Hillary To Obama: Don't You Dare Draw "Clear Contrast" With Me

Comments (55)

Hatch wrote on October 12, 2007 2:55 PM:

Hillary Clinton's primary strategy so far has been to paint every little criticism as an attack. Contrasting yourself with your opponent is not "negative campaigning" by any stretch of the imagination. The front-runner is showing herself to be hostile toward dialog, debate, and democracy, just like our current President.

MarkL wrote on October 12, 2007 2:57 PM:

I think she's right, in this case.
Obama is offering too little, too late on the campaign trail, and doing too little, not even too late in the Senate.

greg wrote on October 12, 2007 2:57 PM:

agreed, I'm not nuts about this strategy on Hillary's part, as I hope the post suggests...

stlounick wrote on October 12, 2007 3:00 PM:

Memo to WDC Dems and pundits who need the smack up the side of the head. Voters are in charge of this government; it seems to have been forgotten.

Clear contrast will be demanded by voters. Do not change this, Hillary. I do so want you to continue to enjoy your career as a US Senator.

dcshungu wrote on October 12, 2007 3:01 PM:

I think that everyone is right: Obama has every right to try to "draw clear contrast" between he and his opponents (read: HRC), but I think HRC's camp is right to suggest that Obama's sudden urge to "draw contrast" can be attributed to recent poll numbers, which have shown HRC to top 50% while Obama was barely getting 20%. Case in point: Today's Rasmussen daily tracking poll puts HRC at 48% to Obama's 24%, giving her a lead of 24% (approaching the WaPo 30%, and Fox News 32%), which is the highest it has been for this poll in a while.

bob wrote on October 12, 2007 3:04 PM:

This strategy is really just so dumb. I'm actually pretty certain that Iowa caucus-goers will see through it. They know the difference between drawing contrasts and negative campaigning.

Planting or spreading false rumors about Hillary is negative campaigning. Trying to figure out exactly where Hillary stands on talking to Iran and torture and comparing that to another candidate's position is not.

Memo to news media: if you are going to print Hillary's campaign saying "negative campaigning" for the next 90 days every time someone draws a contrast with her positions, you should give up the ghost and just join her PR team.

Keith wrote on October 12, 2007 3:05 PM:

Isn't this just more of the same from her campaign? All criticism must be dismissed because it's desperation on the part of the other candidates? This only works if the media plays along, so far, you all have been pretty compliant ("I", when used by Senator Clinton, now means "my administration", except when it doesn't).

Michael Caine wrote on October 12, 2007 3:07 PM:

Treating a difference of opinion as a negative attack. Yet again, Hillary has shown that she didn't learn how to fight the Republican Smear Machine, she learned how to mimic it. If that is how you want the next 4-8 years to be, a continuation of the last 16 or so, then Hillary is your girl. If you actually want America united as a people again, then I would suggest you look elsewhere.

Just as that tactic has backfired on Republicans, leading them closer to dissolution as a political party than they have been for 150 or more years, so too will it backfire on Democrats. Bush will be looked upon by history as the reason Democrats stormed into super-majorities in House and Senate.

If Hillary continues to mimic the Republican's tactics, she will be the reason Republicans retake the House and Senate.

Anonymous wrote on October 12, 2007 3:30 PM:

Most others call it negative campaigning.

Greg, you clearly have access to the campaign. Could you ask them who these "others" are? I've yet to come across anyone else that is reporting his comments as examples of negative campaigning.

While you are at, please ask them what the definition of "I" is as well? I'd like to update my dictionary.

Geek, Esq. wrote on October 12, 2007 3:34 PM:

Disagreement is negativity and attacks just like dissent is treason.

kjoe wrote on October 12, 2007 3:37 PM:

I am voting for Obama.

Hillary's strategy seems to be working, but we will see.

There is a crucial thing called timing-------the differences are real, and at some point they have to be emphasized.

