The Impulse To Defend Hillary

Kevin Drum explains it well:

As long as we're laying our cards on the table, this is one of the things that keeps me on Hillary's side regardless of anything to do with issues or tactics or rhetoric or anything else. I just hate the idea that the fever swamp has been able to turn a perfectly decent liberal woman into such an object of malign loathing. If she loses, then she loses. But by God, I don't want her to lose because millions of Schiffren's fellow travelers have carried on a 15-year vendetta of sick-minded smears and hatred. Enough's enough.

Be against Hillary. Criticize her stances, actions and political style. But by gawd, the libelous things that get said about her, not just by Republicans, but by Democrats and especially, by the Media (See Tweety) just set my teeth on edge.

It is terrible that she will be defeated because of this. I did not want her to win for many reasons. Most of them due to her cautious approach to politics. But that is not why she is going to lose. It will be due to just plain untruths. And that is not right.

< Obama On The Stump On His Theory Of Change | The Iowa Delegate Allotment >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    My 3 reasons for not being more pro-Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by dmfox on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:57:38 PM EST
    1. Foreign policy - HRC didn't start speaking out against the Iraq War until she started running for president.  Her Iran position makes that even more worrying, like she hasn't learned her lesson.  I don't like her foreign policy advisers with the exception of Wilson and Clark.  They're by and large the same liberal hawks who went along with the Iraq debacle.

    2. I think the general election campaign would be much more  of a dogfight with her in it, with much less of an opportunity to win a landslide.  I know her high negatives are as a result of media smears, but they're there, and will affect her ability not only to win big, but to help candidates down ticket.

    3. Something instinctual against dynasties in American politics.  It just seems wrong to me.  I know this is not taking the candidate at face value, but the thought of having two families running the government from the time I was 9 to possibly the time I am 33 seems anti-American.

    I have no problem getting 100% behind her, in the event that she wins the nomination.  But these are my reasons I haven't even considered her in the primary.

    On number 3 (none / 0) (#65)
    by dmfox on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:19:13 PM EST
    The first President Bush actually took office when I was 5.  So the two-family rule would run from when I was 5 until possibly I am 33.

    I know TalkLeft is a bit of an older crowd.  I'm a law student, not a lawyer.  But Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton for 28 years is absurd.  It's better than Bush-Clinton-Bush-[insert R gasbag here], but I don't warm up to it at all.


    how do you feel about Rodham? (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:41:04 PM EST
    Blame the media for everything (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:52:19 PM EST
    Some times it gets old.  now the media is MAKING them attack Obama.

    Of course they are attacking from the right on Criminal justice matters.  Will this website criticize, probably not, because clearly the media made her do it? Poor helpless Hillary the media marionette.  

    Makes me sick.

    Clinton Attacks Obama For Opposing Mandatory Minimum Sentences

    Did the media make her vote for war with Iraq to?

    That's a strange newspot you link to (none / 0) (#72)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 01:21:51 AM EST
    Because the part where Hillary talks is criticizing him for not knowing where he stands. She never says he's too liberal. The reporter then says "campaign aides" refer to his position on mandatory minimums from 2003 and you hear him say he'd abolish them.

    Yet, recently Obama said he'd review them, not abolish them, and he mentioned only first time non violent drug offenders and crack powder cases. There are plenty more mandatory minimums than those. Is he now backing off his promise to abolish them?

    The news spot also makes no sense because it's as if Hillary's aides don't know her position on mandatory minimums. At the Howard debate this year she said:

         SEN. CLINTON: In order to tackle this problem, we have to do all of these things.

        Number one, we do have to go after racial profiling. I've supported legislation to try to tackle that.

        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. (Applause.)

        We need to make sure that we do deal with the distinction between crack and powder cocaine. And ultimately we need an attorney general and a system of justice that truly does treat people equally, and that has not happened under this administration. (Applause.)

    Since the spot has no direct quote from Hillary criticizing Obama on mandatory minimums, and it's not a campaign ad but a news spot put together by a reporter, I'm discounting it. Sounds like someone got their wires crossed, either the reporter or the campaign aides. She did express reservations about making the changes to the crack  guidelines retroactive, but guidelines are not mandatory minimums and it doesn't seem like she'd criticize Obama for that when she's also promised to reform them. I'm more concerned that Obama has gone from abolition to a review.


