Finally saw clip of Clinton's display of outrage at Obama. Where was that fury after Abu Ghraib?

[blm]

Where was that level of outrage after Tora Bora?

Where was that level of outrage AT THE TIME Max Cleland was being smeared?


Where was that level of outrage when Bush DECIDED to invade Iraq when IWR's weapon inpections were working to prove force was not needed?


Where was that level of outrage when the 2004 nominee was being smeared with lies about his Vietnam service - the same man who defended Bill throughout the 92 campaign on Vietnam?


Where was that level of outrage over the Downing Street Memos?


Where was that level of outrage over Bush's incompetence during Katrina and the enormous loss of life?

Where was that level of outrage over the blatant Fascist Alito's nomination?


Where was that level of outrage when Democratic withdrawal plans for Iraq were being attacked as 'cut and run' by Rove and Republicans?


Where was that level of outrage over the illegal tapping of citizens?


Is it really only an attack on her positions on NAFTA that gets Sen. Clinton to reach THAT level of outrage?

[Benhurst]

1. Yeah, neither of them have shown much outrage over the truly outrageous acts of our government.

[liberalnurse]

71. Exactly...

Obama has his back turned on many Iraqi Issues. Picking on Hillary all the time is giving Hillary supporters a really sour taste of Obama-mania. :puke:

[catgirl]

120. Hillary was the one who freaked out, not Obama

and Obama does have outrage- he just doesn't behave like an idiot.

[niceypoo]

124. Obama showed no Outrage whatsoever for any of the same subjects...

Another "can't take it on the chin without running away crying" moment from an Obama supporter

[blm]

134. Obama commanded tv cameras and mics from 2001-2006? Really - he was the Dem party

leader and its most influential voice? Really?

[eridani]

102. Bingo n/t

[Alexander]

109. The difference is one of them doesn't show fake outrage on the campaign trail.

One of them does.

[derby378]

2. I think there's plenty of blame to spread on the lack of outrage

America, my friends, has been subjected to "frog-boiling." We've been anesthetized to the outrages that have been prepetrated on our nation.

[blm]

11. I remember clearly Kerry, Dean and Clark all calling for Rumsfeld's head in 2003 and

again in 2004. They received NO BACKUP from the bigname Democrats. Even when Kerry was officially our party's nominee.

[pnwmom]

Oh yeah? What about Obama? Where is his outrage?

Kerry, Dean, and Clark aren't running now, in case you hadn't noticed.

[blm]

62. Those matters happened when CLINTONS were the faces of our party and its best known

names who could easily command cameras and microphones.

Obama only BECAME better known as an EMERGING leader in the party over this past year.

If you can't understand the difference here for all those years, then it's a waste of energy trying to explain it to you.

[pnwmom]

65. Clinton and Obama were both in the Senate during much of that time.

Are you saying that Katrina was pre-Obama?

Hillary wasn't Bill. She wasn't the face of the party, she was a Senator from New York.

But let's pretend you were right. What about all the things that have happened just in the last year. The continuing deaths in Iraq, the continuing assault on our constitutional rights? Where's Obama's outrage? Why is Hillary the only one you're criticizing?

[blm]

66. SHE is the one showing outrage NOW over mailers. Obama doesn't SHOW fury as

part of his personality type at all.

That Clinton CHOSE to DISPLAY outrage over a matter so small when she chose to stay silent and calm over others is the situation we are SEEING NOW.

[seriouslyfrivolous]

123. Her outrage is totally manufactured.

Plus, the pettiness of the cause for the "outrage" is part of the clutching at straws she exhibits now so as to save her sinking campaign. She is a terrible actress & is so not credible, even with serious coaching from Bill and her campaign gurus.

[Carolina]

94. great posts -- original and follow-up -- blm

Team Hillary can't handle the truth...

[democrattotheend]

64. Obama was a state senator in 2003

If he had called for Rumsfeld's head, it wouldn't have gotten much attention.

[rox63]

133. And Obama was only elected to the US Senate in late 2004

He wasn't sworn in until January of 2005. So there's not a whole lot he could have done about national events before 2005.

