In Defense of the Character of Hillary Clinton

[bigtree]

It's sad to see both of the candidate's supporters, as well as some in the campaigns themselves, so insecure with their own progress that they still see a pressing need to attack and denigrate the character of the candidates. The common refrain from the camp is that they 'brought it on themselves'. But, that's just a cop-out for anyone who intends to be held responsible for their own behavior in this campaign.

I don't agree that Bill Clinton was 'race baiting' in the earlier contests. I don't agree that Hillary Clinton was using her displays of emotion to manipulate voters. I don't believe that the leadership of the Clinton campaign knew of, or approved of any e-mail that Drudge claims he received from a 'campaign staffer.' I don't believe that Hillary Clinton meant to cast any doubt at all about Obama's religion when she said she accepted his word that he wasn't a Muslim.

I don't believe that Hillary Clinton meant to elevate McCain over Obama in her remarks about the experience of the three. She's said many times that the Illinois senator would be a far better president than the republican nominee. I do think that she, correctly, left it up to Obama to defend his assertion that his 'judgment' trumps the 'experience' of the two that he now regularly dismisses in his speeches, even as he acknowledges the length of his rivals' tenure, public service, interests, appointment, and legislative assignments.

I don't believe that a vote for an Iraq resolution that Bush materially ignored as HE pushed our troops to invade and occupy defines Hillary Clinton any more than it defines many of others who voted against the resolution -- like John Kerry, or even, Obama in his opposition to the resolution outside of Congress -- who couldn't bring themselves to vote down ANY of the funding bills until five years later (the funding which actually enables Bush more than any words on a resolution that he trampled on in his rush to invade).

I don't believe that Hillary Clinton's exaggerated description of her Bosnia trip negates any of the other substantive experience she has in military and foreign affairs, despite the incredible attempts to denigrate and completely dismiss the clear role she played as First lady in representing our country and her husband's, the president's, interests abroad on the basis of that (admitted) exaggeration. She has served with distinction and integrity to our Democratic principles and agenda on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Her record there is extensive and her participation ongoing. She has gained trust and has developed relationships within the military which would serve her well in office as commander-in-chief. The same applies to the contacts and relationships she generated in her official visits to the over 70 countries she represented our nation in as First Lady.

Lastly, I don't believe that Hillary Clinton's continued campaign deserves any of the criticisms being leveled by the Obama camp and their supporters as a some unfair obstacle to his 'inevitable' victory in our primary. It is inconceivable to me that Obama or his supporters can expect that, in an election this close, stopping the voting now is any reasonable solution to his inability to achieve the necessary amount of delegates by votes alone.

So much has been made of the argument that Hillary Clinton expects for the results of the election to be 'overturned' by the votes of the party insiders and others who make up the 'superdelegates' in our primary process. But, although the expected and proper role of the delegates would be to provide the bridge for a candidate and their inability to gain the necessary amount of delegates required to nominate, in this election, BOTH candidates, if they continue, will likely come to the end of the voting process without the required amount of delegates. Both will need to advantage themselves of the votes of the superdelegates to win. It would certainly be an unusual, and a shaky position for the delegates to bend to the candidate who is trailing in delegates. But, IF one candidate has more delegates, and the other leads in the popular vote, it would actually be a reversal of the will of the majority of voters to choose the delegate leader, in that case.

Also, some concern for 'following the rules' in regard to the superdelegates should not be premised on forcing them to vote anything but their conscience, as the rules allow and expect just that.

That concern about 'following the rules' the party has set up for this election can certainly be applied to the busted contests in Fla. and Mich.. The Democratic party establishment in these states has completely disenfranchised the voters with their manipulations, and, coupled with the national party's obstinacy, threaten to leave the voters of these states without a say in our convention, or in the nomination of our contender in the general election. It is not the responsibility of the voters to fix this. It is the responsibility of the candidates and the party leaders, who control the levers of the process, to allow democracy to prevail, instead of the results of their opportunistic and paternal manipulations from their elevated positions over the hapless voters in these states. As long as these party leaders drag their feet and posture as if they don't give a damn about these voters there can't be any legitimate rebuke of those who are calling for those citizen's votes to be counted, or recast.

We have two very special and important candidates running in our Democratic primary. As with all legislators, they are both compromised by their politics, and by their exaggerated claims, proposals, and representations of their records and experiences. Yet, none of the exaggerations, by either candidate, so far, rise to a level which negates or serves to dismiss their very important, and correct, advocacy and promotion of the advancement of our Democratic values and agenda. Both Democratic candidates represent the very best that our nation has to offer, for our own citizens, and for the world community, as well. We will be well represented by either candidate, as they advance to the presidency with our help.

Hillary Clinton is still fighting to represent our interests, in this election and beyond. She deserves just as much consideration and credit for that pursuit as her very capable and appealing rival.

[pocoloco]

1. How could any one person hold that much Kool Aid?

Got barf bag??

[bigtree]

2. I have

. . . just as much integrity as anyone else in my opinion. Funny how the first response was an attack on my character.

[JayFredMuggs]

19. And we have been LIED to

by Hillary over and over.

Think Bosnia.

Then talk about "character".

Then talk about the "character" of her husband. In my opinion, two peas in a pod.

