Blogging from Birmingham, Alabama…meeting up with Kathy of Birmingham Blues later today.
I swear, I lay off the posts about the Clinton campaign and candidate in meltdown for a few days and she and her minions put themselves back in the news again.
Hillary Clinton, who is apparently running a campaign completely ignorant of recording technology, as we saw with the Bosnia lie caught on video, does it again. An audio tape has surfaced from a private fundraiser that was given to the Huff Post, and it ain’t pretty.
She blasts Moveon.org (lying getting facts wrong in the process), but even more shocking, she blames grassroots activists - who have been energized in this primary season, turning out new voters in droves, for her difficulties in picking up votes. The tape was recorded after Super Tuesday, when she and her campaign were in shock that the coronation wasn’t going to happen.
“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.”MoveOn was quick to set the facts straight.…Clinton’s remarks depart radically from the traditional position of presidential candidates, who in the past have celebrated high levels of turnout by party activists and partisans as a harbinger for their own party’s success — regardless of who is the eventual nominee — in the general election showdown.
The comments also contradict Clinton’s previous statements praising this year’s elevated Democratic turnout in primaries and caucuses, and appear to blame her caucus defeats on newly energized grassroots voter groups that she has lauded in the past as “lively participants” in American democracy.
In a statement to The Huffington Post, MoveOn’s Executive Director Eli Pariser reacted strongly to Clinton’s remarks: “Senator Clinton has her facts wrong again. MoveOn never opposed the war in Afghanistan, and we set the record straight years ago when Karl Rove made the same claim. Senator Clinton’s attack on our members is divisive at a time when Democrats will soon need to unify to beat Senator McCain. MoveOn is 3.2 million reliable voters and volunteers who are an important part of any winning Democratic coalition in November. They deserve better than to be dismissed using Republican talking points.”The disturbing trend we’ve seen as Clinton and her team saw her fortunes fritter away at the polls, has been to blame losses on various constituencies, demographics in whole states, the caucus system — everything except the fact that she couldn’t make the sale in those primaries.
It’s almost a pathological level of denial — she’s not winning the popular vote, number of states won, the delegate count or in the money race at this point. Her campaign blew the huge war chest on the high life, based on the premise that she wouldn’t have to stay in the race beyond Super Tuesday.
The netroots didn’t do that to her.
More below the fold.
Actually it is pathological, because the Clinton campaign has engaged in party-destructing behavior ever since the slide began. Never mind the merits of Barack Obama as a candidate, the long string of public embarrassing statements coming out of Clinton’s surrogates as well as the candidate herself have sullied her own reputation — poorly managing her campaign, looking, do I say the word, bitter, at primary losses and dismissing whole swaths of the party base — it makes no sense. I simply do not get it. Is she so hellbent on getting the nom that she’s willing to set the positive aspects of her reputation that drew her supporter base to begin with on fire?
And the deep-pocket Hillary donors…well, it’s pretty embarrassing to watch this brass-knuckles behavior on behalf of their candidate. After blasting Nancy Pelosi for stating her opinion about the state of superdelegates, they went after Howard Dean for his comments that superdelegates need to declare their preferred candidate now so that party reconciliation can begin.
“Governor Dean should do what he has said he will do — refrain from injecting himself into the primary process, as millions of Democrats have yet to cast their votes,” Hillary national finance chair Hassan Nemazee, one of the most influential fundraisers in the Democratic Party, told me today.At this point, there isn’t a lot Dean can do about Florida and Michigan as those states’ legislatures put those voter bases on the chopping block by moving those primaries up. The irony, of course, is that if we were talking about two states that had results where Obama came out on top, the Clintonistas wouldn’t be screaming for those voices to be heard. (I wish they could work out something to seat the delegates by coming up with a compromise that satisfies all, but the squabbling doesn’t make it seem likely at this point anyway.)“If he wishes to do something productive,” Nemazee continued, “he should exhibit the leadership necessary to resolve the Florida and Michigan impasse, which has disenfranchised millions of Democratic voters.”
A second prominent Democratic fundraiser, Robert Zimmerman, a Democratic National Committeeman and key Hillary fundraiser, sounded a similar note in an interview with me today.
“Howard Dean is more committed to pressuring the super delegates to make up their minds before the voting is done than he is to ensuring that Michigan and Florida’s votes are counted,” Zimmerman charged.
That would also be true about the statement that “millions of Democrats have yet to cast their votes.” Again, they wouldn’t be floating this argument if she had won Super Tuesday — they would have been calling for Obama to drop out, declaring all of the voters in subsequent states, such as NC (which votes on May 6), irrelevant.
The bottom line on the now-public screeching by donors is that most of them are also DNC fundraisers, and that probably has the DNC at the very least uneasy. The Clintoni$ta boot is on the DNC’s neck.
Instead of worrying about Howard Dean actions or lack of action, why aren’t these donors incensed that the Clinton campaign is stiffing so many of the small businesses along the campaign trail and not paying health care premiums of her campaign staff (”Hillary, pay your small vendors“)?
84 Responses to “Hillary blasts netroots activists - caught on tape”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
What Hillary has done throughout this campaign is condemn every state and demographic that doesn’t vote for her; plus every method of voting that swings against her.
Young people voting for Obama? They lack experience.
Caucuse voting for Obama? They’re undemocratic.
Red states voting for Obama? They don’t matter since they’ll never go Blue anyway.
Not winning delegates? They don’t technically have to stay pledged.
It’s really some huge denial going on.
I don’t know if it’s especially ironic that Clinton and her supporters would be in the shoes of Obama and his supporters if MI, FL and Super Tuesday had gone differently.
Most Clinton supporters agree, except that we phrase it differently. We say that Obama would probably be more supportive of the democratic process in MI and FL if he thought he’d win those states. And that if he were running a close second to Clinton at this point, he’d probably want to see the rest of the states’ contests play out, too.
Okay, seriously, can you not use the word ‘minions’ when describing the candidate you’re not voting for? Especially when criticizing her for being divisive?
