Clinton Pleads For Loyalty To The Dem Party

By Big Tent Democrat

Hillary Clinton's "scorched earth" tactics:

Clinton was asked by a questioner in the audience here what she would tell frustrated Democrats who might consider voting for McCain in the general election out of spite. "Please think through this decision," Clinton said, laughing and emphasizing the word "please." "It is not a wise decision for yourself or your country."

. . . "First of all, every time you have a vigorous contest like we are having in this primary election people get intense," she continued. "You know, Sen. Obama has intense support. I have intense support."

Clinton stressed that there are "significant" differences between her and Obama, but said "those differences pale to the differences between us and Sen. McCain."

What a dastardly thing to say . . .

< Move On's False Petition | Puerto Rico >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Or as Lambert says. . . (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:24:06 PM EST

    lol! (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:26:09 PM EST
    What Is Funny? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:35:31 PM EST
    Do I have to know Lambert to get it?

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:36:51 PM EST
    He has a funny line that is offensive to J so we are not allowed to repeat it here.

    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:38:08 PM EST
    I see

    I think I found it, but, of course, (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:46:45 PM EST
    they'll never confirm.  

    I don't (none / 0) (#46)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:50:48 PM EST
    Sorry to leave you out of the joke. (none / 0) (#52)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:54:14 PM EST
    Lambert blogs at Corrente.

    Never mind (none / 0) (#81)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:17:36 PM EST
    I don't read Corrente often enough, but ... got it.

    I play by the house rules (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:48:39 PM EST
    I'm sorry (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:53:56 PM EST
    I have no wish to offend Jeralyn, because -- but please don't tell Avedon this -- I worship the ground that she walks on.

    With the offensive line, I'm expressing a pungent view of the strength of the (several) arguments made that Hillary should quit, and also tagging the people who are making that argument with what I believe to be one of their salient characteristics.

    But I can see why Jeralyn wouldn't want the phrase on this site. At Corrente, it's always been our mission to bring American political discourse to a new level; we just never said whether the level was up, or down....


    Your site must be really salacious, (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:57:29 PM EST
    as I cannot access from this computer.

    Not salacious, but definitely for adults. (none / 0) (#64)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:03:56 PM EST
    Well, the definition of one of our glossary terms (none / 0) (#100)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:19:06 PM EST
    is "Our guarantee to you that our content is not corporate."

    Drop by any time you're home...


    Well, you're on my reader (none / 0) (#61)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:02:38 PM EST
    so you can't be half bad. ;-)

    That b-word! Will she say anything..... (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:24:51 PM EST
    to be a good Democrat.

    What a class act....I am so proud of her!!! (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by athyrio on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:25:31 PM EST

    Good on her (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Dadler on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:26:48 PM EST
    This is just the type of context into which this Dem race must be put.  Other Dems are not the enemy.  The point of this fight is larger than the fight.  

    My goodness (5.00 / 12) (#6)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:27:50 PM EST
    It's like she'll say anything and do anything to get a Democrat elected.

    Nice (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:28:10 PM EST
    And not a concession in any way.

    Bravo! (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by magster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:31:39 PM EST
    I have a cynical analysis on her motivation, but I'll keep it to myself in the interest of unity.

    Thanks! (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:32:52 PM EST
    If you had been listening (4.25 / 4) (#29)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:41:13 PM EST
    she's basically been saying this all along.

    In the interest of unity (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by magster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:49:02 PM EST
    I'll bite my tongue.

    sorry if that came off rude (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:52:16 PM EST
    but it is a frustration point with me. This has been her mantra.

    Prediction: media will emphasize (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:31:45 PM EST

    Prediction: Media will (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by suisser on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:38:09 PM EST
    spin this to give Obama credit for her comment.... but not the laugh, that would be hers

    Obama basically repeated it tonight (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:44:52 PM EST
    on ABC news. This isn't the first time she's said she would unite and the Republicans are where the biggest difference for voters concern.

    Obama is the one just getting with the program, from what I can tell. Although, I believe he stops short on the getting behind Hillary and uniting the party.Hopefully, some one can prove me wrong on this, I may have missed it.


    Yet another "what Hillary said." (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:50:46 PM EST
    Is she still running for the 2008 nomination? (1.00 / 1) (#55)
    by sar75 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:57:23 PM EST
    I thought she is now running for 2012.  

    Latest spin. (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:06:30 PM EST
    I don't think for a second... (1.00 / 1) (#142)
    by sar75 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:49:55 AM EST
    ...Clinton wants Obama to win in November.  I can't help but think that she and Bill will be pulling the lever for John McCain, whom they both have promoted publicly as a better alternative to Obama.
    Her best bet now is to damage Obama as much as possible  Her latest comments (not these, but her promise of a floor fight and credentials committee) suggest just as much.

    Yeah but he gets to say it on ABC news... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:10:48 PM EST
    ...did she?

    Heh, of course not. (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:44:41 PM EST
    They did show it on CNN for what it's worth.

    There is already a headline on (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:12:11 PM EST
    Huff Post that both of them are calling for unity.

