The GOP Couldn't Take Down Hillary Clinton, So The Democrats Did It For Them

As I watch the Clinton campaign go deeper into its downward spiral and possibly its death throes, it kills me to know that the Democrats have done what the Republicans were never able to do -- take down Hillary Clinton. I mean, I'm used to Hillary Hate coming from the right. I've been watching it for the last 15 years. But from the people who are supposed to have her back? It's just too much.

Every time I hear a Democrat argue for Barack Obama's candidacy by saying that we don't want to go back to the partisanship of the '90s, I realize that while the Clintons may have won the battle back then, the conservatives won the war. A decade after Bill Clinton's impeachment for trying to cover up a bit of extramarital nookie, the common wisdom -- at both ends of the political spectrum -- seems to be that Bill and Hill somehow encouraged all the insanity thrown at them from the far right, that they brought it on themselves.

What's even crazier is that people truly believe Obama, with his boyish good looks and vague platitudes of amorphous "change" and "yes we can," will somehow defuse the haters on the right. In Yes We Can Land, the Republican attack machine that's already spit-shined and ready to roll will back down in the face of that winning smile and polished speaking style, inaugurating an era of love, peace and non-partisanship. And for the topper, maybe Dick Cheney will spontaneously burst into flames!

Hillary offers change -- certainly a huge change from the last eight years. And the title of first female president of the United States is no small taters. But Democrats say sorry, you're not changey enough. Knowing how to work with Republicans and actually get legislation passed becomes that old slur "Washington insider." Knowing her policy shit inside out, and talking about it on the stump, becomes "Not inspiring enough." I feel like it's only a matter of time before her universal health care plan becomes "socialized medicine."

People constantly throw her vote "for the war" in her face. I believe her story that she voted to let the inspectors back in -- after all, her hubby's policy of containment in Iraq throughout the '90s actually worked, as it turned out. Personally, I think that believing what the Bush administration told her is as horrible as if she really had voted for the war.

But the world, and the country, was a very different place in 2002. And if I'd been a senator and had gotten the administration's lies packaged as facts, I don't know how I would have voted. Nor do I know how a Senator Obama would have voted. It's easy to take a high-minded stand when your opinion doesn't translate into action. But Hillary's fellow Democrats, of all people, make it out like she's the one who wants our soldiers to stay in Iraq for the next hundred years.

Back in 2000, the Republicans thought they could beat Hillary in the New York Senate race by throwing out a candidate whose platform was little more than "I'm running against HILLARY CLINTON!" After she became a senator, Republicans who might as well have greeted her with crucifixes and garlic and silver bullets learned they could work with her and, grudgingly, learned to respect her. Working across the aisle -- if that's not change, I don't know what is. How ironic that her own party had to wind up doing the GOP's dirty work.

Well, I'm preparing. I've already bought my Obama pin and will stick it on my lapel as soon as he clinches the nomination. I'm practicing my best "Yes We Can!"s in the mirror. Not that I've never thought anyone but John McCain will win this election come November, no matter who the Dems' candidate is. But my heart belongs to Hillary, and I'm sad that I probably won't get to see her give it a shot. You got a raw deal, Mrs. C.

Comments

[dmhkh]

I think they both got a raw deal. Bill and Hill. The media iis the worst. If we could muzzle that bunch of prostitues and just report the real news, instead of making it up and embelishing, we would have a different result. Female bashing is very much in vogue, admitting to racism is not. We never reward the people who do the most for us, we simply destroy them. What we do is emulate and promote the uninvolved. I am so tired of the Obama Mania, which is of no substance at all.

[nice2blucky]

The author appears to lack introspection and has no sense of irony.

The arguments that somebody said this or that, so I am going to apply it to the whole and argue against it, is completely absurd.

Liberals and Democrats aren't supporting Obama and are against Hillary because she represents the partisan 90's.

And why should liberals and Democrats have Hillary's back? Because the Republicans are attacking her? Hillary doesn't have the backs of the people.

Furthermore, arguing that Hillary will represent change vs. the last eight years is like arguing that America is better than Kazakhstan -- and this analogy is way too generous to Hillary.

Yet, the greatest irony of all is the argument that it's the liberals and Democrats lack of support for Hillary that represents "conservatives winning the war," because it is this author's support, and others like him, for Hillary, that demonstrates his point. He is responsible.

Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, ... etc, etc, etc, ... the list goes on and on... they represent a bottom-of-­the-barrel low-point for representative Democracy and the U.S. Constitution. Democracy is losing on their watch. .
... ... ... And by the way, I don't know any "conservative" Republicans who likes what the Republican party has become. ... ... ... This is not “conservatives” winning. This is the neo-con right winning. ... ... ...
And it is thanks to authors like this who argue like children.

[nice2blucky]

The Huffington post would be wise to exclude grade-school quality opinion pieces.

The author appears to lack introspection and has no sense of irony.

