Gary Hart: Breaking the Final Rule

from HuffPost:




Gary Hart
Breaking the Final Rule
Posted March 7, 2008 | 12:45 PM (EST)


It will come as a surprise to many people that there are rules in politics. Most of those rules are unwritten and are based on common understandings, acceptable practices, and the best interest of the political party a candidate seeks to lead. One of those rules is this: Do not provide ammunition to the opposition party that can be used to destroy your party's nominee. This is a hyper-truth where the presidential contest is concerned.

By saying that only she and John McCain are qualified to lead the country, particularly in times of crisis, Hillary Clinton has broken that rule, severely damaged the Democratic candidate who may well be the party's nominee, and, perhaps most ominously, revealed the unlimited lengths to which she will go to achieve power. She has essentially said that the Democratic party deserves to lose unless it nominates her.

As a veteran of red telephone ads and "where's the beef" cleverness, I am keenly aware that sharp elbows get thrown by those trailing in the fourth quarter (and sometimes even earlier). "Politics ain't beanbag," is the old slogan. But that does not mean that it must also be rule-or-ruin, me-first-and-only-me, my way or the highway. That is not politics. That is raw, unrestrained ambition for power that cannot accept the will of the voters.

Senator Obama is right to say the issue is judgment not years in Washington. If Mrs. Clinton loses the nomination, her failure will be traced to the date she voted to empower George W. Bush to invade Iraq. That is not the kind of judgment, or wisdom, required by the leader answering the phone in the night. For her now to claim that Senator Obama is not qualified to answer the crisis phone is the height of irony if not chutzpah, and calls into question whether her primary loyalty is to the Democratic party and the nation or to her own ambition.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/breaking-the-final-rule_b_90420.html

Saying she and McCain are the only ones qualified to be president is exactly the same thing as saying that Obama is the only one who isn't. That's what you do when you run for office. You say your candidate is not qualified - just as O's campaign has been saying about HRC.

Oh, the humanity. She questioned Obama's qualifications to be president. Spare me the drama Gary.

Sounds exactly like when BC mentioned JJ's win historic in SC - and suddenly according to the Obamaniacs he's a serial racist bigot.

This is the crap that damages the party - not questioning an opponent's qualifications.

Note: I think the comment referred to CINC - not president, anyway.

why can't she simply say that she is more qualified, why does she mention McCain?

She's pointing out that if O winds the nomination that voters will see that he's not as qualified as McCain. It's not some sinister plot. It's campaigning. It's pointing out your opponent's weaknesses. That's how you campaign.

Note: I think the comment re: CINC - not president, anyway.

She does this all the freakin' time. I don't know why more people can't see it.

The issue cannot be experience. She loses to McCain and Obama loses to McCain on that issue. The issue is Judgment. We win on Judgment.

. . no-one will enter the voting booth and if it's down to Obama and McCain - decide they must vote for McCain because HRC said that he was more qualified than Obama when she was locked into a bitter nomination battle against Obama - last March.

Most voting age adults in America are very aware of marketing and agenda-driven statements and discount them accordingly.

It's really no big deal.

Note: I think the comment re: CINC - not president, anyway.

no - most voting age adults are not aware of the marketing and agenda driven statements and discounting them accordingly.

they hear it enough and it must be true.

for chrissakes - i'm dealing with Obama is a Muslim sent by the terrists every other freakin day. In '04 50% of the argument on the right was "Kerry was a flip flopper" no legitimate discussion of issues. not legitimate analysis of voting record. "he was a flip flopper and he probably faked his injuries in Vietnam."

Democrats are at each others throat for basically two republican candidates. Yes i'm talking about Obama and Hillary, these two have basically the same platform on health care (corporations will still make decisions on your care) and both will be in Iraq much, much longer than any of us can imagine. Finally Nafta only gets lip service and the only way that will change is if we have a depression, short of that it is going to change very little. Lighten up on each other the real progressives are out of the race, the corporations have already won!!! Vote for the candidate who will put the most progressive judge on the supreme court, that's all that is left...

BTW Never forget the criminal Fascist enablers, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reed, Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emanuel, Jay Rockefeller still have jobs. They are the real enemy to our Democracy right now....

I believe Dean who I love..first called Kerry a flip flopper. Of course what our candidates say about each other will be used against them in the general...Obama at this point has no choice but to bury her.

...that the rnc will use McClinton's image and her own words in ads for the GE. Yeah, no big deal. :eyes:

All of a fucking sudden neither Clinton nor many of her supporters are too worried about Supreme Court appointments.

All McSame has to do is replay the abundant clips of her saying he imminently qualified to be president at the tough moments and it acts as an unequivocal campaign endorsement. So then she comes off the opportunistic hypocrite who lies to get what she wants every time she attacks him on anything. Anyone who thinks this isn't going to come up in every debate is not living in this world.

She's hurting herself as much if not more than she's hurting Obama (so far) and yet so many of her own supporters lips are so firmly glued to her backside that they can't see the truth of it.

Maybe she's just playing to help McCain win so she can run in 2012.

last cycle dean and edwards stayed in the race and attacked kerry long after was clear they couldnt win. guys do this all the time. why is it so awful hen a woman does this? why is it so awful that clinton is criticizing obama - when hart and kerry criticized their opponents. that's what elections are all about. we have to admit that in addition to being blind in our support of our preferred candidate, there has been a lot of racism and sexism directed towards the two of them. i have never heard a male candidate described as too ambitious or hungry for power. Obama has been running for president ever since he got into the u.s. senate. yet, he is portrayed as this benevolent visionary. hillary is in her second term as a u.s. senator, and she is seen as a power-hungry "witch." the new republic has an article out that calls hillary a "fratricidal maniac." picutre a woman, walking into a men's club waving a bat and hurting men. at one point in the article, the author says she's going after obama's kneecaps. ouch. i think it is interesting how they are "feminizing" obama in the piece - as if he cannot "handle" criticism and hillary as having penis-envy.

...and I have heard many men criticized for being, "too ambitious or hungry for power" - and criticized many myself. Almost non-stop for the last 7 years.

Does the sexist card need to be played every time? Perhaps it is possible that some people genuinely do not like the tactics, regardless of gender.

she's not going to win on experience against McCain.

