Clinton supporters: Ask yourselves, is this really the campaign you want to be backing?

[TheWraith]

I've been trying to figure out what to do with my 5,000th post. I figure this is as good a use as any.

I know a lot of people here have a strong personal loyalty to and affection for the Clintons, and I'm not trying to demean or diminish that. All I ask is that for a minute you step back, and analyze the situation dispassionately. Pretend that you were completely undecided, and had no emotional investment in either side. What I want to ask is, is this really the kind of campaign that you want to be backing?

Chief strategist Mark Penn--hired and kept on at the expense of more qualified people--is the CEO of a company that is considered the definitive PR organ for some of the worst atrocities of the business world. They've represented everything from Exxon Valdez, to Blackwater, to the Union Carbide plant that killed 3,800 people in Bhopal, India. Even when this man took a conflicting contract to lobby in favor of a trade deal his supposed employer said she opposed, all he received was a demotion.

They've taken more money from lobbyists than any other campaign: even John McCain, who has literally dozens of lobbyists employed as campaign workers. Ironically, one of McCain's top advisers was up until last week also one of the heads of Penn's firm, Burson Marsteller.

Not only did Clinton vocally back the Iraq war, but she continued to support sabre-rattling against Iran, as well as opposing bans on the use of cluster bombs against civilians, and on the manufacture and use of anti-personell land mines.

What do all of these things say about the judgement of the person whose name is on the ticket? What does it say about the compromising of progressive opinions and ideals to get elected? And most of all, if someone's willing to do these things in order to achieve office, what evidence is there that they would stop once an election was won?

I don't believe that Hillary Clinton would have chosen to go into Iraq on her own, or that she likes lobbying for companies that have killed more people than Osama Bin Laden. But she's clearly working from a playbook that says these things are acceptable if it's what's necessary for victory.

That sort of campaign stands for all the things in American politics that we're supposed to be against. Whether it's the justification and defense of corporate influence over government, or the adoption of Republican-style "anything to win" tactics; blaming the media or exploting divisions in the American public.

That's not progressive, it's politics as usual. And if there's one thing that's never been clearer than it is today, it's that the status quo is no longer acceptable.

[sniffa]

1. Somewhere, a thread is in the process of being posted

bemoaning your awful post, and how this is yet another reason they'll never vote for Obama (with some chiming in that they'll vote for McCain).

Now, don't you feel bad for what you've done?

[dsc]

3. put up or shut up

I want some links to hillary supporters saying they will vote for McCain.

[apocalypsehow]

8. I see a star next to your name. So what's the problem? Need a tutorial on how to use the search

function?

:shrug:

[Yael]

23. You mean like this one?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5412782&mesg_id=5413048

[TheWraith]

24. If you haven't seen them, you haven't been looking.

One of them made it up to the top of the Greatest page a week or so ago: title something like "Obama supporters, don't you realize what you've done?" Self described "yellow dog Democrat" talking about how hateful and bitter the Obama supporters were, and that if Hillary didn't win, they would go vote for McCain.

[dionysus]

31. i proved that one a month or so ago.. you'll find em

[apocalypsehow]

10. What's worse than the HRC boosters is the pretend Obama "supporters" who flood threads like this

with their "concern" about not looking "mean" or doing anything that offends in the slightest the tender sensibilities of the Hillbots. Mark my words, two or three will surface here, post hit and run attacks, and then it'll be off to the next thread posted by a real Obama supporter to chastise them with their phony "concern."

[sniffa]

14. I don't think they're phony at all

Actually, your tact today has been over the top, and at best, unhelpful. They're real, and they have respect for their fellow Democrats, and DUers. That's what they're doing.

You may want to think about dialing it down a few notches.

And this is coming from me, of all people. :hi:

[juajen]

2. Hillary is being swiftboated.

Thanks for contributing.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[TheWraith]

4. Everything I said is 100% true.

I wasn't aware that stating facts constituted swiftboating.

[jgraz]

9. Didn't you know? Hillary has redefined "stating facts" as "swiftboating"

Right after she redefined "blatantly lying about coming under fire" as "being sleep deprived".

[Chulanowa]

12. Facts are also sexist

Don'cha know.

[Ian_rd]

18. Did you really expect anything else?

Any criticism of Hillary, no matter how reasonable or substantive is met only with ad hominems and non sequiturs. They have no substance left. They themselves might call it the "kitchen sink." Criticize her campaign lies, and you hate women. Criticize her support of the war, and you're a swiftboater. There is no more hope in rational argument. They've become inoculated to it with the bitterness of failed campaign whose victory was once considered inevitable.

Just wait out the campaign. Plug Obama all you want, and don't stop criticizing Hillary when she deserves it. But as for appeals directly to her supporters to think clearly, well, I think the only ones she has left are beyond help until she is officially defeated.

This is a great 5000th post though.

[Barack_America]

15. By herself and her top campaign aides.

Forgive me if I struggle to muster sympathy for this.

ETA: But the question remains, are you happy with the way the Clinton campaign has been run?

[jillan]

5. Could it be possible that we like her better than Obama?

No, she's not perfect.
She's not my first choice.

But of the two candidates that we have left, I choose Hillary over Obama.

[redqueen]

6. You left out the part where she parroted the "Iraq / Al Qaeda" connection in her IWR speech...

and was still parroting the WH lies about Iraq 10 months into the war.

[jgraz]

11. Why go back that far?

Just google "Hillary" and "gift of freedom" if you want proof that some things never change.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-gumbel/hillary-goes-orwellian-on_b_89729.html

[redqueen]

13. Ugh... and some call her the "Goddess of Peace"?!

Seriously?!

:crazy:

[jgraz]

19. Just one

Quite Rovian, though.

[sniffa]

20. I call her GWAR

Quite fitting, especially if you know the band.

[XemaSab]

28. Her supporters leave her events drenched with urine?

:shrug:

You're right; that is fitting. :thumbsup:

[sniffa]

30. ...

:rofl:

I was waiting for someone to set me up for that, but I tip my hat to you. :hi:

[Mags]

7. well, yeah, or I would be an Obama supporter.

[emilyg]

16. Self just asnwered me -

You bet it is.

[BzaDem]

17. Yes. Because Clinton can win in November.

[TheWraith]

22. I would have agreed with your statement six months ago.

But in the intervening time, she's nuked herself. Either way, though, Obama presents by far the better general election candidate. More money, more voters, more charisma, more judgement, and less baggage.

[backscatter712]

21. You're not going to get rationality out of Hillary's backers - they're in the bunker.

They've completely lost it, acquired a big paranoid persecution complex, and are all hunkered down in their underground bunker, deep below the chancellery, continuing to make plans for their "inevitable victory" while the enemy closes in on all sides.

[apocalypsehow]

25. Careful now. See, when you point a fact like that out you're being "mean" and "not helpful." But

when a HRC booster flames the dickens out of you, insults/smears your candidate, and tells blatant lies about him, you're supposed to act like a meek little lamb and purr "thank you Hillary supporter, may I have another?"

At least that's what I'm being told lately.... :eyes:

[jobycom]

26. The dispassionate, objective supporters are on Clinton's side, from what I've seen.

Dispassionately chew on a few of these facts. First, lobbyists represent liberal as well as conservative causes, as the Sierra Club or PETA or such cause-oriented organizations demonstrate, so taking money from lobbyists means little to nothing. Obama's history with state and federal legislation has been just as pro-corporate, pro-business as Clinton's.

Second, Obama has taken a buttload of money from lobbyists, so if you disqualify Clinton you have to disqualify him. Here's one link, there are lots more: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/22/681/

Third, Clinton DID NOT "vocally back the Iraq war." This is one of the lies told by Obama and his group that made me choose Clinton. Clinton voted for the IWR--something Obama has said he might have done if he were in the senate at the time. The IWR, as some may remember even if Obama supporters deny, was a complex bill meant by many to head off Bush's stated goal of invading Iraq. In short, Bush would have invaded without the IWR, the Republicans would not have stopped him, and the best the Dems could do to try to stop him was the IWR. It was a weak attempt, but it was the best attempt that could be passed.

(BTW, Wesley Clark, an opponent of the war, supported the IWR, and endorses Clinton.)

Fourth, Obama has rattled just as many sabres on Iran as Clinton. That hardly needs proof, just Google.

Now, compare to Obama's bad judgement. Even though he knows the real story on the IWR, he continues to claim it was a vote for war, undermining his own earlier statements that he might have voted for it. His first vote on Iraq in the Senate was a vote against withdrawing troops from Iraq, so his anti-war claims do not hold water. He has taken money from lobbyists--even if he's refused to take money from lobbying firms, it's a fine distinction. He runs commercials claiming "I've never taken money from oil companies--" implying that Clinton has. Obviously, neither candidate has taken money from oil companies since corporations can't give money to individual campaigns. He has taken a buttload of money from oil industry execs, however.

That's really why I don't like Obama, and haven't from the beginning. That's his normal strategy. He claims he's a new politician, above all the negative campaigning. Yet he says things like "I'm the only candidate who didn't vote for the war. I'm the candidate who doesn't take lobbyist money." On and on. Everyone knows these are direct attacks on Clinton, but he pretends they aren't mud-slinging. And it might not be so bad, except that the statements aren't true, and he knows they aren't.

Some Obama folk seem to think Clinton supporters can't see the facts. Problem is, many of us see them clearly. I don't defend Clinton or dislike Obama because I'm a Clinton supporter. I'm a Clinton supporter BECAUSE I dislike Obama, and because Clinton's sins are not as bad as his. She's got experience, so of course she's going to have issues she can be attacked on. Obama has done nothing, so he's got less baggage. It also means he's got no experience, yet he's running for the most complex job in the world. Even if I thought he had "good judgement" I wouldn't believe he could handle the job. But with the way he lies about Clinton, I don't even believe he has good judgement.

And chew on this comment for a while, taken from Obama's Daily Show appearance, talking about preparing for a debate: 'The thing you've got to understand is, this isn't on the level.' And I think that really strikes to what people are frustrated with in politics, is that so much of what we talk about, so much of what we say, it's not true, people know it's not true, all the insiders understand that we're just game-playing...

In other words "I'm lying, I know I'm lying, but that's how I think the game is played, and everyone except the insiders are too stupid to catch me, anyway."

That's how I see it, dispassionately. I've watched this campaign closely, and I know PR manipulation when I see it. That's why I don't like Obama. I see the Obama supporters as backing someone that a dispassionate observer would have trouble justifying. And they are asking someone experienced only as a tattoo artist to perform brain surgery. That's not an objective, dispassionate choice.

[Perry Logan]

27. Debunk here. All anti-Hillary threads are bullshit.

[TheWraith]

29. I'm sorry, but that is flatly wrong.

"First, lobbyists represent liberal as well as conservative causes"

And yet, the vast, vast majority of lobbyists represent one cause: big business. So to justify lobbyist influence on the grounds that a few good causes employ them too is disproportionate at best.

"Obama's history with state and federal legislation has been just as pro-corporate, pro-business as Clinton's."

If "Your candidate is as bad as my candidate is the best you can do, you'd make a lousy salesman. Also, it's not true. See NAFTA.

"Second, Obama has taken a buttload of money from lobbyists"

Only if you spin the definition to include state-level lobbists, versus federal ones, the federal level being where the President's authority is and where federal government corruption takes place.

"Third, Clinton DID NOT "vocally back the Iraq war." This is one of the lies told by Obama and his group that made me choose Clinton."

I suggest you try a Google search. Clinton was one of the ones going around on the Sunday talkshows yakking about how Saddam definitely had illegal WMD, along with other administration talking points. I suggest you also read her floor speech in support of the bill. Other than a suggestion for Bush to go back to the UN again, it's in full support. Contrast it to Kerry's floor speech, the tone of which effectively said "I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, but if you misuse this authority, I'm going to come after you."

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

...

And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

Clinton's own words from her floor speech.

"Clinton voted for the IWR--something Obama has said he might have done if he were in the senate at the time."

That's a fabrication. Obama never said he might have voted for the war. What he said was that if were president in 2002/2003, he wasn't sure what he would have done about Iraq and the intelligence being presented, but that the case for war had not been made. It's a very clear statement.

"The IWR, as some may remember even if Obama supporters deny, was a complex bill meant by many to head off Bush's stated goal of invading Iraq."

Then why did Clinton vote against the two amendments that would have limited the IWR or required Bush to go back to Congress again to start military action? A vote for the IWR was a vote for war. Period. Everybody tacitly acknowledged that at the time, and if you didn't know that then you were a gullible fool. I don't believe you're a fool, and I don't believe Clinton is a fool either.

"the best the Dems could do to try to stop him was the IWR. It was a weak attempt,"

Then why was the IWR a Republican written and sponsored bill that had EVERY Republican except Hagel behind it? It wasn't a Democratic effort in the least.

"(BTW, Wesley Clark, an opponent of the war, supported the IWR, and endorses Clinton.)"

False. Clark did NOT support the IWR. In fact, he specifically described in an interview having gone up to some of the swing senators and told them not to trust Bush on the IWR, that he had already made up his mind to invade. And he said in testimony that if something had to be done, it should be done through the UN.

"Well, you know, I went to several Senators, including I think a couple who later ran for office, and, for the Presidency. I said, “Don’t believe him.” (laughs) “He’s made up his mind to go to war. Don’t give him a blank check.... But they gave him a blank check."

http://clarkiw.wordpress.com/2006/05/02/i-went-to-several-senators-including-i-think-a-couple-who-later-ran-for-office/

"Fourth, Obama has rattled just as many sabres on Iran as Clinton. That hardly needs proof, just Google."

Clinton voted in favor of declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and authorizing force to be used against any IRGs found in Iraq. Obama opposed. Clinton opposes negotiating with the Iranians, Bush/Cheney/McCain style. Obama supports negotiating. Need I go on?

"Everyone knows these are direct attacks on Clinton, but he pretends they aren't mud-slinging."

No, mud slinging is when you say your opponent isn't a muslim *to your knowledge,* four surrogates in a row bring up his teenage drug use, and you try to tar him as hating America. Talking about your opponent having supported a disasterous war, and the continued corporate ownership of government? That's POLICY. That's what you're SUPPOSED to campaign on, unless you want the election to be a beauty contest.

"She's got experience, so of course she's going to have issues she can be attacked on. Obama has done nothing, so he's got less baggage."

Really? He's been a legislator longer than she has: 11 years versus 7. Hey, if you're going to count photo-ops with poetry-reading pre-teens, then being a state senator for 12 million people is something too. The fact is that only a fraction of her experience is in government, and half the times she's stuck her head out it's been chopped off. So please, quit with this "experienced" nonsense. You're clearly engaged in re-reading the Clinton campaign spin.

[jobycom]

33. I'm sorry, but that is flat wrong.

Your first and second points are just opinions on facts you don't bother to refute.

On the Iraq war, Clinton's speech before the IWR vote was less aggressive than Kerry's, and echoed Wesley Clark's, though if anything it was even less aggressive than Clark's. Here's the part you left out:

"Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation."

"A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort."

Unlike you, I'll post a link so people can make up their own minds: http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

As for why she didn't support a better resolution, that's easy. They wouldn't have passed. The Republicans controlled Congress and weren't going to pass anything more limiting. Bush was going to invade if no resolution was passed. I opposed it at the time, and still do, but to call it a vote for war is ignorance or a lie.

For comparison, here's a segment of Clark's speech:

"Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem. And in taking this to the United Nations, the President’s clear determination to act if the United Nations can’t provides strong leverage undergirding further diplomatic efforts."

"The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration... The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway."

On Clark, you try to claim he didn't support the IWR. He endorsed it the night before the vote in the House. He may have wanted to believe otherwise later on, but his words and positions before were clear. Again, remember who Clark endorsed, and who he is actively campaigning for. Clinton. Not Obama. http://www.factcheck.org/clark_waffles_on_iraq_war.html

Here's Clark's speech. http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-clark-092602.htm

Here's a link to Kerry's long, rambling, and not-softer-than-Clinton's speech. Notice he is absolutely certain of Hussein's WMDs, and of the need to disarm: http://www.c-span.org/vote2004/kerryspeech.asp

Here's Obama waffling on how he might have voted had he been in the Senate: ""I think I would have agreed with our senior Senator Dick Durbin and voted nay," he said in November 2002." At another time, ""But, I'm not privy to the Senate intelligence reports," Mr. Obama said. "What would I have done? I don't know." He never said he would have voted for it, but he's sure saying he might have. He has not been as solidly anti-war as he pretends. And his voting record in the Senate proves it. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/us/politics/22obama.html
Here's another article, written early in his presidential bid, pointing out how he claimed he wouldn't vote for additional war funding, and then did. It also quotes a Chicago anti-war group and their disappointment in his senate work at the time. Goes way against his claim that he has "good judgement." http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/03/20/obamas_record_shows_caution_nuance_on_iraq/

Obama on Iran: "Sen. Barack Obama said Friday the use of military force should not be taken off the table when dealing with Iran, which he called "a threat to all of us."

"Obama said global leaders must do whatever it takes to stop Iran from enriching uranium and acquiring nuclear weapons. He called Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "reckless, irresponsible and inattentive" to the day-to-day needs of the Iranian people.

The Iranian "regime is a threat to all of us," Obama said."

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/281249,CST-NWS-OBAMA03.article

[samsingh]

32. Congratulations on reaching 5000

thanks for sharing so many thoughts and ideas and showing your involvement in issues that matter to all of us.

[Bensthename]

34. Becareful with such posts. Hillbots are PMS'ing these days.

[yewberry]

35. Oh, really? "PMSing?"

What an incredibly sexist and stupid remark.

I'm not a Clinton supporter in the primaries (though I'd gladly vote for her in the GE if she's the nominee).

So, am I "PMSing" because your remark made me angry? Maybe I'm "on the rag" or "riding the cotton pony" because I found your post to be wildly offensive. Or maybe I'm only upset because "my Aunt Flo is visiting"--after all, women can't be expected to be rational people because of their hormonal cycles.

We're not really people, after all. Our opinions don't matter.

We're just vessels for for our uteruses, is that right, Ben?

[SwampG8r]

36. must be hard to

keep up the constant level of manufactured outrage
do you people (hillary supporters) actually explode when you are totally full of crap?
or just move up a dress size?

[Beacool]

37. You people have become sooooooo tiresome!!!!

Briefly: I support Hillary because I think that she has the best plans for the nation and is the most prepared to handle the job.

Obama? Maybe in a few years, but not now.

All these endless posts by his supporters trying to dissuade us from supporting Hillary are a waste of time.