[IowaGirl]

46. Regarding Bosnia, check out this unvarnished video from CBS when they weren't try to smear Senator..

Clinton. It was a dangerous trip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pef5AUt-tic&feature=related

[merh]

50. No it wasn't, as the commander of the troops at that time said

they would not have allowed the first lady and the president's only daughter fly into the area if it were dangerous. The CBS reporter even stated "has the potential" for being dangerous. Sinbad has said it wasn't dangerous and there sure the hell wasn't any sniper fire.

[IowaGirl]

51. I assume that hideous dark trench coat was a typical fashion statement for a first lady. Nothing at

all to do with trying to keep her from being a target. It's really difficult to try to go back 11 years and pick apart the exact details and especially go with opinions that could be biased by Obama supporters. However, as I've said before, at least she HAS some experience to embellish.....

[merh]

54. Of course they took precautions.

But it was not the experience she spoke about, the snipers and the danger. I've been in a hurricane, survived the world's worst natural disaster, does that make me qualified to head FEMA or a meterologist?

Be real and stop exaggerating and more importantly, stop belittling the truth as told by those that were there and that were responsible for her safety and her daughter's safety. And see, that is the kicker, the truly telling thing about the "experience" - what mother brings their only daughter into a war zone if it is so damn dangerous and unsafe? What father allows his daughter to be in that dangerous position.

Try to be honest with the facts and stop with the drama, it is has gotten past the point of silly and is right there at pathetic.

[Zhade]

65. Another LIE from a clinton supporter. You're as bad as her.

NT!

[dchill]

29. Your integrity went out the window...

when you turned your truth filter up to 11. And none of this is funny. That was no "exaggerated description of her Bosnia trip" - that was lie upon lie upon lie, which denigrated everyone involved with her security, and insulted the intelligence of those whose votes she deperately needs. Your softening and whitewashing of ALL of Hillary's "exaggerations" does nothing for her character or yours.

[bigtree]

32. actually it is you and her harsher critics on this who have a truth filter

Your characterizations of the Bosnia exaggeration seem to dismiss the obvious value of the effort itself at the time, none of which is changed by the retelling. It seems that the opposition effort in this is more to associate the exaggeration with some larger point they are trying to make about this politician's integrity, rather than any actual (ridiculous) concern that she's denigrating our military forces. She has shown more than enough care and concern for our nation's military and the men and women who perform the tasks their commanders dictate.

I haven't seen any more exaggerations from this politician than from Sen. Obama. That's what you're really getting at by raising these issues in this forum. Both candidates have exaggerated, in this campaign, and without. To pretend otherwise is a romance with the very lack of integrity you decry.

[IowaGirl]

52. Yeah!!

:kick:

[dchill]

71. You fail to see that what you have decided to filter...

up to an "exaggeration" is an un-filterable series of complex, unmistakable lies - from the escape maneuver/dive landing to the armor-donned in-the-armored-cockpit huddling to the duck-and-run to the vehicles to the 8-year-old-girl-I-took-her-stuff-and-left - repeated and repeated and IT NEVER HAPPENED. This is the exact kind of thing (among others, of which I'm sure you're aware) that establishes a distinct, unmistakable lack of character. So, when you defensively claim that "Both candidates have exaggerated," it's typical Clintonistic projection. To pretend otherwise is a drag on the very integrity you claim.

[SwampG8r]

86. i was the first to name this condition Clinton Projection Syndrome

or CPS
it is evidenced by taking facts and reversing them to fit the argument
thereby framing it to your advantage

ie:
obama's supporters keep repeating their new rules for super-delegates = trying to game the rules at every opportunity to defy the democratic process and constantly move the goalposts
obama lies= snipergate
obama is in with the RW = press conference kissy faces with the MSM and Sciafe
obama is bad for the party = endorse the republican over obama
obama is tearing the party apart = tear the party apart with attacks on fellow dems by carville et al.


i think you see the pattern of CPS and probably have examples of CPS in action.
but
it isnt all bad,you can help
a small donation to obama 08 will help to return the center of this horrible dysfunction to chapaqua NY where hopefully it can be quarantined and cured.

[Mags]

30. hey, Bigtree, Barry's supporters can't face reality they are on

a high of change, unity and whatever. They only know how to attack. You had a good post but don't expect anything but lowdown trash be thrown your way.

[dchill]

74. "change, unity and whatever."

Great campaign slogan for you and Hillary. Talk about lowdown trash.

[dogday]

42. Pass it to me cause

your post makes me ill.... :puke:

[bigtree]

44. oh, drama

:eyes:

[dogday]

72. Hi BigTree, how is your Son doing?

I cannot make a choice between either candidate as both turn me off... I don't even have a choice but I still have Obama supporters attacking me like I support Clinton, which I can't stand as well....

[TK421]

55. Is THAT what you got to offer after the OP?

Who's drinking the fucking Kool Aid?

Nothing biting about the opposition, but isn't that a knee-jerk reaction?

edited to add: get some fucking class....the OP certainly had some

[TahitiNut]

68. New Clinton campaign slogan: "I Don't Believe"

:applause:

That's gotta be a hit.

[Levgreee]

3. Would you have voted for a resolution "authorizing the use of military force"? yes/no?

The way I see it she made the wrong decision, in a situation where I easily could see what the right decision was... as could millions of people across the U.S. My president should have judgment that competes with mine, at least.