The arguments that somebody said this or that, so I am going to apply it to the whole and argue against it, is completely absurd.

Liberals and Democrats aren't supporting Obama and are against Hillary because she represents the partisan 90's.

And why should liberals and Democrats have Hillary's back? Because the Republicans are attacking her? Hillary doesn't have the backs of the people.

Furthermore, arguing that Hillary will represent change vs. the last eight years is like arguing that America is better than Kazakhstan -- and this analogy is way too generous to Hillary.

Yet, the greatest irony of all is the argument that it's the liberals and Democrats lack of support for Hillary that represents "conservatives winning the war," because it is this author's support, and others like him, for Hillary, that demonstrates his point. He is responsible.

Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, ... etc, etc, etc, ... the list goes on and on... they represent a bottom-of-­the-barrel low-point for representative Democracy and the U.S. Constitution. Democracy is losing on their watch. .
... ... ... And by the way, I don't know any "conservative" Republicans who likes what the Republican party has become. ... ... ... This is not “conservatives” winning. This is the neo-con right winning. ... ... ...
And it is thanks to authors like this who argue like children.

[nice2blucky]

The Huffington post would be wise to exclude grade-school quality opinion pieces.

The author appears to lack introspection and has no sense of irony.

The arguments that somebody said this or that, so I am going to apply it to the whole and argue against it, is completely absurd.

Liberals and Democrats aren't supporting Obama and are against Hillary because she represents the partisan 90's.

And why should liberals and Democrats have Hillary's back? Because the Republicans are attacking her? Hillary doesn't have the backs of the people.

Furthermore, arguing that Hillary will represent change vs. the last eight years is like arguing that America is better than Kazakhstan -- and this analogy is way too generous to Hillary.

Yet, the greatest irony of all is the argument that it's the liberals and Democrats lack of support for Hillary that represents "conservatives winning the war," because it is this author's support, and others like him, for Hillary, that demonstrates his point. He is responsible.

Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, ... etc, etc, etc, ... the list goes on and on... they represent a bottom-of-­the-barrel low-point for representative Democracy and the U.S. Constitution. Democracy is losing on their watch. .
... ... ... And by the way, I don't know any "conservative" Republicans who likes what the Republican party has become. ... ... ... This is not “conservatives” winning. This is the neo-con right winning. ... ... ...
And it is thanks to authors like this who argue like children.

[borderhousereacher]

Oh, Tony, don't let it kill you, sir!

Hillary's run for the White House received the death blow, not you, and not from her own mistakes or anything the Democratic Party or her campaign has done. The series of blows started with early Bush mistakes and the attempt of talk radio hosts to divert opinion from the disasters of the Bush Presidency by rallying around a negative target: HIllary would be worse.

We forget negatives as soon as substance arises.

Of course, every Republican wishes Hillary to be the Democratic candidate, unless they could get an even weaker person, perhaps a John Dean. They, like you, base tactics and strategy and analytical ability on the narrow context of US party politics.

What is the broader context? It includes citizen self interest. It includes each of our sense of self. It includes the general national mood that cries "We are better than this."

Citizens are not the mindless yawners you portray (assume). Citizens are realistic enough to mistrust their government and its leaders profoundly. Citizens just look for the best available outcome. Use that context and see that Hillary is part of what we wish to ignore and forget.

What we really need is a better iPhone, oops iPresident.

[lgillooly]

It is sad that we cannot see what a strong,caring Intelligent President she could be. Clinton/Obama is the best ticket for this Country. Once again,we are controlled by the media spin and a great candidate may lose.

[BUSHsurvivor]

We do eat our own, don't we?

[Jeffersonian1]

It's never her fault.

It's never his fault.

It's just always the rest of us who get to clean up after the mess they make.

[flanardiente]

One thing that a lot of people seem to forget is that a lot of voters (like me) started out supporting NEITHER Clinton nor Obama. For instance, I liked: Wesley Clark, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Al Gore and John Edwards. I like Hillary--and Bill--Hell, I loved Bill--but I cannot stand the Vichy Democrats of the DLC, who drive their bus. That is the one and only reason I didn't vote for her. So maybe Obama's an empty suit and maybe McCain will eat him for lunch or maybe he's a stealth corporate candidate (I actually doubt all of this) but there's a lot of us out here who jumped on the bandwagon late and haven't had any Kool-Aid to drink and still feel pretty good about the man.

And if Hillary gets the nod, I'll be just as noisy and upbeat about her. We can deal with Republican wannabes in the DLC later.

[ErinG]

“The people who are supposed to have her back?” Democratic support isn’t Hillary’s birthright.

[jbatch]

Most polls show Dems are pretty happy with both candidates ... so, invoking Hillary hate seems strange to me.

Dems are making a choice between two reasonable choices, they're not "taking down" anyone.

Call me silly, but isn't that the essence of democracy?