Fer crying out loud... have you all lost your minds?

She isn't gonna beat McCain on experience. The right wing will eat her up and spit her out on that issue.

and the issue re the war is that it was "illegal" and pre-emptive --
not something that the superpower which supposedly believes in democracy should be
involved with ---

additionally, feigning now that she didn't vote for war but for something else is ridiculous!

And continuing to fund this occupation is also not something that we want or need ---

It frames the debate in a manner that even if she ended up the nominee (which, in the best case, can't happen without her convincing 60% of the total super delegates (or to overturn 6 month of voting, and shred the party for a generation) she frames the general election arguments in a way that makes her lose them.

If experience is what truly matters, Hillary loses to McCain.

This is no better conceived than the "inevitable" strategy. IThe main difference is it destroys the party's chances in the General election, rather than simply her chance at the nomination.

Once again, it gives ammo to the opposition. Something I'd hope NONE of our democratic candidates would do. If you don't see that as a bad thing, I just don't know what to say.

to run for prez in 2008..too bad she wanted to look so tough that she went against New Yorkers and voted for the Iraqi War Resolution without reading the 90 page NIE. Here she is thousands of dead bodies later and all she can do is tout some mysterious experience that is suppose to make her so wise but she failed her first test and everyone after.

hilary can't even run a campaign..I don't want to see her in the white house screwing the country while covering up for bush like bil did for pappy bush.

eh? And McCain and the press say, one of the leading figures in the Democratic party says you arent qualified to be CiC?

If you can't see why that's wrong then either you are blindly believing Hillary wont lose or you think it impossible for Obama to win.

Both precepts being patently silly.

... because McCain was and continues to be WRONG on this most important foreign policy issue.

Sure, what Hillary said wasn't out of the realm of presidential politicking, but she was as WRONG when she said it as she was WRONG when she voted for the IWR in 2002 (and Obama was RIGHT ON THE MONEY then, before we invaded and the fiasco took shape).

Obama acknowledged that Reagan TRANSFORMED the government BEYOND his presidency and Bill Clinton is the top REASON that Reagan's governing philosophy was seen as continuing beyond his administration.


Surely more of you have read a book or two by now? Blaming Obama for NOTICING that Reagan influenced even a Democratic administration is a crime to you? HAHAHAHHA

while Reagan had experience and crossed the threshold of CIC.

To my knowledge, NO Democrat has gone so far as Hillary has to say the a currently running Republican nominee for the president is better on experience and a better CIC while their Democratic rival only has a speech.

Besides, Obama merely recognized Reagan was effective in presenting ideas, did not say he was better in any way than any Democrat.

Both were very bad things, but playing tit for tat seems somewhat childish. The question posed was not about Obama, and answering a question with another question is rarely productive.

First, Reagan is not running in this election.
Second, Obama did not say 'both I and Ronald Reagan have more ideas than Hillary'.

What she did was tantamount to saying that if she doesn't win, her supporters should pick McCain second over Obama. Not only was that outrageous but she probably lost herself any slim chance she might have had of gaining some kind of super delegate lead in the primary. Super delegates are democrats first, not blind followers of a particular candidate.

...you better stand up and notice. (And what blm said)




Look how f'n ugly that is!

and his success. Not his policies.

That's all right. It's an easy mistake when you don't really listen to what the candidates are actually SAYING.

she and McCain are more qualified than Obama.

I don't particularly like either of our candidates but this is way over the top. The supreme court hangs in the balance and putting McCain over Obama can hurt the party.
If either Hillary or Obama win the nomination the ad is written for McCain to use. I am appalled that she has done this. I can't believe any good Dem would not be appalled.

I've never seen anybody do this in a primary.
Party loyalty she ain't got.

It reaks of desperation. And although neither Hilary or Obama rate very high in my book, it's stuff like this that pulls me firmly in Obama's camp. It seems to me that you're suggesting: "So what? Politicians are supposed to say anything to get elected." For some of us, dignity still matters.

she only cares about herself and her own ambition.

She is putting her own ambition ahead of the Party and the Country.

in 2004, Howard Dean would have called himself and George Bush more qualified than John Kerry? You don't get we're on the SAME team.

can say and do betrayal and everyone just needs to kiss her fucking digits.

the most qualified to be CIC and Huck wasn't --- ????

It would be thought rather odd, wouldn't it --- ???

good point! I don't see how anyone can argue that this makes sense, or that it isn't a really bad comment.

It is without precedent. It is also disloyal. I hope she can live with the new Supreme Court outlawing Roe v Wade with the 3 additional McCain appointees....

Film clips of her saying this about Obama will be much more effective used against Obama by the Reps than ANYTHING McCain could have said. She is basically doing his attack ads for him!

Worst part is she didn't just goof one day. She had time to think about it and did the same thing again!!!!

It is bad form, to put it mildly, to praise the other party's candidate over one of your own.

Fuck

the VP slot, doesn't it?

How about Clinton/McCain? That work for you?

Really....who the hell thinks she would seriously name him VP when she could say something like that about him just recently? She is just playing her listeners, trying to make them think they will still get Obama if they vote for her. She would throw him under the bus the same day she clinched the nomination! If you actually believe Hillary would even offer Obama the VP you must be in some sort of Hillary Cult!

Nor does it appear likely Obama is going to name this XXXXX to be his VP either! Why should he? After her saying that? She burned her bridges with that comment, I'm afraid.

She is on record as saying the Democratic candidate is not as qualified as the Republican candidate.

Why do you insist on ignoring this?

Well, I care. Not because I care about Hillary. But because the thought of 4-8 more years of Repuke rule is anathema to me. Hillary's statement is making that horror story more likely to come true. I also care because it matters to me the character of a candidate I vote for. Hillary is showing, time after time, that her character is not that different from the enemies we have been facing. Sure her politics are more to our liking but on character? Anyone who can say what she said about a Democratic nominee, knowing that if we lose this election we will likely have 3 more Republican nominees to the Supreme Court, has some serious character issues in my view. It is all about her. She could care less about her party or the even the impact of continued Republican rule on our country.

And all you can say is who cares? pffft!

