The whole reason Hillary praised McCain over Obama, in a nutshell

[Berry Cool]

In case anyone doesn't get it yet:

She was framing. But she was doing it the wrong way.

Since McCain became the presumptive nominee of the Republicans, both Obama and Clinton have been trying to frame themselves on an equal level, as the presumptive Democratic nominee.

Obama tried to do it the clean way: by pretending his Democratic rival no longer existed as a serious threat, and framing all voters' future choices as a matter of selecting between himself and McCain. That way, he could stop focusing his message on "Why I am better than Hillary Clinton" and start focusing his message on "Why I am better than John McCain." He tried to do it by simply not mentioning Hillary at all anymore, rather than by continuing to talk about why he was better than she. That was fine. Because he wasn't disparaging his rival that way. He was simply framing himself as the only Democrat who would soon be left standing, and therefore moving on to focus on beating the Republican.

Hillary has decided to try to do it the dirty way: by pretending that she, and ONLY she, is as deserving of being that nominee as McCain is. By trashing her Democratic rival. By saying that there are still three candidates in the race, but only two of them are qualified to go head to head against each other: McCain and herself. Because the other Democratic choice just ain't got it.

If you care more about your party and its ideals than merely about winning office yourself, you just don't do that.

She didn't have to do it this way. If she really cared about it from an "I am more electable than he is" standpoint, she could have framed it that way. She could have stuck to the "Look at me, and look at my Democratic opponent—I am more electable vs. the Republican than he is" message.

But she didn't. She essentially said that when it comes to running for president, McCain is just swell, she's just swell, but that Obama—well, he just isn't fit to play with the big kids.

Both are trying to skip ahead to frame themselves as the nominee before they really are. But one tried to do it by simply ignoring his rival, while the other tried to do it by disparaging hers.

Ignoring your inter-party rivals is not damaging to the party. Making them sound worse than the other party's candidate is.

[NanceGreggs]

1. Excellent! K&R!!!

"Ignoring your inter-party rivals is not damaging to the party. Making them sound worse than the other party's candidate is."

Precisely.

[Rageneau]

30. Some cracks in your thinking.

Obama did not do anything the "clean" way. When he thought he had it wrapped up, he started running against McCain because there was no reason to spend more time and money on HRC. It was a pragmatic decision, not a "clean" one.

Likewise, Hillary's decision to continue running against Obama is also purely pragmatic. It is not 'dirty.' McCain is not HRC's opponent at this time: Obama is. It is Obama she must defeat in order to face McCain, so she is doing what every politician since the dawn of time has done -- conrast herself with her opponent. S

Obama supporters seem to think it is unfair and damaging to the Party when HRC says she and McCain are ready to be C-in-C, but that the jury is still out on Obama. But what is the difference between Hillary saying that and Obama saying that Hillary is unelectable? Both comments run down our potential nominee, don't they? And both sides believe that what they are saying is the truth.

Finally, Hillary is doing the Democratic Party a favor by raising the issue of Commander in Chief. Because -- like it or not -- that issue WILL BE RAISED in the GE and Obama had better be ready for it.

Right now, he isn't. Right now, he can't even answer Hillary's charges successfully.All he and his supporters can seem to do about it is grouse and pout.

If Obama cannot find some way to withstand Hillary's assessment that he is not ready to be C-in-C, how can he ever survive when McCain is the one making that comparison?

[krkaufman]

38. Cracks exist in someone's reasoning, but it isn't the OPer.

And it isn't just "Obama supporters" who are expressing the view that Sen. Clinton's campaign rhetoric has gone beyond the accepted norm.

The issue has nothing to do with raising the CIC issue, or any other specific qualification challenge. It has to do with a Democratic Party leader promoting a Republican candidate as more qualified than one of the Democratic candidates.

If you cannot see that, then I suspect that you view the Connecticut primary challenge against Joe Lieberman as being uncalled-for. (And I'm not going to bother explaining how Obama is more qualified than Clinton, because it you're incapable of grasping the most straightforward of realities, above, I certainly stand no chance in reasoning with you regarding the relative weighting of hypothetical experience versus practical judgment.)

