My simple reason for opposing Hillary on the ticket: You can't trust either her or her husband

[FredScuttle]

I'm not going to belabor the point or gratuitously bash either Clinton here....what I'd like to say, simply, is that for the good of the party and the nation, Obama must not put Hillary (or the baggage that comes with her husband) on the ticket for the GE. My reasons are:

1) Bill Clinton betrayed our trust in an outrageous way before - remember those fun days in 1998 and 1999 spent defending him? Especially that glorious night of August 18, 1998, where he got up in front of the nation and admitted his affair? Remember the humiliation, the embarassment, the anger? I can bet you that some of the superdelegates currently holding their vote remember all those months they were trotted out to put their reputations on the line to defend the President, only to be betrayed on that night. They remember, I remember, and you should remember....we should never have to suffer embarassment like that again. Do we really want to endure a summer with all that garbage dredged up and the threat of new revelations?

2) The "Experience" contradiction - how can this ticket be taken seriously when Hillary proclaimed from coast to coast that Obama is too "inexperienced" to be Commander-In-Chief, but now is OK being his second banana? There have been other tickets that have managed to overcome the primary differences between the nominees (Reagan-Bush '80 comes to mind), but it's laughable to conceive that Hillary has done a 180 and will be a credible defender of Obama on the "experience" issue

3) Her conduct over the past two months has become more deplorable and despicable with each day. Sure, she had a cease-fire the week leading up to the Kentucky and Oregon primaries...but she's reverted right back to the scorched-earth, race-baiting, party-dividing campaign of lies, distortions and smears....smears against Obama, smears against Obama supporters, smears against Howard Dean and the DNC...etc. A candidate has unbalanced and bitter as Hillary has no place on a national ticket.

[DemGa]

1. And I've seen a campaign of character assassination from Team Obama

the source of conjecture stated as fact.

[FredScuttle]

7. The OP is simply my opinion....it doesn't purport to be anything more than that

Is it "character assassination" to state that Bill Clinton seems to have a recurring problem of being able to keep his dick in his pants around women who aren't his wife?

[DemGa]

14. No, I wouldn't define that as character assassination

I'm talking about the Obama campaign repeatedly and broadly defining Clinton as dishonest and of poor character.

[FredScuttle]

19. I think you're conflating Obama"s campaign with his supporters here on DU

There are plenty of Obama supporters (myself included) who won't hesitate to define Hillary as dishonest and of low character because that is what she's become. I haven't heard those charges come from Obama or his campaign, though.

Does the truth = character assassination?

[DemGa]

32. No, I'm not conflating the two at all

There was the constant implication that Clinton was dishonest from the Obama campaign - essentially an extension of the right-wing attacks. So it's no accident at all what is seen on this board - it came from the Obama campaign.

“People have heard a lot of things that just aren’t true from the mouth of the First Lady, from the mouth of the former president, from the mouth of the campaign," said Robert Gibbs, Obama’s communications director.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/8002.html

Obama responded: "Hillary's idea is that we should force everyone to buy insurance. But this is yet another issue where she is not being straight with the American people because she refuses to tell us how much she would fine people if they couldn't afford insurance."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/25/AR2007112501030.html

Senator Clinton likes to claim that she’s been vetted. But there is a salient theme emerging that has not been examined at all in this race: Senator Clinton has consistently made political calculations to deliberately mislead the American people and the voters have noticed.

it’s time that Senator Clinton be questioned aggressively about this pattern of misleading voters.

A history of misleading voters

After eight years of an untrustworthy President, can we really expect that a candidate who is viewed as so much more dishonest than McCain will somehow be able to beat him?

http://thepage.time.com/obama-camp-memo-on-clinton-misleading-voters/

[FredScuttle]

37. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

"just aren't true from the mouth of the First Lady"
"she is not being straight"
"consistently made political calculations to deliberately mislead"
"pattern of misleading voters"
"history of misleading voters"
"viewed as dishonest"

Christ! That's been her week this week!

[DemGa]

44. And then the argument becomes circular

I'll end by pointing out that this tactic can easily be used against Obama. It was used on Gore in 2000 and then too, a Dem led that charge. It's purely a campaign tactic - and as low as it gets.