[Eurobabe]

3. Where did you see it?

I missed it.

[Debi]

5. Here's a link

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/23/clinton.mailings/index.html

[Eurobabe]

22. Danke!

[blm]

7. MSNBC. I read some of the threads yesterday but I didn't see the 'out of control'

or 'unhinged' candidate that was described in those posts.

I saw a political calculation - feigned outrage.

[TheDonkey]

88. She's unhinged. Yea it was fake outrage but why even go there unless you are falling apart

[Usrename]

9. It's on another thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4733290

[yourguide]

4. INDEED!

:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:

[Windy]

6. Here is Obama's measured and mature response...video link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmHyi-IEpX8

the CNN link is bogged down with viewers.. Easier from You Tube

[thereismore]

90. Thanks, I haven't seen this before. He can sure stand his ground. nt

[Kokonoe]

8. To be fair, she was not really outraged

It was faux triangulational outrage prescribed by her campaign staff. She's just trying to to win at any cost. We need to go easy on her before she gets pissed for real and drinks a cup of Joementum. :scared:

[blm]

10. She must have exceeded the dosage suggested on her bottle of "Feign-Feign"

.

[skooooo]

12. no kidding!!!

[calmblueocean]

13. My thoughts exactly. Her outrage over this, and her lack of outrage over what matters, is revolting.

I've been open to voting for either candidate, but her fiery rhetoric here just highlights for me her lack of it when it REALLY mattered. The notion that Obama's true mailers merited this -- yes, she supported NAFTA, yes, she said she might garnish wages -- while nothing in the whole damn history of these 8 years of constitutional crisis did is enough to make me change my sig.

[K Gardner]

14. This is an astounding post.. and one we should all think about very

seriously. Consider, too, the Tears at the NH Diner. Again, Tears for Hillary.

My first thought was: Why had we never seen Tears before.. after 9/11, or Katrina or so many other things.

Why have we never seen her outraged like this on the floor of the Senate over the Constitution, Habeas Corpus, TeleComs, Patriot Acts.. I'm certain we all could go on and on.. but it boils down to this:

In the narcissism of HillaryWorld.. its all about her. Only her.

[Kahuna]

15. It was a staged "stunt." And it came across that way. nt

[mudesi]

16. It's manufactured, calculated, FAKE outrage

And it's tiresome and stupid.

[SOS]

63. Outrage you can Xerox!

nt

[tabasco]

76. LOL!

Exactly!

[Stephanie]

80. Hah!

Do you think she rehearsed it with her acting coach?

[psychopomp]

87. Nice

Describes Sen. Clinton's performance perfectly.

[boppers]

95. Kicking this thread...

Just for SOS's comment. :kick:

[Major Hogwash]

101. Hahahahahahaha! Good one!

There is enuff to go around now.

[beezlebum]

125. nice! n/t

[gulliver]

17. Where was Obama's outrage? Must be a lot of it somewhere...n/t

[blm]

20. Obama was not a leader of the Dem party with the most access to cameras and mics AT THE TIME.

Clintons have been the leaders of the Dem party from 1993 - 2005, and their word would have gone a longer way with many Americans at the TIME.

[TwilightGardener]

18. Well, she did go out of her way to throw John Kerry under the bus for a joke--

she has her priorities, in terms of selective outrage.

[Inuca]

37. Didn't she say something like....

"since when do democrats attack other democrats...."? I guess on health care it's a no-no, but when it is about a mis-spoken and misinterpreted joke it is perfectly "appropriate" :puke:

Earlier this week, including the debate, in spite of the xerox silliness, I started feeling kind of sorry for her and some amount of empathy. I hate mob mentality and people being humiliated in public (and otherwise). But yesterday's comments took care of that.

