The One
Okay, okay. You asked for it. This is why I am supporting Hillary Clinton (in no particular order):
STRENGTH
There is no other candidate that is berated or singled out like Mrs. Clinton; this woman gets it from the Republicans and Democrats alike, and in many cases for no legitimate reason. *Please note, I am not saying that she has not or will not respond to attacks made by other candidates. She is attacked for being too sensitive and too aggressive. She has been criticized for staying with Bill, but would have caught as much heat for leaving him. She is constantly questioned about her motives, experience, relationships, personal life, and abilities. I imagine this is terribly trying, and she faces these challenges with grace. My sense is that she wouldn't be the focus of such attacks if she wasn't considered a threat, which leads me to my next point...
VIABILITY
Hillary can win this primary election, and she can win the general. Period. Although her unfavorable ratings are higher than one would like, she already has name recognition with voters-- so naturally, some people are going to have an unfavorable opinion of her: but at least they have an opinion of her. "Joe Biden, who's that? Bill Richardson, never heard of him." Here, the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know to many voters. And the things that turn people off about Hillary are personal characteristics, not policy issues.
Don't forget that she went up against an especially tough Senate campaign in 2000, but won over the state of New York; in her re-election campaign she became even more popular picking up 1 million votes and 40 counties. Her highest favorability rate in NY was 74% (1/2 Republicans).
The horserace game that the media plays will only increase Hillary's popularity, too. "Real voters" don't know what a delegate is, nor why they are important. Independent and undecided voters will choose Senator Clinton over gamble candidates when it comes down to the wire because it appears that she is winning and can carry the election. Most importantly, I think her popularity, personality, and policy will resonate well with voters of all ages, races, and walks of life
BIPARTISANSHIP
I believe that Hillary has what it takes to reach across the aisle and pull bipartisan support for new, innovative legislation. Her platform is often far too moderate for my taste, but her record shows that she is willing to reach out to conservative and moderate colleagues and voters. An example of this was when she was speaking out about abortions in 2005 calling the procedure "sad, even tragic" and encouraged pro-choicers to frame the issue to appeal to conservative voters.
POLICY PLATFORM
This isn't the forum to talk about all of Hill's great ideas, but I'll mention a few. In higher education, she is proposing to double the HOPE tax credit, raising the maximum benefits from $1,650 to $3,500. She has also proposed to eliminate the FAFSA bureaucracy headache and allow students to apply for financial aid by simply checking a box on their income tax return. Working in higher ed, I can't tell you how important it is to me that post secondary training and/or college is accessible and affordable for deserving students. In the K-12 arena, she is supporting the elimination of unfair, unfunded mandates like NCLB and instead placing emphasis on trained, accountable teachers and supplemental programs like Headstart or Latchkey. I also respect Mrs. Clinton's stance on healthcare reform, immigration, government waste, and veterans' affairs, among others.
POSSIBILITY
I am not supporting Hillary simply because she is a woman, though the possibility of having a female president makes me squirm with pride thinking about what that could mean for future generations; I feel the same way about the possibility of an African-American president, or any other traditionally underrepresented group that throws their hat in the political ring. I am also not favoring Billary because I enjoyed the previous Clinton administration; I did, but it is irrelevant here. I believe she is her own person, and will take the President's advice when warranted-- just as he did with her input during his time in office.
In the end, I could write about why I am supporting Senator Clinton over other candidates all day, but it really is a combination of these factors. I'm also not pro-Hillary because I dislike or disapprove of the other candidates. In fact, I was very much in favor of John Edwards in 2004 (though I didn't vote for him) and believed Senator Obama to be very inspiring when he first came into the federal scene (and have since been underwhelmed). I have also made a personal pact that while supporting Hillary Clinton in the primary, I refuse to blatantly bash another. As you can see, it is ripping us apart. This is a Democratic year, and I support Democratic candidates.
By Annie - 1/30/2008
53 Comments:
If Hillary wins the nomination I hope Nader runs. I won't vote for republican style campaigning.
I'll vote for Hillary in the general if she wins the nomination, because she's clearly better than Mitt or McCain (or any of the other GOP candidates). But I've been less-than-impressed with her campaign tactics, especially the dirty attacks on Obama, I definitely don't think she can draw bipartisan support. Yes, she's fairly centrist policy-wise, but the hate held against her by "the right" is strong and deep. It's irrational.