    The End Racial Profiling Act of 2001 (none / 0) (#81)
    by JSN on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:14:33 AM EST
    is still pending and in the meantime over 20 states have enacted such legislation.

    Most nonviolent prisoners serving a mandatory minimum sentence were convicted of drug trafficking. Is she proposing that we eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for drug trafficking?

    My guess is that at least 20% of the trafficking convictions are really possession convictions because the amount of drugs that sets the threshold for a trafficking charge is too low.

    There are drug courts and a few mental health courts and more are being added as funds become available and almost all of this effort appears to be at the state level. Drug & mental health courts are very expensive because of the extra staff and the long times needed to process a case. What has she done to speed this process up?

    She has opposed making the revised crack/powder cocaine sentencing guidelines retroactive. About 20,000 federal prisoners are involved in that decision.


    Here's the actual news video on it (none / 0) (#73)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 01:26:22 AM EST
    We have a new standord for Hillary now (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Jgarza on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 01:52:15 AM EST
    unless it comes direct from her mouth don't believe? did the media make her loose control of her campaign too?

    read chico blanco (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Jgarza on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 01:53:21 AM EST
    her campaign is clearly using the too liberal argument.

    It's begun ... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Chino Blanco on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 12:51:47 AM EST
    "Hillary's aides point to Obama's extremely progressive record as a community organizer, state senator and candidate for Congress, his alliances with "left-wing" intellectuals in Chicago's Hyde Park community, and his liberal voting record on criminal defendants' rights as subjects for examination."

    she was an early co-sponsor of the (none / 0) (#90)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 01:49:59 PM EST
    Innocence Protection Act...in 2000, when the good version was proposed. It also included loan forgiveness for public defenders and the creation of a Innocence Commission and standards for death penalty counsel.

    Thank you. (3.66 / 3) (#1)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:15:43 PM EST

    Jgarza, youre"1" rating (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 01:53:30 PM EST
    for a simple thank you confounds me.  Care to explain?

    I started it (none / 0) (#93)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:12:42 PM EST
    when I was first here and thought what you wrote was great...then people started to to use it and it has become some kind of popularity contest when posts like "thanks" get rated. (if course, the points for me were from vwery savvy readers. :-P)

    What we see is the whole system in a nutshell; oooh, so and so got a point - well I want MY friend to get a point!!! and from fun it becomes silly.

    Funny stuff. :-)


    Where have you been all our lives (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:23:20 PM EST
    at Talk Left?  (Mine is fairly short here actually.)  Nice addition to the discussions.  The lady is not afraid to call 'em as she sees 'em.

    nice (none / 0) (#95)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:46:28 PM EST
    thanks for the warm welcome.  It is great to chat with sophisticated people.  

    I had heard of Jeralyn elsewhere and decided to visit - once I did I was hooked - her writing is sharp and I was impressed by both you and Big tent so I signed up.

    Truthfully, I like just about everybody here so again, thanks for the nice comment.


    I understand your comments, Big Tent (3.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:41:43 PM EST
    The bullies of the media are sickening. When you take away the mike, the make-up anf the paycheck you have a bunch of none too impressive lumps in love with their power. The days of broadcasters who has ome semblence of honor are pretty much behind us with the exception of bill Moyers and the people at the Newshour and,in print, Walter Pinkus.  

    If she is (1.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:24:31 PM EST
    defeated it is because Obama is a superior candidate, the excuses made by her and those "defending" her are a HUGE turn off. Spare me the victim line, the more i hear this the more she sounds like a weak political figure.

    Hey but it is a way for you to diminish Obama( those who are fans of Clinton need to understand, it diminishes her too) , your new favorite task.

    You object when Obama (4.20 / 5) (#15)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:43:14 PM EST
    is called a Moslem schooled in a Madrassa who secretly want to impose Sharia law because it is a smear. It is untrue.

    But you have no objection to smears about HRC.

    Read BTD again:

    Be against Hillary. Criticize her stances, actions and political style. But by gawd, the libelous things that get said about her, not just by Republicans, but by Democrats and especially, by the Media

    Libelous things that get said- Such as Obama is a Moslem schooled in a Madrassa who secretly want to impose Sharia. You wail, gnash your teeth, moan and complain bitterly and you play the victim card when it comes to Obama. Yet when others complain about similar treatment of  HRC you down play it.

    You are a hypocrite and a fool Talex.


    oh jeez (4.00 / 4) (#19)
    by taylormattd on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:49:29 PM EST
    that's Talex? I should have known.