[jahyarain]

57. thank u.

i was beginning 2 think no one here really paid attention anymore.

[WinkyDink]

42. But if she's going to imply she's equal to McCain for CiC, well, you know what they say: Voters

will go for the real war hero every time (yes, ir's a paraphrase!).

[AZBlue]

2. Spot on!

K&R

[TwilightGardener]

3. Yes--excellent post, thank you!

[grantcart]

4. The "Beltway Boys" commentators on Fox are playing it over and over

thanking Hillary making McCain's first TV commercial for the General Election.

[Bluerthanblue]

5. K&R

:hi:

peace~

[jpak]

6. I smell McCain/Clinton National Unity Ticket!!

:evilgrin:

[WinkyDink]

43. Heh: The NUT ticket!

[niceypoo]

47. I smell another phoney Straw-Man Obama supporter position

one of many lately...

[Vinca]

7. Should she happen to be the nominee, she damaged her own campaign

as well as Barack's.

[sybylla]

58. You got that right.

Funny how so many still don't see that.

[canadian_is_cold]

8. Great Post! :) n/t

[DearAbby]

9. Excellent Post

:applause:

[KaptBunnyPants]

10. But, but, he said something non-derogatory about Reagan!!!

That's just like saying your primary opponent is less fit to be president than the Republican candidate.

[earthlover]

51. no it is not! he didn't say reagan was better than a democrat

what hillary did was unprecedented. hasn't happened. no Democrat candidate for pres to my knowledge has ever said a currently running Republican nominee is better than another democrat running.

It. Takes. A. Clinton.

[americanstranger]

53. I think you might need the 'sarcasm' smiley.

A lot of people are taking you very seriously on this, apparently.

Unless you're being serious and I'm completely misreading your post, in which case you're wrong. :)

- as

[KaptBunnyPants]

61. Sigh, maybe I do...

I hate using the sarcasm smiley. If you have to explicitly tell people you're being sarcastic, it defeats the purpose of being snide in the first place.

On edit: I just wanted to thank Hillary supporters for being so irrational that people can't even tell when I'm intentionally saying something insane.

[Cha]

62. I got it..the way you wrote..

"non-derogatory!". For freakin' shame. But, a lot of people got turned off of hilary about then because they knew Obama didn't say what she was out there spewing so..it was like, "hilary's lying, dude".

[UALRBSofL]

11. The real question is why did Obama endorse Reagan

And say he did much more for our country then Bill Clinton did???

[JerseygirlCT]

17. That's not what he said

He said Reagan was much more of a change agent than Clinton. And he has some historical fact to back that up. If you were around back then, you might remember that Reagan's election represented a sea-change in the way politics worked in this country. Not necessarily a good one, either. But a big, momentous change. The invention of those "Reagan Democrats" was one part of that. They were clever (evil, but clever).

Although Bill Clinton can claim many achievements during his tenure, he did not effect such a change. He was more of a pause in the march of conservatism/neo conservatism than any change. He got where he did not by being different from what went before, but by compromising with what went before.

There was no endorsement of Reagan. He never, ever said Reagan did more for the country. Really, look back at the actual quote and try to read it without partisan glasses. The facts don't support your assertions.

[Crunchy Frog]

19. He didn't.

He made an accurate statement concerning the impact Reagan had on our nation's politics. I can't believe anyone could be dim enough to equate the two.

[Growler]

12. Kick

[BumRushDaShow]

13. Right on.

And she didn't just do it once but multiple times, and has yet to apologize for it nor has she at least tried to explain what she was doing, which is sad.

[rodeodance]

14. WHY did Obama endourse Reagan?

[bhikkhu]

15. I don't think endorsing dead guys counts

...and if you read the quote it was much more a differentiation than an endorsement, anyway.

