This is different.....

[Flabbergasted]

99% of the arguments for or against one or the other remaining candidates has not swayed me much. This is, after all, politics where near anything goes.

In the beginning I was a die hard Kucinich fan. I defended him even when he went on fox news and said they were "a legitimate news source", something I knew was wrong at the time. But I had my candidate, and I had decided to stick with him until the end.

The end, for me, turned out to be between April and June when I gradually took a moderate position to Edwards, a change I never regretted. When Kucinich said he would consider Paul as a VP I was glad I had changed my mind.

After New Hampshire I could see the writing on the wall. Edwards was not going to be able to pull it off, so I rethought my position and supported Obama, a candidate I feel no passion for. However I dislike Hillary and that made my decision easier.

The last few months I have maintained a comparatively unbiased and objective view of the two candidates in terms of tactics and policy. The two campaign's tactics have been fascinating to watch. But, I reiterate, 99% of the arguments here for or against one or the other candidate has not swayed me much either way.

Race baiting...blah blah blah.
Bill's in the race...ofcourse he is.
Plaigarism...sucks but it's a tactic.
Surrogate attacks...ok seen that before.
Going negative...Yes that's fair play in a campaign.
Red Phone...Ha Ha Ha
Law suits...
Trying to seat MI FL

etc etc etc.


But one tactic is different and we all know it.

Our candidates should not be strengthening the opposition against the other candidate with direct rhetoric.

This is a tactic that is off limits. Not Done; Ever.

This is one tactic that we should all agree is flat out wrong.

Why?

Because it's not a tactic at all. It's pure unbridled partisan destruction. She is risking the election over it; She also risks damaging the party.

Many people her are so entrenched in their belief in Clinton that they cannot possibly see this objectively, much like when I defended Kucinich for saying "fox news was a legitimate news source".

McCain is not a legitimate candidate.

This is not something we as a party can afford to defend. It must be condemned.

I call on Clinton to apologize for her remarks comparing Obama to McCain and herself.

[yourout]

1. Clintons NEVER apologize....so don't hold your breath.

[City Lights]

3. And that's another thing they have in common with the Bushes. eom

bushclintonbushclinton:puke:

[LulaMay]

2. ABC & NBC: Hillary Now Leads Obama in Popular Vote, and Dem Vote.

New Network Estimates: Hillary Now Leads Sen. Obama in Popular Vote

ABC & NBC reporting that Hillary’s received thousands more votes than Sen. Obama in this year’s contests

Hillary Clinton has received more votes than anyone else running for President this year, Democrat or Republican, according to new estimates from ABC and NBC News. The new numbers -- bolstered by decisive wins in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island. Following are the latest estimates from the networks:

ABC: Hillary Clinton has received 13,568,891 votes so far in primaries and caucuses while Sen. Obama has received 13,565,339.

NBC/MSNBC: Hillary Clinton has received 13,521,832 votes so far in primaries and caucuses while Sen. Obama has received 13,497,175.

In addition to the overall lead in votes, Hillary holds a significant lead in votes among Democrats. Hillary has received nearly 10.3 million votes among Democrats so far while Sen. Obama has received 9.2 million.

[Jillian]

4. I think it's time for Obama to drop out.

[yourout]

5. Link?....or are you pulling the numbers out of your butt.

[HughMoran]

10. Yes, please provide links

I haven't seen this posted previously.

[DemGa]

21. Wow, over ONE MILLION more Dems for Hillary

You gettin' this Obamas?

[annie1]

25. Link?

[annie1]

26. HOLY S--T! no kidding, i just looked it up, and although i got slightly...

different numbers, she is only 3% under Barack. this is awesome. :D. (i can't believe people are suggesting she drop out, that's really scary that people think barack she just be handed the nomination).

[shraby]

6. You might die of old age waiting for her

to apologize. She isn't going to do it because she thinks she did the right thing or she wouldn't have done it. She is in a "take no prisoners" race no matter how much damage she does to the party. Also called a scorched earth policy..at one time leaders like that even salted the earth on conquered areas so nothing would grow there again. She is angry because she saw the presidency as her "right" so she will flail around doing as much damage to the party that let her down as she can before she is gone.

[Flabbergasted]

7. Which is why I think the party needs to call on her to apologize and

retract her remarks.

[frogcycle]

8. I agree that if that is what she means it is way out of bounds

the first time, I interpreted it to be that she was saying muckain would use his purported experience in campaigning against Obama - not that he WAS better because of it, but that he could USE it to point out Obama's lack thereof. In other words "I can go toe-to-toe with muckain on that point and BHO can't, so I am the stronger candidate against muckain.

OK, that was the first time. Then she did it again, but the second time instead of saying muckain can claim experience, I think it was worded more positively - like he has valid experience which better qualifies him - not that he can CLAIM it better qualifies him but that it DOES.

