Is the right right on the Clintons? Campaign tactics turning liberals away

[babylonsister]

Is the right right on the Clintons?
Hillary's campaign tactics are causing some liberals to turn against the couple.
January 26, 2008


Something strange happened the other day. All these different people -- friends, co-workers, relatives, people on a liberal e-mail list I read -- kept saying the same thing: They've suddenly developed a disdain for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Maybe this is just a coincidence, but I think we've reached an irrevocable turning point in liberal opinion of the Clintons.

The sentiment seems to be concentrated among Barack Obama supporters. Going into the campaign, most of us liked Hillary Clinton just fine, but the fact that tens of millions of Americans are seized with irrational loathing for her suggested that she might not be a good Democratic nominee. But now that loathing seems a lot less irrational. We're not frothing Clinton haters like ... well, name pretty much any conservative. We just really wish they'd go away.

The big turning point seems to be this week, when the Clintons slammed Obama for acknowledging that Ronald Reagan changed the country. Everyone knows Reagan changed the country. Bill and Hillary have said he changed the country. But they falsely claimed that Obama praised Reagan's ideas, saying he was a better president than Clinton -- something he didn't say and surely does not believe.

This might have been the most egregious case, but it wasn't the first. Before the New Hampshire primaries, Clinton supporters e-mailed pro-choice voters claiming that Obama was suspect on abortion rights because he had voted "present" instead of "no" on some votes. (In fact, the president of the Illinois chapter of Planned Parenthood said she had coordinated strategy with Obama and wanted him to vote "present.") Recently, there have been waves of robocalls in South Carolina repeatedly attacking "Barack Hussein Obama."

I crossed the Clinton Rubicon a couple of weeks ago when, in the course of introducing Hillary, Clinton supporter and Black Entertainment Television founder Robert L. Johnson invoked Obama's youthful drug use. This was disgusting on its own terms, but worse still if you know anything about Johnson. I do -- I once wrote a long profile of him. He has a sleazy habit of appropriating the logic of civil rights for his own financial gain. He also has a habit of aiding conservative crusades to eliminate the estate tax and privatize Social Security by falsely claiming they redistribute wealth from African Americans to whites. The episode reminded me of the Clintons' habit of surrounding themselves with the most egregious characters: Dick Morris, Marc Rich and so on.

The Clinton campaign is trying to make it seem as if the complaint is about negativity, and it is pointing out that Obama has criticized Hillary as well. That's what politicians are supposed to do when they compete for votes. But criticism isn't the same thing as lying and sleaze-mongering.

more...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-chait26jan26,0,7890763.column

[global1]

1. I Hate To Say It - But If HRC Wins The Dem Nomination - I Will Have To Be Convinced ......

why I should vote for her. A Bloomberg candidacy may be appealing.

[papau]

2. The writer does not deal with the Obama claim that Dems had no grand ideas from the 60's on - and

does not note the Obama does not say which of his ideas is a massive change from what the Democrats have been trying to do for 50 years.

Reagan's big idea was to take smaller government and tax cuts for the wealthy out of small steps and into the 1981 30% tax cut for the upper middle class and rich.

Obama says he is for small step change.

Is it wrong to call him on this nonsense - this lack of logic?

Indeed if Obama is for small step change - and he has said so - the comparison to large step Reagan must be on something else - and what else is left except his ideas? Or is it all just about being able to give a good speech? Are there any other choices?

Perhaps Reagan's ideas being Obama's point is a lie - but if so, what the hell was his point.

[guruoo]

3. And the Obama camp gets a pass, of course.

[MBS]

4. I'm 100% in agreement with this

Thanks, babylonsister

[dkf]

5. Wow. This is sooo me.

And once you cross the line you can never go back.

In a way I hope that Clinton does to Edwards what she has done to Obama...then Edwards people will understand also and we can kick the Clintons out of Democratic politics and be rid of them for good.

[mwb970]

10. Me too. Suddenly I'm sick of the Billary.

This is a shocking development for me. I have been a huge fan of Bill since 1992, and I had been impressed with Hillary's Senate career and general competence and smarts.

Then came the last few weeks.

Here's Hillary cheating on election details, Bill lying about the opponents, my God, they are acting like right wingers now! For the first time in 15 years I am having a negative reaction to Bill, which I would have thought to be impossible. I am so disappointed in him. I don't know what marital psychodrama lies behind this change, but they are losing me. Fast.

[SecularNATION]

6. Opened Eyes

The recent behavior of Bill and Hillary Clinton has indeed opened the eyes of many who never before saw the extent of their naked lust for power. They will drag the Democratic Party down, with their lust and sense of entitlement. I'm sick of the Bushes AND the Clintons and would love to see both families go away.

[sallyseven]

7. Obama hs just as much lust for power

you just don't see it because of your hatred. The difference is that he doesn't have the background to be able to have a sense of entitlement. He isn't entitled to anything. I am sick of the people who hate Hillary so much that they have to spew hatred her way.

[mwb970]

11. I don't see Obama's lust for power.

And it's not because of "hatred". (Lighten up, Sal!) I too deplore crazed Hillary-hate. This is not that. This is genuine disappointment in the appalling behavior of Bill and Hillary in recent weeks.

Believe me, if they can turn me against them, all is lost.