MoveOn didn’t oppose the invasion of Afghanistan but some of us who support MoveOn did and do. And oppose the lack of funds to rebuild the country even more. Identifying us as the unreasonable people that she has to deal with is not winning friends.
I never liked MoveOn’s endorsement of Obama, incidentally. I didn’t think that they should endorse a candidate in the primary, no matter who. But Clinton has really gone over the top with this comment.
Who showed up to vote against the Senate resolution condemning MoveOn for the “General Betrayus” campaign, and who didn’t vote at all.
For someone who points out when Clinton focuses on trivial gaffes made by Obama, this is an interesting post . . . as it was interesting when MoveOn endorsed Obama after not showing up to vote in support of them.
Whatever. I’ve been a long-time lurker, but never donated to the site, so what is my opinion?
Maybe it’s time for me to stay off the intertubes until after the election.
moveon = netroots…. learn something new everyday
Good job Hillary, pissing off 3 million most insanely loud mouths and organizers on the net. She just reduced her internet favorability profile by 1/3 at least.
How is she going to win the general election if nobody left defending her eagerly? Low info white voters, second wave feminists, Limo Lib, her corporate buddies, and clinton era party machines?
She pissed off everybody else. Union, red states, youth voters, almost all net players, military, AA,
now… party activists?
nice. She gonna have to pull major lies and theater TV performance to compensate this one.
hk April 19, 2008 at 9:11 am
moveon = netroots…. learn something new everyday ”
Pretty much it on the net. Second biggest is emily. moveon is 3 million, everybody is in their mailinglist.
There is no bigger political mailing list out there. Maybe John Kerry from her last presidential run or big union.
First, the brain-dead, amateur-hour mistake: A candidate would have to be incredibly stupid or have an outsized sense of whingey entitlement to say something like this even at a friendly private event. And Hillary isn’t stupid.
It’s 2008. There’s always a recording device around, and as we used to say in the broadcast news business, “consider every mic a live mic.” The good news for all Dems here is that it’s more than likely that one of St. McCain’s crazy tantrums will be captured during the general election (you know, the one where his opponent is Obama).
Second, the sleazeball triangulating tactics: Hillary’s already tried to use Drudge to spread a smear, and got herself photographed next to Scaife in Pennsylvania. So I suppose channeling a Karl Rove lie about the netroots is par for her very bumpy course. What’s next, Hillary? Giving Bush a McCain-style hug to show how tough you are on “terror”?
Third, the content: Putting aside the entitlement and the tactics, the key line is “their [MoveOn’s] view of our positions, and it’s primarily national security and foreign policy [i.e. Iraq and the so-called GWOT] that drives them. I don’t agree with them.” Now like many others, I joined MoveOn mainly because they recognised long ago that our “national security and foreign policy” situations were complete and utterly unredeemable disasters, and that liberals and progressives would have to make some serious and aggressive and effective changes in approach if we were going avoid and repair these messes.
So I appreciate Hillary’s being crystal clear that she doesn’t agree with that idea. I knew it when I called her office back in March of 2003 (at MoveOn’s request) asking why she’d vote to enable Bush, and got the equivalent of “your Senator knows best” from one of her arrogant aides. That’s the ABC News level of contempt she and her team have for their constituents. None-the-less, it’s important that all Democrats understand that she’s more Lieberman than liberal on these issues.
Not that it’ll stop some people from living in denial. I wonder what excuse Hillary’s supporters in the “Taliban-loving” blogosphere and netroots will come up with this time.
This is why, after years of supporting and defending the Clintons, I’ve really had it with her.
In a private meeting, Sen. Clinton said that she disagrees with an organisation that didn’t endorse her and that their influence has had a negative effect for her campaign in caucuses? Well, I’m just.. baffled at the things Sen. Clinton gets criticized for.
What really strikes me is that MoveOn came into existence in 1998 to protest the impeachment of Bill Clinton.
10: Sen. Clinton made this comment before MoveOn endorsed, and while she was still wooing and praising them in public.
12: And that came out screwy. She was wooing and praising before the endorsement. Blerg.
I have to say, I was a bit surprised by this; not that she would through off MoveOn, but that she would do it before the general election. Dems seem to have a need to distance themselves from their base publicly. Conversely, Republicans can’t say a word against theirs — remember McCain’s ‘agents of intolerance’ .
Hillary Clinton seems to be becoming more and more like a classic tragic figure: she’s becoming that which she railed against, and is destroying that which she seeks. It’s really kind of sad. . .
Hillary Clinton seems to be becoming more and more like a classic tragic figure: she’s becoming that which she railed against, and is destroying that which she seeks. It’s really kind of sad. . .
What’s impressive is just how blindly people stumble into these situations, when they know that the risk of becoming such a tragic figure exists. I mean, presumably she did take literature classes in college, right?
“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.”
HOLY fucking shit. I did not expect her to publicly confirm what I have against her. Thanks, Hillary!
“What’s impressive is just how blindly people stumble into these situations, when they know that the risk of becoming such a tragic figure exists.”
Well, we all know there’s no such thing as free will…
So disappointed with the Clintons this whole election cycle. I’m just can’t support them anymore, politics-wise, anyhow.
College Republican one day, College Republican all the way.
“In a private meeting, Sen. Clinton said that she disagrees with an organisation that didn’t endorse her and that their influence has had a negative effect for her campaign in caucuses?”
She didn’t just “disagree with an organization”, unless MoveOn is the totality of “the activist base of the Democratic party”. I would think a lot of superdelegates see themselves as part of “the activist base of the Democratic party”, as well.
Acanthus, you beat me to it. AndersH, don’t twist her words into something they aren’t. Her comments were not just about MoveOn, they were about party ‘activists,’ and MoveOn is basically a stand-in for ‘online party activists.’
She didn’t lose those caucuses because of ‘intimidation.’ She lost those caucuses because her campaign is run as if she were the cool kid in high school running for class president.