1) Annie, thank you for the post.
2) and you may be right about how her strength will be a reason she is ultimately viable. She has definitely survived more battle wounds than any other politician. Maybe people will get cold feet about Obama at the last second. But I tend to think it will go the other way and he will surge to having about 58% of the vote (an area hillary cannot go due to the unfavorable), but obviously i don't know.
3) I don't really see the bipartisan thing. She has made strides with her years in the Senate. But that is mostly because half of what she says/does is GW Lite.
4) I would disagree....i think this is the forum to talk about all of her great ideas. If not here, where else?
5) More importantly, I don't think it violates your decision to remain positive by addressing these horrible campaigning tactics she has employed (she held a freaking rally in FLA last night!) or maybe try to defend her foreign policy judgment.
In sum, the reasons you list are fair. Maybe some more of that will swing me back to vote for her instead of Cynthia McKinney in October if Hillary has the nomination.
However, I will respectfully say, none of this puts her policies, judgment, or primary campaigning tactics in a better light than Obama or Edwards.
One other thing. Whoever the candidate, including Joe Biden, would not have to worry about name recognition in November. If someone is less known now, the constant media coverage and televised debates and $ pouring in the races will ensure no Dem nominee would suffer from a lack of name recoginition.
in my opinion, it is that lack of name recognition is why Obama took so long to surge the Dem primary and why he is still only even with McCain in those hypothetical matchups.
Annie,
First off, thank you for writing this post. I know many readers will be happy to see another point of view on our Democratic choices. This is exactly what we need to have an honest debate on the candidates, and not a minute too soon (with Super Tuesday less than a week away). I will try to be as thorough as possible, responding to each point, citing myself as much as possible. Considering I do still have a 9-5 job, I'll be trickling out my response over the course of the day.
I'll go point by point, starting with STRENGTH:
You like that she's been berated by both Republicans and Democrats more than the other Dems?!? That sounds like a bad sign to me. If strength is being attacked from the majority of the political spectrum and letting it roll off your back, then our current president is possibly the strongest man in the history of our nation. And you say that she's constantly questioned about her motives, experience, relationships, personal life, and abilities. Yes, she is running for president, that's the drill. Is the point here that she's handed criticism with more grace than the other Dems? I don't see one substantive reason in this particular section for supporting her over the other candidates.
More soon...
LAST THING: John Edwards is dropping out....not endorsing anyone. This leaves a 2 person debate this week. Sweetness.
She has a better health plan than Obama, but she supports a fence between Mexico and the US, which is such a Soviet "we own the earth" idea that I can't support her.
(2006: Sen. Clinton voted in favor of H.R. 6061 (whose main sponsor was Rep. Peter King (NY)) to create a 700 mile reinforced fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, and to provide for other barriers for border control. H.R. 6061 passed by a vote of 80-19.)
Like Tim, I also can't support Republican style campaigning.
I trust that those opposing a secure border don't lock their doors at night and leave their car unlocked in the mall parking lot.
An open border sounds sooooo warm and fuzzy.
An unlocked back door... not so much.
About the unfavorables: I think a lot of folks would argue that she couldnt win the general because of her anti-ratings. My point is that her unfavorable ratings just have come earlier (and cheaper) than other candidats, due to her incumbent advantage, or disadvantage in this case. Another candidate's name recognition would also be high by the general election.
The fence thing is totally ridiculous, I agree. But I appreciate going after employers that are illegally hiring immigrants and encouraging healthcare and training for immigrants following the proper channels.
And I don't understand this consistant use of the phrase "Republican campaign tactics". As a political consultant, there really is no difference between R and D tactics-- there is a difference between winning and losing tactics.
"there is a difference between winning and losing tactics".
Absolutely. The side of the road is littered with the bodies of Democratic candidates that figured that out way too late. The least of which was John Kerry.
Throwing elbows under the basket is a part of the game. Deal with it or spend the next four years bitching about McCain or Romney.
After Florida, and Rudy's pending endorsement, it is almost certain that my prediction was right on, when I bet money on a McCain comeback (when bookies were offering a 50-to-1 on him).