I think right around Thanksgiving would be an important time. I have been impressed with Obama's 30 second spots-------now is not the time for them to be peaking in effectiveness.

The world will be a slightly different place by Christmas---I have to trust Obama to know when to turn it up a notch.

Jane wrote on October 12, 2007 3:38 PM:

Obama's camp has been making snide comments from the outset while proclaiming himself above the fray as a uniter. Hillary is now beating him in the polls and he NOW wants to talk policy differences. There was nothing stopping him from talking policy differences before. If this isn't an excuse to go negative, I have a bridge...

Anonymous wrote on October 12, 2007 3:45 PM:

Geek,
I see that you have gone completely to the dark side, throwing away any objectivity in your zeal to support Obama.
Desperation is not pretty---coming either from Obama or from his supporters.

Dave wrote on October 12, 2007 3:50 PM:

It seems the love of both from opposing points of view make people blind to tactics of either depending on whom they support.

Hatch wrote on October 12, 2007 3:50 PM:

Disagreement Is Negativity.

Dissent Is Treason.

Campaigning Is Desperation.

Pete, Seattle, WA wrote on October 12, 2007 3:57 PM:

2008 Presidential Candidate Weekly Poll

www.votenic.com

Results Posted Tuesday Evening At Midnight.

Jeremy wrote on October 12, 2007 4:06 PM:

I'm starting to feel like Hillary doesn't really want to have a "conversation" with anyone that doesn't already agree with her. We don't need another "bubble" president.

DTM wrote on October 12, 2007 4:09 PM:

This approach by the Clinton campaign really puzzles me. Of course, I understand that their central strategy is to portray a Clinton victory as a fait accompli. I even think a reasonable argument can be made that using this strategy is her best bet for actually winning.

But it is one thing to make yourself out as a winner. It is another thing entirely to make yourself out as a sore winner, and I think these recent statements cross that line.

gqmartinez wrote on October 12, 2007 4:10 PM:

Yawn. Would any other candidate say anything differently? Can you honestly answer "yes" to that question?

Hillary shouldn't be faulted for this. Nor should Obama be faulted for stepping up his Clinton challenges. He's down in the polls and has to go on the offensive--Hillary won't disappear otherwise. Hillary is about to get bombarded by Obama (legitimately or otherwise) so she has to go on the defensive.

None of this means Obama will definitely go negative (though I think his recent distortion re: Hillary and Iran come close to crossing the line), or that Hillary is considering difference of opinion treason. The overreaction is childish.

VictorLH wrote on October 12, 2007 4:11 PM:

It may be a Dumb strategy, but people have been dumb enough to date to give her a lead in the polls. Does anyone expect them to change?

acf wrote on October 12, 2007 4:13 PM:

In the end, if his campaign of personality cult fails to keep him in the race, Obama will heed the words of the consultants and go negative. Ultimately, the glory of winning the Presidency and its power will overtake the desire to be honorable. It sounds a little like the corruption of the ring, in Tolkein.

www.votenic.com wrote on October 12, 2007 4:15 PM:

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

www.votenic.com

Results Posted Tuesday Evening At Midnight.

hadenough wrote on October 12, 2007 4:29 PM:

obama = new to the planet

That would explain obama smearing Hillary with lies. Anybody that has called earth home for any part of the last 15 years knows that won't work.

DTM wrote on October 12, 2007 4:37 PM:

I'm not a politico, but couldn't you convey essentially the same message with a much better tone? How about something like this:

"We understand that given Hillary's position in the polls, the other candidates are going to step up their criticisms. But those polls show that Hillary and her message are resonating with the voters, and we expect that to continue."

To me, at least, something like that would be a lot more effective.

nogo war wrote on October 12, 2007 4:44 PM:

In the past few months...as I have dipped my toes by posting in various blogs, I have kinda noticed something...

Whenever I, or others post our opinion that questions a direct position or vagueness of Sen. Clinton...the response is "repeating Republican talking points."

