It seems to me that Clinton’s scorched earth policy is not just meant to try and beat Obama for the Democrat nomination, no matter how slight the chance, but it also seems to me that she would actually prefer John McCain to Obama in the fall. Can there be any other explanation for her tactics? I think these comments by Conservative Obama supporter Andrew Sullivan are dead on, in response to this ad:
An Obama supporter attacks the Clinton campaign by accusing her of talking bad about a fellow Democrat.
What’s that burning smell? Did somebody leave the irony on again?
Yep. I think Hillary Clinton is a selfish, self-serving, power-hungry woman who would love to see John McCain beat Barack Obama. Not only because it will re-open the door for her in 4 years, but because it will satisfy her narcissism to think that if she couldn’t beat Obama, at least he was beat by someone. She just wants to take him down because he dared to challenge what she believed was her due. Just ask Bill Richardson about her “entitlement” mentality.
Accusing? She is undeniably talking bad about Obama. And just because he is an Obama supporter doesn’t mean he is wrong. But that is the debate, isn’t it? Care to contribute?
I don’t see any irony because I see no evidence of Obama saying things that would hurt Hillary against McCain should she win the nomination. The one and only thing that matters to Hillary is becoming president. An Obama election would make this nearly impossible, as she’d be 68 in 2016 after either a second Obama term or a loss by President Obama in a 2012 reelection try.
She isn’t an idiot. She can do the math, she knows she will never catch up in popular vote or in pledged delegates. She knows the superdelegates are not going to overturn the will of the people. But by hanging on and fighting, she can and will do all she can to make Obama lose to McCain. I don’t see her attempts to paint him as the second coming of McGovern to be any more successful than her attempt to paint him as Jesse Jackson reborn. This stink over the “bitter” comments are not an attempt to get the nomination which she knows she has already lost, it is an attempt to cause Obama to lose in November.
I believe that, barring her actual election, that odious woman will be running for president for the rest of her life, and McCain beating Obama would present her the best opportunity to do so again and in the shortest amount of time.
ETA: She probably also wants to hurt Obama because he’s the one that took the nomination away from her - a nomination that she has long felt entitled to.
A difficult charge to prove, to be sure, but I think it is reasonable to consider it to be a distinct possibility, and it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if it were true. I certainly wouldn’t put that in the tin foil hat conspiracy theory category.
Obama and Clinton are running against each other for the Democratic nomination. Both campaigns are going to say bad things about the other. But it seems that everytime the Obama campaign says something bad about Clinton, we’re supposed to feel he’s revealing a regretable truth because of a deeply held principle. But when the Clinton campaign says something bad about Obama, it’s because that lying selfish bitch is trying to steal the election.
And the irony I refered to is the fact that this specific accusation being made against Clinton is that she is attacking a fellow democrat. Isn’t the Obama campaign doing the same thing when they attack Clinton by making that accusation? I’ve heard plenty of Obama supporters saying that if Clinton gets nominated, they’re going to vote for McCain - how is that any different that what they’re accusing Clinton supporters of?
Can you give any examples of Obama saying unfair or untrue things about Hillary? Has Obama ever compared Hillary unfavorably to John McCain? I try to be objective, but the only mud I see on Hillary is what fell on her as she threw it towards Obama.
ANother thing is that Obama is almost certainly going to be the Democratic nominee. So Hillary’s attacks on Obama are far more damaging to the Democrats cause than anything Barack could say about Hillary. That’s the point, are Hillary’s attacks geared more toward making sure Obama loses ini the fall?
This is not about saying “bad things” about one’s opponent. It’s about the types of personal smears one is leveling at the other, and not the other way around.
Hillary Clinton is parading out her surrogates, dredging up the Geraldine Ferarro flap again, saying Ferarro was right; making outright allegations about Obama’s connections to Tony Rezko in an official campaign memo; still blaming him for the clusterfuck her own senior strategist had a hand in creating in Florida, which is an outright lie; not to mention the name-calling she instigated with these retarded “elitist” allegations.
That’s just despicable. You don’t hear Barack Obama bringing up Whitewater, Norman Hsu or Kase Lawal, who is “at least the fourth person accused or convicted of criminal wrongdoing to help finance Clinton’s political ambitions since 2000 and the second in her quest for the White House,” or the very fact that her campaign played a pivotal and significant role in denying the Florida and Michigan delegates their seating at the convention, do you?
No.
