Perspective from the fence: I have no remaining sympathy for HRC

As a disclaimer, I still very well may vote for Hillary. But what has happened since her husband has become so involved in the race is that I have lost any sympathy for her cause. At one point in the run-up to NH, I actually found myself feeling a bit sorry that she wasn't seeming to be getting a fair shake from the voters. But I blame her campaign machine for dragging this primary process down into the mud. I can think of numerous examples, from the oblique insinuations that a Barack presidency would practically invite Al-Qaeda to her husband's newfound mean streak, of the cynical kind of politics that I am just tired of.

who the hell is asking for your sympathy? I think Clinton would like your vote, but will find a way to go on despite losing your sympathy.

:eyes:

but this time he's desperate to win. He's almost frantic in his put downs of Obama. It's like Hill gave him an ultimatum that he owes her big time since he screwed up their marriage.

Count on it...

Just because you say something emphatically, it doesn't make it automatically come true.

Did it scare you a little? I am just saying that there is almost no way for Obama to win the nomination. I have looked at it and I don't see it. Of course, I could be wrong, so don't get shook...

:eyes: :rofl: :eyes:

When Clinton wins will you cry? Come on, it's okay to admit it. You'll cry a little, won't you? That's okay. We all can get so emotional during these times... :thumbsup:

you don't like it. And the clintons should suck their dlc teat with their offshore accounts sipping fookin' mai tais in the Gobi desert.

thing dispassionately. The fix is in. The corporations have spoken. I will not vote for Clinton. I won't vote for Obama, either. But, I do not believe that it makes any difference who any of us vote for. I believe the deal is done. So insult Clinton all you want, I could care less. She is owned by the corporations - no one doubts that. But I believe that Obama is, as well. It is just that you and so many others seem to be so caught up in this, to the point that you cannot see what is going on. Anyway, just hang in there...

it insults. I know the so-called fix is in..I haven't been on DU for nothing these last 5 years but I'm waiting for a fookin' miracle, that does happen occasionally, to lead us away from the dlc nightmare that you predict for DC.

Okay.

"And the clintons should suck their dlc teat with their offshore accounts sipping fookin' mai tais in the Gobi desert."

Whatever.

And hope springs eternal - it's what Clinton and Obama count on...

quote..Welcome to DU!

invite Al-Qaeda to Bill Clinton's newfound mean streak?

I have lots of sympathy for Hillary. So much so that I want to protect her from the attacks she would face if she became the nominee. Hey, even if she was my mom, my sister or my aunt, the needs of the country outweigh the needs (or powerlust) of the one.

who send our Soldiers to war to further her presidential aspirations.

Good on ya' for buying a right wing talking point.

I saw 2 politicians fighting it out - albeit one of them - Obama - was trying for the facade of "uniter", despite his history in his past campaigns of using every lever to win (including vote denial for opponent via legal challenges to signatures on petitions that was too costly for them to defend).

They are both good choices - and both appear to play by the few rules that exist for this game.

I don't really know if Michelle and Oprah are better surrogates than Bill Clinton - but I hope folks will vote based on the candidates - not the surrogates. Michelle "lied" the other day in a speech in an accusation thrown at Hillary - but everyone including the Clinton campaign and the media chose to not make a big deal about it. Heck - I just noted the fact of the "lie" and didn't even bookmark it - it is standard operating procedure to see things in a light favorable to the one you want elected - and the lie could have been just an unusually large spin in that direction.

I just don't see the dragging in the mud - but as I said at the beginning - what you see depends on where you sit.

Let's be honest here.

DJ13 (418 posts) Tue Jan-22-08 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
10. Zip It, Bill!
Karen Russell
Tue Jan 22, 10:50 AM ET

Senator Obama nailed it during the South Carolina debate when he mentioned Bill Clinton, "I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes."

http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/huffpost/cm_huffpost/s ... /*http://hillaryattacks.barackobama.com /
Don't get me wrong. I love Bill Clinton. I always have. I hope I always will. But lately, not so much.

In the '90s President Clinton's slickness was just sad and creepy. I remember "slick" Clinton when he fibbed that he "didn't inhale". I cringed when Clinton wagged his finger at America insisting that he did not "have sexual relations with that woman." I was downright embarrassed when, with a straight-face, Clinton declared "that depends on the definition of what "is" is.

Well, "slick" Clinton is back. Frankly, I'm disappointed.

Before Iowa, "Hillary the Inevitable" had the numbers, the machine and the name on her side in this race. Despite being the clear and unequivocal underdog, Obama built a grassroots campaign, brought in independents and got disillusioned Republicans to cross the aisle.

Obama starting gaining ground and closing the gap. That's when the "fun" started. That's when Hillary told reporters about her plans to attack Obama.

For months, we saw "the inevitable frontrunner" running a tight and disciplined campaign. Then as Obama rose in the polls, suddenly Hillary and her surrogates started dropping a series of "misunderstood" slurs. They fit a familiar pattern, "smear, play dumb, own up and apologize". Rinse, lather and repeat.

We are supposed to believe that as Obama gained ground on Clinton that it's just mere coincidence that Clinton surrogates painted Obama as a risky "shucking and jiving", "roll of the dice", "cocaine-loving", "drug-dealing", ";Reagan-loving", "closet-Muslim" , "fairytale-living", "establishment", "less black than President Clinton" "rookie"?