    No idea (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:12:08 PM EST
    The subject matter is different, but the attitude is often the same.

    some one disagrees (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:59:27 PM EST
    and you insult and name call.

    I'm not the person (none / 0) (#64)
    by taylormattd on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:15:50 PM EST
    who called you talex. It was my understanding from reading Molly's comment that you were indeed talex. I apologize if you are not.

    I Also (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 12:31:56 AM EST
    Wouldn't be surprised if it is Talex resurrected. They both share the same meant to annoy relentless quality.

    made my point for me (none / 0) (#23)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:53:17 PM EST
    This is funny you just cited incidents were Hillary used "Libelous things" against Obama.

    yet i see none that the MSM has used against Hillary.  i don't doubt they will come, and that she should be defended, but i haven't heard them, yet.


    You avoided the point Talex. (4.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:58:15 PM EST
    Those points were made by Conservatives about Obama- you know the ones he is going to bring together with progressives.

    If you are unaware of the Libelous things said about HRC, you are willfully blind and intellectually dishonest, or wet behind the ears and just fell off the turnip truck.


    republicans (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:04:20 PM EST
    like Bob Kerrey and Bill Shaheen.

    I don't doubt republicans are attacking both of them. this post blamed the media.  I haven't seen them unfairly go after her.

    Weren't you of the opinion that she is allowed to do it because it's politics, like it was a gift from her since the right will do it?

    seriously am i the person that can't entertain ideas i don't agree with.


    Fox news began the campaign (3.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:10:32 PM EST
    You know Fox News the conservative news network? The network of those whom Obama will bring together with progressives to pass NHC...

    As I said previously Talex,  you are being willfully blind and intellectually dishonest.

    As for the rest of your post it is gibberish, when you figure out how to write it out in a semi complete sentence, I will answer the argument you attempt to put on my lips.


    Fox news (3.50 / 2) (#46)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:24:35 PM EST
    sunk her in a primary.  she was the only one who would go on fox news.  no democrats or left leaning indies watch fox news. she is buddy buddy with Murdoch.  If anything fox has attacked Obama and Edwards because they wont go on there.

    I'm not arguing that they have not been unfair to her, but the idea that she lost the primary because of that is ridiculous.


    I wasn't arguing that (3.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:52:46 PM EST
    try to think and follow the thread.

    I merely pointed out where the Obama is a Moslem smear originated.


    Jgarza must have logged in as SFHAwkguy (none / 0) (#109)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:40:14 PM EST
    Remember this: (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:16:47 PM EST
    [S]eriously am i the person that can't entertain ideas i don't agree with.

    Ok I am exhausted tonight (none / 0) (#41)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:19:08 PM EST
    are yo asking me if I remember it or are you admonishing me to remember it. If the former no.

    I am admonishing you to remember (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:31:30 PM EST
    it, as you will save lots of energy here in the future.

    the difference (none / 0) (#48)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:28:46 PM EST
    i disagree and say so.

    you disagree with me and refuse to acknowledge that any one could have a different opinion, call me talex and call me stupid.

    yep i'm the unreasonable one


    I don't dispute you have a difference of (3.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:51:01 PM EST
    opinion, I dispute the basis of your opinion and I dispute your methods in general. And yes you are unreasonable.

    if you were wet behind the ears (none / 0) (#54)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:36:52 PM EST
    AND fell off a truck...would the wetness cause you to hydroplane and therefore be a good thing?
    Cause I wonder how sometimes really goofy people just skid on by.

    you know what turns me off? (3.66 / 6) (#12)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:37:26 PM EST
    people who have no sense of proportion. People ho can't stop and think and allow any other idea to enter their brain other than the one-note simplicities that give them comfort in the night.  Yeah, I mean you. Your are being absolutely childish and it is a bore.

    I am CRUSHED. (3.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:06:42 PM EST
    I had a perfect score of 5.0 until Garza ruined my stats with a totally RUDE score of "1"

    Help me out folks - vote me a 5!

