Suburban Guerrilla

Mar 17th, 2008 at 11:05 am by Susie

Peter Daou spells it out.

Posted in Politics As Usual

8 Responses to “The War On Clinton”

on 17 Mar 2008 at 1:32 pm1James Guglielmino

Wait a minute…..I think this is WRONG. See Kos, and that piece on Kos was no revelation to me. It just seems to be said better than I can say it. Hillary Clinton has demonstrated a willingness top tear the Democratic Party apart by getting the super delegates even though she is behind both in number of delegates AND in total votes. Her argument that she deserves the nomination because she has won the bigger states is garbage. That is the sort of argument that shrub Bush would make. She is behind in delegates and from all that I have read, cannot catch up. So, she is trying to hijack the super delegates, and effort, which if successful, will be tantamont to burning a city to leave nothing behind. The Obama people will flock to what? They won’t vote for her. I cannot stand the idea of a President McSame and if he is elected we will have a right wing(nut) Supreme Court for the rest of my life. So, I will vote for her, almost no matter what, but what she is doing is WRONG, Susie.
Gug
on 17 Mar 2008 at 1:42 pm2James Guglielmino

In addition, unless I missed something, Obama started doing negative stuff AFTER he was a victim of it repeatedly. It is always possible that I have been propagandized but there is no question in my mind of the impression that I have. The Clinton campaign started this and they only started to do it when Obama began to catch up and then go ahead of her. If she didn’t start it, why didn’t her campaign object to what it is asserting is a negative campaign started by Obama? Not one word of complaint. Susie, what am I missing? And be nice….Remember, I am a liberal and do not approve of anyone cheating to get elected.
Gug
on 17 Mar 2008 at 2:08 pm3snuzy mandrake

james, they’re both politicians. the “but they started it!” thing is ridiculous.

the thing is, i don’t mind if they’re “going negative”. i don’t like it when any of them are unfair, but there’s nothing wrong with a candidate explaining why s/he thinks his/her opponent is wrong. in fact, that’s what constructive campaigning should be.

as i wrote months ago, the problem with the term “negative campaigning” is that it has a very different connotation to the public than what it actually means. criticizing your opponent is a good thing. not all criticism is good, some can be unfair or wrong. but “going negative”, in the sense of drawing distinctions between each other, is what everyone should do.

and yes, obama has been “going negative” all along. a major point his campaign regularly makes is obama’s anti-war stance vs. clinton’s vote for the AUMF. that is “negative campaigning” because it is an attack on his opponent. it’s a completely legitimate attack, just as clinton is “going negative” when she points out that obama’s health plan doesn’t deliver universal coverage. good for her!

there is such a thing as good negative campaigning. not only have both candidates done it, i would love it if they did more of it. i just wish they’d cool it with the bad attacks (e.g. the fear-mongering 3 a.m. phone calls, the harry and louise rip-off ad, the misrepresentations of what each other said, etc.)
on 17 Mar 2008 at 2:57 pm4Susie

Gug: If you had to pick, who would you say the media likes better: Clinton or Obama?

Do you think that has anything to do with the “impression” you have?

And as far as the superdelegates go: I just want them to pick the person they think will win. I’m a lot more interested in beating John McCain than I am in who wins the nomination. If some scandal comes out and either one of them’s tanking in the polls, looking likely to drag the ticket down with them, you’re goddamned right I want the superdelegates to pick the one who looks the most like a winner. That’s why they exist.

Also, you might want to read this:

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/012152.php
on 17 Mar 2008 at 3:08 pm5mbw

You know, I’m so effing sick of the “Clinton plans on STEALING through the Superdelegates” meme. You know what? The Superdelegates are just as much a part of the nominating system as “pledged” delegates are, as most were either elected by the people or the state parties, and this is part of their job. I couldn’t participate in my Maine caucus, so if we only used pledged delegates, I’d be completely disenfranchised. But I did vote for Congressman Tom Allen, and I trust that he will do a good job of representing me on the floor of the Convention Center, whether or not he votes “his district” or his conscience (should those not concur.)