[bigtree]

13. I believe that the authority to commit troops wasn't inherent in that resolution

It was in the War Powers Act, referenced in the resolution as the 'authority' to deploy forces. That power Bush exercised isn't trumped by ANY resolution Congress passes unless they are then prepared to deny the president the money he uses to continue his deployment. The WPA says that, if Congress refuses to act, the troops come home, resolution or not. Nothing in the resolution directed Bush to do what he ultimately did, and nothing in that bill prevents Congress from cutting off the money, from the very first appropriation.

I wouldn't have voted for that resolution. I don't support any republican-initiated militarization. But, I accepted the argument of Democratic senators, like Kerry, that they intended to steer Bush back to the UN diplomatic process in enabling the inspections to continue, backed up by the threat of force. I agreed with the 'coercive diplomacy' exercised by Bill Clinton in Haiti, but I don't believe republicans can be trusted to use diplomacy as anything more than a pretext to war and imperialism abroad.

As for Obama's judgment, on Iraq . . .

Every Senator who voted to give Bush money for Iraq 'authorized' his occupation

Barack Obama was no exception. After Bush forced the U.N. inspectors out of Iraq with his preemptive invasion, Congress had every opportunity to refuse money for Bush to continue his military takeover there. At every step, with every 'emergency' funding request from the White House, the majority of Democrats in Congress (many who voted against the original Iraq resolution) refused to exercise their ONLY significant control they have on the president's ability to deploy troops without prior congressional approval, as presidents have done for decades. Congress refused to use the 'power of the purse' and reign Bush in by limiting or refusing funding.

Bush couldn't do a thing in Iraq without the money Congress provided him. As with President Clinton in Haiti and in Somalia, Congress has shown that they can force presidents to modify, limit, or end their military deployments by their control over the funding. With Iraq, there is NOTHING in the resolution, which folks claim 'authorized' Bush's invasion and five year occupation, which prevents or limits Congress' ability to withhold or modify the amount of money Bush has to continue his deployment. That's what makes the argument about the vote for the original resolution moot. At every step, until Democrats obtained the majority in Congress, the majority in our party have enabled Bush in every action he's taken in Iraq by providing him with all of the money he's requested.

That's what makes Barack Obama's claim of some high ground on top of the speeches he made against the Iraq resolution and Bush's invasion from outside of the Congress. When Sen. Obama assumed office, he didn't find one instance to speak out on Iraq from his elevated position until he saw fit to OPPOSE Sen. Kerry's 2005 bill requiring an immediate exit from Iraq and a timetable for withdrawal.

"We don't necessarily need a timetable, in the sense of a precise date for U.S. troop pullouts, but a time frame for such a phased withdrawal," Obama said, at the time of his rejection of immediate withdrawal from Iraq. This was his FIRST opportunity he had taken in his Senate office to repudiate Bush's occupation -- the first opportunity to put the meat behind his fine words in 2002 . . . 18 months into his term, and he blinked.

"I believe that U.S. forces are still a part of the solution in Iraq," Obama said in his Senate floor speech repudiating John Kerry's bill mandating an immediate end to the occupation. "Sufficient numbers of U.S. troops should be left in place to prevent Iraq from exploding into civil war, ethnic cleansing and a haven for terrorism," he said.

"Having visited Iraq," he said, "I am also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this administration. It could compound them."

Obama's first floor statement on Iraq is not the rejection of Bush's occupation that he's adopted as part of his presidential campaign. Nor are his subsequent votes, until he began his run for president in 2007, providing every cent Bush requested for Iraq. Upon arriving in the Senate, Sen. Obama supported every funding bill for Iraq, some $300 billion….until he started running for President: 2005 Vote # 117, HR1268, 5/10/05; 2005 Vote # 326, S1042, 11/15/05; 2006 Vote # 112, HR4939, 5/4/06; 2006 Vote # 239; 2006 Vote # 186, S2766, 6/22/06; HR5631, 9/7/06

As a Senate candidate in November 2003, Sen. Obama said he would have 'unequivocally' voted against war funding because it was the only way to oppose Bush on Iraq. "Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion dollars, I said 'no.' I said no unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we are not going to stand a chance." Obama remarks, New Trier Democratic Organization forum, 11/16/03; Video

In fact, in September 2004, Obama suggested sending a "surge" of troops into Iraq would be an effective way to end the occupation. "If that strategy made sense and would lead ultimately to the pullout of U.S. troops but in the short term required additional troop strength to protect those who are already on the ground, then that's something I would support," Obama said.

Folks may well have adopted clear and unequivocal positions against the Iraq resolution and against Bush's invasion and occupation, but, Barack Obama is not a credible representation of that uncompromising stance which many have employed in their opposition to Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama has no credibility at all in criticizing Hillary Clinton for a vote he neglected to repudiate in any significant way once he went from just making speeches about Iraq to actually acting on those fine words.

[Levgreee]

20. Funding the war isn't the same as making us enter the war

once we got there, we were stuck, more or less. Funding the war after it has already started, doesn't mean you can't be against the war.

Obama made the same decision I would. Once we were there, we were stuck there, for awhile, at least. I would have taken care of the troops, and Iraqis, also. Obama's stance of being against the war, but not against funding, is also the same as Dean's, and Biden's.



