Monday, February 25, 2008
Clinton Campaign Devolves Into Hypocrisy, Mockery
Mixed with a little Pink Floyd above. Moving closer to the edge below.
How low can she go? Apparently really, really, really low if she keeps listening to the venal advice characteristic of slimy Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson, her two most prominent strategy and messaging consultants. She's now freely using the Rovian tactic of accusing her rival of doing something she's doing. However, I can't imagine how the majority of voters in the March 4th primary states will see it as anything but the transparent and desperate hypocrisy that it is.
Clinton's plunge into bashing Obama doesn't seem to be working, at least in Texas, where she once held a huge lead. The lastest polling released today by CNN/Opinion Research Corp. shows a statistical dead heat: 50% of likely Democratic primary voters said Obama is their choice for the party's nominee, while 46% backed Clinton. Two recent polls by other organizations also show the race statistically even.
Clinton still holds about a 10-point lead over Obama in Ohio, according to polls released today by Quinnipiac University, the University of Cincinnati, and the American Research Group. However, she's rapidly losing ground to Obama as the March 4th primary nears. Her lead was at 21 points in a February 12th Quinnipiac poll, and a Columbus Dispatch Poll released late last month had Clinton up 23 points.
Despite endorsements of Obama by unions including the Teamsters, SEIU, Unite HERE and the International Transport Workers Representatives of Unite HERE, Clinton keeps claiming that Obama supports NAFTA while she does not. Here's what Obama is saying in his stump speeches on that point:
"Sen Clinton has gotten mad at me, because I said she supported NAFTA,” Obama said at a rally in Toledo. “She said, ‘Well, that’s misleading.’ And I had to say, ‘Well, hold on a second.’ The Clinton administration championed NAFTA, passed NAFTA, signed NAFTA. She's saying that part of the experience that makes her the best qualified to be president is all the work that she was doing in the Clinton administration. You can't take credit for everything that's good in the Clinton administration and then suddenly say you don't want to take credit for what folks don't like about the Clinton administration.”
Considering that the Clinton administration considered the passage of NAFTA to be one of their crowning achievements, it's beyond the pale that Hillary is now claiming she's against it. I guess that's what happens in a floundering campaign that needs huge wins in Texas and Ohio to get any bragging rights at all. In fact, Clinton would have to win all the remaining races by about a 60-40 margin to catch Obama in the pledged delegage department.
Should be quite a debate tomorrow in Cleveland.
I find the Clinton campaign dirty tricks disgusting. Her glaring desperation isn't helping her one bit, I would have thought she would be better than that.
Posted by: VP | Feb 26, 2008 7:36:29 AM
It's disturbing to see Hillary resorting to this kind of negativity and spin against a fellow Democrat. It becomes more obvious with each passing day that she cares more about winning than about the party or the nation. I thought she had more class.
Posted by: Old Dem | Feb 26, 2008 9:51:57 AM
what's with the Hillary "Smart Choice" posters in the background? Are we to presume that they consider a vote for Obama a "Dumb Choice?" How INSULTING to every young, disenfranchised, previously unlikely-voter inspired to believe in the possibilities of the Obama movement!!!
Posted by: | Feb 26, 2008 11:26:05 AM
You, DFA, are getting a little over the top in this. How about a little balance in your comments. Being incredibly negative in your blog to either candidate is disrespectful to all the voters who participated in our recording setting election. Democracy for New Mexico deserves better and we are all going to have to work together to elect a Democratic President after the National Convention.
Posted by: Nili Lange | Feb 26, 2008 12:39:14 PM
First off, I am not DFA. I am the blogger who owns and runs this website, which is independent, as noted in our About statement connected to this website. As I have said many times, the opinions I express on here are my own. One of the main purposes of any blog is for expressing opinions.
If you have a different opinion, you are free to express it and argue your points.
My personal view is that Hillary Clinton is disrespecting Obama and those who support him by her very negative tactics and statements, which have worsened considerably as her chances for a victory fade. Many within the Party and without agree with me, and I'm certainly not the only one offering criticism on her conduct.
