home

Final Words on the "Pile On"

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 09:41:03 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Go read Jane and newly-converted Democrat John Cole.

That's all. Oh, except for John Amato of Crooks and Liars who, while watching the debate with Jane last night, said to her of Russert, "“Why doesn’t he just ask her if she killed Vince Foster?”

This nonsense that Hillary did not do well in the debate, contradicted herself, flip-flopped or whatever is media hype and desperate, wishful thinking by supporters of the other Democratic candidates and Republican strategists.

The number of comments on this site today from "newbie" commenters, all attacking Hillary, is telling.

If you are a progressive, stop it. You are feeding Republican dreams. The enemy is not in here. It is outside this room. And this party.

Any one of the Democrats in the running for the Presidential nomination is light-years superior to what the Republicans have to offer and what we've endured under George Bush.

< Waterboarding Special Airing Now on Current TV | Calif. Judge Tosses New Lethal Injection Plan >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Final Words on the "Pile On" | 30 comments (30 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The most disgusting post you have ever written (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by DA in LA on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 01:26:58 AM EST
    Seriously.  What a joke.  I'm not a "newbie."  I did not think Hillary did well, as a matter of fact I thought she was awful, as did the other three Democrats I watched the debate with.

    So, you can keep dismissing us or you can accept the fact that she is not a good debater.

    Gore, Kerry, seems oddly familiar what is happening.

    You are acting like a giant baby and it makes me not want to read this site anymore.

    All well and good, and all that, but (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by scribe on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 07:14:44 AM EST
    what I'd really like to have seen would have been one or more of the debating candidates rejoinder one of TImmeh's inanities with the following question:  

    "Since the testimony (IIRC of Cathie Martin) under oath at the Scooter Libby trial established that Dick Cheney's office considered you, personally, a reliable (and therefore regularly used) conduit for the message he wanted to have entered into the public discourse, and you never even attempted to contradict that fact, why should we consider any of your questions to be anything other than (a) propaganda emanating from Cheney and the radical wing of the Republican party, (b) setting a predicate for propaganda emanating from Cheney and the radical wing of the Republican party, or both?"

    Just to watch that scheming, worthless little sh*t's head implode.

    And it would have put the stupidity of the debate into context.

    Knowing this wouldn't happen, I watched hockey instead.

    I'm not (capital N) enamored of Goldwater Girl as a candidate or putative Preisdent - IMHO she's Repug lite and won't change anything except some minor trimming around the edges.  She's entirely too much about "being" President and nothing at all about "doing with" the Presidency.  Balance, balance, triangulate, waffle, smile, be popular, tell the audience what they want to hear.

    And, after four or eight years, the real Republicans will have (a) caught their breath, (b) completed their prison terms, (c) made piles of money lobbying, etc., (d) spent lots of time sucking up Wingnut Welfare while drafting a new PNAC scheme, (e) gotten their rage (and base) all worked up on some new propaganda scheme all while (f) the Rightward ratchet has sat still (maybe clicking once or twice more) and (g) the populace has forgotten all the atrocities they perpetrated during 2001-09.

    She might be best hope we have, but she is not the best we have.

    Since when does any Democrat (none / 0) (#1)
    by virginia cynic on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 10:56:19 PM EST
    have to take the anointment of Hillary Clinton as the eventual Democratic nominee by the large media concerns as the only path?

    As one Democrat who will vote for her if I have to, (not happily, but at least against any of these republicans, whether it is the authoritarian  Rudy or the non evolution believing Huckabee)I suggest that your whole piling on theory is nonsense.

    Her Iran position is outrageous,dangerous, and gives support to Bush and his running imperialist dogs.

    Her Iraq position was dangerous and wrong.
    She has never repudiated it.

    Pursuant to your argument we would be precluded from questioning her words, her votes, and her motives.

    I believe that I have heard that sort of talk before if I can just manage to remember from whom.