"Who cares?" Who cares if Hilary disparages the most likely Democratic nominee? Who cares if her own words are going to be used in republican attack ads? Who cares if the words of a Democrat make it far more likely that a republican wins the Presidency this year? Who cares about the stupid musings of a desperate candidate? I think I see a fantastic new ad for battleground states this year:

Who cares? I sure as hell don't.
I'm Hilary Clinton and I support this message.

class, they will benefit from a Hillary presidency just as much as they would from a McCain presidency. Continued occupation of a once sovereign nation and new wars will do much to enrich the already rich.

:thumbsup:

Did Obama question Clinton's qualifications while speaking positively of McCain's? Did Obama ever say anything that was widely perceived as a preference for McCain over Clinton?

villified for conducting a campaign!

She has now (on at least 3 or 4 occasions) ranked McCain above Obama.

Obama has never ranked McCain above Hillary.

That you don't understand this just shows how blinded you are in your devotion to your candidate.

I am appalled that she did this.

It is patently destructive to the Democratic party.

She is apparently trying to help McWarmonger.

Obama has never said that McCain has shown the judgment needed to be President. Never.

He has said that HE has shown the judgment, and that Hillary failed to, and that McCain doesn't have it either. But he has NEVER put McCain above Hillary.

won't be able to find an equivalent example. Obama's campaign has never said that he and McCain, for example, have the honor and integrity to be President, but sadly Hillary doesn't. And everyone and their brother knew why Bill's comment about Jackson was so questionable: Jackson was a fringe candidate. Obama has been running as a candidate who happens to be black, not the black candidate. Bill was trying to cleverly marginalize him as a minority candidate. And it blew up in his face and Hillary's face.

The crap that damages the party is the crap that Hillary has been pulling for the last couple of months. She's about to get paid back with interest. And that will be good for the party and good for the country.

Oh, and if you don't think that her McCain comments haven't bothered dem movers and shakers, think again.

Hillary is not out to destroy the Democratic Party for her own ambitions - as so many drama-bots like you complain about here. She's pointing out reasons why people should nominate her instead of Obama. That' what people have given her millions of dollars to do and it's what they have confidence that she can do. It's just politics.

Obama's campaign has their own tactics - just as Machiavellian and just as driven by the high expectations of his donors and supporters that he will do whatever is necessary to win without crossing any dangerous lines.

Accusing your opponent of crossing those lines whenever there's any plausible chance to do so is one way it's done these days.

Added on edit: Besides, I think the comment was regarding CINC not president, anyway.

having a fit about Hart's comments. I calmly explained to you why he's correct, and put the record straight re Bill's JJ comments.

Did I say that Hillary was destroying the party for her ambitions? Why no, I didn't. And yes, of course Obama is playing in the same game, but he hasn't yet hit the lows Hillary has. For good or for ill, that will change.

Your response is typical of the hilldroids here. You fit right in to their ranks, dear. And sorry, she was referring to the Presidency.

;-)

parsing words in statements. What she said was perceived by Gary Hart to be damaging to Obama for the GE. A lot of people watching undoubtedly saw it the way Hart did, especially Obama supporters. Words do matter.

...hahahaha

oh, wait, you said HillDroids, not Hillroids.

Heh, I like it my way better.

Right? Oh, nevermind.

What, exactly, qualifies Hillary over Obama as CinC? What's her military experience? Do you not remember, in Bill's first run, when she made some incredibly dumb remark about the military (don't remember what it was, exactly) - but it put the military so at odds with Bill that THAT was why he had to back down on supporting gays in the military. He couldn't afford to alienate them any more than they already were.

If you're saying she was only saying that McCain was more qualified as CinC, then that HAS to be applied to her, as well. Is she campaigning for McCain?

Do you really think that CinC and President can be looked as as separate entities?

went ahead and repeated it several different times to drum the point in.

We need to elect someone who will put up a good fight but, at some point, has conscience enough to know
there are limits beyond which decent people do not go.

Save YOUR drama for the gullible.

BTW - Clintons pulled the exact same shit in 2004 when Bill went on his 3 week book tour and praised Bush's leadership decisions on terrorism and Iraq war, completely omitting any reference to the fact that there wasn't a lawmaker in DC with a longer record in tracking terror networks and their financial webs than John Kerry.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4952091

Oh, and anything the Bushes touch turns to shit. They should have stayed away because now even Bill's golden-boy image is in danger of being permanently tarnished.

They should have just left the Bushes alone.

She could only do that if Kerry lost.

I'm not convinced that you have a firm grip on reality.

I will point that Bush's obsession with "Commander-in-Chief" was so great that in early 2001 he ordered all the Navy commands using the term to stop using it. Decades old acronyms such as CINCPAC, for Commander in Chief Pacific fleet, were changed to commander Pacific fleet.

I hope a new President restores CINCPAC.

There's an old saying. Age and treachery will often overcome youth and skill.
Unfortunately this country needs youth and skill, and has no need for the
old school politics and treachery that Sen Clinton embodies

democratic leaders who have been around longer than hill and bill have repeatedly noted since her remark that this is the FIRST TIME A DEMOCRAT HAS TRASHED ANOTHER DEMOCRAT WHILE BOLSTERING THE REPUBLICAN.

if you can't see what is so disgusting about that, maybe you should step back. You and Hillary can go off into Nader land. What she did is no different..well it is, because she has benefited from her association with the democratic party...and then she turns around and shits on it.

You do not quote Hart's entire statement... it's not just that she questioned his qualifications. It's that she tried to tear down a democratic candidate (who is beating her, btw) in favor of a republican. what is so hard for you to understand about this?

Clinton does not deserve to be the nominee. She was polarizing before. Now she's a republican wet dream.

She is saying that Obama is a worse choice than not only her but also McCain.

Thats miles in difference from poiting out that he can't win against McCain - which the facts atm doesn't even support btw.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/6/164329/3393/165/470708

She is more or less saying that he shouldn't win should it come to that. Not that he can't, but that he should not. If that is not the sentiment - then her own argument has no bearing.

There is a line between saying you are better than your primary opponent and saying your opponent is not capable or less capable than the coming opposition. And she crossed it at full speed. Its simply an astonishing move in an internal party election.

damage, neither one of them can probably win now. Thank you Hillary.

