Other Posters Here have Said it Better. Our Candidates are Playing to Win.

[Mike03]

Let us not be hypocritical crybabies who will cry and piss and moan if our nominee loses in November.

I need to preface this by saying that now that Edwards is out of the race, I'm for Obama.

But some of the arguments against HRC are disgustingly slanted.

Why is it that when she uses a tactical strategy to defeat her opponent that any other candidate could or would use without sustaining any sort of criticism, she is called out?

What pains me about this is that I know, from spending years here, that all of you know better.

Democrats have lost election after election for being not assertive enough, not contentious enough, not passionate enough.

Wake up, folks. It's totally archaic to say that Clinton should not criticize her opponents in some way to win this contest. Obama will do the same. McCain will do the same.

Are you sick and tired of losing?

Then please try not to be hypocritical or disingenuous.

[Levgreee]

1. No ones saying she shouldn't criticize. It's the manner in which she does which is a problem

[DemVet]

67. And how is that?

[thunder rising]

2. Campaigning for McCain is far different than criticizing her opponent

[Zorro]

9. What hyperbole

Singing Reagan's praises is the mark of a Republican. Two can play this game.

How about focusing on real issues instead of idiotic personal attacks?

[Cant trust em]

55. praising a dead man and praising your current opponent are not the same

I'm not going to apologize for Obama's praise of Reagan, but one offered a historical perspective and another promoted our common enemy over a democrat.

[KAZ]

60. Reagan is dead, and is not running. Get a clue.

[Zorro]

61. Don't get my point, do you?

Talk about issues and positions, not personalities.

Wake up and pay attention. Don't let the media and their simplistic, personality-driven reporting control you.

[KAZ]

64. Uh, I'm fully awake, and no one controls me. You think we're..

.. going to argue about the dime's worth of policy difference between the two candidates? YOU miss the point. It's about character and the ability to win in November.

[Zorro]

65. So if character is more important than policies and positions to you

I think that Clinton's character as demonstrated by her 40 year involvement with progressive politics trumps Obama's character and his naive belief that he can work with Republicans to advance a progressive agenda.

I'm still curious why I read so many Obama supporters adamantly declaring they won't support Clinton if she's the nominee, if many of them feel (as you proclaim) there isn't much difference between their policies. It's a very immature stance to take, IMHO.

[babylonsister]

3. Are you suggesting praising McCain's experience while

mocking Obama is a good Dem strategy?

[Mike03]

5. Of Course, for this reason:

She KNOWS nobody who hates McCain will ever vote for McCain.

She is only speaking to people choosing between herself and Obama.

Chrissakes, it's rather obvious what her strategy is, isn't it???

[rocktivity]

20. IF she had compared her experience ONLY to Obama's, I'd agree

But by including McCain, she's suggested that a) McCain's a better choice than Obama because he has more experience; and b) that McCain's a better choice than HER because HE has more experience!

:headbang:
rocknation

[babylonsister]

25. You, my friend, are interpreting what she said to fit your own

mentality. What do you think people who haven't been paying attention and caught her comments might think? What if they are so ill-informed they had no pre-conceived notions about McCain or Obama? Her strategy to you might be obvious, but don't be so sure there are people out there who don't even recognize strategy.

Nah, I'm not giving her a pass.

[bigtree]

10. she has said, repeatedly, that Obama would be better than any republican

What Obama supporters want is for Hillary Clinton to act as if there is no difference at all between them. Remember, this assertion is being made in the context of who would be better able to match McCain in the general. Just pretending that these differences don't exist doesn't make them any less evident.

[babylonsister]

27. You keep apologizing for her, and I don't think she deserves one. nt

[KoKo]

35. WORD!

http://current.com/items/88854218_the_democratic_messiah

[indimuse]

26. kinda like praising Reagan and dissing Clinton..

yeah.

[ruggerson]

4. You will now hear paragraphs and paragraphs of self justification

as to how what Hillary does is especially and uniquely egregious.

[Yossariant]

6. She's only criticizing Obama because she's a racist.

:rofl:

[PurityOfEssence]

34. and he's only dissing her 'cuz Bill turned him down for a weekend of sex and drugs

It's all so obvious...

