TNR: "Go Already! Hillary Clinton, fratricidal maniac."

[latinolatteliberal]

Jonathan Chait of the New Republic writes about what Hillary is doing and why she should stop. I found it a worthwhile read.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=ba30ff16-a5af-4035-a883-cf15ffee406c

With a title like that I'm sure I've already offended lots of people around here, but the man makes a decent point.

Happy reading, all.

edit: Put title in quotes to make clear that it wasn't my idea. But I do think she is fratricidal.

[Ken Burch]

1. The title of the thread, for the record, is the title of the article "lll" links to,

Just thought people should know that.

[flpoljunkie]

19. Sounds like he is calling Hillary a "monster," too!

[FrenchieCat]

2. I really thinks she has to go now. I really can't stand her ass anymore!

Here's part of why, from that article!

....there are a few flaws in Clinton's trial-by-smear method. The first is that her attacks on Obama are not a fair proxy for what he'd endure in the general election, because attacks are harder to refute when they come from within one's own party. Indeed, Clinton is saying almost exactly the same things about Obama that McCain is: He's inexperienced, lacking in substance, unequipped to handle foreign policy. As The Washington Monthly's Christina Larson has pointed out, in recent weeks the nightly newscasts have consisted of Clinton attacking Obama, McCain attacking Obama, and then Obama trying to defend himself and still get out his own message. If Obama's the nominee, he won't have a high-profile Democrat validating McCain's message every day.


Second, Obama can't "test" Clinton the way she can test him. While she likes to claim that she beat the Republican attack machine, it's more accurate to say that she survived with heavy damage. Clinton is a wildly polarizing figure, with disapproval ratings at or near 50 percent. But, because she earned the intense loyalty of core Democratic partisans, Obama has to tread gingerly around her vulnerabilities. There is a big bundle of ethical issues from the 1990s that Obama has not raised because he can't associate himself with what partisan Democrats (but not Republicans or swing voters) regard as a pure GOP witch hunt.


What's more, Clinton has benefited from a favorable gender dynamic that won't exist in the fall. (In the Democratic primary, female voters have outnumbered males by nearly three to two.)

Clinton's claim to being a tough, tested potential commander-in-chief has gone almost unchallenged. Obama could reply that being First Lady doesn't qualify you to serve as commander-in-chief, but he won't quite say that, because feminists are an important chunk of the Democratic electorate. John McCain wouldn't be so reluctant.

In other words, Obama has attempted to be as honorable as possible based on the position he's being put in.

Her ass as got to go.

Come November, if she scratches and crawls into that nomination, that's about as far as she is getting. Someone needs to telegraph that to her sorry desperate and mean spirited self! She doesn't give a damn about Democrats and the Democratic party....that is certain. :(

[Carolina]

20. you are so right FC

Come November, if she scratches and CLAWS into that nomination, that's about as far as she is getting.

She will lose. Repukes hate her, Indies surely won't go for her and now she's alienated too many Dems who simply won't vote for the top of the ticket if her name is there!

[polpilot]

24. You can't say democrats won't vote for her. Truth bad...very bad...

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lligrd]

7. Which "You" Are You Referring To?

If it is Hillary, I agree.

[Spider Jerusalem]

8. Ad hominem...

say something about what the author of the article says, if you can.

Oh, you mean you can't? Then by all means attack the person who posted it. Ill-tempered, mean-spirited, and uncalled-for personal attacks coming from someone who supports Clinton ought not to be unexpected, I suppose.

[Why Syzygy]

4. Excellent read.

She is so transparent it's pathetic. :thumbsup:

[grantcart]

5. from the article

But Clinton's kamikaze mission is likely to be unusually damaging. Not only is the opportunity cost--to wrap up the nomination, and spend John McCain into the ground for four months--uniquely high, but the venue could not be less convenient. Pennsylvania is a swing state that Democrats will almost certainly need to win in November, and Clinton will spend seven weeks and millions of dollars there making the case that Obama is unfit to set foot in the White House. You couldn't create a more damaging scenario if you tried.

[Window]

6. Man, that's a scathing article, but concise and to the point.

I wonder if her camp pain receives feedback like this. Hmmmm. It is extremely damning.



:kick:

[TwilightGardener]

9. Great article! It's very obvious, what she's doing. Somebody needs to step in here.

[MonkeyFunk]

10. Yes, it's obvious what she's doing -

she's trying to win the nomination. You guys think that's a sin.

You guys are nuts.

[joshcryer]

13. People see her as this evil shrill woman, they're quite obviously insane.

And typical of the current stereotype of the average American when it comes to gender.

[Carolina]

21. She is evil and shrill and it's not her gender

IT'S HER!

[SammyWinstonJack]

23. ...

:silly:

[TwilightGardener]

28. No. She's trying to elevate McCain over Obama so that his poll numbers

go down in head-to-head matchups, and then the SD's have no choice but to hand her their support. That's the only way she can win. And if Obama ends up the nominee, he'll be damaged, hopefully, and McCain will win and then she gets her shot in 2012. She's a despicable piece of shit, and only for herself, not the Dem party.

[Yossariant]

11. LOL! Chait should stick to shilling for his beloved war in Iraq.

[Eric J in MN]

12. I'm tired of the hype about her answer on "60 Minutes" to whether...

...Obama is a Muslim.