We are supposed to believe that these are isolated "mistakes". Remember these are the people who went after Senator Obama's kindergarten record and then tried play it off as a joke.

Now it appears that "Trasher-in-Chief" Bill is in charge of keeping the "fun" going. Apparently, the Clinton campaign figured out that having Hillary taking the cheap shots at her opponents made her less "likable".

It started with Clinton trashing Obama on the war. When a red-faced and angry Clinton twisted Obama's anti-war record calling it a "fairytale". However, according to the New York Times, "; a review of Mr. Obama's statements on Iraq since 2002 shows that he has opposed the war against Saddam Hussein consistently, calling it ''dumb'' and ''rash.'' "

All of the Clinton's huffing and puffing won't change the fact that Hillary Clinton voted for the war and that Obama has always been against it.

Then in Nevada, Clinton claimed that Obama was running ads "telling Republicans that they ought to just register as Democrats for a day so they can beat Hillary and go out and be Republicans next week and vote in the primary. Doesn't sound like the new politics to me."

This simply isn't true. Those ads don't exist. To many, the idea of getting Republicans to cross the aisle and become "Obama Republicans" is appealing. Remind me again, what is wrong with trying to woo independents and Republicans? Taylor Marsh seems to think there's something wrong with that.

Ms. Marsh, also ran with the Clinton exaggeration of voter intimidation, "New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign had a story it wanted to tell this week, so it turned to a friendly blogger. Taylor Marsh, who in the past has been paid by a union now backing Clinton, quickly ran with the story: Members of the Culinary Union were being intimidated to vote for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, whom the union endorsed last week. Under scrutiny, the story didn't exactly pan out. But no matter."

President Clinton went on to claim Obama said Republicans had all the good ideas, "Her principal opponent said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas...I can't imagine any Democrat seeking the presidency would say they were the party of new ideas for the last 15 years. But it sounded good in Reno I guess...So now it turns out you can choose between somebody who thinks our ideas or better or the Republicans had all the good ideas."

The Clinton assertion that Obama said Republicans had "all the good ideas" just isn't true. Obama said the Republican challenged "conventional wisdom" and moved the country in a fundamentally different direction and that we Democrats can learn from that strategy. That people wanted optimism, clarity and to talk differently about issues and values. Obama pointed out that the unfortunately the Republican ideas promoted by this strategy were bad and wrong.

When Obama was asked how his being the nominee would help other Democrats get elected he said, "I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. They felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating and he tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is, people wanted clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamic and entrepreneurship that had been missing, alright? I think Kennedy, twenty years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times. I think we're in one of those times right now. Where people feel like things as they are going aren't working. We're bogged down in the same arguments that we've been having, and they're not useful. And, you know, the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out. I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you've heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they're being debated among the Presidential candidates and it's all tax cuts. Well, you know, we've done that, we tried it. That's not really going to solve our energy problems, for example. So, some of it's the times. And some of it's, I think, there's maybe a generation element to this, partly. In the sense that there's a, I didn't did come of age in the battles of the 60s. I'm not as invested in them. And so I think I talk differently about issues. And I think I talk differently about values. And that's why, I think we've been resonating with the American people."

Senator Clinton continued "the twist" of Obama's words during the debate. Why is Team Billary twisting the facts on Senator Obama? They are playing to win, truth be damned. Campaigning for his wife is one thing but continuing to trash Obama with misrepresentations is frankly disappointing. Daddy Bush didn't trash John McCain when McCain was running against Shrub. Clinton needs to rein it in. If Hillary can't control Bill or her surrogates, why do we believe she's ready to lead on day one?

Think about how the Clinton campaign responded to Bob Johnson's smear. When she was caught between a rock and a big donor, look how she responded.

First, they denied it was a smear and "took him on his word". Yeah, right. Unlike less powerful surrogates, they couldn't get Johnson to walk the plank. Finally, after Johnson was rightfully shamed into apologizing, Clinton conveniently flip-flopped claiming Johnson was "out of bounds". Hillary was for the smear before she was against it. It's familiar territory for her.

And, if it's true that Hillary is not campaigning in South Carolina, this is just the Clintons lowering expectations.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080122/cm_huffpost/0 ... ;_ylt=AtDt1i93AQHVgpICphNm1Das0NUE

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
"We have an obligation and a responsibility to be investing in our students and our schools. We must make sure that people who have the grades, the desire and the will, but not the money, can still get the best education possible.” Barack Obama

Her statement the day after the MLK Day debate sealed it.

If she gets the nomination, I will be reduced to the role of the prole waddling in to vote for the lesser of two evils.

these feelings from the mainstream news reports, too?

I wasn't planning on voting for her at all- but the more I read here, the more I am inclined.

Who votes for a candidate based on sympathy? Just plain silly. Should I vote for Edwards because a child of his died and his wife has breast cancer?

worship. The sympathy and the decision to vote are two different issues. Very different.
A few more possible reasons: MSM never stops cheerleading for Obama - clue enough who they want to aboif their boy running against. She is tough - been fighting them for 16 years.
But I wasn't being disingenuous - I am still on the fence - we debate this in our family daily. (they tell me to spend less time on DU - but Air America ain't better)

Of course, my sympathy, or trust, of any politician is minimal..to say the least. But, Hillary doesn't even fit into minimal.

I don't see a lot of suffering when I look at her.