[DemBones DemBones]

53. There's a song we'll be hearing a lot if BO's the nominee: "COCAINE"

Obama wrote about his coke habit but that's not going to stop the GOP from using it if he's the nominee.

And there are a lot of voters, even young ones, who will not look kindly upon his "youthful indiscretions."

Just another brick in the wall that's being built to fall on Obama.

[joeybee12]

7. I agree, espcially since BO supporters here have been saying she

needs to drop out for about two months now. And, quite frankly, if her criticisms (which have been pretty mild) help him to toughen up for the GE (should he get the nom) it's great that she's still around.

[JeffR]

8. It's politics. Tactics are necessary.

But it's noteworthy that so many of her tactical moves have failed. Many have even backfired.

She spent a ton of money to assemble the "Campaign That Apparently Can't Hit the Side of a Barn with a Paintball Gun from Ten Paces".

I don't fault her for trying to win. I fault her for her apparent inability to win.

[bigtree]

16. She's done remarkably well in keeping Obama from obtaining enough delegates

. . . to win the nomination by votes cast alone. She hit that side of the barn.

[Liberal Veteran]

19. Remarkably well? She was practically crowned before the race began.

It is a testament to the Obama campaign that they are beating her considering her presupposed frontrunner status and name recognition.

[JeffR]

24. So far. But she entered primary season as the prohibitive favorite

and is now behind the upstart in a number of quantifiable measures. Insofar as that, she keeps missing.

In the interest of full disclosure, I lean to Obama, but not by much. The candidates who really interested me are long gone from the race. I'm actually a bit shocked that she isn't doing better fending off the challenger. And more than a little surprised and disappointed by how her campaign has attempted to do so. Just my observations as someone who'll vote for a burrito in November if it has a (D) behind its name.

[Liberal Veteran]

28. Exactly. This should have been a cakewalk for her and she has practically snatched defeat...

...from the jaws of her preordained victory.

[bigtree]

32. name rec.

forgot that, didn't you? She had the early lead because of that.

[Liberal Veteran]

33. And her failure to capitalize on that is telling.

[bigtree]

37. I'm more struck by the closeness in the number of folks who've actually cast their votes

. . . between the candidates. And, I'm further struck by the Obama's inability to upset that balance and run the board at this late point in the primary.

[JeffR]

44. What's noteworthy for me is the general similarity of both candidates.

To read DU, one would think this is an epic battle between Galactus and the Silver Surfer. The candidates are so similar on a lot of issues that the styles of the campaigns are the only real point of, um, interest.

For the most part, voters on my end of the spectrum - way left - can only scratch our heads in wonder at the heated exchanges going on here.

"My candidate can make 100 angels dance on the head of a pin!"

"Yeah? My candidate can make 101 angels dance!"

"Your candidate's 101st angel was disallowed by the DNC."

"All the angels knew the rules going into this!"

And so on, and so on, and so on.

[bleever]

54. Well said.

The campaign, a few months ago, was heralded as being without missteps. Then, when they hit a little icy spot on the road, whoever was driving the car over-corrected and made it worse, repeatedly.

The worst thing to be said about Hillary (and I like you have leaned slightly Obama, and have felt compelled to defend Hillary more than once here lately) is the who and the how of her campaign, and that counts for a lot.

[ruggerson]

17. I agree to an extent

I think she would make a better president than Obama. That's my sole reason for supporting her. I want tough and partisan, not soft and conciliatory. I don't believe in unity either as a strategic tool or as reality.

That being said, if she can't beat Obama, it means she didn't run a good enough campaign. And if that occurs, hopefully Obama will play every card he needs to in order to beat McCain.

[JeffR]

29. I agree with you to an extent, also

Obama's conciliatory, reach-across-the-aisle rhetoric strikes me as sweet and insubstantial, like meringue. I'm hoping he's made of sterner stuff, not just to throw red meat to skeptical progressives like me, but for the sake of rescuing the country from the abyss.

[dansolo]

42. Her tactics weaken her for the general election

If winning is the only criteria, then that should be taken into account as well. She can't use the experience argument against Obama, and then not expect it to be used to much greater effect against her vs. McCain. It is a lose-lose strategy, from a party perspective.