You haven’t been paying attention to the right polls. 28% of Hillary’s supporters will vote for John McCain in November if Barack Obama gets the nomination. That compares to only 19% of Obama supporters who say the same, which is actually somewhat less relevant, given that the odds that Obama supporters will be faced with that choice are next to nil, whereas there is the very real likelihood that Clinton’s supporters will have the opportunity to make good on their promise. If so, welcome President McCain.
Thanks, Hillary!
Well there were the attack ads over her Bosnia lies, her hospital story and rememebr the one attacking her over Mark Penn. I would post links but I seem to be having trouble finding those ads anywhere on the internet.
Shayna, you’re a prime example of exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about.
So what do we have? Barack Obama isn’t bringing up stuff from fifteen years ago and is only talking about current issues from this campaign. Now look at your list of things Hillary Clinton is saying - aren’t they all current issues from this campaign? But when Obama does it he’s being noble and wise. When Clinton does the same thing, she’s despicable and evil.
What’s your point? Clinton supporters lead Obama supporters in evil by eight percent (plus or minus a four percent margin of error)? At exactly what percentage point did it become wrong? Obama better hope it’s at around 23% so he has a cushion on either end. If the dividing line between good and evil is up around 27%, Clinton supporters could fall back beneath it and be saved. If it’s only 20%, Obama supporters are standing on the edge of the abyss.
My point, as I’m sure you missed the irony, is that any claims of moral superiority look suspect when the accusers are doing the same thing as the accused but claim they’re okay because they’re not doing it as much.
Face facts, Shayna, you’re as blindly loyal to Barack Obama as others are to George Bush and your judgement is equally suspect. You’ll never admit he’s wrong, you’ll explain away anything he says or does, you’ll nitpick over minor details to justify the excuses you make for him, you’ll demonize his opponents, and you’ll never admit he resembles them in many ways.
This is hard to establish definitively - but my sense is that the Obama supporters who say they’d vote for McCain over Clinton in November would be partly motivated by disappointment over their candidate losing out, but as much or more by disgust with Clinton’s tactics and doubts about her integrity.
Clinton backers who’d pick McCain over Obama, on the other hand, seem motivated overwhelmingly by loyalty to their candidate. Sure, there’s some resentment over the belief (false, in my view) that the news media are being much softer on Obama than Clinton, but I doubt there’s any major feeling that Obama has played dirty or lacks integrity.
I’m not saying that McCain deserves to pick up dissatisfied Democratic support from either camp - but it’s noteworthy that Obama’s supporters, who’d have greater justification for turning against their party if he loses the nomination, are signaling that they have more loyalty to the Democratic Party and what it stands for than HRC supporters.
No.
They blame the news media and those voters in states that “don’t count” because their Dems voted against her.
Yes.
Clinton’s performance to date suggests strongly that under ideal circumstances (assuming she fails to get the nomination), she’ll strive to give Obama just enough lukewarm support to appear a party loyalist, while desperately hoping that he loses so that she can be the “Comeback Kid” again in 2012. It’d be a delicate balancing act and she’d have to overcome perceptions that she helped sink the party in '08, but the only possible option for someone so desperate to be elected.
Once again you fail to grasp the distinction. Hillary Clinton is engaging in personal attack warfare, Barack Obama is not. Hillary Clinton is calling Barack Obama names, having her surrogates make racist remarks about him and not firing them or distancing herself from then when they do, and is engaging in smear tactics that are unbefitting a fellow Democrat.
Excuse me? What’s my point? You’re the one who brought it up, and only from the perspective of how eeeevil Obama supporters are threatening to vote for McCain. Not a single mention of the fact that your girl’s supporters are not only doing the same thing, but in much, much greater numbers, let alone acknowledging the fact that with Obama supporters it’s really nothing more than an empty threat, since there’s no chance they’ll be given an opportunity to follow through on such a threat. Hillary’s supporters on the other hand, pose a much larger threat to the Democratic party by waging such a threat, since Barack Obama will be the nominee. That’s my point.
Oh bullshit. There’s nothing blind about my loyalty. I have my eyes WIDE open and have carefully and honestly studied the candidates, their histories, their campaign strategies and all the other facts that go into choosing to support one over the other. My loyalty to Barack Obama is based on his stellar Legislative career, his selfless Community Organizing career, his positions on the issues I care about, his diplomacy skills (see Bill Richardson, for just one example), his intellect, the issues he cares about and fights for and the solid evidence of results that his hard work as paid off in terms of Legislation passed. Period.