"It was in the War Powers Act, referenced in the resolution as the 'authority' to deploy forces. That power Bush exercised isn't trumped by ANY resolution Congress passes unless they are then prepared to deny the president the money he uses to continue his deployment. The WPA says that, if Congress refuses to act, the troops come home, resolution or not. Nothing in the resolution directed Bush to do what he ultimately did, and nothing in that bill prevents Congress from cutting off the money, from the very first appropriation."

Do you not comprehend that it is THOUSANDS TIMES MORE DIFFICULT TO REVERSE THE PROCESS once we have already invaded, uplifted the government there, leading to a CIVIL WAR IN THE COUNTRY?


DEPLOYING THE TROOPS WAS THE SINGLE MOST DISASTROUS DECISION. THAT MOMENT. All that needs to be judged is that moment, where a horrendous decision was made.


Not to mention that single decision, that single moment, did SO much damage to our representation worldwide, damaging good will and cooperation we had gained from 9/11.

[bigtree]

23. I don't believe that, at that time, Congress had the ability to stop Bush from deploying the troops

Once deployed, Congresses are loath to pull the rug out from under them by refusing funding. But, as in Somalia, there was a funding cut off. And, in Bosnia, there was control over our involvement by congressional control over the funds. It's difficult, but Congress' only significant ability to limit or control the president after he uses his ability to deploy troops without prior congressional approval, is in their ability to control the money, their purse strings.

[Levgreee]

56. Are you truly making a parallel between Somalia+Bosnia and Iraq? Because that is apples and oranges

I must say.

If the Iraq War Resolution hadn't passed, it would have limited Bush's ability to go into the war. If the congress voted against it, yet Bush forced military action, there would be severe political, and likely legal, repercussions. The IWR, without the Levin amendment was a very valuable tool for Bush, he and all the Repubs would agree.

And why does it MATTER if congress "couldn't" stop Bush from deploying? Does that you just give in, and pledge your support to a war-monger? This, IF ANYTHING, is what Hillary and others should have voted No for, on principle.

[bigtree]

58. As to Congress' ability to control these deployments through funding, yes

If the IWR hadn't passed, it would have signaled the intent of Congress that they weren't going to support the mission beyond the initial deployment. But, we all know that there wasn't enough support to stop the document or to reverse Bush's clear intent to invade, save some blockbuster finding by the inspectors. And, that was a long shot.

We know there wasn't enough support in that Congress to actually stop Bush in Iraq because of the way legislators reacted after Bush rushed forward. They codified his illegal invasion with money to continue. No money provided, the troops come home, resolution or not.

[Levgreee]

60. If all the Dems have voted no, would it have passed?

And also, you seem to be saying, "it wasn't possible to stop the IWR from passing, so it's okay to vote yes, you are not being a war enabler"

It was even LESS FEASIBLE for them to pass a vote withholding funding, therefore, following your same logic, any vote to give funding is meaningless, it is not a vote enabling the war.

I'm sorry, your logic seems like swiss cheese to me.

[bigtree]

61. All of the Democrats weren't voting no

that's the reality. You can put the blame on individual senators for it's passage, but the votes just weren't there. Recognizing this, some Democrats, like Kerry sought to use the bill to advantage the inspectors in Iraq. It didn't work to restrain Bush. But, to say they were voting for what Bush ultimately did is dishonest.

Moreover, he had all of the ability he needed to bypass Congress, as he had indicated he would, repeatedly before the vote.

And, again, Presidents have, for decades, used their ability to mobilize and deploy troops without prior congressional approval. They do this because, they know, as was demonstrated with Bush's Iraq invasion, that Congress is loath to withdraw troops, precipitously, after they are deployed, by withholding funds. Nothing in that resolution altered or enhanced Bush's ability to mobilize or deploy troops. And, as was demonstrated by their later funding, there wasn't any real will in that Congress to actually move to restrain Bush as there was a desire to go on record against his invasion in the futile attempts by Levin and Byrd. The evidence of that is in the refusal of the majority of these same legislators who voted against the resolution to limit the money Bush asked for to continue, at every step until 2007.

[JTFrog]

76. Wow. "I believe that the authority to commit troops wasn't inherent in that resolution" ?!?

She uses the exact opposite argument as a freaking selling point for the IWR.

"While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq," Senator Clinton said at the time of her vote, in a carefully crafted speech designed to demonstrate her range of knowledge and ability to consider all options. "I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998."

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0303-23.htm

See Hillary Run (from Her Husband's Past on Iraq)
by Scott Ritter

Senator Hillary Clinton wants to become President Hillary Clinton. "I'm in, and I'm in to win," she said, announcing her plans to run for the Democratic nomination for the 2008 Presidential election. Let there be no doubt that Hillary Clinton is about as slippery a species of politician that exists, one who has demonstrated an ability to morph facts into a nebulous blob which blurs the record and distorts the truth. While she has demonstrated this less than flattering ability on a number of issues, nowhere is it so blatant as when dealing with the issue of the ongoing war in Iraq and Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of this war.

This issue won't be resolved even if Hillary Clinton apologizes for her Iraq vote, as other politicians have done, blaming their decision on faulty intelligence on Iraq's WMD capabilities. This is because, like many other Washington politicians at the time, including those now running for president, she had been witness to lies about Iraq's weapons programs to justify attacks on that country by her husband President Bill Clinton and his administration.

"While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq," Senator Clinton said at the time of her vote, in a carefully crafted speech designed to demonstrate her range of knowledge and ability to consider all options. "I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998."

