It's that she's doing "whatever it takes" to win the nomination, even if it means favoring a republican over her Dem rival. The Clintons tried exploiting the racial divide early on (South Carolina) before the backlash forced them to scale it back. I'm not sure what she's getting at with her charges of Obama being elitist. Is that implying that she's "less elitist"? I'm thinking this is designed to strike at some "working class" mindset. Whether it's successful depends on her authenticity to sell it. I haven't thought of this deeply, but maybe there's some undercurrent of "values" among Democrat voters that goes beyond platform. Conservatives definitely have their own set, and I think for a long time Democrats have been seen as just a conglomeration of different groups that reacts to the Conservative agenda. Gore and Kerry were definitely portrayed as inauthentic, and it worked when some of the Dem base voted for Nadir or stayed home. Still not sure whether it's what I mentioned or just plain political likability....
She has given much of her life to the party, and recently she has been showing that her own ambition is more important than the welfare of the party she has worked for all along. She isn't going to switch parties, but she isn't helping her party out with her tactics at the moment. Her loyalty, and judgement are brought into play here. It isn't like she's doing something contrary to the good of the party as part of some principled stand either. It is done purely to try and tear down a fellow democrat because she believes that will get her the nomination she wants. If she spent the time building up her own record, and pointing out the few policy differences or even her experience advantage that would be one thing. she isn't doing that. She's trying to praise the GOP candidate above the Democratic one who is likely to be the nominee, and trying to twist every possible misstep into something that will hurt that likely nominee, and change her image into a whiskey shot drinking, gun enthusiast man of the people instead. Despite all the work she has done for the Democratic party her personal ambition seems to swallowed that in it's hungry jaws. She is free to do that, but there are ramifications in how she's perceived by others. I wouldn't be surprised if the super delegates take not of that as well. Obama hasn't responded to her attacks in the same manner, and by and large has refused to wallow in the mud that Hillary and her staff are churning up. I don't want to vote for that and and the same old political mudslinging games that focus on trivial folly rather than substance. I'll add that her Bosnia and Chelsea on 9/11 statements were trivial as well. I'm pleased to see that unlike Hillary Obama didn't seize on the opportunity to try and change his image into a George Washington and the Cherry Tree type of image while trashing her honesty during speeches. The contrast is clear. One is damaging to the Democratic party and the same kind of politics we have seen over and over again in the past. The other is refreshing and is a clear example of change and one way in which Obama can change the tone in Washington.
Why do the Obama supporters want her to quit so badly? I wouldn't quit if I were in the same position -- she has done well in the major states and the super delegate factor is still out there. McCain isn't getting hit by the dem nominee, but he also is getting zero press coverage. The shots that Hillary is giving Obama aren't exactly swift boat level attacks -- they are pretty mild really. Certainly getting some of the negative issues out now (Wright in particular) is a major benefit for Obama because he is going to get hit much harder by the republicans heading into November.
I guarantee you if Obama was in Clinton's shoes (and vice versa), everyone here would be saying the exact opposite things. That is what I love about this board.
As much as I like the guy, if he isn't going to win the Dem spot, he'd do more damage to his future and his platform if he stayed.
I don't know how many really want Hillary to quit. I think they just don't like her campaign style. I agree that a lot of what she says isn't swift boat level, and gives Obama time to gear up with a defense. But I think one of the reasons that nothing is Swift boat level now, is the way Obama responds quickly, directly but without diving down in the dirt and giving more ammo to those that are making the claims. Obama is doing exactly what Kerry and Gore didn't do, and confronted the attacks early on and in an effective manner.
No, if the situation was reversed, Obama would have the graciousness and smarts to do what is right for the Democratic party. The only reason this race is still going is because her last name is Clinton. And has been mentioned, I have no problem with Hillary staying in the race if she (and Bill) were attacking McCain and republicans and not a fellow Democrat. But I also agree with the idea that that which doesn't kill you only makes you stronger. So Hillary does serve a purpose. I guess
If Obama emerges out of this before the convention, he'll be sure to weave a narrative of being battle tested and hardened for leadership and victory. yadda yadda politics
Wow, after watching tonight's debate, the question is how in the heck did obama fool enough people to get the delegates that he has?!! He was trounced by Hillary, Gipson and Stephanopoulous and looked like a bumbling idiot on stage. Totally did not look Presidential.... and talk about skeletons in the closet -- wow, that was an HOUR of the debate -- Wright, Ayers, Bitter, Lapel Pin, can't win the General -- the entire schitteree was thrown at him. And he flopped.
