Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Election 2008

Will Hillary Clinton Spoil the Party?

By Robert B. Reich, Robert Reich's Blog. Posted March 7, 2008.


Hillary has said that McCain would be a better president than Obama -- this kind of cynical approach turns people away from politics.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

I'm thrilled at the record Democratic turnouts across the country, and at the ground-breaking reality of the Democrats' two candidates. But I'm also becoming anxious at the prospect of a fight that could reduce the possibility of either of them entering the White House in January of 2009.

Is Hillary Clinton’s willing to sacrifice that possibility in order to preserve a tiny possibility that she'll get the nomination? With her win in Ohio and projected win in Texas, that seems so. In the days leading up to the Ohio and Texas primaries, we had Hillary Clinton's statement that both she and McCain have the experience to be Commander-in-Chief but Obama doesn't.

This is the first time in my memory that a major candidate in a primary has said that the other party's nominee would be a better president than his or her own primary opponent. We also had the outpouring of negative advertising from her campaign that both candidates had largely managed to avoid up to this point.

And while I can understand her decision -- bolstered by yesterday's results -- to fight on in this primary election, the reality is that she can only win by convincing large numbers of superdelegates to join her and re-engineering the Michigan and Florida primaries to her advantage, and then taking the fight all the way to the convention in August -- which if she gets that far, will be one of the most divisive in forty years.

I suppose I should not be surprised. If Hillary Clinton has experience in anything, it's in fighting when cornered. When Bill Clinton lost his governorship, it was Hillary Clinton who commissioned Dick Morris to advise the Clintons on a no-holds-barred campaign to retake the governor's mansion. At the start of 1995, when Newt Gingrich and company took over Congress and the Clinton administration looked in danger of becoming irrelevant, it was Hillary Clinton who installed Dick Morris in the White House, along with his sidekick Mark Penn, to "triangulate" by distancing Bill Clinton from the Democratic Party and moving the Administration rightward. (When Morris was subsequently discovered to have a penchant for the toes of prostitutes the White House dumped him but kept Penn on.) And now Mark Penn is the "chief strategist" of Hillary Clinton's campaign.

The sad news is that whether the Clinton scorched-earth strategy ultimately succeeds or fails, it will have caused great harm. In the unlikely event it succeeds, the result will be a shame and not a little ironic. Barack Obama has breathed life into the Democratic Party, and into American politics, for the first time in forty years. Not since Robert Kennedy ran for president has America been so starkly summoned to its ideals; not since then has America -- including, especially, the nation’s youth -- been so inspired.

The Clintons would prefer to write off Obamania as a passing fad, but the reality is that idealism and inspiration are necessary preconditions for positive social change. Nothing happens in Washington unless Americans are energized and mobilized to make it happen. Hillary Clinton's tactics are the old politics the nation is recoiling from -- internal division and national fear. This only serves to deepen Americans' cynicism about politics, and makes social change all the harder to achieve.

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

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: hillary clinton, election 2008

Robert Reich is professor of public policy at the Richard and Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley. He was secretary of labor in the Clinton administration.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

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:
Respectfully, you are not objective!
Posted by: Meg_08 on Mar 7, 2008 2:26 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a fellow university professor, I am perplexed about your opinion represented in this article. It is not true that only Mr. Obama brought fresh air to the Democrats. If you take time and take a look at the data, including exit polls for the first time voters, you would recognize that Hillary has a strong appeal to first time voters, particularly among women regardless of their age, education, and wealth.

Secondly, the popular votes between the two candidates is almost equal, and if you consider the votes casted in Florida and Michigan, she indeed leads in the popular vote. I think that the democrats should revisit their proportional distributions votes, as it is really not proportional and objective. She indeed should more delegates that she has obtained in this race. Therefore, I believe that she has earned the right to fight for people who believe in her ardently, decisively, and honestly.