This is a campaign. A good campaign is like one of those "time release" medicines.
Anyone not truly believe this Dem Campaign is not about Sen. Clinton and everyone else?

There are those that feel comfortable in the manifest destiny of Bush/Clinton..
Certainly the experts in the media believe so.

This past week I was arrested in Denver and charged with the new City ord. "Disrupting an official event" In this case the official event was the Columbus parade disrupted under AIM. Of course next August the "official event" will be the Democratic Convention.
Anyone want to bet what Denver will look like if Sen. Clinton is the nominee?
(Note: as we stayed handcuffed in two's right hand to right hand..picture that...even while in cells
A sheriff was dismayed saying "We were hoping for 300 arrests not 80 so we could execute our plan"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nD4bLffZ7I

"Rocky Mountain high...Colorado"
...John Denver

Anonymous wrote on October 12, 2007 5:07 PM:

This is Clinton's Achilles Heal. She doesn't know how to respond to criticism except derisively. I'm guessing the more the others go at her, the uglier she'll get, and it'll be her campaign's undoing.

NCSteve wrote on October 12, 2007 5:08 PM:

Let's see if I can help some of you Hillariods with the distinction.

"Hillary Clinton had her lesbian ex-lover Vince Foster murdered to hide her misuse of the the White House Christmas list." = negative campaigning.

"Compared to the other candidates, Hillary Clinton consistently favors carefully scripted platitudes and equivocations to taking clear, coherent positions on the issues that face us." = drawing contrasts.

If you don't see a difference, the line for Hill-Aid rehab starts right over there.

IWW wrote on October 12, 2007 5:12 PM:

Hillary Phase 1: You can't question me because it's a right-wing talking point.

Hillary Phase 2: You can't question me because you're dropping in the polls.

What's next? Hillary Phase 3: You can't question me because I'm the nominee?

Note to HRC staffers: the "I'm not taking any questions" strategy didn't work all that well for Segolene Royal either...

KJ wrote on October 12, 2007 5:19 PM:

I know that HRC is not Dean, but I think she's setting herself up for a Dean-like moment. One of the things that always worried me about Dean (and McCain for that matter) was his surly demeanor. I kept waiting for the moment he exploded on someone. He ultimately did when was overly effusive after taking third (although I thought it was overhyped by the media).

In a lot of ways, HRC comes across has having a surly edge to her as well (which seems to be borne out by her response to Edwards' Obama's critiques). It will be interesting to see if she maintains her composure throughout the entire campaign.

nogo war wrote on October 12, 2007 5:24 PM:

nc steve...
feeble try..this is not a place like you are used to...
here...mostly...
we don't quote Reich Limpbow

Exocet wrote on October 12, 2007 5:39 PM:

So Hillary should just roll over and take it. Though, I must say Obama's, shall we call them, comparisons, are completely vapid milquetoast. He should have done his slapping around before, not now, when really all the voters want to know is what are you going to do for me. Clinton should ignore and assign responses to lower level staffers. Hillary should continue to focus on her message of an economy beneficial to the middle-class and fixing health care.

Anonymous wrote on October 12, 2007 5:47 PM:

Hillary Clinton: professional victim.

Anonymous wrote on October 12, 2007 5:50 PM:

Hillary's response to any criticism, valid or invalid, is to bust out with that fake laugh.

It makes my skin crawl.

Michael Rissman wrote on October 12, 2007 5:54 PM:

Obama and Bush, better at talking about what they are going to talk about than getting anything done. What kind of leader says things like "I'm going to begin drawing a stark contrast."

Let see,he's done nothing as a Senator but run for president: is that the distinction? Or maybe he is a better hoper than Hillary. Or maybe Hillary doesn't hope as audaciously as Obama.

A pox on both their houses.

Dave wrote on October 12, 2007 5:57 PM:

Let see,he's done nothing as a Senator but run for president: is that the distinction?