    Exactly... (none / 0) (#106)
    by americanincanada on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:38:27 PM EST
    made even more offensive since he called the primary, in a joking way no less, the Baatan Death March earlier today in NYC.

    I still have no words for that. NONE.


    Laughing (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Lora on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:05:22 PM EST
    We'll be lucky if they don't call it a cackle.

    She really is (5.00 / 9) (#12)
    by OxyCon on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:32:44 PM EST
    ...a cold, calculating you know what, ain't she?
    I look forward to reading about all the nefarious intent her words really meant on all the A-list blogs.
    Hopefully Keith Obamamann will do a Special Comment© dissecting Hillary's true motives and how she is in fact launching a negative attack on Obama.

    And she's (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:38:00 PM EST
    divisive ;-).

    She's a class act. (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by BlueMerlin on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:32:51 PM EST

    but (5.00 / 12) (#17)
    by Turkana on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:34:17 PM EST
    what she really meant was that obama's evil and everyone must vote for mccain, so she can run again in four years! i'm just sure of it! i think i'll write a diary about it, and post it at daily kos!

    Too True (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by pluege on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:16:48 PM EST
    unfortunately, you're not far from the truth and I wouldn't be surprised if it happened. Way too many on the left bought into the 'Hillary is evil' meme fomented by the cult of republicanism.

    Well, donor decoder ring (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:10:05 PM EST
    When I donated to her campaign I did get the secret decoding ring.  You should not have  revealed the code, cause now they will be able to break it.  

    Well, (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by AlladinsLamp on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:13:45 PM EST
    if you play the audio backwards that's exactly what it sound like she is saying.

    peace broke out there today (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by dotcommodity on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:55:32 PM EST
    actually, quite surprising. They suddenly figured out its actual voters they need to woo.

    Class act (5.00 / 8) (#27)
    by Grey on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:40:41 PM EST
    Party before pride.  She always talks this way, always first to say that the party will come together behind the nominee.  

    And still the media and party "elders" continue to harp and mope and whine. I'm an Independent and I see her commitment to the Party: how come they can't?  Bah.

    How incredibly divisive! (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by gmo on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:41:10 PM EST
    Just like her statements on March 5th that this contest might end in a joint ticket.  What a horrible, horrible woman!  

    She's just trying to steal votes from Obama! </snark>

    Class (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Sunshine on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:46:41 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton has ten times as much class as Obama, she stands up to the media driven slander about her with grace in a way that I think Obama never would... But we will never know with the media that is pressing her to drop out in the 3rd quarter..  If the media would shut up, we would not have the bitterness that we have and there is a few blogs that are adding fire, the candidates are not near as negative as the media and these blogs...  Totally one-sided....

    From my perspective as long as she (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by DemPrezin2008 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:52:30 PM EST
    keeps this message then yes she should keep going in the campaign. Even if your down 15 points with a few minutes in a game you don't stop playing.  The bigger issue is the perception of a divide in the party.  As long as both candidates keep with the message that this is a familly dispute but afterwards we are still familly then I'm all for it.

    These Thoughts Only form HRC (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by pluege on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:58:02 PM EST
    Maybe its me, but I have only heard this kind of thing out of HRC, never from Obama (perhaps I missed it?).

    What HRC says here is the most important concept to me. Beating mccain is the only thing that matters - everything else flows from that, or conversely, everything remains dead in the water or worse if mccain wins.

    I have (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by sas on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:59:18 PM EST
    never heard anything like this from Obama.  That is one thing I have against him.  And if he says it now, it's because he needs to.  Makes me wonder if he is really a Democrat.

    Completely agree (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:05:22 PM EST
    He just cannot say it and no one calls him on it.  

    A few brave souls have mentioned (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:28:08 PM EST
    it in Wanderer's diary at DK.  

    Class act.! (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by faithandhope97 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:05:40 PM EST
    However, I am one that will not.

    Hey does anyone think that the polls showing (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by DemPrezin2008 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:12:08 PM EST
    McCain in a statistical tie with Clinton and Obama in the GE will that number completely move once a candidate is selected?

    Maybe they are in a Statiscal tie because: (none / 0) (#120)
    by D Jessup on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:16:01 PM EST
    Obama's voters don't want Clinton to win and Clinton's voters don't want Obama to win and respondents from both groups of voters are choosing McOld to skew the polls.  I think that a better indication of where the voter stands at this time, is to have the respondent choose between the 3.

    Hey opinions are like A holes and we all have one.


    obama is divisive too (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by thereyougo on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:13:49 PM EST
    his people are bloviating on the blogs and he's not saying anything. The minute she says something, yeah what she said. Thats leadership.

    I think he's brain dead at this point because he can't put her away. She's just gettin'started.

    Maybe Hillary would be in a better position (none / 0) (#148)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:56:32 AM EST
    if she didn't wait until the end of April to "get started".  Unfortunately (for Hillary),  barring an act of God I don't see how she get's the nomination from here.  Obama has weathered the Wright controversy and is back 10 points up nationally against Hillary,  and has had another week picking up Super Delegates 3-0 against Hillary.

