Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Hillary Campaigns for John McCain, While Berating Barack

Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report at 5:54 AM on March 4, 2008.


Obama has never argued publicly that a leading GOP candidate brought a better background to the table than a leading Democratic candidate.
Clinton Endorses McCain

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Video in your
mailbox!

 

I can appreciate, when the pressure's on in a competitive primary, there must be a temptation for a presidential candidate to say literally anything to stop a rival. But if for no other reason than the strength of the party, that temptation has to be kept in check.

I'm afraid Hillary Clinton may have forgotten this point yesterday, when she praised John McCain while attacking Barack Obama.

At times, it seemed Clinton was all but accusing Obama of being an empty suit. She warned voters not to be swayed by speeches that left them thinking, "That was beautiful, but what did it mean?"

Defending her provocative television ad suggesting he was not up to the challenge of answering the White House phone at 3 a.m. in a crisis, she told reporters at a news conference Monday in Toledo: "I have a lifetime of experience I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain [the presumptive Republican nominee] has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he made in 2002Åç -- a reference to the address in which Obama, before being elected to the Senate, had publicly opposed the Iraq invasion that she and McCain had voted to authorize.

I noticed that different media outlets had reported her remarks in slightly different ways, so I thought it was at least possible Clinton had been misquoted. But then I saw that Aravosis had posted a YouTube clip (it's to your right).

It's a tough primary fight. I get that. But while Republicans are coming together and preparing for the general election, we shouldn't see leading Democratic candidates suggesting John McCain is preferable to the Democratic frontrunner. It's divisive and unhelpful.

On MSNBC last night, Keith Olbermann read a report that got the quote slightly wrong, but got the gist of the story. From a Nexis transcript:

OLBERMANN: Let me throw something out, (INAUDIBLE) I'd just saw on the Net, that is a couple of days old from Fort Worth, Texas. It's a CBS blog from a campaign when the eight million campaign stops. This is Senator Clinton saying, I only read it, I got to read about it in the computer, "I think you'd be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to stay', she's talking about the campaign against him, "He's never been the president but will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002."

Is it unfair to say that she just ranked Obama third on this topic behind the Republican that she and the Democrats are supposed to be blood oath sworn to defeat?

MADDOW: That's what you say when you want to be John McCain's vice presidential choice, that's not what you say when you're trying to become the Democratic nominee for president.

OLBERMANN: Unbelievable.

There were points in the fall when Obama was accused -- in some instances, fairly -- of using conservative frames to make his case, which led some to suggest Obama was running against the party while seeking its nomination.

But as far as I can tell, he never argued publicly that a leading Republican candidate brought a better background to the table than a leading Democratic candidate.

Clinton's comments were, to put it mildly, disappointing. At a certain point, which I believe we're at right now, the Democratic Party's general-election interests have to be taken into consideration by the candidates.

AlterNet is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by its writers are their own.

Digg!

Tagged as: obama, clinton, mccain, olbermann, maddow, democratic party

Steve Benen is a freelance writer/researcher and creator of The Carpetbagger Report. In addition, he is the lead editor of Salon.com's Blog Report, and has been a contributor to Talking Points Memo, Washington Monthly, Crooks & Liars, The American Prospect, and the Guardian.


Arianna Huffington on the Premiere of Meet The Bloggers
Discussing the importance fusing old and new media forms.
Post by ZP Heller. July 18, 2008.
Naomi Klein Tears into Bush's Offshore Drilling Plan on Fox
The author of "Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" takes on Bush on Fox Business News.
Post by Naomi Klein. July 18, 2008.
Daily Show: Dobbs-O-Meter
As the Presidential hopefuls address the NAACP, Jon Stewart wonders what Lou Dobbs would think.
Post by The Daily Show. July 18, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Clinton may be on to something
Posted by: activist on Mar 4, 2008 8:36 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that, in the context of the Democratic Party, Clinton's remarks aren't what you would expect from a team player. But, I also think that she has inadvertantly tied herself to McCain. Both she and McCain are using the "lifetime of experience" argument against Obama, but both of them made the same bad choice to authorize an illegal invasion. Voters don't care about who has the most experience. They care who will make the right choices. Moreover, by pairing herself with McCain ("We're both experience candidates"), she also raises questions about how she would run against him if she somehow wins the nomination.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Philippe
Posted by: Phr2 on Mar 4, 2008 8:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So ? No news, Clinton IS closer to McCain than to Obama on international issues. She just puts it straight and gives good reasons to vote Obama for the majority of US citizens who want to quit Irak.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is EXACTLY why...
Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal on Mar 4, 2008 8:51 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...I may vote for a third party candidate in the general election for the first time in my life, if the nominee cannot prove they are truly progressive.