    And here i thought (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jgarza on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 12:31:09 AM EST
    She had taken on the right wing machine and come back stronger?  Doesn't she know how to fight?  Isn't that why I'm supposed to vote for her?  Shouldn't  this just slide off her like she is a Teflon pan?  Thats the image she has portrayed of her self, can she not live up to her own persona.  She has certainly joined in on "pile ons" on other candidates,  but now it's her, so, its unfair?  She has been talking about how she can fight this entire primary, so lets pile on and see if she lives up to her promise.

    Slandering political opponents (none / 0) (#4)
    by Andreas on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 04:04:10 AM EST

    Jeralyn wrote:

    If you are a progressive, stop it. You are feeding Republican dreams.

    So, according to Jeralyn those who oppose Hillary Clinton are supporting the Republicans. I think that this is political slander directed against "progressives".
    Wow (none / 0) (#6)
    by Slado on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 07:27:57 AM EST
    Jearalyn if you think she did well that is your opinion but most people democrat or republican don't agree with you.

    She answered the question about illegal immigrants getting drivers licenses with a wishy washy take no position answer and she was called on it.    It's as simple as that.

    What that answer did was shine a light on her habit of doing that on many subjects.   Is it enough to derail her nomination?  Probably not but democrats better get used to this because the Republicans will take good shots, cheap shots and drag up the whole Clinton legacy come 2008.

    You ain't seen nothing yet.

    Honestly (none / 0) (#8)
    by Slado on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 07:38:52 AM EST
    if you read this short blurb in the WSJ how can you say she did well?

    Unles political double speak constitutes doing well?

    Parent

    question (none / 0) (#7)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 07:32:53 AM EST
    The number of comments on this site today from "newbie" commenters, all attacking Hillary, is telling.

    If you are a progressive, stop it. You are feeding Republican dreams. The enemy is not in here. It is outside this room. And this party.

     How do you square this command with this site's incessant harping on practically  everything Obama says or does? I know, I know, this site "has not endorsed Hillary Clinton." But, only  if nothing other than using the exact phrase "this site endorses Hillary Clinton" constitutes an endorsement is that claim credible.

    i beg to differ: (none / 0) (#9)
    by cpinva on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 07:51:45 AM EST
    Her Iraq position was dangerous and wrong.
    She has never repudiated it.

    sen. clinton has stated, multiple times, that if she knew then what she knows now, she'd never have voted to give bush any authority militarily in iraq. she did this starting in 2004. in fact, she was among the first to do so, if not the first. what else is she supposed to do, prostrate herself before the masses? get a grip on the actual facts, before you make a complete fool of yourself.

    as far as the debate was concerned, she did fine, considering the fact that every male, including the "moderator" was attacking her. pretty pathetic of them really, just made them look bad.

    of course, russert does a good job of putzing himself every time he opens his mouth, so his behaviour is no great surprise.

    do the dems a favor (none / 0) (#10)
    by diogenes on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:08:39 AM EST
    Pick the BEST of the nine dems, all of whom could do a better job than Bush.  Why must it be Hillary, who is no smarter or more experienced than others and combines some of the worst features of Nixon and Kerry as well as being challenged in charisma.  Support her in the general election, but you aren't there yet.

    I will happily vote for Hillary (none / 0) (#12)
    by msobel on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 12:45:25 PM EST
    Of course I think that going by the odds that John Edwards will win the nomination since he is the only white male prod in the top 4.  (joke)

    SFHawkguy (none / 0) (#13)
    by SFHawkguy on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 01:37:11 PM EST
    I'm sorry Jeralyn.  You're way off here.  I've been reading your blog for years (this, along with Political Animal was the first blog I read) and you have exercised me enough to post.