Look, in the latest head-to-head polls Hillary loses to McCain by a little, while Obama beats McCain by a little. While these polls have fluctuated over the last month, I can't remember a single moment where Hillary has fared better than Obama against McCain (feel free to check for yourself) this is particularly telling when, her name recognition should give her some edge and, as you point out, her negative disapproval ratings are higher and more entrenched than Barack's, leaving less ground to potentially gain.
Obama and McCain both do exceptionally well with the Independent vote, while Hillary relies more on the base (as we witnessed in NH exit polls). In a Hillary/McCain match up concede the Independent vote.
On top of this, I think that her tactics (which no one has yet to defend) if continued will fracture the party; she loses the left-wing with her defense of lobbyists and the war vote, turns off the soft left with the dirty, win-at-all-costs campaign she's run and does nothing to inspire and get out the young and minority vote, which are both crucial.
This is a change election where the electorate is looking for someone who can unify Washington and transcend partisan politics to clean up Washington. McCain, with his work on campaign finance reform, history of crossing the aisle (he was no doubt offered Kerry's VP slot before Edwards) and Maverick status, is 100x more convincing as an agent of change than polarizing Hillary.
And against McCain she can't even play her "more experience" card.
It's no secret that the far right still holds a serious grudge against "Maverick" McCain for getting in Bush's way and working with Ted Kennedy and such. He also has little support with the Bible-banging wing of the party. But you can bet that if Hillary Clinton is on that ballot that these die-hard Republicans will stand firmly behind McCain because nothing unifies the Republican base more than three little words: President Hillary Clinton.
Point is, if you like Hillary better that's fine. If you say she has a better shot in the primary, I will agree. But she is clearly the candidate most likely to cost the Democrats the White House in a race against McCain.
The above comments along with these are my response to the VIABILITY section:
To talk specifically to your comments, as Chuck said the name recognition is a complete non-issue. Kerry was a virtual no-name in the early primaries and a house-hold name by the general election.
This logic: people don't like her, but at least they have an opinion makes no sense to me at all if I'm being honest. Especially considering that as I just mentioned, they will know the eventual nominee whoever he/she is.
You say that it's personal traits that turn people off, not policy issue. I agree. But fair or not, how is this an argument for her viability? People vote for all kinds of crazy, shallow reasons and it's no consolation to Democrats that we lost in 08.. but only cause people were turned off by Hillary's personal characteristics. Is it?
Your argument that people will choose Clinton over "gamble candidates" is totally valid in the primary. If you are betting money, straight up, on the next Democratic nominee, I think putting it on Hillary would be smart. But Independents standing with Hillary in the general is complete wishful thinking. Let's take New Hampshire, the best snapshot of Independent influence: those exit polls showed Obama both losing the base and winning Independents by 15 points, this in an election where they were competing with McCain for Independents (who pulled the most).
Finally, that she will resonate with all voters is an interesting position to take when she has a significantly higher disapproval rating and at a time when people of all stripes are looking for a change candidate.
This section, like STRENGTH, sounds good, but simply doesn't hold any water.
Robert -
I don't necessarily think your statement about HRC being more likely to cost the Dems the race nationally is as absolute as you would like to make it seem. Case in point - CA could easily turn to a McCain state if he ran against Obama, based on the anti-Obama sentiment amongst a large portion of the state's population. That is nto the case if it is HRC vs McCain though. I realize it is just one state, but it is also the state with the most votes. If you assuem any backlash against Obama, should he be the nominee, in FL or MI for not campaigning there (and not winning there), that is likely enough to cost the dems the election as well.
mencken, you are absolutely 100% correct with your analogy comparing a border fence to locking one's doors at night.
a secure border is essential. that is why i also support building a fence on the canadian u.s. border, as well.
to not do so, continuing your analogy, is like locking the front door and leaving the back door unlocked.
and in case anyone took that seriously, don't. i tried to make that drip with as much sarcasm as i could.
Mike D,
Fair point about Cali, but...
Backlash in FL and MI for not campaigning there?!?
All the candidates signed a pledge to respect the DNC ruling and specifically not to campaign there!
