Fear Mongering Ads, Embracing John McCain, Ambivalence over Obama's religion...What's H.C. Thinking?

What the hell? She put John McCain before Obama??? She's running scary national security ads?? She failed to quiet a smear against a fellow democrat?

Can somebody tell me what she's thinking? I mean she's already not likely to get many independents or republicans, why is she offending democrats? How's she going to win in the general?

These are republican tactics she's using.

where do I start?

Not one thing in your OP is true.

think of that would make that not true is the use of the plural, although if an ad runs more than once??????

I call it an old Mondale ad

as you've just done, but I gotta tell you (as if you don't already know) that the people who make the flamebait posts won't accept mature answer such as yours.

But I give you all the credit I can for trying to deal with them as if they were actually interested in a DISCUSSION, anyway.

Redstone

run by fear and falsehoods.

:hi:

I love how you say, "It's not true," and then say nothing more. If it weren't true, perhaps you'd be able to tell us why. But you can't...she already compared John McCain favorably to Obama, waffled on whether or not he's a Christian, and her campaign has smeared him every which way possible.

The best part is, after all that, Hillary is still toast. 12 more hours.

and integrity.

People who buy into dirty campaign tactics, half truths and outright lies are easily led and will fall into line at the voting booth when someone plays into their fears and prejudices.

You just about perfectly described the average Obama supporter.

thing that Hillary has done to try and win.

Go ahead and condone it. Keep sticking up for her. If she gets the nomination by these tactics it will cost her in the general. Many dems will stay home and she will NOT get independent votes and the votes of diseffected republicans.

She has shown that there is no difference between her campaign and the campaigns run by Karl Rove.

dirtiest, slimeyist, most repugnant campaigns I've ever seen.

and I've seen bunches of 'em.

Read this and tell me how your candidate has taken the high road in this campaign and in her decisions as a senator and as a candidate!


transcription of Ms. Clinton’s remarks:

I admire your willingness to speak out on behalf of of the women and children of Iraq. There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm’s way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.

If he was serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming coming. There may be progress, we may be destroying the Samoud missiles, but there is no accounting for the chemical and biological stocks. And I just respectfully disagree about what the proximate cause of any action that may be taken is.

Now I also believe that for now nearly 20 years the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered is because of his leadership. His not only tyrannical and dictatorial leadership, but his reign of terror against women and children. And it is a — it is a very unfortunate situation for the Iraqi people that they have been so horribly misgoverned for so long.

Now, I do think that there are continuing discussions ongoing that I hope can make some further progress building on the success of the missile destruction program. But that has been the first real compliance, and it was only brought about when the inspectors discovered the missiles — they were not revealed — that their length was longer than what had been prescribed under the resolutions ending the Gulf War.

And the very difficult question for all of us is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment if not an obsession with weapons of mass destruction. And I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn’t believe should be in any way a part this decision.

And it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we not only had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein and a willingness on his part to disarm and account for his chemical and biological storehouses, but that if we had a much broader alliance and coalition.

But we are in a very difficult position right now. And so I would love to agree with you, but I can’t based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation.

In response to a question from an audience member:

… With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein. I just do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for the United States leadership.

And I’m talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council Resolution to save the the Kosavar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States. And we had to do it alone.

It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations. They would not.

I’m happy that in the face of such horrible suffering we did act. And so I see it somewhat differently, if you’ll forgive me, from my experience and perspective.

I’m agreeing with you a hundred percent that even though I am willing to take a very difficult step for me to say we have to disarm this man. That position in no way supports the disastrous economic policies that this administration is pursuing. In fact I think that this is the height of irresponsibility.

And it would be far preferable to be more patient and more thoughtful and more willing to try to engender support with respect to Iraq. That is a decision that has to be made in the world community.

Here at home this administration is bankrupting our economy, forcing us to make the worst kinds of false choices between national and homeland security, which they don’t fund. And between security and everything else, which they don’t want to fund.

So you have me a hundred percent on that. And it is absolutely wrong — it is wrong that for the first time in American history we have a President who is talking about leading this country to war and wanting to cut taxes at the same time.

That is the height of cruel, arrogant irresponsibility.

Now compare her comments with those reported by her fans at the New York Times:

Clinton Calls on Bush to ‘Extricate’ U.S. From Iraq

January 28, 2007
By PATRICK HEALY

DAVENPORT, Iowa, Jan. 28 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton called today for President Bush to “extricate our country” from Iraq by the time he leaves office in 2009, and she also said she knew enough about “evil and bad men” to protect the country from its enemies…

One person in the audience pressed Mrs. Clinton on her vote authorizing military action in Iraq in 2002, saying she allowed “the president to go to war,” and asked for specific steps she would take to end the war. She replied by selectively quoting from her speech in 2002 about her vote, saying it was not cast “for pre-emptive war,” but rather as leverage for the president to work diplomatic channels. (She did not mention that she also said at the time that she cast her vote "with conviction.")