Hillary would have done well to leave out that last part, the one where her husband, the former President of the United States, used military force as part of a 72-hour bombing campaign ostensibly deemed as a punitive strike in defense of disarmament, but in actuality proved to be a blatant attempt at regime change which used the hyped-up threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as an excuse for action. Sound familiar? While many Americans today condemn the Bush administration for misleading them with false claims of unsubstantiated threats which resulted in the ongoing debacle we face today in Iraq (count Hillary among this crowd), few have reflected back on the day when the man from Hope, Arkansas sat in the Oval Office and initiated the policies of economic sanctions-based containment and regime change which President Bush later brought to fruition when he ordered the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

...much more at link



Scott Ritter served as a former Marine Corps officer from 1984 until 1991, and as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 until 1998. He is the author of several books, including "Iraq Confidential" and "Target Iran". He also co-authored "War on Iraq" with William Pitt.

[bigtree]

80. she says it's in the 1991 resolution. so what? It's not.

The 'authority' they use is actually inherent in the loophole in the WPA presidents have used for decades to mobilize and deploy troops without prior congressional approval. You know very well that Congress can declare all they want, but there is nothing they can do to stop these deployments until they fix that loophole. And, there is nothing they can do to affect or manage those deployments, except in the exercise of their power over the purse. All the other language and rhetoric doesn't change those facts, no matter who it's coming from. Without funding, the operation falls, resolution and all.

[JTFrog]

84. So what? Cheney is that you?

She USED the fact that it was inherent in the 1991 resolution to SELL the IWR.

If it's not, then doesn't her husband have a bit of splaining to do?

How can you possibly have this both ways?

[mrJJ]

4. Depends on "religious freedom"

Hillary's Nasty Pastorate

There's a reason Hillary Clinton has remained relatively silent during the flap over intemperate remarks by Barack Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. When it comes to unsavory religious affiliations, she's a lot more vulnerable than Obama.

snip

Furthermore, The Family takes credit for some of Clinton's rightward legislative tendencies, including her support for a law guaranteeing "religious freedom" in the workplace, such as for pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions and police officers who refuse to guard abortion clinics.

snip

Sharlet generously attributes Clinton's involvement to the under-appreciated depth of her religiosity, but he himself struggles to define The Family's theological underpinnings. The Family avoids the word Christian but worships Jesus, though not the Jesus who promised the earth to the "meek." They believe that, in mass societies, it's only the elites who matter, the political leaders who can build God's "dominion" on earth. Insofar as The Family has a consistent philosophy, it's all about power--cultivating it, building it and networking it together into ever-stronger units, or "cells." "We work with power where we can," Doug Coe has said, and "build new power where we can't."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080331/ehrenreich

[backscatter712]

5. What a crock.

She's a lying, cheating, incompetent candidate who consistently fails to meet even mimimal standards of character.

[Snarkoleptic]

6. And don't forget about the deadbeat factor.

Hill, pay the bill.

[cliffordu]

7. Yawn. Same pablum, different day.

By he main supporter of:

Half truths, lies, bullshit, intellectually corrupt wheedling, blaming, prevaricating, confabulating,
foot stomping, pouting, fake tear generating, coattail riding, non-security clearance possessing Lewinski blaming position stealing Demo/neocon....ad infinitum.....

With some sniper fire and NAFTA history rewriting tossed in....

Yawn.....

:puke:

[JimGinPA]

8. You Might Be A Real Nice Person, So Don't Take This Personally...

But your entire OP is a load of crap. I could dissect it point by point but it's not worth the effort. For you to write "It's sad to see both of the candidate's supporters, as well as some in the campaigns themselves, so insecure with their own progress that they still see a pressing need to attack and denigrate the character of the candidates." after some of the negative crap you've posted here toward Obama is laughable.

[bigtree]

15. I haven't attacked Obama's character. I have provided what I considered defenses

against character attacks on Hillary Clinton which show similar actions or statements by Sen. Obama. My judgment on both is usually the same. They both have more than enough integrity for my support.

Now, you may well have points of disagreement with my conclusions. but this isn't some attack. It's my point of view, which doesn't doesn't deserve to be called 'crap', any more than your own.

[zulchzulu]

9. A very unconvincing argument...

Bill Clinton WAS race baiting when he tried to denegrate Obama's clear win by inferring with a "so, what, Jesse Jackson won too..." as he bit his lip.

Hillary Clinton obviously endorsed McCain over Obama with her little pouty crap about all he had was "a speech". It was just another lie. To think she either isn't a pathological liar and/or a turncoat pretty much demands that you don't have a sound card on your computer or you are completely clueless on that people mean when they make a statement.

Her puffing up of her First Lady "experience" is exactly why she LIED about the Bosnian visit. She thinks we think she's tough. She thinks we're stupid and that video didn't document her visit. That's more evidence to me that she's actually not that intelligent after all. There's much more evidence of her puffing up her resumé, but that's not even worth mentioning.

She is a goner. It's just a matter of time before she drops out.

If you want to live the fantasy that the superdelegates are going to somehow overturn her failure as a candidate, go live that fantasy. Superdelegates are for the most part political hacks and dare not piss off their electorate for fear of losing power.

[JayFredMuggs]

25. Excellent summary of the issues, the "problems" with Hillary and...

why threads like these deserve careful reading.