If there is a backlash against Obama for not campaigning in FL and MI it will only be because Hillary told the voters in these states that Obama has ignored them and doesn't care about their voice being heard.
Robert -
I understand the DNCs stance on MI and FL, and Iagree that would be the root for the backlash, but while it may not be a fair statement, the public doesn't often think of things during elections in terms of fairness.
At the end of the day, fair or not, HRC won both of those states w/o really campaigning there and left the impression among voters that Obama doesn't care about them. In my eyes, that looks like a victory for her on two fronts.
Maybe those commie-bastards had some decent ideas...PUT UP THE FENCE!!
This post has been removed by the author.
Annie, what you said about campaign tactics is troubling.
Throwing elbows and fighting back is great, but....
- THE JESSE JACKSON COMMENT BY BILL CLINTON WAS OUTRAGEOUS AND CROSSED THE LINE.
- The Florida stunt is pathetic.
- The refusal to rebuke Bob Johnson was unacceptable.
And, hell, since the GOP is no worse than the Dems, I suppose the 2000 race games of Bush v. McCain are acceptable by Dem standards. Ditto for the Swift Boaters.
I thought we were better than these undefensible tactics - tactics that go far beyond elbow swinging
This post has been removed by the author.
RASMUSSEN POLL:
McCain 48
Clinton 40
McCain 47
Obama 41
Okay, so lets consider the theory that everyone knows Hillary. Well, those people have an opinion on Hillary, it is over. SHE CANNOT BEAT MCCAIN.
But if Obama still lacks name recognition and have room to rise or fall, doesn't it stand to reason he at least has a better chance.
Hillary has no room to grow. Obama does. That ends the viability debate, in my opinion.
Feel free to disagree....but an explanation of how one feels she can make up this ground if everyone already knows who she is
Chuck - that is one percent in a poll 9 months out. I think it is pretty ludicrous to suggest someone has no room to grow during that time.
Furthermore, while HRC's tactics of late have been pretty low brow, these are the same types of tactics GWB used to beat McCain 8 years ago, and I am sure HRC's team could turn around and do the same thing to him again this year - especially given that he has done very little (besides supporting torture) to win over his own base in those 8 years.
If you are going to suggest HRC is just Bush Lite, and Bush beat McCain before, it only stands to reason the new, improved Lite version could go out and do the same this time around.
Mike D/Chuck,
Click the links in my second post. They'll take you to Realclearpolitics.com.
The results that I mentioned earlier (Obama doing better against McCain than Hillary) are an average of all the most recent, most prominent polls.
The BIPARTISANSHIP section seems like something out of Bizzaro World. I'll let the readers ask themselves if they think that Hillary Clinton can unite a polarized Congress around a common purpose better than Barack. To me this is crazy talk. She is loathed by the right as much as Michael Moore. If you want to argue that through political prowess she'll be able to force the Republicans into submission that's one thing. But no amount of Martinis is going to get these people smiling and working together.
my compliments on the tone of this back and forth. disagreements abound, but w/o the unpleasantness.
Annie,
Your POLICY PLATFORM section is the first one with some meat and potatoes. This is persuasive. This section could be expanded to include dozens of programs, stances and ideas that I imagine we could all get behind and applaud.
My major qualm is this: stated policy is just that... stated policy. Nothing becomes reality until it breaks though the red-rover line of the special interest groups and then has enough of a working majority in Congress behind it to push it over the top.
I've posted before on Hillary's eye-opening defense of lobbyists. This along with the hatred that the Right harbors for her, leads me to believe that her great stated policy has little chance of seeing the light of day.
Mike, I am just following Annie's premise that everyone knows her. Everyone knows her and only 40% will vote for her as of now.
And I don't think Hillary would necessarily lose to McCain by that type of margin. And she may even beat him. She has a slash and burn campaigning mentality, and that may work.
But, again, under the premise that it is good that everyone already knows her, I would like an explanation of how/where she picks up support.
Annie,
I echo the sentiments - thanks for posting on this. I will find a way to support HRC if she wins the nomination.
I think Bob hit the nail on the head - her greatest weakness is that Rs know how to attack her because they've been attacking her for years. Just because she's withstood the scrutiny does not mean the perseverence has made her a stronger candidate. In fact, I think it just demonstrates how fierce the opposition to her is.