The only people here who are “nitpicking” minor details are the Hillary supporters who don’t have any other arguments to make, since there are no arguments wherein she becomes superior to Barack Obama. Just look at all the parsing of his “bitter” comments. Go look at the nitpicking over his “Present” votes. Look at the nitpicking over whether his Pastor was merely a spiritual mentor or held some kind of racist sway over the man for 20 years.
What I’m really sick and tired of on this board is bringing factual arguments and sources to back up my arguments, and being personally attacked, being called blind, or mesmerized or some other bullshit about my character.
Debate the debate, not the debater. That seems to not only be Hillary’s problem, but many of her supporters’ as well.
My answer to the OP:
I think she still genuinely believes she has a viable chance. No, more than that. I think she believes she is the candidate of destiny and is staying in the race in the hope/expectation that the powers that be will wake up and realize they’ve been wrong all along.
Her basis for this belief is her enormous sense of entitlement and belief that she is the smartest person in any room. She still has not recovered from the shock of not being gloriously anointed by acclamation in a triumphant vindication of what she views as a heroic victory over the VRWC. (Earlier when asked why she was running, she said something to the effect of “to combat the Republican attack machine,” which is a very odd rationale until you consider her/their history – personal animus is an affirmative justification and inspiration for why she would want to lead the country. It reminded me of the Life Aquatic line: “What scientific purpose would be served by killing this shark?” “Revenge.”).
Also, because the human capacity for self-deception is pretty limitless, she’s convinced herself that she really is ultra-qualified, that flying to peace-torn Bosnia to accept a bouquet and listen to bad Balkan poetry, or lunching with other head of states’ wives, amounted to eight years of hardcore experience that Obama can’t hope to match, as opposed to being a lot like being Princess Anne cutting the ribbon at a new maternity ward. The Clintons have always been machine politicians, and it is not completely insane for her to think (or wish) that they can through a combination of strongarming and smearing twist the arms of the party leaders into picking her at the eleventh hour. It’s a pretty long shot, but what else is she going to do (I mean, other than step down graciously, which was never on the cards considering the source).
Hillary Clinton’s campaign tactics are intended to damage Barack Obama in the general. It is the only explanation that makes sense. The Clintons know that Obama is the likely Democratic nominee, and Hillary Clinton’s chances are pretty slim. So, it is a question of motive. Clinton relentlessly attacked Obama over the recent comments about frustrated voters, reinforcing right-wing stereotypes and allowing McCain to take the high road tonight on Hard Ball.
The Clintons and surrogates are also regulars on Faux News; they praise McCain but denigrate respected members of their own party, including: Richardson, Kerry, and Gore. Mark Penn’s lobby/PR firm campaigned for a trade agreement Clinton publicly opposes on the stump. I view Clinton as a sell out willing to destroy her party and opponent, Barack Obama, so that she can run in four years, or maybe she wants to sabotage the entire Democratic Party and undermine the obvious shift to the left.
Clinton does have a viable chance. She’s basing this on her understanding of how the nomination process works not on some sense of entitlement. Obama will enter the convention with a lead. But he won’t have enough delegates to win the nomination in the early votes. Which means that at some point the delegates will be released and free to vote for anyone. They can vote for Obama, Clinton, or George Clooney if they want. Clinton’s strategy is to stay in the race and raise issues about Obama’s chances in the general election in hopes that the convention will decide she’s a better candidate.
Clinton’s not claiming to be entitled to the nomination. She’s just saying Obama isn’t entitled to it yet either. Clinton is not hurting the Democratic nominee because there is no Democratic nominee yet.
What other ones have you considered, and why have you discarded them? Hint: There’s one buried right in your next sentence.
But not zero, and rising lately with Obama’s latest rookie gaffes. She does have a real chance at winning, you’ve just said so yourself. So wouldn’t she be foolish not to do her best to win? Wouldn’t you want that in a candidate who’ll face a tough, media-friendly opponent in the fall?
But nothing can convince inveterate Clinton-haters that there is anything non-venal about either of them. It’s just sadly disappointing to find that behavior Democrats used to deplore among Republicans is now actually fashionable among themselves.
Also from The Life Aquatic - *Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go on an overnight drunk, and in 10 days I’m going to set out to find the shark that ate my friend and and I’m going to destroy it. I don’t know how yet. Possibly with dynamite. *
Clinton’s on the Dynamite stage - she’s willing to do anything it takes to make sure she’s not the only loser…
Although I highly doubt she will bring Obama down. I think when he’s the nom, enough 51% Clinton Supporters will gladly back the demorat to make sure the republicans don’t get in there again. I know several who really want to see Clinton win, but if she doesn’t they will gladly take Obama.