A distinction between the camps in the conflict

[grantcart]

I see a differnce with a distinct between those who criticize Clinton and those that criticize Obama; one is that the criticism against Clinton, in most but not all cases, has to do with the strategic question of her extremely high negatives and a strong reaction that she provokes in people - which in many cases is unfair but in fact is exacerbated by how the Clinton's build a facade and try to over manipulate. The other night I saw Hillary on Nightline completely relaxed and engaging, the tone completely different, and had she run with that its doubtful that there would have been much of a contest. She would have been nominated by acclaim.

Secondly I find it odd how many Clinton supporters habitually show anti Obama attitude as a stronger part of their identity than being pro Clinton. The rakish presentation of the "kool-aid Obama icon" in every single post by some is but one example.

If Clinton prevails then all of the past will be fodder for the republicans, they cannot wait for it. Do people think that there is some rule that prevents the republicans from raising all of the gates (from travel to Lewinsky) simply because the democratic opponents have too much taste. All of the 'un vetted' activities of the Clintons since 2000 will be questioned. The republicans will be given the gift of not only running against clinton but 20 years of bush/clinton/bush/clinton. They will not only be able to run against clinton but also bush. Thousands of ads will be shown with the faces of the old presidents, the commercials write themselves. Its not swift boating because it is fact. It may not be fair but presidential campaigns are not, as we all know, fair.

By a stroke of luck we have another option. A brilliant man whose personality is so engaging he seems to bring a unique charismatic appeal, who happens to be african american. He has worked in the community, has taught the constitution, and did not sell himself out to the corporate or the institutional powers when it would have been expected, easy and lucrative. For many there are but three criticisms that are used to scorn him.

1) He wants to build a bigger coalition so he will have a bigger mandate to run
2) He is male
3) He seems to have touched a profound hunger many people have and their enthusiasm is seen as a character flaw.

He is most likely going to be the nominee the only thing that can stop him is if his positions are misstated, his success patronized,
or his popularity trivialized. All three have been attempted.

One is left wondering how low will those who cling to the Clinton institution with its touches of brilliance and self destruction go to stop him. Thank you Frenchie for allowing me an opportunity to respond.(originally a response to her thread posted at the request of some).

[MadBadger]

1. K&R

[FlyingTiger]

2. "He... touched a profound hunger many people have; their enthusiasm is seen as a character flaw."

What, you haven't heard? People aren't supposed to be excited and hopeful when it comes to the leadership of the country they believe is the greatest on earth. They're supposed to be jaded and angry, damnit.

[Dogmudgeon]

3. Jaded?

The OP defames Hillary Clinton, repeating the same old baseless accusations.

And that is hopeful, how?

When you talk hope but practice division, some people get the wacky idea that maybe your side is two-faced.

In the words of at least a dozen Obama supporters here: Just sayin'.

--p!