Anyone Still Pissed At Hillary For Her Attack on Kerry Following the Botched Joke?

[Dr Ron]

From Liberal Values (see original post for links):

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=1228

Hypocritical Hillary and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

Hillary Clinton is in the news again for referring to the “vast right wing conspiracy.” While conspiracy might not be the word I would choose, we understand what she is referring to. Conservativism has turned into an authoritarian movement with a highly sophisticated propaganda machine which promotes an alternative reality to attack their opponents. It is often impossible to differentiate between those intentionally spreading lies and all the ditto heads who actually believe their propaganda. In terms of Clinton’s actual statement using this line, the use of voter suppression techniques by the right, including the phone jamming scheme in New Hampshire, have been well documented.

Hillary Clinton should know about the behavior of the right wing as well as anyone. What is distressing is that she attacks them when politically expedient, but also repeats their attack lines when politically expedient. When John Kerry was under attack by the right wing noise machine which twisted his joke about George Bush into an attack on the troops, Hillary went along with the right wingers and joined in on the attack on Kerry when she thought he might be an opponent for the nomination. Last month she played into right wing smears when she attacked opponents by saying, “Some people may be running who may tell you that we don’t face a real threat from terrorism.”

The way to fight the “vast right wing conspiracy” is to dispute their falsehoods every chance she gets. At very least she cannot try to use their dishonest smears to her political advantage. As long as she does this, she is just a tool of the “right wing conspiracy” that she is attacking.

[wisteria]

1. Yes, and I laughed when I heard her mention voting issues.

Self-serving comes to mind.

[whometense]

2. Yeah.

Me too.

[MBS]

3. Me , too

Your last paragraph sums it up nicely.

[MH1]

4. Damn straight.

"Hypocritical Hillary"

That she is.

[Island Blue]

5. Yep.

As a result of her attack on JK, I'm planted firmly in Camp ADBH.

[karynnj]

6. Count me in

It told me that she really had no heart. The fact was there was no there there in the joke. Even taken literally, it was not all that bad. The RW twist of illogic was the only thing that made it bad - and that is what she bought onto.

If all of us feel that we know how JK feels about troops, Hillary who has likely seen him in person speak of the troops, surely knew. No one could seriously believe that he would do or say anything that could hurt the soldiers. That is as close to the heart as you can get - and she joined them in kicking him. She is not a good person (which I wish I knew when I felt sorry for her when her husband's actions embarrased her.)

[Mass]

7. She said "vast right wong conspiracy". Right wing is relative.

For me, Hillary is just a part of this right wing conspiracy.

[cadmium]

45. That is a great point. Hillary has become part to the RWC. n/t

[fedupinBushcountry]

8. I will never forget what she did to JK

NEVER.

[beachmom]

9. Me neither. nt

[Noisy Democrat]

10. Yep

The sanctimonious way that she said "What Senator Kerry said was inappropriate," instead of calling out the right wing for its lies -- it was disgusting. It wasn't a small or passing thing; it was a test of her character, and she failed.

[karynnj]

17. "sanctimonious"

Thanks - I had tried to think of the right word for her tone - and that's it. That tone was what made it unforgivable - this from the woman who asks us to, not forgive - but to defend with highest praise - her husband's ugly finger in the face attack was beyond hypocritical. Unlike either of the Clintons, Senator Kerry has always held himself to very high standards of behavior in his many years as a public figure. He spoke against the RW characterizations with dignity. At a point where the "vast RW conspiracy" was attacking Kerry, she piled on - in spite of the fact that Senator Kerry was always there to defend her and her husband when they were unfairly attacked. This was graceless.

[Democrafty]

18. Tweety said

she acted as if JK had groped her or something.

Which is maybe not the most polite metaphor, (it is Tweety, after all), but it really seems to fit. She was trying to seize a moral high ground that just wasn't there - it was a case of misspeak.

[karynnj]

21. I never heard him say that

a very strange metaphor given Bill's problems. But I see what you mean about moral high ground.

There are new threads on GD-P, because Hillary answered that it is up to others to say whether homosexuality is moral. Hillary may be getting a taste of what it feels like having her words twisted in meaning. The Hillary people are mad that no one is going after Obama - as again there main argument is that Obama (who wasn't asked the question) is bad because he has the same position. (almost makes you want a grown-up there - who can give a beautiful, kind answer)

[beachmom]

22. Actually, Hillary's words are NOT being twisted. She gave

an incredibly stupid answer trying to have it both ways. She is beyond pathetic and deserves the blasting from all lib blogs today.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/14/161928/263

Markos:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/14/17176/7130

She can tell those gays and lesbians she knows and is proud of that she is too afraid to say, unambiguously, that she agrees with 80-year-old Republican Senator John Warner that no, they are not "immoral".