The Democraps have forgotten their base, but the Repukes never fail to forget their base, and this is why the Democraps will probably lose again. They really do not know what they stand for and are willing to fight for. They do not have "wedge" issues either.

Think about it, if you lost to possibly the dumbest, most illiterate, draft dodger in the history of the country (twice!), what chance will they have against someone with a little savvy?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This is EXACTLY why... Posted by: Quannah
proudhammer
Posted by: proudhammer on Mar 4, 2008 8:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is outrageous! Hillary Clinton has essentially tried to make a point that her democratic colleague in the senate, a man of whom she has very recently stated that she is proud to run against is not as qualified for the presidency as her republican rival........not only are her accusations unfounded and devoid of any truth, she is selfishly threatening her (our) party´s chances of recapturing the presidency, essentially becoming a spokesperson for the republican party. This will have to come back to bite her...........I just hope that this gets as much coverage as the silly attacks about wearing native apparel on a visit to another country.......she should be encouraged to end her campaign by the democratic party on the grounds of her desperate, thoughtless and selfish statement alone.....Hillary Clinton is at the point where she feels that she can say anything with no consequence. What arrogance........and that we don´t need.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The True Test
Posted by: blackie4aces on Mar 4, 2008 9:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's look at this whole "experience" argument for a moment. Bill Clinton who had no experience in Washington defeated a sitting "real" President, who had also been a Vice-President for eight years and had functioned in numerous federal government roles prior to that. I doubt Hillary Clinton was making the "experience" argument then. George H. W. Bush's experience literally dwarfed anything the pair of Clintons could offer.

So what? Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon came to the office also with impressive Washington credentials. We know how that turned out. On the other hand, Dwight D. Eisenhower had zero experience, had never held elective office, although his considerable political skills had been honed keeping the alliance together as the Supreme Alleid ETO Commander, and on the whole, he was a pretty good President. John F. Kennedy had less time in the Senate than Hillary Clinton. Kennedy was not the worst President that America ever had. Granted George Bush also had no experience at the Federal level, although he might claim, like Clinton, that his father being President and his hanging around the White House counted as "experience." Reagan's effectiveness and impact is so disputed and such a partisan issue that his tenure should probably be excluded. I think the same holds true for Carter, though both he and Reagan with no Washinton insider experience were chosen by the American people over candidates with deep backgrounds in federal governance. Carter defeated Gerald Ford, a multi term Senator and a sitting Vice-President, and Reagan defeated Carter, a sitting President. and later Fritz Mondale, a perennial D.C. Senator.

Of the nine presidents since and including Eisenhower, only three possessed a large trove of Washington insider experience. One declined to run for a second term, one resigned in disgrace, and one was voted out of office after one term.

Hillary Clinton's experience is as bogus an issue as her claim of vicarious experience. By hanging on to this construct she frames the argument in terms that John McCain could die for and hurts whichever Democrat is the eventual nominee. If anything, doing this tends to indicate inexperience or even incompetence. It is improtant to remember that Clinton has only won two elections in her life. The first was against a complete nobody after Giuliani dropped out of the race and with the name recognition of the wife of a two term president. The second as an incumbent senator--we all know those odds. The Senator has never had any experience in a campaign that was not a walk, that required sound strategy and left little room for major mistakes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary Campaigns for McCain
Posted by: epd071148 on Mar 4, 2008 9:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How come the media chooses to ignore Obama's divisive actions? His past statement that Clinton's supporters will back him, but his supporters won't back her, isn't a plea for party unity. Looking past Obama's speaking skills, and quixotic message, his only accomplishment is that he was against the war from the beginning. He appeals to the vanity of many of his young followers with statements like "We're the ones we have been waiting for." Clinton is the victim of the baseless republican smear campaigns from the early '90s, a campaign that the lemming-like media is only to happy to perpetuate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hillary Campaigns for McCain Posted by: blackie4aces
Hillary's Husband
Posted by: do on Mar 4, 2008 9:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
invaded a nation who wasn't a threat to us either, so in reality, Hillary and John ARE in the same arena when it comes to promoting war. For that reason alone, I'd vote for Obama.

