Is Clinton useing Tactics that should discredit a candidate?

In this article it spells out a few things and in the comments someone from the Nevada caucuses gives more detail on her personal experience their.

I was amazed during the 2000 election when Rove’s dirty tricks successfully pushed MCcain out of the running. IMO when it becomes fairly clear that a candidate will stoop to dishonest political cheap shots to win then they’ve revealed enough about their charecter to tell me I don’t want them in office.

It appears thats going on again and this time it’s the Clintons who are playing politics and crossing the line into dishonesty and unethical behavior. Bill has been accused several times of misrepresenting Obamas record as he campaigns for Hillary. link The thing that disturbs me about Nevada is the effort to alter people’s ability to vote. If you truly respect our system of government then you welcome people who are willing to participate. You certainly shouldn’t do anything to prevent their voice from being heard.

IMO when you are willing to lie about an opponent because they’re doing to well , and then file lawsuits and plan other shenanigans to prevent your opponents supporters from getting an equal opportunity to participate in the process, then you’ve already revealed what I need to know about your charecter.

Obama seems to be trying to run an honest open campaign about the real issues. We need more politicians who are willing to do that.


The Clinton campaign has the right to point out when Obama is being inconsistant or says stuff that’s boneheaded, like his praise of Reagan, and they have the right to complain when the Obama campaign uses voter intimidation.

As Samuel Johnson said of the Irish -

Gee whiz - Clintons and sleaze. Who’da thunk?


Is she allowed to complain about Obama’s ‘praise’ of Reagan when her own campaign website lists him as one of her favorite presidents?


That people eat up the crap the Clinton’s are spewing is nothing short of amazing to me.

Grr, I don’t know how that apostrophe slipped in there…

Well, if we’re going to start correcting. . .

I don’t know if Bill Clinton is helping or hindering Sen. Clinton right now. I do think that fighting between them and Obama doesn’t really help either candidate. I’d like to ask Senator Clinton: Is it more important that a Democrat be in the White House a year from now, or that you, specifically, be elected? (Of course, you wouldn’t get a straight answer. I heard her in an interview the other day, talking about Social Security, and she wouldn’t answer a specific question about whether she’d like to raise the cap for people making over $200,000 a year. Kept conflating that idea with the idea of raising the payroll taxes on people of median income.)

You’re not paying close enough attention.

Bill lied about Obama’s inconsistency. And he lied about Obama’s “praise for Reagan.” Of course criticisms are legitimate, but not when you lie.

I’d also like to see your objective evidence of Obama’s voter intimidation, please.

I don’t get this. Unless you mean politically boneheaded – as in, Obama should have known that speaking favorably of a member from the other party is a political mistake. Which is an attitude that kind of neauseates me. (And please note that I’m not saying that you are taking that attitude; I don’t know what your attitude is). Quoting Obama’s statements from here:

I disagree with Stoller’s criticism: Obama didn’t say that he admired Reagan (at least not within the quoted text), but that the country felt that way. Again, perhaps politically stupid, but mischaracterized constantly as I’ve seen it presented.

Let’s not forget how Hillary went at him herself. Obama said he thought that the Republicans had been the party of ideas in the recent past-- that they had more ideas than the Dems. Hillary claimed he said they had better ideas.

As to what level of sleaze this rises to relative to other politicians is hard to say. But it’s a turn-off for me, nonetheless. I hope Obama calls her on this in the next debate. Or maybe one of the moderators will juxtapose the two quotes and ask Hillary if her paraphrasing was correct.

The Clintons seem to using Rove’s play book, and it is disheartening.

Step 1: Sieze and take out of context any statement coming from their opponent.
Step 2: Both distort and blow it out of proportion.
Step 3: Have all your people go out and share the same canned talking points gospel.
Step 4: Be shameless about it.

They’re doing it because it worked the last two times. Let’s hope this strategy backfires this go around. Obama need not play the same game, but I hope he does a better job than Kerry in fighting back.