[Mike03]

11. Random: Yes, of Course she knows that nobody who despises McCain will ever vote for McCain.

Her message is strategic, tactical and obvious. It is targeted at Dem voters who are attempting to choose between herself and Obama.

Chrissakes, it's rather obvious what her strategy is, isn't it???

Come on, we are not stupid here.

[cbayer]

36. They can't hear you. nt.

[MercutioATC]

43. ...and, in her fit of "strategy", she slit her own throat if she's the nominee.

If Clinton is the nominee, you don't think McCain will run those clips of her touting his "lifetime of experience" over and over and over...while pointing out that he has much more experience than she does?

Poor tactics if you ask me...

[TomClash]

12. Because she attacked a fellow Democrat by lauding a Republican over him nt

[Liberal Veteran]

13. Don't you think she could have highlighted her "vast experience" without praising McCain?

[bigtree]

30. because no one could possibly see for themselves that McCain has more experience in these issues

. . . of military and foreign affairs than Obama? Is there no response which is acceptable to you as they compare their potential match-up with McCain?

You seem to be disregarding the fact that Obama has been content with portraying Hillary Clinton as a trigger-happy warmonger all through out the campaign by pointing to her vote for the Iraq resolution and contrasting that with the speech he made in 2002. His argument has been, that her 'judgment' disqualifies her. And, just because some of his supporters may not see that as pernicious, I assure you that I do.

[writes3000]

38. Yep, he's question her judgment. He hasn't said McCain's judgment is BETTER. n/t

[RBInMaine]

14. Yes, he needs to be more assertive, but bashing the other Dem

is NOT good down the road for our party. She has also embraced McCain's "experience" which is just plain STUPID and very damaging to the ticket in the general election. Fine to be assertive, even somewhat aggressive in politics, but she has crossed lines that are dividing the party and will hurt us in the GE.

[HeraldSquare212]

15. It's not the criticism, it's the unfavorable comparisons to McCain.

She can say, "I'm better than him," or, "he can't deliver for people," or whatever, but she shouldn't say that McCain is more qualified than him to be President.

[Evergreen Emerald]

18. Obama has been bashing Clinton from the beginning of this campaign

I am tired of the fake mem that Obama is taking the high road. It is a load of crap. Both are playing politics. Clinton, however, is being kept from it by the propaganda machine who is attempting to defeat her and give Obama a leg up.

[MercutioATC]

45. In what way? I can list a few of Clinton's sleazy jabs...can you provide some of Obama's?

1) This McCain thing

2) The false Canada/NAFTA thing

3) Her campaign mailings questioning whether or not Obama is Muslim


That's 3...all are based on documented untruths. Find me 3 from Obama.

[Evergreen Emerald]

56. Yes. but first, a bit of truth

McCain: has more experience than Obama--that is the truth
NAFTA / Canada: that was proven TRUE. Conversly, the idea that Clinton's camp did the same thing was proven FALSE.
Mailings regarding the fact that he is a muslim. I have not heard of her mailing anything. In fact she has distanced herself from any suggestion that he is a muslim.

So. your "Truths" are distortions and lies.

1. On Thursday, Sen. Barack Obama's campaign circulated a memo criticizing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton "(D-Punjab)" for having financial ties to India and encouraging the outsourcing of jobs. It included a joke the senator from New York told at a fundraiser with Indian Americans last year: "I can certainly run for the Senate seat in Punjab and win easily. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/15/AR2007061502089.html

2. Obama distorted Clinton's knowledge about the NIE report: Sen. Clinton explained to Tim Russert, "I was fully briefed by the people who wrote . I was briefed by the people from, you know, the State Department, the CIA, the Department of Defense." Sen. John Kerry, a supporter of the Obama campaign, echoed these sentiments saying, "I didn’t read the full report because I got it from them straight."

The Obama campaign also fails to mention that news outlets have reported that only a handful of senators chose to read the classified NIE, rather than rely on in person briefing by its authors. A number of those who say they read the NIE, including Sens. Rockefeller (D-WV) and Feinstein (D-CA), also voted for the war authorization. http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=5615

3. More Obama oppo is online today, including a detailed document on Bill Clinton and Ron Burkle (.pdf) and a story, which turned out to be false, about Bill Clinton giving a paid speech on 9/11/06. The extent of the Clintons' financial dependence on Burkle is certainly a story, and one that's been written; but there is something about these attacks, including stuff about the Lincoln Bedroom, that brings you right back to the good old VWRC.