    Nothing could be worse for liberal/progressive politics than Hillary.  Hillary is basically a moderate Republican.  The Democratic party has moved to the right and abandoned liberals.  Hillary portrays me and people like me as crazy loonies so as to ingratiate herself to conservative leaning "moderates".  This has been the Clintonian strategy for over a decade and it's killed progressive ideas.  Just look at crime policies.  How many politicians are petrified to speak out against our insane drug policies and other criminal laws that make our country #1 in incarceration in the world.  Hillary would rather stab people like me in the back (and you), for some cheap perceived electoral gain, than actually fight for what is right.  Hillary is like this on every issue and what Democrats desperately need is someone who actually believes in liberal ideas and more importantly, has the ability to stand up and unapolagetically express a belief in liberal politics.  Lead--don't triangulate.

    I wonder how much of your support for Hillary is based on your natural prediliction to support a woman from your generation.  

    Well written (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by DA in LA on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 01:46:36 PM EST
    My wife and I, both Democrats, the later a huge feminist, will not be voting for Hillary.  Why?

    She mocks our liberal beliefs.  She is simply a Republican calling herself a Democrat.  How do we think we got to the place where Republicans were running the country?  Obama said it correctly during the debate:  This is not ten years ago.

    This is the one election in my lifetime we have a legitimate shot at electing a progressive.  And one person stands in the way.  It makes me very sad.

    Parent

    In response (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 06:45:46 PM EST
    See my comment here.

    In short, none of the candidates' views match mine on criminal justice issues, which are what matters most to me. They are all centrists or right of center on crime issues.

    As I've said before, my ideal candidate would vow as President to impose a moratorium on executions, close Guantanamo, try accused terrorists under the Code of Military Justice or in federal courts, insist Congress abolish mandatory minimum sentences, put a lockbox on my social security benefits and provide mandatory health care, including affordable and compassionate nursing home care, for the elderly. And of course, a candidate who as President would end the war in Iraq and promise not to get us into other wars preemptively or under false pretenses.

    It's not going to happen. Which means, instead of focusing on individual issues, I'm focusing on the candidates' overall values, their capacity to lead, their experience and yes, their likeability and electability.

    For me, thats Hillary or John Edwards. For others, it's Obama. We can disagree, but in the end, we need to support whoever gets the nomination so I just wish everyone would tone down the personal attacks.

    Parent

    Fair Enough (none / 0) (#23)
    by SFHawkguy on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 11:08:17 PM EST
    Of course we must compromise and will never get to vote for our ideal candidate (that's why I always write myself in :) ).  But I am not suggesting that we thow caution to the wind and vote our hearts and not our minds all the time.  I am willing to compromise and vote for a Democratic candidate who is to the right of me.  Heck, I've done it in every election I've voted in, starting with Bill Clinton.  So I'm not trying to throw a tantrum and vote a Republican into office simply to spite Democrats like you who have settled for a more moderate candidate.  I simply feel that Hillary will hurt the progressive cause for years to come (or Obama for that matter--but especially Hillary).

    We've tried picking a "winner" centrist Democrat before.  Where's that gotten us?  How much progress have the centrist to right-leaning Democrats achieved for you on criminal policies?  For someone who cares about criminal policy, you, more than most Democrats, should know how much the Clintons and other centrist Democrats sold people like you out.  I don't know how many times you can be fooled by them.  They wink at you and insinuate they are on your side if you vote for them and yet never seem to get around to spending the political capital to make changes.  

    Parent

    I couldn't agree more (none / 0) (#24)
    by DA in LA on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 01:18:05 AM EST
    I will not vote for a "centrist."  They are actually a bit to the right in this country.  Our centrists would be right wing in Europe.

    I'm done.  I've been down this path.  Either the Dems pick someone who represents me, or I will not vote for them.  I'd rather have another Republican in office than follow this path.  I'M DONE!

    (Please support the writers in our strike)

    Parent

    I'm so glad you added (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 01:28:59 AM EST
    that last sentence about "our writers strike." I thought you were a District Attorney.  I was having a hard time following your comments, thinking you were a prosecutor.

