It would be great if we lived in a world where all of a candidate’s partisans behaved as well as the candidate him/herself.
But what’s the odds of anything like that? Every candidate is constrained towards good behavior by the prospect of losing votes. The candidates’ supporters aren’t. This is why, among other things, a great deal of attacking is done by surrogates - the more distant and deniable by the candidate, the better.
I wouldn’t be (supporting Clinton). Don’t forget about the other Democratic candidates – Biden, Richardson, Dodd, Edwards, etc. If Obama had dropped out, I think the voters who didn’t like Hillary would have gotten behind one of them. I don’t know if any of them (except maybe Edwards) could have raised enough money to give HRC a good fight though.
I’ve resented Hillary and her campaign from the beginning, for acting like the nomination was a foregone conclusion.
That’s part of the problem. It now looks as if Gore and Kerry losing the elections in 2000 and 2004 were part of a long-term Clinton plan to get Hillary in the White House in 2008. And if that’s so, it’s not Ralph Nader or the Supreme Court to blame for 8 years of George W. Bush.
I’ve certainly reassessed the Clintons in light of this primary season; it would be hard not to. That’s what you do: when new evidence comes along, you see how it affects your conclusions.
My feelings about Bill Clinton before this year were pretty well defined. He did the basic function of an executive - keeping the enterprise running smoothly - exceedingly well, better than any other President in the past 30 years, certainly.
As a leader, especially as a party leader, he left a great deal to be desired: his Presidency was basically one long, slow retreat in the face of the GOP insurgency whose public face was Newt Gingrich, trying to give ground as slowly as possible, but giving ground nonetheless. He never really tried to articulate a forward-looking vision for the Democrats which would have enabled the party to go on the offensive, politically. And he has done nothing for his party as ex-President, being totally eclipsed by ex-veep Gore, who spoke out against the war in the fall of 2002, and has fought the good fight to raise the alarm about global warming.
OTOH, the hunting of Bill Clinton by every wingnut from Ken Starr to Richard Mellon Scaife, culminating in his impeachment, was ridiculous and essentially baseless.
I’d had a less detailed assessment of Hillary, since her public track record is smaller. She bears at least partial responsibility for the muffing of Hillarycare, but she had the guts to call the ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ by that name. I was glad to see her win her Senate seat in 2000, just because I knew it would drive the wingnuts crazy(er). But while I respected her attempts to reach across party lines in the Senate, I thought that that would only work with issues that could fly beneath the wingnut radar. I respected her willingness to learn the nuts and bolts of serious issues, rather than be yet one more Senate grandstander, but I was not happy with her longstanding support of the Iraq war.
Two main things have changed in my post-2006 view of the Clintons. About Hillary, I’ve learned how long and deep her relationship with corporate types, particularly union-busting corporate types, really is. Mark Penn, her time on the Wal-Mart board, and so forth. I have little tolerance for Dems chumming up with union-busters: if the Dems aren’t in the workers’ corner, then neither major party is.
Second thing is my response to the “the Clintons are just in it for themselves” accusation that some of our more conservative posters lob. A year ago, I’d have said, “Cite? Give evidence, please.” Now I’ve seen that evidence, as Hillary has been happy to campaign against Obama in ways that are disrespectful of democracy, potentially harmful to the party, and that all too often fall into the standard DLC “let’s point our guns leftward” dynamic where progressives wind up fighting off both Republicans and the ‘moderates’ in their own party. And of course there have been all those surrogates playing the race card.
And now Bill Clinton’s second-term search for a legacy, while failing to provide some direction for his own party, has a context to fall into. Rather than being a disappointing lapse, maybe it was because he was just in it for himself. And accordingly, I’d have a tough time arguing that that wasn’t true all along, so I don’t rebut such statements.
I’ve no idea. I don’t believe I accused you of anything. Rather, I was commenting on the notion that it’d be wonderful if the voting public was as cordial to the candidates as the candidates are (generally) to each other. I don’t think that’s the problem. I think the poison between camps is much more of a problem and, tying it into the OP, said that Clinton lost it for me by openly adding to that poison.
Bill Clinton was a fairly decent President in my view (of course, he looks much better in comparison with GWB). The tragedy of his two terms in office was that his behavior and the vehement reaction it caused, led to many wasted opportunities to really make changes for the better.
And that’s pretty much what I’ve become convinced would happen all over again if Hillary Clinton became President. Sleazy behavior, horrendous sniping, and a revisiting of all that wasteful conflict. Before the current campaign I didn’t think of her as much different from any other politician (in terms of honesty and tactics); now that we’ve seen her bad side fully exposed*, she’s become unacceptable to many here.