The politicians who fail to use the most successful campaign strategies of the past decade or two will fall behing the pols who use them. The concept that some tactics “should discredit a candidate” was trampled into the mud years ago. Tactics that get candidates elected apparently do not discredit anybody.

“Global test,” anyone? :dubious:

The bottom line is that the country needs Bill back in the White House a lot more than it needs Obama. And Bill knows that the Clintons vs any Republican has a much better chance of winning than Obama vs any Republican. And he knows the dumb public buys what he’s saying about Obama, just like it bought the bullshit about Kerry being a waffler.

If Bill has to dump on Obama to ensure a Democrat in the White House, isn’t it worth it for the good of the country?
The alternative is Bill praising Obama, maybe he wins and then loses to the Republican- does anyone want that? Bill knows poltics, Bill has pull and friends all over the globe, the country needs him.

Sez who?

Ah, the end justifies the means. I’m sure glad we’ll have someone in the WH who adheres to that philosophy!

No, the alternative is that he not lie (or distort the truth, or whatever you want to call it).

BTW, what is to prevent Bill and/or Hillary from playing a key roll in an Obama administration? Assuming, of course, that the country “needs” them.

I just wish Obama would stop trying to let it all just run off his back. While I admire him for trying to just stay on policy and not fight back, we all saw how well that worked for Kerry in '04. That is not to say I would like to see him resort to the same tactics as the Billary Machine, certainly not, but at least step up and flat out call his opponent on her BS. Not only her Bush-league way with the truth, but also in the way that she will wait until Obama and Edwards say something, weigh the reaction each one gets, and only then give her non-answer.

Hillary seems to be the media’s pick, and as long as Obama stays quiet on her and her camp’s lies, the media will play her as the truth teller. Untill she is called on this, she will continue to use and exploit this to her advantage.

Oh, and as far as Ex-Presidents go- if it is some how uncouth for former presidents to weigh in on an illegal war for profit, then they certainly don’t need to speak on an upcoming presidential election, family or otherwise. I would like for Obama to tell Bill to back the f*ck up for a minute, but I’m sure it would probably be spun on the “news” as Obama picking on a poor lil’ ol’ Clinton again, complete with sound bite tears and all.

Well, the OP’s question was *should *the tactics discredit them. The answer is yes. But like you, I doubt very much that they will.

He can’t “know” that. All anyone can do is predict. Based on the poll averages at realclearpolitics, Obama fares much better than Clinton against every Republican candidate.

No doubt, those numbers will change once we get into the general election. But I see no reason why Hillary is more electable than Obama. All of the actual evidence (not just polls but analysis of turnout in Iowa, NH, etc.) points in precisely the other direction.

The end justifies the means, absolutely. It would be a wonderful place if all the candidates could sit around in a friendship circle and sing Kumbaya isntead of debate, but that’s not how it is. The Hispanics aren’t voting for Obama, the whites say they will but who knows- Clinton has the best chance, Bill knows it.

And damn right we need Bill back- look at the state of the country under him, and now, and you tell me. Clinton is buds with tons of world leaders, he could have a huge impact on world affairs at this crucial time- Obama would be an unknown- who knows whether anyone would take him seriously.

Is anyone here seriously questioning Bill’s political acumen, or saying Obama’s is superior?

That’s funny, I see it just the opposite. Why do you think Hillary has a better chance in the general than Obama?

Obama consistently polls higher against republicans than Clinton does. He’s less hated by the right and I think if he is the democratic candidate a lot of republicans will skip the vote entirely. If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination they will turn out in droves to vote against her and while they’re there they may as well move down the list and check the boxes for the republican senators and representatives.

Ignoring that, I think what’s good for the country is that we get an honest man with some semblance of principles and decency and a history of good judgment instead of somebody with a tendency to lie and cheat their way to the top while making ill considered, poor decisions along the way.

Obviously, opinions may vary.