Hillary supporters, wake up, you are digging your heels into very soft sand now.

Nothing Hillary has done in the course of her over one year long campaign makes her look like a leader of America.

She makes herself look less likable, less electable in the General Election, with each and every LIE and misrepresentation, each scratch at Obama.

Learn to accept the inevitable, Hillary supporters, what has happened in the last 3 months of primaries is likely to continue for the next two, Hillary will NOT turn it around, not after her unpaid financial debts, and "mis-statements" continue to mount up.

[SwampG8r]

87. lol i saw the name and wanted you to have this

[RichardRay]

10. I'll grant you all of that BigTree...

I feel much the same about the attacks leveled at Barack Obama. I have attempted (relatively successfully, I believe) to avoid the food fights that go on here at DU.

How about it we both agree to move on from all that? Maybe we can start a movement! OK, that's probably hoping for too much, but it's nice to dream...

[bigtree]

18. I wanted to include a lengthy defense of Obama and the crap which is flung around here

I don't believe that ANY of the issues that even I have raised against him denigrate *or detract from his qualities and potential for greatness as the leader of the nation. But, It is hard to defend both at the same time you're advocating for one or the other. I'd like to take a stab at that.

[Evergreen Emerald]

11. Very convincing argument.

Good job.

[Faygo Kid]

12. I disagree with your arguments, but appreciate your discourse.

A lot of thought went into this post, obviously, and you are to be congratulated for that.

Frankly, I fear we will all come together again soon, when the attack on Iran comes. At that point, we had better push our disagreements aside and fight together to save our nation.

Until then, we'll go at it here on DU, but I liked your post, and thanks. Your support for your candidate is well stated.

[JimGinPA]

17. I Really Didn't Appreciate Your Post...

It caused me great discomfort when I had to get off my lazy ass to go into another room to find that cd & put it on.

:evilgrin:

[Faygo Kid]

22. What's Goin' On?

If it's any comfort to you, since I posted that, I have the song going through my head, and probably will all evening long.

Just remember, it could be worse.

[JimGinPA]

24. LOL

:rofl:

[PetraPooh]

14. Hillary has presented herself, and her character is lacking, very lacking.

[Usrename]

16. Even though you know she cannot win the Whitehouse, you continue.

There is no possibility that she can win a general election if the superdelegates give her this nomination.

You know this is true.

[bigtree]

21. I don't 'believe' that is true

I really don't know how this primary contest will even end.

[anonymous171]

26. I think Hillary did use her emotion to bring in votes.

But that, to me, was fine. She showed us that she had passion and was committed to something other than getting elected. She showed us that she cared about SOMETHING and was upset that she couldn't get through. Then, after her win in NH, she went right back to being the Corporate Robot that she was in Iowa. Except she was more negative.

[bigtree]

27. I suppose I mean, in some insincere way or some contrived act

. . . rather than a normal display of her excellent character.

[anonymous171]

28. Maybe she should show more of that "excellent character"

And win votes by building herself up.

[bigtree]

34. you know what is reported is a fraction of these candidate's efforts

I try and show the substance here, when I'm allowed a sensible debate.

[anonymous171]

35. I understand and appreciate that.

You are one of the few supporters (of either candidate) who is very positive and does a good job of advocating the candidate you support without tearing down their opponent.
I salute you! :patriot:

[Arkansas Granny]

31. Thank you bigtree for a very thoughtful, well reasoned and positive post.

[bigtree]

41. :)

thanks for your support :hi:

[grantcart]

33. I would defend your character BigTree and I am sorry you have to defend hers

But there is simply too much that has been misrepresented in your heartfelt article to ignore.

1) Bill Clinton wasn't 'race baiting' he was 'race framing'. If he could frame Obama as an African American candidate he could use that as a wedge. If you alienate every single African American voter so that Obama is getting a disproportionate amount of his support from African American voters you can try to trivialize a win in a state that has high numbers of African Americans.

2) She has consistently tried to damage Obama's experience by elevating McCain.

3) Its not her vote for the IWR that has made her the most unappealing candidate in a large field. Its her efforts to 'contextualize' it and make it appear reasonable that do so.

4) She didn't exaggerate her Bosnian trip she lied about it. She did so because the Clinton's have developed a narcissistic complex that, in their minds, puts them at the center of the universe, the center of this party and the center of history.

5) The Obama campaign is not criticizing her for continuing. Since Obama established an insurmountable lead they have picked up an additional one million donors. They open up a campaign office in PA and a thousand people are in line to help. He is going door to door to sell himself in PA, a state he will need to win in the GE. The voices for her to quit are from people who support Obama and want to get on with the GE. I honestly think that Obama wants her to stay in. Even her bringing up the Wright material is a good thing. That issue will be completely vetted and killed by the GE starts.

6) In the end she is not going to carry even the super delegates. She has lost her lead in Governors, Senators and Congressman. Her lead is 36 and she has 41 super delegates in NY alone. Carville's Judas charge was aimed at those folks many who have developed an interest in supporting Obama. We are now compiling a list of super delegates who have gone on record saying that they endorse Clinton but will vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates. This chart shows not just that she has lost the campaign for super delegates (she did get a huge number signed up before the campaign started) but it also is reflective of the decline in enthusiasm of in the super delegates that are still counted for her.