I can't comprehend why any Democrat wants to run someone who is completely moderate but will be attacked for being totally liberal.
Also, Annie, I understand that a hard campaign needs to be run - that doesn't mean we need to sink to the lows of the Republican Party. The Florida thing was unforgivable. The Democratic party was stupid in the first place for not counting them, but you don't change the rules in the middle of the game.
I won't vote for Hillary. She loses the left(me) and the center(independents). We had a better chance with ANY of the other candidates, besides Kucinach.
I have no disagreement with the message in the POSSIBILITY section, but again it's not a reason to support Hillary over Barack.
I look forward to the day that a female candidate breaks the glass ceiling and becomes president, and I look forward to the day that a black candidate breaks the glass ceiling and becomes president.
The difference in this case is that one of these prospective glass-ceiling-breakers authorized Bush's war; one of these prospective glass-ceiling-breakers takes money from lobbyists in Washington.
On top of everything discussed here in this thread, I simply cannot support a Democrat who supported HJ RES 114 (The Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq) and refuses to admit to this day that cutting Bush a blank check for his preemptive war was a mistake.
I just can't.
Also,
I've watched Hillary since she joined the senate. Everything she has done has been to eventually run for president. She is not a loyal Democrat. I've watched her vote for terrible bills on defense funding knowing she was doing it so that the republicans couldn't use the vote against her later.
She is an egomaniac who is running for Hillary and no one else.
mencken, I'm sure you realize there's a big difference between a secure border and a border fence. People have run tests with the same type of fence they're building along the Mexico border, and 5 out of 6 people were able to get through it. It's merely symbollic - so the Senators can look like they're doing something so people like you will like them. That's a pretty expensive symbol, don't you think?
to sum up...
STRENGTH: Being a criticism magnet is not a plus. It's no coincidence that she's getting criticized from both sides.
VIABILITY: Loathed by Repulicans and left-wingers, unpopular with Independents. McCain's saving grace.
BIPARTISANSHIP: No one running has less chance at ending the partisan bickering and gridlock.
POLICY PLATFORM: The first debatable, substantive points. But reform requires a willingness to take on special interests.
POSSIBILITY: Nothing here that differentiates her from Obama.
...add the war vote (and refusal to even admit it was a mistake) and I honestly don't see anything here that holds a candle to Obama's call for a post-partisan, working majority and a message which shakes people out of their apathy, turns the page on bitter partisanship and makes them believe again.
well there you have it. glad we got that out of the way.
now that that has been settled, there will be no more calls for someone who supports hillary to step forward, right?
see annie, it only took a little less than a day from your posting for clinton to be summarily dismissed.
in all fairness, it *is* a pro obama site so there are no surprises. at least it was a good discussion. :)
One of my many jobs is teaching government to college students; I get them ripe out of high school in a general education class that many of them would pay to avoid. Here I have the chance to see the real world, real indifference, real ignorance, real apathy, and real (eventual) enlightenment. Bob, you're kidding yourself if you think that "real" Americans (meaning not us nerdy bloggers that read 16 newspapers and 562 blogs each day and could recite all 27 Constitutional Amendments and know the middle names of all 42Presidents) care about special interests or partisan bickering-- the majority of Americans can't define lobbyist and consider themselves independent because they don't know the difference between the two major political parties. I'm not saying that this is the way it should be, but unfortunately, its reality. We are in the geeky minority that look at policy positions, financial viability, rhetoric, and voting records to make our vote choices. Americans (the few who vote) make their choice based on their parents' partisanship, candidate personality, and incumbancy. So all of this gridlock and special interest conversation we're having about Hillary is moot.
I've given the reasons why I'm supporting her, but the list you're supplying me with why the general public will vote against her is bogus.
Yay! ADA is here! Welcome back, we've missed you!
Annie,
Your post is about why you (an informed voter) believe that Hillary is the best candidate, right?
I pointed out that Hillary (unlike Obama and Edwards) not only takes money from any/every Washington lobbyist and PAC, but openly defends them. I've written extensively on this here. I point out that Conservatives, who clearly loath her (her unfavorable rating according to Gallup is 16% higher that Obama's) will fight twice as hard to block another President Clinton agenda (especially because hers is more of the Us v. "the Republican attack machine" approach). I say that these harsh realities are reasons that, if elected, she's less likely to bring about real change, regardless of how good her policies look on paper.