I think you agree with 101. Did you reply to the wrong post?

People who are defending Hillary on this are out of their minds. It is NEVER acceptable to defend one of those pieces of shit scumbag douche Republicans. They are always shit.

one of the best world leaders of the 19th century.

teddy rosevelt was a decent prez too ...

...

just saying :shrug:

of course in no way condoning what hillary's doing, which really dissappoints :(

you vote for him. You switch parties. You won't be posting here if you do.


PS Teddy R. was a cocknard imperialist asshole.

i think the constitution gives me the right to "post" wherever I want. and, novel idea, think for myself too. i heard north korea is looking for thought police and partisan fascists though... you may find a proper setting for your methods there

this is the Democratic Underground and the rules include supporting the Democratic candidate. Since you clearly support McCain over Obama, then maybe this isn't the best fit for your scintillating online wit.

I am passionately for Obama, a democratic candidate. before that I voted for Kerry, before that Gore, before that Bill Clinton twice. Further, I've voted for Nancy Pelosi every time she's ran for the house until this last election, when I moved to Oakland, where I've since supported Babara Lee; voted for Diane Feinstein each Senatorial term, and Barbara Boxer as junior Senator. But, um yeah, because I say Abraham Lincoln was a good man and president (more than that---one of the most moral and distinguished leaders of his time) you say I'm not supporting the candidate...:

They don't even have a name for that fallacy (we'll have to name it after you... the slagacy :rofl:)

...........

you're making yourself look childish. saying, geee, I think Abraham Lincoln was a good president... um, yeah, that's un-'D'emocratic. he only freed the slaves, saved the union, effected an awakening of responsible, progressive moral consciousness in america, and wore a fresh pimpin hat too boot.

were I me back then, I would have voted for him. and challenged you to a duel for questioning my loyalties. :tinfoilhat:

to make things clear: HEY DU... I would have voted for Abraham Lincoln. :think:

now, slaggy baby, hit that button down there listed as "Alert". Report me to DU, informing them that I have broken the rules. come back in a day or two and check this thread; click on my name. check to see if I've been kicked off for disobeying the rules. i dare you. tell everybody here, no less how magnanimous a service you're performing for the site and the party. i look forward to seeing how that turns out for you. :dilemma:

....

or, on the other hand, if you've realized the ridiculousness of your accuasation and ways, reply to the point and not the pout: would you have allowed (1) slavery to continue (2) the union to be dissolved, (3) northern sympathizers to be jailed, etc etc. all because some vague misconceived blind partisanship allows no exceptions whatsoever to the rule and demands unreflective adherence to party-identity? sounds like fascism to me.... :eyes:

I'm waiting. this should be fun

:popcorn:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:yoiks:

hey slaggy-baby... click on that profile icon next to my profile name (one after the 'letter' icon). check out my long piece about my support for obama. Or, search my user name on DU, which will reveal a consistent advocacy of his nomination. you could also ask anyone here who knows me, my fellow obama supporters or some of those nemesis hillbots.

or ask somebody. or do anything besides leap to your fabulously silly and short-sighted Assumptions...

one more thing: when you're at a red light please for the sake of god don't step into traffic; not reading signs that are right in front of your face can be dangerous to your health.

edit, needed to ass a yoiks smiley, just needed to

I don't know what you are trying to say.
I think you could just be trying to stir shit up.

If one is comparing a democrat to a republican (both of whom are potentially running for president), one should never praise the motherfucking Republican. Haven't they done enough harm? If they were good people, they'd change parties.

She compared herself AND AND McCAIN as being experienced favorably to Barack who had only Given a speach in 1992.

Not only did she damage Barack Obama relative to McCain, she also damaged herself. By emphasizing "experience" over judgment she made herself definitely the junior to McCain who has 24 years of Senate experience vs. Hillary's 8. By Clinton's reasoning, John McCain is 3x more experienced to be in the Senate than she.

Forget that "president's wife stuff". Being a spouse does not qualify one for office. She DID have the healthcare initiative and subsequently abandoned it.

She does bring experience from the private sector as a lawyer and that is perfectly reasonable that lawyers might know something about how to craft laws dealing with them all day. But somehow, I don't think Hillary is interested in running on her role at transforming Wal-Mart into the monster US job killer that it is today.

Worse, she cannot win a plurality of votes. She knows it. The only thing she can do is prevent Obama from taking a majority by continuing the campaign and preventing new delegate selection contests in Michigan and Florida. Even if Obama lost both of those contests, he could claim a majority and end Hillary's effort to broker the convention and wrench control of the party back to the Clintons.

I agree, Hillary IS A MONSTER!!!

I feel the same way. All she did was say that she and McCain have more experience. McCain is going to run on experience regardless of what Clinton says. Also, Obama's own foreign policy advisor said that neither Dem was prepared for the 3am call; she cleaned it up by saying neither was McCain. But McCain promptly agreed with her original statement.

Also - when the "white men" play tough it's fine. But Clinton playing tough turns her into, well, a monster....and being tough against a black man is seen as harmful because people imagine he cannot take it. That is racist to me, as a black man. Obama can respond to Clinton's criticism without all of the outcry by Dems. When Clinton was on the skids, she kept fighting back, asking for debates, criticizing the media....she did what it took to turn it around. If Obama cannot stand statements like this, then he will be slaughtered by the republicans.

Obama, not her. And McCain WANTS to frame the argument on experience, where he's got both of them beat - combined.

Hillary is like an exhausted swimmer - she's about to go under, and in her panic she will drag down anyone who is near.

BTW, she DIDN'T "turn it around". Look at the numbers. She CANNOT win. All she can do at this point is undermine the populist movement behind Obama, so the DLC can regain control in '12. If that means having President McCain for 4 years, so be it.

1.) She doesn't have the experience to brag about. Comparing herself to McCain with all his years of experience in ***ELECTED*** public office is very damaging to her if by some fluke she is our nominee. She loses the election if this is her stance. She can't win on this platform.

2.) Putting herself favorably in the same light with a Republican AGAINST another Democrat is unprecedented. It is putting herself above the good of the party. If BO is the nominee, McCain now has a great sound byte from HRC to play over and over again. As stated upthread, can you imagine McCain saying something similar about HRC over Huckabee or Mittens? No. Never would happen because they are not insane.