[TwilightGardener]

42. Hillary Clinton is 100% for Hillary Clinton. Every action she has ever

taken in public life is done with an eye toward, or at least consideration of, how will this affect me and my ambitions? I wish I could see her otherwise, but my view of her is forever tainted by that tendency she has to speak up, or act, or legislate, only when it suits her goals for herself. She will align herself with Republicans and turn her back on fellow Dems at the drop of a hat. She does not publicly defend anybody, or speak out, unless there is a payoff for her somewhere down the line, either within the party, or outside of it in triangulation mode. She is the very definition of "no political courage", because she's not in politics to further this country or further the Democratic agenda, she's in politics for her own personal gain. That said, she'd be a better President than McCain, but I'd just rather she not get there, since we have a candidate who is more of a genuine person and patriot (and yeah, Obama is not perfect, and he's overly cautious and ambitious too--but I sense that he loves this country more, and sees its problems and possibilities better than she does).

[Cha]

19. hilary's a fake and any person

capable of critical thinking can see it. Incredible how many people she fools or she wouldn't be running for pres. hilary needs to find out that her way isn't good enough for our country now..not after 8 years of bush. We need a real gift to make up for what we've endured with the help of her kind.

[MissWaverly]

21. Where was her outrage when people were dying in New Orleans

Did anyone hear the Clintons calling for more action to help their fellow Southern states afflicted by Katrina, where was the
outrage then. Methinks much of this outrage is to pull herself ahead of Obama when she has nothing really to catapult herself over
the top. Methinks I am tired of smear, negative campaigning and fear mongering. Methinks I could use a large order of Hope right
now after 8 years of misery and non-representative government.

[blm]

23. Bill went on Larry King Live after Katrina and wouldn't say a word against Bush's

leadership decisions.

[MissWaverly]

28. They were best buds with Bush for a long time

The Clintons have not had the outrage when it was needed, when the American people needed
it, it's not just about their needs, it's about what is right for the country.

[MindMatter]

24. None of those things affected her personally

And none of those things got in the way of her personal ambitions.

[Whisp]

25. The Audacity of Hillary's Selfishness

because that's how I see it - basic self-serving Selfishness. Poor Hillary must protect her ego and right to the throne Above All Else.

good post blm.
I hope Obama will be prepared to retal with stuff like this at Tuesdays debate.

He has so much material to sling her way. Maybe he's been holding back, and her 'see you at the OK corrall' now gives him the opening for some quick draws on her lying ass.

[blm]

33. His campaign is welcome to it. Hillary's outrage here is "just words' imo.

.

[calmblueocean]

26. K&Ring this to get some Clinton defenders in here to defend it.

I want to hear why they think these mailers merited this kind of extraordinary outrage and the events in the original post did not.

[cooolandrew]

27. Hillary for Hillary 2008.

[rug]

29. Because they are simply full of shit.

[dailykoff]

30. Exactly. Hooray for Hillywood.

The world can go thermonuclear (and it has) before the Clintons will risk a penny of their "political capital" but let another Dem steal her thunder and Hillary is ready for her closeup.

:mad:

[Eurobabe]

31. Hillary is not fit to be Commander in Chief

Sorry, but after watching this video and the response, she is nuts. God help us if she gets the nomination, we'll have 4-8 more years of 1990's style bullshit.

[blm]

34. I disagree - this is not being 'nuts' it is being calculating. She calculated wrong, imo.

.

[TwilightGardener]

40. See, I think giving an angry, outraged-appearing PERFORMANCE for the

cameras IS kinda nuts. Genuine outrage, in proportion to a genuine wrong, is to be applauded--provided it's appropriate, it shouldn't be considered crazy or unhinged. A cheesy act of faux outrage for a normal political action (mailers that speak to policy, not personal smears), though obviously contrived for political benefit, makes the little hairs on the back of my neck stand up. That contrivance, the attempt to put on an act, is a little disturbing. Really makes me wonder what sort of President she would be, when things don't go her way.

[blm]

43. In that sense you are right. Plus the narcissism isn't exactly healthy, either.

.

[Eurobabe]

105. You think she actually "calculated" being that way?

Whoa. Scary stuff. :scared:

[Psyop Samurai]

32. shhhh.... you're supposed to look at this mirror over here...