Do you follow the Senate at all? Obama has been a very productive Senator, co-authoring big-time legislation with Dick Lugar, Russ Feingold, Tom Coburn, etc. etc. No one can possibly honestly say he's "done nothing as a Senator."

Liberal Larry wrote on October 12, 2007 5:59 PM:

Democrats lost Congress in 1994, because of NAFTA. Union workers either stayed home or switched parties for the social issues.

What is so negative about saying that? It's the truth!

CalD wrote on October 12, 2007 6:25 PM:

Well it's certainly that time of year when primary candidates traditionally pull the tarps off their advertising budgets and start unlimbering their biggest guns. "Drawing distinctions" and "highlighting contrasts" are very much as traditional for the season as hay rides and hot cider. And obviously, if Mr. Obama wants the Democratic presidential nomination for himself he's going to have to go through Hillary Clinton to get it, so let the games begin. I wouldn't worry too much about Mrs. Clinton. I suspect he's about to find that she's supremely capable of giving every bit as good as she gets.

elrapierwit wrote on October 12, 2007 6:30 PM:

Once again HRC fails to deal with the substance of the issue and instead attacks the messenger.

Drawing a clear contrast is the basis of substantive debate.

Hillary is supercilious and dismissive of the electorate.

Keep it up HRC, let us see your true colors before you get to the WH.

At least this time it will be easier for the electorate to discern, having lived through 6 years of a President who proclaims 'he is the decider' and who beleives that misleading the public is part of his job.

You ask about the politics of hope but you seem to not what to have a conversation.

Whatever happened to 'let's chat'?

Obama is striking HRC at the right moment. She has begun to believe her own press and without Bill at her side she is shrill, vituperative and nasty ...ask that guy in IOWA...his bottom line question was 'why should we trust you'

He was right. Why should we.

Sam wrote on October 12, 2007 6:33 PM:

"Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage. Anger at the way things are and courage to see that they do not remain as they are." - Augustine of Hippo, c. 410 AD

Democrats, Americans, and Sen. Obama all have a right to be angry at the lack of courage displayed in the Authorizaton of the Use of Military Force/Iraq vote. We also have an obligation to do something about it, if this country can find the courage to look at Iraq War for what it was, a failure of leadership in both parties. It's not 'Bush's War'. It's America's disaster.

The politics of hope is about to begin. Hillary meet the twins. Twins meet Hillary.

Hillary ...let's chat

August wrote on October 12, 2007 6:39 PM:

Kjoe,

I agree with you. Obama is about to go in high gear. It reminds me of this passage:

Augustine wrote: “Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage.

Anger at the way things are and courage to see that they do not remain as they are.”

Like a messenger or a voice, anger arises within us when we recognize injustice. We may try to push injustice from our minds through activity or entertainment or food or alcohol or drugs, but even as we try to numb our thoughts, we always carry that knowledge in our hearts.

Anger in itself is not enough. Hope’s second beautiful daughter is courage; courage to see that things do not remain the way they are. It is easy to walk away resignation. It takes courage to speak directly and respectfully when someone’s words or actions have made us angry. To add our name to a petition, to write a letter to the editor, to work for a cause, to articulate our vision, to risk exposure, and having our views questioned, all take courage and a hopeful vision that change is possible. Even if the outcome is not exactly as we planned, we have succeeded in living with integrity by changing our own hearts.

I beleive this what Obama means when he calls it the politics of hope. It is the courage to speak out about the injustices that have occurred these past 6 years under the Bush administration.

Obama's entire life experience has been about working for change and doing so at the grassroots level. He knows when and how to shift gears.

hadenough wrote on October 12, 2007 6:47 PM:

obama = professional liar

OT but obama on obortion:

"And Obama is correct in that there is very little public support for keeping second-term abortions legal. Still, it would have been easier to interpret Obama's statement if he had a clear voting record on this topic. Instead, Obama managed to absent his opinion from the Illinois legislature twice during votes on a partial-birth ban in Illinois -- voting present rather than yes or no -- muddying the actual record about his beliefs. "
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=10&year=2007&base_name=senator_noshow

If only he had been there to vote... oh right he was there to vote. Instead of taking a stand he voted "present." Yeah. So it looks like the is on topic. Its a matter of judgement, of taking a stand on important issues. When obama had a chance to take a stand and show courage he wimped out.