I feel the same way. All she did was say that she and McCain have more experience. McCain is going to run on experience regardless of what Clinton says. Also, Obama's own foreign policy advisor said that neither Dem was prepared for the 3am call; she cleaned it up by saying neither was McCain. But McCain promptly agreed with her original statement.

Also - when the "white men" play tough it's fine. But Clinton playing tough turns her into, well, a monster....and being tough against a black man is seen as harmful because people imagine he cannot take it. That is racist to me, as a black man. Obama can respond to Clinton's criticism without all of the outcry by Dems. When Clinton was on the skids, she kept fighting back, asking for debates, criticizing the media....she did what it took to turn it around. If Obama cannot stand statements like this, then he will be slaughtered by the republicans.

and I want some elected Democratic party leaders to start saying the same thing!

Another hypocritical Reagan fan.

The polls showed Hart beating Reagan at the convention.

Hart voted against every part of Reagan's legislative agenda in the Senate.

Don't call Hart a Reagan fan.

:eyes:

I'm still trying to figure out why he posed for that pic with Donna Rice on that boat "Monkey Business." It just doesn't make sense to me. If you're running for president you don't go off in a boat with another woman and have your photo taken withher on your lap...

Nixon had vacationed on a similar yacht, and Nixon himself wrote that what the MSM did to Hart was a cheap shot.

I wouldn't say he posed for that picture. More like, she jumped on his lap and her girlfriend took the picture. What does it prove?

I have a similar picture with my cousin. Does that prove incest?

The trip was planned for Hart to write a speech. His advisor, Ray Strothers, was supposed to be on board, since the trip was campaign related. Strothers presence would have avoided the impression that there was anything sordid going on aboard the yacht. At the last minute, Strothers got called away to work for another client, so Hart was there with Billy Broadhurst, a Louisiana boy like Carville.

Hart is sitting on the yacht when Donna Rice and Lynne Armandt appeared. Rice was the former girlfriend of the Eagles Don Henley, a Hart supporter. Rice introduced herself, and when Hart realized who she was, he invited her on board. (Contrary to the Miami Herald's anonymous source, which it denies is Armandt, they had not spoken to each other previously.) If Strothers was on board as planned, it would not have been an issue. The picture was taken with Rice's camera and her film. After she got the photos back her friend "borrowed" them to show her boyfriend, and that is when all the trouble started.

While everyone remembers the photo, it was not the reason why Hart suspended his campaign in May 1987, and in fact it was not published until afterward. For twenty years Donna Rice has denied that her relationship with Hart was sexual and never made a dime from the incident. Hart suspended his campaign after he was blackmailed by the Washington Post. The WaPo threatened to publish a story about Hart's activities while separated from his wife, which included reporting that Hart had been "dating" the wife of another Dem Senator. The fact that the woman in question denied the relationship didn't matter to the WaPo, which at the same time refused to ask the sitting Repuke V.P., Bush, sr., about his long running affair with Jennifer Fitzgerald:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Fitzgerald
(Nancy Reagan was a source for that story!!)

While hindsight in 20/20, the reality is that what the MSM did to Hart was unprecedented. Previously, the media showed some respect for a politician's private life. In 1980, Reagan was the first divorced man to be elected president. No one demanded to know why his first marriage failed in '84 either. No one demanded that Ted Kennedy answer questions about his marriage in '80 either. In '87 the rules changed, but only if the candidate was a Dem. The MSM never even asked Bush, Sr., about his mistress, and they all knew about her.

Twenty years later, ABC spiked the story about Cheney calling the DC madam for servicing.

Politicians are human. They have all their personal problems, but the MSM only really reports about it when the candidate is a Dem.

campaign. I do remember that Hart and said to the press that they could follow him around to prove that he had nothing to hide. then it seemed like all hell broke loose.

You used the word "blackmail" with respect to WaPo. I don'tunderstand; what was the quid pro quo?

Has the whole Donna Rice story been revealed as a hoax on the American public? From what you are telling me this was all a sequence of bad luck on Hart's part. I frankly don't care about whether he did or didn't have an affair, because it is none of my business. I just raised a few questions that maybe you could help me with....thanks...

The WaPo told Hart if he didn't withdrawal from the race they would publish a story about Hart's personal life. It was no secret that Hart had had marital problems. He and his wife had separated twice, during on of those times Hart had roomed with the WaPo's Bob Woodward.



http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE5DB1138F934A35755C0A961948260

This is really bizarre stuff. Hart was leaving the Senate in January 1987 to focus on his presidential run. The front-runner for the Democratic nomination has the audacity to give the Democratic response to Reagan's weekly radio address and they put a tail on him in December of 1986! So Hart had been followed around by a PI before he gave the interview with E.J. Dionne in which the "follow me around" quote, and that quote was not published until after the Miami Herald had already begun staking out his D.C. townhouse, where his wife had never lived. To this date, we still don't know exactly what question Dionne asked to provoke Hart's response. Apparently Dionne kept asking about the "womanizing" issue while Hart was trying to discuss serious national issues. Nor are "adultery" and "womanizing" necessarily used interchangeably, as the Miami Herald did, especially if a woman knows the man is married...

I wouldn't say that Hart had mere bad luck. The guy was getting singled out by the MSM for treatment never before given to anyone else running for the presidency. Even Richard Nixon said it was wrong. If the adultery issue was a genuine concern, then Bush, Sr., should have been confronted by the WaPo about his mistress. So this wasn't about reporting on adultery. It was about smearing the Democratic front-runner. Considering that many Presidents have had mistresses, FDR died with his, the entire issue was puritanical at best.

I wouldn't say that the Donna Rice story was a complete "hoax". There was some attraction between the two of them, but it was really much ado about nothing. It was a brief relationship that wasn't sexual, and most of the public thought it was irrelevant to anything. According to Gallup:


Hart resumed the campaign in December '87 after the WaPo agreed to kill the story. He quickly returned as the Democratic front-runner, but still trailed in New Hampshire to the then Massachusetts governor Dullkakis. (I read that Romney became the first former Mass. governor or Senator to lose New Hampshire.) Hart was leading the Iowa caucuses until two weeks prior when a completely bogus story was published alleging that his campaign had received illegal contributions. The story was complete crap, but it served its intended purpose because it made Hart appear as this scandal ridden individual when in fact he never took a dime from a single PAC. In fact, he had mortgaged his home to finance his '84 campaign.