I wouldn’t have voted for either Clinton or Obama in my caucus, and at this point, I think they’re both so damaged I only hope the Superdelegates are brave enough to nominate someone else, like Gore or Edwards.
on 17 Mar 2008 at 4:01 pm6James Guglielmino

The examples that Snuzy gives of negative campaigning is not really what I was thinking about. I don’t think getting into a discussion of semantics will advance this discussion but I just don’t think of those kinds of examples as “negative.”
I do not have any problem with either of those examples and there is no question in my mind that Obama is smack on when he points out that Clinton voted to give shrub the authority to invade Iraq and that she did not read the intelligence available and that he opposed that vote. Equally, but not nearly as powerful for me, is her right to point out the difference between her health care plan and his, though I do not think that her plan, to include the private companies, is ideal. The reality is that they need to go because a large percentage of the cost of our health care is related to the costs of using the private insurance companies.
In any case, I am referring to the tricky little ways of pointing out that Obama is a Black man. That, to me, is dirty and I condemn her for it. She is culpable for that. Equally, her indicating that McSame has the credentials to be commander in chief and Obama does not, is egregious and stupid…Well stupid unless she would rather Obama lose if he is nominated, hoping that she could step up in four years and win….AND, I think she is short sighted and hungry enough for the nomination to destroy him and hope for a chance in ‘12.
Regarding Susie’s question about the press…Yeah, the press is more friendly towards him…Why not? The guy is a very, very attractive candidate. He has termendous charisma. He knows how to talk. I have seen no candidate who could do that since JFK. So, why wouldn’t the press like him better than her? She has little charisma and she does not deliver a particularly good speech. In addition, it isn’t fun when she laughs at her own jokes. Now, none of those is a measurement of the kind of president that either would turn out to be although I think an argument can be made that a person with an ability to speak particularly well may have an advantage over someone who does not. Such a person may be able to actually gain some traction in the Congress towards less partisanship wrangling.
Regarding picking the candidate more likely to win….it is a toss up. She will not be supported by people who won’t vote for a woman. He won’t be supported by people who won’t vote for a man. He might be able to overcome part of that if more African Americans turn out to vote for an African American. An unknown is how many people won’t vote for a Muslim. (Yeah, he isn’t but many, many people still believe he is). Finally, I was no more supportive of him than I was of her until her campaign began doing this stuff. It has turned me off….
Having said all that, I absolutely dread an election of McSame.
Gug
on 17 Mar 2008 at 4:46 pm7Wendy Whinner

The media’s campaign against “negative campaigning” is such a crock. Candidates must have the freedom to use discretion but also point out their opponent’s weaknesses.

That could include Clinton’s baggage or divisiveness or Obama’s lack of experience or ties to a hateful cleric. There is nothing wrong with painting your opponent with these strokes.
on 17 Mar 2008 at 6:02 pm8snuzy mandrake

I’m a lot more interested in beating John McCain than I am in who wins the nomination. If some scandal comes out and either one of them’s tanking in the polls, looking likely to drag the ticket down with them, you’re goddamned right I want the superdelegates to pick the one who looks the most like a winner. That’s why they exist.

then why don’t you want the supers to decide now that they all want obama? i mean, obama is ahead in both pledged delegates and the popular vote and there’s almost no plausible scenario where he won’t be in that same situation by the convention. so why not avoid a damaging nasty 4 months of inter-party trench warfare and get enough supers to pledge to obama so that clinton suspends her campaign right now? she doesn’t have to drop out. just suspend her campaign. and if something really nasty comes out about obama between now and the convention, the supers can always decide to vote for clinton instead.

that’s essentially what mittens said when he “conceded” on the republican side. he remains available to “jump in” if something goes horribly askew with mccain. clinton could do the same thing. then you’d have your backup plan and we’d get to end this nasty season.

i’m not trying to be snide, i just wonder what you think is wrong with that scenario? doesn’t that satisfy your concerns? clinton’s decision to continue when she can’t really win absent some obama meltdown makes no sense to me. especially when you consider in the event of an obama meltdown, she still could step in later if she suspends her campaign now.

Comments RSS

The War On Clinton

8 Responses to “The War On Clinton”

Leave a Reply

My Liberal Identity:

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Tags

Pages