Rinse and repeat. obama skipped a tricky vote in the senate then bashes others who did not run and hide. Judgement? He couldn't get up the courage to take stand on the kyle vote. Not only cowardly but poor judgement. Are his advisors really this dumb? Do they think you are? Did axlerod think this would go over with anyone other than the 'true believers'? The good thing is obama is finished, done as far as higher office goes.

john mccutchen wrote on October 12, 2007 6:51 PM:

Send the Old Bag Back for Seasoning

"I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions because we don't really understand how Iran works,"

Brunehilde the Experienced

seanh wrote on October 12, 2007 6:53 PM:

hadenough wrote on October 12, 2007 6:47 PM:

If only he had been there to vote... oh right he was there to vote. Instead of taking a stand he voted "present." Yeah. So it looks like the is on topic. Its a matter of judgement, of taking a stand on important issues. When obama had a chance to take a stand and show courage he wimped out.

thanks for the opportunity to link/quote my favorite Obama article hadenough!

Sen. Obama takes a walk
IRAQ WAR | Won't vote on measure condemning attack on general

WASHINGTON -- White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) canceled his campaign schedule on Thursday in order to be in the Senate for votes. But he was one of only three senators -- of either party -- to take a walk and not vote yes or no on a GOP measure to condemn an ad Moveon.org ran in the New York Times against Gen. David Petraeus.

Obama said he did not vote because: "This amendment was a stunt designed only to score cheap political points while what we should be doing is focusing on the deadly serious challenge we face in Iraq.... By not casting a vote, I registered my protest against this empty politics. I registered my views on the ad itself the day it appeared."
...
Obama has a history going back to his days as a state senator of not voting or voting "present" when it comes to measures he considers designed specifically to produce a vote record that can be attacked.

In Springfield in 1997, Obama voted present on late-term abortion bills. In 1999, he voted present on a bill increasing penalties for firing a gun near a school and on legislation dealing with the privacy of sex-abuse victims. In 2001, he voted present on a series of abortion-related bills.

stlounick wrote on October 12, 2007 9:31 PM:

Ah, the Republican talking points to "prove" that Obama is not a moderate, or a centrist, but is (gasp) a liberal. The shame of it all....

NCSteve wrote on October 12, 2007 9:54 PM:

nogo war,

I'm sorry, I must have missed all your other posts here in the two years I've been following this blog and the several months I've been posting. But, hey, many thanks for helping to make my point. Evidently, many of Hillary's suporter really don't see any difference between legitimate criticism her and the kind of toxic sewage Limbaugh pours out, do you? And that's the problem.

One of the things that worries me most about the prospect of a Hillary presidency is that so many of her followers seem to be motivated more by anger than by any desire to move on, if you'll pardon the expression, past the insanity of the last fifteen years.

Well, goddamit, you guys don't have the monopoly on anger at what's been going on in this country. I'd love some payback against the unholy alliance of cynical authoritarians, corporatists and theocrats who've reduced politics in this country to a cesspit of lies, wrecked our finances to serve their greed, and destroyed our moral authority and position in the world, just like you. It would be most gratifying.

But, unlike a lot of Hillary's supporters, I've come to believe that we've got to be the grownups and set our desire for payback aside if we're going to salvage the country and the Constitution. We've rached a point of crisis. We cannot affort just a good president and we definitely cannot afford eight more years of partisan warfare. Instead, I've finally come to believe that if we listen to those who say we have to become more like Rove and Delay and Gingrich in order to beat them, we lose. And most importantly, I've come to believe that it doesn't frikkin' matter who started it anymore. The polarization is going to be the end of the Republic if we, us Democrats, don't find a way to put a stop to it.

