And Dems support this person, why?

T.A. Barnhart

I've avoided saying much about Hillary, preferring to speak to the many positive things there are to say about Barack Obama and why I believe he is the best person to serve as our next President. So rather than have to change that practice, I'll just Keith and Rachel say it for me:

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hillary's endorsement of McCain, a declaration of war. It looks like slash and burn for the remainder of the primary season, no concession, no coming together for the sake of the party, just internecine warfare. That's why Rush Limbaugh is telling Rs to cross over and vote Hillary. When the party becomes the exclusive property of the power couple, the Clintons, this is what happens. It's all about them and their entitlement to power. Combine this cute betrayal with the darkening of Obama's skin in campaign Ads, the whispering campaign about the Muslim Louis Farakhan connections, the backdoor coordination with the Canadian Conservative Govt. to leak secret memos ( Harper's chief of staff is now fingered as responsible for that, and you have a state of war in the Dem. party.

    On Wed. AM, the Obama campaign will announce they raised over 60 million in Feb. and the choice for them will be how far do they now go to dust off the many skeletons in the Clinton closet to bring them down? So I'm afraid it's going to be slash and burn from now until June, because we aren't going to have an honest debate about the future of politics, government, or war and peace. It's going to be about the Clintons and their hold on power at any cost.

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Yeah, how do people rationalize supporting the first viable female candidate running for President? I mean, it's not like women are over 1/2 the population and yet never held that office? Just baffles me.

  • (Show?)

    I support Obama, but do not share many of my fellow supporters' dislike of Hillary. So let me make it plain: she's good too.

    Further, by airing the argument about Obama's experience now, she's doing both the public, the Democratic party, and even Obama himself a huge service. Once rejected by the public, a frame almost never troubled a candidate again. So if you're going to have to counter a predictable line of attack, the best way is for your weakest opponent to do it early. Hillary pretending Obama can't face the specter of a terrorist attack in the spring, inoculates him against a more credible attack from a certified war hero in the fall.

    Again, there is a time for candidates to step aside. That time is when they simply start losing everywhere. But until then, this is primary season. Some Democrats get to put out their arguments, others get to put out ours.

    And whoever wins we all support in the fall.

  • Unrepentant Liberal (unverified)
    (Show?)

    And consider this; The republicans really, really, really aren't excited about their own candidate John McCain. They would however, be really, really motivated only to come out in droves to vote against some they hate, Hillary Clinton.

    On the other hand Obama would draw Democratic, Independent and a portion of republican and lots of new young voters. Obama knows how to hit back against republican attacks in a way Mrs Clinton can't and would clearly be a harder candidate to run against. IMHO, a no brainer.

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Katy: "I mean, it's not like women are over 1/2 the population and yet never held that office? Just baffles me."

    Personally voting for someone because of their body parts is a bad idea whether male or female.

    Has it occurred to anyone here that Mark Penn (Clinton Strategist) and Charlie Black (McCain's campaign director) are colleagues in the same PR firm? Fingers are pointing to a collusion with Steve Harper, Canada PM on the set-up "leaked memo." Is it any accident that Clinton is endorsing McCain and dissing Obama here? So, continuing this primary season with a tag-team assault on Obama, who will be the eventual nominee seems hardly good for the party or the progressive cause. http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/04/at_openleft_chris_bowers_notes/

    Making campaign Ads for John McCain seems hardly a good idea for any Dem. candidate, and the innoculation idea doesn't hold water here when it comes from those who are supposed to be allies. (seeing the video gives a flavor for the attack on Obama and endorsement of McCain. http://www.jedreport.com/2008/03/disloyal-democr.html ) As for hating Hillary, that has come about through hard work on her and Bill's part with race, ethnicity, and religion bating, among other things, this primary season. Her growing unfavorable ratings are not for nothing and serve to simply instill an equal distrust with the Dem. party which is thought by many as a subsidiary of Clinton Inc. I have heard a number of people who are now holding back on any contributions to the party pending the outcome of the supers and the party's taking sides in the primary contest.

