“Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] — which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down,” Clinton said to a meeting of donors. “We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn’t even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that’s what we’re dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it’s primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don’t agree with them. They know I don’t agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me.”
You don’t become the nominee of the Democratic/progressive movement by undercutting the Democratic/progressive movement.
“So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me.”
Oh God. Give me a break.
Or, in other words: “Obama has been better than me at raising money, getting out the vote and motivating people who actually care about issues. And that isn’t fair.
She would actually be more comfortable in the Republican Party. This is hilarious to see a Republican running for the leadeship of the Democratic Party. Such is the level of corruption in US national politics. Congress - the best politicians money can buy!
I mean, gods!, get over it already.
“I don’t agree with them. They know I don’t agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them…”
She’s complaining that people who don’t agree with her aren’t voting for her. That people who don’t agree with her outnumber those who do.
Clearly she missed the 2nd grade Social Studies class where democracy is explained, but since she’s acting like a kindergartener I guess we can’t be surprised she hasn’t gotten that far yet.
I didn’t really have a problem with the two of them competing all the way to the convention floor. But when she acts like this… yesterday wouldn’t bee too soon for her to leave.
Raising money and showing up at caucuses? Fight fair ya bastids!
“Raising money and showing up at caucuses? Fight fair ya bastids!”
I would be laughing my ass off over this line, if only Clinton didn’t make me so sad …
If i can hijack this thread for a little therapy, is anyone else so utterly depressed yet?
Intimidate them? How? Snipers?
Obama got blasted for several days because he supposedly insulted some small town Pennsylvanians.
I wonder how much heat Hillary is going to get by actually insulting “the base of the Democratic Party”.
(It’s a rhetorical question. She isn’t really going to get much because that doesn’t fit with the media’s storyline.)
What the f@#k is this?
Another fundraiser in SF?
Can somebody wake me up when this primary season is over. I am a Hillary supporter but if Obama is our guy, I’ll go the mat for him.
I don’t care about what Hillary say about the so-called “progressives”. They have stabbed her in the front over and over again. She went to the mat for the Kos community. She was lambasted by “liberal” journalists and had ads run against her just because she was defending MoveOn in the “Betray Us” fiasco. Obama went in hiding.
I say fuck ‘em and that’s the nicest thing I can say.
Jesus. Who could have predicted that with their best shot at the white house in 8 years, democratics would find a way to fuck it up.
This is most depressing political spectacle i have ever witnessed …
“I am a Hillary supporter but if Obama is our guy, I’ll go the mat for him.”
Bravo! Soooo glad someone who supports Hillary isn’t taking the petulant “If she doesn’t get nominated I’ll vote for McCain” attitude.
But…
“She was lambasted by “liberal” journalists and had ads run against her just because she was defending MoveOn in the “Betray Us” fiasco.”
And now she’s turning on MoveOn. What’s the nicest thing you can say about that?
Sean D;
She was betrayed by MoveOn and other “progressives”, to the benefit of someone who has never ever waged a battle for progressives or a progressive cause.
You really want me to repeat the nicest thing I can say? Because I will.
Soooo glad someone who supports Hillary isn’t taking the petulant “If she doesn’t get nominated I’ll vote for McCain” attitude. Good thing Obama’s supporters are not petulant. Just sayin’.
Is “someone who has never ever waged a battle for progressives or a progressive cause” a reference to Obama? Because I seem to remember reading somewhere that he did an awful lot of work on community organizing, early childhood education and other causes usually considered “progressive”.
But in any event, “Betrayed”? Can you explain that a bit more because I don’t see it.
Did her defending MoveOn during “betray-us” have a price tag that she is now owed something?
Shorter Senator Clinton: I’m a tool of the DLC.
Sean D.
I am talking about a progressive cause on a national level, where you are willing to be bruised. Yes, it’s about Obama. I don’t want to disparage all the stuff you cited, but Ryan, his Republican opponent who quit the race did similar things after leaving Wall Street.
I never said the was owed anything, but she’s well within reason to feel betrayed. I know I would. She was savaged for days by the Rightwing, “serious liberals” for defending MoveOn.
I simple don’t believe a lifelong, good Democrat like she is deserves the treatment she is getting from “progressives”. I have the feeling we are treating her worse than we are treated Bush.
If you give it some fair thought, GOPm.c., I think you’d find that one doesn’t have to be involved in politics at the national level to get bruised. It feels a little bit like you’re moving the goal posts. “Sure, he promoted progressive causes, but only, y’know, locally.”
And then you follow that up with Hillary’s having reason to feel betrayed. I mean, I won’t dispute that she may have reason, but that doesn’t mean she should be whining about it. Remember, this is national politics which she keeps pointing out she’s been involved in for decades, so shouldn’t she be “willing to be bruised” and be a bit less whiny about it when she is?
