I feel like the Clinton campaign holds me, the voter, in contempt

I feel that they think I'm stupid. Sorry, I can't explain it much better than that. (partly because I had a couple of glasses too many at dinner)'

I guess it's that I feel they think they can get away with anything and people will still vote for her. It's one thing after another, and one apology or distancing act after another. Do they really think voters won't notice or catch on?

The whole drugs/Obama thing is really beyond the pale, and it can't be blamed on a couple of low level volunteers or staffers.
And it's not just that. It's the sense I get from her whole campaign; it's a sense of frustrated entitlement.

I don't mean that in a bad way...

an individual.

But I'm wise enough to recognize that the story we saw about her campaign in August was a sham, and what we see of the Clinton campaign today is a sham... a series of incidents high-lighted to destroy her.

As you know, I can't stand her. But I'm not going to fall for an over-the-top text-book destruction of a high-profile Democrat as if I was seeing some sort of truth.

Every campaign makes mistakes every day. The decision as to whether they are a Big Deal is an editorial decision.

The Clinton campaign is indeed in trouble because it has lost all control over the media, and that's all that matters in the final analysis. But let's not pretends these appalling mis-cues and slights of the public intelligence are all real, or all significant.

For instance, I know for a fact that every AP story I have ever read about a campaign is a lie. Why, knowing that, would I come to believe I actually know what these campaigns are doing?

I agree that the public perception of Clinton is awful, and the accumulated stories about her the last six weeks are awful. But I also know that Gore treated the voters with similar contempt because the TV and newspapers told me so in 2000.

or is this her true character? that goodness i`m voting for dennis.

...tends to pile on a candidate (or even a person) once they make mistakes.
Reporters smell blood in the water, and they're like sharks.

In addition, the "Hillary Fall From Grace" stories sell well. It's a big
story.

I do get all of that. However, I have to say that the campaign Hillary
is running in Iowa is abysmal. Just a laughing stock. I see other
candidates who are not making the same mistakes that she is. In fact, most
of the candidates are doing quite well. Biden has gained in this state, and
he's done it because he's really speaking honestly to people and being real.

Iowa is a place where you get up close and personal with the voters. We
want to see you, talk with you after your speeches and ask you all sorts
of questions. Anyone in this state can meet all of the candidates and
talk one-on-one with them. The candidates are that accessible.

Hillary Clinton has not run her campaign like that. She gives big,
canned speeches that don't have a lot of meaning. It's as if she
couldn't come down from her macro-political activities and get micro. Look
at how she's planted questions at two of her Iowa speeches. The Clinton
camp thought they could come in with their sloganeering, their impersonal,
orchestrated speeches and a bag of dirty tricks--and win.

It has been a miserable failure.

Every other candidate has flourished in this environment. Edwards is all over
the state, meeting with small groups, participating in town-hall meetings.
Obama also meets in smaller groups and takes questions. Biden is doing
really well. It's the same with Richardson, plus he's got a strong base
of supporters who call people and remind them of his events.

Do you know, the only two Dem candidate camps that I haven't had contact--are
Clinton and Kucinich. What does that tell you? Kucinich has no office here
and isn't running an Iowa campaign. Clinton is not using her resources to call
people, invite them to events, ask them if they have questions or ask for
support. I get calls almost nightly from the rest of the candidates.

You've got to go viral in Iowa--and talk with lots of people and be real.
Hillary's inability to do this, exposes many negatives about her. That
really is a story.

If anything, I don't believe that the media has truly told the story of how
abysmal her campaign has been run in this state. It's truly been one
for the texbooks.

Obama has admitted to drug use--to a felony. He keeps bringing it up in his campaign. And you suggest that it is off limits to discuss?

I am simply amazed at that response.

We have brought up Huckabee's past statements
We have dissected Clinton's every move since Birth for god's sake.

And we are not allowed to question the felonious behavior and drug use of Obama? Why is that exactly?

When another candidate starts implying that Hillary is a murderer, then we can talk about questioning behavior.

Obama wrote about his drug use in a book in an attempt to put to rest any questions about it. But, questions are not off limits.

How far did the drug use go? Where did he get the drugs? Did he sell it to friends? Did he buy it? Did he take it to school?

Those are all common sense questions.

He implied nothing. Those questions are valid.

it was the politics of personal destruction. it damn well should be off limits. And the Clinton campaign evidently realizes that too, as Shaheen has apologized. I'm amazed that you think this is a legitimate area of attack. Did you think the bullshit about Bill Clinton smoking pot was a legitimate area of attack? He was a kid. No dem should be attacking him for it.

He admitted to a felony! This is not personal destruction! This is a significant issue. I would like to know.

Was this simple childhood experimentation? Or was this more?

He keeps bringing it up. I disagree that it is sleazy. It is not personal destruction.

before college. And that should be that. Why do you need to know more about it?