  • verasoie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hey Katy,

    Did you see the video at all? Do you plan on responding to the substance to this post?

    Otherwise, one would get the impression that you're advocating for voting for a woman regardless of her positions or values, but just based on her gender, even if, for example, she were to run as a Republican. Of course, that's your prerogative, but if you're a Democrat it should be difficult to stomach voting for a woman who says that her Republican opponent is more qualified than her Democratic opponent (especially after she has previously said, during the debates, that he's highly qualified and she's proud to be on stage with him).

  • joel (unverified)
    (Show?)

    A month ago I was talking to people about how I favored Clinton on policy grounds but felt distinctly uncomfortable with her as a candidate. That feeling grew exponentially after Super Tuesday, when Clinton's campaign adopted the "insult 40 states" strategy, and I found my support shifting to Obama. Stuff like Sen. Clinton praising McCain at the same time as she attacked Obama makes me feel damn certain that I made the correct choice.

    Policy and politics/campaign tactics are two sides of the same coin. Hillary Clinton wants to espouse progressive politics but conduct a slash-and-burn campaign against someone who has been her colleague, for crying out loud. I say BS to that.

  • (Show?)

    Hillary Clinton no longer deserves the nomination or the support of the Democratic Party. If she doesn't even have the sense to figure out that Obama is a better option than McCain, and that in fact McCain's foreign policy experience represents advocacy for more war for more years, she has no business in this primary. She may claim to have America's interests at heart, but this disgusting display strongly indicates it's simply about her winning and gaining power. Fuck that--and yeah, I'll say it now.. Fuck you too, Mrs. Clinton. Your behavior disqualifies you.

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Regardless of her positions or values? You're joking, right? I'm getting really tired of having to defend my Democratic candidate to a bunch of Democrats. I happen to think her positions and values are fantastic.

    Imagine for just a moment that the United States had never had a male President. How would you feel? Probably like crap. Especially if female members of your own political party never stopped trying to tell you why it was a bad idea to vote for the first viable male Presidential candidate.

  • joel (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Regardless of her positions or values? You're joking, right? I'm getting really tired of having to defend my Democratic candidate to a bunch of Democrats. I happen to think her positions and values are fantastic.

    Katy, for the most part I agree with your last sentence (Sen. Clinton's gyrations about the invasion of Iraq being the glaring exception). But as I noted before, for me, "positions and values" are one side of the coin, and the way a candidate conducts her campaign is the other. You cannot have one without the other. And sadly I concluded that Sen. Clinton's campaign was giving me severe indigestion. Ultimately that's what made me decide upon Obama. And everything that has happened in the last four weeks has made me feel I made the right decision.

    As for the business of having a female candidate you feel good about, not sure what to say that would not come off as patronizing, but I will relate an anecdote. When Vera Katz first ran for mayor of Portland (against Earl Blumenauer, now my congressional representative), I voted for Blumenauer. My spouse's approach was, well, I see no real difference, so I'm going to opt for the female candidate. Whether that's a good way to make a choice I cannot judge for anyone else.

    You are not the only Clinton supporter I know who feels as you do: angry about having to support your choice to other Democrats.

  • (Show?)

    Hello? A better title would be: why should we let Keith Olberman and an Air America host determine the standards by which candidates should be chosen?

    On the experience in politics / experience in Washingotn dimension, Barack Obama clearly ranks third behind McCain and Clinton.

    But that's not the only standard by which we choose our presidents.

    "that's what you say when you want to be the GOP Vice Presidential nominee." That just idiotic.

    There are many, many reasons that millions of Democrats support Hillary Clinton. i don't happen to be one of them, but unlike TA, I see no reason to follow the scorched earth strategy.

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Experience in Washington DC? That would have been a disqualifier for Bill Clinton, wouldn't it? Interesting how Hillary uses the same arguments against Obama that were used against her husband by Bush I.

    Here's a good example of Hillary's values. This kind of garbage is a disqualifier for me, for president, for senator for representing the Dem. party. http://www.americablog.com/2008/03/why-is-obamas-skin-blacker-than-normal.html

  • (Show?)

    Experience only matters if you don't keep making the same mistake over and over again.

  • (Show?)

    FWIW I just posted a more lengthy comment and it was flagged as spam for no apparent reason.

    I hope the big tent here is big enough to include Hillary supporters - there are millions of us. You're never going to build an Obama victory by vilifying our candidate and ostracizing us.

  • (Show?)

    the supporters are welcome--just not the candidate.

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'd love to see the reaction if someone wrote "F you Mr. Obama." How embarrassing torridjoe. Get a grip.

  • (Show?)

    The person who should be embarrassed is Hillary Clinton. If she is so obsessed with becoming President that she'll smear her opponent and harm her party to do it, the epithet is well deserved. If Obama said McCain would be a better choice than Hillary, I'd be disturbed about that, too. I'll say it again: fuck you, Hillary. You are unworthy of the office.

  • joel (unverified)
    (Show?)

    George Will (yes, I do know who he is) had some interesting commentary recently on the matter of experience and what that does or doesn't have to do with success as president.

  • (Show?)

    By your own criteria you should reject Obama, torridjoe.

    He began insinuating negative things about Hillary from the bigging - things like she's somehow totally contrived and calculating, or has to take a poll, or has been plotting a run for President for decades. These were not policy distinctions. These were negative character attacks, playing up themes that were originally authored by the right wing against a great Democratic woman, and they predated -any- negative statement about Obama by the Clinton camp.

    I wrote a letter to the Obama campaign about it asking them to take the high road as he had promised, with the simple logic that we can't afford to play winner-take-all, divide-and-conquer in this party and sacrifice one strong candidate for another. It was the Obama camp that ignored those early pleas and continued to go negative against Hillary long, long before she replied in kind.

    The result is just as I predicted: a bitterly divided democratic party. And your reactive attitude isn't going to unify us any time soon, nor are Obama's smug claims that he'll have all Hillary supporters in his pocket. Due to that insult alone, a great many moderate Clinton supporters will refuse to vote for him.

    When you insult our candidate, you insult us. Good luck with that shrinking tent.

  • (Show?)

    then I guess I'm insulting you, because there's no possible comparison that puts Obama on equal footing when it comes to poor and cheating behavior. this is simply the final straw from a desperate, selfish person. What could be more divisive to the party than saying the Republican is the better choice if not her?

  • (Show?)

    If Obama is Mr. Clean, why is the Ohio Secretary of State (a Democorat) reprimanding his campaign today? And is that why his campaign is breaking rules in Texas by filling out caucus attendance forms early, which is in clear violation of the rules?

    The latest.

    The bottom line is that Obama's just as much a politician as Clinton, and you do not build unity by moral exclusion; you paint yourself into a corner that way. It makes no sense for you to support a candidate who claims openly to have Republican appeal and in the same breath vilify anyone who would vote Republican. Also, not supporting Obama does not necessarily mean voting Republican. I might just write-in Mike Gravel if the whole party takes on your tone; fortunately I don't think that will happen.

    Hillary Clinton is a great woman and a great Democrat. She is better than Obama on environment, on health care, on LGBT issues, and yes, against McCain, on foreign policy. Go ahead and make your case, but stop trash-talking her unless you really want a rift in the democratic party. This isn't winner-take-all American Idol; it's coalition politics, and nobody's leaving unless they start to sense they're really not welcome. Show some love.

  • (Show?)

    "Go ahead and make your case,"

    I already did. Hillary Clinton lacks the moral character and concern for anything that might supercede her political career, that would qualify her to be President. Her behavior indicates she is not worthy of the office.

  • (Show?)

    Bill R -- Mark Penn and Charlie Black aren't really "colleagues" in the "same" PR firm.

    I have no love for either of the two men, but here's the facts: Mark Penn is the CEO of Burson-Marsteller, a worldwide firm (2000 employees) that's gone on a spending spree to buy up lots of little firms. One of them is BKSH Associates, which is Charlie Black's firm.

