mycatharsis.com

Senator Clinton on the travesty ABC called a debate …

“We need a president who is going to be up there fighting every day for the American people and not complain about how much pressure there is, and how hard the questions are.”

However, don’t confuse this with complaining about getting the first question at every debate.  That, of course, is entirely legitimate.  And lord knows, Hillary certainly couldn’t be accused of ‘complaining’ throughout these primaries!

I’m sure there’s a method to her madness that I’m just missing.  She seems to have really painted her career into a corner with her ‘win at all costs’ mentality.  She must know she’s doing herself more harm than good.  I thought there was a political truth that when an opponent’s digging a hole for himself, you sit back and let him dig, lest you look like you’re piling on.  Yet that’s exactly what she’s doing, and I think she’s starting to feel the blowback from it, she’s allowing Obama’s troubles to hurt her as well.  She almost seems politically tone-deaf, to a degree not unlike our current president.

And the Vice Presidency?  She must know her attacks give her no shot at it, that even if Obama wanted her as his running mate, and I can’t imagine why he would, he probably couldn’t do it because she would be the ultimate distraction during a general election.  Could he really trust her not to make an ‘innocent’ slip-up or two along the way that costs him the election, but preserves her chances in 2012?

She’s painted herself into a real corner here.  So much of her future relevance in politics depends now on Obama’s future irrelevance.  How powerful could she be if Obama wins the presidency? And does it with a large mandate for his vision?  Even at her current job as Senator, will she feel that she’s going to be marginalized?  What does she do about it? In that light, I can see some sense what she’s doing now, running despite having almost no chance to win, and dragging herself down in the process. As long as it drags down Obama as well, it helps preserve her 2012 campaign.  This theory makes a lot of sense, but is also incredibly cynical. Unfortunately, after seeing the Clintons in action for 16 years, that cynicism can’t be easily dismissed.

They really should preface Hillary Clinton’s public appearances with this disclaimer, because it sure seems she has no real point to dragging down Barack Obama every chance she can get.  Her ‘chances’ for the nomination just simply would not be ‘chances’ if the candidate was anyone else.  Yes, the delegate race is close, but not close enough.  It is entirely within Clinton-think to sabotage Obama now and actively, if perhaps not overtly, work for the election of John McCain in 2008 to preserve her an opportunity to run for President again, in 2012.  I’m sure her own mental calculus is that she can possibly run again in 2012 if Obama loses the general election. But if he wins it, she may never have another chance to run.  Obama would obviously run in 2012 and his VP would be the establishment candidate in 2016.  Observe Carville’s calling Bill Richardson “Judas” if you have any trouble believing the Clinton’s have the sense of entitlement necessary to pull off such a destructive course of action.  And if they do, they’re sacrificing the good of the country to advance their own personal ambitions, actions little different from Rush Limbaugh’s attempts to get his listeners to vote for the weaker Democrat.

Look how quickly Giuliani, Thompson, and even say-anything-at-all-to-win Mitt Romney got out of the race when victory looked merely improbable.  Even against a candidate that looked as weak as McCain did a few months back.  And the one establishment candidate who stuck in the race, Mike Huckabee, made a point to be gracious and effusive in his praise for McCain on the campaign trail.  Instead, we have Hillary unleashing the full Clinton playbook against Obama, including the gem of recycling a scandal just as it appears to be passing out of the public view …

 ”He would not have been my pastor,” Clinton said. “You don’t choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend.”…

I gotta say, as someone who watched the Clintons demonize the Republicans throughout the 90’s, there’s a part of me from that time laughing at watching the Clinton’s do this to their own party, the same party that excused basically every wrong they committed because they won.  That same part of me just also looks incredulously at this mess and sees the stark difference between the Democrats and Republicans in how they choose a candidate.

On the other hand, Barack Obama seems like a heckuva candidate, a scholarly and yet down-to-earth politician who can bring a vast well of intelligence to the job and yet not alienate either the working class or most other constituencies.  And it’d be more than just a shame to see him ground under the wheels of the Clinton machine.  The country would be much poorer, but at least the Clinton’s would have their precious power.

