Double Standards Part A Jillion

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:14:52 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Clinton pollster Geoff Garin asks some fair questions:

So let me get this straight. On the one hand, it's perfectly decent for Obama to argue that only he has the virtue to bring change to Washington and that Clinton lacks the character and the commitment to do so. On the other hand, we are somehow hitting below the belt when we say that Clinton is the candidate best able to withstand the pressures of the presidency and do what's right for the American people, while leaving the decisions about Obama's preparedness to the voters.

Who made up those rules? And who would ever think they are fair?

Indeed. but double standards rule the day. Consider this inane post:

I am truly convinced that if the results were reversed and Obama was down and tried to loop in the popular vote from states where all candidates agreed not to campaign (especially any state where Clinton's name wasn't even on the ballot!), her camp would be crying foul so fast it would make your head spin.

OF COURSE they would. Who in their right mind would doubt it? It is only dolts who would doubt it. At it is only dolts who would doubt that Obama would be making the same arguments were the roles reversed. This is politics. These are politicians. This is what they do.

Did Jacki Schechner just fall of the political turnip truck? The issue is not whether politicians will make self serving arguments, of course they will. The issue is evaluating the merits of the arguments and the issues involved from the perspective of what is best for the Democratic Party. If you a part of a Cult of Personality, it is not easy to do this.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking only for me

< House Dem Leadership Supports Obama With Ignorance | Olbermann Comments on Hillary Causing Stir >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Double Standards Part A Jillion | 67 comments (67 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Please warn (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by txpolitico67 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:26:58 PM EST

a person when you are directing them to Americablog. I clicked on that and immediately hit my back button. I have absolutely no tolerance for that person. His posts and opinion on the poor people who were bamboozled with their mortgages was unforgivetable.

Thanks BTD.

He did warn you (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by Nadai on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:13:50 PM EST

Didn't you see the part about the "inane post"? :)


Aravosis was the leader of the "let them (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by Joelarama on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:30:37 PM EST

eat cake" when it came to inclusion for transgendered persons employment non-discrimination legislation.

Now, I understand there are arguments to be made from the view of practicality, and Barney Frank has made those arguments.

But Aravosis was singular in his stridency and seemed to take some pleasure in directing venom at transgender activists and their supporters (e.g. NGLTF).

I've had a complete sea-change in my opinion of Aravosis. He's venomous. And I question his progressive credentials -- your example of his simple-minded and heartless posts on the mortgage crisis is a good one.

We're seeing some true colors from many of the boyz in the left blogosphere.


well (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:48:24 PM EST

allow me to defend the A man on one point.
I am gay and I agreed with his position, if not always his tone, in the ENDA discussions.
the fact is it was clear from the get go that with them included it was going no where progress is made in steps not leaps.
but the mortgage crisis is really when I stopped going there. it was actually pretty shocking. more than once I started comments by saying something like "but arent we supposed to be the progressives . . . "?
not only Aravosis but many commenters who I had respected in the past showed they would be just as comfortable at FreeRepublic.


: Aravosis (none / 0) (#62)
by txpolitico67 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:09:01 PM EST

was a republican, but "claims" to have switched sides. Gay and republican. Um, no thanks. And FTR, I am gay also.

I stopped reading (4.00 / 0) (#43)
by themomcat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:41:56 PM EST

his blog after that which made me a little sad because I loved his pictures of orchids and his friend Chris in Paris's posts.


the usual practice (5.00 / 0) (#45)
by DandyTIger on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:43:51 PM EST

is to put the domain in brackets after the link. As in link to most evil site in the world [dailykos.com]. Nice practice I think. Another nice practice is to also add in parenthesis pdf or other media indicators if the link is to anything other than to a web page.


I always (5.00 / 0) (#66)
by cal1942 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:03:17 PM EST

check the bottom bar on the browser to see the URL before clicking on the link.


What are his rules? (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by Marco21 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:27:41 PM EST

I am unsure.

I think Obama's "creative class" (certainly not classy) needs to wake up. We cannot win without Michigan and Florida. By we, I mean Democrats.