7)The biggest lie of the Clintons has to do with FL/MI. They wanted the rule, their representatives voted for the rule and they should have been the biggest beneficiaries of having a large national primary with their advantage of name recognition, money, connections. It was only after she lost super Tuesday that she wanted the rules that were implemented to benefit her to be rewritten. You can find the details in this thread

Hillary Clinton is fighting for her interests.

The irony is if she had done what John McCain had done and abandoned all of the consultants, the entourage, the pollsters and simply got on a plane and done town halls and opened herself to the process, instead of trying to manufacture a plastic candidate for it, she would have been embraced and have won the nomination.

She took a different road with Carivele, Penn, Davis. She swifted her own boat, capped her own knees, cultivated her own backers.

Now she is not ready to run, she is not paying her bills, still hasn't developed a compelling message, and by every account her only hope is that Obama implodes. This is the path she has chosen. She will continue regardless of the damage it does to the Clinton brand, the party, the country until the contributions dry up. This is her character, that is the character you nobly try to defend.

[Kittycat]

36. Dear Bigtree

I mean this with great respect... I know you care deeply for the Clintons. MANY, Most, if not ALL of us have at some point - we've been labeled Clinton Apologists for it. In time, some before they left the white house, some before she 'officially' entered the race, and some after that point stopped apologizing and making excuses for them. They stopped trying to justify their lies, half truths, questionable business dealings, disgard of voters that don't support them, attacking within the party, etc. I'm one of those that just stopped. You just cannot make excuses for the unexcusable.

You (general term) either just have to:
A) accept the Clintons flaws and all, and embrace HRC's campaign - or
b) accept them, but don't support her campaign, or...
c) stop accepting them, and reject them in full.

C option leads to one of three choices should she get the nomination...
1. Vote McCain
2. Stay Home or Write-in
3. Vote Clinton with a laundry pin on your nose.

C3 is where many of us are at this point. Reading posts making excuses for the constant deceptions only pushes buttons on some to want to do C2. C1s aren't democrats.

Now... getting back to your post, again with respect. Please stop making excuses - YOU are better than that. I am sure all this pains you, because you clearly care a lot about them/her campaign. If you want to be one of the A-types, then so be it - it's a much more honorable place to be than a constant apologist. Just be honest with yourself, say f*ck it - I'm going down with the ship, or rising with the balloon - no matter which way it goes I support her flaws and all. Then be done with it.

[Diane R]

37. Hillary Clinton is not 'fighting to represent our interests'. She's fighting for her own ego.

[bigtree]

40. You have to have a big ego to run for that office. Most all presidents have big egos.

It has to be personal for them. That's not a concern of mine. I believe that Hillary Clinton has well demonstrated her concern and care for the issues and values our party represents on our behalf, in her actions and efforts in her past, and, in her current term as Senator.

[anonymous171]

63. I agree.

It's like being a surgeon or a fighter pilot. You have to have a huge ego to think you can handle a job that requires so much responsibility.

[Jennos20]

78. That is Hilarious!

Are you honestly suggesting that Obama doesn't have a big ego? Obama has to be one of the most arrogant, egotistical men in the entire universe.

[AX10]

38. She is my only choice for President!

[bigtree]

45. fortunately

she's really not the 'only' acceptable choice in this primary at this point for most Democrats.

[Vinca]

39. I'm happy you feel so positive about her. I, on the other hand,

will never get past the Bosnia lie. Repeated 3 times is a lie, not a "misstatement." I was embarrassed for her. Even more of a mystery is why she felt she had to make up a harrowing story. Going to visit the troops was a fine thing to do and she deserves credit for that, but to turn it into a weird Rambo-ette story in order - I guess - to gain commander-in-chief credentials is a bit loopy.

[Zorro]

43. Well stated, bigtree

She's a fighter, something a lot of Democrats seem very uncomfortable with.

[bigtree]

49. making the opposition uncomfortable

. . . is a good thing

[IowaGirl]

47. Good Job, Bigtree......

Thanks for sticking your neck out. :kick:

[Beregond2]

48. Believe...

That's a heck of lot to not believe! All those "I don't believes" add-up to a kind-of negative creed. Personally, I don't believe in belief. One either knows something or one doesn't. ("Faith" is another issue.)

[bhikkhu]

53. Very well done. Thank you.

[Medusa]

57. She has no character left to defend

this campaign has shown her true colors. And it ain't pretty.

Drink the kool aid if you must but Obama will be our party's nominee.

[ProSense]

59. Sorry,

lying is not a virtue

[hfojvt]

62. your defense then is just that you don't believe anything very bad

about Hillary. Again, it sorta reminds me of Bush. His supporters defend him no matter what he does. They don't believe he lies, or they don't think it matters in light of the larger purpose of his Presidency.

I don't believe she agrees with my values. I see her and Bill as part of the DLC, as the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. As such, they are almost worse than Republicans, because they undermine what should be an opposition party. I also see her posing as a friend of the working class to be just as dishonest as Bush's "compassionate conservatism". It's a lie told to people without the ability to dig up the truth.

But probably there is nothing I can say to convince you of that, any more than you can convince me that she is fighting for our interests (or that the rich people donating the max to her are doing so for our best interests.)

[bigtree]

66. plenty of other candidate support other than Bush you could have pointed to

That's the tone of defense which undermines any reasonable debate.