Damnit!... where did those stage hands get to?

:nuke: :hi:

[Occam Bandage]

35. Hillary Clinton: 35 years of being a stalwart defender of, and advocate for, Hillary Clinton.

[beachmom]

36. Tell me about it.

[Why Syzygy]

38. Invisible.

She's been invisible since leaving office in 2001. She only throws fits when she doesn't get her way.
Since she is pro-Bush policy, there has been no need to get ruffled.

[VolcanoJen]

39. Oh, SNAP.

Especially the Max Cleland example.

Thank you, blm!

[VenusRising]

41. K & R

:kick:

[WillyT]

44. Exactly...

:kick:

[sendero]

45. HRC is finishing off her campaign...

.. I guess she thinks she has nothing to lose, and who could argue. The last-ditch-effort of a failing campaign is what you are witnessing. She could have chosen to go down with class, but who are we kidding.

[debbierlus]

46. Neither of them showed any real outrage - they are corporate puppets

How perfect, how progressive

A woman...a minority....

Put a new face on the same ol BS.

[blm]

53. The difference is that one was face of Dem leadership for YEARS and could command cameras

and microphones along with her husband.

SHE is showing the outrage NOW. That is why the post.

Obama is the type of temperament that doesn't SHOW fury, and he was not a known political figure from 2001-2005 or ever considered a Dem leader until he won in Iowa THIS YEAR.

[sandnsea]

47. You just make me smile

:hi:

[Unbowed]

48. I've never seen her that outraged about anything before.

That's what was so shocking. I've never seen her go off like that. It was an out-and-out temper tantrum, something I'd expect from John McCain, not Hillary Clinton. That's been her strong point, maturity and judgment. Well there goes that theory.

And then there's the stunning turnabout. First Senator Clinton goes all nicey-nice saying she is "honored to be on the stage with Barack Obama" and then she comes out TWO DAYS later and gives that "shame on you Barack Obama" tirade as if she just found out about mailings that had been circulating before the debate. (If indeed she just found out about the mailings, that speaks volumes why her campaign is failing.)

Talk about getting whiplash!

She's succeeded in showing her inexperience as a manager and her inability to handle the stress that is part of the job as President of the United States.

She's demonstrated that she simply can't handle the job.

And no, there was no outrage like this over any of the things that have hurt the American people. To show anger only because of a perceived wrong to her presidential campaign. That's unsettling to say the least.

[ErnestoG]

83. Scares the mud out of me to think how she'd handle a military crisis.

[deadmessengers]

49. I just clicked Recommend so hard...

...I think I broke my mouse button. I'll add another one to the list, though:

Where was that level of outrage when she, while sitting on the board of Wal-Mart, had a front-row seat to the corporate dismantling of the American economy?

[jazzjunkysue]

50. Exactly. K&R. Save the "outrage" for a real issue. It's not flyin'. n/t.

[Divine Discontent]

74. well, we had a candidate who showed disgust for these horrible acts

and he got called ANGRY, even by some in our own party....

[Name removed]

51. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Blue_Roses]

52. that should be a campaign flyer

:D :thumbsup: great post.

[mculator]

54. This is stupid

And everyone should know by now that the fact is that Obama's camp didn't have time to make new flyers, so they sent out ones that had already been shown to have blatant misquotations on them. These are mis quotes. This aint about NAFTA, it's about arrogance and lies.

[Binka]

61. This Is Not Stupid Give It A Rest!

Don't have another sandbox to take a dump in?

[kentj44]

55. please send this

to barrack.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[anigbrowl]

57. Excellent point!! I have no problem with her being feisty...

but it's pretty sad to consider that she's never shown that kind of spirit when criticizing the Bush administration.

And kindly don't waste my time with suggestions that 'feisty' is somehow a gender-loaded term...or I'll get feisty myself.

[blm]

67. If she HAD shown this level of outrage and opposition, she'd BE our nominee by now

That is for certain.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

58. @ OutRage

:toast:

I Love Outrage!

