Do we owe her a pass? Maybe she should try not doing things worth demonizing by your own party.
So far nobody has presented a lick of evidence to support the idea that she needs some good ol’ demonizing.
Bet you wish this was true.
It’s all politics as usual for Billary. Smear, lie, discredit, distort. Even though I won’t vote for Obama (lack of experience and his platform), I respect him for the candor he has shown in his own missteps with drugs and Rezko. He has been honest and forthcoming and has tried to not descend into the slime that the Clintons smear everywhere. He has tried to not let the crap get to him but he is being double teamed from one opponent. Michelle Obama makes some speeches and occasionally they get in the news. Elizabeth Edwards is not appearing in the spotlight because she has more pressing concerns due to her battle with cancer. So Barak is facing 3 stumping opponents while Hillary faces 2.
Hillary needs to stop the bullshit and run a clean campaign. Bill needs to sit down, shut up and stay way the hell away from any kind of official government role.
Whether or not she does is a matter of opinion. One man’s minor transgression is another man’s mortal sin. Whether or not you agree, obviously many people think she’s acted very inappropriately.
The question remains, if I (or whoever) thinks she’s acting extremely poorly, do we owe her a pass?
No. You obviously should vote your conscience. I’ll continue to argue that the evidence you are using to support your decision, to the degree that you offer it here, is damn flimsy.
I have more of a problem with people who say that they’d vote first for Obama, and then for McCain over Clinton, than I do with people who would abstain from voting rather than vote for Clinton, but I think the motivations in both cases are suspect.
How about this?
I think this add falls into the category of things worth demonizing. Obama never said he supported any of the ideas in the voice over. This Clinton ad is worthy of Atwater at his slimiest.
I find the time frame in the quote to be kind of odd myself. Given that he was also waxing nostalgic for Reagan, I would assume he was talking about the 80’s, but he also says “the last 10 to 15 years”, which sounds to me like 1993 to the present. Which did he mean?
On the other hand, running up an x-trillion dollar debt, refusing to pass minimum wage, or dealing with housing problems were Republican “ideas” that were true during both time periods, so perhaps the question of which time period he was talking about is moot.
Thanks, Hillary.
Jeez, your certainty here is just bizarre. For one thing, Bill Clinton isn’t running for President. If he would have a positive impact on government then let the President - Obama, Edwards, whomever - name him to cabinet.
I mean, if you’re a Hillary Clinton supporter that’s fine, but this isn’t really the place for out-and-out blind campaigning.
If he were the President of the United States of America, he would be taken seriously.
And if you think Bill Clinton is “buds” with any world leader, you need to reexamine the realities of international politics. World leaders are not “buds.” Clinton is respected and taken seriously because he was the President; ALL Presidents are taken seriously. But no world leader on the face of the earth is going to change their nation’s policies because they think Bill Clinton is the bestest guy ever. They’ll be friends when it suits them and enemies when it suits them and do whatever suits them. Another nation will follow whatever policy suits that nation, no matter who’s married to the President.
He was making the point that there is a difference between a transformational president and a non-transformational one. Many people in the campaign have denied that a transformational presidency is even possible. He was downplaying the notion that he is a singular figure, by pointing to other agents of change, and pointing out that the democrats have not been agents of change in a long time.
Agreed. Remember when Clinton & Blair were Best Friends Forever? Then remember how Bush and Blair were BFF’s after Bush took office? So it goes.
I already voted in the CA primary (write-in ballot), so it’s not going to matter me, personally, what happens from here on in. But I don’t want to leave the impression that I’m completely turned off by Clinton. I don’t like her campaign style, but I’ve held my nose while voting in plenty of elections in the past. There’s a good chance she’ll get my vote in Nov if she is the Democratic nominee and the Republican nominee is anyone besides McCain. If it comes down to Hillary v McCain, it will depend on what the situation in Iraq is at the time, and which party looks like they’ll be in control of Congress after the election.
That might not be, but having an Ex-President, a secret service team, and scores of reporters; who, while making an already crowded mess of a casino floor even more crowded and more messy for those trying to get to the caucus areas in a hurry, make a claim that they ‘overheard’ a conversation about voters being obstructed? That just might be. Considering what they were claiming, of which I haven’t seen any strong supporting evidence off, couldn’t it be argued that they were Union busting as well.
Plus, its interesting how the last minute campaigning worked two fold and eliminated Edwards from the mix. By having smooth talking Bubba there just before the caucus doors closed to shmooze and slick talk those last minute undecideds, and perhaps make access to the caucuses more difficult to navigate through his entourage, he was able to give Hillary an early jump in the numbers. This forced the abCs(“anyone but Clinton”) camps, mostly Edwards and Kucinich supporters, to go on the offensive and caucus with Obama just to try and beat Hillary. Hence the abnormal complete lack of numbers for Edwards and Kucinich, usually strong with Union workers, and the near 50/50 split, rather than the typical, roughly, 35, 35, 25, 2, ±3% splits that polls and ballots usually show.