I would like to add my voice to the one that disdained the use of 'b****' or 'w****' to criticize Hillary. That is gross and misogynist and it has no place in a party that embraces diversity and stands for lifting up women and minorities. In fact, I don't think those sorts of gender based insults have any more place in our society than race based ones. I also agreed with Maher's take, which I saw the other night. He's right that Bill's finger wag or red face or temper tantrums have gotten way too much attention. But the Clintons have already run a nasty campaign rooted in old political tactics -- the most blatant of which is misrepresenting one's opponent's history and positions -- and that has not gotten enough attention. Clinton's repeated suggestion that Obama's health care plan will "leave out" ANYONE that wants or needs health care is just a flat out lie. She says things like, "Who will he choose not to cover? The poor woman with breast cancer?" That's a lie. His plan doesn't leave anyone out -- it just doesn't FORCE anyone in. The Reagan stuff was also a lie. Obama said the GOP was the party of ideas in the 80s and 90s. Bill Clinton went around saying, "Obama said only Republicans had good ideas! I'm not making this up. It's a quote!" That was a LIE. It is also incredibly disingenuous to suggest either that (a) Obama lacks experience, or that (b) Clinton has "35 years of experience fighting for these causes." As we all know, Obama's held elected office longer than Clinton and, while she loves to bring up the Children's Defense Fund (or whatever it was she went to work for instead of joining a corporate fund straight out of school), she leaves out the fact that she was there less than a year before (guess what?) joining a corporate firm. Her experience after that was being married to a governor and president and being a senator for four more years than Obama. She has also taken, lately, to suggesting Obama's weak on a woman's right to choose because he voted "present" several times on procedural votes in a state where that was not only a common strategy but one preferred and endorsed by Choice groups such as NARAL and NOW statewide. In fact, the former chair of NARAL, who had been a strong Clinton supporter, switched to Obama because she found that line of attach so cynical and disingenuous. As for the money, which you suggest means Obama's playing old politics, look where it's coming from. He is slaying her in small donations, online donations and new donors. It's the opposite of old politics.
p.s. Re: the health care plans, I actually marginally prefer the mandate that Hillary proposes to Obama's plan. What I oppose is her lying about it by suggesting he would pick and choose who to cover. The Clintons have always lied, in large and small ways, to succeed politically. But in this campaign, they are truly pulling out the stops.
When general election time comes around and everyone remembers what W's done the past 8 years, I don't think Monica Lewinsky's Ex-Boyfriend's Wife is gonna have any problem getting people into the voting booths for her regardless of what tactics she's pulled off to get her name on the ballot. And I'm sure she and her people know this very well. She's probably gonna be crying on tv 25-35 more times b/t now and November. And real_egal, I am not really an Obama supporter. I'm pretty much indifferent to him. Yes he is a great orator, but he is also essentially backed financially by the same exact lobbyists as his Democratic opponent.
Good post. I agree, what Clinton has (had) going for her was perceived electability, inevitability, and establishment support. Electability is clearly in Obama's favor. Inevitability is all but gone. And, to repeat myself, there's fundraising. That's a biggie. Very curious to if these trends continue: Hillary's fundraising continues downhill or plateaus, and Obama's continues to soar. Still Hillary has roughly 200 superdelegates to Obamas 100. Does he really have momentum with them? Did most of those superdelegates go to Hillary back when she seemed inevitable a couple of months ago? If he gets 6 or 7 out of the next eight, and one of Ohio and TX, that's big. If he gets Ohio AND TX... he'll be the frontrunner. I guess I'm trying not to get my hopes up too high. I'm going to make another donation to Obama campaign today.
Speaking of lying, I totally left out the misrepresentation of Obama's history on Iraq. Bill not only called his opposition to the war bogus, which opposition he clearly stated when doing so was so unpopular that Hillary, Edwards, Kerry, Gephardt and tons of other current opponents supported it. That list also includes Bill himself, who recently had the gall to say he had (LMFAO) opposed it from the start. Lying liars, old politics, anything it takes to win. It is amazing to me that real_egal could dream of saying Hillary won't go nasty because she can win a fair fight. She HAS gone nasty, she has NOT fought fair and she and her husband have lied repeatedly about Obama's record and positions and their own. Conversely, you can't point out a single case of him doing the same. That, more than any other reason, is why I STRONGLY support Obama and STRONGLY oppose Clinton.
The vast majority of HRC's superdelegates came before Iowa; the vast majority of Obama's came after. And the super-majority of superdelegates are undeclared. She still has that 100 or so advantage, but she has no momentum with superdelegates. He does. Remember too that superdelegates aren't bound to stick with their choices -- they can change at any time. I don't want to get my hopes up too high either but if Obama does what you suggest (6 or 7 of 8 before 3/4 and then TX AND OH), that's beyond big. That would be the end of the race whether Clinton conceded or not. Even I, in all my optimism, do not imagine it going that well for him. I do think he has a line on 6 or 7 before 3/4, but I'd be very happy if he split TX and OH.
The republicans idea part was misleading from Clinton, and I don't like it. But I also don't like what Obama did with that comment to get "independents" and republicans to vote in Democratic primaries. Then it was that "belittling MLK" thing, which totally turned me off. With a straight face to accuse Clintons injecting race into the mix, and CNN did a horrible job by stirring the pot shamelessly. Let's face it, it all comes down to who gets more votes. No matter how one's motives were when they started, it all ends up playing political games, and there are NO new political games. Every single trick has been played over and over again, in the world, over the history. There really aren't any change I can notice. Yes, a lot more young voters reacted to a new face, but there is no single substantiative change. That's why I am very skeptical of Obama's promises. He's part of the Washington, albeit junior. Being junior doesn't make him automatically against establishment. In fact, he has been working his way towards that. My prediction is CNN's effort to pump Obama non-stop could eventually backfire. My worst fear is it happens in general election. When the blood gets so bad after Dems finally has a nominee, the base is divided and the candidate is heavily wounded. Those "independents" supported Obama cross all demographics in democratic primaries will happen to vote for republicans. The country ends up with McCain. Well, if that happens, maybe Dems just don't deserve winning anything.
real_egal: Obama bringing up Clinton's vote to authorize force is not negative campaigning, though the Clinton camp would have you think it was. It is a substantive policy difference. I could go on and on about instances where Obama sited a policy difference in the past and Clinton cried foul and accused him of abandoning the politics of hope. He has never gotten personal and he has never misrepresented her positions or record. She has done that to him and repeatedly. These two things are not the same, no matter how often you say it. I listed several instances of the Clintons FLAT OUT LYING about Obama and themselves. I defy you to name just ONE example of him doing the same before you ever say again that they're engaged in similar practices. Obama's brand of politics is not brand new, you're right -- it was employed in our contemporary politics by Reagan and Kennedy -- but it feels very new after the incredibly divisive Clinton-Bush years. It is a politics that asks who can better unify the country rather than who can better defeat the opponent. It is a politics that seeks a mandate and fresh involvement from disenfranchised voters rather than a 50.1% win at all costs that seeks to quash the involvement of Independents and Republicans in our primaries. And it is a politics that insists it is more important to be sincere and honest than it is to win. As policy goes, the two frontrunners are virtually identical. Contrary to spin, they're practically identical on experience too. The difference is in their approach to politics. Obama flatly rejects the divisive politics of the past. Hillary's main electability argument is that she's good at them. In that way, they could not be more different.
I meant to respond to that too. Obama has been incredibly gracious about the race issue, including saying that he was sure Bill didn't mean anything untoward by comparing his SC win to Jesse Jackson's wins there (which was done in a clearly dismissive way). The meme that Obama has played the race card against the Clintons is another lie floated by that camp. If real_egal or anyone else disagrees, I would love to see supporting evidence with links and quotes. Good luck finding them. They don't exist.
Let me be clear on this one, every single politician in the world is dirty, including Clinton and Obama. Yes, some had more dirty records, some less. Misrepresenting and misleading are common practice in politics, even in daily life. Yes, both Clinton did that. If you call that nasty, what would you say about accusation from Obama's camp that Clintons "belittling MLK"? I asked in other thread earlier, is there ANY reasonable explanation for even just a remote possibility for Clinton to gain anything by belittling MLK? Then how was that belittling at all? I have serious problem that media and some Obama supporters paint Clinton as a dirty politician but Obama a saint. I also have serious problem that media blushed off the fact that 80%+ African Americans voting for Obama as norm, but jumping out on Latinos and Asians voting for Clinton in CA. Capability is what more objective and what gets things done. Personality is just about spin on the end. Like I joked in other thread, Ann Coulter said she would campaign for Clinton if McCain is the nominee, whether that makes Clinton a big uniter. Comparing plan, issue, and debate about them, it would benefit everyone. When the candidates, voters, media and every single discussion is about character of a politician, it's pretty sad and naive. My biggest problem lies in some very obvious hatred towards a woman. Maybe because I am always a strong advocate of women pursuing own career and seeking for own place in the society; maybe because my wife is independent and doing well in her career; maybe I am still old-fashioned feeling that men should be more open-minded, I absolutely can't stand sexism.
more paranoia, how did they jump on asians and latinos. the only thing i heard was that they said latinos in california historically voted for clinton. what else did they say? look, I know you're paranoid about the media's support of obama, but stop making false statements. please.
Where exactly is this belittling? This is the main comment I find from Obama on the issue: "Senator Clinton made an unfortunate remark, an ill-advised remark, about King and Lyndon Johnson. I didn't make the statement," Obama said in a conference call with reporters. "I haven't remarked on it. And she, I think, offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King's role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act. She is free to explain that. But the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous." The only places I see the word "belittle" is a bunch of Clinton campaign surrogates claiming Obama did it - the question is where/when did it actually happen?
Batman, Obama has several big cards: 1. He was against the Iraqi war in the beginning. - He's criticizing Clinton for her yes vote, while he supported Kerry's and Edwards' yes vote. Himself was NOT eligible to vote in the Senate at the time. 2. He criticized Clinton for the Iran vote. - He did NOT show up in that voting. That to me, is a lot worse than voting wrong. He didn't show up to take a tough stand, and use that to attack the opponent. Given his "present" votes, and 1/3 of no-shows in Senate voting after ONLY 2 years of the service in Senate, as a NEW COMER. 3. He didn't say Clinton belittled MLK, but his campaign did, and CNN helped a great deal. 4. He didn't mention race in his speech, but his wife and Oprah did. While Bill Clinton gets scrutinized, and called "outburst" and "meltdown" after one second of finger waging. Mrs Obama can scream and shout non-stop. To me, that's politics are always about, and always be. But to paint oneself as a saint above every political game, while playing it himself, by his supporters, and campaign, it's very disingenuous to say the least.
real_egal: It is ironic that you accuse Obama of playing the race card (which he never did and which you cannot cite a single example of him doing) and then suggest that those that support him over Hillary are sexist. Oh, wait a minute. It's not just ironic; it's offensive. And, while I've got your ear, screw you hard for suggesting it. I would like nothing better than a woman president. I would prefer she wasn't a liar and a cheater. Am I being sexist, real_egal? I was artistic director of a theater in Houston for ten years and had three different board presidents (the true bosses) during that time. They were all women. The managing director I hired was a woman. I think women generally make smarter, better leaders than men. But that doesn't mean that I will support every woman in every instance. Seriously, screw you for saying that. Screw you for the Latino/Asian thing too. Either you made that up or the Clinton camp did. It didn't come from Obama. I get that you like Hillary, but that doesn't require lying for (and like) her. It is seriously sad that you (a) think every single politician is, by definition, dirty and that (b) you seem to be okay with that. I have good news for you. It's not true. Obama has overcome incredible odds to arrive at a tie with the "inevitable" nominee. And he has done so without lying, without cheating, without cynically misrepresenting his opponent. As for the ridiculous MLK flap, well, several things. 1. Obama never said what you accuse him of. If you think otherwise, go find the quote and the link. It doesn't exist. 2. Suggesting that words are pretty things but don't matter and that what does matter is a politician enacting legislation -- and directly linking that idea to MLK and LBJ -- is incredibly dismissive and belittling of MLK (not to mention JFK and RFK). 3. You suggest she wouldn't belittle MLK because there was no benefit to it. First, I find it interesting that you are of the opinion she wouldn't say anything that wouldn't benefit her. Second, it WAS of benefit -- she was explicitly trying to make the argument that inspiration and oratory was all well and good, but it ultimately didn't matter because it took someone like LBJ to make anything come from it. She did that to cast herself in the LBJ role and Obama in the MLK role and to suggest that he should make speeches and she should be president. No benefit? That was her ENTIRE argument! And you're ******* right it was belittling, but.... 4. Obama never ever ever never ever said so, despite your claim to the contrary. And for your repeated claim that they are equally dirty, equally liars, you have yet to cite ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of Obama playing dirty or lying to combat the several examples of Hillary doing the same. Provide some support for your argument or stop making it.
okay, so now we're back to the one speech his wife gave in south carolina to a group of black women addressing black issues when his wife said he was better equipped to handle them? are you and hotballa on the same mailing list. seriously this stuff wouldn't bother me so much but you hotball, tj, and bigtexxx are accusing everyone of playing the race card and you guys are the only ones talking about race. these threads are pretty race issue free till you guys join, and then you accuse everyone else of using race politics. its mind boggling, you tell the lie so much you start to believe it.
real_egal, I'm as anti-Hillary as anyone here. But I can assure you 100% my utter disgust with her has nothing to do with the fact she is a woman. Zero! Zip! I would have no problem at all voting for a woman for president.
pgabriel, Here is what I said in another thread about "race" breakdown by media. For example, CNN has been trying week long to tell you how Obama "wins white voters", that's always the first sentence in their breakdowns. But they don't want to mention those are "white MALE voters", I guess they don't want to inject race and gender into it. Then they will tell you how Clinton is winning white BUT FEMALE voters, of course that's just simple honest break down without any implying of gender. In the last sentence of their breakdown, they will briefly mention that black votes went to Obama overwhelmingly, but won't mention about the actual number of 80%+, of course they don't want to inject race into it. But, in California, they will tell you in the first sentence that majority of Latinos and Asians are voting Clinton, which can offset black votes.
Umm, that's because it was true. Clinton wasn't winning white voters - she was winning white, female voters. Obama was winning both white male voters and white voters overalll. Huh? They just spent all this time talking about the white vote split but don't want to inject race into it? Perhaps they didn't talk about the black vote because it wasn't a surprise - everyone knew that was going to happen: it wasn't news. They spent TONS of time talking about it in South Carolina when it was news. Which, again, was news. No one really knew what the Asian vote would do, and this was the first big test of the Latino vote after the Kennedy stuff which was supposed to narrow the margin. Are you actually complaining the CNN focused on the things that were news and not the things that were well known? And, beyond all of that, what does CNN's commentary have to do with Obama's campaign?