"How can the people trust a candidate," Bradley asked in New York the day after the New Hampshire primary, "who doesn't respect them enough to tell them the truth in the campaign?"

Bradley has warned voters to watch for Gore's "tricky" way with words, going as far as to compare him with Richard Nixon: "the kind of politician who'd chop down a tree, then stand on the stump and give a speech about conservation." Gore as the Anti-George Washington -- he simply cannot tell the truth, he cannot help but lie -- is now the recurring theme of the Bradley campaign.

http://ariannaonline.huffingtonpost.com/columns/column.php?id=228

[FredScuttle]

51. All that and he still won the election...

:eyes:

[ej510]

38. The idiot is a fucking liar! Hillary and Bill are trash!

[Mike L]

50. Hillary wouldn't want to be on a losing team anyway. em

[cliffordu]

67. And your problem with the truth is.....

[juajen]

2. It isn't Hillary that is unbalanced and bitter. NT

[nichomachus]

3. I haven't trusted a politician

since 1965 -- with the possible exceptions of Mike Dukakis and Jimmy Carter. All others fall on a scale of duplicity. The Clintons are pretty far down on the duplicitous end of that scale.

[GCP]

4. Could you provide links for some of these assertions?

3) Her conduct over the past two months has become more deplorable and despicable with each day. Sure, she had a cease-fire the week leading up to the Kentucky and Oregon primaries...but she's reverted right back to the scorched-earth, race-baiting, party-dividing campaign of lies, distortions and smears....smears against Obama, smears against Obama supporters, smears against Howard Dean and the DNC...etc. A candidate has unbalanced and bitter as Hillary has no place on a national ticket.

Obama supporters keep on trotting out this meme that Clinton is slagging him off at every opportunity.

I haven't seen this, and I'm willing to bet you can't provide links.

[FredScuttle]

8. Good lord....pull up any page from GD:P from the last month and you'll find plenty

n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

59. And any GD:P page from the last month

will contain a plethora of anti-Clinton lies.

GDP is hardly a source of real evidence. Just lies, hate and smears. Might as well read FreeRepublic - it's got just as much relationship to the truth.

[Coexist]

5. and I think she comes to the table a TON of favors owed

and I don't want this Presidency to start off like that. And Bill will be co-VP. Obama's life will be much more difficult with her after November.

[Shoelace]

49. that "Bill will be co-VP" meme is ridiculous

but Faux News pushes it as do the GE/MSM spinmeisters.
Yet another disingenuous way to vilify the Clintons who served our country very well for the 8 years that were theirs.

My God, for a moment, I thought I was on Freeper Republic's forum when I read your post!!!

[Coexist]

54. oh please.

He will be.

[Yael]

6. No more Clintonian drama

If she hadn't attacked him, I would be OK with it, but he is going to need to be free to focus on repairing our economy and standing in the world. Way too many issues to tackle than to have to watch for knives in his back.

They can't even stay on message in their own bid. How on earth would they stay on message with HIS message?

They can't.

They are done.

Good riddance.

[KittyWampus]

35. But Yael, you also have the recent dirt both Hillary and Bill have on them that never got vetted

to the extent that any of it was put through the Media echo-chamber and played on loop non-stop.

[FatDave]

36. "to watch for knives in his back"

My fears exactly. We've pretty much seen she'll do anything to have the presidency she feels she's entitled to. No way do you put such a person in a position to gain what she wants by sabotaging you.

[midnight]

9. You can't trust either her or her husband

Clinton was investigated the entire time he was in office. The only damning thing he was brought into testify about while sitting as a president was his sex life. You could trust that he would follow the rules the prosecutor was upholding. You could trust that the Constitution would be honored. Those are the most valuable testaments about being a trustworthy president. Do you have any information on either candidates position about repealing the patriot act. Because that would be the most important consideration when discussing trust.

[FredScuttle]

13. He was already in office, in his 2nd term. He earned the trust, then he lost it

We're now on the outside, looking in. We're trying to get back to the Oval Office and the last thing we need in that effort is 1) a rehashing of how the VP nominee's husband lied to the nation so outrageously and 2) another "bimbo" eruption. It won't be so cute or easy to minimize this time.

