There’s some kind of asinine debate going on over whether or not the dirty campaigning, record distortion, and general guttersniping of the Clinton campaign is a point in the Clintons’ favor.
Let me just say that the people making this argument are no friends of mine. You see that frog up in the left corner that has handcuffs on? I want all corrupt politicians frog-marched out of the White House and the Capitol, not marched-in. I can’t really be anymore clear about it than that. Don’t try to give me some argument about how I have to support the eventual nominee because the opponents are worse. I don’t, and I won’t. I watched the debate tonight and I didn’t see any Michael Dukakises or John Kerrys up there. I saw three fighters. We don’t have a thing to worry about in terms of our candidates fighting back. We do have to worry about our candidate being dishonest and guilty of the same types of things that we so hate the Republicans for embodying.
Too many people are afraid to speak out because they don’t want to alienate the Clintons. Or, they want a job with the Clintons. Or, they want access to the Clintons. A lot of people are watching right now, and we can see who has backbone and principles, and who is hedging their bets.
I don’t care if you particularly like either of the other candidates, or not. I’m not greatly enthusiastic about them myself. But it’s time for people to stand up and be counted.
We have two candidates running positive campaigns, and then we have the Clintons and their skulduggery. It’s time for people to drop their neutrality and put their cards on the table. If it was wrong when Lee Atwater and Karl Rove did it, it is wrong when the Clintons do it.
This idea that we have to sit silent in fear of hurting the eventual nominee is bullshit. The point is to make sure they aren’t the nominee(s). They’ve earned the strident opposition of every progressive. And the other candidates have done nothing even remotely comparable.
Remember the quote of the night…
Obama:”…Because when I was working on those streets watching those folks see their jobs shipped overseas, you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wal-Mart. I was fighting these fights.”
And don’t forget it.
doesn’t sound particularly evil:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#Early_Arkansas_years
Meanwhile, Obama was doing nothing to battle the evil Reagan’s impact on our country in 1981, 82, 83, and 84, mostly cuz he didn’t graduate from college till 1983, but also because he was doing quiet corporate work for the first two years he was out of Columbia. Finally, for three years, from 1985 to 1988, he did good work as a community organizer in Chicago fighting for the Altgeld public housing project.
But the heroic contrast Obama constructs between him and Hillary simply isn’t there. In fact she was doing a lot of good, and specifically and successfully fighting Reagan over a very important institution, the Legal Services Corp, while Obama was still doing school work.
Wow. That’s a real misrepresentation. Obama was not “doing corporate work” – he was editing a financial journal, and even then, felt it was not fulfilling, and left to become a community organizer.
Hillary has done a lot of things, but I have to ask, how much would she have been able to do had she not been married to Bill Clinton?
How much has she earned on her own? 1.5 Senate terms. Two years less in office than Obama has served.
“Editing a financial journal” is not “doing corporate work”? It was work at a corporation and for corporations:
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html
I work for a corporate firm and it has no influence on who I am or what I believe.
I was described what work Obama/Hillary were doing during the Reagan years, not who they were or what they believed.
Your point is…. what? She wasn’t on the board of Wal-Mart? She wasn’t evil because she “fought” the Reagan administration to maintain funding for Legal Services Corporation, whose funding had tripled under her watch? And with all of this great stuff she did for the education system in Arkansas, where did they rank nationally? Were they above or below, say… Mississippi? I’m not sure, but I think they ranked something like 50th until she and Bill left office. And your link to Wikipedia just reminded me of her “rainmaker” status at the Rose Law Firm because she was the governor’s wife and member of several corporate boards. And the cattle futures investment that paid off 100 fold. Amazing. She truly is a winner. We must make her president. Maybe her great luck will rub off on America. What was I ever thinking?
If I have one wish, it is that criticisms of the Clintons not extend to before the time period when they began running for the presidency in 1991-2. I don’t think we want to debate what went on in Arkansas. If you’ve read The Hunting of a President you’ll know why.
Even if we don’t, the Republicans will. Remember Mena, e.g.
I’d rather not debate that crap either, but someone just came along and threw a bunch of bullshit in my face in response to a comment I made. Should I just let it be?
once you get familiar with fairleft, you don’t feel the need to bother with him. His home is Political Fleshfeast, the ward of the banished.
Hey. PFF is kind of a cool place. It has a flavor all its own.