:popcorn: :beer:

[pnwmom]

59. Where is Obama's outrage?

Or is it only the woman candidate who that is expected from?

[blm]

68. From 2001-2005 there was no Sen. Obama. And until 2007 he wasn't considered a leader

in our party, either.

[vireo]

77. Then why is his 2002 "antiwar" stance considered significant?

:shrug:

[blm]

79. Only in that he took it. The theme here is about selective OUTRAGE shown by a

candidate who chose to not display that level of outrage for ANYTHING Bush has done over the last 7 years.

[Carolina]

96. because he was right and was brave enough to speak

out when others cowered. He spoke out at the time but no one listened which proves the point of the OP. What he said THEN was important, but it didn't get the attention it merited because he was merely an Illinois State Senator!

It gets attention now because his words were so on target and have been shown to be prophetic.

[JVS]

60. But none of those things directly interfered with her own ambitions!

[speedoo]

69. Great post. Of course the answer is...

she calculated that showing outrage over any of those crimes would not help her get elected in 2008.

She calculated wrong, as usual.

K&R.

[hfojvt]

70. That's unfair, she did have outrage over the Iraq war

On Feb. 17, 2003 (I think that was the date) she did an interview on CNN where she said that "Saddam has not been co-operating with the inspectors". So she showed a little bit of outrage at Saddam. Which was certainly a great help to those of us who were on the streets trying to prevent the war.

[ErnestoG]

84. Before or after she voted for it?

[bigtree]

72. Oh man. This is the state of the Obama campaign. Terrified of a Clinton recovery.

Otherwise, you folks wouldn't be looking back over your shoulder. The defensive pitter patter from your folks is encouraging

[writes3000]

81. You're deflecting.

I think the OP's question is worth considering. Have we ever seen Hillary this outraged over something? Has she ever taken this strong of a stand against anything? I never considered it until this post. It has made me think.

[KoKo]

73. Agree...it did come off as "feigned." A better description that the sexist crap that's been

thrown around. And, your question about the Clinton's outrage over all the events you catalog..is what keeps me from supporting her. But...I'm not so sure about Obama. There's much that worries me about him.

Good point you made.

[IndianaGreen]

75. Hillary reminds of a soap opera female villain

using subterfuge and phony emotions to get her way.

[TexasObserver]

78. She only gets outraged or tearful over HER political ambitions. Shameful.

Dead civilians in Iraq?

Cluster bombs?

Spying on Americans?

Lying to Americans?

She has never once been offended about real issues the way she is about Obama kicking her ass.

[ErnestoG]

82. Excellent post.

When I started a thread about her crying episode and asked why she didn't cry over the results of her pro war vote, it was locked in one hour after almost 200 replies. I hope this one stays open.

Good luck.

[parkeradison]

85. Hillary

Those other things did not threaten her personal power or position. Now that Obama has threatened those things, she's really mad.

[Tom Rinaldo]

86. Let's see if a serious reply gets taken seriously

Hillary Clinton was not my first candidate for president, and in fact I supported Jonathan Tasini who ran against her in the New York State Primary for her U.S. Senate seat in 2006. I didn't dislike Hillary at the time, and I didn't think Jonathan (who I met and do like )had any realistic chance of beating her. Had Tasini somehow won his views were closer to mine on many issues, he would have represented me well and I felt he would grow in the job - but I knew Hillary was going to win. I wanted to send her a message to stop preparing to run for President and become the Senator that I believed she had it in her to be for our nation, not just New York. That had a lot to do with why I was not one of her early supporters. And that is one half of the nut shell that I mean when I say; "here it is in a nut shell".

Hillary Clinton believed she could some day be the President America needed, and she knew how hard it would be for her, as a female Clinton, to get elected to become that President. On most issues she was a good Senator for New York, but by my standards far from a great one, because I believed in the fight that Hillary has inside her and I knew she wasn't giving her ability to fight for us full reign. Instead she worked to refute the extremist bitch caricature of her that the Right Wing in America maliciously and falsely hung around her neck. They had invented a distorted hyper liberal version of Hillary Clinton to throw darts at when they weren't throwing darts at Ted Kennedy. Hillary, I believe, knew that she had to "wear" a neutral earth tones personality in the Senate in order to win an opportunity to clear the decks from the past and reboot her political image, in order to have a chance to be viable in a General Election.