A backstory here: Either Howard Wolfson is on the Obama press list, or there's a reporter passing e-mails from the Obama campaign on to the Clinton campaign. Which, along with violating some trust, means that somebody's in line for a pretty good official Clinton leak. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0607/Oppo_bounty.html

4. Sen. Barack Obama yesterday suggested Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's foreign policy smacks of "Bush-Cheney lite," in a spat dominating the Democratic presidential contest. http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6788300/Obama-likens-Hillary-to-Bush.html

5. Obama lied in his mailer on NAFTA and Clinton's position.

6. And the worst of all was when he accused Clinton of racism so he could soldify the SC voting block

[MercutioATC]

63. O.K., by the numbers:

Your responses to my 3....

a) Yes, but Clinton doesn't. Obama has spent more years as an elected representative of the people than Clinton. Wanna look at non-elected official time? Clinton has spent the majority of the last "35 years" as a corporate attorney. She's served on the board of Wal-Mart and done some questionable years as a public defender. None of these are the kind of "experience" that she's trying to sell to Dems. As an added screw-up, McCain has more "experience" than Clinton does, by ANY measure. If she wins the nomination, she's already admitted that her GOP opponant is more experienced than she...after she's stressed how important experience is.

b) It was proven UNTRUE that the leaked report that Obama's campaign told Canada that his actual position on NAFTA differed from his "campaigning" position had any basis in truth. I'll agree that claims that Clinton's cmpaign did this have failed to convince me. However, Clinton has been a long-term proponent of NAFTA, dating back to the days when Bill Clinton signed the agreement. Her newfound disapproval of NAFTA seems to suspiciously coincide with the 2008 primary season.

c) No, Clinton't campaign mailings haven't come out and stated that Obama is a Muslim. However, they have prominently featured his middle name (Hussein), that his father was Muslim, and that he attended a Muslim school while he was a child.

...and now, to answer your 6...

1) Clinton herself made the joke. How is linking her to the outsourcing to which she admits sleazy politics?

2) Your defense of her vote is that she didn't read the bill? You DO realize that you're arguing that Obama is wrong when he says that Clinton knew what she was voting for because (by your contention) she didn't bother to read it? ...'nuff said.

3) I'll have to look into this one. It's not an issue with which I'm familiar.

4) Calling your opponent some version of "Republican-lite" isn't sleazy unless you use false data to support the claim. Personally, I'll stop short of Republican-lite, but I do feel that Clinton is a corporatist.

5) A lot of mailers go out. If you'll show me the mailer, I'll attempt to respond to it. Let me state right now that I don't feel that stating that Clinton's aversion to NAFTA is a very recent thing is a lie.

6) Another accusation that I have never seen. If you'll provide the info, I'll respond.


I realize that tensions run high in political competitions and that supporters frequently can see no wrong in their chosen candidate.

Partisanship aside, I believe you'll find more people that don't have a dog in this fight who'll have a problem with Clinton's tactics than Obama's.

[ProSense]

21. Sure, if you think trying to winning

like this is ok:

Drug dealer, fairy tale, imaginary hip black friend, gang bang, cult, shuck-and-jive, Hispanics don't vote for black people, Obama is Somalian, Obama meets with former terrorists, all from Hillary's campaign and surrogates.

Or by endorsing McCain

Or by lies and hypocrisy

[JVS]

22. Because the chances are almost zero that it works.

If she had done it early in the primaries when she still had a reasonable chance of winning, it might not be so roundly condemned.

To analogize: If you're getting mugged and you shoot the mugger when he's attacking, few people complain. If you shoot him in the back after the robbery is done, many would call it murder. Obama has almost walked out of range, and now she starts firing?

[grantcart]

23. I don't believe that she is playing to win - that I would respect

There are a number of sources in her own campaign that basically acknowledge that she is going to lose the elected delegate struggle significantly and be trailing by 150 elected delegates. Obama is picking up superdelegates at a rate of 2 a day (including today)

They are smart enough to know that the party is not going to take the nomination away from Obama

They are currently taking in about $ 1 million a day. In Ohio/Texas they spent $ 6 million in ad buys.