    I think my favorite thing about Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:14:11 PM EST
    is that she pretty much is a Democrat, plain and simple.  Not to say she doesn't make bad choices but at the end of the day she's been sounding the horn on Democratic issues for over 20 years.  I mean Hillary's so in favor of universal healthcare and has been for so long that the idiots in the media are bored by it!  She's so big D she bores them!  I think Gail Collins nailed it on the head today in the NY Times.  I can't really reconcile perceptions of her "insane appetite for power" with what she actually does and says for the Dem Party.

    Meanwhile, the buzz is on Obama and Bloomberg.  To me it's indicative of the pattern of flirtation that has gone on between the Obama campaign and the indies and Repubs of the world.  Bloomberg for VP?  Hagel for Defense?  What kind of adminstration is that?

    Not that I necessarily think that would actually happen, but these ideas are floating around and they are grounded in how the Obama campaign has presented itself and its goals.  

    Something to think about I guess.  I will vote for Obama, but I don't WANT TO vote for a nebulous Dem/indie administration.

    One difference. (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:59:17 PM EST
    I like the tone of your post.
    But my conclusion is different.
    I couldn't vote for Obama.

    I have to vote for someone that has integrity.

    I know that it is considered an unpardonable heresy to say this, but I'd much sooner vote for Ralph Nader.

    Are they following me with torches and pitchforks?


    Hillary will do the right thing.... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Sunshine on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:23:11 PM EST
    Hillary always does the "right thing", that is why she is boring, she is tough and determined and she has pushed more good causes than either of the other two running..  She will do what's right, that's Hillary...

    Hillary has a petition on her web site to seat (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by athyrio on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:37:24 PM EST
    Just saw Chuck Hagel (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:45:36 PM EST
    on CNN talking about "the deadlock" in Washington and how "we can't do anything for the American people."  Well F YOU Senator Hagel.  Honestly there are only ONE HUNDRED PEOPLE IN THE SENATE.  HAVE YOU EVER BEEN IN A ROOM WITH ONE HUNDRED PEOPLE BEFORE?  SPEND A HALF AN HOUR THERE AND YOU'LL GET ORGANIZED TO DO SOMETHING.  

    The new talking point for our horrible crop of Senators is that they can't do anything because of deadlock (though I realize this point has been recycled over and over).  It comes from Hagel, it comes from Obama.  Well at least they agree on that - so why don't they DO SOMETHING?  I am so sick of our Senate being completely passive and rewarding itself on national TV for the insight that yes, they are completely passive.

    Never trust anybody who makes that much money and defends their attemtps to do nothing.  It's ridiculous.  It's their fault, it's Bush's fault.  I wish we could banish the executive for a year just so we could force our Senators to do something.

    If the American people deserve anything, it's a new storyline.

    Hillarys comments... (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by jor on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:50:44 PM EST
    ... are directed at this blog. If anything, the strident, and sometimes absurd anti-obama tone here is doing nothing but promoting more defections from the dem ticket if hillary is the nominee.   Not saying the obama websites aren't guilty of this as well. But its funny how her comments just get a "class act", with no ounce of self-reflection.

    Has Obama made the same (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:58:28 PM EST
    Kind of statement?



    Does Obama Ask for Loyalty to Dem Party? (none / 0) (#102)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:32:09 PM EST
    Edgar08, I don't believe Obama can, or will, make a strong case for loyalty to the Democratic Party because he doesn't run as a solid Dem and he campaigns to the GOP/Indies more than he does to solid Dems.

    However, in a post upstream nycstray says: "Obama basically repeated it tonight" (something about party loyalty?) on ABC news. I didn't see it and don't know what Obama actually said.


    I would need to see it (none / 0) (#103)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:35:59 PM EST
    If it's just some contextless statement about how party loyalty's a good thing, well,...

    Clinton has said this before (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:57:07 PM EST
    This is a great thing to say and she will make good.

    I just wish Obama could say the same thing.

    Problem is, I think she's right, but the whole electability argument for Obama is based on the singular idea that he has supporters that won't vote for Clinton.  And that Clinton's supporters will vote for him.

    That his Independents are ready to say they were wrong about Bush but not ready to say they were wrong about Clinton.

    So it would be impossible for him to ask his supporters to reconsider that decision.

    If I agree with Clinton here I'm putting her at a disadvantage.

    Obama disgusts me.  He doesn't care that he disgusts me as long as I vote for him like a good and loyal Democrat.

    So I what am I gonna do?

    Let us assume (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by dem08 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:36:49 PM EST
    that Hillary has been running a wonderful, positive, "We are all Democrats, vote for the Democrat" Campaign all along.

    Three Questions:

    1. Did she say what Oculus quoted above about Senator McCain "Certainly" already pass "The Commander-in-Chief Threshold"? (Which, by the way, is a new term one suspects her campaign Focus-Group tested before marketing.)