    It's more like Penn is Black's boss, except that Burson mostly lets those little firms operate independently.

    From the WaPo:

    Penn's firm, Burson-Marsteller Worldwide -- with 2,000 employees and $300 million a year in revenue -- owns BKSH & Associates, the major lobbying firm chaired by Charles R. Black Jr. That's right, Black, counselor to Republican presidents, reports to Clinton's top strategist. The connections get even more entangled. Burson-Marsteller is a subsidiary of WPP Group, a London-based advertising and PR giant that owns many of the biggest names on K Street. These include Quinn Gillespie & Associates, Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates, Timmons & Co., Ogilvy Government Relations Worldwide (formerly the Federalist Group), Public Strategies Inc., Dewey Square Group and Hill & Knowlton. To be more precise, Penn's parent company employs as lobbyists and advisers an ex-chairman of the Republican National Committee (Edward W. Gillespie), a former House GOP leader (Robert S. Walker), a top GOP fundraiser (Wayne L. Berman), and the former media adviser to President Bush (Mark McKinnon). WPP's Democrats are just as well known. They include an ex-aide to President Jimmy Carter (Anne Wexler), an ex-aide to President Bill Clinton (Jack Quinn), an ex-Cabinet officer for Clinton and Bush (Norman Y. Mineta), and a former top presidential campaign adviser for Al Gore and John Kerry (Michael J. Whouley).
  • LarryMcD (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Enough already of the Gloria Steinem "women deserve this" argument.

    I'd be the first to agree that women have gotten the short end of the stick for generations but lets look at the numbers... 1. The US Senate A. Number of women since 1922 - 35 (plus one who served a single day) with 16 currently serving. B. Number of African-Americans since reconstruction - three, one of whom was a woman, with one currently serving. 2. The US House of Representatives A. Women hold 73 Congressional seats including Speaker of the House. B. There are 41 members of Black Caucus in the House, 12 of whom are women. 3. Governorships A. 29 women have been governors of states, including eight currently serving. B. Two African-Americans have served as governors since Reconstruction, one of whom was elected only two years ago.

    When Steinem stands up to say that Hillary should be elected because women have have struggled against more than black men have, she sinks to a level of intellectual dishonesty that reduces her to the ranks of Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin.

  • (Show?)

    Katy, you have yet to respond to the actual words Hillary spoke. she declared McCain's experience to be more worthy of consideration that Obama's. Obama consistently tells his supporters how much better Hillary is than McCain; he simply believes he is better.

    and she endorses McCain. do you mind actually speaking to what i posted, and not your own general objections to people supporting someone who is not Hillary?

    4 years ago, i thought i'd be a Hillary supporter in 2008. she lost my support by her own actions -- above all else, by refusing to have the honesty to admit her vote on the war was wrong. my kid is going to Iraq in a year, Katy, and if you think i could possibly give my support to someone who made that possible....

    i look forward to voting for more women in the future. there's no reason Obama cannot be succeeded by a qualified woman. i can think of several who would make great presidents and i'd probably be happy to vote for. hell, it may be a longer list than of men right now! but Hillary is no longer one of those, and it has nothing to do with gender. she's not qualified to be president, imo, but she less not-qualified than McCain, so if i gotta, i'll vote for her.

    but i hope i don't have to. not when we can do so much better.

    reply to the actual post, Katy. we're waiting to hear why her constant belittling of Obama, and now her reducing of him below McCain, is acceptable for a Democrat.

  • (Show?)

    t.a.,

    You want Katy to respond to "what you posted"? What did you post, a taken out of context quote by a trying to score points television blatherer?

    You claim that you are far too high minded to post anything critical about Hillary Clinton, but it's ok to post a video of someone else equating her with the GOP vice presidential nominee?

    Hillary Clinton did not rank McCain above Obama--that's what Olbermann claimed she did. Clinton's words are quite specific--McCain will certainly campaign on his lifetime of experience, his war record, and his record in the Senate. If, as an Obama supporter, you don't recognize that Obama's relative youth and inexperience is his weakest point in the coming campaign, you are in for a rude awakening.