[rodeodance]

16. No matter--Obama endorsed Reagen. Go read the quote.

[UALRBSofL]

18. rodeodance I have his quote on my siggy line

So you don't have to go looking for it. :)

[rodeodance]

25. ha ha Thank you--you are the best:-)

[bhikkhu]

23. OK...

“I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it.

“I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”

So its not much of a thing to say - the point about dynamism and so forth do not need Reagan to illustrate.

[rodeodance]

26. The point is---Hillary does NOT use the word endorse, nor does BO. get it!

[sellitman]

36. Is Raygun running from the grave?

I know McCain looks close to it but last I checked one was alive and running and one is worm food.

Equating the two is asinine.

[cali]

44. you have a fit about people saying that Clinton endorsed McCain

and then make up shit about Obama endorsing Reagan. I know you don't know much, but that's absurd. Obama analyzed Reagan's impact on American politics in precisely the way that virtuallly ALL political historians do. Try reading. And Clinton, though she didn't endorse McCain said that he is fit to be President but Obama is not. In any case, just in case you didn't understand it: Reagan is dead. He is not running for anything. He. Is. Dead. McCain is the repuke nominee for President. Quite simple for most people with an IQ over 90.

[CherylK]

54. "No Matter" is right, because Reagan is not the Republican nominee! n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

20. He didn't endourse Reagan.

He didn't endorse him either.

[DS1]

22. Obama was probably still in college in 1980. Ass.

[Berry Cool]

31. He was, but it doesn't make him an ass

and it doesn't mean he's too young to remember what Reagan did. (Neither am I, and Obama and I are roughly the same age.)

Personally I wish he'd used someone other than Reagan as his illustration, and that he'd been quicker to say that he didn't agree with Reagan's policies, or that he thought the national zeitgeist that elected Reagan twice was off the mark. But I think his basic point can't be argued with. There WAS a feeling amongst many voters (NOT me) in 1980 that Reagan was able to tap into very successfully in order to achieve his aim of becoming president. Whether he was a good president or not, or whether his policies were good or not, or whether he was even effective in promoting some of his policies, is a whole different issue.

There is a problem with Democrats using Ronald Reagan as an example of a person who was good at inspiring people. It may be true, but it's just not wise, unless you stand fully behind everything he inspired said people to do. If you don't, it's asking for trouble, the same way it would be to point out that Hitler was very good at inspiring people. Before you know it, you'd have people saying that you wanted to be like Hitler, or that you thought Hitler was good just because he was inspirational to some people.

I hope Obama has learned that lesson now, and we won't be hearing the name "Ronald Reagan" pass his lips in the same context again.

[cascadiance]

37. What he could have done better is to use BOTH FDR and Reagan...

If he'd used Reagan to introduce the concept of the public being ready for fundamental change, and therefore putting him in office for two terms as a way that the current generations of voters could put in context the degree of change he's talking about. Then before anyone could confuse his reference to Reagan as any kind of endorsement, he could have then followed up with giving more of a "historical allegory" to current Dems that showed how the country was similarly ready for fundamental change when FDR took office, and then explained how when a Dem can come in to do that sort of change the results for many years after the fact show a positive effect on the economy, and that with America ready for change again, we need a campaign as "radical" as Reagan's was, but achieve the results that FDR did.

I think that would have been far more effective in not creating confusion of whether he endorsed Reagan or not, and put the Democrats in the role of being who should fix the country now in fundamentally different ways to reverse the damage that we've felt from Reagan's time onward.

But his reference to Reagan is nowhere near as wrong as Hillary's trying to rate McCain better than Obama. With those kind of comments, she helps her campaign little if at all, and damages the Democratic Party so much more. Why is Hillary pushing so hard? If it's not a selfish quest for power at all costs for herself, then she needs to explain to Americans why she's fundamentally the only person with the right mission to help us all that Obama isn't making his strategy or something like that. Otherwise, it's just about trying to push Hillary for Hillary's sake and f everyone else! That is NOT acceptable!