If McCain wins the presidency, he’ll owe Hillary BIG-time.   She’s been by far his most effective campaigner for the past month or so, and looks as if she’ll continue that trend for longer yet.   A month ago, I wasn’t sure I bought all the hype I was hearing about Clinton’s desperate refusal to acknowledge could kill their chances in the general election.  Now I have to say I’m starting to see their point.

Now it’s Ann Lewis and Howard Wolfson bringing the bile up in your throat… from Time’s The Page blog …

Senior adviser Ann Lewis scolds Obama on media conference call for stepping up attacks against Clinton instead of talking about “positive ideas” on the issues.

“I did not realize that their version of new politics is to recycle some of the same old Republican attacks on Hillary that have failed for years.”

Howard Wolfson says he doesn’t “believe imitating Ken Starr” is a way to run a nomination campaign.

Ugh, the gall of these people is just incredible.  Enough that I gotta wonder about the suitability for office of a candidate who can make politics as dirty as she wants, and then plays the victim card as soon as anyone dares criticize her.  They drag a race into the gutter and then blame their opponent for getting himself dirty.  Classic Clinton and classic Clinton-lackey.  At least the reference to Ken Starr should backfire, I believe.  Yes, I’m sure he’s not a popular figure among Democrats, but referencing him would only, I think, remind people of just how nasty and divisive the Clinton years were and will subtly play on voters minds.  Do they really want another four years of independent prosecutors, and the do-anything-to-win politics that is the Clinton’s trademark?

That does it.  I have to admit that for awhile I’ve been torn about whether to vote for Clinton or McCain if a general election came down to those two.  No more.  McCain clearly has more class than the Clinton’s or the sycophants the Clinton’s have always surrounded themselves with.  The Clinton campaign leaking the photo of Obama in Somali (and Muslim looking, that’s why they did it) dress was distateful enough, appealing to all the basest instincts of voters, instinct they claim to abhore, but exploit time and time again.  For Clintons campaign manager to then come out and say Obama should be ashamed about this whole episode, god, these people have no class and treat all of us like idiots.  They got away with it from 1992-2000, and they think it will work for them again.    This time though, I have serious doubts.  If it was anyone other than Hillary Clinton in her position, she’d have been written off from this race a long time ago.

At least they’re reminding us of the TRUE legacy of the Clinton years.   Time had sorta dulled those memories, their increasingly shameful (and that’s saying something for these pieces of work)  win at all costs mentality brings it all back.

Sorta the feeling I got tonight watching the results and speeches. Obama’s sweep into frontrunner status in what really feels more permanent than temporary. His speech at the Kohl center tonight here in Madison was a general election speech with a respectful but forceful shot at John McCain.  And again, he gives an exciting and inspiring speech even while I keep noticing that he really is liberal! But he also seems extremely smart and as free of the partisan pettiness as  a politician can get nowadays.   Can’t say I wish I was there, though.  Big migraine all day and the last thing I feel like dealing with tonight are crowds and parking.
I think what’s really interesting tonight is what a pivotal moment this must be in Hillary Clinton’s life.  She clearly has been planning this run for a very long time, and for perhaps the first time, she’s gotta be questioning her status.  Who has the lead isn’t clear, but who has the momentum is not in doubt.   Will she go all out in attacking Obama, taking a scorched earth policy towards winning at all costs? Or does she play the loyal Democrat and temper her rhetoric just enough so as not to  damage Obama’s general election chances?  Certainly this race is close enough that there will be attacks on both sides, and understandably.  But does she loose the hounds or merely fight an all out, but honorable, fight?