Thought I would add this statement that Hillary made at the MoveOn forum before they endorsed Obama (i.e., while she was publicly seeking their endorsement:
Oh, those awful activists, asking tough questions to people in power and refusing to back down! Why on earth would a candidate want monsters like that on her side?!
I didn’t support invading Afghanistan for one simple reason — I figured there was no way in hell it could work. I also figured that if you’re looking for suspects in a massive international crime, you don’t use military force, you use international police work. Don’t you think, in the aftermath of September 11th, if the US had said to the international policing community, “We want these people,” instead of going off and invading countries left and right, they could have leveraged the massive amounts of sympathy the attacks generated into, I dunno, actually catching some terrorists? That’s what sort of makes me think that in terms of reactions, they were really more interested in starting wars (cf. Orrin Hatch, 11/9/01, CNN — “an act of war!”) than actually solving problems.
Which is not to say I’m some kind of conspiracy theorist, but I think the dictum about “when you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail” applies. When your entire frame of reference is war, war is the only possible solution you’ll ever come up with to any problem.
Compare and contrast.
Obama gets lots and lots of money from people with comparatively shallow pockets, and he gets it in small bills. The reason he gets it is that he’s been able to convince people with comparatively shallow pockets that they can make a political difference with the small contributions they can afford. (Leaving aside for now the question of whether or not he’s right, it seems fair to hazard that the reason he’s able to carry this point with so many people is that he believes it himself.) Obama’s strategy is to get lots and lots of people with a few bucks to spare to send him their few bucks. That is the source of the gusher of money. It’s not some Dark Side Of The Force Move.on hoodoo, and it’s not rocket science.
Clinton, on the other hand, relies for the balance of her campaign funds on a few large donors. The contributions of small-time players are of little interest to her, and she’s not that concerned about such issues as small-time players may have. Clinton’s strategy is to hoover money out of the pockets of people with lots of it to spare, and this is a strategy which breeds in her a dismissive attitude toward nickle-and-dime politics which periodically breaks out all over her like a bad rash and which is certainly visible here.
There’s just one problem with Clinton’s attitude: five-and-dime politics works. I don’t argue with the proposition that, in market terms, a million people with a dollar apiece are equal to only on man with one million dollars. But the fact remains that if you can persuade a million people with a dollar apiece to give you their dollar apiece, then you’ve still got one million dollars, plus you’ve got a million people on your side, instead of just one.
And that’s the way it is.
Oh, the twisted irony of it all. Hillary Clinton attacking THIS GROUP of all organizations:
The very organization which was founded to help create sympathy for her husband during his most trying time in office is now her bitter enemy.
While I suppose some might consider ten years ago an eternity, the fact is, MoveOn was started by a couple in Californie who wanted the country to “move on” from the silliness of the Clinton Impeachment nonsense… they created support for this movement by e-mailing a few people, which led to a few more people, which led to more… and so on. Sure, looking at the group today, it’s probably hard to envision them as just a “netroots organization” as it has ballooned into a gigantic political machine - but the fact is, the group was started and can trace its existence to its humble beginnings… as a “netroots” organization.
Okay, so not the wisest move on Clinton’s part — a gaffe, I suppose. I don’t think she really said anything all that objectionable, apart from either lying or getting wrong the Afghanistan position.
She seems to feel that most of the netroots is against her. She’s right! For example, I’m against her. (at least for the primaries) I think I’m netroots, although I’m not quite sure. She views opposition to her as mostly motivated by her own history of Bush-accomodating foreign policy views (that goes way beyond just voting for the AUMF in ‘02). Again, she’s pretty much right.
I think that her views on military and foreign policy issues are largely wrong, and that the views of her netroots opponents are often largely right, but that doesn’t make her wrong for noticing that her netroots opponents are, in fact, opposed to her.
Again, not a smart move, but no one can run a really gaffe-free campaign.
Like I wrote yesterday, she is becoming the new Nader.
A friend of mine, who was a Clinton supporter until very recently, claimed that she liked her because she was so driven, so ruthless, so cut-throat, and she would do whatever it took to get to the Whitehouse. I replied that all these “good” things about Clinton are what are responsible for how she is currently sabotaging her own candidacy and the Democratic Party. That fact that she seems to either unaware of this, or is continuing to ignore it, does not bode well for the rather slim chance of a possible Clinton candidacy. At this point, I don’t really see how she could beat McCain.
Here is my fear in all of this…
Are we now at a point in which there are two Democratic Parties?
On one hand, there is the party of the 1990s that supported NAFTA, supports a pro-corporate philosophy, and supports strong interventionist policies, particularly in the ME. The DLC wing of the Democratic Party? Bill was quite the nation builder, after all.
On the other hand, there is the netroots, progressive, anti-war, populist party that really surged into the mainstream with Howard Dean’s historic grassroots campaign.
Can these factions reconcile their differences? And if they can’t, do we have a prayer in November?
Obama is an incredibly strong candidate… but I’m nervous about the DLC faction that seems to despise the new kids of the party - the Pandogonian, Kossack, MoveOn Deaniac types…
In terms of her divisive strategy, I agree 100%. In terms of her political vision, not even close.
Between Clinton, Obama, and Nader - Ralph easily swings the furthest to the left, Obama sits in the middle, and Clinton swings furthest to the right.
I’m no fan of Ralph Nader - not because I disagree with his political vision, but because his divisive strategy has actually benefitted Republicans far more than it did Democrats.
I’m no fan of HRC, either, for the same reasons as I oppose Nader PLUS the fact that I really don’t agree with much of her political views, especially re: foreign policy vision.
That’s right as far as it goes, Julian, but I think Democratic organizations who support another primary candidate aren’t usually treated this badly (see the Afghanistan misrepresentation above). If the SEIU or NARAL endorses some other candidate, you usually don’t go out and diss them in public or semi-public as she did here.