I stand by what I say and say it openly as my opinion. As I said, if you or anyone else disagrees, that's what the comment section is designed for -- discussion and debate.
Posted by: | Feb 26, 2008 12:49:32 PM
It's absolutely unbelievable that Pied Piper Obama's leading folks around blindly by the nose whith his spell-binding stump speeche about change, moving fwd and empty promises; this is exactly what Georgie did when he snowed so many folks over with his charm, wit, bliding folks to his shallow an transparent lack of experience; so, when Obama screws it up, don't blame me, I didn't vote for Bush and am voting for the only candidate left who is truly capable of being a commander in chief; Obama's only qualified to be Commander in Cheap Talk
Posted by: bea | Feb 26, 2008 1:04:56 PM
Hillary Clinton these days just seems shrill and outraged at her inability to capture votes, and that seems to be the biggest concern on her mind, not understanding the American people or a creating a better nation Post-Bush. Whatever appeal Hillary Clinton may have once had for me is gone. Forever. She's almost become as abhorrent a choice as Ralph Nader
Hopefully Barack Obama will keep positive, keep his momentum up and not get dragged down into the dishonorable quagmire from which Hillary is firing her potshots.
Only Democratic Party unity will defeat the Republicans this fall, yet Hillary jeopardizes victory each time she opens her mouth. Thank God the battle for Ohio is almost over. Enough is enough.
It's time to focus on stomping McCain.
Posted by: | Feb 26, 2008 1:32:08 PM
It's too bad Clinton feels the need to get so nasty now. If she would go out with class she would be highly respected by all and pave the way for a powerful Senate career where she could lead the way on many issues and help Obama get everything passed. She's a very good Senator and we need her but the way she is demeaning Obama now makes that less likely. She is feeding negative lines to McCain and it won't help her gain votes.
Posted by: I Vote | Feb 26, 2008 1:46:43 PM
Thank-you, Barb, for your prompt response. Many in our party disagree with your viewponts on the senator from New York, hence the strong support for HRC in New Mexico in the 2008 Caucus. I and others will try and participate in these discussions in the future when time permits. Nili Lange
Posted by: Nili Lange | Feb 26, 2008 4:20:43 PM
The Hate and fear on this website should be a matter of concern to everyone that reads it. There is plenty to Hate and Fear in this World, but Hillary Clinton is now one of them. You need to put a disclaimer at the top of your website, as you are obviously a Obama fan, and not non-partisan. I doubt that these comments will be posted.
Posted by: | Feb 26, 2008 5:21:36 PM
Sorry to jump in again. Not everyone in the Party shares your view either, Nili.
Unfortunately, the NM Democratic Party has a track record of blindly supporting members of the "Party Annointed" without thinking such support through to the next level.
This occurred when the party made the ham-handed edict to support the extremely crooked Eric Serna for the 3rd Congressional District seat after Richardson vacated it just because it was "Serna's turn" and he had "paid his dues" to the Party. What misguided rubbish!
The end result was a handy victory for Republican dullard Bill Redmond, thanks to help from Green Party spoiler Karen Miller.
If the New Mexico Democratic Party starts a Zombies-for-Hillary movement that reinforces Hillary's smear tactics, the result is again going to be a divided party where many members defect to someone like Nader (or, heaven forbid, the Republican nominee!).
The focus needs to be on defeating McCain (or maybe even Huckabee once the McCain/lobbyist affair scandal starts to gain traction--just you wait).
We should not indulge Hillary Clinton's lust for power at the expense of party unity. There's too much at stake. Haven't people learned that during the past eight years?
Posted by: | Feb 26, 2008 5:36:08 PM
So what did the Clintons do to cause you to Hate them so much?
It is obviously eating you up.
And I guess the other obvious question is what did Obama do (Accomplishments please) to cause you to love him so much.
The majority of NM endorsed Hillary. It does not matter by 1 or Millions. In a true Democracy the Majority still counts, but not on this web site, right.