Her stated positions don’t differ all that much from Obama’s - what matters more to me at this point is the individual behind those positions and what we can expect from that person in terms of decency and accountability.
*I hope I’m not premature in saying this. We could still see worse.
You might be.
Consider the Clintons on the stump for Barack in the General.
I cringe at the prospect.
I honestly liked Clinton (and even voted for him in his second term…the last major party candidate I voted for in fact) and even Hillary. Myself, I think this demonization of Hillary is a bit nuts…she is as she has always been, a woman much in the mold of Billy boy himself. Someone who is the model of a hard nosed politician, ready to go with the flow (and where the votes are). Someone who is the exact opposite of uncompromising. In short, she is exactly the kind of president we need because she will do what it takes to get re-elected and to do that she will do what it takes to keep the majority of voters happy.
And I’m all for that. Of course I still won’t be voting for her. Nor will I be voting for Obama, though I was leaning in that way before. Nor will I (ever) vote for McCain.
FWIW I think she jumped the shark on the SDMB around January when Obama fever first started to take hold. I think she simply isn’t liberal enough for the majority of 'dopers, and they FINALLY have someone who not only IS liberal enough but who actually has a chance to win this thing. It will be interesting to see how all this plays out. I hope you Dem’s don’t end up tearing your party apart over this thing. I wouldn’t bet against it at this point though, seeing how things are currently panning out.
-XT
Doing whatever it takes to get elected (or re-elected) is exactly what we don’t need more of.
I think there’s a perception out there among some voters that the desirable quality of “tough” can be inferred from being HRC’s nastiness and dissembling on the political stump. I don’t buy this. Doing anything to get elected doesn’t automatically translate to doing all you can for your country.
I actually meant making the majority of voters happy, but it’s cool.
-XT
Hilary is no longer the front-runner.
Really, there’s nothing more to it than that. If she were, then everything she is now attacked for would be defended. “She’s mean” would be “that’s how politics is played/you’re only saying that because she is a woman/Bush lied about Iraq”. “She lied about her trip to Bosnia” would become “this is stupid and petty/we should be talking about real issues/McCain’s mistakes are worse/Bush lied about Iraq”. "“She’s not liberal enough” would transform into “she’s a centrist/UHC will solve all our problems/Bush lied about Iraq”.
Hell, if she winds up with the nomination, it will happen anyway. The SDMB is 70-80% yellow dog Democrats. They were hot for Dean back in 2004 until he fell apart; then they fell obediently into line behind Kerry. It’s more of the same in 2008. Granted, it’s easier now - Obama is a good deal more charismatic than Kerry, not that that’s much to brag about - I’ve eaten things that were more charismatic than Kerry. But Obama is pretty, a good speechifyer, well to the left of center and doesn’t have an R after his name. And the SDMB really doesn’t care all that much about any of that but the last.
Not all of them. If Hilary does wind up with the nod, I am sure some of the more fanatical Obamaniacs will not vote for her. But they will probably stay home, or vote for some fringe party. They sure as hell won’t vote for McCain.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s good that we have fair and impartial posters such as yourself to tell us how yellabelly we are, Shodan.
I actually do agree in part, that if Hillary was certain to lock this up she’d be getting a lot more defense. She’s trying to fight fire with fire, and if that’s all the Democrats had to hand they’d be backing her up. But Obama came along with a bucket of water, and so we’re looking at the fire and wondering why we need to use it at all. His success has shown that it’s not necessary to have an attack dog as a nominee, and in comparison to him her tactics just look brutish and Republican now. (Hey, if you can do it so can I.) That she doesn’t seem to notice this only makes it worse.
Not everyone feels this way, but it’s at least my reasoning for losing respect for the Clintons.
Don’t think thats quite it, its more like how we obsess over trivialities like Iraq and ignore the rising tide of hamster porn.
Not yellow belly, yellow dog Democrats - someone who would vote for a yellow dog if he were a Democrat.
Regards,
Shodan
Would you ever vote for a Democrat?
You don’t have to answer that if you don’t like the answer. We understand.
Utterly, completely and totally wrong. You’ve got it completely backwards. All the things you claim we’d be defending are precisely the reason she’s not the front-runner. We made it that way with our voices and our votes. And we did that because we won’t put up with that kind of crap anymore. She was never going to be the front-runner while running this kind of campaign and espousing this kind of politics. Period.
That’s sort of missing the point. What I am saying is that if her tactics weren’t working, they would be defended.