Here's how Warner put it:

The ranking Republican of the Senate Armed Services Committee sharply rebuked the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Tuesday, taking issue with General Peter Pace's view that homosexual acts are immoral.

Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), a former Secretary of the Navy, said, "I respectfully but strongly disagree with the chairman's view that homosexuality is immoral. In keeping with my longstanding respect for the Armed Services committee hearing process, I will decline to comment on the current policy until after such hearings are held."

It's not that hard to say the right thing.


Agree with Markos (again -- a very weird month this has been).

[karynnj]

23. I agree that they weren't twisted - though she may not have thought out the meaning

I do think that people jumped on them very quickly though. I was just saying that for years, Hillary has not had people parsing every word - and that that is a very tough situation. You, Tay Tay and others have said that the top 3 will all say things wrong - I never thought it would happen so fast and often. It does make me see how really good it was that Kerry - who has been more outspoken than any of them, had so few flubs in nearly 4 years.

I'm also not so thrilled with these comments on Gitmo etc (I want Kerry back - reading this, it really hurts to know that some Democrats dragged their feet in 2004 for Hillary.)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3161744

I agree that her answer offends everyone - Kerry's many 2004 answers on essentially this question were so good in comparison. They showed kindness and respect.

[ProSense]

24. Especially after

this

[karynnj]

25. This must by Hillary foot in mouth day

Here is her new view for Iraq. I WANT KERRY MORE THAN EVER!!!!

"Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced but significant military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

<snip>

"She said in the interview that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.

The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda,” she said. “It is right in the heart of the oil region,” she said. “It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.”

<snip>

"Mrs. Clinton has said she would vote for a proposed Democratic resolution on Iraq now being debated on the floor of the Senate, which sets a goal of withdrawing combat forces by March 31, 2008. Asked if her plan was consistent with the resolution, Mrs. Clinton and her advisers said it was, noting that the resolution also called for “a limited number” of troops to stay in Iraq to protect the American Embassy and other personnel, train and equip Iraqi forces, and conduct “targeted counterterrorism operations.”





http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/washington/15clinton.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[ProSense]

26. Wait, did

Obama say that too? :sarcasm:

I beginning to believe that some people think two wrongs make a right. Clinton's defense being offered is Obama said it too.

[karynnj]

27. Wanna bet on some thread, someone will post that?

Seeing this and knowing that the Clintonistas though that having her as President was worth allowing 4 more years of Bush is sickening. That race was so close that I can't help but think that Begala and Carville alone pretending enthusiasm for Kerry could have made the difference. It really hurt that all the Clinton people brought into the campaign spent their time whining that Kerry didn't listen to them.

Clinton is closer to Bush in some ways than to Kerry here.

[whometense]

29. Not to mention that

she's running a giant honking ad (just saw it on Liberal Oasis, but I'm sure it's everywhere) trumpeting her call for Gonzalez to resign.

What was she, like tenth? I don't care who's first, but good lord. And then there was her flirting with the firefighters yesterday...frankly, I just want her to go away, as quickly and as quietly as possible.

[karynnj]

31. Flirting with the Firemen?? Now, that's Presidential

Incidently, the NYT print copy has the Hillary article on the front page and the Democratic Senate proposal in the center of the paper. The story on the Senate is strange. It guotes the Bush administration, John McCain and Mitch McConnell trashing the proposal, with only a very short Durbin quote in defense. It then defines in some depth an alternative that John Warner plans to introduce and a quote from Lamar Alexander about having tried to get the WH to implement the ISG - without mentioning that the Democratic proposal did use much from the ISG.

They then had a picture of Reid, Biden, Kerry, and Reed with text from speeches they were preparing to give - and they incorrectly wrote: "Majority Leader, Joe Biden, Harry Reed, John Kerry and Jack Reed".

So, this is the paper of record???

[Inuca]

30. She continues to behave as if

the nomination is in her pocket and her talking points are aimed towards independents and republicans that may vote for her. I hope Obama will prove her wrong, or if Obama flounders whoever (preferably not Edwards) takes his place. Damn it, she even waffled on the habeas corpus issue!

[Inuca]

28. Good for Warner!

A classy gentleman.

[sandrakae]

11. Yep. She is an opportunistic hypocrite.

[ginnyinWI]

12. I have multiple objections to Hillary

First, like all of you I sense the self-serving attitude, the opportunism and raw personal ambition. This has nothing to do with her sex. I'd hate that just as much in a man--say Joe Biden for instance. You can certainly tell the difference between a self-serving politician and a true public servant, which she ain't.