Both Hillary and John are chickenhawks, and both have had "experience" waging war on nations for control of the world's oil. Bill is every bit as oily as Bush. He's just more articulate at lying, hence the nickname, "Slick Willie".

Sorry, but I'd never trust the judgment of a woman who stayed married to a war-mongering, womanizing, lying SOB.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One More Thing
Posted by: blackie4aces on Mar 4, 2008 9:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Senator Clinton will likely be out of the race by tomorrow. The voters have seen through her claims to the office. They have heard her pathetic and disingenuous claims to thirty-five years of experience and know this to be deceptive. We have had seven years of deception. Throw in Bill Clinton's and by extension, hers, ham handed relationship with the left wing of the Democratic Party, which was characterized also by misleading and deceptive maneuvers seen by many as betrayals of the Party's principles and the picture only gets worse.

She berates Obama for being all talk. Well, what is she but words, though a lot less charismatic than Obama's. She tells us she will be ready to go on day one. But until that happens that is nothing but talk. And what assurance other than words does she offer, what assurance can she give other than words? The level of silliness that Clinton has put out for the American people is not lost on them. The longer Clinton runs the weaker she becomes because, as the celebrity wears away, the voters are seeing someone who is either so arrogant that she felt she would have to do little but show up to win the nomination, or, worse, that she just isn't very bright.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Don't count her out just yet... Posted by: blackie4aces
» Isn't it ironic... Posted by: Gungneir
» RE: Isn't it ironic... Posted by: blackie4aces
» RE: One More Thing Posted by: Schroeder
Fuck you, Tracy Flick
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Mar 4, 2008 10:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...er, I mean Hillary Clinton.

jdfu!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How Karl Rovian of her...
Posted by: jimidee on Mar 4, 2008 10:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The mere fact that she is staying in the race and dwindling precious resources that should be saved for the general election, all while she has no chance of getting the most delegates, states, and popular vote.

The Repugs are loving it, with many calling the party faithful in Texas to go to the polls and hold their noses, and pull the lever for Hillary to prolong the nomination battle.

I have lost all respect for her for taking pages out of Rove's playbook.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fuck You, Karl Rove...
Posted by: jvaljon1 on Mar 4, 2008 11:56 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...uh, I mean Barack Obama!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

trashbin
Posted by: Kuressaare on Mar 4, 2008 12:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am so utterly sick of the non-stateswomanly handling of Clinton's campain, couldn't we just set her head first in a trashbin and leave it at that? She has done all Bush's bidding, now she prefers the Republican to the leading Democrat. I do think there are some rules, I don't think these are spoken as who would dream of anything this off the wall? We got all the sub-sub-concious racial slurs, thanks, now it's more. Who in the HELL does she think she is? Wife of the man who made fame in a unique way, that's about it. Experience, of what? Running the banquet set up in the white house? You don't tell me she would point to her record in congress? And she does, god, nerve was never so gross.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: trashbin Posted by: Schroeder
» RE: trashbin Posted by: jvaljon1
» RE: trashbin Posted by: Schroeder
The MSM, taking direction from Karl Rove...
Posted by: jvaljon1 on Mar 4, 2008 12:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...has swung between two extremes: blacking out Hillary Clinton's campaign, and demonizing her. Here, in this article from yesterday's Newsmax.com (which once carried Ann Coulter's columns before they were told to moderate themselves or lose moderate Republicans)-- is the real story about why the recent Obama push came to be. Read it BEFORE you go caucus tonight:
Part I
3/3/2008 2:30:48 PM Central Standard Time
From: newsmax@reply, newsmax.com
To: jvaljon1@aol.com (Good to 'know my enemy'!)
Why The GOP Loves Obama
By: Christopher Ruddy

Republicans this week are breathing a deep sigh of relief.

What was seen as a washout for them this coming November--with big losses expected in the House and Senate and a catastrophic loss of the White House--is now shaping up to be less ominous.

With the Democrats moving to pick Sen. Barack Obama as their nominee, the Republicans see a real opportunity to keep the Oval Office in GOP hands.

There is no question that the Republicans had viewed Hillary Clinton as the most formidable of the Democratic candidates:

During one of the primary debates, Obama suggested that the Republicans were "comfortable" attacking Hillary, suggesting they actually wanted her to be the nominee. Au contraire.

Republicans were attacking Mrs. Clinton because they believed she would be the nominee. They could hardly foresee Obama's rise.

Indeed, she was the Democratic front-runner and hence the focus of their attacks. Now, Obama is discovering that he's the focus of Republicans' scrutiny with John McCain highlighting Obama's accomodationist views with tyrants.