    Parent
    Oh no (none / 0) (#27)
    by DA in LA on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 01:58:39 AM EST
    I was raised by an attorney,

    I'm a liberal Hollywood writer.

    Parent

    good luck with the strike (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 02:07:28 AM EST
    I fully support you. I just put the news of it (and TalkLeft's support) on the front page for tomorrow and asked how we can help.

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#29)
    by DA in LA on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 04:55:24 AM EST


    Parent
    I have criticiized (none / 0) (#26)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 01:47:28 AM EST
    Bill Clinton's drug and crime policies plenty, while he was in office and after. I've written that he continued and expanded the mandatory minimum sentencing laws.

    I've also written that when I met with him last year, he said he now regrets that so many mandatory sentencing policies were enacted while he was President and sounded genuinely concerned that we are over-incarcerating.

    We also talked about America's criminal justice system, how politicians are too afraid to do what's right, about the over-jailing of offenders, particularly those with minor drug offenses, about mandatory minimum sentences and how they haven't worked or promoted fairness. He said former offenders should regain the right to vote.

    Maybe you missed Hillary at a debate some months ago:

    Number two, we have to go after mandatory minimums. You know, mandatory sentences for certain violent crimes may be appropriate, but it has been too widely used. And it is using now a discriminatory impact.

    Three, we need diversion, like drug courts. Non-violent offenders should not be serving hard time in our prisons. They need to be diverted from our prison system.

    John Edwards has implied he would support a moratorium on the death penalty because of its flaws. From his breakout session at Yearly Kos:

    ....a commenter brilliantly asked how he could square this moralism with his support for the death penalty, especially given how it impacts minorities disproportionately and has led to the almost-certain murder of innocents. Edwards appreciated the question. And he took the opportunity to decry the current death penalty system while affirming his belief that some acts are so unspeakable that the death penalty is warranted. But this surprised me. He said that "we shouldn't execute anyone until we fix all the flaws in the system.

    They're making progress. Rome wasn't built in a day. I've been lobbying elected officials on these issues since 1994. We've got a long way to go, but we've also made some progress.

    Parent

    Yes, we do have a long way to go (none / 0) (#30)
    by SFHawkguy on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 09:12:39 AM EST
    And I commend you for the work you have done.  I really admire what you do on this blog and your dedication to criminal defense.  

    And I suppose there has been some progress if the candidates are making noises about the death penalty and mandatory minimums.

    But color me pessimistic . . . these statements by Clinton and Edwards are hardly inspiring.  I don't see any real desire to make this an issue or to get something done.  What I see is a bit of pandering at the Howard debate and I doubt that the major Democratic candidates will really do much in a general election or while president.

    I also notice that Kucinich seems to be the closest to your views on these issues?  Why don't you endorse him?  I understand people think he's crazy . . . but why? The one debate I watched he sounded the most sane and was the most direct in stating what he believed.  I thought he did a great job of unabashedly expressing a liberal viewpoint.  I didn't think he sounded crazy at all.

    Parent

    A gentle rebuttal (none / 0) (#15)
    by Anonymous Liberal on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 03:45:58 PM EST
    Jeralyn,

    I too have been reading your blog for many years now and have nothing but good words to say about it and about you.  But I think you're wrong here.

    Clinton is an excellent debater and I think she has "won" most of the debates.  But not this one.  She wasn't terrible, but it wasn't one of her better performances, and I thought several of the other candidates did better than her this time.  Part of the problem for Hillary was that everyone was focusing their fire on her (that's to be expected when you're the prohibitive front-runner).  And part of the problem was that Russert clearly was trying to play gotcha (Russert sucks big time, but again, this is to be expected if you're the front runner in a Democratic primary; it will only get worse in the general election).

    I really don't think it's at all reasonable to expect the other candidates or their supporters to refrain from criticizing Hillary.  They have every right to try to make this thing competitive, especially if they believe, as many genuinely do, that Hillary is not the strongest general election candidate in the field.