    2. If she did, is that erased away by her comment tonight?

    3. And I would like to ask respectfully because I think this Blog is a sane version of Taylor Marsh, i.e. all-Hillary, all the time:

    Why if Hillary is so good and so positive and so strong, why if she started out as the presumptive nominee with 100 million dollars, why can't she get her popularity over the high 40 % 'Threshold'?

    Are you so sure that everyone who opposes her does so because they are bad, sexist, stupid, MSM dupes, etc.? Is it possible that Hillary Clinton, and her husband Bill Clinton, are responsible for some of the negative opinions people have of her?

    I know we all mis-remember, but her Bosnia story was pretty hard to reconcile with reality. I remember all the times I have faced sniper fire, zero, thank God, and I have never mis-remembered that. Why did she?

    Again, respectfully, is it possible she bears some responsibility for how people see her?

    I put the quote in because many, (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:56:42 PM EST
    many Obama supporters flatly state she sd. Obama isn't qualified.  That is definitely not what she sd.

    To my mind, the media early on deemed HRC the "presumptive nominee."  I've never seen her quoted as saying that.

    Obama does not have the necessary delegate votes to have wrapped up the nomination; neither does HRC.  

    She misspoke on sniper fire in Bosnia, although no one disputes it was a dangerous place to visit and that, in fact, she and her daughter did visit there during Clinton's presidency.

    Obama has also misspoken, exaggerated, told untruths, whatever.  See Jeralyn's post above on Rover's pointing out the specifics.  


    In just good old plain English (none / 0) (#115)
    by DemPrezin2008 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:52:24 PM EST
    they are both politicians and both have lied during this campaign!

    True. (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:54:07 PM EST
    And I'll probably get bashed for this but (none / 0) (#118)
    by DemPrezin2008 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:02:54 PM EST
    I do find it funny that the situation was so dangerous and she brought her daughter. If Chelsea runs for president I believe she could claim to be the first teenage daughter to tour a war torn country.

    I don't mean to discredit Hillary visiting (none / 0) (#119)
    by DemPrezin2008 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:04:06 PM EST
    Bosnia in itself it's a huge event and definitily speaks to her credibility.

    original 1996 news broadcast (none / 0) (#134)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:42:21 AM EST
    Since you went there (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by nell on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:04:22 PM EST
    On such a nice thread, I will take it upon myself to respond.

    Point Number One:

    1. Obama spent more money in this campaign on pollsters, so this idea that she is the more poll tested candidate is false and misleading. And I love how you are so disturbed by her making a case for herself going up against McCain but you have no problem with the vile campaign run by Obama about how she has a "character gap." If you think  his CONSTANT right-wing based assaults on her character are not hurting her and will not hurt her in the general election, think again.

    2. She has been calling for unity all along, unlike Senator Obama, "her voters will vote for me, but mine won't vote for her" and Michelle "I'm not sure if I will support Hillary if she is the nominee, depends on her tone" Obama. When it comes to calling for unity, Clinton has made it clear that the party comes first, unlike explicit comments to the contrary made by both of the Obamas.

    3. There are people who have real and logical reasons for not supporting Hillary and I respect their choice. What I do not respect is when Obama supporters use rabid right-wing talking points that have been going on for years. I mean honestly, I have had so many Obama supporters both in life and on the blogs bring up things like Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky. Also, as I said under number 1, Obama is running a full out assault on her character that is NOT based on reality. How am I sure his campaign doesn't actually believe the horrible things they say about her character? Because both him and Michelle  expressed great admiration for her before he said he was running. He asked her to mentor him in the senate and Michelle said that if Barack were ever to be president, she would like to be a first lady like Hillary. How quickly times change.

    As for the Bosnia incident, she did make a mistake. And you know, I didn't grow up like an urchin in the streets of Indonesia, thank god, just like Barack didn't, his stepfather provided him with a comfortable upbring there, but he still repeats that point. I also would not call myself a professor of constitutional law when I am a guest lecturer. I would also not refer to a good friend of 17 years who is in legal trouble as someone I barely know and only did work for 5 hours...I would not tell voters in Iowa that I passed a really strong piece of anti-nuclear legislation when in fact I watered down the legislation to help my Exon fundraisers...and the list goes on. All candidates misspeak and exaggerate and you can pillory her and just her for her misstatements if you want, but you are being intellectually dishonest by acting like she is the only one.

    dear Neil (none / 0) (#127)
    by dem08 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:12:36 PM EST
    1. A. You did not respond to point number one. She didn't simply declare herself ready to be C-i-C, she declared McCain to "certainly" be ready. She offered no such certification to Obama. The point is that is Hillary was not "supporting Democrats". Hillary was supporting herself and a Republican (McCain, who demanded that Hillary apologize to General Patraeus, is the Republican nominee).

    2. B. The fact that Obama spends money does not cancel out the observation that "The Commander-in-Chief Threshold" is something The Clinton Campaign dreamed up.

    3. If Hillary has been calling for unity all along, I have missed it. I am surprised this blog has not featured more of her calls for unity. Obama was wrong to assert that his supporters would not support her, and mistaken that her supporters would support him. The Clintons are their own party. But make no mistake, Obama and his wife were wrong to attack the Democratic candidate. Period.