Mrs. Clinton also took issue with President Bush’s recent statements that he did not expect to have the troops out of Iraq by the time he leaves office.

“I think it’s the height of irresponsibility and I really resent it — this was his decision to go to war, he went with an ill-conceived plan, an incompetently executed strategy, and we should expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office,” the senator said this morning…

Hillary Clinton is a liar.


http://sweetness-light.com/archive/hillary-clintons-lies-about-iraq-caught-on-video-tape

Obama's dirty slimey campaign tactics?

and his campaign has not engaged in dirty politics unlike your vile lying candidate!

1. sending out the "muslim" email.

2. surrogates accusing Obama of selling drugs

3. publishing a picture of Obama in "scary" clothing

4. Choice mailer that was denounced by NARAL

5. Red phone add

6. threatening lawsuits in Texas

need I go on?

all your points are lies.

I have had enough of the lies from the Obama camp.

and your candidates insurmountable lies and contradictions.

I hope you can sleep well at night while our men and women in uniform are getting their limbs blown off.

using our troops as political fodder on a message board.

If you really knew a damned thing about IWR you would know it wasn't a vote for pre-emptive war.

Bush is guilty of war crimes precisely because he didn't follow the IWR's intent.

When you accuse Democrats of voting for the war --you are excusing Bush of his war crimes, and playing intp Rovian distortion of the vote.

Shame on you.

HILLARY USED THE TROOPS AS POLITCAL FODDER FOR HER OWN AMBITIONS!!!

You need an education!!!! My god, you ignorant hillary supporters sicken me.

their ability to project the behavior and faults of their candidate as well as supporters on others and seemingly believing that is reality

pre-emptive war? Could you quote to me the part that said that the UN would be given time to finish their inspections? YU can't because nothing in the IWR said any of that. It was the Iraq WAR RESOLUTION....duh! It authorized....DuH....WAR. As in....WAR! You know, WAR. As in the Iraq WAR Resolution....get it yet>? WAR!

whatta moronic request you make --hey --why don't you show me where ENDA doesn't authorize pre-emptive war as well.

Here's the truth: Neither of them have run slimy, dirty campaigns. Hillary has been more negative, but nothing she's done rises to the level of slimy and dirty. You constantly make charges such as the one in your post, but NEVER back it up. That's slimy and dirty. Clinton has been going negative. That's not even debatable. Every analyst and pundit has noted it. Time for Obama to return the favor with interest. You can't avoid going negative if your opponent is playing it that way. And he has such a treasure chest to work with; all new post Clinton presidency stuff: Hsu, Gupta, Paul, Giustra, Tax Returns, etc.

...then you are merely a liar. The untrue garbage that seems to flow out of your keyboard is disgusting.

<click>

that Obama supporters would claim Clinton supporters can't think for themselves.

Thank goodness you are only dealing with cartoons and not what actually happened!

just as she was thinking about 2008 for the last 7 years. Extra hard thinking when she kicked John Kerry in the balls.

So she and her campaign thinks its best to try and derail the probable nominee while she's still relevant so Obama's Republican opponent has a shot at beating him in the GE.

Its the "2012 or bust" strategy, and its disgusting that she would consider damaging her party's best chance to retake the WH just so she can try at a later date.

Sergio Vieira De Mello

She doesn't need the party -- its about a coronation, not silly votes.

And that firm has also made a specialty of suppressing reports about GENOCIDE.

Yeah, Rove tactics all the way.

That's good because I think he is a horse's ass. It's a good thing he hasn't been that involved. I just can't figure what he did for his 8 million clams :shrug:

behavior that i saw thru bushco last 8 yrs. scares me to death hillary being one with bush. lots of examples of learned behavior adopted for this race. i do not want it to become a norm.

I think she's angry that she's had such a difficult campaign, and she can't believe that Obama has attracted so many voters with his message of hope. She thought running for the Democratic Presidential Nomination would be a cakewalk,and it hasn't turned out to be. She seems petty enough not to care if she hurts the Democratic Party with her negative tactics. She may figure if worse comes to worse, she can be McCain's running mate.

turned ON, for short-term gain against Obama at the risk of continued Republican control of the WH and USSC appointments.