I appreciate how you are upset that Clinton has been attacking Obama and is hurting the Democractic party through attacking the opponent on trivial matters that your response is to criticize her for changing her image into a whiskey shot drinking gun enthusiast. If you haven't been thining she has been pushing her experience or even the policy differences I'm not sure where you've been the whole campaign. Clinton's campaign is centered around the her experience and has frequently tried to draw out Obama in regard to policy differences in regard to health care or trade. As much as the problem is that the Clinton's aren't above character assassination, which I as a supporter agree they do, is that the Obama campaign is itself to blame for making the contests about trivialities rather than issues. Obama's campaign has been about vague rhetoric of change. Heck you as an informed Obama supporter have yourself said his positions don't matter as much as his personality. A campaign that prefers to stick to vagueries and the charisma of the candidate rather than positions and experience will be attacked as inexperienced and unvetted. Except as someone who is willing to abandon the Democractic party because of her your view is already inherently biased in regard to how good Clinton is to the the Democractic party or not. Except that he has questioned her honesty on a few occasions and has also taken a negative tone. In fact he made the first personal negative attack in a debate Clinton when he brought up the Walmart comment in the SC debate. Also almost a year ago one one Obama's major fundraisers, David Geffen, was the first to make a negative personal comment in this campaign against the Clintons. (Its true that Obama can't be fully be held responsible for comments of his fundraisers but since people hold Clinton responsible for her fundraiser turnabout is fair play.) A lot of the damage seems to be coming as much from Obama supporters reacing towards Clinton as much as Clinton. But once again though your last sentence just reinforces that Obama's campaign is one based on vagueries and vaguries that aren't necessarily accurate either as Obama and his campaign have made disparaging remarks too.
^ "vagueries" LOL - you've conceded that Hilary and BO have near identical policy positions - yet one is crystal clear to you while the other is "vague" That statement doesn't work. - now I suppose you're going to chalk your Hilary suppport up to an assertion that she is "experienced" - something that I find rather vague, and given that it consists of imaginary sniper fire on a runway in certain cases - not just vague but a genuine lie.
Hillary used to center her campaign around her experience. She hasn't been lately. Lately her campaign has been about Obama. Obama does share some of the blame for what's going on, but he hasn't focused on it. Notice last night when they brought up Hillaries stories about the sniper fire, Obama declined to attack her for it. His vagueness for how he's going to change is over, since he's already changed things, and the change in the way he's run his campaign over what other people do is apparent. What people expect, and want has changed, in large part to Obama. I'm not willing to abandon the Democratic party. I haven't been part of it since college. I was brought to it now by Obama. That's the only reason I'm part of it now. I just find it troubling when I see someone like Hillary who gave so much of her life to the Democratic party willing to toss all of that aside for her own personal ambition. It doesn't speak well of her integrity, and the kind of leadership one could expect from her. Obama has declined time and time again to make the the campaign about trivial issues. He did it last night in the debate. Even if you think Obama is vague, there is a difference between vague and trivial. But we've seen concrete results about the kind of change Obama can bring, so the vague argument about him, seems over. I'm not sure how when Obama refused to attack on the trivial sniper fire issue, yet Hillary kept trying to attack on the bitter issue or Wright issue, you can say that Obama is responsible for keeping the trivialities going. IT was evident last night which campaign is more focused on that.
yet supported by evidence that while Hillary is trying to make a bigger issue of the traditional mudslinging trivial issues with Obama's campaign, he's not gone after her sniper fire whoppers at all. He could bring that up, and cast her as the liar, and dishonest, can't be trusted etc. Instead he refused to make an issue of it at all. I love how folks keep saying Obama just the same as the other politicians when he already has done things differently than any other campaign would have done, is doing and has done.
You may be on to something. But the best way Hillary could secure a McCain victory would be to win the nomination, which isn't likely.