    4. I think, with all due respect, that you don't answer any part of the questions I ask here. Why with all her advantages, do so many people dislike Hillary Clinton?

    I find it deeply ironic that people who complain about Obama running Republican Talking Points quote Karl Rove. But the point is that Hillary does come with baggage. Monica Lewinsky was a bad moment for her and Bill Clinton.

    She used his attack on "THAT WOMAN!", his wagging finger in anger and lies, to launch her attack on the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. There is a vast right wing conspiracy and Noise Machine. Hillary Clinton's standing by her man, again, (recall Lewinsky was not the first woman who said Bill had sex with her that Bill denied vociferously until caught on tape), allowed that charge to disappear because she used it at the worst possible time.

    What do you expect people to do? Say that Hillary did not have the past she had?

    And I don't think echoing Karl Rove's points about Obama's exaggerations makes Hillary truthful. I know you are arguing that an attack on Obama makes Hillary pure again. But maybe that is why half of the country does not like her. To be on her side you have to make excuses, attack the people who raise questions, and drag down everyone so that we get to a point where we say, "See. Hillary, and Bill, aren't so bad."

    I am not making excuses for any exaggerations Obama makes or made or will make. Unlike supporters of The Clinton's, and I know because for 17 years I was one of them until I just got tired of saying "The other side is worse" over and over, I can tell you Obama is an imperfect man.

    The problem for me is that Hillary and Bill and a significant part of their support system justify and excuse and attack.

    And if I may make one distinction, all the lies that you say Obama told are not part of the reason Obama says he will make a good president. I think Hillary Clinton is a tragic figure. The actual story of what she did by going to Bosnia, with Sheryl Crow and Sinbad and Chelsea, well-protected by the US Armed Forces who are perfectly capable of guarenteeing the safty of even the president's wife and daughter, was heroic.

    Hillary Clinton painted over a masterpiece and made it into a comic book. Like her attack on the Right Wing Conspiracy, her actions here made her acceptable only to those who already are singing her praises. I wish she would just admit that she doesn't have to be perfect or 100% good. People understand.


    Nell, great points & great writing! (none / 0) (#131)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:38:43 AM EST
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by nellre on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:18:24 PM EST
    People don't like how she laughs, and are critical of her hair. :-)
    And unfortunately some dems bought the right wing anti-Clinton innuendo hook line and sinker

    Regarding Public Perception of Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:13:29 PM EST
    Dem08, in response to your question as to whether Hillary Clinton "bears some responsibility for how people see her". Yes, I imagine Hillary does bear some responsibility for how she is seen: in the same way that you, or I, or any other individual bears some responsibility for how we are seen.

    However, most people have probably been in situations where they have felt that they were judged too harshly - and sometimes WAY too harshly. The more salient question is whether the MSM, and members of the general public, are judging Hillary in a manner that is fair, harsh, or WAY too harsh - relative to her admitted mis-statements/mis-steps and alleged misconduct.

    Personally, I believe that in Senator Clinton's case, there's a huge disconnect between the punishment and the 'crime'. For me, that becomes all the more problematic when her rivals are often allowed to get away with murder.

    These comments were very welcomed. (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by clapclappointpoint on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:42:48 PM EST
    At some point, we're going to have a nominee and we're going to have to come together as a party to take on McSame.

    Thanks, Hillary.

    Yep down with McSame! Up with whichever one (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by DemPrezin2008 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:50:55 PM EST
    of our candidates pulls this off.  

    Over 100 comments and counting ... (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Tortmaster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:59:05 PM EST
    ... and nobody has suggested the possibility that HRC came out with this new meme because she read the newspaper reports about superdelegates who were getting angry with her for dividing the party?

    From an NBC report (the day before):

    "At a time when Sen. Hillary Clinton is increasingly relying on superdelegates to vault her to the Democratic Party's nomination, a handful of undecided and pledged superdelegates are coming forward to say her campaign's tactics in recent weeks are doing more harm than good."


    Of course, I can't read minds, but I can consider more than one alternative.

    Your skepticism would be (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by hairspray on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:47:25 PM EST
    completely valid if she hadn't said the same thing in one way or another over the last few months. The skepticism of Hillary supporters seems valid about the Obama family in their hedging  and equivicating on the same topic.  Make sebse?

    I mean sense! (none / 0) (#124)
    by hairspray on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:53:48 PM EST
    I've been following the campaign closely (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by DemPrezin2008 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:48:45 PM EST
    and this is the first time since the Reagan Debate when they where both civil that I've heard this message.  I could be wrong but I've heard quite the opposite message, a message just short of support of McCain.  Please proove me wrong.

    Let me prefis that with (none / 0) (#129)
    by DemPrezin2008 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:58:31 PM EST
    they are running against each other and it's not her job to make him Presidential.  That's all on Obama.