I believe the answer is an emphatic yes. The Democrats have mobilized to retake the Democratic Party from the neo-con^H^H^Hliberal DLC wing. Dean’s 50 State Strategy and Obama’s Audacity of Hope complement each other very well and mean that the party of FDR and LBJ is coming back up from the ashes.
Of course, LBJ predicted it all along: the GOP has been dominant since the 60’s only because they wholeheartedly embraced the Dixiecrat defectors after the Civil Rights Act.
Yes, I meant that she was is becoming like Nader in terms of being divisive not by her political views.
Did Hillary Clinton make these comments before, or after, seeing two separate videos of Barack Obama giving the finger after saying her name — and pausing — after the exact same line in the exact same speech?
He’s a misogynist. Call him out on it. Isn’t this a feminsit blog?
I don’t see how the timing would change the validity of any of these complaints.
Though “giving the finger” is debatable. Looked to me like he was just scratching his face.
Er, the validity of Pam’s complaints, I mean.
DTG in STL April 19, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Are we now at a point in which there are two Democratic Parties?
The party status quo and actual voters have drifted apart for awhile. It’s only now there is alternative channel for average voters to kick back and yank the status quo’s chain.
What it comes down now is Hillary’s money, what remaining party machine she has to tweak the rules for her, and last of her base.
The trend obviously is not with her. Her support is erroding. But is it fast enough to face the collapsing economy and ever shorter time to fight McCain/GOP.
Worst case scenario Hillary wins PA by 10-15%, Indiana by 5-10%, NC lost by l5%. She convince enough Superdelegates to remain vague and able to tell public that she actually has the chance fighting it on the floor.
And people going in the convention bringing baseball bats and brass knuckles. The clash will takes decades to fix.
Hillary turns on MoveOn.org when they don’t agree with her.
This is what she will do with every constituency. There is nothing she will not sacrifice for the sake of political expediency.
If you support Hillary now, you’d best be prepared to go along with her for life. Because the moment you have a differing opinion, you will be irrelevant.
It’s how she rolls.
You say Pah-tato, I say Pu-tahto.
The Obama “finger” is a matter in which neither side will come to an agreement on, and there is no clear evidence indicating which interpretation is correct.
Obama supporters think he was simply scratching his face and they believe that Clinton supporters are really digging for anything in their moment of desperation as they watch the slow death of a campaign.
Clinton supporters think he was clearly giving her the bird, and they see the incident as a revelation of the ugly underbelly of a campaign that they believe to be grossly misogynistic.
I could say “I’m right and you’re wrong”, but what would that really solve? I don’t think anyone of us can claim to know for CERTAIN whether the gesture was malicious or innocuous, because that would entail knowing for CERTAIN what was going through Obama’s mind in that precise moment.
Both interpretations are entirely plausible. Unless someone has mindreading capability, neither side can claim that they KNOW, beyond the shadow of a doubt, what exactly that gesture was.
I don’t know that Obama was merely scratching his face.
And you don’t know that he was giving her the bird.
My bigger concern is this… the odds suggest heavily that Barack Obama will be the Democratic Nominee for POTUS. When you are faced with the decision between the clearly anti-progressive, anti-choice candidate (McCain) and the less-desirable Democrat, who at a minimum you know supports your agenda FAR more than his opponent does… what will you do? Will you really cut off your own nose to spite your face, because you aren’t happy with the results of the Democratic Primaries? Will you really vote for the guy who is going to take this country even further away from the agenda that feminists seek? Are you really going to support the REAL misogynist, the anti-choice, anti-social service candidate over the pro-choice, pro-social service candidate?
And if you do, how will it in any way, shape, or form be beneficial to you?
Q: Are there now two Democratic Parties?
I believe the answer is an emphatic yes. The Democrats have mobilized to retake the Democratic Party from the neo-con^H^H^Hliberal DLC wing. Dean’s 50 State Strategy and Obama’s Audacity of Hope complement each other very well and mean that the party of FDR and LBJ is coming back up from the ashes.
Proposition #1: The DNC is winning a struggle within the Democratic Party.
Proposition #2: The Democratic party is splitting into two parties.
Propositions #1 and #2 are very different. Please don’t put them together. Proposition #1 is good. Proposition #2 is a disaster.
Think about it.
I hate being so pessimistic… but I agree with you 100%. If all of those things happen, we’re toast in November. There won’t be enough time for the bad blood to be resolved, and McCain will coast into the White House (God help us all).
Howard Dean is 100% right on this issue. We NEED to have a nominee on June 3rd. Truthfully, I’m hoping it’s over on May 6th… I think if Obama can keep Clinton’s PA win to single digits and then go on to take BOTH Indiana and North Carolina, it will be - I imagine the writing will be on the wall, and the uncommitted superdelegates will flood towards him, realizing that Hillary really can’t win the nomination anymore - at least not in any way in which she would be remotely electable in November.
my wild guess it’ll take at least 4-8 weeks to fix the rift, if Hillary concedes. If there is big fight on the floor, forget it. It’s going to take a miracle getting everybody on board smoothly behind a candidate.
As of now Hillary’s crew argument has degenerate to primordial level. (me and my sister against the world.)
We’ll see how it unfolds in the next few days. 1. Hillary will have until Sunday to put out major mud slinging to spread across the system. 2. then she few more days to pump it up.
Which is not to say I’m some kind of conspiracy theorist, but I think the dictum about “when you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail” applies. When your entire frame of reference is war, war is the only possible solution you’ll ever come up with to any problem.
I heartily agree, Interrobang. I was against the invasion of Afghanistan too. Which is a large part of the reason that Clinton is pissing me off here.
“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.”
That’s right, moron. I’m one of those radical bastards. * And there’s great numbers of us! ZOMG, who knew! If you see one, there’s actually millions!
So whatcha gonna do? Stomp on those radical anti-war roaches? Hit us with the Raid?
* Yes, I’m perfectly aware that MoveOn never opposed the US invasion of Afghanistan.
hate being so pessimistic… but I agree with you 100%. If all of those things happen, we’re toast in November. There won’t be enough time for the bad blood to be resolved, and McCain will coast into the White House (God help us all).