I know Democratic voters aren't a big concern to him because we're ll racist, uneducated white trash - not the progressive smart kids who think the words hope and change will turn our economy around and end the Iraq war. We're also not Republicans, who he loves to praise because obviously he was in a coma during the 1990s.

But, if he wins, he will need to represent Democrats and democratic ideals. To do that, he'll have to fight Republicans and Republican ass-backward thinking and shameless attacks.

With his recent 10-day press blackout and whining over waffles and debates, asking if he's up for the job is legit. Not a slam.

except for (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by TruthMatters on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:28:22 PM EST

when Hillary said she was now leading in pop. vote.

this meant she did not count the caucus states or any of the voters in MI who may have wanted Obama.

I never saw anyone who had a problem with this.

so what is it? its about the voters? but if those voters voted for Obama then eh not so much?

I don't remember any Hey Clinton this is a double standard posts here when she was discounting caucus states and those in MI who didn't vote for her.

so I forget are we arguing whats fair to the voters or whats fair to Hillary?

because I am pretty sure her leaving off caucus states wasn't exactly fair, but hey it helped Hillary so apparently THAT doesn't deserve a post.

she hurt her MI and FL argument the second she left off the caucus states, you can't argue anymore this is about voters without address why she is calling her self in the lead, when this assumes NOT A SINGLE VOTER in MI wanted to vote for Obama? and those pesky caucus states? well no American voters there. and those MI voters? well Obama took his name off so we don't have to care about them

so indeed its a double standard.
just like my post is a double standard
just like this Blog is a double standard.

everyone uses them to their advantage.

Well (none / 0) (#17)
by cmugirl on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:37:51 PM EST

she's not the only one saying it - I've seen it trickling out in a few MSM outlets. Oh, and realclearpolitics.com has her ahead counting MI and FL AND caucuses.

You may not want to count the delegates, but you cannot say that people did not cast legal and now certified votes.

As for Obama's no votes in Michigan - as his supporters keep pointing out - his name wasn't on the ballot (like Edwards and Biden and Richardson). So we should assume that all the uncommitted were only Obama votes? He shouldn't have pulled his name off in a campaign tactic. Sorry.


Popular vote (5.00 / 3) (#25)
by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:53:55 PM EST

is definitely her argument and a good one.

He's not able to reach the required delegate count. Frankly, a lot of his delegate count is diminished in terms of true "will of the party" because they came in uncontested caucus vote states.

He hasn't won a single Democratic state except his own home state.

He's slipping behind rather than building momentum. She even won 2 high-income suburbs in Philly.

His "get out the vote" seems to be falling off. More registrations than voters.

Wright, et. al, are on the circuit, but people are onto this. It's the race card.

Pelosi and Dean? Blew it with FL and MI. Nobody is paying attention to their arguments.

Electability is on the brains of everyone.

Obama is now, officially, toast.

My opinion only.


what large (none / 0) (#42)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:40:23 PM EST

electorally important state has he won besides Illinois?


important? (none / 0) (#44)
by TruthMatters on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:43:06 PM EST

Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, (about to add NC),

I mean once again unless you think that Hillary will replace Minnesota Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri with texas?

pretty sure we in the mid-west are a bit important to the democratic party.


: Un fortunately (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by themomcat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:49:10 PM EST

most of the states where Obama has won tend to vote Republican in the GE. Since the GE is winner takes all for the Electoral College this could be a problem for his ability to defeat McCain.

: Except for MI (n/t) (none / 0) (#61)
by cmugirl on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:03:59 PM EST

: Texas (none / 0) (#63)
by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:18:07 PM EST

she won by 3 percent in the primaries. Missour, she ended up with one more delegate than him. That state is a tie. But never mind that, look at how McCain is shaping up there. Obama doesn't have a chance in heck in Missouri.
Iowa is not a major state.
He did win Wisconsin, which has traditionally not been considered a major Dem state due to it's odd voting patterns. But let's not quibble.
He did win Wisconsin.

When you write, (none / 0) (#50)
by eric on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:52:08 PM EST

"because I am pretty sure her leaving off caucus states wasn't exactly fair, but hey it helped Hillary so apparently THAT doesn't deserve a post."