I do have to take real issue with describing her as a “good Democrat”. To me, a good Democrat doesn’t repeatedly spout Republic talking points and proclaim the Republican nominee to be a better choice than the Democratic front runner.
Sean D.
You make some good points and we can argue about some of them, but please, I beg of thee, drop the “a good Democrat doesn’t repeatedly spout Republic talking points and proclaim the Republican nominee to be a better choice than the Democratic front runner.
I have followed this campaign way to closely to listen to that claptrap.
They have both repeated Republic talking points. Have you ever listen to the daily conference calls of the Obama campaign? They are vicious, but I think it’s competition, only Obama gets a pass on many transgressions.
If you’re still around, ‘nite.
I’ll see you on another interesting thread.
“lifelong” Democrat? Am I wrong in that part of her bio is that she was Goldwater Republican?
And you talk about “claptrap,” but have no response to the very real fact that she placed McCain on a pedestal higher than her fellow Democrat.
I still can’t see how MoveOn stabbed anybody in the back.
They asked their members to vote, and a large fractions did:
Obama: 197,444 70.4%
Clinton: 83,084 29.6%
So that organization’s members strongly preferred one candidate over the other. MoveOn had no obligation to stay on the sidelines at all. Their endorsement was contingent on a 2/3sd majority of members voting for one candidate or another. Also, at that point in time, Edwards had just dropped out, so it was an ideal time to put their weight behind a candidate.
GOPmc: They have both repeated Republic talking points. Have you ever listen to the daily conference calls of the Obama campaign?
No, I haven’t. Nor the calls of any campaign. As most of the population hasn’t. Since you’ve followed teh campaign way so closely perhaps you can fill me in on what I’ve missed.
What I haven’t missed is hearing her repeatedly say Obama wasn’t ready to be Commander in Chief, but McCain is and I haven’t heard Obama say anything similar. I’ve also heard her say (as recently as the ABC debate debacle) the Obama needs to explain his relationship to Rev Wright more and I’ve heard her use almost the exact same words as McCain to call Obama an elitist while trying to make something out of his comments two weeks ago. In the recent months she or her agents have done and said so many things damaging to the Democrats that I can’t reasonably apply the label “good” Democrat to her.
at this rate Hillary will be speaking at the RNC convention in Minnesota
I don’t really care who said what to whom. It’s a competition, and this is not a particularly nasty campaign by historical standards. For those who think Obama and his campaign are clean, on top of my head I can give you the passage below from John Heilemann in the New Yorker.
I can come up with all the “Republic talking points” Obama has been using against Hillary since last summer but that is not going to stop me from working hard for him if he’s our nominee, and I’m a very strong Hillary supporter.
The idea that Hillary is vile and Obama is good is a crock, tell it to someone who doesn’t follow the campaign.
GOPmc: Could you answer a simple question for me?
As an out-of-state Iowa college student, why should I vote for someone that doesn’t think I should have a vote?
GOPmc, there is no rule in politics that you have to play fair, and both politicians will use underhanded tactics to get votes. But look through the small crucible of current Pennsylvania ads as an indicator of the message that the candidates are trying to portray. Obama talks about issues and solutions. Hillary goes “bitter.” You have some reason for needing to put these in black and white terms that I cannot understand. For me it’s more like Hillary is currently about 20% good and Obama’s about 80% good. But I also recognize that McCain is 0% good, and that’s pretty much how it goes for me.
GOPmc: The idea that Hillary is vile and Obama is good is a crock, tell it to someone who doesn’t follow the campaign.
If you’ve been following the campaign that closely, then I would think you’d have to acknowledge that a fair assessment of the tactics taken by Hillary and Obama would show she’s been far more negative, personal, insulting and hypocritical than he has. I think z_adura has it right, even if you don’t agree with the particular percentages, “it’s more like Hillary is currently about 20% good and Obama’s about 80% good.”
The dismissal of voters who don’t support her (caucus voters, Iowan students, etc), the “kitchen sink” strategy, feeding the controversy of Wright while brushing off any questions about her own spiritual guides, praising McCain over Obama, dressing up her resume (solving the Ireland crisis, sniper fire, etc.) while dismissing his legitimate accomplishments.
Are the Obama supporters, the Obama campaign and Obama himself with completely clean hands? Of course not. But she has been far and away consistently worse.
Sean D.,
I didn’t see your comments.
“Kitchen sink strategy” is a nice expression put out by marketing guru Axelrod, just like Repugs gave us “cut and run strategy”.
They all do bad things, but the press vilifies Hillary more. That’s exactly what happened between Bradley and Gore in 2000.