I liked the job both Hillary and Barack did, although I think Obama won by putting himself on equal footing with Clinton and looking every bit as inevitable as Hillary wants to.  I liked Clinton’s answer on Iraq, it sounded the most well thought out of anybody’s in either party.  But Obama gave a great response himself and I was struck how conservative he sounded when he made the point that we have greater concerns than just Iraq, including Afghanistan and China. Obama’s answer that he just wouldn’t be ready, but “right on day one” was the line of the night, without a doubt.   He IS a pheonomenon, and I find his popularity, even among Republicans, very interesting.   A serious man concerned about the direction of the country, and not so concerned with political calculus, a pervasive force in our politics since 1992 at the very least.  He seems very genuine and more concerned with doing good than looking good. And, except for Ron Paul (a phrase I find myself using a TON lately), he seems to be the only candidate so concerned!  As president, he would be a welcome change from the ego-centric leaders we have had for the past twenty years or so, and I am getting increasingly excited about his candidacy. This despite my softening views toward Hillary Clinton, who is nonetheless an integral part of the ‘focus group’ mentality that I’ve been sick of, well, forever I guess.
Obama’s answer on immigration was similarly welcome to me.  I’ve contributed to Ron Paul’s campaign a couple times, and now seriously think I will contribute to Obama’s as well, despite their wildly divergent views.  Frankly, both Democrats sounded much better to me than the Republicans on the whole.  It used to be the Dems were the party of spin, focus groups, white lies, and misdirection.  Quite frankly, that seems to have changed the last few years, to the point that the GOP is now playing these games, and the Democrats seem to have stepped into the void left when Republicans abandoned truth for political expediency.  And I think the American people, while perhaps not all give enough thought to their vote, I do think we have overall a very good B.S. detector, and thus I think the Democrats are placing themselves in a very favorable position for the general election, where someone like Mitt Romney would have a very tough time, as he has had to embrace a very conservative platform, a platform that is seemingly falling out of favor.  McCain, ironically, would have enough problems of his own for NOT embracing that platform, at least in his job as Senator.

While Ron Paul is being excoriated for 15 year old writings that don’t appear to be his,  the race-tinged meanderings of Hillary’s goons go unnoticed or, worse, are being excused by the main stream media.

Does anyone really believe that the Clinton campaign has nothing to do with this?  Bill Shaheen brings up dirt on Obama to the media,  Bob Kerrey makes reference to long discredited rumors, twice for good measure, and now Andrew Cuomo makes a racially tinged remark about the field’s chances, and we’re supposed to believe that all of this is coincidental?  Even when all three comments have one thing in common, namely skirting the fine line between dirty and downright scandalous?

For anyone too young to remember, this is typical Clintonian politics, and why the country was so sick of them that we elected the GOP into power in 2000, despite 8 years of relative peace and prosperity.  Divisive, bitter, mudslinging.  Senator Clinton presented herself a hero for women everywhere. But if a woman was sexually harassed or abused by her husband, that woman was in the way of the Clinton’s ambitions and they went to any length to destroy them.

Here is another glimpse into how the Clinton team views Barack Obama’s supporters …

“If you have a social need, you’re with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you’re young and you have no social needs, then he’s cool.”

Bitter, divisive, partisan, and dismissive.  If you’ve followed the first eight years Hillary Clinton residing in the White House, you know this statement is pretty much representative of what we’re going to get if she reaches it again.

That about sums up the New Hampshire primary for me. Obama was unable to put Clinton away and Ron Paul’s chances for success were doused with cold water.  I wonder why the polls predicting an Obama blowout were so off, maybe with only four days between Iowa and New Hampshire, most people were enamored with Obama, but didn’t feel comfortable enough to vote for them.   Clinton, after all, dominated in most all of the New Hampshire polls until Iowa.  Their speeches pretty clearly illustrated the differences between the two.  Obama’s speech was more to rally the supporters, look towards the next primaries, and, most of all, involve his followers in his campaign, while Clinton’s speech was mostly about her (”I have found my voice … et al”).   It seems typical of most of their speeches, and is partly why I enjoy Obama’s speaking style so much and can’t stand Clinton’s, and dread the thought of listening to that self-centeredness (and, as in the 90s, being praised by a fawning main stream media, no less) for another 8 years.