What are you talking about? Caucuses don't vote, they caucus. No votes to count - there were some informal "straw polls" but how exactly can you "count" caucuses?


In Michigan (none / 0) (#67)
by cal1942 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:07:08 PM EST

Obama chose to get off the ballot. He did it to taint a certain Clinton victory as did my candidate at the time John Edwards.

If you decided not to offer yourself in the state then you don't deserve the votes.

And woulda, shoulda, coulda don't count.


Classic (none / 0) (#68)
by txpolitico67 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:36:23 PM EST

right-wing response. Guess with Ken Starr at Pepperdine it's easy why you would have that kind of comeback..."leftcoast".


Geoff Garin is with Maya Angelou (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by thereyougo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:31:16 PM EST

BTD: I Hope you allow this - says about what the rest of us see in Hillary.

An Open Letter from Dr. Maya Angelou

Dear Friend:

I am writing to tell you about my friend, Hillary Clinton, and why I am standing with her in her campaign for the presidency. I know the kind of president Hillary Clinton will be because I know the person she is.

I am inspired by her courage and her honesty. She is a reliable and trustworthy person. She is someone I not only admire but one for whom I have profound affection.

Hillary does not waver in standing up for those who need a champion. She has always been a passionate protector of families. As a child, she was taught that all God's children are equal, and as a mother, she understood that her child wasn't safe unless all children were safe. As I wrote about Hillary recently in a praise song: "She is the prayer of every woman, and every man who longs for fair play, healthy families, good schools and a balanced economy."

It may be easy to view Hillary Clinton through the narrow lens of those who would write her off or grind her down. Hillary sees us as we are, black and brown and white and yellow and pink and relishes our differences knowing that fundamentally we are all more alike than we are unalike. She is able to look through complexion and see community.

[/b]She has endured great scrutiny, and still she dares greatly. Hillary Clinton will not give up on you, and all she asks is that you do not give up on her. She is a long-distance runner. I am honored to say I am with her for the long run.[b]

I am supporting Hillary Clinton because I know that she will make the most positive difference in people's lives and she will help our country become what it can be. Whether you are her supporter, leaning towards her, undecided, or supporting someone else, I believe Hillary Clinton will represent you - she will be a president for all Americans. It is no small thing that along the way we will make history together.

I think the problem is that there is so much (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Anne on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:15:07 PM EST

time spent explaining what Obama really meant, that his supporters and staffers have come to believe that they must also interpret Clinton's every syllable,and they do that by shaping it to conform to their belief that everything she says must always be an attack on him.

So, they end up putting words in her mouth and negative intent behind them, and then respond to their own interpretation with a suitable amount of outrage - and the media are so lazy and - I'm beginning to believe - stupid - that they report and opine as if the interpretation of Clinton represents what she actually said and did.

It's Alice down the rabbit hole, with a little Twilight Zone thrown in for fun.

Consider this inane post: (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:22:26 PM EST

Jacki Schechner does tend to be the Coocoo who makes the rest of the nest seem sort of sane by comparison.
that whole site has become a parody in that rivals the Onion.

: The Onion is intentially funny. nt (none / 0) (#37)
by Joelarama on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:33:32 PM EST

Clinton and Obama are different (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by Truth Partisan on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:24:25 PM EST

I would argue that one of the big differences is experience. I say you won't see Obama ever withdraw his name from a ballot as he did in MI again.
I personally, and at least some of the Clinton supporters I've met, would object if the Clinton camp didn't want to count the votes of MI and FL.
I usually find double standards depressing but I have to say that I find Hillary Clinton inspiring in a way I did not expect--she shows you how to keep going. It may be that the press is acting slightly more fairly--Garin's op-ed was actually published by the Post--because of Hillary's continuing big state wins. I also think that the press is deadly afraid of being left behind, and their continuing bad coverage of Hillary is contradicting what is happening on the ground, what people in the country are doing and how they are voting--so much that people will stop watching and stop believing that the press is in the know. This may have forced some of the press to stop acting as if they are partisan for Obama 100% of the time. But let's wait five minutes--I am cynical after the press's behavior. Many of the better articles for Clinton are actually still pro-Obama. And don't forget the Obama rules--isn't one of them that something like Hillary must campaign for him whenever she campaigns for herself? So then of course she is in the wrong whenever her campaign ads don't help him.