[YellerDawg]

Ok, you are silly. If you don't believe that Hillary Hating is alive and well, just keep reading Huffpo, which is getting more like the Drudge Report every day.

[eshalom]

Don't forget all the Obama supporters across the internet using every tactic at their command to destroy Hillary Clinton on behalf of their peace-loving leader, St. Obama.

[Larenzo]

With all due respect....do you really expect elections in 2008? There will be a "terrist" event, martial law, and suspended elections....and dubya will still rule. Get real....after the consolidation of power, do you expect them to give it up? LOL......

[rlynnt]

"I believe her story that she voted to let the inspectors back in"

Excuse me? The TITLE of the bill was "Authorization to Send Military Troops into Iraq". That's right, MILITARY TROOPS NOT INSPECTORS. Plus, there was a line which specifically read that the President could send those troops in "as he saw fit", which meant he did not have to come back to Congress for permission. She was WRONG.

Also, when he is sworn in as President, Obama will have as much experience as an elected official as any President in the last 30 years - more than most. Certainly more than Hillary Clinton.

Furthermore, neither Carter, Reagan, Bill Clinton or George W. had any experience whatsoever as an elected official in Washington before they became President.

Obama has already made significant changes in the way politics are allowed to be played and our government is run by co-sponsoring two bills which have already been passed into law. One severely restricts the influence of lobbyists and the other makes our government more transparent. He has already started bringing our government back to the American people and this is exactly the kind of change he is talking about.

Foreign policy? Hey, he had the good judgment and the courage to speak out forcibly against the war even though it could have easily cost him the Senate seat he was running for at the time. He also co-authored a bill, which has become law, intiating policy on reducing the proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world.

And, finally, he has managed his campaign much more effectively than any other candidate. He has shown innovation in coming up with jaw-dropping amounts of money for specific goals, without going into debt - which is an excellent skill in a president. He also filled positions of importance with the right people on the first try. So we probably won't have the Brownie, Gonzales and Wolfowitz problems down the line.

In all ways, he is the best qualified and best suited to be President of the United States. No one else even comes close.

[moevaughn]

You left out a critical quote from the Iraq resolution. In the resolution, Bush in fact agreed to, quote: "work with the U.N. Security Council to meet the common challenge posed by Iraq."

On 3/7/03 the U.N. inspectors reported there was no evidence of a WMD program and requested more time to complete their work. Bush dismissed their report, declaring the U.S. forces were on their way.
Mr. Bush did not abide by his own resolution to work with the U.N. to meet the challenge of Iraq and broke his word to our own representatives in Congress and the Senate. Senator Clinton did not vote for Bush's preemptive war. Bush himself likes to blame Congress for his illegal war and you're helping him out. He broke it and he owns it.

[timm0]

To all you disgruntled Hillary cheerleaders - if you post your home addresses.... I will send you all a box of tissues to help you get over the ever-so-slow exposure of your eyes to the light for the first time in a long, long while.

People, snap the hell out of it. From jump, insurmountable numbers of repugs were 100% committed against her. Fair or not, that is the way it is. And that has nothing to do with Obama nor his supporters, so pillorying them in this process is pointless and stupid.

Yeah, she won in NY, that BASTION of republicanism... how could a Dem actually win there, huh? The reason she almost lost the first time was because huge numbers of people saw that they were being used as stepping stones to Hillary's ultimate, transparent goal. An amount of anti-HRC sentiment is due to that. But there's not enough time to run through the author's whiny list of remorseful tidbits point by point.

The bottom line is that it wasn't going to work out. People have embarked on crusades - partially fueled by the media's fascination with black and female candidates - in support of the two leading candidates, neither of whom were the most experienced, competent, nor most in line with Progressive ideals. Suck it up, get over it, and vote for the best of the poor choices we have in November.

[YellerDawg]

Thanks for being so er, objective, but the Repugs will use that same 100% hatred on Obama, too. Since when did Democrats let Repunklicans choose their candidates?

[timm0]

Backhanded praise, but praise nonetheless. You'd have to live in a bubble to get the impression that Rs consider HRC and Obama with the same vitriol. You need to get around more. I work in a sea of Rs and they've been circulating HRC slurs since the mid-1990s. This is reality and fair or not, she should have realized the odds are absurdly low to counter 20 years of marketing to about half the country.

Democrats are as incompetent at picking our candidates as anyone... gullible and illogical. But Rs poisoning the chances for a candidate over 20 years isn't the same as making our choice. It limits the choices, but doesn't decide it. There is a big difference. If HRC were less arrogant, she would have sat out. But instead of that, she embarked on a pandering effort to counter the 20 years of slander by cuddling up to warmongers. She figured she'd be so well loved by Dems that we'd all close our eyes to her "re-branding" - but a funny thing happened on the way to the throne... too many people not on board with another phony...

[army193]

Good stay home to all...