I think that this race is about the best candidate. I have studied Mr. Obama. I am sorry to say but his dossier is very thin, and unimpressive. I respect people with courage and Mr. Obama did not earn my respects when I read about his history of votes, and his lack of courage whenever there was a meaningful vote (e.g., Iran's vote, arm, etc). As a strong anti-war advocate, I was not very pleased with Ms. Clinton vote, but at least I respected the fact that she made a decision and took responsibility for it. Mr. Obama in many many occasion, as noted above, did not have the guts to face a challenging issue.
I am sorry HIllary does not hurt the party. She is the only one who can deliver a win for democrats in the next election, as did her husband, THE ONLY democratic president who was elected twice.

Please be kind and objective to the most qualified person in this race, Ms. Clinton - a brilliant woman with multifaceted expertise, courage, know-how, determination, and .... all is that is good with a liberated woman.
Cordially.
A Canadian Colleague.

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

» Canadians For McCain Posted by: RegK
» RE: Canadians For McCain Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: espectfully, you are not objective! Posted by: dangerouslysane
» RE: respectfully, you are not objective! Posted by: dangerouslysane
» Respectfully, get objective! Posted by: foreverhope
She's bad people
Posted by: g50 on Mar 7, 2008 2:29 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An immoral human being. Deeply and proudly so. My main thought is, is this what she always want to be? Or would the young Hillary be ashamed of herself.

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

» RE: She's bad people Posted by: Tramaine
» RE: She's bad people Posted by: g50
» RE: She's bad people Posted by: dangerouslysane
OHIO DO-OVER
Posted by: ruscle on Mar 7, 2008 2:55 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seeing as Florida and Michigan want a Do-over on their election -- and now that we know that Obama was not guilty of the Canadian NAFTA comments -- and that HILLARY WAS QUILTY of making that comment... can Ohio get a Do-Over. I'm sure there are lots of pissed off Ohio people who want to recast their vote for Obama know that we know Clinton made those comments Obama was framed for by the corporate media. Oh, sure they corrected themselves AFTER the Ohio election. But is that fair? Clinton and CNN lying to the citizens of Ohio until after the polls close. Then we find out that it is really Clinton who is pro-NAFTA. Of course she is tearing the party apart with these tactics.

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

» RE: OHIO DO-OVER Posted by: desidid
» RE: OHIO DO-OVER Posted by: LillianB
Experience??
Posted by: braxxian1 on Mar 7, 2008 3:10 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it interesting that characters like Clinton and McCain continually boast about their experience and how it prepares them for the job on day one. If I'm not mistaken very experienced politicians got America into the mess it currently find its self. I'm not referring to Bush, this guy is beyond contmept for both his stupidity and the easy manipulation the others had over him. I'm talking about people like Cheney, Rumsfield, Powell, Wolfowitz. Are not these guys all "experienced" in world affairs, are they not "experienced" to the point there they should have done a hell of a better job than they did.

Maby Obama has a point, maby experience is overrated. Maby America need someone in the White House who isn't so "experienced", maby that person won't screw up as badly as the so called old hands have done.

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

» RE: xperience?? Posted by: John Edward
Huh?
Posted by: Tramaine on Mar 7, 2008 3:12 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sorry I must say I do not agree with the accusations your article is trying to make about the Democratic party or the race. Hillary Clinton will not destroy the party by simply doing what any Presidential candidate would do if they were committed and serious about seeing this race through to the end. Regardless of your personal feelings towards the Clintons, she clearly still has a chance of winning the nomination in a fair and legal manner. Yes it may not be based on the popular votes and delegates along, but super delegates are a part
of the nomination process.

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

» RE: Huh? Posted by: Fishbone Soldier
» Exactly! Posted by: RobNLA
» RE: Huh? Posted by: rinpochet
» RE: Huh? Posted by: FastEddy
» RE: Huh? Posted by: LillianB
» ahhhhh....yeah she did Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: ahhhhh....yeah she did Posted by: mustaang
» RE: Huh? Posted by: BlueDiva
Some Food For Thought
Posted by: jacksmith on Mar 7, 2008 3:30 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries. 1) Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And 2) Because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the votes showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals show. And her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama's.

Maybe the media, and some sharp, aggressive investigative reporters, and academics would like to look into this. I hear there has been an astonishingly high rate of this type of cheating of the DEMOCRATIC primary voters going on. Few if any of these Republican voters plan to vote for Obama in November.