The glee seen in GOP eyes this week can be chalked up to the clearly visible fault lines shaping up for the November election, a seismic battle between McCain and Obama.

There are many reasons the GOP would rather face Obama. Here are some of the best reasons:

--Obama is the risky liberal. Every time the Democrats run a liberal like Obama, who the National Journal reports has a 100% liberal voting record, they lose.

Remember President McGorern, President Dukakis, President Kerry? Mrs. Clinton, however, has been quite clever in her record and rhetoric to come across as more moderate. In New York state (upstate) she consistently won hardcore Republican districts in her two Senate races.

A McCain insider told me this week that Obama's support -- for example, for driver's licenses for illegals -- is worth at least "five percentage points in the election." Mrs. Clinton was smart enough to back away from that hot-button issue.

--Obama energizes Democratic voters. It's been talked about quite a bit that Obhama is a charismatic man who energizes young voters. But young voters notoriously don't vote.

Remember all the hoopla in the last election with MTV and its "Vote or Die" campaign to bring out antiwar young voters for President Kerry?

Indeed, Obama, as the first African-American candidate of a major party, will energize black voters. But don't the Democrats know that black voters vote as a bloc for them already?

What does Obama actually bring to the table for Democrats? It's not clear. Mrs. Clinton, as her longtime critic Dick Morris likes to point out, would have most assuredly energized women voters, especially millions of single moms that have never voted before.

--Obama's Latino problem. Clearly Latino or Hispanic voters are shaping up to be the key swing vote in this election, as they have been in recent elections. Some political pundits say George Bush's come-from-behind win in 2004 was due to the solid 40% of Hispanics who voted for him, tipping the election in his favor. PART II To Follow...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Part II of Newsmax Article: Why the GOP Loves Obama
Posted by: jvaljon1 on Mar 4, 2008 1:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(Continued from Part I:)

This year was shaping up to be a terrible year for the GOP vis-a-vis Hispanic voters. But in primary after primary, Obama has had great difficulty winning over Latino voters.

Even in Illinois, where he beat Hillary 2 to 1 in the primary, Obama only captured 52 percent of his home state's Hispanic vote.

There are a variety of explanations for Obama's Latino problem, including the belief there is an ethnic rivalry between Hispanics and blacks. Hispanics would like to see a Latino president in the White House, so the theory goes.

Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, has done extremely well among Latino voters, perhaps owing to her husband's likeability among these voters.

The recent primaries show Obama improving with Hispanic voters. Republicans, however, believe the problem with this key group will persist.

And then there is John McCain, who is the one Republican who is very well liked by Latino voters. He's also a strong leader, which Hispanics respect. He's pro-immigrant. As we all know, McCain joined Ted Kennedy in backing the recent immigration bill. (And Kennedy backed Obama for Democratic nominee--my insert.)

There's little doubt Hillary could keep the Democratic stranglehold on Latino voters. Obama won't.

--Obama's naivete. Don't forget, America is still in a war on terror. It is doubtful America will be tempted to go for an untested leader, no matter how charismatic he may be.

Some have drawn the comparison between Obama and JFK's election win in 1960 during the height of the Cold War. But the Kennedy-Obama comparison is a weak one. For starters, John Kennedy was a war hero when he was elected president. Obama can make no such claim. Kennedy also had far more Washington experience in Congress and the Senate, than Obama.

JFK also had his well-known father Joe at his side. And Democrats like to forget this, but Kennedy outflanked Nixon on defense issues, arguing that Nixon was too soft on communism. Obama's dovish complaints about the Bush administration being too hawkish on terror won't resonate with middle-of-the-road voters.

With good reason, the GOP is feeling better, finding its second wind and it coalesces around John McCain.

Despite some differences with the maverick senator, the Republican base will turn out for him. His $12 million fundraising haul for January is just one sign of that.

But there are many other reasons the GOP is more comfortable with Hillary out of the picture and Obama as the nomineee.

First, Obama will not be able to lay claim to the good economic times of the 1990s that Bill Clinton presided over, as Hillary can. And Obama will be a nightmare for Democrats with swing voters in key states. Take for example the highly influential Cuban-American vote that Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996--and was the key reason George Bush beat Al Gore.

The Cuban vote has been moving into the Democratic column but they will not go for Obama because he has clearly stated he will open up relations with Castro.