[northzax]

22. yes, a hundred million dollars was spent investigating him

and all they got him for was lying about getting a blow job.

but don't worry, they won't turn those magnifiers on Barack, never going to happen.

[FredScuttle]

42. So Barack should be under scrutiny even though there is no evidence he cheated on his wife

but we should lay off Bill, who's chased anything and everything that's not nailed down for the past 30 years?

[northzax]

62. I'm sorry, is bill Clinton running for office?

Or should we listen to senator obama when he says attacks on spouses aren't acceptable?

Remember the investigations of the clintons started with a shady land deal...

[FredScuttle]

65. He sure acts like he is

n/t

[AtomicKitten]

10. It would be along the lines of Obama/Dysentery with her on the ticket.

[RainDog]

11. I agree completely

[Rageneau]

12. That reasoning isn't 'simple,' it's retarded.

There you are, riding piggyback on the pork shoulders of Rush Limbaugh, waving that semen-stained dress over your head, shrieking "Look what a bad boy Bill was. Look at how he let us down! Aren't we ashamed of him? Let's scream insults at him because we are such superior moral beings!"

Except WJC didn't let us down. As president, he did the best job since FDR. Our country and its people and all the people in the world benefited from his time at the helm. If we had more presidents like Bill, our country could still represent what was BEST about America.

But you'd rather go through Hillary's underwear drawer looking for unusual stains to gossip about, or misrepresent the things she says in order to manufacture something to criticize her for.

Not only is that every bit as bad as leaving semen on a dress, it's actually worse.

In fact, there's a whole commandment prohibiting it.

[FredScuttle]

15. He let me down

I was right there with you, defending him with every breath I had. I screamed at people calling for his impeachment, defying them to name me one thing that he did that would come close to a "high crime and misdemeanor". I defended him on the trumped-up impeachment proceeding throught the whole thing and I still believe that House impeachment will be seen in history as one of the most blatant abuses committed by the Legislative branch.

However, he still let me down.

He's letting me down now. As is his wife.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

17. Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of Hillary?

I seem to have missed that one.

Simple Point: Hillary and Bill have their own agenda, which may or may not be in sync with the Obama Administration. If their behavior over the last three months has demonstrated anything, it's that they'll do whatever it takes to get what they want. If YOU were the President of the United States, would you want somebody like that -- the loosest of loose cannons -- in your administration, potentially undermining you agenda?

They say that a candidate's choice for VP is the first true test of his judgment as President. If Obama chooses Hillary, one seriously has to wonder about his judgment.

[TexasObserver]

16. I agree. Hillary and Bill are absolutely unacceptable near the White House.

They are two despicable humans who are terrible for the Democratic party.

[northzax]

21. you are right. I guess

the worst time in American history was between 1993 and 2001. the only Democrat to win reelection to the White House since Harry S Truman is evil. and we wonder why we never win anything?

[FredScuttle]

25. So you have no problem being lied to in that fashion?

Really? I guess you have to be a Hillary supporter then....she did.

[northzax]

28. a problem? sure

is it a terminal offense for his wife's career? he didn't lie about policy, he didn't lie about governing, he lied about cheating on his wife. and you blame the wife.

classy. lemme guess, if she's just taken better care of him, it wouldn't have happened?

[FredScuttle]

31. I said nothing of the sort

Their twisted marriage or whatever the hell relationship they have is none of my business. However, when she's trying to insert herself onto the Democratic ticket, then her baggage and the baggage her husband brings are of great concern to me.

I don't blame Hillary for her husband's infidelity...I blame her for a hell of a lot of destructive things she's doing (and he's doing as her surrogate) in her lust for the top spot.

[northzax]

40. insert herself?

you mean, the person with 16.2 million votes (compared to the person with 16.6 million votes) might possibly have some role to play?

or just excise them completely. the 16.2 million people who voted for her aren't really Democrats anyway, so who gives a shit? they don't get the second coming of Obama, so why bother?

a difference of 433,000 votes out of 32 million. (and no, this doesn't count Florida or Michigan) and you think it's a blowout, that she should be crushed under a boot and thrown away. smart. real smart.

do I think she should be Vice President? no, I think that would be a bad decision for her, she will be a much more effective Senator than Obama would ever let her be as VP. It would be good for him, though. I can't imagine a better situation than him having a detail-oriented policy person behind him.