Sounds like a major scandal to me. And what can the DNC, and the super delegates do to correct this outrage against Hillary Clinton, the Democratic party, and the Democratic process.


Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama:

Dear Madam, and Sir,

A Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama ticket is what we want. And that is what we need to take back the Whitehouse. We want a smart, tough, idealistic, seasoned veteran of many battles fighting for the American people (Hillary Clinton). With a young, passionate, smart, open-minded, hard-working idealist fighting for the American people (Barrack Obama). The DREAM TEAM!

You are both fabulous candidates. And we, the American people are very fortunate to have each of you. Taking back the Whitehouse is critical for the American people, and the world at this time. And I think the American people have been saying loudly, and clearly that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket is the best way to do this.

I think the American people have made it very clear that they feel Hillary Clinton is the one best able to lead the ticket against John McCain at this critical, and desperate time in America, and around the world. These dramatic comebacks are testament to Hillary Clinton's skill, and experience as a fighter for the American people. They are also a testament to the strong desire of the American people to have both of you fighting for the American people at this time of midnight in America.

Typical of the Clinton's is an uncanny ability to see and understand what the American people want. And then to try and get it for them. Even if they have to go through three political near death experiences to try and get it for the American people. This is classic Clinton's. They are the best I have ever seen.

We are desperate out here. Millions of us are suffering greatly. And tens of thousands of us are dying needlessly every year. Men, women, children, and babies. We need help! As Hillary Clinton said "It's not a game". We need the two of you together on our side fighting for us, and for the American dream for all. Not fighting against each other anymore.

It's time for you Senator Obama to join forces with Hillary Clinton as her running mate so that we can all focus our energies, and resources on taking back America for the American people.

Sincerely

Jacksmith...

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

» Junk Food Math Posted by: hurricane hugo
» NOT EVEN! Posted by: AltB
» RE: Some Food For Thought Posted by: LillianB
Destroying the party? Yes
Posted by: Dinalina on Mar 7, 2008 3:37 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I decided today, if Hilary Clinton grabs the nomination, I will not cast a vote for president in the national election. Yes,I will vote, but I refuse to vote for Clinton or McCain. I've always had a great amount of admiration for the Clintons. And I felt proud to see Hilary beat out the male candidates in the earlier debates. But now I see she is turning to Rove tactics. I'm extremely disappointed. The tactics she is now employing are ugly and certainly not in the spirit of a healthy democracy. The party and the American people should not tolerate this kind of campaigning. Did you see her on 60 minutes when she was asked if she thought Obama was Muslim? And now she is aligning herself to the Republicans with her recent comment on her and McCain's experience? It's an outrage? Will I see the outrage in the press? Or will they behave as they did during the Bush campaign? I do believe that if the Clinton campaign carries this all the way, it will all blow up at the convention. I don't think the Democractic public will take it lightly.

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

» Feel the same way Posted by: lasarte-oria
» RE: Destroying the party? Yes Posted by: dangerouslysane
Irony: we want feminist to quietly bow out for the man
Posted by: arieden on Mar 7, 2008 3:50 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary is of the "old guard" feminist generation. They had to fight hard for all of their gains and prove themselves better (equal was not good enough) than the men around them. Now she is fighting for the nomination the way she and other women of her generation have had to fight for everything and now many are slamming her for it and want her to graciously bow out now that we have found a man for the job. Ironic isn't it?

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

» RE: THE CATCH-- Posted by: Longdream
Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Mar 7, 2008 4:51 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Shillary or SmoovB

That's it?


Government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Direct Democracy

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

In the polls, Obama consistently beats McCain by a wider margin than Hillary.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Mar 7, 2008 5:38 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There you have it. Republicans are promoting Hillary because they think McCain can beat her. Hillary must know this, but her ambition is truly a gigantic beast that's driving her forward.