Sen. Clinton's announced Cuba policies take a hard line, which resonates with these voters. And then there are the key Jewish communities in swing states like Florida and Ohio that are already deeply worried about electing Obama to the Presidency.

Obama has talked openly about sitting down -- without any preconditions -- with Iran's diaboloical leader Ahmadinejad, who just this week referred to Israel as "bacteria" and has said in the past that the Jewish state is a "disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the map."

With the McCain campaign blanketing key markets with TV ads featuring "Independent Democrat" Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Obama will be in deep trouble (come November). CONCLUSION TO FOLLOW...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CONCLUSION: Newsmax article, "Why the GOP Loves Obama"
Posted by: jvaljon1 on Mar 4, 2008 1:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Democrats haven't completely abandoned Hillary. But it sure looks that way.

There's an oft-quoted saying that the Democrats "fall in love and the Republicans fall in line."

After this November, we may have to change that to "Democrats often like to run off the side of a cliff and the Republicans love to watch them."

@2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

PS: Remember all those snide Repuke remarks about the Democrats "great ability to pull defeat out of victory"? They know us all too well...so for me, I see this as the premier reason to vote for Hillary rather than Obama, tonight in Texas. The rest of you, vote for whoever you want.

But at least, now, you won't be voting blind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hillary new campaign song
Posted by: seilnotnilc on Mar 4, 2008 3:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IT'S MY PARTY AND YOU'LL CRY IF I DON'T WIN

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No, I Doubt it,
Posted by: blackie4aces on Mar 4, 2008 4:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But she did think it was her party, which was one of her many problems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NewsMax???
Posted by: doneman2000 on Mar 4, 2008 6:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who knows the agenda set out by the GOP propaganda machine NewsMax. Maybe they should be trying to figure out McCains love of Bush policies such as privatizing social security, making sure the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy stay permanent, health care for the ones who can afford it and to hell with everyone else, America as a warlord country...bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran and anyone else who doesn't go along with my i.e. King Johns agenda. Is America that phucking stupid to elect a Bush clone? It's impossible to believe America wants another dose of the WORST PRESIDENT EVER. But hey no one ever said the voters in this country were the sharpest knives in the drawer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've been listening
Posted by: Schroeder on Mar 4, 2008 6:43 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to the twisted spin on what Hillary had to say all day. I'm amazed. Does anyone realize that there are nearly as many people (perhaps more) who want to see Hillary elected as who want to see Barack elected? I did not take what Hillary said as supporting McCain. I took her statement to mean that she believes she is better prepared to go up against McCain than is Barack. You may disagree and I believe you should have a right to do so. But please, there are those who support Hillary and expect their voices will be heard. We, too, have gone for the last 7 plus years without representation in Washington. I think it is incredible that we are now being bullied by our democratic friends. I resent the politicians who are saying Hillary needs to drop out so the dems don't lose the race. I resent that many in the main stream media are saying she needs to get out and throw her support behind Obama.

Many of the main stream media have been highly critical of Hillary Clinton. It has been acceptable to be critical of how she looks, how many times she's changed her hair, her pant suits,her voice, her laughter, etc. It has not been acceptable for anyone to even comment on Obama's attire which was posted on Drudge.

Some of those same media people are ones who would not ever repeat some of the statements made about Hillary by Obama (such as seeing the "claws come out"), yet have been guilty of spinning everything Hillary Clinton has said so that she could be made to look 'calculating' 'wanting to win at any cost'(media words), and a multitude of other comments. As I write this I am listening to Howard Fineman on MSNBC. His dislike of Clinton is always obvious and his smirk when he feels he has something negative to report is evidence. And now add Chris Matthews to the mix!

It simply is not fair for the media to do what they are doing. We need to be able to test Obama in every way that Clinton is tested. How about if we don't let the media pick our next president? The biggest screw up that the media perpetrated is one they won't take responsibility for and that is the Iraq War. Where were the journalists when the tough questions needed to be asked? They supported George and anyone who spoke against the war was quickly cut down by the media. Are your memories so short? I remember throwing things at my television. Now, they would like you all to think that Hillary was the one who was solely responsible for the Iraq mess in which we find ourselves.

I tell you all, if Obama wins, I will throw my support behind getting him elected as president. And if Hillary gets the nomination, that is exactly what I expect of the Obama supporters. Let's remember, we are all in the group of people who were completely disenfranchised by the current administration. None of us deserves to have that happen again, especially when it is being done by those within our own party.