    Occulus this isnt FUN anymore...it's Personal!



    thanks squeaky (none / 0) (#106)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 07:14:43 PM EST
    the only one with some class and, of course, erudition. :-O

    Hilarious (none / 0) (#107)
    by squeaky on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 07:18:58 PM EST
    Compliments to you too...

    self evident truth (1.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:14:28 PM EST
    Because really I'm to simple minded to see the self evident truth.  That Hillary Clinton is perfect, her campaign has done no wrong ever, she has done no wrong ever.  The only logical explanation for Iowa, is that mean Media that is so brutal to poor little innocent Hillary.

    nooooooo (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:34:51 PM EST
    because you completely disregarded the truth in what was being said about Clinton and made it about Obama - that shows a lack of discretion.  

    That being said (3.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:31:25 PM EST
    If/when she she is defeated republicans are going to go after her.

    The best description is when a cat is old or injured and birds attack it.

    They will think she is weak and they can go in for the kill. Democrats should be on the look out and have a duty to defend her.  Lets not let repubs try and turn a primary defeat into a political defeat of Clinton's for them.


    "If she is defeated," (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:37:21 PM EST
    the Republicans will not pay anymore attention to her.  

    I hope that is right (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:44:44 PM EST
    but they may think they can weaken her and clinton, so he won't be a campaign tool for dems and so they can soften her up for a run against her in the NY senate.

    I gathered you are female and although (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:31:30 PM EST
    you are a staunch fan of Obama, still, I would anticipate you would afford Hillary Clinton the right to conduct her campaign without unreasonable excoriation by the press, fellow-Democrats, and Republicans, who cannot acknowledge she is an extremely bright female, very well educated, and  seemingly fit to govern our county.  Doesn't matter that you may not agree with her political stances.    

    I'm male (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:37:14 PM EST
    i'm a staunch fan of Hillary but an even stauncher fan of Obama.

    She hasn't lost yet and she isn't weak.

    she is an extremely bright female, very well educated, and  seemingly fit to govern our county.  Doesn't matter that you may not agree with her political stances.  

    I don't think people have tried to say that yet, read part two.  I think if she is defeated(she is not defeated) they are going to try and go in for the kill, because they will think she is weak, and we have a DUTY as democrats to defend her.


    Well, no, ... that's not it exactly (none / 0) (#3)
    by CB on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:26:45 PM EST
    I'm a lifelong Dem, further to the left than most Dems I'd venture to say. I loved the Clinton years, what a refreshing time to have as our President someone erudit, eloquent, and smart. I even supported Hillary when she announced her run for Prez (what a surprise, lol).

    She's just totally turned me off, however, throughout this nascent primary season. We (everyone outside of NY) have now all gotten to know her a little better and it has nothing to do with Repug smears, it's simple observations. She's snarky, arrogant, is now firmly in the pockets of Big Pharma, Big Insurance, etc. and presumes too much about her supposed "inevitability".

    She got what she deserved in IA IMHO. I will not be at all surprised if she snags the nomination, though. The big money and big moneyed interests are behind her because they know she represents status quo, i.e. quid pro quo, "investments" in her campaigns and favors in return.

    So, don't wring your hands about GOP smears. She is doing this to herself.

    Arrogance and corruption are two things (none / 0) (#6)
    by JSN on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:32:37 PM EST
    folks mention about her that they don't like.

    I don't think shes arrogant. (3.00 / 1) (#9)
    by DA in LA on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:37:01 PM EST
    I just don't like her corporate connections.  She's not a Democrat, she's a corporocrat.  

    The biggest problem in our country is corporate control.  She's at the top of this list on that one as far as I am concerned.

    Oh, and the constant attacks on people who don't like Clinton are getting tedious.  He also have brains, it turns out.


    Did you see the link A Citizen provided (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:39:24 PM EST
    to Obama's donor list?  I don't see anything wrong with either of them accepting money from corporations--that's who has the money.  

    I don't support Obama much either (none / 0) (#37)
    by DA in LA on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:16:18 PM EST
    I've written extensive articles on both of their corporate connections.  IMO, Hillary is worse.

    Waiting for your definitive comment on why (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:21:48 PM EST
    your wife is so firmly in the Obama camp.

    She believes she is watching something (none / 0) (#74)
    by DA in LA on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 01:32:32 AM EST
    she has never seen before.  I man of character who will do everything he can to change this country.  The words that come out of his mouth during speeches do not sound like your typical politician.  He is 200% better than Hillary and Edwards at speaking.  It is infectious and convincing people he is the one.  He is also attractive, which does not hurt.

    I think this race is over, myself.


    Nice reporting. (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 01:38:50 PM EST
    you do know this is (none / 0) (#62)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:05:57 PM EST
    a capitalist country, right?