Don’t despair yet. Wait and see what happens. Soon we’ll have a better idea how this is going to go.
The state of the Democratic party may actually matter less than the hatred of our media toward the Democrats. Our media are going to get stupider and stupider. Their star-fucker instincts are going to make them grotesquely try to fluff McCain. Toward Clinton and Obama they will become even nastier. This is what I am expecting.
Toward Clinton and Obama they will become even nastier. This is what I am expecting.
Shit… it’s already happening. Did you catch that clusterfuck mockery of a “debate” on ABC the other night? Charlie Gibson in particular needed a beatdown “You better promise me that you aren’t going to raise taxes, OR ELSE!!!”
I think they were far worse to Obama than they were to Clinton, but honestly the questions they were asking BOTH candidates in the first hour were beyond ridiculous.
Stewart analyzed it best when he showed video of Stephanopolous asking [sic] “Clearly one of the most important issues for the voters is the economy, what are your plans?” Yes, it’s so important to the voters that you fuckwads decided to wait until 62 FLIPPING MINUTES INTO THE DEBATE to start asking legitimate questions about, uh… actual issues?
Hmm… I see your point, Neil. I wasn’t thinking about it from that angle.
tinfoil hattie:
Yes, this is a feminist blog. And yes, you are paranoid. It wasn’t the middle finger, he was scratching his face. Check out the alternate angle.
Shouldn’t you be more worried about supporting a Republican-talking-points-spewing candidate in the Democratic primaries than about ambiguous fingers?
You are absolutely right that the media is already at a nasty, petty, debased, and partisan level.
What I am predicting is that, before the election is over, they make this level look like Aristotle.
I can’t get too bent out of shape about the content of what Clinton said. It wasn’t the cleverest thing in the world to say, and buying into the Rove story on MoveOn and Afghanistan is nothing to be proud of, but the rest of it has some truth to it. The activist wing of the Democratic Party isn’t all that enthusiastic about her, and neither are the netroots.
What really boggles me, though, is that she spend the better part of a week trumpeting a minor gaffe that Obama made in an equivalent setting to anyone who would listen and lots of people who wouldn’t. This seemed like a bad move on its face, since it turned what might have been something damaging to Obama to another political spat, but it also cut off the best line of defense when we find out she said something obnoxious at a fundraiser.
She made these comments about two months ago. How in the world did she forget about them in that time? And if she didn’t forget about them, then what the heck?
“Screw ‘em,” Hillary Clinton told her husband. “You don’t owe [Southern working class whites] a thing, Bill. They’re doing nothing for you; you don’t have to do anything for them.”
The 1995 Hillary quote, is a more than adequate representation of her “constitutional character.” Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther, and goes much deeper than anyone realizes. Hillary has treated and continues to treat all working class Americans as a species apart, and screw them she did: http://theseedsof9-11.com
Ps. Very intelligent, well written site and comments. Thanks.
I’m genuinely shocked. I would have bet any amount of money that the whole Seekrit Birdflipping nonsense was the sole provence of RedState et al.
She made these comments about two months ago. How in the world did she forget about them in that time? And if she didn’t forget about them, then what the heck?
She’s just following the James Carville method:
Attack, attack, then attack some more. (None of it has to make sense, it just has to get people talking.)
I don’t get it. Even if Obama had given Clinton the finger to her face, I don’t see how that would be misogynist in itself. What is it, then, if I, a male, flip a bird at George W. Bush?
Well, for the record, and from a pro-Clinton website so that we may leave no doubts. Obviously, he was not flipping anyone off, sheesh.
Clinton’s comments are frighteningly like the stupid media analysts who pontificate that if you take away the black vote or the union vote or the northern states, the democrats really don’t have a majority. The activists are the people who get out and vote and get their friends and neighbors to vote. If you’re not winning because the people who go out and vote don’t vote for you, then you’re not winning. If you’re not raising as much money because someone else has lots more donors giving smaller amounts, then you’re not raising enough money. (And if your representative on the committee that decides such things votes to ignore the results of primaries in a couple of states, don’t act all surprised and offended when the rest of the committee votes the same way…)
For the last 20, or so, years the DNC has taken African-Americans, progressives, and others for granted. They have focused on trying to win over ’swing voters’ and on-the-fence conservatives. This was/is the Clinton model for the general election. The model, however, is completely flawed. The Netroots, with MoveOn, and others, has shown that the groups — whose vote was formerly taken for granted — can, when mobilized, actually raise large sums of money and put feet on the ground. There is a conflict in the Party right now — who will win depends more upon which strategy achieves victory.
Frankly, I think we should all be impressed with what the Netroots movement has accomplished: in less then 10 years the movement rivals that built by the Republicans over a 20 year period.
I am not as pessimistic as many. Once the final primary is completed, I believe that the party leadership will round up the requisite number of super delegates and tell the looser that they have three days to drop out before they go public. Most super delegates are party insiders and are concerned with down ticket races and fundraising. Unless something drastically changes, I find it hard to believe that the pragmatists running the day-to-day in the party would be willing to alienate the enormous number of new voters Obama has turned out, and turn its back on the millions of small contributors he has garnered. Election politics is ultimately about winning, and who can bring necessary tools — money and mobilization — is always seen to have the advantage.
Barack Obama giving the finger after saying her name
Wait.
So you’re a misogynist if you say or do anything mean / childish / insulting to any woman, ever?
OK, so that means the entire planet, including every self-avowed feminist who ever lived, is officially misogynist.
Or is there some sexist meaning behind Teh Fingre I’m not familiar with?
man, I for one want to know who started that “finger” story. I bet it’s a media ploy… manufacturing outrage sort of deal.
It’s funny how this happens at the same time as “omygoditsabortionart” …
I thought they both completely saying something how the system spread news. very viral.