One big part of that is that we have to start building some bridges to the other side. There are a lot of people stuck over there on that side of the barbed wre who've had enough of their side. Many, perhaps most,of them woud come over, or at least give us a chance, if they weren't afraid we'd spit in their faces and call them rude names as they crossed over.

The Republican leadership knows this. If they can't have it themselves, they are dying for a Hillary win. They don't even make a secret of it. Charles Krauthammer endorsed her today, for Christ's sake! They need the strife and the anger and the mutual hatred. If its not them against us, then its just them and they'll just be a bunch of marginalized kooks with no ideas and not a lot in common agenda-wise. If he war ends, they'll be marginalized.

So, that's how I ended up being an Obama supporter. I'll vote for Hillary in the end if she's nominated, but I'll do it sorrowfully, knowing its because if we're going to sail the ship onto the rocks, I'd rather be on the bridge than be a passenger. And maybe if Obama wins, he won't be able to pull it off and it will be just as vile and devisive as ever. But I really think he's the only one with a shot at it, because he's the only one who's not angry.

I am, but I'm swallowing it down for the time-being.

colonpowwow wrote on October 12, 2007 11:08 PM:

OBAMA IN 2016!

Mitty wrote on October 12, 2007 11:23 PM:

OBAMA 2008!

MarkL wrote on October 13, 2007 12:07 AM:

NCSteve,
Your post is a huge joke.
You're saying that it's Hillary supporters who are motivated by anger? What planet are you on? In my universe, anti-Hillary Democrats are slinging the vilest insults at her, refusing to examine her actual record, and promising to stay home if she is nominated. In my universe, every Hillary supporter I know is a loyal Democrat who will vote for the the Democratic nominee, whoever it is. In my universe, Edwards and Obama supporters are constantly threatening to do otherwise.

stlounick wrote on October 13, 2007 8:31 AM:

NC Steve, thanks for your post. I think it sums how a lot of Dems feel.

MarkL, I was around as a sentient being for the Cuban Missile Crisis. And it was frightening. I think my country faces the same level of danger because of our divisiveness. It has to end and Hillary is not the best leader to do it.

Ever considered that it's perhaps the reason some of us are not supporting her right now? It's real and every Dem primary voter will have to consider it.

DonnaG wrote on October 13, 2007 1:25 PM:

There is nothing strong or tough about being damaged to brittleness from too many years of divisiveness. That brittleness is showing when statements of concern and questions seeking clarity are met with name calling.

The contrast in Obama's ability to handle tough responses [Fox News, John Howard...] to Clinton's petty slap down of an Iowa citizen is profound.

The contrast on these threads seem to fairly reflect a difference between the candidates on how they show toughness. Obama supporters are most often asking tough questions...... Hillary supporters are most often slinging 'tough' ugly rejoinders.

VictorLaszlo wrote on October 13, 2007 5:06 PM:

KJ: "I kept waiting for the moment he exploded on someone. He ultimately did when was overly effusive after taking third (although I thought it was overhyped by the media)."

I take it you're talking about what was referred to as 'the scream'.

If you thought it was "overhyped by the media", why do you (you, KJ, personally) continue to overhype it in the media (this forum)?

I submit that if you had watched the event yourself and no one in the traditional media had told you it was noteworthy, you wouldn't have thought twice about it.