Many of us think that this is a cynical attempt to replenish her war chest ( she brought in $ 20 million into the campaign). With t

the $ 29 million in GE funds she cannot touch she could leave the campaign with close to $ 50 million that she can keep for future

campaigning. Now when might she make another run. If McCain should win then she would be ready to go in 2012. Hence the

reaction many of us have about her remarks re McCain. Its not about the nomination she is trying to sew the seeds of a GE loss

so she can run again.

[Cha]

31. Oh please..hilary's Scortched Earth Policy

based on lying and cheating is "winning"? Gimme me a break. hilary's making a disgusting fool of herself. Is this how people conduct themselves in real life to get jobs? How long do they last when the boss finds out how they've cheated on their resume, who they've stabbed in the back to step up the ladder, and how many people have been killed to make her look tough?

Jeeze..

[DemBones DemBones]

41. Let's talk about Obama's resume. . . he has used one (1) speech to

claim that he is anti-war and has phrased his speeches so that people are actually thinking he voted against the IWR when he wasn't in the Senate to vote for or against. All he did was give one speech at an anti-war rally in 2002!

That is tantamount to LYING on a resume.

As if that weren't enough, the Chicago blowhard, Obama, said in 2004, when running for the Senate and afraid of losing voters who were supporting the war, that his position on the war was basically the same as George Bush's.

You can't get more anti-war than Bush, right? :sarcasm:

And since he's been in the Senate, what was Barack Obama done to stop the war? NADA. Instead, he's voted for every bill to fund it and he voted to renew the PATRIOT Act, which means people have been killed because of him if you're going to engage in such hyperbole about Clinton.

Change? Dream on, little dreamers, dream on.

I have no doubt that if he'd been in the Senate then, Obama would have voted for the IWR. He is not nearly the hero you think he is.

Hillary Clinton is more experienced and more honest than Obama. She doesn't talk in vague generalities as he so often does. So I'll vote for her if she's the nominee. If the convention is stupid enough to nominate Obama, the man who can't win in November, I'll vote third party.

It won't break my heart if Clinton isn't nominated but there will be a lot of broken-hearted Obamaniacs in November when McCain wins.

Just remember that many of us told you it was a set up, that the GOP wants us to nominate Obama because they can tear him apart.

The media has been kissing his feet so far, but if he becomes the nominee, there will be a big change in their attitude -- and that's the only big change you'll get from supporting BO.

[BigBearJohn]

66. Amen.

[melody]

39. If we become just like our opponents, what have we won?

I think we need to be strong, tough and as forceful with sociopaths as one must be to fight them -- and that is what
the GOP is: a sociopathic front. But if we cheat, manipulate and sacrifice our own then the sociopaths have won ... we've
simply become them.

[cbayer]

40. This is what everyone gets who tries to post something reasonable.

Those that hate either candidate can not BEAR to hear anything positive about the opponent.

But DU does not represent the real world, and I am not worried about the eventual outcome.

I support both candidates, would like a unified ticket.

And If I were Hillary Clinton at this point in the race, there is no way I would drop out. And I wouldn't want a president who would bow down at this point in a tough fight either.

[cui bono]

48. Do you think we should get out of Iraq?

[Cha]

50. We get you spitting out

red herrings is what we get.

[cbayer]

52. I generally do spit out red herrings, because I just am not a big fish fan.

No, seriously, I honestly don't understand what you are saying to me and would appreciate an explanation.

[rucky]

46. I have a problem with the strategy.

We're Democrats, and the primary is supposed to be a "may the best person win" kind of competition. You fire up the base and get them excited. Then we have a nominee and the claws come out for the General Election - it's smackdown time!

That's what I think will give Dems the best chance of winning. So when I'm upset about the GE-style politics, it's a disagreement on strategy that I think will hurt our chances in the General. It kills momentum and brings negativity when everybody should be pumped-up.

[cui bono]

47. Oh puhlease. This is the primary, not the general, election.

Surely you know better than that.