These are the main points of contention, in this primary, against the character of Hillary Clinton. I reject them as false and predictably opportunistic to an opposition campaign.

I don't believe that differences in perspective about these candidates is really significant, beyond an affirmation of our own preferences.

And, I don't believe that, in this contest between these two career politicians, that either has some lock on integrity over the other.

[Zhade]

64. "Hillary Clinton's exaggerated description" was a BALD-FACED LIE...

...which she repeated several times AFTER it was pointed out.

She's a proven liar. This is not up for debate. Period.

[bigtree]

67. when did Zhade become the boss of me?

EVERYTHING is 'up for debate' in this political contest.

[donheld]

69. Do you think Hillary has done anything at all

That maybe she shouldn't have done?

[bigtree]

73. I'm at odds with quite a bit of her record

But, I'm not putting that foot forward here.

[damonm]

75. So much for intellectual honesty...

Especially since your "defense" is nothing more than you refusing to believe matters of established fact.
2 Months ago, before Super Tuesday, I watched a debate between Clinton and Obama (my guy, Edwards, had just dropped, so I knew I'd have to get behind ONE of them), and said to my wife afterwards "I'm cool with EITHER of them".

Now, not so much. The campaign the Clintons (yes, both of them)are running has bordered on the scurrilous. The 3AM ad was politics - BFD. And whether Clinton meant to elevate McCain over Obama or not is absurdist irrelevancy, as that was the exact effect of her words. The NAFTA flap was Rovian politics at its worst, and the Bosnia bit is only "misspeaking" if with that word one means "bald-faced lie". Then Bill's bit of business late last week about "putting on the pads" caused me to lose EVERY LAST BIT of respect I had for the man - he was lamenting the "politics of personal destruction" (HIS words, BTW) in the '90's, and now is endorsing them - was he lying then, or now?

And as to Hillary's character - hers is evident in her IWR vote and subsequent rejection of the Levin Amendment, her vote FOR the bankruptcy bill, and her vote against a ban on the use of cluster munitions in civilian areas.
Should she get the nom, I'll be holding my nose while I vote for her.

[bigtree]

77. I don't have to defend her from whatever perspective you've invented.

And, fact? You have a lock on the facts? What you've presented here is your own opinion, not 'facts'. You are entitled to your view, and, I would hope to be afforded my own without being labeled 'dishonest' just because we disagree.

[Umbram]

70. A minimalist version for lazy people such as myself.

Supporters - stop attacking the other candidate.

Bigtree does not believe any of the criticisms leveled at Bill or Hillary Clinton.

It's unfair to tell Clinton to bow out when the race is this close.

Stop complaining about Clinton's reliance on superdelegates to win - both sides will need them. If Clinton gets the lead in the popular vote, it's OK if the supderdelegates choose her.

Superdelegates are allowed to vote their conscience.

Let Florida and Michigan revote.

Both candidates are good.

Clinton deserves as much respect as Obama for fighting for our interests.


***This is merely an interpretation of the OP, inspired by a minimalist self-portrait of me interpretively dancing the OP.

[Shakespeare]

79. But you're not defending her character.

You're just saying you don't believe some of the charges, and/or that you don't care about some of the charges.

:shrug:

[bigtree]

81. ah, but it is the opposition campaign which insists that these are character flaws

These are their charges which they claim are character flaws; enough to call her all sorts of vile names and cast all sorts of despicable aspersions on her character. I'm just responding to those. If you want to offer more, I'll contemplate them.

[Shakespeare]

83. No, you said you were DEFENDING her character.

By the very definition of that word, you're not "just responding," you're defending, i.e., explaining and/or justifying the charges. You've put the onus on yourself.

edited to add: The rhetorical equivalent of going "Nuh-uh!" is not a defense.

[Erin Elizabeth]

82. I'm not going to go through the whole post

but this stuck out to me:

"I don't believe that Hillary Clinton's exaggerated description of her Bosnia trip negates any of the other substantive experience she has in military and foreign affairs, despite the incredible attempts to denigrate and completely dismiss the clear role she played as First lady in representing our country and her husband's, the president's, interests abroad on the basis of that (admitted) exaggeration."

There's really a difference between exaggerating and making things up out of whole cloth. She would have been exaggerating if she said the trip lasted say, 12 days, when it was really only eight. Or if she said that the weather was harsh when it was not really that bad.

However, she said she landed in Bosnia under sniper fire and had to run on the tarmac and not even be properly greeted because of all the danger. We know that is completely untrue. Not an exaggeration. There wasn't a "little bit" of sniper fire and she made it out to be a WHOLE LOT. There was none. No danger. And she said there was.

That's called a lie.

And while lying doesn't take away her experience as First Lady or as a Senator, what it does is worry me. Quite frankly, I found it downright alarming. I know in a big race the candidates will exaggerate a bit. I know sometimes things aren't remembered clearly. There's no nefarious motive in that.

But completely making stuff up?

That's...chilling. I just can't think of any other way to put it. If I were her, I'd be so damn embarrassed over that, I'd have a hard time showing my face again. But that's just me, I guess.

Her character is seriously in question by me because of the lies (among other things), NOT because of any exaggeration.

[usrbs]

85. Thank you for stating my opinions so well

And you can read Huffington to see how the FL and MI Republican parties are responsible for the early primaries, and how the DNC is inconsistently applying the rules.