By and large I think she was as true to herself as most other Democratic Senators of her period, like Carl Levin or Patti Murray. She did not try to dominate the Senate with her presence, like a Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, or Robert Byrd often do, which was more what many expected from her when Clinton was first elected. Hillary consciously decided to blend in and earn a quiet reputation as a hard worker and effective if somewhat low key Senator instead. So hers was seldom the loudest voice heard. By and large Clinton's voting record is fairly good from a Liberal perspective, but she wasn't making a whole lot of waves and I suspect that was intentional. In so doing she laid the groundwork necessary to give her a chance to run for President (and no I am not actually talking about her IWR vote which essentially mirrored those cast by Kerry, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, and others - I am talking about the big picture of her Senate tenure).

Now I believe the Hillary Clinton who crashed an Arkansas Press Conference held by one of her husband's opponents when Bill was Governor there, to read him the riot act to his face about his public lies, is finally reemerging. The fire has always been in her but Hillary had figured out that usually to be effective politically she had to be quietly effective - working as an advocate for youth, planning larger strategy together with her husband, with him as the political front man for their social change partnership. When Hillary moved to become more out front and assertive in the White House, the Republicans began a campaign that had the theme "Who elected her?".

And why do I think Hillary had to be so cautious? The answer has been on display throughout all of her campaign for President in 2008. The answer was on display here at Democratic Underground all weekend. The answer was on display in New Hampshire at and after the Presidential debate there. Hillary Clinton is still a woman playing hard ball at the ultimate highest level of a very male dominated political game with that game stacked against her as a result.

When Wes Clark ran for President in 2004 and a FOX news jock tried to twist Clark's words to imply that Wes Clark was being disrespectful to the men and women in the United States Armed Forces, Wes Clark want ape shit total bonkers on that poor man. One could easily say that Wes Clark got so angry he became "unhinged", but that is not what we here called it at the time. We called in one glorious "smack down", and the video of it got mega hits and mega cheers. Clark's fighting ability was praised, his passion was approved of, his anger was inspirational. And hardly anyone thought Wes Clark made a fool out of himself that day, whether or not they generally supported Wes Clark for President then. It was OK for Clark to be tough. It was OK for Clark to call out an ass hole to his face.

If Joe Biden were still in the race (and we know he has a temper), and if Joe Biden had a fit because of what he felt were lies told about his proposals in campaign literature sent out by Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, and if Joe Biden waved that literature at the camera and called it shameful; obviously people would take sides as to whether he was right or wrong, whether his attack in return was fair or unfair, whether his attack in return would help or hurt him in the upcoming primaries. Some of us who supported either Hillary or Barack would get royally pissed at Joe in return no doubt. But I have no doubt that far fewer posters would mock him and call him unfit to be President because he had a melt down on camera over it.

When Hillary Clinton raised her voice in the New Hampshire primary to make herself heard over the then tag team attacks being made on her by Barack Obama and John Edwards, to defend herself - the media began speculating immediately about that being her "Dean Scream" moment, and how her "losing it that way" was bound to hurt her with the voters, and how "un presidential" it was - how it implied such weakness that she couldn't control her feelings better than that. Now it happens again.

Because Hillary Clinton has finally gotten a lot of direct face time with our nation's voters with an ability to complete her own sentences and provide her own context to her comments, she is able to step out from an earth tone personality a little more. Because at least most voters will see her comments mostly unedited at least once - now that she is a leading Presidential candidate. I suspect Clinton knew she could risk letting her anger show yesterday because on Tuesday she will have a debate forum in which to defend herself directly against how her show of anger gets spun against her. I know many of Hillary Clinton's detractors don't want to hear this one more time, but one more time I will say; she is fighting against a sexist double standard when it comes to shows of emotion. And that double standard has given her good reason to be cautious about such overt displays in the past.