    I don't see her as arrogant, at least from (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:35:28 PM EST
    the TV campaign coverage I've seen (admittedly I don't watch much TV).  Whence the "corruption" charge?

    She and Obama are each beholden to (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:34:00 PM EST
    "big money" interests.  Every candidate is unless the candidate is independently wealthy like Romney or Perot.  I think the "inevitability" meme is attributable to the media, not her campaign.  

    is now firmly in the pockets of Big Pharma, (none / 0) (#21)
    by ding7777 on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:52:14 PM EST
    Big Insurance, etc.

    CB, you can't even see your smear, can you?


    I'm tired of hearing about the Obama (none / 0) (#17)
    by Chino Blanco on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:44:57 PM EST
    "cult of personality" when what I see everywhere in the liberal blogosphere is a whole bunch of blog owners trying very hard to guilt me into overlooking just how poor a campaigner Hillary really is.  What's up with that?  It reeks.

    Please explain why, in your opinion, she (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:46:38 PM EST
    is a poor campaigner?

    Hmmm, how about this one: (none / 0) (#63)
    by dmfox on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:07:43 PM EST
    The inevitable frontrunner loses to first term senator by 9 points, not even beating John Edwards.  That doesn't seem to be a good campaign to me.

    She may or may not be a poor campaigner (none / 0) (#20)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:49:41 PM EST
    the question is, is she a quick learner. Time will tell. You see this is just one caucus and one state's delegates. Obama may win the nomination, but its a little early for eulogies or coronations.

    well said (4.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:59:50 PM EST
    It is early days.  I want to hear more and learn more without having to get overloaded with people's emotional,irrational rants.  You can think Clinton is being treated like crap AND prefer Obama. The two are not mutually exclusive.
    But I guess it is more fun to get into it on a gut level.  I am not there because I am so effin relieved our country has woken up and am beyond happy that we have so many wonderful choices.



    Nicely stated. (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:03:51 PM EST
    thanks (none / 0) (#58)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:51:13 PM EST

    Wait until the terrorist attack in Oct. (none / 0) (#75)
    by DA in LA on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 01:34:10 AM EST
    That sweeps McCain to victory.

    I do wish we could monitor some of the (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:52:56 PM EST
    discussions she and her campaign team, including Bill, are having.  Here you have a fellow who won two Presidential contests, won twice in Arkansas, but also was defeated there.  How much weight would you, as the current candidate, give to his input?

    She has to go with the best team she has (none / 0) (#27)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:01:27 PM EST
    I think Bill is generally acknowledged to be one of the best politicians of our time. He isn't perfect. I think there have been a couple of miscalculations (and don't think Obama doesn' calculate with the best of them).

    Won (none / 0) (#30)
    by RalphB on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:06:28 PM EST
    twice in Arkansas.  He was attorney general and then governor 5 times.  That's six not two statewide elections in Arkansas.  

    I think most people would pay a lot more attention to Bill than to David Axelrod.


    Wow, that's impressive. (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:23:08 PM EST
    Although, today BTD isn't giving much cred to experience in state government.

    He can't make her likable. (none / 0) (#40)
    by DA in LA on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:17:52 PM EST
    And that's the big problem her, not the message.  Obama inspires more people with his personality.

    She is not as warm as Bill (none / 0) (#44)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:21:58 PM EST
    my very limited experience in 1992 was Al and Tipper were warmer than either of the Clintons in person one on one.

    That said,  I don't think she is that unlikeable, but I think her media image distorts her personality. Incidentally I am not enthused about her record either.  


    Who is as warm as Bill. I've read (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:25:24 PM EST
    anecdotes about strong professional middle-aged women absolutely melting in his presence.  

    Not gonna go there (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:55:48 PM EST
    funny (none / 0) (#55)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:45:00 PM EST
    know a staunch GOP midlle aged long island guy who met Bill and melted.  Said he had charisma beyond belief.  Guy's VOICE changed when he talked about him.  Pretty funny.

    I was his waiter one night. (none / 0) (#76)
    by DA in LA on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 01:36:11 AM EST
    Pretty amazing individual.  Like no one I've ever encountered.

    I've Read (none / 0) (#56)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:45:41 PM EST
    that those who know the Clintons often consider her the nicer of the two in the sense that he's very charismatic when you meet him, but she's more likely to ask about your sick mother and genuinely care about the answer.  She has one of the longest serving staffs in politics, which tells me she is far from being some shrew.  