I would also submit to you that if Barack had been treated as badly by the democratic party and by the media as has Hillary Clinton, there would be an outcry of 'racism'from every corner of the country. Face it, it's still okay to be sexist. And women, you are your own worst enemy!

I wouldn't think that anyone should vote for Hillary because she is a woman, nor Barack because he is black. I'm hoping we all have the common sense to vote for the one we honestly think will lead us in the direction we need to go. The change we need is to follow the Constitution...to adhere to the rule of Law...and to make our government responsive and functioning in tune with the will of the people.

Go Democrats! Our country needs a democratic president.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reply to "I've Been Listening"-Shroeder
Posted by: blackie4aces on Mar 4, 2008 11:19 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for your support of Obama should he win. The last thing this country needs is Bush Lite-or perhaps Bush worse.

However, granting your point of the media's complicity in the Iraq war, how was it that I
with access to much less information than Senator Clinton, though it turns out she didn't avail herself of it concerning the most important vote of her elected career and the lives of four thousand Americans and countless Iraqis, could come to the rather facile conclusion that Bush's proposal to invade was totally bogus? How is it that John Dean could understand that George Bush could not be trusted?

Where was Clinton on the idiotic Patriot Act? And what was she doing voting for Likud Lite Lieberman's bill declaring the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization? And who declared to never take all military options-clearly meaning nuclear weapons-off the table against non-nuclear states? Is this what America is all about? A willingness to commit mass murder? A willingness to once again cast America as the only country to actually use nuclear weapons. Where was Clinton until she sniffed the popular air regarding support for George Bush and the Neocon's war?

Clinton's record, which she seems to think is an assset, is in my opinion abominable. As First Lady (Co-president in her wildest imagintions) her healthcare initiative was so convoluted and incompetent she couldn't even get her own party to vote for it. Due to her and Bill Clinton's triangulation strategy they had to deal in every corporate bad guy in the land and, besides being business as usual, was inordinately complicated in order to get all the corporate players their rightful cut. Then there was FileGate, TravelGate, Dick Morris, the sanctions on Iraq-so much for the "children" (500,000 approx.) she supposedly cares for so much, and the bombing campaign in the Balkans-more "children." It might take a village, but Guernica was a village, no?

Yea, Clinton has experience alright. A lot of bad experience. You may think the Press is picking on her, but as for as I am concerned she is getting a huge pass. When she harps on all this "experience," where is the Press bringing up the controversy, failure, betrayal of traditional Democratic Party principles, and the aggression of her record?

This American style Evita will be very, very deleterious for this nation. And she will certainly lose to John McCain. So might Obama, but at least he offers a chance, a different direction, which I believe the country is ready for, and not a solid record of incredibly poor judgement, rampant paranoia, egomania, and the defensive isolation that comes with that package. We've already suffered one like that for seven years and counting. Do we really want another one?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow
Posted by: Quannah on Mar 5, 2008 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
were absolutely right to point this out. They are giving us valuable information about what Hillary is saying, and we need to listen.

It's easy to shoot the messenger!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please, enough of the AlterNet bias!
Posted by: funintheflsun on Mar 5, 2008 9:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please now, just when I think you guys at AlterNet can't get any more biased, you prove me wrong. Who was it that praised Ronald Reagan and dissed Bill Clinton??? Who was it at one point that said his position on the Iraq war was not much different than George Bush's???
Why don't you guys get a life and start reporting things that are relevant and unbiased; you're really becoming quite a joke!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The REAL Republican nominee
Posted by: fiercefilms on Mar 6, 2008 10:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until the last two weeks, I was excited that the Democratic field gave me the best real choices since my very first Democratic primary vote - for Shirley Chisholm in the 1972 race. I personally don't care what melanin level or type of plumbing a candidate may possess - my vote goes to the person most committed to guiding the USA back to the kind of society where the "American Dream" is possible to achieve for any, and all, of her citizens.

Senator Clinton's disgusting display of machine "politics as usual", her heavy handed playing of the race card, and especially the FEAR card shows me that she has no intention to bring our country back from the totalitarian state the Bush administration has fabricated around us. Her whining about "unfair treatment", despite the fact that ANY OTHER candidate would have been long gone after her string of losses, achieves a whole new level of petulance and misplaced entitlement - and after 7 years of the Bush administration that is a pretty dang high level.

For the first time in my life, I am ASHAMED of a Democratic female candidate. Now I truly do feel that my Mom and I "wasted" our long ago vote, and dream, for the first woman president of the United States

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]