Posted by: | Feb 26, 2008 7:12:15 PM
Maybe you shouldn't take anonymous comments.
Jimbo, remember that anyone can run from any party, whether the party likes them or not. The Greens have a "none of the above" option, but it didn't work for them either. I think many members (and candidates) tried to distance themselves from Serna when he ran. By the way, Carol Miller is threatening to run for Congress in the northern district again.
Posted by: Michelle Meaders | Feb 26, 2008 7:49:40 PM
I think it is important for the support of candidates to be based on the issues. I see very little of the issues discussed here. The question is, do you want universal health care, fiscal responsibilty, and a smooth transition from Iraq? Then you vote for Hillary Clinton. She knows how to talk to Democrats and to Republicans that even went after her husband. Obama is a candidate that has not developed that ability yet.
In a government system, it is not changing the system, as they change very little, it is working the system. Obama has not had enough time to learn how to work the system.
The Democratic Party has put in office people who could not work this system in the past. They have failed, and the Democrats have then lost the next election.
Posted by: NewMexicoFan | Feb 27, 2008 8:40:24 AM
Jimbo, we are hardly zombies...LOL. Come work with us sometime to support our favorite candidate. I do not think a zombie could keep up with us. Yet, I would say we have spirited and in depth discussions on the issues. Nili
Posted by: Nili Lange | Feb 27, 2008 9:02:17 AM
Hillary and Barack are very close on the issues but I think Obama has a better chance of winning and is right for the times. Clinton has too many negatives built up and too many people resent her or her husband. We can't afford that now.
Clinton is polarizing but Obama can bring the nation together. I wish it were otherwise but it's a fact that must be faced. It would also create too much controversy and media attention to have Bill Clinton living in the White House again. He had his chance and he blew it by giving Republicans the ammunition they needed to impeach him. People haven't forgotten.
I think Hillary should stay in the Senate and move into the Senate's top leadership and work with Obama if he wins to get the legislation we need through there. It would be a very effective team in that sense.
Posted by: Josie | Feb 27, 2008 9:46:35 AM
I'm absolutely amazed at the blind idiots supporting a nobody who just four years ago, after winning his senatorial seat by 'default' when everybody jumped ship stated that he could not contemplate running for a 'higher office' without the necessary experience; I guess the Chicago Mafia and other behind the scenes fat cats supporting his ego helped him make up for no experience at all. If he's the candidate, we'd better vote McCain or head for Canada.
Posted by: Bea | Feb 27, 2008 9:45:05 PM
Just rec'd the nastiest mail from an obvious Obama supporter; it was a cartoon picture of Sen. Clinton depicting her in a very ugly and demeaning way; Keep this up, Obamaphiles and you'll get what you deserve....a kick in the xxxx right back to the left where you belong. Yes, I'm a Clinton supporter, but I would NEVER send out such miserable stuff to supporters of a candidate I don't support. Guess Obama needs to teach his supporters some "ethics" since he calls himself the champion of ethical conduct.
Posted by: Niki | Feb 27, 2008 9:52:26 PM
Read the last two comments and you will see what is wrong with Clinton's candidacy. Negativity. Insults. Mockery. Obama is setting a different and much better tone. Watch the last debate as an example of the contrast.
Barack Obama was hardly a nobody four years ago. For one thing he was one of the most talented students ever to study constitutional law at Harvard according to Lawrence Tribe, who should know. He was an excellent organizer and then civil rights attorney in Chicago. He had a noted career in the Illinois legislature where he helped stop the death penalty among other achievements. He moves people. He thinks clearly and creatively. I could go on.
Hillary Clinton also has talents but she does not have the gift for uniting people and we need that so badly right now.
Posted by: | Feb 28, 2008 12:13:10 AM
Hillary wins hands down and should be 'hired' to run this country. Obama hasn't even taken Foreign Affairs 101 as evidenced by his flunking this topic during the debate when asked how he'd handle Afghanistan. I suppose he thinks he can simply look this up in some history book. It terrifies me to even think about handing over the helm of a great country to someone who's great claim to fame is that he can make great stump speeches.