Howard Dean needs to take them both behind closed doors and give them a lecture on this campaign is totally destroying the party and do one of the following:

1) if there is a contest to be still had where the voters can change the outcome with pledged delegates, outline the rules of civility, and where the end game is so that both know when the proper time is to cede to the other.
2) if there isn't realistically a contest to be still had with pledged delegates, one should be asked to realize this and step down.
3) if they both want to continue to fight each other which gets as destructive as it is now, Dean perhaps could have a sizable majority of delegates lined up (along with the superdelegates) to tell them if they don't follow directions 1 or 2 here, that the DNC will orchestrate a third option instead, where the superdelegates will choose not to vote the first vote, and he has the commitment from a majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates to vote in Al Gore instead on the second vote, and he has Al Gore ready to jump in in this instance if needed.

[ExPatLeftist]

52. Can you honestly not see the difference...

...between discussing a dead ex-president's presidency and endorsing the opposing party's candidate in the current election?

[AtomicKitten]

21. Hillary endorsed McCain, the GOP nominee, over her Dem opponent.

You can try to fling sh*t at the wall to see what sticks in your effort to try to mitigate the damage, but Democrats know precisely what went down. This will not be forgotten.

[alteredstate]

24. Great post!

You nailed it.

[SeattleGirl]

27. Well said, Berry!

As I said in another thread, if Hilary had said, "I am a better choice than Barack, because of such and such," that would be one thing. And it would be an acceptable thing.

But to say flat out that she and McCain would be the better choices, and not Barack, THAT was wrong. In saying that, she is essentially saying that if she were not elected, the choice would then be McCain, the nominee from the other party.

A candidate should never, EVER, promote a candidate from another party over a candidate of their own party.

What that says to me is that Hilary cares first and foremost about herself, and not the party.

And that is unacceptable to me.

[eridani]

40. I just can't for the life of me imagine Gov. Gregoire in 2004 saying that

--she and Dino Rossi were qualified to be governor, but Ron Sims wasn't. And it's a pretty open secret that Sims and Gregoire don't like each other very much.

[McCamy Taylor]

28. Obama's camp had been calling Hillary Bush-lite and the same as McCain. She turned tables.

Also, in the whole month of February, there were zero MSM stories about her and foreign policy. That means that the MSM would talk about her laugh, her husband, her marriage, whether or not she thought Obama was a Muslim, her being a witch/bitch/lesbian---but they would not discuss her foreign policy credentials/stance or anything else. All the nation heard was Obama supporters claiming that Hillary was a hawk with the exact same stance on the war as Bush and McCain.

This at a time when Hillary was low on funds.

When Edwards was low on money last year and the press did their blackout, he deliberately began to say negative things about Hillary Clinton---because it was the only thing that the press would report upon. I do not remember anyone in the Obama camp crying foul when Edwards did that. It worked. Edwards got some publicity---finally. He beat Hillary in Iowa. Unfortunately for him, the press then pretended that no one came in second in Iowa which killed his campaign for good.

In February, when Hillary had no money for nationwide ads, the MSM thought they would get cute and deprive her of coverage. So, she made some coverage by turning the attacks on her in which Obama supporters called her the same as McCain on foreign policy into a positive and a negative for Obama. The only reason the public was so ready to believe her words was because they had been hearing the Obama camp say for months "Hillary is too much like McCain."

And guess what? The MSM covered what she said, because it was aggressive. Those were fighting words. The press will always cover a fight. That is the cash strapped way to finance a campaign. Edwards did it. Hillary does it. Your candidate will do it if he ever gets low on money.

[Berry Cool]

33. But comparing your party rival to the other party is perfectly fair game.

So long as you don't say that the other party would be BETTER than your party rival. Do you honestly see no difference between the two?

As for there being "zero MSM stories about her and foreign policy," well, whose fault is that? His? You can say the Big Bad Media didn't focus enough on the issues, but if they had, they would have run stories about BOTH candidates' experience with foreign policy--or lack thereof. You seem to think that if only the MSM had focused in this area, she'd win the primaries hands down. I'm not so sure.