Either she really garbled what she meant to say, or she is batshit crazy. I am beginning to lean toward the latter. I think the stress of having it supposedly in the grasp and then slip away is just sending her 'round the bend. And of course, that means she is most assuredly not qualified and somebody needs to be Barry Goldwater.

Disclaimer: All of this is personal speculation based on fragmentary, probably distorted factoids filtered through the media, so it is as likely to be 180 degrees from the truth as not.

[krkaufman]

24. did you say frogmentary?

(sorry, it's late)

[LaurenG]

9. Kucinich never said he'd consider Ron Paul

his wife did and he said he would not. I never heard he thought Fox was credible though!

[Flabbergasted]

12. Ok...

thanks for the correction but he did say Fox was a legitimate news source.


Remember when the candidates were saying they would not accept a FOX News moderated debate.

He said it then. I'm not sure if the link is still available.

[LaurenG]

13. Yikes, I'm glad I didn't hear that.

:)

[Flabbergasted]

16. Actually here's one link from DU....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3163479

I'm changing credible to legitimate

[LaurenG]

17. Oh well... ah.. that ...was...

diplomatic of him??? I really wish he hadn't said that. x( Thank you for the link and information.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. That was the last straw.

I was never a big Clinton fan, but only because I was bothered by her IWR vote and her connection with the DLC, and because I don't like the idea of family dynasties in general. She was always my last choice, but even Obama was far from my first. But a few months ago, when it looked like she was the likely nominee, I thought I'd better try to give her the benefit of the doubt and consider her as fairly and objectively as I could. After the candidates I actually preferred dropped out I decided to vote for Obama in my state's caucus -- not because I was so excited by him but because I thought he'd have a better chance of winning the general election. I wasn't rabidly enthusiastic about him but a lot of other people are, which means a lot of new voters and young voters will turn out. But even so, I wasn't hating Hillary and from time to time, when overly-zealous Obama supporters went too far and trashed her, I defended her. I'd always said I'd enthusiastically vote for the Dem nominee, whoever that might be.

But after she implicitly endorsed McCain over Obama -- saying no less than four times that the Republican candidate would be better than a fellow Democrat -- I kinda lost it. I wasn't an Obama partisan at all, but that's rapidly changing. Hillary has demonstrated that she cares more about her own ambition than the success of the party. She'll run the risk of a McCain victory in order to be sure someone else doesn't get the nomination she apparently think she deserves. This is an unforgivable betrayal, and I'm done defending someone who would cross that line.

I'm not sure what I'll do in November if she's the nominee. I've always been a yellow dog Democrat, so chances are I'll hold my nose and vote for her, if only to keep the Supreme Court from going all the way to the loony right. But I won't like it, and I will call it a terrible shame if Hillary's ambition destroys the hopes of all those enthusiastic new Democrats and turns them into bitter cynics.

[Olney Blue]

18. ocelot, thank you for this well-written, honest post

I am worried about our party, too. :-( I hope this all gets resolved soon.

[bigtree]

14. Why should she apologize for 'comparing Obama to McCain and herself'?

Obama's made the contrast, asserting that he's better to run against McCain than Clinton and that she's some kind of trigger-happy warmonger because of the ONE Iraq vote. He should apologize first, since he's been spreading this all throughout the campaign.

[SeattleGirl]

20. Because in this case, when she did it, she was telling people that

McCain, a Republican, would be a better choice than Obama, a Democrat. That was completely hitting below the belt, and something I and many people find unacceptable.

If Hilary had said, as she has at other times, that SHE would be the better choice because of this, that, and the other thing, and she has it, and Obama doesn't, THAT would have been fair game. But to praise another party's candidate and saying he is more prepared than another candidate in your own party is just flat wrong. She should apologize, not only to Obama, but to the Democratic party.

[LaurenG]

22. : )

:* :hi: :hug:

[SeattleGirl]

23. Hey you!

:hi: :* :hug:

[Omega3]

15. "Going negative... yes that's fair play in a campaign" you are contradicting yourself, you know

that right?

how long have you been following politics? Canidates in a hard fought primary will occationally say negative things about one another, that's life, it's happened before and will happen again, on both sides of the aisle.

If the repuke contest was still going on and was hard fought it would be the same thing, Huckabee was way behind and was playing to the righties and a spot on the ticket to shore up the base. that's the only difference.

[Flabbergasted]

19. That's what I said: Going negative is fair play in a campaign. nt

[JackORoses]

27. It doesn't matter how long you have been following politics

You will not find another example of a Democratic Presidential Candidate bolstering the opposition Nominee at the expense of a fellow Democrat.

This is a new low.
Leave it to the Clintons to get us there.

[cooolandrew]

28. I mean in theory that will be her opponent how that convinces superdelegates I'll never know..

... Barack is good for the party's future without him it clearly will be a shell of itself, Most superdlegates will see in just this instance that Barack is ready for th fight.

[istopforcookies]

29. The Clintons?

Nope.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is running.

Try again.