I believe Hillary's negative campaigning is turning off hundreds of thousands of potential new Democratic voters, perhaps for DECADES. There's a pretty big political science literature on how negative campaigning is aimed not at getting voters to switch from one candidate to another, but rather to deter marginal supporters of an opponent from voting at all. (See, for example, http://pcl.stanford.edu/common/docs/research/iyengar/1996/goingneg.html ).

I don't think it's accidental that Obama's Kennedyesque positive campaign resonated with young people, independents, and even some Republicans, drawing hundreds of thousands of them into first-time participation in Democratic primaries and caucuses this year. Positivity draws in new voters, while negative campaigning returns predictable percentages of those new voters and potential new voters to their previous apathy, and to new high levels of long-term cynicism about politics.

Hillary, whose greatest strength is with public employee unions and other big-city "machine" Democrats, is directly targeting those potential new young and independent Obama supporters. "The machine" does not want new Democrats--they're comfortable with the graft and corrupt relations with lobbyists and PACs they already have. The machine has electorates who will vote reliably exactly as they're TOLD to vote. Idealistic young people, independents, and Republicans returning from the dark side are are too unpredictable and might turn out some of the rascals the Machine wants kept in power.

Hillary has little hope of winning Obama supporters over to her side, but that's not her objective. I'm afraid her traitorous negative messages against Obama are going to deter hundreds of thousands or millions of them from voting in November and make them much more apathetic about politics for many years into the future.

In the long run, Hillary's negative attacks on Obama spell political suicide for the Democratic Party.

And, looking ahead to November, her main angle of attack is politically suicidal for Hillary herself.

What would McCain's "red phone" ad against potential Democratic nominee Hillary look like?

She's "hoisting herself on her own petard" by claiming superior military/foreign policy "experience" is the most important factor in choosing a President.

Sad to say, but you hit every nail right on the head.

1960 election, according to some of the studies at the Stanford link in my first post (#35).

Should Hillary stay in after March 4th and should she continue her negative attacks on Obama, we may see declines in open-Primary exit-poll proportions of youth, and independents, and Republicans, if those studies are correct.

So we start off with record turnouts, and eventually turn off people by negative campaigning.

Missed opportunity.

cheat lie and steal. Don't worry about those bodies you're stepping over.

Even if she could pull off a 'win'- she will have sold her soul in the process.


peace~

She has firmly set foot into political history as the absolutely worst run, most divisive and effectively a turncoat operation against the Democratic Party than there ever was. It's not over yet. The epilogue to this woefully destructive campaign is yet to reveal...and you can bet it is going to be ugly...very, very ugly.

She's "just getting warmed up". I think she is either on something or just has let her inner self-hate take over.

:puke:

:puke:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4866144

Either...

(1) She's looking to politically damage Obama, regardless of the veracity of the charges, to the point where the Democratic superdelegates feel that he cannot win against McCain in November, and so will anoint her as the Democratic nominee -- overriding Obama's pledged delegate plurality.

... or ...

(2) She's already accepted that Obama will be the nominee and, in coordination with Democratic elders, is orchestrating a strategic smear campaign to air expected Republican attacks against Obama early, so that they'll later sound redundant and dated when trotted-out by the Right Wing propaganda machine.

Something tells me #1 is the correct answer.

what audacity!

... and will type slowly.

Hillary cannot overtake Obama's pledged delegate lead, and so the surge in negative attacks and smears coming from the Clinton campaign is designed more to influence the superdelegates than the voters. Hillary's only chance to gain the nomination is by the superdelegates overriding Obama's pledged delegate plurality.

"Running against Obama" is non-specific, while the above provides a specific, detailed, unemotional, fact-based response to the OPer's original question.

Good day.

it's very unlikely Obama can secure the nomination with pledged delegates. He, too, will need superdelegates to go over the top.

They're both doing the same thing - running for the nomination.

> They're both doing the same thing - running for the nomination.

Yes. They are both running for the nomination.


> (Obama), too, will need superdelegates to go over the top.

Yes. He will. But the difference is that only Hillary is now in the position of requiring that the pledged delegate majority, the will of the voters, be overridden for her to receive the Democratic nomination.


Please note that this response is rhetorical, in that I won't be looking for a response.

Let the primaries play out. The fact is, they've very close. If you count Florida and MI, they're even closer. IF you count DEMOCRATIC votes only, she's ahead.

And then she'll name some douchebag as her veep choice and then ride quietly off into the sunset of politics, never to be heard from again.

Hopefully.

That easy enough to see: She is thinking ONLY of herself.

Fuck her...I am done with her.

and the American public loses again. That's what she's "Thinking". :eyes: