all I really need for my conscience to make me support Obama.
And also, Clinton has already lost by the rules of this game, if you think about it. Anything she does now is just fracturing the party.
I realized that peoplel get so caught up in defending the Clinton's it creates a level of personal investment. People keep fighting, to reassure themselves. They ignore all the evidence, because others are "enemies".
Now, more people are seeing exactly how wrong they are for this country.
Maybe she is right. Maybe Obama has as many skeletons has the Clintons or McCain. Maybe he just needs more time in Washington to be that corrupt. I prefer to remain naive enough to believe that honesty and the Presidency didn't end with George Washington's cherry tree. I prefer to have a smart, honest individual than someone as compromised and cynical as Hillary Clinton or John McCain.