Second, she's got the wrong idea about how to win people over, IMO. She uses this cold, hard, often shrill voice, because I think she's afraid to seem weak or wimpy. She's of the breed of feminists who thing they must imitate men to be effective. But all they do is look inauthentic. For an example of a strong woman who is comfortable being a female politician, look at Nancy Pelosi. She speaks with authority, but doesn't try to act like a man. She is comfortable with who she is and comes across as warm and genuine. She smiles warmly and doesn't consider it a fault. She has a woman's softness but also a strong, steely core of principles and convictions. I don't know what real convictions Hillary has: her delivery seems unconvincing, artificial.

Third, if she thinks she can do whatever Bill did and get the same results, she's wrong. Bill has naatural charisma, and you can't just reproduce it at will by imitating. It doesn't matter how smart she is, she's going to have to earn every bit of their trust the old fashioned way--from scratch, bit by bit. But my problem with trusting her is the above--the air of self-serving ambition and the phony way she's going about trying to win people over.

In short, I don't think I'll ever be able to accept her. Even if she hadn't stabbed JK in the back at least once publicly last fall, and probably numerous other times, if what we suspect about the '04 election is true.

[whometense]

13. I liked what Camille Paglia had to say

about Hillary in Salon this week: http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2007/03/14/coulter/

Hillary didn't help herself with her over-the-top sermon at the First Baptist Church in Selma, Ala., two weeks ago. Her aping of a black Southern accent from the pulpit was so inept and patronizing that it should get a Razzie Award for Worst Performance of the Year. At times, it approached the Southern Gothic burlesque of Bette Davis chewing up the scenery in "Hush ... Hush, Sweet Charlotte." Does Hillary Clinton have a stable or coherent sense of self? Or is everything factitious, mimed and scripted (like her flipping butch and femme masks) for expediency?...

...Dianne Feinstein is far more presidential than Hillary Clinton, who alternates between smugness and defensiveness before pulling out that tiresome middle-aged mom card. Feinstein, even when maneuvering strategically, always seems genuinely focused on the idea at hand, while Hillary isn't really there -- she's just riffling mentally through her team's cue cards. All politicians are actors, but Hillary's a bad one. No audience wants to see with such crystal clarity how it's being massaged....

I don't tend to agree with her about much, but I agreed on these points.

[karynnj]

14. That is a stunning indictment

This absolutely blasts her as a person, statesperson and politician. That this is coming from someone "on her side", is amazing. (I would far rather have a Lockwood comment that Kerry is a lousy politician and has suceeded because he is a good man. This is more at the level of the Cockburn comments - but Paglia is far more mainstream than he is. Also, as a committed feminist, it's interesting that she has no use for Hillary.)

[whometense]

15. I agree.

I'm not a big fan of Feinstein, but that passage pointed out something that, in retrospect, strikes me as true. Feinstein is a centrist, but she doesn't give off those giant "I'm maneuvering for position" flashers that HRC does.

[wisteria]

19. I am reminded of what some claimed of Senator kerry, but I feel it more

aptly applies to Hillary- she has a political tin ear.

[BlueIris]

16. She...pretty much lost me forever, there.

It'll be impossible for me to think positively about her ever again.

[wisteria]

20. Whenever I see her I am reminded all over again about what she did and what she said.

It was the wrong thing for her to do on so many levels.

[Dr Ron]

32. Hillary At Risk of Losing Front Runner Status

From Liberal Values:

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=1236

Obama Gaining on Clinton in Two Polls

I’ve been avoiding posting much on polls about the 2008 contenders as they mean so little this far out. I’ve seen too many front runners like Edmund Musky and Howard Dean collapse. I’ve also seen dark horse come out of nowhere like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, and have seen John Kerry go from an early favorite (along with Joe Lieberman who also collapsed) to trailing Al Sharpton in the polls, to coming back to win.

While the polls have limited predictive value, there is some excitement when the front runner changes. We’ve seen Rudy Giuliani pass early favorite John McCain, but I doubt that many would argue that the GOP race is settled. We might also be looking at a coming change in the top spot in the Democratic race. The New York Post reports that an upcoming Time poll shows Obama Surging. Obama, who trailed by nineteen points in January, is now within the margin of error, trailing by seven. Obama’s campaign might also be helped by the finding that he leads Giuliani in a head to head match up by one point while Clinton trails Giuliani by four percent.

Other polls show Clinton still having a more significant lead over Obama but the American Research Group Poll shows Obama trailing Clinton by only three points.

[karynnj]

33. I saw the Post article

What is curious is that the Obama/Hillary gap was closing mostly by Hillary's number falling - not Obama rising in the last poll. This might mean that there is a ceiling on the % people willing to pick a charismatic person they know little about. They didn't say what happened outside of Hillary and Obama and the poll is not yet at pollingreport.com.