I offer the history as a corrective, since the sharp remarks between the two involved ‘what were you doing during the Reagan years’ and Obama’s characterization of Hillary during those years was ‘you were on the board of Walmart’. During the early and mid-Reagan years, Hillary seems to have a record that she can be proud of.
Obama was doing nothing ‘for the people’ during the main (early) Reagan Revolution years, then did work he can be proud of between 1985 and 1988. It’s interesting that he apparently wasn’t at least involved at Columbia in anti-apartheid protests, which were pretty intense in the early 80s. Or in other protests/movements: anti-homelessness efforts were also big in those days, since the shock of mass homelessness was still new.
Well, attacking Obama was the “fun part” of the campaign. Going after rethugs? Hmmm…not so much.
These wretched DLC types live for Dem party infighting. Everything is about them. They think they are so brilliant. They think they’re the smartest in the room. They are not.
And they are not about expanding the party because it is not in their interest to do so.
I never expected Billary to make it easy on Obama, but I never thought they’d stoop to such open, naked, race-baiting. I feel silly for that. But I’ll never forget it. And I’ll never forgive it, either.
The statements from my “allies” have been eye-opening, too, both in positive and negative ways. Again, it’s all been quite unforgettable.
THANK YOU!!!
The counter argument I’ve heard is that the Clinton’s aren’t doing anything worse than the others. But as we saw in the debate tonight, that’s just provably not true.
I don’t know that I buy the argument that we have to support our eventual nominee anymore. I don’t want Republicans in office any more than anyone else. But I also don’t want a DINO – Democrat in Name Only – in the White House. I’m not suggesting the Clintons are DINOS. I don’t believe they are. But they are JUST AS BAD as if they were when they resort to dirty tricks.
These are the things that keep our party from growing and expanding. I don’t want to win at any cost. I want to win for the right reasons, because when we win for the wrong ones, we don’t really win.
What happened the last time the Clintons got into office? We lost the House. It turned Republican.
What happened after some eight years of the Clinton’s? We lost the house AND the Senate, and nearly drove our country off a cliff.
There is a backlash to certain actions, and we can’t be blind to that. When you conduct dirty campaigns, you turn off the next generation of voters. We can’t afford to do that now.
When you lie about your opponents, you deprive the country of a true choice between candidates. That’s unacceptable, to me.
And when President Clinton campaigns not just vocally but viciously for his wife, he’s reminding the right of why they hated him in the first place. How would nominating those two (because let’s face it, we all know it’s a package deal) help us win the White House?
I think Hillary is smart. I would love to see a woman in the White House. But I want to see a woman who has made it on her own, not one who swung on the coattails of her husband and called it experience. I want one who plays fair with her opponents. I want one who doesn’t say one thing and do another.
I understand that some people don’t like Obama. I understand that some see Obama as Edwards’ spoiler and support Hillary in retaliation (although I think that’s an immature response).
What I don’t understand is how people can support the tactics used, to not speak out and decry them.
As a precinct captain for Obama, I’ve been calling neighbors. One of them called me back today to tell me why he wasn’t supporting Obama. He railed about the Reagan comment. I told him, in all honesty, I had trouble making calls for Obama for the next few days after that because it bothered me too. I knew what Obama meant. But it didn’t sit right with me, and I am not blind to my candidate’s faults. I won’t lie for him, and I won’t pretend to feel something I don’t. But I also told the person at the other end why I felt Clinton was the only person who could truly lose us the White House in November. He listened, thoughtfully, because I had been the first to admit fault with my candidate.
I think it’s important we try to be the change we want to see. If we want our leaders to be more honest, WE have to be honest with each other, even if it makes us unpopular. That’s what integrity is. And not a lot of people, in my experience, have it. I think integrity is definitely overrepresented at BT, relative to the population at large, which is why I love it here.
But we do need to speak out when one candidate lies about another. It’s not cool. It’s not “just politics as usual.” It’s wrong. And we should say that loudly.
this goes so far beyond lying.
Oh, I agree. That makes me blood red angry, to be honest. I just forwarded that to some Clinton supporters.
They’ll just say, it wasn’t organized at the campaign level. One of them was a precinct organizer for Clinton in NV and says the campaign gave no such instructions.
Certainly not overtly. Who would? But the Clintons have played the game a very long time, and have contacts everywhere. It’s hard to imagine this is all the uncoordinated work of lonely volunteers. That’s sort of like a multi-lone-nut theory, and I just don’t buy it.
Btw – if this cheers you up, have at it. From CNN’s home page:
Who won the Democratic debate in South Carolina?