[FredScuttle]

52. LOL.....here we go with the popular vote again

My friend....you could say that she got 50 million votes in the primaries and I would not give a shit. Delegates is what counts and Obama has now and will end this primary campaign with more delegates than Hillary...enough, in fact, to clinch the nomination. She's lost and, yes, she's trying to "insert herself" onto to the ticket because she has no business being on the ticket, she has no say in being on the ticket, she's earned nothing that would automatically place her on the ticket....the decision rests solely with the nominee, Barack Obama.

I didn't say it was a blowout, but it is OVER. Someone needs to get it into her head that she is not going to be the nominee and my hope is that Obama passes her over for VP

As to how the people who voted for her feel? Join the fucking club! I was (and still am) a Deaniac and I proudly cast my vote in the GE for John Kerry. Suck it up, grow up and get behind your nominee!

[northzax]

56. who said I am not?

I am not making the case that she won. she didn't. I am making the case that disregarding the 16.2 million people who thought she was a better candidate is not a good strategy. scorched earth tactics are not always the best plan.

[northzax]

18. so your main arguement about why Hillary shouldn't be on the ticket

is because her husband got a blow job from someone else 12 years ago?

you define a woman by her husband now?

tell me, would you rather have a person who's husband got a blow job or a man who's wife did real estate deals with a soon to be convicted felon and took a 33% raise in exchange for a million dollar tax donation to her employer?

Bill Clinton got a blow job, Michelle Obama took a bribe (there's no other way to put it, sorry) and he's the evil one?

[FredScuttle]

24. It's one of my arguments and, yes, it's a pretty important one to me

Come now....you can't be so naive as to think that Bill won't play a major role in any position Hillary's able to wrangle out of these negotiations do you? In any case, candidate's spouses aren't off limits and the zeal with which the GOP went after Theresa Heinz Kerry will look like a walk in the park compared to the GOP orgasm Bill will incite.

I don't define Hillary by Bill....she's pissed me off all by herself. I just feel Bill is additional baggage we don't need on the ticket.

As to your smear of Michelle Obama, funny that the trial of Rezko didn't reveal her criminal activity, wouldn't you say?

[northzax]

27. smear?

what did I get wrong? Did Michelle Obama not take a $100,000 raise from the University of Chicago Hospital System the year after her husband was elected the Senator from Illinois? it's in their tax returns.

Did her husband not give the University of Chicago Hospital System a $1m earmark in 2006? the year after they gave his wife a $100,000 raise?

none of that happened? really?

how is it a smear to point out the exact facts, as reported by the Obamas themselves in their tax returns and his earmark requests?

[FredScuttle]

29. Gee.....merit wouldn't have anything to do with her promotion, would it?

And I'd appreciate a link on your accusation....thanks

[northzax]

33. go do your own research

find the Obama's tax returns from 2003, 2004, 2005. they are all released publically. track her income from the University of Chicago System. watch it go up by 66% right after he gets elected. (from $126,000 in 2004 to $316,000 in 2005. not too shabby, huh?)

find the list of earmarks that Obama released. find the 2006 earmark for a new pavillion at the University of Chicago Hospital System.

it's all public record, I would do your legwork for you, but you'd probably accuse me of linking to sites that skew the truth. so go find the actual records, released by the Obama campaign.

but yes, I am sure that it had everything to do with merit and nothing to do with her husband becoming a US Senator. people get $200,000 or 66% raises all the freaking time. why, I just got one last week. didn't you?

[FredScuttle]

39. Fuck you....you throw out an accusation, you support it with documentation

I bet all you have are right-wing sources for this garbage, just like every other Hillbot smear against the Obamas this week.

I'm not doing your work for you....you have a legitimate point to make about the Obamas with credible sources to back it up, I'm all ears. Otherwise, go fuck yourself, asshole.