    It's interesting to me that there isn't more agreement that Hillary Clinton has gotten a terrible shake from the media.  That doesn't mean she should win the nomination or take any credit away from Obama or Edwards (Edwards has also gotten terrible media), but the truth is that they've been terrible to her, just like they were to Al Gore and John Kerry.  Reporters hate her and they say so.  Dana Milbank and Marc Ambinder and others have admitted that she gets terrible coverage because they don't like her.  It's not their business to slant the coverage because they don't personally like someone.  Edwards has had the same problem, to a certain extent.  And it's total crap.  This is why George W. Bush is president.  Because the press hissed at Gore, they hated him so much.  Just as they won't talk to Hillary Clinton when she brings them bagels on the bus.  They are awful, juvenile people and a blight on our nation.

    The problem we've had is that democrats don't seem to care so long as it doesn't hurt their democrat or helps them win a fricking primary.  Bill Bradley and his supporters were only too happy to use some of the rightwing lies about Gore against him.   The Obama and Edwards people have been too happy to use the MSM slander to hurt Hillary.  The MSM divide us with crap and then we wonder why the winner can't win an election.  

    Hillary Clinton is not corrupt.  She is not a corporate democrat any more than Obama or anyone else.  She is a center-left democratic politician with a pragmatic streak.  Vote against her for voting for Kyl-Lieberman (but recognize Obama also wanted to designate the Iranian Guard as a terrorist organization).  Vote against for voting for the AUMF (but recognize Edwards, Biden, and Dodd did the same).  There is nothing particularly evil about Clinton.  Just as there is nothing particularly evil about Edwards or Obama.  Different democrats will prefer different candidates and we'll argue among ourselves and that's all well and good.  These are all politicians we're talking about, none of them is perfect, none of them is a saint.  But they are all people who basically believe in the same thing, all you have to do is read their policy statements to see that, and they mostly are trying to do good things.  They differ in how they think they can get it done and, really, without a crystal ball who knows who is right.    

    But when we stand silent or endorse lies the MSM tells us about any leading democrat, we should be ashamed of ourselves.  Clinton is my candidate, but that doesn't stop me from seeing the racism in Bill Bennett's remarks last night about how Obama is the good kind of African American.  Just as it doesn't keep me from seeing the BS behind the Edwards' haircut story or Coulter's name calling.  I don't care if it might help my candidate in the short run, it's still wrong and these pundits should be denounced for what they are - destructive hate mongers.  

    So, yes, vote for whoever you think the best candidate is, but let's stop acting like the MSM plays fair where Democrats are concerned.  They don't.  

    But then I honestly believe the reason Democrats keep losing to Republicans is that we don't behave as a team.  We behave as a bunch of independent actors with purity tests that no politician can really meet.  We constantly let the perfect be the enemy of the good.  Instead of doing what we need to which is band together and kick the Republicans' butts so that we can get to making this a better, more just country.   Which is all I really care about doing.


    not so bad... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:01:24 PM EST
    It is inherent in the personality of the Liberal to respect independent thought. It is it's greatest strength and it's most vulnerable point.  If I listen to you I am consesnting that you may actually have something to say worth listening to.  The GOP has to walk lock step to keep all the non thinkers together.  It is better for the corporate coffers if everybody says yes without checking the fine print.  How else could you get lower middle class people to vote for tax cuts for the rich and the corporations?
    Our supposed weakness is our strength and I wouldnt have it any other way.

    I'm Not Saying (none / 0) (#68)
    by BDB on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 12:09:30 AM EST
    That we shouldn't allow vigorous disagreement.  We absolutely should.  I think the primary debates about how you get change and what kind of change are healthy.  And I have no problem with liberals criticizing other liberals to keep them honest or because people inevitably disagree.   I don't want to be a bunch of lock-step drones like the Republicans.

    The problem I have is that we often go stomping off into a corner when we don't get our own way.  Instead of recognizing that we're all basically on the same team and that we'll all get a lot more of what we want - not everything for everyone - if we stick together against Republicans.  