See National Poll: McCain Loses To Obama, Clinton, Washington Post, March 5, 2008

"llinois Sen. Barack Obama leads McCain, who captured the delegates needed to claim the Republican nomination Tuesday night, by 12 percentage points among all adults in the poll.; Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) enjoys a six-point lead over the presumptive GOP nominee. Both Democrats are buoyed by moderates and independents in the head-to-heads and benefit from sustained negative public assessments of President Bush and the war in Iraq."

Who is responsible for the massive Democratic turnout? It's either Barak Obama or GW Bush, you can be sure of that.

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

Hillary, Shrillery
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Mar 7, 2008 5:51 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary Clinton's claims that Barack Obama's entire lifetime of experience, just 15 years shorter than hers, consists of one speech, while she played a pivotal role in world affairs is disingenuous. She boasts of her role in Kosovo, not mentioning that she lobbied Bill not to intervene for over a year and thereby caused many deaths. She sat on her hands while Rwanda became an abattoir and Bill blocked the UN from acting. The Clintons gutted the International Criminal Court Statute by forcing concessions, then cynically refused to sign anyway. They refused to join the landmines treaty and she recently voted against restricting cluster bomb use in civilian-populated areas. She screwed up healthcare reform with her arrogant, high-handed ways, condeming more than 40 million people to another 15 years without coverage. Now she claims she is the one to solve the crisis, repeating her error of thinking she can unilaterally impose her plan. She does a lot of handwaving on Iraq, as if 4000 Americans, a million Iraqis (mostly women and children) and two trillion dollars didn't matter, as if she could undo the damage with her promise to withdraw quickly without admitting that she showed the same disastrous judgment and told the same lies as Bush, Cheney and Rice. She, a very rich woman who sat on WalMart's board as it destroyed thousands of small businesses, busted unions and created a minimum wage, benefitless workforce, pretends to be a champion of the working classes, even though it was only the top quintile who gained in the Clinton 1990s economy. They did noting meaningful on the environment, despite Al Gore's presence and urging, and they sold out gays on Don't Ask, Don't Tell and Defense of Marriage.

At a time when we face unprecedented military, economic, constitutional, diplomatic and environmental crises we don't need yet another divisive, triangulating, hardball-playing politician; we need someone who can unite, inspire and uplift people, and Obama is clearly superior. If he is the lightweight she asserts he is, why did Kennedy, Dodd, Leahy and other venerable statesmen endorse him?

While Hillary Clinton would be better than GW Bush--almost anybody would--we can and should do better.

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

» RE: Hillary, Shrillery Posted by: AltB
Clinton Stale Air
Posted by: AltB on Mar 7, 2008 6:25 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please, can't we filter them out once and for all?

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

Hillary Clinton is BAD NEWS!
Posted by: thinkverybig on Mar 7, 2008 6:40 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have come to have no respect for Hillary or Bill Clinton after witnessing how destructive she can be and how hungry she is for power. Obama has ran nothing but the most respectful and presidential campaign I've ever witnessed and for Clinton to come off so negative just turns me off. If the DNC steals this election from Obama, I will never ever vote for Hillary Clinton. I will switch to an "Independent." I would rather cast my vote for Cynthia McKinney instead. Hillary Clinton is a disgrace to the democratic party and I ashamed of her completely. She is divisive and I believe that the majority of Americans are sick of her and how she's conducted herself and her campaign.

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

» RE: Hillary Clinton is BAD NEWS! Posted by: dangerouslysane
Just Say No to B*&^%y -Who Needs It & Who Likes It?
Posted by: bessie on Mar 7, 2008 7:45 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary seems to be losing it ... like starring in anything called the "B*(&CH is the New Black". That might be funny except that Hillary has demonstrated all the negative qualities that the term implies. Since when is strength equated with being nasty and snide? Hillary appears to be a rather heavy set, short, older person who is out of shape. So we know she is not physically strong. Her dizzy array of personalities would indicate that she is not emotionally strong. Her ability to pretend that her experience includes 35 years of foreign policy and being a co-president seems to indicate that intellectually she is weak. Unfortunately, Hillary is demonstrating what the B...label means and that is to ruin or wreck anything or anyone who gets in their way. This is not a sign of strength or toughness - it's a personality flaw. Will she ruin the Democratic Party if given the chance? You bet.