The problem with the Donna Rice matter wasn't that it made people think badly about Hart. The problem was that is was like the "Dean scream" in '04. The MSM just repeated it over, and over, and over, to the exclusion of covering real news and issues.

I wonder why he would do all this unless he was a diehard for another candidate (Mondale?).

I have a lot of respect for E. J. Dionne, so this implication really shocks me. The tone of all this is very nasty. Why did the press so dislike Hart? He has been a pretty stand up guy over the past 20 years and greatly respected. His work on the Commission that predicted 9/11 was wonderful. What a sad waste of his talent...

Bradlee was friends with JFK, and Bradlee's sister-in-law. Mary Pinchot, had been trysting with JFK in her studio apartment behind Bradlee's house:
http://www.sirbacon.org/jfk.htm

So Bradlee's adversarial role with Hart in '87 was ironic to say the least.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,964394,00.html
Considering that the media fixation on Hart's personal life was unprecedented, Bradlee didn't explain why Hart should have known that the rules had changed. More importantly, it doesn't explain why the WaPo and other MSM outlets refused to so much as ask Bush, Sr., about his mistress when Nancy Reagan herself, the sitting First Lady, was dishing the dirt on him.

That same TIME article from the time raises the issue, and then avoids answering it:


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,964394,00.html

So on the one hand, there was Hart, a guy with a flawless public record who never took a dime from a PAC, returned money from Tommy Boggs, a lobbyist and Cokie Roberts brother, and then on the other hand there was Bush, Sr., who everyone in Washington knew was up to his eyeballs in the Iran-Contra affair. (So much so that Nancy Reagan hated him for making her Ronnie look bad.) So with these choices who did the MSM decide to do a hatchet job on?

Gary Hart!

With regard to Dionne, the article from which that the quote was lifted was otherwise extremely favorable to Hart. In that interview, Hart's wife, Lee, took responsibility for the problems in their marriage. That is to say that their problems were not that Hart was a "womanizer", but that they were two strong willed individuals, who frequently clashed.

Even after 9-11 when Hart was considering running again in 2004, the Miami Herald republished its inaccurate story not once but twice.

Well, maybe that will come out in the near future. Who knows?

Hart the public man was near flawless.

He worked as an appellate attorney for the Dept. of the Interior.

He ran McGovern's '72 campaign to end the war in Vietnam.

He was elected Senator as part of the Watergate class of '74,

He was re-elected in '80 when liberals like McGovern and Birch Bayh lost their Senate seats.

Hart gained attention by not merely opposing Reagan's proposals, but by making counter-proposals which made sense to Republicans and Independents.

He never took a dime from a PAC, and even returned money from a well connected lobbyist.

He wasn't interested in being a career Senator.

In short, he was a very dangerous man to the D.C. establishment.


What comes across from the venom that the WaPo in particular had for Hart was that they couldn't stand to see an honest politician succeed. If the WaPo had gone after Bush, Sr., with the same fervor that it had gone after Nixon or Hart, Bush, Sr., never would have won the Repuke nomination, let alone win the Presidency for himself and his son.

Maybe someday Woodward will write about this, since he was one of the sources for this story.

Hillary's ambition appears to know no bounds, and if the rest of the party has to suffer for their failure to kneel at the throne, so be it.

Obama is running this race for the democrats, independants and even some republicans who want to vote for him.

Clinton is running for herself, her family & her ego. SHE WANTS TO WIN.. she doesn't care who she throws under a bus to get there, and if it's not her - she'd rather it be no democrat at all.

I've noticed that in several of her speeches.

She's got the fate of the entire DLC riding on her coattails.

What would happen to McAuliffe and Carville if she should lose the nomination?

is more qualified than someone in your own party. It's fine to say you are more qualified than your same party opponent, but you do not write ads for the opposition. Very bad form.

If it became a campaign tactic (unlikely IMO) for democratic candidates it could actually ruin the party.

Democrats need to strongly condemn this.

...and don't let the door hit ya in the ass on yer way out.

that we're trying to defeat --- !!!

the last act of the body is bowel clearing.

I guess that happened when it became clear her chances of nomination were for all intents and purposes dead... The shit started flying.

For all the arguments made on behalf of Clinton, I have yet to see a single tenable scenario in which she can win. I have sure asked for one a lot, but no takers.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

disgusting to contemplate though it is.

And since he's been so bad at getting elected, he should have been promoting the oppostion?

Vetty interesting.

that endured similar attacks from Mondale that allowed Reagan to frame the campaign issues against Mondale using his own words.

If we want to have a campaign as successful as Walter Mondale's then Hillary's strategy is top notch....

The only question is can she lose all 50?

I think the arguments she is using for short-term gains will hurt her in the long run of a general election. I don't see McCain as nearly electrifying to the GOP, independents, or conservative Democrats as Reagan was in 1984. While her campaign staff is as dismal as Mondale's, McCain's is not nearly as adept as Reagan's was.

I am, however, not clear how much harder she would make such a run for herself by using the current strategies and tactics, which in the long run, build McCain's strengths as the issues that people talk about. Let's face it. He wins in experience. The argument needs to be about domestic policies and changing our handling of foreign policy--not who is better at continuing the failed foreign policies.

She could win a general election against McCain, but I am not sure why her campaign is fascinated with making it so hard for her to do so.

The point is moot though. She isn't going to get the nomination. I haven't seen one remotely realistic scenario where she could, unless someone spikes the drinks of the Super Delegates.

when the press released a compromising photo of him on a boat called the "Monkey Business". The public turned against him overnight. End of story.

When Hart returned after previously suspending his campaign, he was again leading national polls.

He was leading all candidates in Iowa until two weeks prior to the caucuses.

A new rumor was published at this point that Hart's campaign had been "secretly funded".