You reply that the average American is uninformed and doesn't care about partisan bickering or special interest groups. And that ipso facto: "all of this gridlock and special interest conversation we're having about Hillary is moot."
Hillary's real-world potential to bring about change is moot because the average voter is dumb?!?!? This is the lamest defense I have heard at TCS in a long time. Of course it's not moot which candidate has the most potential to bring about real change. In fact I can't think of anything less moot. That's the whole point, who can actually form a working majority and stand up to interfering special interests to fix this mess.
I take it from your comment that you're not interested in rebutting the two main points (1) Hillary defends and takes money from lobbyists and PACs as she talks about cleaning up Washington (2) Hillary is less liked by Independents and more hated by Republicans than Obama.
Luckily readers can judge for themselves what is and isn't bogus.
Another point worth mentioning:
In your post you tell us not to worry about anti-Hillary sentiment because:
"the things that turn people off about Hillary are personal characteristics, not policy issues."
Then in your last comment you tell us issues of policy are beyond "real" Americans who vote based on shallow reasons like "candidate personality."
So which is it? Are her personal characteristics, which turn people off a liability in an election or not? It sounds like you just rebutted yourself on this one.
Last point, it's 2am:
Annie,
The most telling exchange today was when Tim said that he couldn't support Hillary because of some of her underhanded tactics and instead of standing up for your candidate and debating whether or not Hillary has crossed the line of decency, you said:
"there really is no difference between R[epublican] and D[emocrat] tactics-- there is a difference between winning and losing tactics."
This seems to be a popular view point with Hillary supporters these days. It's amazing to me how easily those who were so appauled when John Kerry was swiftboated, can turn a blind eye to underhanded tactics when it's their Hillary.
Readers on the fence need to ask themselves if they feel comfortable supporting a candiate running a win-at-all-cost campaign.
I was more appalled that when Kerry was swift boated he was too stupid to absolutely destroy that myth.
It is about winning and losing, and if you can't play the game stay off the field. You don't have to like it but Annie is 100% correct about this
I am a student of campaign tactics, and can appreciate the Swiftboat attacks for what they were-- winning tactics. During the Superbowl on Sunday, it wont matter 20 years from now who had the most flags; it'll only matter who is still wearing their rings. On a personal level, I will always use clean tactics in the campaigns I work on.
The point I keep trying to make here about Hillary's unfavorables, but apparently I keep wording it incorrectly, is that she has HIGH unfavorables because everyone knows her; many people have already made their minds up, though there is always room for some small changes. That said, even more people haven't made their minds up about Obama; thus, his unfavorables have the potential to rise even HIGHER than Clintons. Does that make sense?
When it comes to partisan bickering, I personally believe she has the contacts to make cross-the-aisle policy changes. Average Americans don't know what this entails, and campaign promises are just that. None of us has a crystal ball and can predict whether Obama or Clinton, or anyone else for that matter, will come through on their promises. I trust Clinton to try.
I have absolutely NO problem with Hillary accepting money from PACs and lobbyists. All of the research shows that when the vast majority of candidates accept this "special interest" money, its because they already are in favor of that interest. It doesn't change their mind or their voting practices later on. Even more so, I think it is even less influential on a presidential candidate than on a congressional candidate. You're making a big deal outta nothing here.
I think I'm spent on this post. I'm going to get back to posting about reality TV. Millionaire Matchmaker is AWESOME!
So if you were #3 on a campaign staff, you would always remain positive. BUT you would have no real objection with #2 and #4 on staff Swift Boating or Race-baiting in the campaign. That's just winning strategy.
I oppose dishonest attacks and don't like candidates that use dishonest attacks.
Conversely, you oppose dishonest attacks, but are okay with candidates that use dishonest attacks....because that is winning strategy.
Fine.
t-dawg,
There is no such thing as 100% correct here. This is a completely subjective matter. Every reader will decide for themselves if they're comfortable supporting a machiavellian political killing machine or if they're looking for principled leadership. You and Annie like no-holds-barred cage matches, I don't.