"Michelle Obama appointed vice-president for community and external affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals" - May 9, 2005

http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/2005/20050509-obama.html

[northzax]

53. what accusation?

fine, we can do this. I just assumed as a strong supporter of the Senator that you had access to his website. however. please review the Obama's tax returns from 2000-2006, you can find them here:http://my.barackobama.com/page/-/Press/Taxes_2000-2006.pdf be careful, it is 103 pages of a pdf and takes forever to load. I refer you to their 2004 1040, which lists a gross income of $204,372 (line 7). Here is a report from the Chicago Tribune invterviewing the head of the hospital system confirming her 2004 salary was $121,910 and her 2005 salary was $316,962 due to her promotion.

Here from Barackobama.com, is the list of earmark requests from Senator Obama in 2006 and 2007. note the following:

Obama Requested $1 Million For Construction Of A New Hospital Pavilion At The University Of Chicago. In 2006, Obama requested that the University of Chicago receive $1 million to support its Construction of New Hospital Pavilion. For more than 75 years, the University of Chicago Hospitals (UCH) has provided state of the art medical care on the South Side of Chicago. UCH is one of the largest Medicaid providers in Illinois, and it provided more than $90 million in uncompensated care for Medicare and Medicaid patients this past year. To continue providing the best care for patients from all walks of life, UCH is proceeding with the construction of a new 600,000 square foot facility that will ensure their ability to provide the best care for patients well into the future. Funding will go towards assisting the construction and equipping a new hospital pavilion that will increase the Hospitals' clinical capacity by over one-third.

so we have a US Senator giving an earmark to his wife's employer which (coincidentally, I am sure) had just given his wife a large raise and promotion. do you disagree with those facts, as stated?

[FredScuttle]

60. Typical Hillbot bullshit

I'm only agitated because you're accusing the man of taking a bribe for political favors (certainly not a novelty in Chicago) and all you have to show for evidence are the family's tax returns and his earmark requests. No linkage, no evidence that he directly benefited from the earmark and, most importantly....WHY THE FUCK WOULD AN EARMARK FOR THE FUCKING UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO HOSPITALS, ONE OF THE MOST PRESTIGIOUS HOSPITALS IN THE NATION, IF NOT THE WORLD, BE SEEN AS ANYTHING OTHER THAN DOING HIS JOB FOR THE STATE?

Now, let's look at Michelle Obama's tenure at U. of Chicago. Did she drop in just in time for a sweetheart, back-scratching comfy gig before the earmark came through? Well, if you count a decade of work and steady rise in the ranks as "dropping in":

Michelle began her involvement with the University of Chicago in 1996. As associate dean of student services, she developed the University's first community service program. Michelle also served as executive director of community and external affairs until 2005, when she was appointed vice president of community and external affairs at the University of Chicago Medical Center. She also managed the business diversity program. Michelle has fostered the University of Chicago's relationship with the surrounding community and developed the diversity program, making them both integral parts of the Medical Center's mission.http://www.barackobama.com/about/michelle_obama/

I don't disagree that 1) Michelle Obama is employed by the U. of Chicago Hospital system and 2) Obama requested funds for structural enhancements for the hospital designed, not to benefit Obama, but to serve the community.

I totally reject your pathetic assertion that this was a bribe. Typical Hillbot bullshit

[northzax]

61. so you have no problem

with a us senator appropriating unaudited funds (that's what an earmark is) to an institution that he is directly financially a beneficiary of? Really? Is this in all cases? Or just some? Had the system fired michelle obama in 2005 instead of promoting her, would he still have requested that earmark? There's no way to know, is there? That's why it's unethical. If she worked for Northwestern's hospital system, would the earmark have been made? How do you know?

So a few questions:

A: did the senator finacially benefit from the hospital employing his wife?

B: did he give federal money to that hospital?

Seems to me the answer to both is 'yes' we don't know if michelle obama deserved a tripling of her salary on her own merits or if it was because her husband was one of the best known people in the state. We don't know if there was a quid pro quo, do we? We only have various people's words for it, people who directly benefited. This is why it is unethical to give taxpayer money to someone you are directly finacially beholden to. See how that makes sense?

