The Monster: A Loyal Clinton Soldier Turns in His Badge
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.
Loading comments…
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
Obama has more integrity in his little finger than Hillary has under her mullet.
I know a lot of women are hoping for a woman to be President, but think about it, you don't want someone who will do damage to womens image. Hillary will set back the women's movement by decades and may already have. Swallow the dissapointment and go with a man who isn't ready to sacrafice honesty for good government. Also, Michelle is speaking the truth and she is no "yes" woman.
Exactly. It's just as I've said all along, I would certainly love to see a woman President, but Hillary is simply the wrong *person* for the job.
Take care all.
Check out http://www.stealthreport.com
Thanks. Nice.
thanks seth for being right on
What a REALITY CHECK!!!!!! This has been my opinion all along...I was a supporter too but do not care for a person to do anything to get back in the WH....The WING NUTS were correct...they provoked issues and lived on the edge and then cried WOLF for sympathy and the DEMOCRATS buys it everytime.......hopefully the people of PA will thru this and give a huge victory to OBama and end this thing so that we still have a shot in November...she will rather see McCain win than Obama becuase he was audacious to run against her and do well too when it is her turn to be President.....entitlement!!!!
Exactly, my man. Right on. She's turned ugly right in front of our faces.
The lady that called her a 'monster' was correct in her comment. hrc has turned into a 'republican' monster that is hell bent on destroying the party she is suppose to represent. She 'assumed' she would be the one America wanted and she 'ass u me d' wrong.
She may be the 1st female to run for pres but she will not be the 1st to be elected to it. Any backroom deals or arm twisting will cost her and the dems the election if they are not careful.
Hillary Clinton is not above using race, sexism or any other thing she can pull out of her kitchen sink plan...she is vile. She is poison for the Democratic party, and those that support her are failing their party and their country. Simply put, she has lost this thing, she has poisoned the race and she might have even given the Republicans a good chance to win in November. Had enough of her yet? Speak up. Vote against her.
exactly, there is a reason why she pulled out that commercial in the south and not other places. you should see orlando patterson's op ed in the nytimes to day.
Clinton-backer Ferraro: Obama Where He Is Because He's Black
March 11
Clinton campaign finance committee member, former vice presidential candidate, and former Rep. Geraldine Ferraro, D-NY, told the Daily Breeze of Torrance, Ca., that, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
Ferraro’s comments make explicit what I’ve suspected as a Clinton talking point for weeks now (see Hillary’s “I just wish the playing field was level” comment right before Ohio and Texas primaries)--the Clintons are pushing the theme that Obama is an affirmative action candidate
there is no way she, Ferraro, said the above without implicit or explicit green light from Hillary—
the comment is aimed squarely at PA and NC blue-collar whites
I can't believe there are many neanderthal's out there that would embrace Ferrarro's comment!
The dems are going to have one person to thank for losing the election in November and that's good old Hillary. She's a huge divider and a sore loser. If we go for a brokered convention, we're sure to crown McCain President in November. The dems knifed themselves again.
Actually, Hill knifed us...
If Obama is the nominee, she'll root for McCain so she can run again in 4 years.
Hillary realizes there is no way she can win this nomination. What she's doing now is engaging in scorched earth politics.
I BELIEVE HER INTENTIONS ARE TO WEAKEN OBAMA to the point that John McCain will win the general election. HILLARY WILL THEN RUN AGAIN in 2012 saying that "I told you Obama couldn't win".
There is no other explanation for her wanting to go to the convention knowing it will be brokered and knowing the superdelegates will not vote against the pledged delegates. Her objective is not about having the Democrats win the presidency but having "Hillary" win the presidency. Even if it means delaying it another 4 years.
Her actions and words are as erratic as a schizophrenic. Unless her goals are projected to 2012, then it makes all the sense in the world.
All of you people are sounding the same to me: Clinton and Obama supporters alike. Where is the "new politics?" This has turned into a mudfight, just like every presidential campaign I have ever witnessed. Both sides employ strategy consultants, pay for extravagant advertising, encourage rumors, spread embarrassing details, and most iimportantly, spend millions on figuring out how to manipulate our emotions. Nothing has changed here. I guess I will cast a vote for Ralph Nader...unless the Democratic convention chooses a Native American as VP, and then I will change my mind.
Ralph Nader will have my vote, too. I'm tired of those who say that Dems will vote with whomever is selected. Must have given superdelegates some comfort, but they shouldn't think it's true.
Soooo frustrating to hear people say that Nader voters are wayward Democrats, straying from the fold. T'aint so, is it Meggie?
Wigglesworth,
That's sort of correct. But Obama has been forced to defend himself against Hillary's ridiculous, seamy, often race baiting attacks. We all would love for this to be a kum by ya campaign experience but the fact is Obama would be trounced if he didn't defend himself and point out Hillary's claims are as exaggerated as her foreign policy experience.
When one candidate deploys the scorched earth tactic the other must deploy his missile defense shields and sometimes lob a few missiles himself.
exactly. And without any sense of irony, Hillary was the one who started bellyaching about 'mudslinging' at the beginning of the debates...
Westreal: I do agree that it is important for voters to see how Obama stands up for himself against criticism and muckraking. The question of "Is he tough enough?" is a very important one. In fact, I thought that Maureen Dowd's post on this subject was very thought provoking.