Did I just hear a Dem say that they "can appreciate the Swiftboat" tactics?!?
We can do better than this as a party and as a people. In this primary we can pick a candidate who looks to bring the best out in Americans and build a new, post-partisan, working majority. Or we can choose this, and look forward to four more polarized years of the same partisan food-fight.
For me the choice is simple: Obama 08
not a matter of what I like or don't like
utopia vs reality
not a matter of what I like or don't like
utopia vs reality
The Swiftboat ads were not dishonest; just because you didn't like the outcome doesn't mean that they were dishonest.
Progress for America, evil as they may be, were genius in timeline and use of 527 dollars in '04, and I wouldn't underestimate them in '08 either.
I've got an idea then t-dawg.
How about this winning ticket:
Hillary/Harding '08
And because I think PFA will be a force to be reckoned with in 2008, all the more reason to choose a candidate that we already know everything about! BHO has closets and closets full of potential skeletons left to discover.
Obama's potential skeletons are more of a risk than Hillary's actual skeletons!?
You'd better believe that the Clinton camp has been tirelessly rummaging through Obama's closet for a year. No major skeleton has surfaced yet.
i didn't like the swift boat ads. but i also didn't understand why kerry took it.
kerry's vietnam service wasn't a skeleton. it was an honest and really good thing he did by serving like he did.
but that didn't stop them from attacking him for it, robert. it was quite besides the point.
just because obama doesn't have any major skeletons revealed at this point doesn't mean they still won't attack him for something that we thought was a good thing.
what was the name of the guy down south who lost limbs in vietnam, and was politically attacked during the campaign?
they went after bill for what, 6 or 7 years? charge after charge. women came forward with accusations (was there much else?) about what bill did. they went after hillary, the spouse. after all that time, it didn't really matter if all, or any, of it were true (monica was true)...a decade later, ppl are still left with the impression that bill had flings with several women while serving different offices. people still believe that the clintons had vince foster killed. people still believe this, that, and the other.
does it matter anymore whether it is true or not? nope. because that is how the electorate is, and how the talking heads are, and how campaigns go.
the campaign conduct of bill and hillary was a real turn off for me. politics and politicians, in general, are a real turn off for me. most often, i struggle with the urge to not vote in general elections.
in 2000 or 2004, i didn't decide to vote until the weekend before, and only because i didn't want bush to win. if i don't vote this election, it isn't because of apathy, but because i feel i am lending support to a system that makes me mentally nausious.
when the mud starts getting flung here, i am not surprised, but i have on a couple occasions said i wasn't going to post anymore.
and yet, with all that, i still post, i still vote, i still engage in political conversations with ppl i know.
i guess i am just one sick asshole and a glutton for mental punishment.
i like obama, but i have no illusions about what i think is coming if he wins the nomination. if it is mccain, i hope that this means that the things won't get nasty. but there are groups outside their control.
i really hate politics, yet i am drawn to the discussion like a fly to shit.
go figure.
I literally cannot believe my eyes when i read Annie is saying the Swift Boat ads were not dishonest.
- a New York Times news article stated, "on close examination, the accounts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth prove to be riddled with inconsistencies."
- ABC News's The Note opined, "the Swift Boat ad and their primary charges about Kerry's medals are personal, negative, extremely suspect, or false."
- Regarding the medal dispute, a Los Angeles Times editorial stated, "Not limited by the conventions of our colleagues in the newsroom, we can say it outright: These charges against John Kerry are false." The editorial argued this position on the basis that "Kerry is backed by almost all those who witnessed the events in question, as well as by documentation."
- And even John McCain has blasted the Swift Boaters as dishonest attacks.
But sure, they are not dishonest and just winning strategy!
I am glad that the "pro-Swift Boating" wing of the Democratic party supports Hillary and not Obama. That's all I have to say on this thread of comments.
I'm with Chuck. My mind is blown.
So whatever it takes, eh?
Push polls about black illegitamate children work well. I guess that should be the new strategy.
Romney has 5 wives, Huckabey murdered someone in college - its all good to Annie!
We supply WoW Gold for wow players, you can Buy Wow Gold,wow power leveling,and world of warcraft gold server here, Cheap WoW Gold always waiting for you!
Post a Comment
<< Home