It may be that the Gore number or undecided went up - in which case the story is just that Hillary is imploding. (Imagine if Kerry in one day said what Hillary did on Iraq and said others would decide if being gay was immoral (Hillary clarified that she didn't mean this) ) If this is the case, it indicates the desire for an experienced anti-Hillary. I can't see Biden getting over his real foot in mouth disease - so it might be Dodd or Richardson. This will be especially true if Edwards got little of that gain (as has been the case in other polls.)

The Edwards people complain that he isn't getting the press he deserves, but the truth is that he really didn't gain from the very well covered New Orleans event. He in fact has always been the beneficiary of good media. (Consider that Kerry leaving meant there was an 8 to 11% to reallocate - Edwards is still in the low teens after 6 months or so or mostly positive press, a luxury Kerry never enjoyed.)

From his latest proposal, I think he is desperate. Advocating a cabinet position for a global anti-poverty policy and recommending something like $5 billion on this seems a strange position for someone that someone who in early March 2004 claimed Kerry couldn't pay for his proposals.)

I agree that he is right to advocate health care over balancing the budget. This proposal is weird in the way it creates a new position that likely should be part of the state department and because I doubt the Congress would furthur unbalance the budget for that big a foreign aid increase.

[MBS]

34. good points

I think you're right on the money in your interpretation of the "closing gap"

[karynnj]

35. They have the survey with more detail on GD-P

Edwards has 10, Gore 13. This is NOT good for Edwards, given all the media he got. I wonder if some of this is the inept handling of the bloggers - which likely lost points on both sides. (I did see that he did well on DKos though ...)


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3165764

[JI7]

38. could it have to do with Al Gore getting attention for the Oscar win

and Edwards is leading in Iowa and in a better place in New Hampshire. doesn't that count more than national polls ?

[Inuca]

39. Who knows any more?

With crazy Feb 5th super duper on hormones, I think that traditional common wisdom about these things does not count any more. How do you guys feel about the rush to early primaries?

[MBS]

40. I HATE IT n/t

[karynnj]

42. It's an attempt to give the MSM inordinate power

There is absolutely no way for an unknown to gradually make himself known and win - like Clinton.

I'm not sure what would have happened in 2004. Kerry would have won Iowa and had some momentum from that. It also would have put all those primaries less than a half month after the incredible Rassman reunion. My guess is that Kerry would have sewn things up even faster - and the downside was that Kerry was very good accepting his victories and that was free unfiltered air time - that was hard to get after that.

Kerry aside, it does say that a very positive, emotional event in late January could immediately create a winner. That actually scares me.

[MBS]

43. it scares me, too n/t

[JI7]

44. it depends on how much Iowa would have mattered to the candidates back then

with a state like California getting an early vote maybe candidates would have worried more about fundraising to pay for the huge media expenses in California rather than retail politics in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina etc.

the thing i liked about Iowa was that it gives people a chance to meet the candidates for themselves. and it's not just the people in Iowa. people would come from other states into Iowa to meet the candidates and volunteer.

as someone from California i felt i had more personal experience in the Primary since i got to read and hear what the people of Iowa were saying themselves . i didn't have to depend on some whore media who just wants to sell their story and makes up crap. i got it straight from the people. and of course i could and should have gone there myself as many others did.

i have more of a chance meeting the candidates personally by going to Iowa and attending an event there than from attending some event at home in California.

i went to the Pasadena event with Kerry(during the botched joke)but so many people were there that many people couldn't even get in. many who had not planned to attend started lining up when they heard Kerry would be there(it was a rally for the candidate for Gov). of course i was happy that so many did attend. it owuld have been worse the other way around. and this was just the rally for a Gov. imagine how it would be with presidential candidates and big names like Clinton.

but the point is that California elections are about the media rather than retail politics. how do you think Arnold won.

[MBS]

46. as a fellow (but ex) Californian,

and someone who also watched the Iowa caucus process closely (and made phone calls to Iowa in 2003/2004), I affirm everything you've said. I love my native state, but I've always hated the media-driven politics, which have dominated the state for a least the last 40+ years.

[karynnj]

41. It could if this were late 2007

The Iowa polls in 2004 did not show anything near the real result - it's impossible to do a good poll for caucuses. Obama has been surging in Iowa too - the Edwards lead is due to him having spent a gigantic amount of time there and the fact that he is the Des Moines Register favorite.

[JI7]

36. did you all see this on Bill Clinton about Obama and Iraq

i'm not sure how reliable the source is and how much of it is just gossip.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2769853#2770021

[MBS]

37. here are links from Talking Points Memo

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013101.php
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/03/obama_quote_tha.php