Posted by: Susan | Feb 28, 2008 10:20:32 PM
Have you talked to the people in New York about how Sen Clinton united them? You have not done your homework, and you are just repeating words you have heard. Sen Clinton has united not only the Democrats but many Republicans in New York since she was elected. Sen Clinton has done that by becoming one of the most respected and hardworking Senators they have ever had. So what experience do you have that says Sen Clinton cannot unite? Or mabye the bigger questions is, what experience (I am talking not hear say, but really facts here), that Barack can unite?
Posted by: NewMexicoFan | Feb 29, 2008 6:29:13 AM
I just finished two hours of calling people in Texas. I met a lot of fine people of all ages and cultures who are going to not only vote once but twice, and take their neighbors, relatives and friends with them. They are worried about health care. They are worried about jobs. While they showed deep respect for both candidates, they are going to go the extra mile for Hillary, just like the people in New Mexico did when they stood in line, and she won by 1,400+ votes. Thank You Texas, for showing the respect to both candidates that they deserve.
Posted by: NewMexicoFan | Mar 1, 2008 6:24:07 AM
Too bad her latest ad doesn't show the proper respect for Obama and instead uses the scare tactics long used by Rove and Bush and Cheney. I also notice the Clinton campaign is making noises about legally challenging the caucus rules in Texas to disrupt things. They have no honor or respect for the people and only care about winning at any cost.
My prediction is that Obama will win Texas and Vermont and end up about even in Ohio and Rhode Island. Clinton won't pick up enough delegates to make any progress. If that happens she needs to withdraw from the race.
Posted by: M.T. | Mar 1, 2008 7:43:34 AM
I guess I always have to ask for the facts. Your predictions are based on what? I also have to ask about Barack's back door agreement with Canada on NAFTA. Speaking of respect, has he answered the letter recently sent to him by the Ohio union on this matter? He needs to show respect to the Ohio Unions and answer the questions asked. The reasons for withdrawal are what? Sen Clinton will still be neck and neck with Barack, even if your predictions come true. This is a perfect example of when an election should go to the convention. That is what the convention was designed for. It is a dead heat amoung the American People. When Hillary was ahead by 100, which she was, it was not mentioned by Barack, even ignored. So why is this lead any more significant? Are these 100 votes any more important than the 100 she was leading by before? I would think that the American people would think them of equal value in our Democracy. In fact some of these votes come from a number of small red states, that we will lose in the General Election, as they always go red. We also need to respect the American People and look at all the satistics fairly. To me they look like two fine race horses approaching the finish line together. All you need is a final surge from either of them to win. Anyway, there are still things of interest on both candidates that could come out before the convention. The final decisions will be made when all the facts are in, and people actually vote at the convention. Is there a reason you are rushing to determine an early finish to this race?
Do you see the Republicans forcing there second candidate to pull out? He is a lot more behind than Sen Clinton.
Posted by: NewMexicoFan | Mar 2, 2008 6:33:08 AM
You talked about Uniting. This article on Building Thin Bridges which was published today in the Washington Post by David Ignatius might interest you. He is talking about Barack: What I hear from politicians who have worked with Obama, both in Illinois state politics and here in Washington, gives me pause. They describe someone with an extraordinary ability to work across racial lines but not someone who has earned any profiles in courage for standing up to special interests or divisive party activists. Indeed, the trait people remember best about Obama, in addition to his intellect, is his ambition.
Have you forgotten that the President we have in there now was ambitious. Of course his voting record bears this out (no controversal votes for people to go back to). But how he could not find time to call meeting on Afghanistan I will never know.
Where are you finding information on how he unites people, or does he just say it at his rallies? If he says it, you need to check how he has done in the past. According to his contemporaries, not well.
Posted by: NewMexicoFan | Mar 2, 2008 8:00:19 PM