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

Hillary's "35 years of experience"....
Posted by: onevoter on Mar 7, 2008 8:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary's claim of "35 years of experience" is bullshit.

She was First Lady of Arkansas for 12 years and First Lady of the U.S. for 8 years. That's 20 of her "35".

So, it leaves 15 years. She had one 6 year term as the junior senator from New York, and is in the second year of her second term, although she hasn't done much except run around the country trying to convince people that she has "35 years of experience".

Well, let's give her the benefit of the doubt and say 8 years in the Senate. That leaves only 7 more "years of experience" that she can somehow try to claim. Let's see...worked for the Rose Law Firm and sat on the Board of Wal-Mart. There's your experience.

So, I guess that allows her to claim she has passed the "threshold for commander-in-chief". Someone please stick a pin in her inflated baloon of an ego--QUICK...before she takes the Democratic party and the election down with her....

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

C'mon, Obama, KO your ridiculous opponent
Posted by: georgiaorwell on Mar 8, 2008 12:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I totally agree with your comments, Mr. Reich; they are spot on about Clinton and her triangulating campaign staff.

One thing I'll give Hillary. She uses the media constantly to offer a daily, FREE press attack soundbite with smear and spinipulation against Barack Obama. The press lives for controversy and they snap it up, giving her free publicity along the way - every day. This happens to be really working for her as it saves her money.

While we're at it, people need to clearly understand that there will NEVER be a combo ticket with Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama. It would be a disaster, and it's definitely not a dream ticket as some have proposed. Clinton would send Obama, if he were VP, to the far reaches of Siberia for 4 years so she never had to look at or listen to him. If Obama were President, he would have to contend with her pugnaciousness on a daily basis. Besides, Clinton would rather run with McCain, in any event, rather than with another Democrat - remember, she was once a Republican and has never really departed from her roots. I don't think she's one party or another - she only is wanting control of the highest office and will do anything or say anything to get it. (You know, like Joe Lieberman).

As a female, I'm sickened by her leadership disingenuousness. As a person striving for ethics, I'm sickened by her lying smears and her lack of morals. Obama is clearly trying to take the high road, but right now he must avoid constantly having to react to her charges daily; instead he must go on the offensive. She figures if she pushes Obama to the ropes and just keeps punching, eventually she will knock him out. While Obama is strongest talking about hope and change, he must start with his own daily press sound bites and the time is now. Alternating inspirational speeches wtih his own strong counterpunches is his best strategy right now.

Clinton at present is like a candidate on the Apprentice that when faced with potentially being fired by Trump, just fights to the death verbally, hoping she can wear down her opponent. In fact, she has come to act like Omarosa to me. Obama better start drawing a clear picture to voters of a very specific vision voters can see and look forward to under his leadership and there's no time to be wasted doing that. I also love Clinton's lack of creativity - always borrowing everything Obama says, projecting her immoral acts on him, and trying to split the Party. This is the last go-round for the US in the world's eyes. We look like and have become a rogue nation, and believe me, the world is watching this election with strong interest. Sadly, Clinton is reinforcing the Europeans' already sad belief that the US has lost its way morally.

Footnote: to Meg_8: (Canadian Clinton supporter and university professor) - surely there is no such word as you used: "casted" or is the English language in professorial circles different in Canada?

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

» He doesn't have to look far Posted by: Balanz
Hillary Clinton's Experience
Posted by: left_libertarian on Mar 9, 2008 7:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a Senator, Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War Resolution and the Patriot Act.

She make George Bush's day in his quest for war and less freedom.

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

In answer to the question...
Posted by: data23 on Mar 9, 2008 3:53 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
YES!! She already has spoiled the party. By saying that McCain is better qualified than Obama to be president she has shown her true repug colors. She's a neocon in ugly ass pantsuits. There was a time when I would have voted for her IF she was the Democratic nominee, but not after her praising of McCain, no way. Some people say that if I stay home on election day in November, that I may as well be voting for McCain. Clinton, McCain - is there a difference anymore? I think not.