MarkL wrote on October 14, 2007 2:18 AM:

StLouNick,
the problem is that NCSteve and you are imagining qualities of Hillary which are not in evidence---because YOU have been ruined by 15 years of propaganda, so that you cannot think objectively about Hillary.
I understand that kind of brain damage on the Republican side, but its disheartening to see it in some Dems too.

dcshungu wrote on October 14, 2007 3:59 AM:

MarkL wrote on October 13, 2007 12:07 AM: NCSteve, Your post is a huge joke. You're saying that it's Hillary supporters who are motivated by anger? What planet are you on? In my universe, anti-Hillary Democrats are slinging the vilest insults at her, refusing to examine her actual record, and promising to stay home if she is nominated. In my universe, every Hillary supporter I know is a loyal Democrat who will vote for the the Democratic nominee, whoever it is. In my universe, Edwards and Obama supporters are constantly threatening to do otherwise.

Astute observation that I believe explains Hillary's success at keeping and increasing her level of support: she is attracting loyal Democrats who see in her a candidate with the experience, leadership quality, intelligence, and political acumen to be a strong post-Bush POTUS. And, her supporters are loyal Democrats because, as you correctly point out, there has not been a single Hillary supporter in these threads who has threatened to just "sit this one out" if HRC is not the Dem nominee. Au contraire, we, her supporters, have all stated that regardless of who wins the nomination, we would go to the polls to ensure a Dem victory in GE, which is actually quite telling: Obama's and Edwards' supporters' primary drive appears to be to stop Hillary from winning the nomination and the presidency, and not because they are passionate about their candidate. In that respect, they seem to have a lot in common with conservative Repubs who have so far come out in support of Rudy, despite his history of social liberalism: They are more interested in stopping Hillary than in staying true to their conservative values... As long as Rudy appears like the man who can stop Hillary, they will prostitute themselves with and for him.

DonnaG wrote on October 14, 2007 11:54 AM:

Well, yes dcshungu, the Hillary supporters are counting on democrats being like sheep following a brand bell instead of being critical thinkers.

The slime in your statement is to conflate critical thinking during an important primary with disloyalty to the 'D' brand. The democrats critical of Hillary perhaps share my concern that she may be too republican in her corporate support system and in her hawkishness to do more than nibble the edges of change.

dcshungu wrote on October 14, 2007 4:34 PM:

DonnaG wrote on October 14, 2007 11:54 AM:

Well, yes dcshungu, the Hillary supporters are counting on democrats being like sheep following a brand bell instead of being critical thinkers.
The slime in your statement is to conflate critical thinking during an important primary with disloyalty to the 'D' brand. The democrats critical of Hillary perhaps share my concern that she may be too republican in her corporate support system and in her hawkishness to do more than nibble the edges of change.

DonnaG. Please do not flatter yourself. There is no evidence of "critical thinking" in anything that the ABC ("Anybody But Clinton") crowd spews in these threads. And, for your edification: "critical thinking" without the intellectual honesty to recognize or discern when one's thinking is flawed is called "delusion" or "willful deception", also known as lying.

If you did any “critical thinking” at all, you would know that Hillary is no hawk who is going to keep Bush's Mesopotamian Misadventure going or attack Iran in a war of choice. Ask yourself this simple question and do a little bit of "critical thinking" in answering it: Why would a smart person like Hillary Clinton, if she is elected the first ever POTUS, squander such a historic opportunity for herself, for women everywhere, and for humanity in general, in pursuit of senseless wars of choice, instead of working to craft a legacy that would do justice her for eternity? Inquiring minds wanna know, but I will provide you with a few hints to help your "critical thinking" along: (a) her chief adviser and political strategist was a POTUS who was no hawk and is still admired worldwide for his stewardship of American FP at the turn of the century for his measured response to crises that faced the world and his adminstration; (2) Hillary has already stated that she sees Bill's role in her administration as that of an ambassador for peace, who will crisscross the world to try to undo the damage that the current Village Idiot has done to the US standing as a country of laws and a beacon for hope and democracy; (3) Hillary is a woman, so don't you think that her purported hawkishness may be a deliberate attempt to show that in this male-dominated world, a woman POTUS would have cojones big enough to retaliate decisively in defense of America's national security and interests everywhere?... (I suspect that part of her dominance in the polls is helped by her no-nonsense approach to defending America, a test that a man is automatically given a pass on, but that a woman would fail unless she proved. Hillary has passed that but she is no more hawkish than her life-long partner was, as POTUS.)