    I respect Hillary and would have no problem pulling the lever for her if she's the Democratic nominee. But ideologically, I find some of her rivals more to my liking. And I also know a lot of conservatives who are literally salivating at the notion of Hillary being the Dem nominee.  It's not an act.  They're not bluffing; they really do want her to win the nomination because they believe she's the most beatable.  I think they are probably underestimating her general election prospects, but still it gives me pause. My gut (which may well be wrong) tells me that Obama would be a stronger general election candidate, and since my overriding goal is to see a Democrat win back the White House, I'm not yet on the Hillary bandwagon.  

    There are a lot of people like me out there.  

    Thank you . This is exactly (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 06:37:13 PM EST
    the type of comment I welcome here. It's politely expressed disagreement, substantive and inviting of discussion.

    Ideologically, none of the candidates match my views on criminal justice issues which is what I care most about. They are all too center or right of center for me. (Except Kucinich who doesn't have a shot.)

    I've come to terms with that, and said so before. So my goal now is to get a Democrat elected as any Democrat is better than what the Republicans have to offer.

    Yes, the candidates have the right to criticize Hillary. I just wish they'd keep it to the issues and do it without attacking her character.


    Parent

    Calling people who disagree with you republicans? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jgarza on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 04:28:39 PM EST
    This is how we got to 2000, when party ID gave repugs an advantage.  It wasn't because they nation leaned right.  It's becasue if you criticize a Clinton you get called a republican and cast out of the party.  Good job keep it up Jeralyn and maybe we can loose our partisan ID edge, again!

    Really? (1.00 / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 04:43:04 PM EST
    It seems to me that Clinton is being called a Republican more than critics of her are being called Republicans.

    Parent
    You're both Right! (none / 0) (#18)
    by SFHawkguy on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 05:18:22 PM EST
    Yes, Clinton is being called a Republican as well.  But this slur is more on target than Jeralyn's slur.  Hillary is the most conservative Democratic candidate and that is pretty right-wing in the modern Democratic party.

    Jeralyn's slur is now the second time I've heard a Hillary supporter try to use the "you're just attacking Hillary like the Republicans are" line on progressives.  They are using it because it's effective.  Hillary will effectively silence those of us to her left using this tactic and will do it to appear "reasonable" to the moderates.  That's why she is so dangerous to liberal and progressive ideas.  And it is liberal/progressive ideas that I really care about--not politicians.  Since Rush and the gang spent years slurring Hillary with the feminazi liberal tag, the "reasonable" Americans will agree with Hillary that those to her left are indeed crazy.  They will say, "even Hillary can't stand the moonbat crazies" . . . .

    Parent

    Please read more carefully (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 06:48:34 PM EST
    I didn't call them Republicans. I said they likely were either media, supporters of other candidates or Republican strategists.


    Parent
    Double Standard ?? (none / 0) (#22)
    by RedHead on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 07:17:37 PM EST

    The number of comments on this site today from "newbie" commenters, all attacking Hillary, is telling.

    If you are a progressive, stop it. You are feeding Republican dreams. The enemy is not in here. It is outside this room. And this party.
    The number of comments on this site today from "newbie" commenters, all attacking Hillary, is telling.

    If you are a progressive, stop it. You are feeding Republican dreams. The enemy is not in here. It is outside this room. And this party.

    Jeralyn,

    Come, now.

    Have you ever admonished BigTentDemocrat for "dumping" hot steamers on Obama?

    Perhaps he's excluded from scrutiny, seeing he's a self proclaimed "centrist."

    Be fair. (none / 0) (#31)
    by BlueLakeMichigan on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:56:56 AM EST
    I probably wouldn't admonish those who I agree with publicly either. It's not a smart policy, politically or socially.

    Parent
    Final Words on the "Pile On" | 30 comments (30 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment