It;s been an eye opener to discover how tenuous the Clintons' standing is within the party

[cali]

Sure Hillary got a boat load of SD endorsements early in the game when most were convinced of her inevitability and wanted to hop on to the Hillary train early, but it's become clear that devotion and affection for the Clintons was of the proverbial mile wide, inch deep variety. Once her inevitability was thrown into doubt, the SD endorsements virtually dried up. President Clinton's favorability as viewed by dems has been steadily sinking. Influential dems, who one would think natural alllies of the Clintons, have either endorsed Obama or stayed silent.

I think it's reasonable to conclude that the Clintons aren't the figures within the party that most thought they were. And I think there are reasons for this ambivalence and dislike. Odds are not only that Hillary won't get the nomination, but that both Bill and Hillary will be much diminished figures in the eyes of dems as well as in the eyes of the American people. In many ways, this campaign has been a disaster for the two of them.

[JVS]

1. That's one of the reasons that most former presidents stay above the fray in primaries.

They've got legacies to think of.
They might endorse, but they generally don't get down into the mud.

[Erin Elizabeth]

63. Very true!

I used to wonder why they didn't--I mean who better to endorse and throw their weight around behind a candidate than a FORMER president, right?

But now I very clearly see why they don't tend to do so.

[Perry Logan]

2. I think you're just seeing what you want to see.

[cali]

3. I notice you're incapable of actually disputing the facts.

It's a fact that Bill's favorability among dems has been sinking. It's a fact that Hill has only gotten a handful of SD endorsements in the last 3 months. It's a fact that some very prominent Senators chose Obama over Hill. Other than your spam, you hew to one liners. Why is that?

[Perry Logan]

7. I dispute your interpretation of the facts. It's classic "Clintophobe logic."

You've decided that no one ever really liked the Clintons much.

The problem is, Clintophobes always say that.

Clintophobes love to say no one likes the Clintons, everyone is seeing through the Clintons, everyone is starting to hate the Clintons, no one ever really liked the Clintons, etc., etc. They say it over and over again. But repeating what you want to believe doesn't make it true. I'm really sorry about that.

[MonkeyFunk]

10. You are correct, Mr. Logan

And they start to believe their own partisan rhetoric here on DU when it's echoed by 90% of the other 'phobes.

[cali]

11. um, no. I think there's evidence that some people in the party

don't have benificent feelings about the Clintons. I simply proferred evidence that the devotion to the Clintons is not particularly strong. Nor do I personally hate either of them, although I dislike the way they've campaigned. I'm truly sorry that your undying devotion to Hillary and Bill prevents you from looking at the facts. It's sad to see such blindered and slavish devotion.

[JVS]

14. You'd better get to the other thread where a Hillarite is lamenting the party' conspiracy...

against the clintons. Let that poster know that there is nothing to be seen.

Here you go: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5587536

[Cha]

98. A conspiracy" against the clintons!

So that would be a left wing conspiracy? So now all the wings are covered and the poor poor clintons are left wondering WHY?

Here's a clue..

"But then the race got nasty in South Carolina, and Mr. Obama started winning and Mrs. Larson started reconsidering. “There was something about Senator Obama that I found really fresh and exciting,” she said. “I like how positive he has been.” She also spoke of “the destructive negativity” of the Clinton campaign.

Then Chelsea Clinton called a second time, last Saturday night, and kept asking “why?”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Saturday]

17. Right on Perry Logan. Obama supporters like to forget

that tha number of votes cast for Hillary in the primary are not that different than the votes cast for Obama especially if you count FL and MI. It is not all one sided as they like to think. And saying Dems dislike the Clintons is baloney and Obama talking points.

[guruoo]

22. Safe bet that Obama supporters actions will come back to haunt the Party

[BlueCaliDem]

45. How? By campaigning on Hope instead of Fear like Hillary and the Repukes?

I really don't see how Obama's campaigning can do the Democratic Party any damage while Hillary - who, consequently, is now embroiled in a major lawsuit in California all the right-wing blogs are on fire about - will destroy what's left of it if their obnoxious manner of campaigning doesn't do it before the GE, that is.

[zalinda]

70. Sorry, but I don't get hope from his campaign

far from it. I have seen nothing but destructive behavior from his supporters. They are bullies, who have pushed and tried to get every candidate out of the race so their "ONE" can take his "rightful" place.

I would have at least attempted to listen to Obama more if his supporters had at least been nice. But, they started in on Edwards to drop out just after Iowa, and stalked Edwards threads to tell us how he didn't have a chance. The fact that Edwards suspended his campaign did not make Obama supporters less rude, in fact the rudeness factor seemed to be dialed up. Now, to tell you the truth, I hope Obama is brought down HARD, just so his supporters can be made to eat dirt, just like they are trying to do now with Clinton supporters. Obama supporters are the rudest, most vindictive people I have ever seen, and I can only see Obama through them. He does not inspire hope, he inspires hate, and for that I can't support him. At this point, I'm not even sure if I'll vote in November, because whomever gets in will not do anything for 75% of this country.

zalinda

[PatGund]

78. Funny...

That's exactly how I feel about certain of Sen. Clinton's supporters. That "they are bullies, who have pushed and tried to get every candidate out of the race so their "ONE" can take her "rightful" place."

The main difference is that, if by some misfortune of fate, Sen. Clinton gets the nomination, I'll hold my nose and vote for her. Because getting a Democrat - or failing that, a DLC member - in the White House is far more important than "if my nominee doesn't win I'll take my vote and go home and YOU'LL ALL BE SORRY" hysterics.

[Melinda]

84. That's a pretty broad brush you're swinging there....

Granted, there are passionate, over-the-top supporters of BOTH candidates on this message board, but painting ALL Obama supporters with that brush you're wielding undermines your case for your candidate.

As a former Edwards and now Obama supporter, I categorically deny that I have ever been or engaged in the behaviors or actions you describe, either on DU, any other message board, or real life.

I am not a "destructive" Obama supporter, nor one of the "bullies" who "started in on Edwards" and "stalked Edwards threads", nor am I ever intentionally "rude", and I most certainly am not "vindicative" in any way, shape, or form.

I think it simply awful that you wish me to "eat dirt" and that you feel "hate" toward Senator Obama because of what anonymous posters on an online message board post.

While I understand the passion and commitment of your support for Senator Clinton, I think that you're being over-reactive when you so virulently paint me and other like-minded Obama supporters with such ugly adjectives, and thus allow your feelings here to color your feelings toward Senator Obama. Hate is such a destructive emotion.

I don't get it when Obama supporters do this either... it's simply the anti-thesis of tolerance, respect, and liberalism. And I call them on it too. We should ALL be better than this.

I hope that you hear what I am saying, and know that even though we disagree on which candidate we want as OUR parties nominee, I respect your decision to support Senator Clinton and if I ever see anyone on DU attacking you for supporting her, I'll have your back too.

Thanks for listening.

*edited to fix bad UBB coding

[zalinda]

91. I don't support Clinton, I don't like either. n/t

[Melinda]

93. Your post is still irrational and wrong regardless of whom you do or don't support

[zalinda]

96. You may think so, and that is your right

But, I went into this primary as undecided. I went to Edwards. After Iowa, Obama supporters quickly became rude and condescending to Edwards that he should drop out, because Obama was "the one". The hatred and vitriol came daily toward Edwards, in every Edwards thread. I have to say, Clinton supporters were not as rude. As the weeks went on after Edwards suspended, the Obama supporters became ruder and became what looked like crazed against Clinton. I have never been in the Obama forum or Clintons forum, except maybe by accident. After Edwards suspended I didn't know who I would go to. I didn't like Obama or Clinton, and still don't. But the hatred coming from the Obama side was amazing, it got so bad that I ended up defending Clinton because what they were throwing was just a load of crap.

There were people on this board that I used to respect, that respect has gone. I never put any one on ignore, I wanted to see their true selves come out, and it did. I have NEVER called anyone anything except a supporter, I have never called anyone sexist or racist, but I certainly have been called that on many occasions, especially racist by Obama supporters. And, I've been told many, many times that Obama doesn't need or want my vote.

Both candidates are so close on issues that people have had to resort to mud slinging. The campaign of hope has become a campaign of hate. I have no idea what Clinton's campaign thing was or is. But, I certainly read about Obama's hope and change from all his supporters, only to turn around and read hate and slime coming from the other side of their mouths.

Sorry, people, but as soon as you made this personal you screwed your candidates. Why should I vote for someone who inspires such hatred?

zalinda

[Melinda]

97. As a former Edwards and now Obama supporter, I know I'm right.

And again with the broad-brush.

"The campaign of hope has become a campaign of hate. I have no idea what Clinton's campaign thing was or is. But, I certainly read about Obama's hope and change from all his supporters, only to turn around and read hate and slime coming from the other side of their mouths.

Sorry, people, but as soon as you made this personal you screwed your candidates.

What I don't understand is how you can decrie nastiness on this board and then turn around and accuse me of nasty, vile actions. Neither I, nor I daresay the majority of DU Obama OR Clinton supporters have ever engaged in such hatefulness or "made this personal".

I feel bad that you've been blinded toward the majority by the hateful actions of a few.

Peace out.

[zalinda]

102. And, it's too bad you haven't noticed it

because it's going to come back and bite Obama in the butt.

zalinda

[DerekJ]

94. Right!!

[thoughtcrime1984]

88. You want to spite a few dozen zealots on a msg board

so we can have McCain as Pres. and finish the assault on the middle-class that Bush started? And to continue the 100 year war? Amazing. Perhaps that is what Clinton inspires? I sincerely hope not.

[zalinda]

92. I don't support Clinton, I don't like either. n/t

[dano81818]

54. you can't count FL and MI

those werent real primaries

[Political Heretic]

25. For being so well liked people sure are ditching them like rats off a sinking ship.

:shrug:

[psychopomp]

51. Robert Reich is a very intelligent person with a good sense of humor

He was a high-profile member of President Clinton's cabinet and a friend to the Clintons.

He has decided to back Sen. Obama.

It is true that there have been those who one would expect to back the Clintons--colleagues and allies--who have decided not to support Sen. Clinton's campaign. Others choose to remain silent.

[dano81818]

53. it's not that no one ever liked them in the past

they were well liked.

their problem is the present.

[here_is_to_hope]

79. Well said and welcome to DU...

I loved them both till this campaign of hers.
Just ugly.

[roguevalley]

77. scaife endorsed hilarity. explain that. Unless you don't think the

biggest hater of clintons that lives endorsing her is a big deal. Don't claim reconciliation or some such shit. scaife endorsing her and her accepting it gratefully sucks to such a high degree I can't find words. Is nothing, even her daughter -whom they attacked as well- sacred? Do you think that maybe the enmity she has attracted is her own doing or is that too much for you right now at this stage of your mourning?

[D23MIURG23]

104. The primary voters apparently didn't like the Clintons so much.

[guruoo]

21. Your destroy the Clintons campaign has appairently been successful

[flpoljunkie]

56. Did anyone cover Hillary's "Screw 'em" comment this week other than Couric on the CBS Evening News?

Has there been a media blackout?

[democrank]

4. Indeed.

It`s like watching a parent find Crack in their kid`s bureau drawer after saying for years, "My child will never use drugs."

[Tarheel_Dem]

5. mind if I...k&r?

:applause: :yourock: :applause: NAIL ON THE HEAD!!!!!!!!!

[ecdab]

6. I'm not so sure their standing was tenuous - they have been putting

quite a bit of effort into reducing their standing and alienating broad segments of the Democratic voting base.

[cali]

8. Yes, they've certainly acted as their own worst enemies

at times, but I believe it's more than that. The Clintons alienated a lot of dems before her run.

[ecdab]

30. Yes - I agree. When you consider the IWR and the DLC

Hillary has never been in touch with large segments of the Democratic base. Going into the primary season there was quite clearly 2 major camps - the Hillary camp and the not Hillary camp. I think going in that the Hillary camp was - most likely, but it was close - large enough to win. Between Obama's efforts to build onto the Democratic party, Hillary's failings to expand her base and continued alienation of many Democrats, and Edward's choice to leave the race with dignity (as opposed to taking a piece of the "not Hillary" vote that wouldn't be enough to help him but would be enough to help her) that has all changed. Now Hillary has made herself into something of a pariah.

[dommyluc]

9. Hillary after these upcoming primaries

Everyone has been talking about how Hillary may stay in the race even if she doesn't do well enough in these upcoming primaries. But what if Obama decides to do the same thing to Hillary? What if he keeps outspending her at every turn, since it looks as though her campaign is pretty well tapped out as far as donors are concerned. Even if she gets the illusory "momentum" she and the phony media constantly talk about, how is she going to pay for everything? Also, what if Obama decides to go as negative as she is doing? There are a LOT of things about Hillary and Bill that the Obama campaign haven't been throwing out there. Compared to Clinton they have been fairly discrete. But a nasty campaign could seriously damage Clinton, especially when it comes to her vote on Iraq. And if the Clinton camp can talk about the things the Rethugs are going to throw at Obama, think of the things the Obama campaign can throw at Clinton, saying that the Rethugs will use them. And I don't believe that bull about how she is setting herself up for a run in 2012. If the Dems lose this election for the presidency, people are not going to blame the Obama campaign or even the Republicans - they are going to blame Hillary and Bill Clinton, and there is no way in hell she will ever be the Dem candidate in 2012. She may even put her NY Senate seat in peril (I believe NY is also one of the 352 states she has been a resident of now).
I think Hillary brought this whole situation on herself. She can't use that "unfair" treatment bullshit. Last year, the entire media acted as though she was going to be coronated. Even the Republican Party believed the spin. Remember that woman saying to John McCain, "but how do we beat the bitch?" I know that people like Chris Matthews have been horrendous towards her, but that is nothing compared to the shit that she herself has thrown at Obama in the name of "vetting", that wonderful word the Clinton camp uses in order to try to sabotage the Obama run while trying to look like the concerned "good" leaders of the Democratic Party (I call this the "smiler with a knife" strategy). "Yes, we must shout about these lies and half-truths and guilt-by-associations in order to save our party from the unelectable Scary Black Guy."
Hillary and her campaign fucked this up themselves. She should have run as if Obama didn't even exist. She should have been totally respectful of him and concentrated entirely on the ineptitude of Bush, McCain and their enablers in the Republican Party. She should have first apologized for her Iraq vote, and then hammered McCain/Bush on their destruction of our nation 24/7 while on her campaign. But I guess destroying the Democratic Party was more fun. She has alienated blacks, progressives,the NetRoots and other building blocks of our party, the very people that won the 2006 election, although perhaps she is as deluded as Hoyer and Emmanuel by thinking that the 2006 campaign was won by the laughably irrelevant DLC. She cannot win in 2008. She has not destroyed Obama; she has destroyed herself.
When this campaign first began last year I was pulling for Hillary with all of my heart. I thought that maybe - just maybe - she was different from Bill and was not a closet Republican. But now I know better. She is not different. All Billary care about are themselves, just like the Bushes and all the other DC insiders. She has lost me. I'm voting for Obama, even if I have to write in his name.

[Arugula Latte]

90. Good post, dommyluc

:thumbsup:

[Exilednight]

12. Bill and Hillary never were the figures within the Democratic party, they were figures within.......

the DLC, otherwise known as known as repug lite. Tastes good going down, but has a very bitter aftertaste with 3/4 calories as regular repug.

[DemsUnited]

13. Must read article in today's NYT about this exact issue

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/politics/20loyalty.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1208692929-v5zveVfnMp+9XuLV+x460A
">Link

Clintons Sort Friends: Past and Present
By MARK LEIBOVICH
Published: April 20, 2008

<snip>

People within the Clinton orbit say there are a varying gradations of perceived disloyalty. In their eyes, the least offensive (if somewhat annoying) group are “likely” Hillary Clinton supporters who have not defected, in part out of recognition of past ties, but have not made public commitments to her, either. Until Friday, this would have included Mr. Reich, who had said he would not formally endorse Mr. Obama out of “loyalty” to Mrs. Clinton, a friend for over four decades whom he actually went out on a date with in their college days.

Then there are those whom Mrs. Clinton worked hard to win over but who have actually taken the step of endorsing Mr. Obama. These would include newer senators like Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, or older colleagues, like Senator John D. Rockefeller, of West Virginia.

There is also a large class of Obama supporters in the Senate for whom the Clintons raised considerable amounts of money. This includes Claire McCaskill of Missouri, who upset Mrs. Clinton in a 2006 appearance on “Meet the Press” when she told Tim Russert that while Bill Clinton was a great leader, “I don’t want my daughter near him.”

But the worst offenders, associates say, are former Clintonites who not only endorse Obama, but who also publicly criticize Mrs. Clinton’s campaign as they do so. Mr. Craig, a former law school classmate of Mrs. Clinton’s, became a charter member of this club when he wondered aloud (to Jonathan Alter of Newsweek) “if Hillary’s campaign can’t control Bill, whether Hillary’s White House could.”

Ouch.

[babylonsister]

15. Their unbridled ambition regardless of who or what is in the way

has been a real turn-off for me, and their tactics leave much to be desired. Staying for the the sake of that ambition,ignoring the potential damage in November, and seeming to praise the rethug only makes things worse.
I won't be sorry to hear a concession speech myself, if she can bear to give one or admit it's over. By some fluke she 'wins', at what cost? I wonder how many have lost respect for them, like I have.

[cali]

16. I'll be thrilled to hear her concession speech.

And yes, she'll give one. It'll be fascinating to see what she says.

[Divernan]

29. A political truism: The Clintons are always there when they need you.

Google that sentence and you'll get over 70 hits.

[Erin Elizabeth]

65. She has that hubris that I've seen in Bush

and that REALLY bothers me. The hubris is what gets in the way of seeing where you are wrong, seeing that you CAN be wrong, and if you can't even see that, then you certainly can't fix anything.

A horrible attribute to have in a country's leader.

[samdogmom]

72. You can count me.

I've lost all respect for them.

I'll never be able to look at either one of them in the same light again, ever!

On Edit: In fact, when I hear Hillary or Bill's voice come on the TV, I switch the channel just like I do when I hear dubya.

[Tatiana]

18. BARBARA BOXER, hello!

Her support amounts to "I'll vote for you. That's all." That's very telling and illustrates your point quite nicely, I think. On the surface, she would appear to be a natural ally of Hillary Clinton and an enthusiastic supporter.

And then there's Bob Casey, who's a moderately conservative Dem. Seems like he'd be inclined to support the Clintons, but he's not.

Obama's support encompasses the complete Democratic political spectrum, from conservative Dem to very liberal Dem. If you look at newly elected Congress members like Patrick Murphy, they are drawn to Obama as well as older liberals like Kerry and Kennedy. Hillary is drawing the support of people who "owe" the Clintons or the party's loyal traditionalists like Ed Rendell and Charlie Rangel. This literally is a contest between changing the direction and discourse of this nation or more of the same.

[Divernan]

31. HRC's deadbeat brother delinquent in child support /alimony payments to Boxer's daughter & grandson

In the end, all politics are personal - and with good reason. Tell me HRC, if it takes a village to raise a child, - does that village include maybe AUNTS telling their deadbeat brothers to live up to their parental obligations. Especially deadbeat brothers who are out there raising funds for you and therefore acting as your agent/representative in your campaign? If HRC doesn't care enough about her own nephew/Chelsea's cousin, to deliver a shake of the famous Clinton finger and a stern "Shame on You", then why should she care about any American child? or Iranian child? or Iraqi child? Or all those Lebanese kids crippled, maimed and killed by the cluster bombs she could not bring herself to vote against? And it would also seem that the Rodham siblings have a problem in paying off their debts.

www.buzzflash.net/index.php?search=tag.nicole+boxer

No Child Left Behind - Hillary's brother won't pay child support
Hillary Rodham Clinton's youngest sibling is a deadbeat dad who owes tens of thousands of dollars in child support. Including interest and various fees and expenses, the presidential candidate's brother now owes Boxer - the daughter of Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) - more than $158,000, the source said. anIn a disclosure that could prove embarrassing for his sister, Anthony Rodham has stiffed his former wife, Nicole Boxer, out of $75,000 in child support, as well as $55,000 in alimony, a source close to the case said.


www.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Rodham

On May 28, 1994, Rodham married Nicole Boxer, daughter of United States Senator from California Barbara Boxer, in a ceremony at the White House attended by 250 guests;<6> it was the first White House wedding since Tricia Nixon married Edward Cox in 1971.<6> They had one son, Zachary, in 1996<7><8> (who later held a unique distinction in that he was simultaneously the grandson and nephew of sitting U.S. senators), before separating by 2000<9> and then getting a divorce. (See entry below this for details of nonpayment of alimony/child support)
########################################
(THERE FOLLOW VARIOUS EXAMPLES OF WHEELING/DEALING WITH FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS/INVESTORS BY TONY RODMAN)
###################################
Episodes such as these led Hillary Clinton's White House staff to refer to Tony and Hugh as "the Brothers Rodham",<12> extending the American tradition of troublesome presidential siblings to the brother-in-law category;<4> one senior White House official would be quoted as saying, "You never wanted to hear their name come up in any context other than playing golf."<12>

In March 2001, it was revealed that Tony Rodham had helped gain a March 2000 presidential pardon for Edgar Allen Gregory Jr. and his wife, Vonna Jo, a Tennessee couple in the carnival business who had been convicted of bank fraud.<13> The pardon was granted over the objections of the U.S. Justice Department.<13> Rodham acknowledged talking to President Clinton about a pardon;<7> he said he received no money for his work, but he did have financial ties to the couple as a consultant.<13> His actions gained much public focus and criticism, as they came on the heels of the general Bill Clinton pardons controversy and his brother Hugh's own involvement in taking money for work done towards pardons.<7> Hillary Clinton, who had strongly criticized Hugh's involvement and requested he return his money, said that Tony Rodham was not paid for his work.<14> The Republican-controlled House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform investigated the matter and concluded that Tony Rodham had in fact been paid.<14> One aspect of the case dragged out into 2007, as Tony Rodham battled a bankruptcy court's order that he repay over $100,000 in loans from the now-deceased Edgar Gregory.<14>


In August 2001, Tony Rodham was involved in an assault episode at the multi-generational Rodham family summer cottage<15><16> at Lake Winola, Wyoming County, Pennsylvania.<17> A man who claimed he saw Rodham having sex with his girlfriend broke into the cottage and assaulted him; Hugh Rodham and the woman restrained the attacker.<17> Both Tony Rodham and the attacker received some injuries.<18> At a hearing on the case in November 2001, Tony Rodham testified that he might have smoked marijuana with the attacker several hours before the incident.<19> The man subsequently pleaded guilty to trespassing, assault, and making terroristic threats.<16> BY 2002, RODHAM WAS IN DISPUTES WITH HIS FORMER FIRST WIFE OVER CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS, WITH NICOLE BOXER (daughter of Barbara Boxer), SAYING HE HAD NOT PAID THEM IN SIX MONTHS.

As of mid-2007, Tony Rodham was helping Hillary Clinton raise funds in Pennsylvania for her 2008 presidential campaign.<10> BY THE END OF 2007, HE WAS BACK IN THE NEWS FOROWING NICOLE BOXER SOME $158,000 IN BACK ALIMONY, CHILD SUPPORT AND RELATED PAYMENTS FOLLOWING A COURT JUDGMENT.

[KittyWampus]

50. that is really sad

[NC_Nurse]

82. WOW. What a scumbag!

You'd think that Bill and Hillary could find the money to pay her from their $108 MILLION dollar haul over the last few years.
Jeez. But who cares about nieces and nephews when you've got a campaign to run? :eyes:

Where's the "guilt by association" stuff now? It's her friggin' brother fer chrissake!

[Melinda]

85. Why are you posting such crap on this thread, or on DU for that matter?

Hillary Clinton is not anymore responsible for what her brother does or doesn't do that Senator Obama is responsible for Rezco's crap.

This kind of shit taints us all, and plays right into the RW's hands.

Stop it - please.

[Vinca]

19. The Clintons thought because he had been president, she was

automatically better than anyone else in the primary. You almost got the impression the primary was just a formality and a bit of a nuisance. Hillary would have been fine, I suppose, but it just was Obama's time. His campaign message is what the people want to hear.

[Alpharetta]

20. Howard Dean's low profile on this intrigues me

I am impressed with how he has avoided media bombardment during this.

He is a patient man. It's Zen-like. Personally, if I was him, I'd be fighting a grin watching her decline.

[cali]

24. Dean has remained scrupulously unbiased throughout this process

I have no idea who he supports, and neither does anyone else here.

[XemaSab]

60. Apparently even people inside the DNC don't know who he's supporting

But when he was running, he said he represented the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.

Which begs the question: If Howard is the Democratic wing, who or what is the Republican wing?

Why, the DLC, of course. :)

There is NO love lost between Howard and the Clintons.

(I even heard it theorized here that the Clintons threw Clark into the race in '04 to siphon support away from Howard. :( )

[kenny blankenship]

76. I wouldn't be grinning at her decline if I was Dean - It's bad now and going to get worse.

HRC is like a roommate from Hell, who when asked by the other leaseholders to find a new apartment, goes around the house setting fires, or keys your car.

[Cha]

99. You "wouldn't be grinning if you were Dean"?

I think Dean is happy about the rise of Democracy within the Democractic Party. It's common knowledge that the go sic 'em guy carville was sent out by the clintons to screw Dean after we won the 2006 elections and it didn't work.

Dean has to be neutral..that's in his job description but as he's recently stated..the SDs should really choose now rather than later.

[kenny blankenship]

100. I think he has some reason to be happy too, but

still, Hillary is probably determined to do a lot more damage before she's done, for no better reason than to punish people who defied her. So no, if I were Dean I wouldn't be smiling about Hillary's descent into the abyss-or at the very least I'd keep it to myself. Because she won't go alone.

[Cha]

101. Okay..I see your point. Yeah, I'm

not smiling either. I'm bitter.

[The Backlash Cometh]

23. Not a disaster, Cali, unless they're measuring it by their own ruler.

We're just all coming to realize at the same time, that the way they governed is passe. People don't want to see double decker politics anymore -- where on the lower level you'll find the overt public policies, and the top level is where the people get private favors because they're big campaign donors or fund raisers -- and the favors that are bestowed, often conflict with public policies and hurt the people stuck at the bottom.

It's time we all ride on the same bus.

[Political Heretic]

26. This sums up the Clintons: you can only skin a sheep once.

It's not so much that the Clinton's were "liked" by party insiders. No, I'm not saying that they were hated either. It's that their power commanded loyalty by their massive political genius and political power. They were formidable powerhouses to say the least, and no one wanted to be on the wrong side of that.

The trouble is, to command that much power, the had to do it by force. You can only skin a sheep once, and the Clintons are finding that when their grasp on power isn't as absolute as it once was, the people they've walked over or kept in line by force are finding the courage to say, fuck off.

[Erin Elizabeth]

66. Oh wow, great analogy.

Especially about how no one wanted to be on the wrong side of that. Well, why would they? Clinton was the first Democrat to hold two terms in how long?

But yeah. That sheep's been skinned.

[natrat]

27. evidence mounts daily that the clintons are no more than paid off corrupt politicians

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

28. It's evident in the way she was the presumed front-runner from the beginning

I have gotten the impression that many of her hangers on gave her support either because they wanted something in return, or they believed in the inevitability of her candidacy and didn't want to piss off someone who might be the next President. Now that she has been revealed repeatedly as someone who leads not by consensus, but by power, and Obama has shown that he can beat her through the sheer force of popular support, her support is drying up.

[dsc]

32. it speaks far more of our party than of them

I have no problem with people who decided to switch on the basis of the popular vote of their districts or an honest appraisal that Obama was a stronger candidate. I do have a problem with those who switched and then denegrated Hillary publicly, in some cases for conduct they themselves have done, is enough to make one vomit. I wouldn't appoint or hire Bradley or Richardson for any job at any time, ever. The Clintons did a lot for the party and for many of the people who turned on them. The utter lack of any loyalty is eyeopening. Not about them, but about the party.

[ecdab]

34. a politicians loyalty should lie with the people of this nation not with

a single person.

[Jennicut]

59. That is so true, wonder why some people don't understand that?

This country was founded to give those who were persecuted for not being "loyal" to a government and religion they did not agree with the right to govern themselves. Loyalty to country is above all the most important thing.

[Tatiana]

36. Interesting. I reached the conclusion that the Clintons were no longer worthy of their loyalty.

MoveOn was created out of loyalty to the Clintons and defending them against Ken Starr and the right wing. John Kerry stood by Clinton, flew on AF1 with Clinton after the impeachment vote when NO ONE wanted to be near him. Ted Kennedy was one of the most vocal Clinton supporters out there and enthusiastically supported Hillary's campaign for Senator.

People have proved their loyalty to the Clintons time and time again. After a while, it's like that abusive partner that one keeps going back to. Eventually, in spite of the love you may have for the person, you get sick of their shit and decide to "move on" to better things.

[dsc]

41. Kennedy is still Senator thanks to Bill and Hillary working their asses off for him in MA in 94

Clinton campaigned for Kerry in 2004 after open heart surgery.

[book_worm]

61. Ted would have won anyway in '94

and besides Ted campaigned hard for Bill in '92 and '96 and was a strong liberal supporter of his in the Senate and on impeachment. He doesn't owe supporting the Clinton's from now until he dies as his life work.

[dsc]

69. I am not saying he does

but what I am saying is that Clinton was very loyal to him.

[karynnj]

71. Kennedy had a 60% approval rating in April 1994 - he was extremely unlikely to lose

Kennedy won 58% to 41%. Reading the summary in the "Almanac of American Politics 1996" the credit given to the Clintons was that President Clinton hosted a very successful fundraiser. They also mention that Kennedy had a 60% approval rating in MA in April 1994. The concern was that 62% said it was time for a change. This was an open ended question that is inherently unfair as there is no common cause that all these people would agree on. We are seeing the same things now in NJ with Lautenberg. It combines all Democrats who would prefer anyone else and all the Republicans. Clinton doing a fundraiser in MA helped Clinton as much as it helped Kennedy.

What they do cite as the issues is that Kennedy brought up the anti-black views of the Mormon church and the anti-labor practices of Bain capital. He also got Romney in the debate when Romney could not say what his healthcare plan did. No mention at all of HRC or WJC as savior of the campaign.That book leans more to the right than I like and looking through the years we have is not friendly to Kennedy, who they position as too far to the left.

As to campaigning for Kerry - Clinton was, as he was for Gore, an asset who was tricky to use. I bet that it was WJC who called the campaign rather than the campaign begging WJC to help. He has always wanted to be in the public eye. In addition, he campaigned about 5 or 6 weeks after his surgery. In PA, it involved walking a very short distance and giving 5 minutes of comments. A person I know very very well was walking 4 miles routinely within three weeks of open heart surgery - it was part of his rehabilitation program from a top hospital.

In fact, given the way it was handled, Kerry appearing ALONE might have been more useful. The cable stations switched away after Clinton's speech - not catching that Kerry got a tremendous reaction as well - that was seen by us CSPAN viewers. Kerry was getting huge crowds all over the swing states - breaking Clinton records. The Clintonophile media ignored that or discounted it by crediting the crowds to Clinton, Caroline Kennedy or Springstein. It's true the crowd may have been somewhat smaller without WJC, it would still have been huge and the candidate would have been the story.

Also, Clinton's speech was a very routine "Democratic party elder speaking of the Democratic nominee" - he did NOTHING that went beyond boiler plate - Kerry's name could have been replaced by any name. WJC did not even mention Kerry's long involvement with Youthbuild that was likely what WJC did vaguely speak of in his book as Kerry working for underprivileged youth, which WJC then described as something that there were no votes in. In front of intercity Philadelphia bringing this up and speaking of Kerry's extremely strong advocacy since the 1980s would have made some people see Kerry for who he was. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=148023&mesg_id=148029 ) Every Clinton speech for someone ends up about 60% plus about Clinton - except his extremely strong speech for Leiberman in the 2006 primary where he actually spoke about Leiberman.

The fact is that Kerry DID get the innercity vote everywhere and likely would have done every bit as good without that short Clinton event. Where Clinton could have helped was to have delayed his idiotic book say 6 months to let Kerry have more a chance to get airtime in July 2004. Or, he could have given Kerry credit for his many real accomplishments when WJC opted to write a 2 page discussion of whether he wanted Weld, who he clearly liked personally vs Kerry, who he credited as expert on the environment and technology. Very meager praise - that he likely looked at when Kerry was the defacto candidate. Here is a broader expansion of what WJC did and did not do: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/karynnj/14

But,debts go both ways - Kerry defended Clinton in the primaries when Clinton's patriotism was challenged. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=5197294
Kerry was far closer to Tsongus and to Kerrey - that defense came from Kerry's heart and gut and he willingly defended Clinton on this issue when he was the candidate. This was done risking his own credibility. In the 2004 primaries, Bill Clinton said that only Wes Clark and HRC were Democratic stars - so if you want to question repayment of favors - the Clintons did not return the help Kerry gave them.

[Spider Jerusalem]

37. The Clintons didn't do much for the party.

And why exactly are Bill Bradley and Bill Richardson supposed to be blindly and slavishly loyal to either Clinton? They made positive statements of support for Obama based on their own judgment that he was a better candidate. Neither owes bill or Hillary anything. Richardson certainly doesn't; a cabinet member doesn't serve the president personally so much as he does the country, and the president is neither a monarch nor a mafia don.

[dsc]

39. Bradley and Richardson did no such thing

Bradley, who ran a negative, nasty, race baiting campaign against Al Gore went on show after show lecturing us about how negative Hillary is and stating Bill is a corrupt man.

[Spider Jerusalem]

43. You mean Hillary isn't negative?

And Bill's money for pardons (see Marc Rich among others) and refusal to release a list of donors to his presidential library aren't, well, questionable at best?

[dsc]

46. So negative is OK if you think it is true

but that isn't what Bradley said, he said negative was wrong to do as he sat and slimed the Clintons, just like he did 8 years earlier to Gore.

[Spider Jerusalem]

49. So do you disagree that Hillary Clinton has run an extraordinarily negative primary campaign?

I don't see how it's negative to make that observation.

And most objective observers would agree that Bill Clinton was at best on highly shaky ethical ground, and was at worst guilty of corruption and malfeasance, in the matter of certain pardons issued at the end of his term to people whose families and associates had donated large sums to his presidential library.

[dsc]

55. in comparision to Obama, no

[Spider Jerusalem]

58. Did Obama say John McCain was more qualified to be President than Hillary?

Did Obama say she was unelectable? Did Obama or his surrogates accuse her of being a Muslim drug dealer with terrorist connections? How anyone rational can look at this primary season and claim that Obama's has been the more negative campaign is beyond comprehension; the idea is not only ludicrous, it borders on abject stupidity.

[dsc]

68. no he merely had a surrogate call people to say

she had no moral authority to lay a wreath on the tomb of the unknown soldier.

[Divernan]

74. I musta missed that. How does one white man run a race-baiting campaign vs. another white guy?

[Erin Elizabeth]

67. You could make that argument if the public Hillary defectors

defected to McCain. But they didn't. They defected to Obama. A DEMOCRAT. So how are they not loyal to the party? Obama is a DEMOCRAT. Hello.

[PatGund]

81. Because to the Sen. Clinton camp

Democrat = Clinton supporter. So if you don't give her the nomination, then you're automatically a traitor to the Democratic party.

[vssmith]

33. I have no evidence but

I think it is possible that Dem Party leaders have disliked (maybe despised) Clinton for a long time and have just recently gotten the courage to come out of the closet.

I don't know of any reasons that they might feel this way but possibly arrogance or heavy-handedness. Shame on me, Bill couldn't possibly have either of these traits.

[NJmaverick]

35. After they lose the primary, they are going to be pariahs.

[DemGa]

38. This left-wing movement wants complete destruction of the Clintons

-- and will resort to any means for that end.

Look at the effects of the right-wing attacks -- and which St. Obama co-opted as his own - Treacherous, yes, but history shows they are effective -- with some voters. And despite this alliance with right-wing slander, St. Obama hasn't closed the deal -- interesting.

[DrFunkenstein]

44. I Oppose Her Militarism, But I Have Voted For Her As Senator And Will Again

Just because I find Obama infinitely more fit to serve as President doesn't mean I want to "destroy the Clintons." I am very, very disappointed by the way they have conducted their campaign, but my opposition to her nomination is absolutely policy-based.

[here_is_to_hope]

80. Hmm, so you are saying the left wing and

the 'vast right wing' are out to get her? Hmmm...does that mean she appeals to only those in the middle?
Dude, she threw Moveon under her bus.
Fuck her.

[DemGa]

83. Yes, that's right

The left-wing is actually marginal in size - as is the right-wing. The center always by far comprises the bulk.

The far-left is making their run for power - and they will do for the Dems what Bush did (right-wing conservatives and neo-cons) for the Republicans: remove representation of the center.

That's why we are seeing the attempted complete dissolution of all things Clinton - the liberal left hates the Clintons - who are more so centrist Democrats - they represent the Base.

[kentuck]

40. I'm not sure I agree with this interpretation but...

I do think it will deal a damaging blow to the DLC and their style of politics. I think in the long run, people will look at Bill Clinton as a better-than-average President with moral deficiencies. However, I think the basic issue is that people want change from the Bushes and the Clintons.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. Hopefully, the Clintons will be regarded as a rightwing anomaly in a center-left party.

And, the experiment with the "Third Way" will depart with them.

[roseBudd]

47. How can any Democrat not be furious about the Clenis, that one eyed monster

cost us dearly. He could have just jacked off to porn for 8 years.

[City Lights]

48. Great post, cali.

I think Bill would have served Hillary better if he had stuck to praising her positives and using his charm to tell people why they should support Hillary. Using him as a rabid dog against her Democratic opponent crossed the line for a lot of Dems. My opinion of him is forever changed.

Recommended.

[dano81818]

52. the fruits of "me first, you, maybe never" triangulation

triangulation might have worked if the co-clinton presidency did not have to look for cover everytime a fresh scandal erupted.

[book_worm]

57. Except for Clinton's election in '96 The Clinton years were not good ones for electing dems

we lost congress, state legislative offices and governorships. Clinton needed Ross Perot to win both times. Many progressive dems lost faith with the Clinton administration dues to things like NAFTA and so-called "Welfare Reform."

[Erin Elizabeth]

62. Well, my feelings actually ran pretty deep

for him, and somewhat for her before this campaign. And they were mostly positive with just a few little blips here and there (policy decisions of his I might not have agreed with).

But after watching this spectacle for the last several months (for the last year, is it?), I've lost that huge amount of respect I had for him. I never had negative feelings about her, but something about her personality seemed like nails on a chalkboard. A bit screechy, a bit of a scold. But still, I liked her fine.

Now? Fuggedabout it. I think they both have serious character flaws, the biggest one being a problem with honesty and sincerity.

It IS sad. But I'll never look at either of them the same way again. And I wish that weren't true.

[XemaSab]

64. They've run the party as their own little Manor house

with the rest of the party structure the manor servants and the voters the serfs.

And then they're surprised when the uprising comes and the servants side with the serfs and not the nobility.

[Fovea]

73. I think this has surprised almost everyone

myself included.

The war may have been a large factor.
Also, I think that When Clinton was elected to the Senate, the expectation was that she would fight harder, more vocally against the neocons.

Also, for better or worse, the name Clinton in the minds of many Dems is spelled "Nafta" or 'offshoring'. I think a lot of folks miss those jobs.


We have an opportunity to run a candidate whose main quality is that you can stand a bit closer downwind to them than McSame. Or, we can run one who you can stand beside.

It seems a straightforward choice to me, and since neither of them have a workable healthcare policy, it is even simpler.

[kenny blankenship]

75. It's been a real eye opener to discover just how spiteful, vicious & megalomaniacal the Clintons are

[Melinda]

86. Excellent analysis and I think you're right on the money.

The things one never thinks of from day-to-day... thanks cali! :)

[Ice-9]

87. I think there's a tipping effect at work.

There was an article a couple of months ago that explained what's happening very well, and I wish I could remember who wrote it so that I could link to it. The thesis of the article was that a lot of Democratic officials (including SDs) fear the Clintons more than they love them. The author claimed that there was a perception among a lot of Democrats that the Clintons would ruthlessly punish any disloyalty.* As a result, no one who had any interest in preserving a career in Democratic party politics was initially willing to declare their support for Senator Clinton's opponent. But things changed once the popular momentum began to build behind Senator Obama and once the first few Democratic officials (either people who loved risk or people who were so secure in their positions that there was no risk in supporting Obama) began to turn out behind him. A tipping effect then set in as more risk-averse Democrats realized that there was actually a good chance that Obama would be nominated and elected and that, therefore, there was not as much risk in supporting him as they had originally thought. Since their support for Clinton was based on fear rather than affection, they were ready to declare their true support for Obama once the coast was clear.

In any case, that's what the author of the article thought, and I think he or she was probably correct.

* In my view, that perception has been largely confirmed by subsequent events (e.g., "Judas"), but that's another post.

[cliffordu]

89. I think you have hit this nail perfectly. Kicked!

:kick:

[Levgreee]

95. I think this has shown the complete opposite... people have tolerated so much malicious crap from

them this campaign, 99.9% of other Democrats would have been publicly mocked by the party, and perhaps had official action taken towards them (assuming they weren't quiet after some people talked to them about their actions).

[durrrty libby]

103. lol funny shit