[grassfed]

8. yes

[Two Americas]

9. of course

There is some truth to what the right wing propaganda machine says about the Clintons, or it could never have such durability and potency. The only alternative to seeing that is to think that half of the population is "batshit insane" as I saw someone say here this morning. That is the battle that the Clinton candidacy is trying to draw us back into, a battle that does not correctly identify the enemy but that sees half the country as the enemy, and is more interested in getting in people's faces, more interested in confrontation and polarization, more interested in being right than in seriously combating the corporate and big finance interests who are the true enemy of the people, and in educating and reaching out to our misguided family members, friends, neighbors and co-workers who have been duped and misled by the right wing propaganda.

The right wing propaganda is all based on illusions, on smoke and mirrors. Battling against it directly gives it more power, more durability - it is shadow boxing.

I don't believe that our family members, friends, neighbors and co-workers who have been swept into the supporting the Republican party are the enemy. I don't want to fight that fight - we lose when we do.

We need to fight, but we need to know where the battle lines are, what the goals are, and who the enemy is. Once we do that, and begin putting out a strong and confident narrative about just what the principles and ideals of the Democratic party are, and just whose side we are fighting on, millions of those people who have given up on politics or have been tempted to vote Republican will come flocking back. But that will never happen so long as we define ourselves as "not the Republicans" and so long as we continue to express contempt toward the American people for being "stupid" or "apathetic" or to blame for the mess the country is in.

The wealthy and powerful few are to blame for the state of the country, as well as the Democratic politicians who have pandered, compromised and triangulated. Those politicians retain their power by diverting our attention to our neighbors rather than to the root cause of our problems—a vicious and relentless and effective campaign of right wing propaganda that us being used to advance the interests of the wealthy and powerful few at the expense of the rest of us.

[MissDeeds]

12. Unfortunately, they're turning me away

I hate to see any Democratic candidate using the Rove play book, especially against a candidate in our own party. We should be better than that.

[JPZenger]

13. Does Clinton Cross Ethical Lines - by Paul Loeb

Does Hillary Clinton Cross Ethical Lines?
By Political Author Paul Rogat Loeb

www.paulloeb.org

Excerpts:

"... But Hillary Clinton's campaign has crossed so many ethical lines it risks embittering so many potential supporters as to cost the Democrats the November election... Start with the hiring of chief campaign strategist, Mark Penn. He's CEO of a PR firm, Burson-Marsteller, that prepped the Blackwater CEO for his recent congressional testimony, is advising the giant industrial laundry corporation Cintas in fighting unionization, and whose website proudly heralded their union-busting expertise until it became a potential Clinton liability and they removed that section. B-M has historically represented everyone from the Argentine military junta and Philip Morris to Union Carbide after the 1984 Bhopal disaster.

.. Clinton's gotten money from a succession of particularly noxious sources. Start with her donation from Rupert Murdoch, who's given to no other Democrat... There's the Nebraska data processing company InfoUSA, whose CEO, Vin Gupta, used private corporate jets to fly the Clintons on business, personal, and campaign trips, gave Bill Clinton a $3.3 million consulting contract, and is now being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission for allegedly diverting company money to his own personal uses...Major international sweatshop owners, the Saipan-based Tan family, have given Clinton $26,000, complementing their previous massive support for Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay.

.. a Clinton ad claimed that Obama wasn't really committed to abortion rights because he'd voted "present" on some abortion-related legislative votes. Except that Obama had done so as, mentioned, as part of a strategy devised by Illinois Planned Parenthood to protect vulnerable swing district representatives. New England Planned Parenthood's Board Chair strongly refuted Clinton's letter, pointing out that Obama had a 100% record on all the votes that really mattered. But the misleading mailing may well have helped give Clinton her narrow margin.

...The campaign has also attempted more directly to discourage participation by voters who might support Clinton's opponents. Think of the lawsuit filed by the pro-Clinton leadership of the Nevada teacher's union (and supported.overtly by Bill Clinton), which sought to prevent long-scheduled caucuses from being held at central locations on the main casino strip, under the assumption, which turned out to be false that Obama's endorsement by the dominant Culinary Workers Union would lead these caucuses to give him massive support. In the Michigan primary, Clinton kept her name on the ballot after the state violated Democratic National Committee rules by moving its primary ahead of the Feb 5 "Super Tuesday" vote, while Edwards and Obama took theirs off. She's now arguing that the DNC should reverse its rule and count the delegates from Michigan and from a somewhat similar situation in Florida.

When the Nevada caucuses actually took place, eye-witnesses produced repeated accounts of Clinton supporters who tried to close the doors before supporters of other candidates supporters could get in. Pro-Clinton registrars tried to stop people from checking in if they were planning to caucus for another candidate. Others told Edwards supporters that they had to go home after the initial vote--without giving them the opportunity to switch to Obama. Still others had Clinton literature blanketing the supposedly neutral registration tables, and pre-marked voter cards for Clinton, while telling supporters of other candidates that they'd run out. There was even one reported case where Clinton supporters who'd just finished caucusing and voting in one precinct attempted to have their votes counted again in another adjacent one...
----

Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, named the #3 political book of 2004 by the History Channel and the American Book Association. To receive his articles directly email [e-mail] with the subject line: subscribe paulloeb-articles