    But you go even further--you write that "she endorses McCain."

    T.A. you know that statement is completely false.

    Is this how Democrats will take back the White House in 2008?

  • (Show?)

    feel free to take her words at face value -- just like she said she thinks Obama is not a Muslim "as far as she knows." she's been saying forever that she's more qualified to president for one reason above all: experience. experience is the alpha & omega of her qualifications.

    and then she says McCain is #2 on that. not her fellow Dem, the person you would think would be her second choice. no, like Olbermann says, she says #2 is her alleged (political) enemy. ok, that's not an endorsement -- per se. but it's a sound bite ready for the eating: HRC says McCain more qualified than Obama. if experience is why you'd choose Hillary, why then wouldn't you use the same criteria to pick McCain over Obama?

    the Dems will take back the White House by picking candidate who refused to go "kitchen sink", who did not get personal, who did not resort to plagiarizing Mondale's commercials in a rovian fear-mongering last-minute ad campaign, who stuck pretty damn well to the issues. Obama will take back the White House, and bring new voters and good new Dems with him.

    Hillary may win the White House, but she'll have the same coattails as Bill: zilch.

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I was actually responding to the title of your post "and dems support this person, why?" I was simply providing you one of my many reasons for supporting her as a Democrat. Regarding the post itself, I think you and Olberman are both taking a pretty big leap given what she actually said. I haven't belittled Obama, I've liked him all along but I'm really starting to get a bad taste in my mouth when it come to his supporters. I'd like a bumper sticker that says "Dear Obama, please save me from your followers." I've tried to keep my comments pro-Clinton and not anti-Obama but you guys make it pretty difficult when you write "F you Mrs. Clinton." If I've said anything over the weeks it's been in regard to the ridiculous media coverage of the campaign but that's not anti-Obama, that's anti-crappy journalism.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If anything this thread proves Hillary is a divisive figure. Just what we need after the polarization during the Clinton and Bush years.

  • (Show?)

    I'd love to see a woman president. However, that doesn't mean I am going to support a candidate just because she is a woman. I look at their issues, what they've done, what they've supported/opposed, how they've run their campaign, etc. and make a decision based on that.

    When doing that between Obama and Hillary, Obama won.

    One of the things that really turned me off was the "traitor" remarks made towards people who supported Obama over Hillary (such as the Kennedys and Oprah).

    There are just too many things that Hillary supported that I disagreed with. I think it's time for a fresh perspective in the White House.

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jenni, thanks for commenting in such a rational and respectful way. I too don't think someone should vote for Clinton just because she's a woman. I'm voting for her partly because she's a woman - also because of her work on health care, among a number of other issues. I'm just getting so tired of having to explain why I'm voting for a pro-choice, pro-environment and good on just about everything I think is an issue candidate. Especially when people respond with "F you Mrs. Clinton." Your comment was so refreshing. Hopefully some of your counterparts can learn from you.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hillary said that John McCain would be better than Obama on foreign policy. Now that is class showing how loyal she is to the Democratic Party.

    I'm voting for her partly because she's a woman - also because of her work on health care, among a number of other issues.

    Katy: In case you don't remember or never learned, Hillary's attempt at health care was a masterpiece of incompetence and arrogance and it deserved to fail.

  • CBP (unverified)
    (Show?)

    While i am not comparing Katy to the following i have seen enough news coverage of Obama supporters that are, dare i say black, that have said "of course im votin' for Obama, cause he's Black".

    Right or wrong thats just the way people are in some circles, including what ive seen right here with the assinine banter from you Obama losers

    But it doesnt matter to me because i cant support either democrat offering. Im voting McCain

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bill, She wasn't the President then and the tide has changed regarding health care in this country since the early 90s. It failed because of the AMAs total distortion of the issue.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bill, She wasn't the President then and the tide has changed regarding health care in this country since the early 90s.