    I'll give you an example.  A Clinton staffer today apparently hinted that Obama was too liberal.  I'm a Clinton person, but just as I don't like Obama running against Clinton from the right, I don't like Clinton running against Obama from the right.   Obama has done it using rightwing talking points the media loves, "social security crisis", etc.  The Clinton staffer reportedly talked about liberal Chicago elites, another rightwing/MSM meme about those awful, effete liberal elites.  These points might forward the ball a bit for each candidate, but overall they are terrible for both because they are terrible for Democrats.   In the end, this kind of framing makes it more difficult for Democrats to get elected and to push their agenda which is bad for Clinton and Obama supporters, who - believe it or not - basically have the same agenda, even if they back different

    Basically, I'd like to see Democrats act like a family.  I can criticize my brother because he's my brother.  But if you say anything bad about him I'll kick your ass.  So I can run a primary challenge or say Obama's record doesn't match his rhetoric or Clinton screwed up her Kyl-Lieberman vote or Edwards' positions sure are different now than they were in the Senate.  But that's not the same thing as claiming Clinton is a corrupt corporate sell out (if only all corporate sell outs in Congress had her voting record, we'd be a lot better off) or that Obama is a Muslim infiltrator or Edwards a sleazy trial lawyer.  

    If that makes any sense.


    I hear ya (none / 0) (#86)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 12:18:53 PM EST
    I agree to a point - but I'd rather have passion than passivity.  I am not sure that the bulk of people on chat boards can contain themselves. :)

    I do try every so often to ask the nitwits to knock it off and try to be adults.  I sometimes think the more obvious ones are actually "reporters/whatevers" wanting others to do do their jobs for them i.e. ask a dumbass question and then take the feedback and suggest that she or he has actually made an effort to interview people.  If people here call Hillary a liar etc it can show up elsewhere if she is the candidate and hurt us all.  Do you really want to give the whackos on the right the chance to put another sleazebag in the WH?  What if that militaristic old fart McCain actually beats down Huckabee?  Yippee - Iraq for the century!

    So I think your comments are overall correct - so make an effort to ask people to be cognizant that they can become a statistic to be used against themselves...just my take.


    you may not agree with her (none / 0) (#88)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 01:44:30 PM EST
    but she is a terrific campaigner. How many times have you gone out and listened to her? I've heard her at house parties, big venues in addition to seeing the cherry-picked soundbites on tv -- her off the cuff (no notes or speeches) oratory and fluidity is better than any of the other candidates.

    Her record (none / 0) (#31)
    by Natal on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:08:18 PM EST
    Hillary says she is running on her record. I'm not being funny but specifically what has she accomplished as a senator that is outstanding and shows she's presidential material?

    I give her a lot of credit for (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:12:46 PM EST
    making every effort early in Bill Clinton's first term to achieve more universal health care coverage.    Although she voted for the AUMF and K-L (which is why I stopped defending her policy choices), she has voted against further unlimited funding for Iraq.          What she had to say at the Petreaus hearings was the most cogent, although her later vote didn't hold up to her rhetoric.

    Who knows? She won't release the records (none / 0) (#61)
    by dmfox on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:03:13 PM EST
    I'm sure she was extremely involved in many policy issues, especially early in Bill's first term.  But we have take her, and Bill's, word for it because she won't release any of her records from her time as first lady.  That's a little troubling to me.  Especially as she has taken to highlighting some defects in Obama's terms as state senator.

    different topic (none / 0) (#89)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 01:47:02 PM EST
    her records while first lady are not what the commenter asked about, the question was her legislative record and accomplishments as Senator. They are widely available and commendable, from getting health insurance for the national guard to privacy legislation and more. Check her website or Thomas, the congressional server.  Do some resarch.

    I couldn't have imagined this a year ago (none / 0) (#35)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:13:33 PM EST
    but Hillary is becoming my choice--by subtraction.

    I can't commit to that, though. I want to believe we can do better.

    I only want to beat the GOP badly (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:17:33 PM EST
    drive them into the minority.  I don't care who is at the top of the ticket. I just want the biggest freakin turnout we have ever seen.

    Me too (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:20:01 PM EST
    But I'd like more than the bare minimum "will win" candidate.

    weeeell (none / 0) (#57)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:47:38 PM EST
    I cant go that far.  I just dont think I know enough to pick.  I mean, Obama is a stunning candidate - really gets the blood pumping and I start to think "GO USA"!  But I know Clinton will not be glamorous, but effective.  Is that a fair comment?  Maybe not - I need to know more. And until I can give cogent reasons for my choice I am gonna be looking for answers.