    Not clear on what the Reagan debate (none / 0) (#147)
    by hairspray on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:11:42 AM EST
    was and I don;t tivo so I don't have a link to her saying over and over that after this is over we will all come together as Democrats, even when the media was playing the one about Michelle Obama saying that she 'wasn't sure she would support Clinton' if she won.  I thought it was her consistent position.  It suprised me that the Obamas were so equivical on this especially since Barack had been very complimentary of Hillary before the campaign and I had read that Michelle had said that Hillary was the kind of first lady that she would like to be.  I am a supporter of Hillary but if Obama wins I want to feel okay about voting for him. Now I am not so sure.

    You can read into her statement and count (none / 0) (#121)
    by DemPrezin2008 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:20:54 PM EST
    a hundred different political motives behind it. Regardless it's the right message and the party needed it now.

    It took her long enough... (5.00 / 0) (#132)
    by Addison on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:38:56 AM EST
    ...but I'm glad she finally did this.

    "BTD," your snark ("what a dastardly thing to say") indicates that this has been her general, stated, public position for some time, and therefore people are ridiculous for thinking Hillary is undermining Obama to the benefit of McCain. And that is a too unfounded presumption for your snark to work, and so it kind of doesn't. This is a welcome change from the recent Clinton rhetoric on the subject*.

    Now, do I think Hillary wants Republicans to win? No. But do I think she wants to paint McCain as so great that only she (in her self-imagined greatness) can beat him? Yes, of course. But is she stupid enough not to understand the consequences of that tactic? No, I don't think so.

    *She was sort of boxed into a corner, yes, because any statement like this was bound to be seen as a concession after her complete misread of the "such an honor" line at the debate. So my criticism of her isn't so much that she didn't say this before, it's that she said some unnecessarily flattering things, personal and not through surrogates, about McCain.

    She's been saying versions of this (none / 0) (#136)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:03:59 AM EST
    for months. She's all about the Dem Party. Always has been.

    Obama, not so much.


    Also... (5.00 / 0) (#138)
    by Addison on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:21:30 AM EST
    ...notice the bolded section of my comment. She said what she said, and that's great. You say she's said it before. Also great. That isn't my problem with Hillary. Building up McCain because she feels she's so gosh darn amazing that she's the only Democrat who can beat him devalues the Democratic party's ideas (as opposed to candidates) completely. And that's what I have a problem with.

    She's not building up McCain (none / 0) (#139)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:37:13 AM EST
    she's challenging Obama and showing their differences.

    Of the 3, she wins on economy and some other domestic issues. But Obama can do pretty well against McCain on them also. Both can out speak and out debate him. She wins on FP experience over Obama. And that is a deciding point 'cause you just know this war is going to ratchet up or something else is going to happen before Nov. So, she's throwing her experience on the table with McCain's and telling Obama to throw his in also.

    She states the obvious about McCain on this issue and Obama has also been known to praise his experience in this area as well. If Obama can't lay something on the table, we have a problem because he's gonna get the same challenge in the GE. She can't beat McCain on Military, but she has a lot of AS support and her Armed Services Committee experience. And she can challenge McCain in other FP/Global issues, which I don't think he may be as well rounded on. That could be an area where Obama could step up also?

    The point is to get a Dem in the WH. Clinton KNOWS what we have to do and she's putting it all out there. But no matter what, she wants a Dem in the WH.



    Gosh darn amazing? (none / 0) (#144)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:04:34 AM EST
    Building up McCain because she feels she's so gosh darn amazing that she's the only Democrat who can beat him devalues the Democratic party's ideas (as opposed to candidates) completely

    Excuse me but that's what candidates do. They try to make us believe that they are "so gosh darn amazing" that they are the one(s) that will solve all out problems and make the sun shine brighter from this day forward.

    Obama is telling us he's "gosh darn amazing" when he says he can unite us and bring "hope and change". (Although all candidates are always promising change and nothing changes much.)


    Fine... (none / 0) (#137)
    by Addison on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:16:26 AM EST
    ...then I fault the mainstream media and her advisers who've managed not to include it on most all of their conference calls. Quotes?

    No quotes handy . . . (none / 0) (#140)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:44:12 AM EST
    I see it mostly in interviews and stump bits they show. As far as the conference calls, I don't know why they don't mention it, maybe because it isn't asked? I usually hear her say it in response to a question about unity tickets, as the field narrowed, as things heated up, etc. Remember, they asked Michelle a while back. And Clinton's responses have always been more positive than Obama's on this issue (do they get along etc). It appears much easier for her to speak to this. He seems to follow her early lead, which is fine by me, as I do think they are fine with each other.

    Hillary can make a plea for loyalty to the Democratic Party because she's running as a Democrat.

    Obama can't make the same plea for two big reasons. Firstly, Obama doesn't even identify himself as a die-hard, true-blue Democrat. Secondly, to a large extent, he's hoping to get elected (or at least nominated) by GOP and Indie voters who have crossed-over to the Democratic Party, for the express purpose of voting for Obama. The loyalty of Obama, and those particular voters, is primarily invested in Obama rather than the Democratic Party.  

    So basically, Clinton's plea for loyalty to the Democratic party is a two-fer: it reflects well on her because she reminds us that she and her voters are dyed-in-the-wool DEMOCRATS; it reflectly poorly on Obama because the same can't be said for him and many of his supporters.