The story was complete and total crap. Hart never took a dime from a PAC and mortgaged his house and sold his car to pay his '84 campaign debts, but that false story was enough to raise doubts among Iowa voters. Dukakis won neighboring New Hampshire. (Romney became the first Massachusetts governor or Senator to lose in New Hampshire.) Short of money, Hart was unable to get his message out above the noise of the MSM, which continued to repeat nothing but the Donna Rice story,


It was the Dean scream of its day.

No issues or real news.

Just the same story, over and over and over.

to undergo addiction treatment -- but we know all too well that the press hypes anything and everything and a good part of it is based on nothing more than rumor.

The point is that enough of the people/voters bought the story so Hart was finished. What happened then could happen now because far too many people depend on limited sources for their news.

Sadly, Hart was the type of candidate then that Obama is now -- new on the scene, new ideas, smart, attractive. Alas, he wasn't 'bullet proof' to the media.

The point is that they had to add one more false story, one which was complete and total crap without a shred of truth to it, to sink that campaign. With younger voters and the Internet, the MSM is losing its power to smear.

Hart's '84 campaign would compare better to Obama '08, but Hart was well into his second term in the Senate at the time.

Hart's '88 campaign doesn't compare at all to Obama, because he was the front-runner for the nomination after the smoke cleared from Mondale's 49 state fiasco.

and also about the fact that the younger voters and bloggers seem to be able to hold the MSM to some degree of accountability regarding the stories they choose to report or ignore.

Although, a recent video argues that the "Fourth Estate" is unstoppable.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4467655342219448521&pr=goog-sl

See Partners in Power by Roger Morris (pg.433-434).
(Morris is a highly respected public servant, who worked for Dean Acheson, Lyndon Johnson, Walter Mondale, and Richard Nixon before resigning from the National Security Council (He had been appointed by LBJ) over the Cambodian invasion during the Nixon administration. Morris has called for other civil servants in to resign to protest the Bush administration's policies.)

Hart's problem was
1) He had previously hired, and then laid off, a guy named James Carville, and
2) He hired a media consultant named Ray Strothers who made the mistake of working for two men who both wanted to be President.

After Hart's success in '84, Clinton hired Strothers and his protege, Carville. (Carville is the former Hart advisor who told Newsweek that Hart had a problem "keeping his pants on" (Twenty years later, not a single woman has come forward by name to claim she had a sexual affair with Hart.)

With Hart riding high in the polls, Clinton hired Strothers, who then got Clinton an interview to be Hart's VP. Clinton bombed the interview. According to Strothers in his book, Falling Up Hart confided to Strothers after that interview that Clinton, had "no core," and, Hart added: "He doesn't believe in anything." Hart's words got back to the Clinton's, most likely through Carville. (Carville would later use words almost exactly the same as Hart's, but attribute them to Ken Starr.)

After hearing that news, the Clinton's set out to sabotage his campaign, and cut their own deal with Dukakis.

In short, the Clinton camp preferred to lose the election than to see someone else win the general election.

There is still some speculation as to who the self-described "liberal Democrat" woman was who kept calling the Miami Herald...

Carville is the epitome of treachery. He has no qualms whatsoever destroying Democrats to serve his personal ambitions and he's been doing it his entire career.

For crissakes, look who he shares a bed with - Dick Cheney's closest consort!

And THESE are the people the Clintons surround themselves with. Birds of A Feather.

Personally, I think she has done a great deal of damage to herself.

No thanks.

McCain wants to bomb Iran and continue Bush's policies, yet Hillary thinks he's qualified to be Commander in Chief. Talk about poor judgment, it is now obvious to me that she has none. I am now a committed Obama supporter!!

I was in a similar boat... pro-Edwards with no preference between Clinton and Obama... but began leaning 'Obama as backup' as I saw Clinton campaign tactics beginning to go deceptively negative after their drubbing in Iowa. But with the tactics of the last week, voting for Hillary in November will be a most vile experience.

But it won't be with a great deal of joy. :(

hold my nose to vote for Hillary. I will if I have to but it won't be with any enthusiasm.

Yet someone else telling the truth about Hilsnbill (elect one, get both).

Exactly. Bravo!

:sarcasm:

She's is making it pretty hard for me to continue to say "I will support the democratic nominee" with her recent tactics.

Doesn't make him less right about what he said, but he would have done well to call her "Senator" instead of "Mrs" Clinton.

This needs to be severely punished.

And that's all there is to it.

We must fear any sort of Authoritarian president, because they will always put their whims and desire for power ahead of America's best interests. Clinton has proven time and time again that she will be this sort of president. She has been consistently secretive and vague, always including qualifiers so that she can wiggle out of any statement. We need a president who will not bullshit us, and will make the functions of government more transparent and objective. The mark of any "great" Authoritarian admin is politicization of government departments and programs.

I agree with everything you said, but the woman is a fucking Senator. Just like Senator Obama. You know, that guy you mentioned like twelve words ago? Right before you described a sitting Senator and (soon to be former) presidential candidate in terms of how she relates to the man in her life?

Sexism has very little to do with the fact that Hillary is one craptastic campaigner, but we still have a fucking long way to go on gender relations. :banghead:

success, I don't think it's untoward to call her Mrs Clinton. Without Bill, she'd be just another successful corporate lawyer.

The trainwreck that is Hillary Clinton is such a target-rich environment that there's no need to adopt RW sexist attacks against her. She's given us more than enough to work with, don't you think?

of power in which they themselves might get the receiving end of the Clinton's unbridled, rule-less quest for power.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's tacky & immature to call anyone a nazi just because you disagree with them. Calling a Jewish politician a nazi pretty much transcends tacky & immature.

watch as the Hillary Hate Machine attacks yet another intelligent Democrat.

Perfectly said.

the final paragraph neutralizes the possibility of conveying whatever legitimate points the ones above have to say. by the end he's only an obama advocate, so why should clinton supporters listen, and how will undecideds differentiate between the two (criticism of hillary and promotion of obama) if they're juxtaposed so blatantly?

(i say this as an obama supporter)

this is why it's not just a good but an essential thing for people like dean, gore, pelosi, harold ford etc remain neutral. their perspective carries more weight by their remaining objective. Gary Hart with this piece relinquishes his leadership voice here, and that's unfortunate in my humble opinion of course., or at least not as constructive as he could be....

By your standard they would not be much of a leadership, if they can't say what goes and what doesn't.