We are entering into some uncharted waters now though, and we get to live it in real time. We have a woman seriously running for President and we have a black man seriously running for President. Each are finally being provided with platforms that give them some semblance of control over their own message, each is finally able to speak directly to the public for some length of time - beyond the media's ability to filter and neuter the full text of what they have to say. Molds are being broken daily.

[ekwhite]

89. A serious comment deserves a serious reply

My perception of her performance was that this was calculated faux outrage. She has been in politics long enough to have endured real smears, not mailers from the Obama campaign that may or may not have misrepresented her policy proposals. From what I have read on Factcheck.org, the mailers are mostly misleading in that they highlight what Obama's proposals will do while not mentioning that Clinton's proposals are actually very similar.

It is quite clear that the Clinton campaign has decided to go negative against Obama. This faux outrage was both designed to make her appear strong while trying to paint Obama as negative and a liar. This is an unfortunate decision that will clearly blow up in her face. She would have appeared stronger by calmly pointing out that the fliers were misleading and by pointing out where they were misleading.

I would have written her speech in a different way:

"My supporters just showed me a series of fliers that have been mailed by the Obama campaign in Ohio. I am disappointed that Senator Obama has chosen to mislead the people of Ohio in this way. Here are the facts: etc., etc."

A speech such as that would have had impact. It would have made her look presidential. The speech she gave just made her look as if she was having a McCain moment. How in the world can she hope to win against John McCain with tactics like that? She needs to seriously rethink her campaign if she hopes to win in the primaries or in November.

[blm]

137. True - she never even showed outrage over Rove's 'Clintons trashed the WH' lie the way she did

the other day over a mailer.

[Tatiana]

99. I never said Hillary became "unhinged." But the OP has a valid point.

Want to see a woman exhibit fire and passion (but some very awful policies)? Check out Mary Landrieu here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0OD3vAj7ws&feature=related

Nobody called Mary "unhinged." Nobody has ever taken Mary to task for showing emotion either.

So while I do agree that there is a sexist double standard in politics in many ways, there are some women, like Mary Landrieu and Barbara Boxer and Maxine Waters and Barbara Jordan who have seemed to rise above it. No one doubted them when they expressed rage or emotion or indignation.

There is an authenticity problem that surrounds Hillary Clinton and I think this problem is unique to her. People are unsure whether her displays are genuine expressions or calculated maneuvers. IF her fury over Obama's mailer was "real," then it begs the question, why didn't she display this "realness" during so many other times of national crisis when such a display would be warranted? None of the other women in Congress (Sheila Jackson-Lee comes to mind) seem to have this problem.

[blm]

126. Still doesn't show ANY sense of proportion to what she CHOOSES to be outraged about.

And it didn't hurt for her and Bill to stay close to and supportive of Bush from 2001-2006 did it? It kept Bush propped up in stature for his 2004 election to have the last Dem president, the most influential Dem voice of the last decade to be out there defending him on his decisions. Made sure to keep another Bush stolen election seem plausible.

[Baconfoot]

91. Do you not have CSPAN? NT

[CTLawGuy]

92. none of those things were hindering

the Restoration.

[u2spirit]

93. Because it wasn't about her

in each of those instances. It wasn't personal. She onlygets really pissed if it is about her.

[yardwork]

97. Very good point. Where was Obama's outrage, as well?

Precious little outrage being expressed by our representatives in Congress.

[TexasObserver]

98. Don't you wish Hillary would have shown such outrage at all those horrible things?

But she saves her tears and her condemnations for people who threaten her presidential ambitions.

[dicknbush]

100. Now for the good news FARAHKAN ENDORSES OBAMANABLE....Man that's going to go over

Yeah Baby Louis Farakan i.e. Judaisn is a gutter religion ,thinks Obama is the salvation of the World Yeah baby!

Hillary play this one over and over again! Well if Hillary doesn't play it then you know for sure McCain will.

[blm]

136. RevMoon won't be happy if McCain goes after Farrakhan, will he? They're tight.

.