    No, Katy, she wasn't president, but she was delegated that responsibility. She was in charge calling all the shots, ignored input from others, and screwed up royally. Heck of a job, Hillary!

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    You continue to Clinton bash and I find it so interesting that people are accusing me of doing that to Obama. I'm really trying to keep this pro-Hillary but I really feel the need to point out right now how negative the Obama group has been on Blueoregon. Instead of saying she "screwed up royally" why not take a look at why it failed and begin to work on that issue - and why not give her some credit for understanding what an important issue it is? This really doesn't need to be so negative and yet you continue to make is so.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This really doesn't need to be so negative and yet you continue to make is so.

    That's the kind of person Hillary is. Divisive while some still care about the Constitution, the rule of law, and the hundreds of thousands of lives lost and destroyed and the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted in Iraq which, apparently, Hillary supporters don't.

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Ugh. You're making me so tired. We already talked about this a few weeks ago, remember Bill? Actually, I'm not even sure what that sentence means? So. Very. Tired. Remember we agreed that Obama and Clinton basically have the same plan with regard to Iraq and you said you wanted to focus only on the past while I wanted to move ahead and look toward the future?

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Remember we agreed that Obama and Clinton basically have the same plan with regard to Iraq and you said you wanted to focus only on the past while I wanted to move ahead and look toward the future?

    People who don't learn from the past and don't resolve problems created by past actions have nothing worth offering for the future.

  • (Show?)

    Katy, considering i was the first to write for Obama in BlueOregon, and have done so more than anyone, i feel i can respond to your charges. i have written very little about Hillary. there's no need; she is simply not as qualified to be president as Obama, and so i speak of the candidate who is qualified. until recently, i felt perfectly happy to be ready to support her as my second choice. i have scolded people who said "anyone but Hillary!" reminding them of 2000 & 2004 and how very important it was to elect a Democrat even if that person wasn't our first choice. hell, John Kerry was my 4th choice, and i busted my ass for him.

    Hillary changed all that. i didn't change. she started the smears, the innuendo. it was Mark Penn who went on the Sunday morning show and said "cocaine Obama cocaine" until Joe Trippi told him to knock it off. it was Hillary who resorted to belittling not only Obama but his supporters. it was Hillary who did the junior high mockery of Obama in Rhode Island. it was Hillary who plagiarized Mondale to fear-monger. it was Hillary who took her #1 criteria for being president -- experience -- and said the #1 Republican was better than Obama. Hillary did this, her and her campaign that had the arrogance to believe they would be annointed on Super Tuesday and then had no plan for dealing with the fact that Obama won that day. faced with desperation, they reacted with negativity and ugliness. that was Hillary, not anyone at BlueOregon, not anyone in the Obama campaign. Hillary.

    but just as she refuses to take responsibility for her vote on the invasion and occupation of Iraq, you refuse to own up to what she has done. you point at one commenter in here and say, "that's the Obama campaign." yet i have done none of that; Jeff Alworth & Charlie Burr, big supporters and writers as well, we haven't done that. Bill Bodden hasn't done that. torridjoe did, but he was an Edwards supporter and he talks like that all the time (he says worse about Merkley). the real Obama supporters have been angry, have been vocal, have been unequivocal, but we have not been doing what you accuse us of. it's easy to pick one person and tar us all; it's also dishonest.

    and having seen Hillary plagiarize "Yes we can" tonight as she gained nothing in this round of voting, having watched her dismiss Obama until her closing remarks — unlike he, who was gracious to her at the beginning (and scathing at the end) — i can tell you this: she'll get my vote if i have no choice. she has lost my respect. and if she's commander-in-chief when my son goes to Iraq next year, she will not have my trust. she will never have that.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    You're making me so tired.

    <h2>Have a good night's sleep, Katy, and maybe in the morning when you are thinking more clearly you can explain to us what you think of the Constitution, people reneging on their oaths to defend it, obeying the law, living up to treaties and that sort of thing.</h2>

connect with blueoregon