So here's an anti-Obama/Pro-Clinton argument I'm tired of hearing about.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

"The rethugs will go after Obama. He's not vetted because the media treats him with kid gloves. Here's the potential scandal du jour: URL. Hillary's already been blasted. They've got nothing else on her. Obama--well, we're not too sure what's out there on the guy."

You could actually use this line of argument to your advantage. But you'll need to do one thing: give up the rethug talking points about a particular scandal. The rethugs don't need shit in order to make up a scandal. They swiftboated Kerry. They slimed Cleland like we've never seen. Al Gore invented the internet and was a pathological liar. Remember Whitewater? Yeah.

So, here's where you go: because we know the rethugs are slimier than catfish shit, we need someone who has seen, faced it, and beat the living shit out of it. Clinton (both of them) took what was given to them and fed it to the right. Shoved it down their throats and made Livingston resign and made the rest STFU.

But some of you aren't making this argument. No, you're carrying water for the rethugs and bringing up "potential" scandals. But there need not be anything there in order for the right to make shit up. So it's not a matter of vetting but a matter of whether or not Obama can counter and fight back.

And when it comes to this, well, I hate to tell you this, but he's handed the Clinton machine (a machine I admire very much) its ass. They've gone after him with all sorts of stuff, and he's jujitsued his way out of it. He's literally out-Clintoned the Clintons. So I'm not too worried about his handling of the rethug attack machine because the Clintons beat it handily--fucked it up two ways until Sunday. And he beat the Clintons.

Just remember, the man who kills the monster is scarier than the monster itself. You want Obama supporters to bow down to Clinton's fight and experience, but he's beaten her. The King is dead . . .

[NMMatt]

1. I agree completely. The Right Wing attack machine has nothing on the Clinton version. -nt

[motocicleta]

5. Your statement is a repulsive lie. nt

[question everything]

2. And I am tired of hearing how a Clinton candidacy will "unite" the right wingers

Since when do we let the Republicans determine who should be our nominee?

[Johnny__Motown]

4. Isn't that the point? if you let the repugs pick our nominee because you are afraid of attacks

[DemGa]

3. Comparing the Clintons to the right-wing hate machine

is the most naive, silly thing I've heard in a while. Only a true political novice would believe such a thing. I'm not being snippy either -- these are just facts.

[Johnny__Motown]

6. Sorry, I am old enough to have voted against Reagan and I am certain that the Clinton attack machine

is just as good as the repugs.


Why do you think that they are somehow smarter than we are?

[DemGa]

8. I didn't say smarter

It's the way the right-wing machine operates, and there is just absolutely no comparison. Surely then you must remember the attacks of the nineties? You would compare this to B. Clinton mentioning Jesse Jackson in S.C.? I'm astonished at this approach.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

7. I'm not comparing them; the Clintons are much better.

They can both take it and dish it out. This is the one thing admire most about them; they are fighters through and through. I didn't think Obama had a chance. They've thrown a number of things at him but have had to be careful because of his positive, "hopeful" narrative (and the whole race issue). But he's won. The rethugs will throw lots of things his way. But I dodn't think they're half as smart as the Clintons. We all know the Clintons will pummel anyone in their way, and I admire them for it. If they were weak with Obama, then they don't deserve to win. But I think it just wasn't the time or place. So I'm not conflating them with the rethugs; the Clintons are both more honorable and nastier. And Obama withstood their test. It's really an elegant, simple, albeit ugly at times, process this democracy thing.

[Ravy]

9. One difference....

For the primary, the Clinton's do not have the media reporting on the attacks. They are reporting that Clinton is attacking, not digging into the attacks themselves.

The GOP will have an entire "news" network repeating the republican attacks as gospel 24/7, rw talk radio, etc.

That is different that a few dedicated bloggers finding old news clippings about Tony Rezko and drug use.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

10. Fair enough. I agree.

This will be yet another test. Because I admire them so much, I'd like the Clintons are tougher. They beat this right wing media themselves. We'll see.

Again, if people were making the argument you're putting out, I wouldn't disagree so much. But they're not.

[anigbrowl]

11. That doesn't make sense when you think about it

So what are they going to accuse him of?

Being a muslim? Debunked long ago.

Knowing Antoine Rezko? Also debunked down to its proper significance (next to none). The GOP wants to try that, the Dems can shine a light on John McCain's relationship with Jack Abramoff.

Weak on foreign policy? I see a Dem ad with video of McCain singing 'bomb bomb bomb Iran' and a voice over asking 'is this your idea of leadership?'

I could go on, but isn't it pretty obvious by now that Obama has found the recipe for the same political teflon that Reagan used?

[Ravy]

12. They will find something. True or not. And they will be relentless.

That was the point of the OP, btw.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

13. The right just makes shit up.

Doesn't have to be true. That's what's so frightening. In fact, the playbook is to take what is true and make up a lie 180 degrees opposite--see Kerry and Cleland. Let me be clear: the Clintons don't pull this shit--at least not without sufficient provocation.

So Obama better be ready. But this wasn't my original point. Obama detractors aren't making this argument. They feign fear about how he will stand up to "potential" scandals. But it's all scandal-mongering and bullshit. Just admit that the rethugs make things up and that they don't think Obama can stand up to it the way Clinton has been tested. Oddly, they don't make this argument (well, many do, but many have tried this odd tack).

[paperbag_ princess]

14. love this line

So, here's where you go: because we know the rethugs are slimier than catfish shit, we need someone who has seen, faced it, and beat the living shit out of it. Clinton (both of them) took what was given to them and fed it to the right. Shoved it down their throats and made Livingston resign and made the rest STFU.

________

The RW crazies have no shame and will lie, cheat and steal to win...
Obama is no less or more vulnerable to this any other decent democratic politician..

I am concerned that his idea of hope and change in politics...is naive...If he takes the high road the crazies will just cut him down at the knees, tripping up his message every step of the way. I am convinced that you have to push back even harder with bullies to make them think twice about attacking you again. Does Obama get this? I am not convinced.

The Hillary campaign has hardly thrown anything at Obama....they have actually tiptoed and been delicate with their criticism being careful not to look too negative. If the Obama campaign really thinks that she has pulled out all the stops...then that scares me for the GE if he wins.

I can't even imagine the stuff being prepared in the cauldron of Republican hate for Obama...

edit for typos-it's early in the morning