I have a problem with myth-building, which is commonplace, but this race seems to be especially prone to it. Obviously the Dynastic Duo & Co. are well-schooled in the practice of maniuplating public opinion--they are masters of the art. But the Obama campaign is not a bunch of babes in the woods either.
Honestly, I was taken aback by the psychological techniques the Obama campaign has employed in its advertising. Before you explode, let me explain through an example. All over his website are photographs of Obama with a full body halo of white light. Sometimes it is just a head and shoulders with the halo of white light. Surrounding that white light is an aura of astral blue. Frankly, all that is missing is an image of the Dove carrying a Divine Message. His logo has the same feel to it.
This stuff is not accidental. It has cost him millions in development and research--let alone placement. It is the result of deliberate, rather than Divine design. It is crafted to raise expectations, inspire hope and high-minded thinking and thus give us a subliminal message about who Barack Obama is. But it may be working too well, and in the end, when raised expectations come crashing to Earth, it may come back to bite Mr. Obama in his end.
It's interesting how many other Clinton supporters have been fed up with her tactics. The sad thing is that I think this election would have left Dems feeling good about BOTH candidates, had she not convinced herself that she was doing the right thing by attacking her own party. She and her husband have squandered their legacies and destroyed (IMO) so many institutions/organizations that put their own credibility on the line for the Clintons.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/11/4230/52843/872/474077
Hillary Clinton's ambition is frightening to me. I too have been making excuses for her, but not any more. Obama gets my vote whether he's the nominee or not.
I completely agree with this posting but for one major detail: IF HRC gets the nomination, she has the support of a huge number of people... AND if nothing else has been proven by these last 7 ghastly years with the Bush Administration liberals, progressives and Democrats MUST recogize the necessity of NOT allowing another republican president. This is crucial. So, we have to man-up and just vote for the Democratic candidate, as painful as that might be if that person is HRC. I'm upset by the tone of this campaign, but honestly, a Clinton/Obama partnership could only serve to at least provide representation for the rest of the Dems who are behind Obama and possibly moderate HRC's hawkish demeanor. And when you think of the alternative, it's appalling. Remember when it was said over and over and over again by the likes of Nader that the parties are both the same? Do you remember the Iraq war, the war on science, the undermining of the press and the constitution, supreme court nominees and etc ad nauseum? Now. Who are you going to really vote for? The Democratic candidate, the Republican candidate... or will you just check-out and pretend that that decision has no impact too? This whole thing sucks but we HAVE to face reality.
Your logic keeps business as usual, and neither party is innocent in the recent decline of US industry and economy. Also, drinking the kool-aid is something we've spent the past 7 years chiding the republicans about.
Sorry, but the person nominated DOES matter, and there are other choices beyond the two parties. It only takes Americans to realize it.
What is the difference realistically between HRC's voting record and McCain's? At least he was for ethics reform ... Not all Democrats are the same and not all Republicans are the same and I just cannot physically or psychologically ever brace myself to pull her name on a lever ... ever ever ever
No Clinton/Obama ticket. If Clinton is the nominee, I as a voting Democrat will NOT vote for the first time in over 35 years!
Why not an Obama/Clinton partnership?
No I think HRC has burned her bridges on that issue. Besides, her ego would not allow THAT.
AND why are people still speculating on "if she gets the nomination?" SHE CAN'T WIN (unless she subverts the will of the people and corrals the superdelegates to all support her). And in that case there will be civil war in the party and we all lose.
When is HRC going to "man-up" and admit she has been beaten?
" She's become a political suicide-bomber, happy to blow herself to bits -- as long as she takes everyone else with her. "
This point basically sums up Clinton's behavior, and if the Democratic Party establishment continues to let the Monster go on with this line of attack then they themselves are to blame when we lose in November.
If Hillary is sooo Damned Wonderful then Why after 35 Years of so called Experience has She NOT been able to Change Anything??? She is just like the rest , maybe Worse. Doesn't Matter I Will Not Vote For Her EVER.
Lay down the pipe and open your eyes to Hillarys change.
A vote for Obama is a vote for Mc Cain. Thanks a he!! of allot.
This article mirrors my thoughts and feelings. Like so many others, I stuck up for the Clintons in the 90s, watched Hillary dragged off in a big black car and forced to testify, watched her humiliation when the Monica bomb dropped. Other than the illegal attack on Serbia, based on lies (very similar to the way we went into Iraq), I supported most of what Bill Clinton did.
But she has descended into a slimy, at times racist, clawing, grasping campaign. Watching the confetti drop on her in Ohio (what the hell was THAT about? That wasn't the party nomination, Hill, it was Ohio) and knowing that while she was claiming a victory in Texas, that Obama actually came out of it with MORE delegates, I knew that she wasn't going to stop, wasn't going to do the right thing for the Democrats in the fall. She's going to drag the whole thing down, suck defeat from what would have been a stunning and enduring victory for the Dems. Bravo, Hillary.
This article, and most of the comments, really capture my thoughts and feelings.
And now the question is why do Dem party insiders continue to fawn over people like Hillary or Lieberman long after they've shown they care more about themselves than the party or the country?
Because Dem party insiders care about themselves more than they do about the party or the country. That's why Hillary and her toadies are fighting so hard (and dirty) to win; if she loses, it's possible the whole corrupt Dem party machine will go with it. These people would have to get off the gravy train.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