Yeah, the MSM talked about her laugh, her husband and her marriage. They also talked about Obama's remarks about Reagan and the shitstorm they caused. They also talked about whether or not VOTERS thought Obama was a Muslim--which never had to be a legitimate topic at all and never should have been, but became so because of a stupid rumor.

Yeah, some media outlets have talked about her being a witch/bitch/lesbian--just like some have talked about Obama being a Muslim and probably some other things I won't repeat here for the sake of civility.

I disagree that "All the nation heard was Obama supporters claiming that Hillary was a hawk with the exact same stance on the war as Bush and McCain." I do believe that the nation heard how she voted on the war resolution. And that was not just spin from Obama supporters, it was fact.

"This at a time when Hillary was low on funds"? Really? Cry me a river. So the MSM was supposed to feel sorry for her and carry a little water on her behalf because she was having a cash-flow problem? Too bad, so sad. No conspiracy there, no "getting cute." The media go where the story is.

Nothing wrong with Edwards saying negative things about Hillary either. There is nothing wrong with saying negative things about your party rival, per se. There IS something wrong with saying negative things about your rival and MAKING THE OTHER PARTY'S CANDIDATE SOUND PREFERABLE. Do you fail to get this?

If she wanted to go negative on Obama, fine. Where she crossed the line was in trying to make McCain sound better.

And no, I do not believe Obama will do it just to get media attention if he gets "strapped on cash." It's not the media's job to take pity on candidates who can't manage their finances, and I don't think that even if he's down to his last dime, he'll start talking about how even McCain would be a better president than Hillary.

I am amazed that you cannot see the difference.

[fujiyama]

29. Exactly what I was thinking

You expressed my own frustration with her comments perfectly!

[RBInMaine]

32. She may not be a "monster" but she WILL "stoop to anything."

[WinkyDink]

45. Maybe she's a teeny, tiny monster.

[GeorgeGist]

34. Hillary frames herself!

She's just as bad as McCain. Why would she lie?

[Kurovski]

35. K&R. (nt)

[Slagathor]

39. How about... because she is a self-centered traitor to the party?

a self-centered traitor who will do absolutely anything to get elected. She doesn't deserve to be president. Not after that. She is a monster.

[Perry Logan]

41. Quick reminder: all anti-Hillary posts are bullshit. Best debunk of this one is #30.

[Laelth]

46. That's it. You nailed it. Well said.

And this is how her message sounds to those of us who are loyal to the Democratic Party:


http://www.vandea.com/sounds/destroy.wav

-Laelth

[Apollo11]

48. Hillary never said that John McCain is "just swell". Stop lying!

Please! :P

[knixphan]

49. What Obama did NOT do...

Was compare Reagan to Hillary and say -

"...Reagan brought a lifetime of experience to the white house,
and Hillary shared a bed with Bill Clinton."

[joeybee12]

50. Your first line was ok, then your irrational hatred got in the way...

...comparing is not trashing, praising is not endorsing.

[TechBear_Seattle]

55. That seems a fair assessment. Thanks for the clarity. n/t

[Seabiscuit]

56. Translation:

[heliarc]

59. K&R!!!! nt

[TBF]

60. Shows her true colors...

She's always been like this, Berry. Rather than look for a win-win, she is going for the kill. It is the main reason I don't like her, and never have.

It was the same thing with the "cookies" comment back during Bill's administration. She could have found a way to fight sexism without denegrating half the women out here who choose to be stay-at-home moms. Believe it or not, even some of us with masters' degrees decide taking some time off for our kids isn't a bad choice. Everyone has to do what is comfortable for them.

But that is what Hillary doesn't get. With her it's always her way or nothing, and instead of smiling & ignoring you as she goes by she instead has to push you out of the way with a few insults to boot. Perhaps she thinks it makes her look tough, maybe it's the inner litigator, or it could be just her personality.

In any event I'm glad Barack went to Mississippi today, stood before the crowd and reminded everyone he is running for President - not VP. You go, Barack, we are with you!