    Something this elemental has got to make a difference in the General Election.

    This (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by sas on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:05:34 PM EST
    is the best post.

    You have it it on the head exactly!


    Spot-freakin'-on! (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:37:54 PM EST
    I have recently begun to think that it would be more appropriate for Obama to be running, a la Joe Lieberman, as the "America for Obama" candidate: "it's all about ME!"

    I think your thoughts dovetail nicely with my own, in that I do not think Obama has a clue who he really is, what he really believes, what he really stands for.  He's all about sussing out the opportunities for himself, moving his own fortunes upward, and it will be a happy coincidence if we all get some benefit from that.

    If Democrats want to elect a Democrat, they should be supporting Clinton; Obama's going to break Democratic hearts...from Day One.


    Good on her for this (none / 0) (#7)
    by jcsf on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:28:06 PM EST
    Then both candidates agree.

    What did he say? I must have missed it. (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:32:13 PM EST
    Well (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:37:05 PM EST
    Maybe he means that both candidates agree Obama would be preferable to McCain.

    lol (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:38:48 PM EST
    Duh to me! You're right! (none / 0) (#32)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:44:16 PM EST
    Do they? Last I heard he was (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by BlueMerlin on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:34:07 PM EST
    bragging that he could count on her supporters whereas she couldn't count on his.

    I didn't miss that! (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:36:36 PM EST
    Very nice to see I hope this gets the media (none / 0) (#26)
    by DemPrezin2008 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:40:23 PM EST
    coverage her support for McCain got.  She is 100% right. Regardless of who gets chosen and how they get chosen electing a Democratic President is what we should all be aiming for.

    So everyone on this site agrees with Hillary here? (none / 0) (#30)
    by magster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:41:55 PM EST

    I certainly do. (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by gmo on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:43:16 PM EST
    Me too (none / 0) (#39)
    by magster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:47:41 PM EST
    If Obama loses, I'm in for Hillary with this statement.

    I didnt say I agreed with it, I just said I (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by athyrio on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:44:35 PM EST
    respect her totally for saying it...Big difference....

    If you're asking if our comments (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:47:44 PM EST
    mean Obama gets an easy vote from us, for me, that would be a No.

    that the perception of this blog from what I've read is that it's Pro Clinton. That's not a bad thing right?

    I believe the (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:13:34 PM EST
    this site is PRO-Dem.

    You should go through some of the old blogs.

    Hillary has been called out on some of her mis-steps.

    Same goes with Obama. There just aren't many sites that WILL comment on his blunders, mis-steps, etc.

    There are plenty that comment on Clinton's blunders, mis-steps, etc.


    Yes and while we might spart with them.... (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:16:32 PM EST
    ...we would never want to chase our pro-Obama posters away.

    Thats a good thing (none / 0) (#58)
    by Sunshine on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:58:05 PM EST
    No, not a bad thing :) (none / 0) (#62)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:02:51 PM EST
    I thought it was about what she said, and if we agreed with here, we would auto unify.

    Yes this is a Pro-Clinton blog for sure (none / 0) (#35)
    by DemPrezin2008 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:45:04 PM EST
    I would like to see more threads here on why I should vote for Clinton and not so much why I shouldn't vote for Obama.  

    You're In the Wrong Place (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by pluege on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:09:45 PM EST
    Jeralyn is pro-Clinton, but is rational and intellectual, not rabid.

    BTD is as neutral as they come even if he thinks Obama will win.

    Both are reporting and opining, not persuading, cheerleading, smearing, or inciting emotions.

    I would never call this a "pro-Clinton site". Certainly it is nothing compared to the boosterism of Obama supporter blogs.

    You can go to www.hillaryclinton.com to find out why you should vote for HRC.


    On this point? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:46:26 PM EST
    IT is the official view of this web site.

    Individual Thought? What's the unofficial (none / 0) (#43)
    by DemPrezin2008 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:49:19 PM EST
    view then?  

    IMO a third of this site is for Hillary, (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:13:42 PM EST
    a third of this site thinks Barack is the better candidate and the other third I have no idea. Sorta approximately. All of this site doesn't allow abuse of any candidate.

    heh... (none / 0) (#88)
    by jor on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:48:07 PM EST
    ... actually if you go by the polls they have on here, especially around the debates, its probably 2/3-3/4 pro-hillary,  1/4 pro-obama peeps, trying to see what the hillary side is thinking. I mainly come here to see what the hillary side thinks.

    Actions speak (none / 0) (#50)
    by Raheem on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:53:00 PM EST
    louder than words...

    lets hope she seriously says this and not say things like John McCain has passed some threshold while Obama hasnt...

    So will you admit that Obama words do NOT (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by ivs814 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:02:10 PM EST
    match his actions.  He has been very negative towards Hillary.  Too bad you don't ask as much  from your candidate.

    They both are guilty of some sort of negative (none / 0) (#68)
    by DemPrezin2008 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:08:26 PM EST
    actions towards the other.  We can dwell on it or start keeping a scorecard but I believe Clinton's message today is spot on.