I remember Mark Halperin citing 9 reasons why the Obama campaign is going so negative and reason no.9 was “because he can. He knows the press will never hold him to account.” I’ll say spot on.
I could start citing all the things Obama and his campaign has said about Hillary but to me it’s a waste of time. David Axelrod and David Plouffe are a bunch of thugs, although Mark Penn is a much bigger thug. I just take it as a competition. This campaign has been mellow by historical standards.
“it’s more like Hillary is currently about 20% good and Obama’s about 80% good.”. Now that’s funny.
“This campaign has been mellow by historical standards.”
Could you expand on this point?
GOPmc: This campaign has been mellow by historical standards.
fafaroo: Could you expand on this point?
Sure. You can’t complain about some bad actions now because it isn’t the first time ever in history that someone has acted badly.
What’s so wrong about that?
Sean D
I hope you don’t ascribe your explanation to me.
I am making 2 major points:
1- This is not as much a nasty campaign as much as supporters on each side say it is, in comparison to other campaigns in History. It’s simply a fact whether people chose to accept it or not.
2- Both campaigns play dirty some times and that’s fine with me. I am annoyed by the constant bellyaching and the perpetual whining.
Keep in mind, they are campaigning for the most prestigious, most important, toughest job in the world. So, the fact that somebody said “yo mama is fat” to the other doesn’t bother me. Nobody should expect to be escorted to the presidency, not even Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton for that matter.
If you think the Obama campaign is made of angels, listen to their conference call from today, it’s easily available. (I remember at an earlier conference call, Ben Smith asked Plouffe, why he wasn’t answering a question instead of obsessively trashing Hillary Clinton.)
This “you started, no, you started” bores me to tear, even when it comes from my candidate HRC. In fairness, I am sometimes guilty of it too, but I really try not to get carried away by that.
GOPmc: Sean D
Just Sean is fine.
GOPmc: I hope you don’t ascribe your explanation to me.
No, you’ve actually been quite reasonable and enjoyable to exchange comments with. But you did (and in your point #1 you again) touch on an attitude that I have seen far to often in discussions. The “It’s not like others haven’t behaved like this before” attitude/excuse as if that excused the current behavior.
As to your second point, I don’t expect anyone to be escorted to the presidency either. But why do we have to accept that it will be nasty? Yes, it is an extremely prestigious and important position. Why should we tolerate people lowering it to the level of hurling “Yo mama” insults? Would it not be better if all debates focussed on issues with the candidates explaining why they would be the better choice, instead of yammering on about manufactured irrelevancies and why the other person sucks. It’s an extremely prestigious and important position and only the best and brightest should be considered. I want to vote for the person who is best, not the one who is least bad. Why not complain when the candidates and their staff act like immature children and street brawlers?
If the candidates for this lofty position have resorted to “yo mama” exchanges and you’re not bothered by that, then you’ve bought into the idea that nothing can improve and that’s a shame.
Sean,
I think you are still missing my #1. I don’t condone it, my point is simply that the people who are whining over the extreme nastiness are either ignorant of history or are just bellyaching for the hell of it. People are too quick to say “we’ve never seen anything like this before. The fact that you explain a situation that some would consider fucked up to me, doesn’t mean you endorse the attitude. I think that’s the mistake you are making.
Even in #2, you kind of missed my point. I just find the whole who was nastier or who started tedious. As a Hillary supporter, I can say Obama started because she said X on 7/26/07. I have no doubt that as an Obama supporter you could go back and find something Hillary did on 7/25/07. And I’ll come and you’ll come back.
I think you took the whole “yo mama” thing too literally.
I understand you want the candidate who runs a “clean” campaign focussed on “issues”. Then you’ll not vote. Obama’s campaign has been vile at time but I don’t want to whip myself into a frenzy about it. I understand how campaigns are run.
George Bush sold us that illusion in 2000 (and Al Gore was the vile politician who would do and say anything to win (Chris Matthews repeatedly said Al Gore would lick the bathroom floor to win). Obama has been even better at giving us that illusion too. It’s just that I’ve followed the campaign too closely to buy into that.
To summarize, all things considered the campaigns have been in bounds. They have both taken cheap shots. Obama’s campaign has not been clean by any measure. He just finished viciously trashing Hillary up and down PA. His campaign and his surrogates (some journos among them) have been great at selling the people that illusion. If he’s our candidate I hope they can repeat that performance and I’ll be in the middle of that fight with them.
I don’t even think there is such thing as a “clean” campaign. I volunteered on the “clean” campaign of Deval Patrick here in MA and we trashed the hell out of Kerry Healey. Deval is another topic for another day.
As I said at my blog, Hillary Clinton just showed she has no interest in my hardcore Democratic support in the general election. That freaks me out, given how much deep breathing I was doing convincing myself that I must support her if she is the nominee.