Her first words were "Of course not."

After the reporter asked again, she eventually said, "as far as I know."

Big deal. If someone repeatedly asked me if it's raining out, I might say "It's not raining as far as I know."

[joshcryer]

14. If you were in the basement without any windows that'd be legitimate.

I don't know wtf you're trying to prove.

[Eric J in MN]

18. She said there is no basis for believing Obama is a Muslim,

"as far as I know."

She can't know all the possible reasons someone might mistakenly believe that he's a Muslim. Therefore, after being repeatedly asked about this, she used the phrase "as far as I know" to try to conclude that line of questioning.

[Ken Burch]

22. She knows damn well there's no reason to think Obama's a Muslim

She's letting it hang in the air for political gain. At this point, she knows she can't be nominated this year and wants to make sure that Obama can't get elected so she can try again in 2012. She doesn't realize that the party will never forgive her if Obama loses in the fall due to her quotes being used in McCain ads.

She needs to do the right thing and only attack the Republicans from now on.

[Orsino]

16. Thank you for that clarification.

I'd only heard her subsequent phrasing, which sounded damned equivocal.

[flpoljunkie]

15. TPM's Marshall thinks Hillary's contention she's be a strong C-in-C based on experience is a joke.

(Olbermann knew what was important to discuss last night. Andrea Mitchell is just repeating Howard Wolfson's talking points this morning--as usual, I might add.)

Warlord

I think Hillary Clinton is definitely qualified to be commender-in-chief of the US military. In fact, I think she'd make a strong one. She had a successful legal career. She participated in key decisions during the Clinton administration. And she's beginning her second term in the US senate. Her husband was qualified to be commander-in-chief too -- at 46 and having spent his whole political career in Little Rock.

But just what on earth is Hillary Clinton talking about when she says she's crossed the "commander in chief threshold" which John McCain has also crossed but Barack Obama hasn't?

There are two ways of looking at what's required for this aspect of the president's job. One school of thought has it that a potential president needn't be an expert on military affairs or foreign relations any more than he or she needs to be an experts in economics. They need to be informed and knowledgeable. But what's most needed is temperament, maturity and judgment. Detailed expertise can come from advisors.

Others think it's precisely the expertise that's needed. So someone like a Joe Biden is the kind of person you want -- someone who's deeply schooled in every aspect of foreign relations and has been at it for literally decades. John McCain has some of that and he was also career military which gives him, at least arguably, some special grasp of the military components of the job. Bill Richardson had at least some cred on that scale based on his time in the Congress, UN Ambassador and general ad hoc rogue regime diplomacy.

Hillary Clinton seems to think she's a strong contender in this latter category. But that's a joke. She's starting her second term in the US senate, where, yes, she serves on the Armed Services committee. Beside that she's never held elective office and she has little executive experience. I think she can argue that she'd make and would make a strong commander-in-chief. But she's pushing a metric by which she's little distinguishable from Barack Obama. I'm honestly surprised she's not drawing chuckles on this one.

A lot of people are seeing red that Hillary's so aggressively pushing the Republican nominee's credentials to be president. And I can see their point. But I'm more surprised that she's pushing an argument she doesn't need to make and frankly can't make credibly.

--Josh Marshall

[NashVegas]

27. TPM Will Go Along With All the Cool Kids

And they were all so right about 2004, weren't they?

[bklyncowgirl]

17. "I don't think she'd be in a position to defeat Hitler's dog in November, ..."

...let alone a popular war her

OUCH!

Harsh but unfortunately probably true.

Edited to include quotes on subject line. Chait's words not mine.

[NashVegas]

25. TNR Lost All Credibility With Me 4 Years Ago

When they were rabidly anti-Dean.

[indimuse]

26. ALL BS!

...

[K Gardner]

29. Hillary's Kamikaze Mission.. text below

Clinton's path to the nomination, then, involves the following steps: kneecap an eloquent, inspiring, reform-minded young leader who happens to be the first serious African American presidential candidate (meanwhile cementing her own reputation for Nixonian ruthlessness) and then win a contested convention by persuading party elites to override the results at the polls. The plan may also involve trying to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, after having explicitly agreed that the results would not count toward delegate totals. Oh, and her campaign has periodically hinted that some of Obama's elected delegates might break off and support her. I don't think she'd be in a position to defeat Hitler's dog in November, let alone a popular war hero.


Some Clinton supporters, like my friend (and historian) David Greenberg, have been assuring us that lengthy primary fights go on all the time and that the winner doesn't necessarily suffer a mortal wound in the process. But Clinton's kamikaze mission is likely to be unusually damaging. Not only is the opportunity cost--to wrap up the nomination, and spend John McCain into the ground for four months--uniquely high, but the venue could not be less convenient. Pennsylvania is a swing state that Democrats will almost certainly need to win in November, and Clinton will spend seven weeks and millions of dollars there making the case that Obama is unfit to set foot in the White House. You couldn't create a more damaging scenario if you tried.


Imagine in 2000, or 2004, that George W. Bush faced a primary fight that came down to Florida (his November must-win state). Imagine his opponent decided to spend seven weeks pounding home the theme that Bush had a dangerous plan to privatize Social Security. Would this have improved Bush's chances of defeating the Democrats? Would his party have stood for it?

[Why Syzygy]

30. kick