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

» RE: In answer to the question... Posted by: undrgrndgirl
Do Well to Remember
Posted by: BlueDiva on Mar 10, 2008 2:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All Democrats,including Mr. Reich, will do well to remember: party, Democrat or Republican, is much more than the President. Each party has a platform and clearly defines what they stand for. A vote (directly or by staying home) is a definite vote for the continued foreign policy, economic policy, healthcare, and education policies we have under the Republicans. Keep in mind you aren't "just voting for the President." Come November, if you believe in a different foreign policy, international respect, economic fairness, universal health care, and environmental responsibility with a greatly expanded job market, you'll vote Democratic. A vote for the Republican candidate would be a vote for FOUR more years of a greatly flawed domestic and foreign policy.

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

lets do our homework america
Posted by: nanabettie on Mar 10, 2008 6:29 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i do not aree with this i hope america does our home wok we want change and a experienced doer hillary has all that and more shes a good person mother has a good family she is a loving caring forgiving and she is also tough she has the experienced as a doer and has got things done look at who record she is the best one and the one i and others will fel safest with i am sorry but i and other i have talked with will not vote foe obama we do not want just good words and one who flipflots one who sat in senate who did not vote over 100 times either way for bills this is fact this is not a doer or one that can bring changed by not voting on bills and check out his involvement with the man who is got his house from and for how much you would be surprized who is on trial for corruption we do not want this i am a democrate but i and alot of otherd will cross over to mccain if needed he is out of the three the second best one we would feel safe with but i believe hillary will be the one we need her elizabeth carnicelli malden ma

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

Stop your one-sided propaganda, Mr Reich!
Posted by: BayAreaVoter on Mar 10, 2008 8:44 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why do Obama supporters continue to bash Hillary but never seem to say WHY they support him? Because their reasons are weak and specious.

His main supporters are part of a personality cult and will not even help the rest of the ticket in the GE if he gets the nomination. Look at the stats from Texas--most voted for him and ignored the rest of the ticket in the districts he won (see Dallas Morning News).

Hillary's supporters are solid Dems and will bring the whole ticket with them in November. Go Hillary!

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

FACT: Hillary did NOT say McCain would make a Better President than McCain
Posted by: mustaang on Mar 10, 2008 11:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Leaders are not the only important element of American politics. It is also important that the American public know how to think and not make large erroneous leaps of logic.

What Clinton said does NOT = "McCain would make a better President than Obama."

What she said was actually unarguable: that she & McCain have more Washington experience. And the implication was ‘wouldn't you want the candidate with more background in this job to take the position?’ That's pretty standard fair and entirely factual and obvious, so she is not giving the McCain party new ideas or ammunition to attack with.

Obama's campaign is NOT about his experience but about his "new vision" in a country that rightfully is a government FOR the people BY the people. You don't have to have been in the White House to take the job.

So if you'd ask Hillary if she was saying McCain would make a better president than Obama, she'd give you the stare with her eyes that says, "Do I really NEED to EXPLAIN this?"

Because what is first and foremost OBVIOUS is that Clinton shares the ideals, beliefs, passion for social causes and direction that Obama has, to (estimated by Obama himself) 95% similarity.

THAT is what is primary to the consideration of who someone believes should be President.

It is fascinating that so many here are concerned with Clinton falsifying statements and playing illusion politics. But look in the mirror. YOU are falsifying the record right here, and its a little disturbing. If you stand by Obama, have integrity yourself. Don't pretend that Clinton is throwing the party under the bus to make her own political points. That is false, and it is obvious.

Let’s stop 'dividing the democratic party' (as Obama folks are all saying about Hillary) by buying into hype created by the media that wants to manipulate its viewers by hyperbolizing & out-contexting candidate remarks. If they make a big deal about something, the viewership will keep watching & help their ratings. But the amount of you that were unable to 'read' the errant jump in logic to her trumping Mccain over Obama is disheartening.

Obama and his supporters will need to be much tougher than that to handle the challenges ahead. But then again, maybe you lack the experience of judgment to see that, which is Hillary Clinton's point.