This is it I think … Hillary big negative attack before election. (they need to happen by Sunday, so it can be distributed and peaked by election date…)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/18/clinton-backer-distribute_n_97525.html
The document - a three-page emailed essay by Rick Sloan, communications director for the International Association of Machinists as Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) — takes both literary and political license to outline what Sloan believes would be the thrust of a hypothetical Republican campaign against Obama focusing on his tangential connection to Ayers and Dohrn.
The goal of the essay appears to be to discredit Obama as the prospective Democratic presidential nominee.
In the article Edsall has it outlined that this information has a link to the FBI Freedom Information website. This information gives details of this group’s activity back in the 70s.
Basically, this is a scare tactic to make us afraid of the GOP using this information against Barack Obama. We all know that Bill Ayers live in the Hyde Park community, on the south side of Chicago in the University of Chicago area. We know that Barack and Ayers have sat on a board together, frequent community event together, casual acquaintances, etc. To try to equate the doings of this organization of the 60s, 70s to Obama is laughable and totally ridiculous.
Let’s see … it was Sen. Clinton who voted against a Senate resolution to condemn MoveOn for running the Petraeus ad. And how did Sen. Obama vote? Oh, yeah … Obama didn’t bother to vote. Since he couldn’t vote “present” in the US Senate, he simply decided to not vote at all.
As for Sen. Clinton’s description of what happened in some of the caucuses — it pretty much matches what I heard from friends of mine who were there. And these are women who are not easily intimidated.
Maybe we need to rethink the concept of “democracy” if it involves people surrounding someone, shouting at them.
This is why I would like to see states do away with caucuses, and instead hold a primary. A primary gives more people the opportunity to participate, and the person gets to make their decision in the privacy of the voting booth.
And as for who has tainted the primary process one need only look at the video of Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. following the NH primary, where he basically called Sen. Clinton a racist — questioning where were her “tears” following Katrina. WTF is up with THAT??
And don’t get me started on the MSM, that have given Sen. Obama a complete pass, while throwing every sexist comment in the book at Sen. Clinton. Remember Chris Matthews saying Sen. Clinton only won her Senate seat because her husband fooled around? And where was the outrage when a young man held up an “iron my shirt” poster at one of her rallies??? We would STILL BE HEARING ABOUT IT TODAY if someone had held up a sign at an Obama rally that said “shine my shoes” — and for the record that SHOULD be condemned, but WHERE is the outrage over the sexism directed at Sen. Clinton???
And the DNC is to blame for disenfranchising voters in FL and MI. Sen. Clinton played by the rules. Sen. Obama ran a television ad in FL that was clearly against the rules. The voters spoke, and Sen. Clinton WON. Why shouldn’t those votes count? And if Sen. Obama is about inclusion, why did his state campaign chairs block any chance for a revote? THAT certainly sounds like “politics as usual.”
And finally, what about Sen. Obama giving Sen. Clinton the finger? Is he running for president of the United States, or president of Animal House??
Sen. Clinton is clearly the most qualified of the two, and will stand a much better chance of beating McCain in November.
BAC
Let’s see … it was Sen. Clinton who voted against a Senate resolution to condemn MoveOn for running the Petraeus ad. And how did Sen. Obama vote? Oh, yeah … Obama didn’t bother to vote. Since he couldn’t vote “present” in the US Senate, he simply decided to not vote at all.
As for Sen. Clinton’s description of what happened in some of the caucuses — it pretty much matches what I heard from friends of mine who were there. And these are women who are not easily intimidated.
Maybe we need to rethink the concept of “democracy” if it involves people surrounding someone, shouting at them.
This is why I would like to see states do away with caucuses, and instead hold a primary. A primary gives more people the opportunity to participate, and the person gets to make their decision in the privacy of the voting booth.
And as for who has tainted the primary process one need only look at the video of Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. following the NH primary, where he basically called Sen. Clinton a racist — questioning where were her “tears” following Katrina. WTF is up with THAT??
And don’t get me started on the MSM, that have given Sen. Obama a complete pass, while throwing every sexist comment in the book at Sen. Clinton. Remember Chris Matthews saying Sen. Clinton only won her Senate seat because her husband fooled around? And where was the outrage when a young man held up an “iron my shirt” poster at one of her rallies??? We would STILL BE HEARING ABOUT IT TODAY if someone had held up a sign at an Obama rally that said “shine my shoes” — and for the record that SHOULD be condemned, but WHERE is the outrage over the sexism directed at Sen. Clinton???
And the DNC is to blame for disenfranchising voters in FL and MI. Sen. Clinton played by the rules. Sen. Obama ran a television ad in FL that was clearly against the rules. The voters spoke, and Sen. Clinton WON. Why shouldn’t those votes count? And if Sen. Obama is about inclusion, why did his state campaign chairs block any chance for a revote? THAT certainly sounds like “politics as usual.”
And finally, what about Sen. Obama giving Sen. Clinton the finger? Is he running for president of the United States, or president of Animal House??
Sen. Clinton is clearly the most qualified of the two, and will stand a much better chance of beating McCain in November.
BAC
Tinfoil hattie, if your definition of misogynist is physiologically male, then okay.
Otherwise, post links or stop running your halucinations on live feed, ‘kay?
I don’t know if this is where it actually started, but I believe this is where it picked up major traction in the blogosphere…
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/talk_about_no_class_barack_obama_gives_hillary_the_middle_finger
Go figure… rightwing hacks getting their fratboy jollies off on fueling the intramural fire in the Democratic Party. From RedState.com, it didn’t take long to get picked up by that citadel of journalistic excellence, Fox Noise…
I myself was not opposed to the U.S. invading Afghanistan, far from it. If any time in the last fifty years any country needed to be overrun and all its leaders tried and hanged, it was Afghanistan in 2001.
However, in hindsight, had I known that the Bush administration would completely fuck up the most one-sided military operation since Reagan’s laughable invasion of Granada, I would have opposed it. Obviously it is worse to have warred and lost, than never to have warred at all. And I should have known that that moron Bush and his crew of imbeciles was going to fuck it up, because they have the Midas touch, only substitute “shit” for “gold.”