Wow, what an asshole. :eyes:

I guess it would have been much better for him to have said he didn't do coke, he simply liked the smell.

Just because some idiots in our government label drug use a felony doesn't mean that this is a major deal. He was a kid, all of us have skeletons in our closet, especially from the shit we did as kids. If you don't have any skeletons then congratulations, you must have a wonderful life in your little bubble. This proves he is human, he was able to admit a mistake without bullshitting us (like we were some kind of idiots), and try to put it behind him. Why can't you be supportive of that?

I am by no means a Obama supporter at this point, but this is down right sleazy. And frankly I don't think the wife of a guy that said he put a joint in his mouth but didn't inhale has any right to pull crap like this.

Juvenile offenses aren't even part of an individual's record when they hit 18, so how is it relevant again since there doesn't appear to be any adult repeats?

...have been listening to all the candidates.

In the course of the primary campaigning, we all knew that Obama
tried cocaine. He admitted it and wrote about it in his book.

Everyone has known about this for several months.

However, Obama is rising in the polls. So obviously, the
people in this country have decided that if a person experiments
with drugs as a teenager, it is pretty much not a deal breaker.

The people have spoken, and they continue to speak.

What has changed is that a political opponent---not the
American people--has decided to stir up the pot by
resurrecting this story and gaining a few points by attacking
an opponent with their past indiscretions. Somewhere, at a
table, Hillary and her cohorts sat down and decided that it
was strategic to enrich themselves by attacking the now-frontrunner
on his teenage drug use.

I'm not an Obama supporter. However, I find it more amoral when
a grown adult engages in gotcha-negative-campaign tactics than when
a teenager experiments with drugs and goes on to admit it and
say it was a mistake.

I expected nothing better from Repugs.

I'm ashamed that a Democratic campaign and, apparantly, some Democratic supporters think this is "fair game."

Bradley was my Senator - he was attacked for running because it was thought that after being an excellent VP and standing behind BC though everything, the nomination was Gore's for the asking. He was said to be "boring", which he wasn't and they made an issue over his health, when there was no issue.

jumping on every thread criticizing Dean.

And hillary's the one that nobody better criticize or a pack of wolves jump on and call you a "hillary hater".

click on. Hillary defenders a pack of wolves? Like a pack of wolves being trampled by 100,000 buffalo maybe.

--also pretty much called Bill Clinton a liar.

"Of course I inhaled --uh--that was kind of the point"

haw haw haw.

I get more worried about him becoming the nominee each day.

national stage.

if hillary did bong hits at wellesley-who gives a fuck?


no one gives a fuck out here in the real world. me i`m worried about the next house payment and if i`m i`ll ever find a decent job at 61 years old. there`s tens of millions of voters out here in the real world that could care less about what obama did in 1995....

all with in a few days....i think they really do think we are that dumb....

The kindergarten distortion is this year's equivalent of Gore inventing the internet of John Kerry being for it before he was against it. No real truth behind the lines but they are attention getting so they get repeated forever.

Whoever gets the Dem nomination will be a victim of this tactic. Those who don't condemn it now have no business condemning it later.

Edwards isn't immune from having his past examined
There's nothing shocking about the Obama opposition research on Edwards. Opposition research is part of EVERY candidate's campaign- even if you don't normally get a peek at it. And Edward's voting record and his work for and investment in a hedge fund, aren't off limits. Edwards continually throws around the insinuation/accusation that Obama and Clinton are corporatists, no better than repukes. Fine. But he doesn't just get to dish it out, not with his own corporate background. Hedge Funds are the bottom of the Wall Street barrel, and Edwards' work/investment is of recent vintage. And I think it's the most disturbing thing about him.

I guess it's okay for Obama to "research" John Edwards but it's not okay for Hillary Clinton's team to research Barack Obama.

hypocrisy about policies are all legit. Personal crap isn't. If someone started hinting that JE was uncaring because he was pursuing the presidency while his wife has a life threatening illness, I'd be equally disgusted. If another candidate made a cheap shot about Clinton's marriage or personal life, same thing. Obama's opposition research had zip to do with Edwards' personal life, or anthing he did as a teenager.

I think all drugs should be legalized, but today's camp-fire cry-out about how a candidate's criminal past is beyond mention in American politics is insane.

I don't care if Obama is high right now.

But a person's criminal past is ALWAYS fair game in politics. People are acting like Obama should have a medal pinned on him for his candor without recognizing that countless people are in jail for cocaine. We have a national cocaine Gulag. So society obviously thinks cocaine is a big fucking deal. The same society that picks presidents.

And the argument that it is out of bounds discussing Obama's electability in the GE in light of his biography is bat-shit crazy, particularly when coming from people (not you)who have argued against Clinton's candidacy from DAY ONE on the basis that Republicans would rake over her scandalous past!