The ABC crowd's main argument for HRC's unfitness to be POTUS is that she voted for the AUMF bill (and now the K-L bill), and therefore that shows that she has poor judgment in general. In scholastic logic that is called inference (to generalize from one or a small number of observations), and it is inherently much less reliable than deduction (when you draw a conclusion from many, many valid observations). I have never tried to defend HRC's AUMF vote because ex post facto it was wrong (Bush waged a terrible war and made a mess of things, so that, in retrospect, the vote for it looks bad); but I never felt that it disqualifies her or anyone else to be POTUS because I am not a single-issue person...I do not suffer from obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), like HRC's detractors. What I have tried to make the "critical thinkers" who attack Hillary on her AUMF vote understand is something that a little bit of "intellectual honesty" would easily reveal to them: It is not very smart to keep ranting against HRC for that vote because none of the other candidates is without blame in that respect. Please use a little bit of "critical thinking", sprinkle it with a heavy dose of "intellectual honesty" and tell me how blameless Edwards and Obama are with respect to their respective positions on the war. I have asked this repeatedly but none of the "critical thinkers" out there has volunteered some critical analysis. Below is a post from thread that discussed the teaming up of Obama and Edwards to accuse HRC of being a flip-flopper. If anything, she has been the only consistent candidate in this campaign!!! Please chew on the following and let's see what you'll spit out. I suspect that you'll ignore it, just like you conveniently ignored the fact not a single HRC supporter has vowed to "sit this one out" if she is not the nominee, while we've heard the ABC crowd state that it would sit this incredibly important election out if she is nominated, which may even give victory to Rudy -- a la Naderites in Gore v. Bush in 2000. If that is "critical thinking" and “loyalty” to your party, then we must redefine these concepts. Here we go, from a post on Friday:

A couple of pots teaming up to call the kettle black. Here's the sort of hard-hitting truth that I hope the HRC camp would include in their rebuttal of this farcical "Hail Mary" attack:

John Edwards, he was so much for the UAMF bill that he co-sponsored and voted for it, but then the shit hit the fan and for sheer presidential politics expediency and opportunism, he did a 180-degree flip and became the legendary serial apologizer for his vote on his bill. HRC has stood firm by her vote and has asked those who fault her for it not to support her.

Senator Obama, who was purportedly "opposed" to the war, was in no position to vote for or against the AUMF bill, but had said publicly that he was not sure how he might have voted had he been in the US Senate at time (really, Senator? Remember that your were "opposed" to the war, so therefore, the AUMF vote should have been an easy one, right?); however, when he got to DC, the Good Senator from Illinois, who claims to have "opposed" the war, did a 180-degree flip and voted, not once or twice, but repeatedly, to give George Bush more money (billions of it) to continue his misadventure in Mesopotamia. So, which is it Senator? Were you for or against the war? And, Senator, to criticize anyone for their vote on the Kyl-Lieberman bill on Iran is what they call in Hebrew chutzpah...something beyond arrogance. Oh, BTW, you wouldn't happen to have skipped the K-L bill for fear of getting caught voting "nay" on a bill similar to one that you had co-sponsored, would? It does smell like "politics as "usual" to me, Senator Barack New-Kind-of-Politics Obama...sheesh!

A note added for the benefit of the "critical thinkers" outer: you'd lauded Sens. Levin and Durbin for voting "nay" vote on the AUMF bill, calling it the epitome of good judgment, but what do you "think" of the fact that both senators voted "yea" on the K-L bill that you are now citing as further evidence of Hillary's unfitness to be POTUS? The cognitive dissonance and your silence on it are truly deafening! Let's see some critical thinking, for a change, and reconcile these contracting facts. At least, HRC has been consistent, which is not only highly principled but also good politics...

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)