Unless you mean outwards only. Because inwards they should make it very clear to Clinton that such "tactics" should stop. Right away.

Theres a difference between playing favourites and upholding some sort of party line/cohesion/decency/rationality.

would have carried more weight had it not come in the form of campaign advocacy.

It's not just a principle of politics but one of uniformity. I tell this to my students all the time. When you're writing a paper, one topic, one thesis, one point. you can go "explore" of course, but the message, especially the claim/case construct should be coherent.

on this political level, he can even express support for Obama, but why do it in this message? taking on an endorsement at the end not only goes off topic, it opens the door for the opposing side to identify either a bias or at least supplementary motive. whether it's there or not...

that said, i agree with his principle point, emphatically, but have a different judgement about the secondary point....

What was the question? Whether Hillary's loyalty is to the Democratic Party, our nation, or to her own political ambitions? Do you really need to ask? "Clinton" and personal political ambitions and desire for power are synonymous.

the words to match my anger and outrage.

On Edit: God bless you Gary Hart for having the courage, dignity, and strength of character to tell it like it is.

I've spent the last eight years saying the idiot son of the former President. I'LL BE DAMNED if I'm going to spend the next eight years saying, the idiot wife of the former President. But here I go anyway. The idiot wife of the former President never should have said that!

I felt this way all on my own when I first saw it. This sums it up, really. I think this was most unwise of her to say.

Julie

"Senator Obama is right to say the issue is judgment not years in Washington. If Mrs. Clinton loses the nomination, her failure will be traced to the date she voted to empower George W. Bush to invade Iraq. That is not the kind of judgment, or wisdom, required by the leader answering the phone in the night. For her now to claim that Senator Obama is not qualified to answer the crisis phone is the height of irony if not chutzpah, and calls into question whether her primary loyalty is to the Democratic party and the nation or to her own ambition."


I've read that one meaning of "chutzpah" is like when someone kills their parents and throws themselves on the mercy of the court because they're an orphan.

"There's just no hypoccrisy like Hilary Hypocricy".

You would think he had been reading DU.

:shrug:

We are, by and large, a pretty astute bunch.

-Laelth

...Hillary is all about Hillary, nothing else.

more. She is truly a scion of the ruling class.

Barack may be a corrupt Chicago politico, but he is potentially a vehicle for change, so there is a small chance of benefit from him being the President. Hillary Clinton is a guarantee of more of the same.

and Clinton seems to be the source of some other garbage about Obama ---

I'd like Clinton to go and not come back at any future time --- thank you!!!

Obama's only claim to fame is, he beat a substitute candidate (Alan Keyes) from Maryland for the senate from Illinois! Obama served 2 years and then decided he was the best man to run our country. What nerve!

You never know which Hillary is going to come out. She is all over the place trying to make herself into what she thinks will get her votes. She has supported NAFTA, she has vote for the war in Iraq, she has given the nod for Iran, all this and then she says she is against all of this?!?!?!?

Somebody said this on another thread. We want and need a president who will return dignity to the office and our country.

This is a guy who's seen Lee Atwater (Karl Rove's spiritual father) in action - calling Hillary out on this is not a judgment made lightly.

Carville sleeps with the enemy.

which says a LOT about the DLC.

nt

with this. Hillary's selfish ambition is sickening.

She crossed a line too far. Obama gets my time, effort and money from now on.

as she goes along.
talk about acting entitled! Entitled to ruin our party, so we can again lose power for another 12 long ass years.

I'll just shake my head, cause I can't call her that name that SNL used that every Hillary supporter thought was soooo hillarious. :(

;)

http://www.blackprof.com/?p=1992

SNIPPET:

I concluded that <Clinton's comments> were not outside of the mainstream of political banter. Obama, for example, has said that the Republicans would have a “dumptruck” of dirt on Clinton, that she lacks “judgment” to serve, and that she is too divisive to lead the country. But the most interesting aspect of Hart’s comments is that they ignore the rhetoric he used when campaigning against Mondale. Political scientists view that campaign as one of the most divisive in recent politics. Hart (and Mondale) said some pretty harsh things — debatably harsher than what Clinton has said. A New York Times article from 1984 details some of his comments:

Senator Gary Hart said today that Walter F. Mondale, as Vice President, was part of an Administration that was “weak,” “inept,” “uncertain” and marked by “days of shame” in Iran…

“Walter Mondale now promises an America that can and will stand up for its vital interests,” the Colorado Senator told an ebullient crowd of hundreds of students at Texas A&M University here. “But Carter-Mondale actually gave us an America held hostage to the ayatollahs of the world.”

“In national security as in domestic policy,” he said, “we must not leave the American people with a bleak choice in 1984 between two failed pasts - that of Ronald Reagan and that of the Carter-Mondale Administration.”

‘Reagan’s Favorite Opponent’

“After reviewing the record of the Carter-Mondale Administration, I can understand why Walter Mondale is Ronald Reagan’s favorite opponent,” Mr. Hart added.

Interestingly, critics believed that Hart’s language would help Republicans campaign againist Mondale: “ Hart risked a party division and the possibility that Republicans might exploit if Mr. Mondale is nominated.”

See, Bernard Weinraub, “Hart, Risking Party Split, Attacks Carter-Mondale Team as “Inept,” N.Y. Times, May 1, 1984, at A1. ....

:toast:

thanks for the welcome!

Hart did not say say Reagan was more qualified than Mondale.

That is the crux of what is wrong with what Hillary says.

Mondale. He only said he was the better choice than EITHER.

THAT is the difference.

No hypocrisy there.

The '82 recession was the worst since the great depression. Cue Billy Joel singing "Allentown". Reagan was beatable, but Mondale was the wrong man for the job. Mondale's promise to raise taxes made Reagan popular.

Hart was correct in '84. Due to the Iranian hostage crisis, Carter was viewed as weak, and Mondale, rightfully or wrongly, was perceived to be a part of that weakness.

Mondale's 49 state loss, the worst defeat in electoral votes ever, confirms that Hart was correct.

Ignore Hart's advice at the peril of the party.

I have known you since the 80's and these are the strongest words I believe I have ever heard you say about another Democrat...

Thank you, Gary. K&R