Hillary Clinton 27% 7043
John Edwards 20% 5188
Barack Obama 38% 9941
None of them 15% 4024
Total Votes: 26196
Actually, it was … my understanding is that the Clinton handbook flat out told people to arrive at 11:00 and lock the doors at 11:30.
Josh Marshall’s posts on the debate are worth reading. His take is that the “take no prisoners” persona HIllary is projecting is not what the general public wants and plays into the hands of her Republican adversaries while driving off independents. He (or one of his readers) points out that even Bush and Cheney had benign personas when campaigning and did the dirty work in the shadows. Do people feel good about voting for an attack dog?
This is the politics of it, and I understand Booman is talking more about the ethics. I concur with his thoughts on that aspect.
All I know is that when I hear Hillary bragging about how she’s taken 16 years of what the GOP has had to dish out and she’s still standing, I want to throw up at the thought of living through those 16 years all over again, only with Hillary in the POTUS seat. I’ve had enough of their antics. Especially after this week.
And regular people are sick to death of Rove-style politics. If we wind up with Hillary against McCain in the general, how will her attack-dog style play? I think some people feel sorry for him being victimized by Bush in 2000 via a whispering campaign, and he doesn’t come across as an attack-dog (although I think Pat Buchanan’s description of his foreign policy last night as “George W Bush on steroids” is totally accurate).
I see Hillary as the candidate that can create a lot of antipathy towards voting in the general, outside her natural hardcore base of 50+-year-old women. I guess we’ll see, but I’m still pulling for anyone but her to be the nominee.
We’re with you 100%. I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise.
As for the 16 years of experience, her claims to fame are a totally botched health care plan and standing by a serial philanderer. Not my idea of a stellar resume.
That’s why I love her claims of experience and being ready to start on day one…she hasn’t exactly been successful with her initiatives in the past, has she?
I tend to think that her next attempt at a health care plan is nothing more than something to talk about on the campaign trail.
Bill extended his policies.
Prison building, Truth in Sentencing, Drugwar. Death Penalty. “Plan Colombia.” Big Copyright.
Welfare reform, split decision. Better in boom times than any other, but in it’s pariculars, Clinton’s implementation was somewhat less humane than Tommy Thompson’s, which inspired it. To be fair, Thompson’s legislature, even during the stints of Republican colntrol, was less nutso than the Republicans in Clinton’s Congress.
I am surprised that we have not seen Edwards or Obama use the term, Clintonism, in this campaign and its deficiencies as a political agenda to go back to. That possibly has something to do with Bill Clinton’s popularity. Still as he keeps self-destructing, I think his negatives will open the opportunity to take a good look at what he actually did or didn’t do for the country in the 1990s.
I’ve yet to see anything to convince me to reverse my vow against Hillary since her IWR vote. Confirmation just keeps pilin’ up.
Should she win the nomination, I may not even vote for her in the general. She won’t need me in NY & I can save a clothes-pin for the laundry.
As for TPM contributor CN: why the hell should I vote like I’m hiring a lawyer?
I look for someone who’s from out of town, and thus not worried about losing the friendship of the DA.
Good to see you, Ben!
& thanks for the tip.
CNN:
It is bad enough to have to fight the rightwing. Now we have so-called progressive bloggers (Jerome Armstrong, Taylor Marsh, Jeralyn ) pimping for Team Clinton. Obama defends his reputation from the Clinton liars and that is considerd “negative campaigning.” What a lot of bullshit. They are determined to put the least progressive candidate in the White House.
I see you’re living up to your “Ibid. n/t” pledge!
:<)
I have to – writing my actual thoughts and feelings about the Clintons right about now could earn me a visit from the Secret Service…
I agree. Ethics good!
I do think that Obama’s campaign is playing two moves behind the Clinton campaign, irregardless of the gutter-level campaign tactics. This makes sense … the Clinton have been planning this campaign out in detail for 8 years, and have many many favors to call in (Bob Kerry, etc). But Obama is being put into the position of reacting, being put to a decision — rather than putting Clinton in a position where she has to react. It has thrown him off his game.
If he can’t find a way to make her campaign react, to get ahead of her a bit … he will lose.
