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. . .
[/QUOTE]
Don’t forget about her ridiculous tantrum about always being asked the first question in a debate and suggesting they offer Senator Obama a cushion to sit on to make him more comfortable.
Raising legitimate concerns about the tone and tenor of a “debate” that didn’t even get to any issues that concern the American public for nearly an hour is not whining.
Throwing a hissy about being the first one to be asked a question in a debate, as if it were so demanding to be placed in such a tough predicament, that’s whining!
There just aren’t enough rolleyes in the universe for that woman.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
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”.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve seen this time and again around here, especially lately.
Start to make a little headway in explaining that the right has known of the Clintons’ true colors for the last sixteen years, and that the reason the right has known about them whereas they didn’t is because of a mainstream media that kept it hidden and so the information was only coming from right-wing radio, and let them be shaken a bit and find themselves starting to appear simpatico with the pubbie point of view regarding both the Clintons and the media, and watch shaken die-hard party or Clinton loyalists come flying in with “Bush lied about Iraq” and “Your guy is worse” to try to derail the discussion.
Kudos to those with the intellectual honesty and strength of character to question and/or turn away from their long-standing admiration or support for the Clintons based on having discovered what they’re truly like, and for acknowledging that we who have found them detestable all this time and criticized them accordingly actually had good reason and that we have not simply been acting out of right-wing bias.
[QUOTE=Shayna]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Why are negative ads “indefensable” all of a sudden? Maybe it’s just that I don’t have a conscience, but I don’t get it.
[QUOTE=Shayna]
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.
[/quote]
My bad - I should have said “if her tactics were working, she would be defended”.
But like Starving Artist says, what she is doing now is not all that different from the kind of thing she pulled when she was co-President. But then it was OK. There was even some chat about how she would win easily because the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy had already done all it could, and no new scandals would be forthcoming.
Oops!
You guys didn’t want to hear anything bad about the Clintons for years and years. Now you are saying - exactly what we on the right have been saying all along. OK - better late than never.
Maybe if Obama makes it to the White House and turns out to be as big a dud as I expect, some other knight in shining armor will be along in 2013 that y’all will like better. And then you will figure out that we were right about Obama too. But not before.
All this stuff you guys have been right about. A bit fuzzy on that, don’t have clear focus. Perhaps you could outline the top ten thing you were right about.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Sure, I would. I have, even.
[/QUOTE]
Just curious, Shodan. Which Democrats have you voted for president? Also, have you ever regretted voting for a Republican president? Were there any Democrats that you didn’t vote for but would have been content with?
For myself, I have never voted for a Republican, I have never regretted voting for a Democrat. The Pubs that I didn’t vote for but would have been OK with were Ford, Bush the Elder, and Dole.
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
The Pubs that I didn’t vote for but would have been OK with were Ford, Bush the Elder, and Dole.
[/QUOTE]
If McCain had gotten the nom in 2000 I would have voted for him over Gore. Probably wouldn’t have changed how world events have played out if McCain had been pres, though.
As for the Republican smugness over how they were right about the Clintons all along, my only thought there is “damn, give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.” My dislike of the Clintons stems solely from their actions taken during this campaign. They’ve managed to blow all the respect I had for them. But I’m not retroactively deciding Bill was a horrid president. I still think he did a good job and I still think his impeachment was a bullshit affair. Just because I think dislike of them is justified now doesn’t mean I think it was justified then.
The only reason I would vote for Clinton over McCain at this point is that by everything I’ve seen, he wants to keep the Iraq mess going, and she might be persuaded to at least set a freakin’ timetable.
[QUOTE=Bosstone]
As for the Republican smugness over how they were right about the Clintons all along, my only thought there is “damn, give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.” My dislike of the Clintons stems solely from their actions taken during this campaign. They’ve managed to blow all the respect I had for them. But I’m not retroactively deciding Bill was a horrid president. I still think he did a good job and I still think his impeachment was a bullshit affair. Just because I think dislike of them is justified now doesn’t mean I think it was justified then.
[/QUOTE]
The thing is, what we’re “smug” about now (a mischaracterization of our view, btw) is the fact that the Clinton character flaws which have caused you to lose all respect for them now has been part of their character from the very beginning.
The lies, the trickery, the unscrupulousness, the propensity for dirty pool - have all been there from the beginning but are only now, thanks largely to the internet, becoming general public knowledge.
It isn’t a matter retroactively deciding Bill was a horrid president. Even I have acknowledged that he wasn’t all that bad in the main, and certainly better than Johnson or Carter. It’s that the things we’ve been saying all this time about the Clintons’ character vis-a-vis right wing radio are being borne out by the Clintons themselves, and certain posters around here have been honest enough to acknowledge that perhaps they haven’t been getting the straight scoop on the Clintons all this time after all and it’s been an eye-opening experience.
We on the right, having experienced accusations of partisanship or outright lying when talking about our disdain for and mistrust of the Clintons all these years, naturally find it gratifying to see that some of the posters around here are willing to admit that perhaps we weren’t so full of shit after all. We feel vindicated, not smug.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
I’d had a less detailed assessment of Hillary, since her public track record is smaller.
[/QUOTE]
Nooooo! She has all this vast experience. If you don’t believe it, just ask her!
I voted for Bush I, and don’t regret it, but I voted for Clinton both times, and don’t regret that, either. I was sure from the primaries in 2000 that Bush II was going to be a disaster, and he proved worse than I could have ever dreamed. I would have been ok with Dole or McCain.
To answer the OP, my giving up on Hillary took some time; it was not a single moment. And, I still think she’s a remarkable, talented women in many, many ways, who generally speaking deserves a lot more credit than she gets. But, basically, her campaign has been a wreck, her attacks on Obama rarely have much substance, and I’m tired of the way drama clouds around the Clintons like gnats over a fetid marsh.
I just have come to the conclusion that I don’t want to see her become our POTUS. I think she will make a very effective Senator.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I haven’t changed. I have no problem with the Clintons. I would still happily vote for HRC if she got the nomination. I discount election tactics, because it’s what you have to do. They all lie all the time. Getting upset about it is like getting upset at the violence in hockey. It’s just part if the game, and this is playoff hockey. If you’re not hooking and spearing alittle bit, you’re not trying. I don’t begrudge any of it.
I also don’t think they’ve both taken a 1000 times more than they’ve ever given, and that the image of them as politcal goons is overcooked – especially compared to a psychopath like Rove.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree she didn’t have to sink this low, and the existence of Karl Rove doesn’t make it ok.
That being said, if by some miracle from Hell Clinton pulled the nomination from Golgotha, I would vote for John McCain.
At this point I won’t even vote for her again for the Senate unless the opposing candidate is truly deplorable.
That was a three-pointer.