Or are you not aware that she has praised the Republican candidate and said he's more qualified to be president than her Democratic rival. That's not really okay with you, is it?

When you answer, please try not to be hypocritical or disingenuous.

[femrap]

49. K and R

I was starting to really worry that DUers had lost all intelligence.

Thank you for showing me otherwise.

[DemBones DemBones]

51. I just sent you to the greatest page because you are so right.

Hillary Clinton is campaigning to win and should not be criticized for doing so.

She said John McCain was experienced to point out that 1) his experience would be a major campaign theme for the GOP and that 2) she has far more national experience than Obama does.

Both statements are true and no matter how much Obamaniacs kick their heels and whine and cry, they will still be true.

Why Obama thought it was necessary to praise Reagan, I'll never know. He was in high school by then, at least, so he should know all the harm Reagan did. But then he didn't have the sense to know that running during his first term in the Senate was a dumb move. (I know John Edwards did it, too, and he was also dumb to do it. He should have gotten himself re-elected and run this year.) His being a freshman senator will be used against Obama if he's the nominee.

The Obamaniacs here (and they know who they are, as distinct from the rational Obama supporters, like you, Mike03) have attempted to smear Hillary and Bill Clinton as racists, which is a stupid, mean-spirited lie. These supporters are hurting the Obama campaign and that's probably because many of them are actually Republicans.

The GOP clearly wants to run against Obama. That should be a clue to the Dems not to nominate him. It would be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory yet again. Obama is a pipe dream, built up by Republican crossover votes he wouldn't get in November, and by a media setting him up for the kill.

Clinton could win for us so it all comes down to whether you want McCain or Clinton.

[quiet.american]

57. Take aim at your opponent, yes, but don't shoot yourself and your party in the foot doing it.

If I may first say, re: "Democrats have lost election after election for being not assertive enough, not contentious enough, not passionate enough." -- that's right -- but the complaint was that they weren't assertive enough against their Republican opponents!

Does Clinton really think that implying only she and John McCain are qualified candidates is only going to be used by McCain against Obama? I would bet money right now there exists two McCain campaign commercials ready to go that will feature Hillary saying how much experience McCain will bring to the White House, regardless of whether it is her or Obama at the finish line. Either way, all the announcer has to say over the clip is:

(if it's Obama as the nominee):
"Even Obama's fellow Democrat and primary opponent agreed John McCain is the best man for the job." -- "Hi, I'm John McCain, and I approved this message."

(If it's Hillary as the nominee):
"By Hillary Clinton's own admission, John McCain has the experience for the job of President of the United States -- and Mrs. Clinton, we hate to break it to you, but he has even more experience than you. Real experience." -- "Hi, I'm John McCain, and I approved this message."

Okay, moving on to her and Bill then floating an offer to Obama for the VP spot -- but wait, didn't she just finish saying he's not qualified to be POTUS because all he's done is give a speech? So now, McCain has more ammunition -- let's just say Obama did accept the VP spot -- how long will it take the McCain camp to label Hillary as the dreaded flip-flopper because in one breath, she says Obama isn't qualified, but in another, puts him into position to be a heartbeat away from assuming the presidency?

I mean, by her campaign's own admission, she threw the kitchen sink at Obama and some of the garbage stuck, but the stink of it will follow her into the general election as well -- and fracture the party, and probably put Bomb-Iran McCain into the WH.

She thoroughly deserves to be harshly criticized. She willfully chose to fight Obama by giving amazing ammunition to GOP cockroaches to use on both Obama and herself.

And that's just for starters.

(And before I'm accused of giving ammo to the opposition as well, I'm quite sure the well-paid GOP cockroaches who are advising McCain have come up with this stuff long before I've posted it here.)

[JoFerret]

58. Good. We need a candidate who doesn't just roll over

.

[pointsoflight]

59. I've never seen a dem favor the republican nominee over a fellow dem.

These are not "tactics that nay other candidate could or would use without sustaining any sort of criticism." Total bullshit. Give me even one example of this happening in a presidential election during the last 30 years. Just one.

[rocktivity]

62. The Rethug's candidate is playing to win, too.

And in Hillary's "passion" to defeat Obama, she handed McCain a way to defeat her.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Nine]

68. Thank you very much for saying that. (nt)