[FredScuttle]

63. You don't know

you don't know anything except to fling shit up on a wall and see what sticks.

[northzax]

64. so I guess that's a 'no'?

you are totally cool with senators giving tax money to their spouses employers. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

[FatDave]

43. The burden of proof lies with the accuser

So yes, you really should back up your accusations with a link somehow.

Oh, and I once went from making $16/hr to making $45/hr, so yeah, it does happen.

[northzax]

was your spouse in a position

to give your employers money and influence?

my facts are listed above. I wrongly assumed that Obama supporters would have been familiar with his income and earmarks. my bad.

[PATRICK]

20. Simpler yet

I do trust the corporate media to use the Clintons to divide us over and over and over again whatever their intentions or actions. It will hobble their place in the administration and maybe Obama himself. Trusting the Clintons or not is speculation. Mistrusting the media is not. It is a fact of life.

[ladjf]

23. They have clearly demonstrated to me that their personal

desires are all that matter.

[On the Road]

26. A Lot of the Furor Over Clinton is Normal Campaign Politics

but I've become very disillusioned with her rhetoric on FL/MI and the delegate/vote math. It smacks of special pleading, demagogery, and arguing in bad faith to such and extent that it really calls into question how she would govern if she does by some chance become president.

[SeaLyons]

30. Jesus Christ...do you Obama supporters never get enough

of this crap. We know you hate her....

[FredScuttle]

34. Do you disagree with any of the three points in the OP?

Probably the third one, right?

[Hola]

41. Will Clinton defend Obama?

I think she will. If her 'not experienced to be C-in-C' claim is brought up she can just say she misspoke, and move on.

Q is, will Hillary defending Obama instead of attacking him make her loose her base of support among "white hard working Americans", making her ironically less of an asset to the ticket?

[FredScuttle]

45. "misspoke and move on"

Yeah....good luck with that.

I do agree with your point that she will lose her racist base of voters by pairing with Obama and lessening her value...not that I think she brings much value at all.

[Hola]

46. Addendum

I think we can test that theory - If Clinton was to in the next 2-4 weeks defend Obama and backtrack from some of her criticisms of him will her poll numbers drop?

I think she should take that challenge. There is no urgency for Obama to pick a VP candidate for another 2 months.

[FredScuttle]

48. That would be a good test

He's already pulling most demographic groups away from her. It a question of "whither the Appalachian hard-working white voter?"

[FatDave]

47. That's how it works, huh?

She can say anything she wants and if it becomes a liability later, well, she can just say she misspoke. :eyes:

[butterfly77]

55. Correct..

K&R

[ccharles000]

57. I trust them.

[pompano]

58. If I have heard once....

I have heard a million times Hillary supporters say things to the effect of:

If Obama thinks Hillary runs a tough campaign just wait to see what the Republicans will stoop to. I'll take the liberty of assuming this means the Republicans will drag up baggage non-stop. If this is the case, I tend to think it might be, why provide them with the "baggage buffet" to feast upon?

I think there are very few people that don't believe the Clinton's bring to the table a huge baggage liability. Travel-gate, Whitewater, File-gate, cattle futures, Lewinsky, P. Jones, Flowers, trooper-gate, Rich, pardon-gate, the Rodham brothers, etc.ect. didn't just disappear...the Presidency of Bill Clinton did. No one can with any degree of certainty rest assured these never ending sagas have once and for all been put to bed. With the Republicans history, the safest bet would be this crap goes on and on. The credibility of the claims is beside the point. Rehashing it nonstop is their goal.

In addition:

I am an Obama supporter. In my best attempt to look at this whole scenario as objective as I possibly can, I cannot see anything that remotely resembles Hillary being a wise choice for VP. I can't come to this conclusion even giving her the best benefit of the doubt.

I suppose a small case could be made for what I thought would be a little better Healthcare plan she had. Even considering this I have to also understand:
a. she will do or say anything to win the prize (thats a given)
b. I would have to abandon other issues that are important to me also...IWR, NAFTA, Kyl/Leiberman, Mark Penn etc.

[WA98296]

66. Spot on!