Probably not by you - I suspect you are one of those who won’t vote for Hilary if she gets the nomination. Whether that would be true if she had wrapped up the nomination early and were trying out her various schemes against McCain instead of St. Obama I leave up to your conscience to determine.
Sure, I would. I have, even.
Look, you have to understand the flip side of what I mentioned earlier. Any support for Republicans is going to get labelled as mindless partisanship sooner or later by one or another of the Usual Suspects. It just goes with the territory. Some folks simply will not allow for the notion that there can be any kind of nuance on the other side. You voted for Bush? You’re stupid. And then they start spouting the canned rants they picked up from Daily Kos or some blog or other.
Not everyone, but it’s pretty consistent with some. Anyone who does not say, explicitly, I Hate Bush, gets treated the same. I’m not complaining; it’s just part of the background hereabouts, and you get used to it after a while.
Some people can think rationally about politics (and religion and whatnot). Some can’t. I tend to have civilized and often interesting discussions with those who can, and amuse myself popping the bubbles of those who can’t.
Just my $7.98 worth.
Regards,
Shodan
This is a bit of a hijack but I see a lot of people here saying they will vote for HRC if she gets the nomination.
I am curious if this means you will vote for her no matter how she gets the nomination?
Myself if she wins fair and square then I will vote for her in November.
However, if the popular vote has Obama winning and she snakes a win via super delegate back-room deal making I most definitely will not vote for her. I simply could not support a party that would flagrantly ignore the democratic process it should be upholding.
EDIT: I know technically if she wins via super-delegates that is technically “fair” because that is how the system and rules are setup but I will still view it as distinctly unfair and a problem with the process.
Another example of why support for the Clintons has declined here - their “one standard for us, another for everybody else” routine.
Both Hillary and Bill are playing up how “tough” she is in contrast to the “whining” from the Obama campaign about questions at this week’s debate.
*"Former President Bill Clinton says he didn’t see his wife “whining” when she’s taken some tough political shots on the presidential campaign trail.
“When I watched that debate last night, I got kinda tickled,” the former President said at an American Legion Hall event in St. Mary’s, Pennsylvania, “After the [debate], her opponents’, oh, the people working were saying, ‘Oh this is so negative, why are they doing this.’ Well they’ve been beatin’ up on her for 15 months. I didn’t hear her whining when he said she was untruthful in Iowa or called her the senator from Punjab.”*
Noooo…of course the Clintons have never griped about media coverage being unfair to her. Here’s Bill, speaking a couple of weeks ago:
*"(Clinton) referred to the three remaining candidates, saying all were “admirable people,” but that if one compared their records as an agent of change “it is not close.” But, he added, the coverage of the race hasn’t borne it out.
“She’s the most unconventional person I have ever seen to be running for president, because she did most of this before she had an elected office,” he said. “[But] you never read about any of stuff in the press, do you? Because the intermediaries of the campaign, these kinds of things don’t matter to them, because they don’t need a president, they need a story. They want a feeling. You gotta decide whether you need a president or not.”*
And here’s Bill again, ripping the media in December:
" Bill Clinton said Tuesday that if reporters covered the candidates’ public records better, his wife’s presidential bid would be far ahead of her rivals.
During a campaign stop on behalf of his wife, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former president said he can’t understand why so much of the media coverage of the campaign ignores her experience—and, without naming him, the relative lack of experience of her closest Democratic rival, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama…“Sixty-seven percent of the coverage is pure politics. That stuff has a half life of about 15 seconds. It won’t matter tomorrow. It is very vulnerable to being slanted and rude. And it won’t affect your life,” Clinton said."
The Clintons have griped and moaned about the media and their enemies as much as any politicians. But when an opponent dares to raise similar issues, he’s “whining”. :rolleyes:
It must be cold and lonely up there on that mountaintop. 
No, you’re missing the point. Not to mention that the sentence “if her tactics weren’t working, they would be defended” doesn’t even make any damn sense.
Her tactics aren’t working. They are not being defended. And they aren’t being defended and aren’t working because we, the voters are fed up with them. We choose not to defend them under any circumstances. And that’s why she’s not the front-runner, and would not have become the front-runner using these kinds of tactics. Not against Obama, not against Edwards, not against Richardson. No one. Precisely because these tactics – the tactics of Republicans – are vile and filthy to us.
Just ask the 40-year friend of the Clintons, former Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton, Robert Reich, who said in response to being asked why he’s endorsing Barack Obama for President today. . .
Hillary Clinton, using these tactics, never had a chance in hell of becoming the front-runner because these tactics are indefensible to decent people of conscience. Which, since you seem so concerned about mine, it’s just fine, thank you very much.