BAC @61/62:
[That flipping the bird stuff fantasy takedown is ridiculous, btw.]
Sadly, Clinton has run one of the most embarrassing campaigns in memory, with the damage almost entirely self-inflicted. That doesn’t inspire confidence.
That said, if she somehow ends up the nominee despite all factors pointing against it, I’ll grudgingly vote for her over McCain because the fate of SCOTUS trumps all in my book.
The question is will you vote for Obama if he is the nominee (as that is the more likely outcome)?
Pam
You nailed it. Notwithstanding all the BS about how Obama and Clinton supporters hate, or are angry with, each other, two weeks after the candidate is chosen, 99% of all of their supporters will lick their wounds and support the candidate vs. McCain. Most Repub’s did the same with McCain (Repub’s are still scratching their heads trying to figure out how he got selected).
Incidentally, maybe liberals or Dem’s are surprised by the Clinton campaign tactics. I assure you Repub’s and conservatives are not. It’s just more of the same from them. Don’t forget, Hillary ran the “nuts and sluts” division of the Clinton war room. She knows how to intimidate, slime and smear as well as anyone.
BAC April 19, 2008 at 10:48 pm
And the DNC is to blame for disenfranchising voters in FL and MI. Sen. Clinton played by the rules. Sen. Obama ran a television ad in FL that was clearly against the rules. The voters spoke, and Sen. Clinton WON. Why shouldn’t those votes count? And if Sen. Obama is about inclusion, why did his state campaign chairs block any chance for a revote? THAT certainly sounds like “politics as usual.”
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=276341
The Clinton campaign claims that the senator from New York is abiding by the no-campaigning pledge because Sunday’s two Florida events were technically closed to the public. But the stops were treated as major news events in a state where many Democrats have expressed anger over the absence of the party’s presidential candidates during a period when Florida is overrun by Republican contenders.
The truth of the Clinton strategy was writ large in a memo from top strategist Howard Wolfson, who announced on the day of the campaign’s dismal showing in South Carolina that, “Regardless of today’s outcome, the race quickly shifts to Florida, where hundreds of thousands of Democrats will turn out to vote on Tuesday. Despite efforts by the Obama campaign to ignore Floridians, their voices will be heard loud and clear across the country, as the last state to vote before Super Tuesday on February 5.”
————–
The truth is voiding FL/MI were agreed by Clinton team at the beginning. Then they backtrack. On top of cheating and going back on agreed embargo.
My take: keep fighting the FL/MI Hillary, the worst party base will like you. The rule change fight is very divisive, it concern with party legitimacy.
BAC April 19, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Let’s see … it was Sen. Clinton who voted against a Senate resolution to condemn MoveOn for running the Petraeus ad. And how did Sen. Obama vote? Oh, yeah … Obama didn’t bother to vote. Since he couldn’t vote “present” in the US Senate, he simply decided to not vote at all.
As for Sen. Clinton’s description of what happened in some of the caucuses — it pretty much matches what I heard from friends of mine who were there. And these are women who are not easily intimidated.
1. yeah. Of course Hillary is not afraid. She has no clue what moveone true scope is when she said those statement. (Her web and grassroot strategy is nearly nil) But now, her crew is lying and spinning all over the net. (oh, it was fake recording, oh she is fearless.) yeah whatev.
2. You seems to be proud for the fact that Hillary take completely wrong position openly and consistently when it come to machine politics vs. grassroot. (and war) At worst Obama is coward, at best doing political calculus as freshman senator. He maybe waffling, but on average he gets it right. Hillary gets it absolutely wrong all the time and proud of it. She is a rightwing lite.
Incidentally, maybe liberals or Dem’s are surprised by the Clinton campaign tactics. I assure you Repub’s and conservatives are not.
My objection to Clinton’s campaign isn’t that it’s been nasty and divisive, though it’s been both, since nastiness and division are part of politics and have been as long as there’s been politics. It’s that her campaign has deployed their attacks on Obama in such a tone-deaf, tactically inept manner.
Since all of this comes hot on the heels of a long series of strategic blunders, and I have very little faith that she’ll be able to beat McCain in the fall. I like and respect her a great deal, and think she’d be a pretty good president, but she’s been a real bust as a campaigner.
BAC April 19, 2008 at 10:48 pm
This is why I would like to see states do away with caucuses, and instead hold a primary. A primary gives more people the opportunity to participate, and the person gets to make their decision in the privacy of the voting booth.
because Hillary’s method is TV/Radio interview. She prefer the mass to sit passively and listen to her. She has as much charisma as a patch of cabbage when speaking. Nobody notice a fake cackle on TV, but in real life.. major turn off.
Hillary didn’t even take any question in speeches until she LOST the super Tuesday. lol. She want to issue edicts and speeches. She didn’t want the mass to shout back.
If she is so brave, she wouldn’t lie about valor. Making up crap about being shot at in war zone is cowardly.
… And what sort of president can’t handle primary? She had all years to fix the rules too. But she didn’t. Because she was so confident her money can punch through super Tuesday. And that those primary states wouldn’t matter, since Super Tuesday would have been the end of it. … oops. so much for inevitable and ready from day one.
I bet in her mind, Iraq invasion was “cake walk” too. And picking up a fight with Iran is “easy peachy”
Let’s see … it was Sen. Clinton who voted against a Senate resolution to condemn MoveOn for running the Petraeus ad. And how did Sen. Obama vote? Oh, yeah … Obama didn’t bother to vote. Since he couldn’t vote “present” in the US Senate, he simply decided to not vote at all.