If Obama wanted my vote he could get it tonight by promising to pardon every person in jail for drug possession as his first official act. But he isn't going to do that, for political reasons... so because he wasn't caught it's a cute story about his rich life experience, but other people's lives are utterly ruined for the same damn thing.

If it is a crime wicked enough to destroy people's lives for, then it is obviously wicked enough to mention (gasp!) in politics.

You explained it well and covered some aspects I hadn't thought about.

:thumbsup:

This isn't just personal crap. Drug use is a disease that has permeated millions of households, destroyed families and made permanent cripples out of children.

Past drug use is pertinent and fair game. Just because somebody openly admits drug use is naive if they think that's all that will be said about it. Republicans play the politics of personal destruction very well. They are pros at it and they will skewer and barbecue Obama if he wins the primary.

That's not all either. They will research every dirty joke or swear word he's uttered since the age of five and will make him sound like a moral derelict.

There is nothing dirtier, meaner and more amoral than the Republican smear machine. That's what we're talking about isn't it? It all comes down to winning.

I consider this a test for Obama and his people. If they can't handle this mild exploitation of Obama's political liabilities, they won't be able to handle the GOP machine come next year.

keep saying he admitted to a "felony" nice Hannity and Rush behavior. You, like Hannity and Rush, suck! You just keep wanting to label based upon something that happened in the past and or taken out of context. Any you wonder why people won't support her in the GE. UNBELIEVABLE.

-- of mentioning the truth about Obama being considered an attack.

It's driving me crazy.

when the drug issue would be raised, not if.

For instance:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/02/AR2007010201359_pf.html

I can tell you I have thought about it a few times and wondered as well.

That's how I feel about Obama and Edwards' campaigns

...to all of the Clinton lies, bullshit, dishonest campaigning
and more bullshit.

I'm still reeling from how she glided into the state, tried to
lie to all of us with her orchestrated events and get my fellow
Iowans to ask planted questions. Then, she has the audacity to
lie about it, "Oh gee...we didn't know that was happening. We
would never condone that."

Bullshit. Someone else came forward and said that a Clinton staffer
asked them to ask a planted question. It was a pattern that was only
broken because two Iowans exposed the Clinton campaign.

I read about Mrs. Clinton's misguided comments all of the time. She
was practically perplexed and "couldn't get a handle on this state!".
The problem was, she had to get real. She couldn't do it. She
expected to give big, impersonal speeches and ride in on her
inevitability train going to Entitlementville.

I'm sorry, but I've gone from disgust to no longer having the patience
to hear one more sorry story about this disingenuous screwball and
her squawking minions who don't know how to stand still for five seconds,
listen to people and take honest questions from voters.

It's really appalling.

were on the attack or this is just a Hillary thing because you don't like her anyway?

I think that her campaign made some stupid moves like the kindergarten issue, but if you really think that her campaign is practicing the politics of destruction then you haven't seen anything yet. Wait and see what will happen to him if he actually manages to win the nomination. The Repugs will chew him up and spit him. There'll be a constant barrage about him being muslim, allied to terrorists, a drug user, etc., etc. They're already doing it in their blogs.

I think Hillary should resign from the race and become Obama's coach on how to deal with the Republican dirty trick attacks. That's what you're insinuating with your post.

The Republicans will go for his throat and reap it open just as they tried to do to the Clintons' for years. The difference being that they survived and thrived and I don't see Obama surviving the Republican machine.

notice they start out with a I don't care but and then slam Hillary....

Try not being a hypocrite for at least one day, will you.

in complete contempt, even your personal favorite.

Would I see the same dismay at Obama's campaigns characterization of Hillary as "D-Punjab", along with unnecessary attacks on her support from Indian-Americans...

Would I see the same dismay at Obama's use of discredited right wing talking points from Jeffrey Gerth of Hillary's "20 year plan" for the Presidency..

Would I see the same dismay at Obama's campaign's implication that Paul Krugman is a liar...

Would I see the same dismay at Obama's use of Donnie McClurkin to appeal to anti-gay Democrats...

Would I see the same dismay at Obama's repeated blaming of his staff for his campaign's miscues...

Would I see the same dismay at Obama's shameless use of an uncorroborated, hearsay article from right wing shill Bob Novak to attack Hillary...

Would I see the same dismay at Obama's hiring of David Gibbs, chief spokesman for the group that produced the infamous Osama bin Laden hit ad directed at Howard Dean 4 years ago?

Would I see the same dismay from you on all of these occasions that you have expressed here?

Just how stupid do they think we are? Very. Apparently.

That's one huge factor that is so off-putting about Hillary and her campaign. It seems like she can barely conceal her contempt that she's not just automatically handed the nomination ... and how dare we peons question her inevitability?