[DemzRock]

103. So far as outrage goes, those candidates didn't get very far...

did they?

Clinton and Obama are both pretty mainstream as far as I can tell.

[usregimechange]

104. Yeah!

[amborin]

106. where was obama's outrage?

[beezlebum]

119. why should he

come out with outrage? has it done anything for her? why should he follow her desperate lead? he'd probably see a drop in polls. he did respond, he's just not getting the same coverage and her wagging finger.

"You can't be for something and take credit for an administration ... and then when you run for president say that you didn't really mean what you said way back then. It doesn't work like that..." -obama

[defendandprotect]

107. Excellent points --- !!!

[Kitty Herder]

108. That says a lot about the state of politics in this country. Clinton wasn't

the only one deficient in outrage over those truly horrible things. The silence from our elected leaders has been deafening.

[Raine]

110. None of those things were about Hillary

she saves her anger for things that personally have to do with herself. x(

[Political Heretic]

111. A. FUCKING. MEN.

Preach it

[rodeodance]

112. Get a grip on your outrage--

[AtomicKitten]

113. Her ire is only raised when her political behind is in jeopardy.

Barack is kicking her ass and she isn't having any of that.

On edit, K&R :hi:

[bowens43]

114. Be reasonable, none of those things

stood in the way of Hillary's ambitions.

[Enthusiast]

115. Yeah, where was that outrage? nt

[MethuenProgressive]

116. What a silly thread. Even coming from the DUbama Camp, it's just plain silly.

As if Barry ever was outraged over any of those things.
The closest he ever came to outrage was hitting the Yellow Present button.

[durrrty libby]

117. You need another loooong vacation

[beezlebum]

118. i rather liked obama's response

to her "outrage," but that's not what's in the news. it's all about "angry clinton rips into obama in ohio," and "'shame on you, obama,' says angry clinton," as if there is any substance to her "outrage."

"You can't be for something and take credit for an administration ... and then when you run for president say that you didn't really mean what you said way back then. It doesn't work like that..."-obama

she wants to run on "experience," which is at least in part credited to bill's legacy, which includes nafta and plenty of other policies that are rightfully harshly criticized.

as for her accusing obama's tactics of being rovian, that's funny, and rovian too. we've seen many occasions where rovians accuse someone else of what they've done or are about to do and make a big scene over it where none was made before.

i have seen "shame on you" campaigns turn out to be pretty effective, this mock outrage plastered all over top news all over the web will probably give her a good boost in ohio- it's as if obama did something seriously wrong, and the press is giving her furly brow and stern glare validation, but no hint as to whether she is full of shit and that obama responded in the headlines for headline only readers, and for the rest of us who thoroughly scour stories for accuracy and reply, i'm seeing sentence fragments and incomplete reports of his response. oh, but i thought they media hated clinton?

i'm not going to go the "media's not fair" route, b/c obviously obama can handle himself. but this story is ridiculous. i like her less and less. it's going to be difficult to vote for her, which i will, should she pull some ridiculous stunt and win this thing. hopfully ohioians see through this BS.

[beezlebum]

121. and by the way

great thread. K&R

[Medusa]

122. Kick

because everyone needs to see the best post I've read in DAYS on DU.

[bdamomma]

127. her campaign is sinking, desperate measures.

[Lerkfish]

128. none of the previous things affected her personal ambitions.

and I'm not being snarky against just her: I think in general, congresscritters do NOT give a whit about their constituents unless it affects THEM personally or directly in some way.

[Little Star]

129. Link to Obama's outrage on all these topics, please.

[blm]

130. Obama was a BIGNAME LEADER in the Dem party from 2001-2006? Are you sure?

Besides, LS, it is Hillary DISPLAYING outrage over a perceived slight about her NAFTA position, so it is HER display of outrage being examined.

[Barack_America]

131. K&R!!

:patriot:

[RememberWellstone]

132. Apples and oranges

Those examples are not in the same vane..you Obamanites are stretching.

[blm]

135. How so?

.