Except not two weeks after the vote, she said:
btw, just so everybody knows. Going negative/mudsling works! It brings down numbers effectively.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/106609/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Holds-Slight-47-45-Advantage.aspx
Shouldn’t you be more worried about supporting a Republican-talking-points-spewing candidate in the Democratic primaries
Which one do you mean? Obama hasn’t refrained from said spewing on healthcare, most evidently, or the whole overall ruthless / dirty / imperious theme, which may not be _restricted_ to “Republican talking points” but certainly has been common in those precincts since, oh, 1992 or so.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/20/debate-analysis-abc-asked_n_97599.html
ABC Asked Most Scandal Questions, Obama Was Clear Target
2) Barack Obama has received the overwhelming majority of scandal questions over the course of the four debates, by a margin of 17 to 4. Obama has fielded questions about his “bitter” remarks, his connections to 60s-era radical William Ayres, two questions about flag lapels, two questions about his alleged plagiarism of speeches, three questions on Louis Farrakhan, and eight about Jeremiah Wright.
Clinton has received only four such questions — two about her Bosnia trip, one about a photo of Obama in African garb that was linked to her campaign without evidence by the Drudge Report, and one over-the-top inquiry about Bill Clinton (”If your campaign can’t control the former president now, what will it be like when you’re in the White House?”).
Isn’t it feminist to believe that when a woman is acting like an ass toward you, you have as much right to flip her the bird as you would a man?
(Not that he actually did, but even if so, so what?)
ABC Asked Most Scandal Questions, Obama Was Clear Target
I go with the simple explanation. When Clinton was the presumed nominee, the media tried to be nastier to her. Now that Obama seems to be ahead, ABC tried to tear him down more. Seems to me that our media just wants to shit on Democrats as much as possible.
George Stephanopoulos
George Stephanopoulos (born February 10, 1961) is an American broadcaster and political adviser. He is currently ABC News’s Chief Washington Correspondent and the host of ABC’s Sunday morning news show This Week. Prior to joining ABC News, he was a senior political adviser to the 1992 U.S. presidential campaign of Bill Clinton and later became Clinton’s communications director.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Stephanopoulos
Fighting over Obama and Hillary is just painfully stupid. Can I say that?
It’s a Republican wet dream. Keep trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. For fuck’s sake. If I didn’t know better I’d guess that the vast majority of Democrats were taking a dive.
This is not rocket science: if you are behaving exactly as your opponents want you to behave you’re doing it wrong.
Fuck.
I am normally the last with the “keep your eyes on the prize” shit but for Christ’s sake can people stop actively working towards a McCain presidency?
The primary unfortunatley will only let one candidate pass through and people have to choose.
I for one am from school of free for all yell at the blog. (obviously not very popular.)
maybe a more regimented/guided analysis? with a group of blogs doing a parade? (this should be a perfect parade material it seems.)
———–
update on Hillary moveone debacle.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/20/top-clinton-strategist-de_n_97627.html
Geoff Garin, who took over the reigns of the campaign several weeks ago from Mark Penn, sought to diffuse anger and concern over Clinton’s comments — which were reported by The Huffington Post — by casting them as nothing more than legitimate political analysis.
“The truth is that we agree with MoveOn [the Democrat group Clinton singled out] on lots of issues, disagree with them on some,” said Garin. “One of them is they’ve endorsed Senator Obama and they have been very effective in these caucuses.”
Asked to specify exactly which issues Clinton and Moveon had disagreements, Garin demurred, saying simply it was a “particular set of foreign policy issues,” not “everything.” Pressed to discuss when, as Clinton claimed, MoveOn had “flooded” caucuses and “intimidated” voters into supporting Obama, he attempted to sidestep the question.
“I don’t want to… I’m here for two weeks now, so this comment was made in, I believe, at the beginning of March,” he said. “But, look, the truth is Senator Clinton, as she said in that other clip, respects the right of MoveOn to be involved in this process, and respects the role that activists play in our party. I think the larger point is that when you move from the caucuses to the primaries where participation is much, much greater, she has done extremely well.”
So support for an imperialist war is the new litmus test for getting considered “reasonable”? And Clinton can’t even keep straight who does or doesn’t pass that test?
I don’t support MoveOn, I don’t think an anti-war group has any business endorsing candidates. When I was in an anti-war group, we asked candidates pretty point-blank questions about some issues like Ballistic Missile Defense, SNC Lavalin’s war profiteering, and ending the war, and released a “voter guide” with their responses, but we did not tell people how to vote, we let the candidates words speak for themselves - since, as it turned out (and as it’s going to turn out here, as well), there was no such thing as an totally anti-war candidate. I think MoveOn’s support for Obama is going to bite them in the ass when he wins and continues destroying Iraq because he has no idea what else to do, and isn’t willing to face the political fallout of immediate withdrawal.
Personally, while I’m sincerely hoping for a democrat win, I think it’s important that we not lose perspective: things aren’t really going to suddenly become magically better when Bush is out, and there’s still going to be a real need for people willing to speak truth to power. I guess that makes me a “keep your eye on the prize” person, but the prize isn’t the presidency, it’s ending the war.
The problem is that she’s not merely pointing out that people don’t support her. Look at the language: “this is what we’re dealing with.” What is she dealing with? People getting energized and excited about this campaign? Those people not being energized and excited about her?
The fact that she fails to inspire people is her problem, not MoveOn’s.
I don’t support MoveOn, I don’t think an anti-war group has any business endorsing candidates.
If they have no problem with losing the tax priviledges of ‘nonpartisanship’, then why the heck not?
This woman is batshit crazy. Defender of Hillary, start speaking, I want explanation!
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/A_nuclear_threat.html
Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said earlier that Clinton didn’t intend to refer to nuclear weapons in her discussion of Iran, but on Olbermann, she made what seemed like a very clear nuclear threat against the gulf state.
“Massive retaliation,” as a reader pointed out, is a term of art in nuclear strategy.and a cornerstone of nuclear deterrence.
Clinton seemed aware of the term’s pedigree when Olbermann asked her about Iran.
“We used [deterrence] very well during the Cold War when we had a bipolar world and what I think the president should do and what our policy should be is to make it very clear to the Iranians that they would be risking massive retaliation were they to launch a nuclear attack on Israel,” she said.
Her quote continues after the jump, but she sure does seem to be referring to nuclear deterrence.