Clinton is not a perfect candidate, but she certainly could have run for President back in 2004, and decided to stay the course and gain experience for a job of many requirements and pressures. She waited until she built her qualifications even more before deciding she was prepared for the country's highest office. Obama decided to rush right in and saw himself fit for the job without spending more time seeing how everything works, and how to best position his vision for success in the real world. And maybe that risk will bear fruit and he will be magnificent. But Clinton is not wrong to point out she's not a freshman.

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

She lost my respect!
Posted by: LeeAnnG on Mar 10, 2008 11:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've read quite a few articles concerning the platforms and voting records of both Obama and Clinton, and they seem quite similar. In fact, in a recent Mother Jones article, Clinton comes out a bit ahead in progressive issues. I had finally decided that, in spite of my objection to dynasties and American aristocracy, I'd hold my nose and vote for Hillary Clinton should she win the nomination.

I'd put aside my aversion to the idea of the majority of Americans under yet another Clinton presidency would have only ever known presidents with the names Bush and Clinton.

I could even ignore my objections to the first Clinton presidency with its Republican lite agenda. After all, the alternative was "bomb bomb bomb..." Not a pleasant thought.

And then I heard (paraphrased here) "Senator McCain is qualified and experienced. I am experienced and qualified. Senator Obama has only one speech that he made in 2002. That's his total platform."

"Oh. My. God.!" I thought. "Hillary Clinton just really screwed up and said something she didn't mean to say. Because she actually said that her Republican rival is more qualified than her Democratic rival!" And then I went on to realize that she'd also equated McCain's prisoner of war experiences with her tenure as First Lady, because other than that, all three have very similar backgrounds as senators and politicians.

I expected an apology or some kind of explanation. But no! Instead, I heard two more versions of exactly the same speech. I've only heard about the assertion that Obama is "not a Muslim. As far as I know." And I did see the red phone ad, which is more pathetic and stupid than scary. But it's still an indication of Hillary Clinton's character. Or lack thereof.

Clinton will not get my vote. I realize that a McCain presidency is a high price to pay for what I consider to be my own integrity, but Clinton really is a "monster," which I do not believe is too great an exaggeration.

She has given the republicans an incredible campaign line, "Even Obama's democratic opponent endorsed Senator McCain over him!" If she gets the nomination, her character will be the issue. "How can this person be loyal to America if she can't even be loyal to her own party?"

I'll write in Kucinich or someone else, but I will never, ever vote for Hillary Clinton.

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

Look at the divided Democrats!
Posted by: SKPython on Mar 10, 2008 3:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The above series of comments speaks volumes as to the state of the Democratic Party. While both sides of the race are energized, they are at antipodes. Many of Obama's supporters are like Ron Paulites--They weren't active voters before this race. The Democrats need those people to win. And many of them will not vote for Hillary. Hillary's rank and file? They're core Democrats. Do they share the same admiration for McCain that Hillary does? That's not likely. But this is all coming down like Dr, Reich describes it. The most divided Democratic party since Chicago '68. What's next? I've got my concerns about history repeating itself... McCain could definitely be Nixon to Hillary's Humphrey...this endlessly repeating nightmare of our two party system.

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

Please don't distort the facts
Posted by: karak on Mar 13, 2008 12:50 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With all due respect, I'm shocked that someone of your stature could twist someone's words so badly to fit your purpose and spin.

Hillary Clinton never said McCain would make a better president. How can you in good conscience lead with that assertion? She merely made the very legitimate case that McCain is more experienced than the first-term junior senator. That's not opinion. It's a fact that strkes at the electability issue we're all so concerned about. And you can bet your last dime that this fact will not go unnoticed in the fall campaign.

I respectfuilly ask that you retract your false comments, Mr. Reich.

As for the power to inspire, you bet, it's a prerequisite for change. But change doesn't happen in a vacuum, by oratorical magic. The other prerequisite for change is ability to implement it with real ideas. So far I have yet to hear one inspiring idea from Obama. Great speeches never inspired his fellow Senators to action. What notworthy accomplishment does he have to brag about? Shrill empty words can only take you so far. Looks like he reached that limit.

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

  • 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.

Advertisement
Advertisement