Someone really has to hit the Clintons hard on the claim that they’ve survived everything the right has thrown at them. Survived? I beg to differ. The Clinton I presidency was severely crippled, with Bill being one of the walking wounded for much of his two terms. His vaunted political skills ushered in the disastrous Republican majority in the congress. He never received a majority of the popular vote, even when running against a reviled Bush I and an elderly Bob Dole. Bill Clinton was impeached for god sakes. Survival? only in the most literal sense.
Furthermore, we must always remember the upcoming recession/depression will be at least partially caused by the flawed economic policies and assumptions of Clintonism. It was not Bush who signed NAFTA and deregulated the baking industry. I’m not letting Bush off the hook: he lit the match that started this fire. But Bill Clinton poured the fuel that will let this economic situation get out of control. Yes, we must take a stand NOW, doing so later is a luxury we cannot afford.
I agree, hopefully Hillary won’t become the nominee. I will vote in November, but I don’t have to vote for President.
Edwards and his lying surrogates are now in on the 130 present votes. Even though obama explained how the Illinois senate works, they continue to spin it.
You made the same point, I’ve been making with no success:
It’s interesting to me that the same people who bewailed the dirty and underhanded tactics of the Republicans in the last election cycles are completely okay with it in the Clinton’s and use the excuse, “Well, the Republicans would do it?”
Think about that.
I was raised “two wrongs don’t make a right” and I live that way. I can’t believe there are self-identified progressives who think that these tactics are worthwhile in a fucking primary. I don’t care if the Dem. nominee employed these tactics against the GOP nominee, but with someone in your own party? Someone you’ll have to work with as long as you both stay in the Senate? Talk about serious bridge burning. But the Clinton’s have never really been about building bridges.
I do care if the Dems do it in the general.
I’ve called for Democrats to get down and dirty with deal with GOP shenanigans, whether it’s on the campaign stump or in the halls of Congress. It seems to be the only way to speak to the GOP side, in most cases. So, I’m just being consistent in what I’ve been saying.
Why make them do it? Perhaps if more ‘activists’ took it upon themselves to figure out what they could do to keep the ‘enemy’ out of the poll booths, their leaders wouldn’t have to sully themselves in doing so. Just sayin’.
I’d prefer my candidates not to get down and dirty, but you know as well as I do that the American public are fucking morons. If people will believe a rumor with no hesitation, and deny your provable facts with a doubtful glance and “I don’t know…”, the only other way to get their attention is down and dirty. Remember, these are the people who are giving us reality TV, Jerry Springer and VH1.
On the other hand, I know too many “activists” who spend more time worrying about what the Republicans may say, than spreading the love about their preferred candidate or cause.
The Clintons survived the Republican onslaught because they caved on most major issues. That’s not survival, that’s surrender.
the immigration problem we have today is a direct result of the Bill Clinton caving to the Republican’s quest for a draconian immigration reform in 1996.
So when Hillary sez she wants immigration reform, it might not be for the better.
WEll Booman I gotta say I agree with you on this, I have been quite disturbed over the way this has been heading with the Clinton’s,(since NH especially) Bill in particular bothers me a great deal.
I think he is hurting her more than anything and can’t understand their reasoning on this one. Also HRC didn’t help herself either last night with Obama, making these tedious and often moot points and then pressing them..
From what I’ve heard they think they are going in the right direction and won’t consider pulling back.
I missed the debates when they were on last night and found out from BMT they had been on and thanks to the debate thread I was able to catch right up on what happened, so it was very nice to find that here.
I have a question for you Booman, or anyone else who knows the answer, In talking to my sister who leans Rep. she has several times referred to HRC getting 3 mil. to do her health care thing in early Clinton Adm. and then spent 12 or 13 mil. That was the thing that turned her off of H. what do you know about this?
Hi Diane-
You didn’t give me enough information regarding HRC’s role in the Health Care project for me to really respond. It sounds like you are saying that she was compensated for her work on health care. If so, I know nothing about it. As for the spending of 12-13 million, I can’t decipher your meaning. Regardless, I don’t have any information about either thing.
What my sister says is that she (HRC) was “bugeted” 3 mil for the health care initiative and ended up spending 12 or 13 mil. That is all for the task force, not for her personally.
I can’t find anything on the costs associated with that program. I am curious about this as it may have been a Rep. talking point and I wonder at the veracity of the statement.
Well anyway, thanks for responding.
Oh, now I see what you’re saying. Basically, the suggestion is that ‘HillaryCare’ ran vastly overbudget. That I can believe, but it isn’t something I’d be too critical of Hillary over. It simply turned out to be very difficult to pass and so the negotiations went on and on.