    Well I'm with you on the concern of previous (none / 0) (#54)
    by DemPrezin2008 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:57:22 PM EST
    statements but her words are action in this case.   And I'm excited that whe has started this dialouge.

    Quote: (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:02:07 PM EST
    "I think that since we now know Sen. McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold," the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant's bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.

    "I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy," she said.

    The audacity of hope! (none / 0) (#126)
    by dotcommodity on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:06:24 PM EST
    Is that evil woman daring to compete for a job?

    Could she actually be implying she is better able to defeat the terrist trumpeting bravewarhero than her competitor?

    What nerve.


    She said something along this lines (none / 0) (#63)
    by kredwyn on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:03:10 PM EST
    at that event Tavis Smiley hosted down in New Orleans.

    It will be forgotten this time too (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:05:05 PM EST
    Unfu##ingbelievable... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Exeter on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:11:45 PM EST
    Has she no shame?

    "Please think through this decision," Clinton said, laughing and emphasizing the word "please." "It is not a wise decision for yourself or your country."

    She emphasized the word "please"?!?  Are you serious?  OBVIOUSLY she was intimating that people should vote for McCain as in "PLEASE: VOTE FOR MCCAIN!" And she also scratched her ear right before she said it... and we all know what that means. She makes me sick.

    hey don't pass out! (none / 0) (#78)
    by thereyougo on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:15:43 PM EST
    lol, you folks are way funny.

    Let me get the fainting couch ready. (none / 0) (#135)
    by Fabian on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:57:55 AM EST
    Or is it "swoon"?

    Fainting ;) (none / 0) (#141)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:45:54 AM EST
    swoon is a bit different, in my world anyway, lol!~

    Gore as the unity candidate? (none / 0) (#84)
    by Exeter on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:25:46 PM EST
    Coronation or Deus Ex Machina syndrome (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:08:17 PM EST
    What is it with people who want either an immediate Obama coronation or Gore to come down and pull a Disney/Hollywood finale--pour fairy dust and make it all nice?  

    Why should Gore who did no work get the nod?  I think it's rude to Hillary and Obama to say, go work hard at this and then we just give it to the White guy.  EEEk.  


    That's true... (none / 0) (#122)
    by Exeter on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:24:55 PM EST
    I mostly would like it as way to screw over the Obama campaign, if it looks for sure like Hillary can't pull the nomination. The way he blocked two of Hillary's top five states, and if it shakes out that those two states are never counted, I think it was simply cheating on his part.  

    And I also see two candidates with two camps that really hate eachother and an overall democratic electorate where 60% seem to have buyers remorse about both of the candidates.  I know its not realistic, but if there was candidate that everyone could agree on, it seems like it would be Gore... fairy dust and all; )


    I think it would be a slap in the face (none / 0) (#143)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:34:36 AM EST
    to voters that voted for Clinton or Obama. They didn't have a chance to vote for Gore. Maybe the majority don't want Gore. But that would be talking about the "will of the people" again and we know that doesn't matter. It's all about delegates.

    This is great... (none / 0) (#94)
    by proseandpromise on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:04:27 PM EST
    I hope this is the message we continue to get from Hillary.

    Hillary (none / 0) (#108)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:57:18 PM EST
    is a heck of a lot nicer than "petulant" me ;-).

    Party Loyalty: She Said; then He Said (none / 0) (#130)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:32:26 AM EST
    OK. Here's an AP story. Looks like Clinton was the first to articulate the newest Party Loyalty/Unity theme at a rally on Thursday. And then Obama said much the same thing, in very much the same words, on the ABC evening news. NOTE: the AP didn't make a point of clarifying who said what first. We have to do that 'math' for ourselves. I'm assuming I did it right.

    Good that he said it, even if it was an echo of Hillary.

    my god! (none / 0) (#133)
    by cpinva on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:44:39 AM EST
    the woman will say and do anything to win! she's out to destroy the democratic party, just to feed her ambition and ego!

    the horror, the horror!

    One thing even SHE is not getting (none / 0) (#145)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:05:49 AM EST
    is that many people aren't splitting for "infantile reasons".  Even coming from her it's insulting to suspect that she thinks so.

    My issues are things like shutting down voting in MI/FL, taking Democratic voters for granted while playing to Republicans and Independents, throwing my main issue (healthcare) under the bus, the nagging belief that Obama's going to be another Carter, etc. etc., so that his election could very well mean another 20 years of Republican pres's.  In addition, I don't want another president who envisions himself a God.

    It has nothing to do with "party unity" to the "Democratic" (except in FL/MI) party.  It has everything to do with a choice I've made based on the facts I've observed.

    One other comment, defending Hillary (none / 0) (#146)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:11:17 AM EST
    this time.  To those who've said Hillary is just saying all this because people are accusing her of dividing the party:

    Do you suppose that instead she's saying this because of the Gallup poll that just came out talking about party defections?

    (Link in case you missed it the other day)

    Maybe if you think in those terms, she's not such an evil opportunist after all.