    Good Grief (none / 0) (#71)
    by katiekat489 on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 12:58:58 AM EST
    give me a break! She chose to run with the record she has==she chose to ignore the media and the public on her path to coronation,She chose to put herself out there to be the Pres and as she always crows loudly she knows how to fight the big bad machine---but does she? Of course not because she has everyone else out there defending her and gets to play the victim --which is wearing very thin.Now I hear she is going to answer questions--gee wonder what gave her that idea? Sorry folks but some responsiblity should lie with her and her and this huge and oh so wonderful machine of a campaign.Oops forgot that is not their responsibilty either--it is the fault of the media and the public now.

    oh please. (none / 0) (#83)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 12:04:36 PM EST
    yawn. kinda early for so much misdirection.  Nobody said she didnt have any responsibility. That is just a goofy emotional rant you have there.  Reread what was written...slowly this time...and get back when you have calmed down.

    kos chimes in on the latest attack (none / 0) (#79)
    by Jgarza on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 01:58:25 AM EST
    Hillary lauds Obama's progressive record
    by kos
    Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:08:05 PM PST


       Hillary's aides point to Obama's extremely progressive record as a community organizer, state senator and candidate for Congress, his alliances with "left-wing" intellectuals in Chicago's Hyde Park community, and his liberal voting record on criminal defendants' rights as subjects for examination.


        Hillary Clinton's campaign seems determined to convince Barack Obama's detractors in the blogosphere that he is so a liberal after all [...]

        Progressive record? Heaven forbid! I thought he didn't have experience.

    One does get the sense that Hillary's operation is just throwing mud against the wall to see what will stick. Obama needs the independent vote in NH, and the Clinton campaign is obviously trying to scare them away from Obama.

    If she succeeds, they'll end up voting for McCain helping to give Republicans their strongest general election candidate. Seems kind of self-defeating, doesn't it? But she needs to stem the bleeding. So suddenly, we have a situation in which the best interests of the Democratic Party is at odds with her short-term interests.

    Clinton is still the one to (none / 0) (#80)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 05:22:55 AM EST
    beat, IMO.  She will come back after Iowa and if she starts winning, she will be unstoppable.

    who knows? (none / 0) (#85)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 12:08:02 PM EST
    hope is not a plan.

    hope is a meaningless term (4.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 01:51:55 PM EST
    entirely subjective. Same with optimism. And change, without specifics.

    Even bringing the troops home, they all say it and it means something different for all of them.


    exactly. (none / 0) (#98)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:38:02 PM EST
    that is exactly what I think.  

    I'd love it if Hillary said - Hope is great, Barack.  I HOPE you have a plan.  Cause I do.
    Let's talk about the plans, ok?  Cause hope is not a plan.


    At least she's not polarizing. (none / 0) (#82)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:34:30 AM EST

    oh please. (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 12:06:48 PM EST
    YOU are polarizing.  YOU are playing the GOP/media sanctioned card.  WE have a right to debate the candidates and the whiney babies who cant stand it should start paying attention to what is about to unfold on the GOP side - it aint gonna be pretty.

    Nice rant though. Oh, btw, the next President of the US is going to be Barack Obabama. You heard it here first.

    sure thang! (none / 0) (#102)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 06:28:39 PM EST
    as soon as someone named Obabama is running.  

    Work at little harder to make a point - really, any point will do.



    try to type and watch the Skins/Seahawks game at the same time.

    Ah well, good luck with HRC, she'll need it.


    sounds like it might hurt (none / 0) (#104)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 06:40:36 PM EST
    so I'll pass.

    But thanks for the sense of humor - :-)


    and btw, (none / 0) (#105)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 06:53:11 PM EST
    didnt say I was for or against anybody - so good luck to everyobody and let the best person for our country win...

    is having the best person for our country that's running win. I don't know who the actual best person for our country is, but I'm pretty sure none of these jamolks is it.

    Go Giants.


    segue=Hillary Clinton, otherwise OT: (none / 0) (#97)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:04:00 PM EST
    I am listening to the Metropolitan Opera Quiz, an intermission feature during the live Saturday radio broadcasts.  Moderator suggested Hillary Clinton would be sung by a mezzo-soprano and the current administration by castrati.   Funny, no?

    it was true (none / 0) (#99)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:58:09 PM EST
    jeez - ever have anything to do with NY politics?  You have to work your ass off to get anything done - that is what she meant.  You cant just "use" it.