Oooh, you used the c word! (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:16:03 PM EST

heh

Oh, and someone should forward Garin (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:16:55 PM EST

a copy of the Obama rules.


For that site? (none / 0) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:20:08 PM EST

It fits perfectly. Honestly, that had to be the stupidest post I have seen this week.


But-but-but Clinton! (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:21:20 PM EST

Lather, rinse, repeat.


The whole place had a change in tone (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:22:02 PM EST

after Super Tuesday.

Anyway, I guess Jackie learned from the best: CNN.


I think the "round down" posts (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by ding7777 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:32:43 PM EST

concerning Hillary's win in PA were stupid/amusing

Sample:

Clinton: 54.69
Obama: 45.31
That's a difference of 9.38 percent which, if you're going to round, would round down to 9 percent, not 10 percent.

: No child Left Behind (5.00 / 3) (#30)
by BarnBabe on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:16:50 PM EST

N/T

New Headline on Dkos (none / 0) (#6)
by blogtopus on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:26:50 PM EST

Clinton Strategist Calls Hillary a 'Goose'!

We're pushing the limits (none / 0) (#8)
by Lahdee on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:27:25 PM EST

on the outrage box. How far can we go? Instant outrage not enough for you? Just plain old outrage got you down? Try NEW Double-Super-Secret Outrage-Outrage! It will do the trick.

Harrumph.

: Hey (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by blogtopus on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:29:16 PM EST

I didn't get Harrumph out of that guy! [/brooks]

Ironic (none / 0) (#13)
by SpinDoctor on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:32:41 PM EST

I find it ironic that many Clinton supporters will gladly wrap themselves with the "it is politics and they are politicians" flag when it serves their interests but less than 12 hours ago were in a feeding frenzy when Reverend Wright called Senator Obama a politician. The common theme in most of the screeds from yesterday was that Obama being labeled a "politician" [gasp] by Wright was going to be another nail in his coffin come the general election. Yet when Clinton does what politicians do, it has no negative impact on her electability in November.

Looks like we are dealing with two cults.

Except (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by cmugirl on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:40:59 PM EST

Obama himself has marketed himself as a "new kind of politician", when in fact, as we have found out, through Wright, and Power, and Goolsebee, that he is not.

False advertising.


Hillary never claimed to be anything other (5.00 / 3) (#19)
by ahazydelirium on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:43:57 PM EST

than a politician, though. She has been upfront about her status, and so pointing out her political roots is just silly and obvious.

Obama claimed to be something other than a politician. So it should be pointed out when he acts like a politician and when his supporters start to innocently mention he is a politician--as though he had always been marketed that way.


: Yes But Rev. Wright Disputes Obama's Claim (none / 0) (#29)
by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:16:38 PM EST

According to Rev. Wright, Obama is just a politician doing what politicians do.

It is not remotely ironic. (5.00 / 4) (#22)
by rooge04 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:46:28 PM EST

Obama's entire campaign is based on the idea that he is NOT just a politician. We have all argued that indeed, he IS. THAT is the difference. He claims to be above it all. He "deigned" himself to go into politics. He is just another politician. No irony involved.


Why do you miss the (5.00 / 3) (#23)
by tree on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:46:51 PM EST

fact that the Obama campaign has pushed the meme that he is NOT a typical politician? That's his problem right now. He's been sold as transcendent, but all his recent actions have shown him to be very much an old-style politics candidate. If the main thrust of his campaign is hypocritical, why should anyone believe any of the rest of it? That is the issue brought to light again by Rev. Wright's statement.

Clinton on the other hand has never claimed to be anything other than a politician, so her political moves don't sound off the thunderous hypocrisy bells that ring when Obama does the same kind of things, while falsely claiming higher ground. Applying logic does not make one a cult member. It makes one rational.


no, Hillary doesn't say she's a populist (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by thereyougo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:53:51 PM EST

candidate, Obama does. He wants us to believe he's above the fray. He wants us to believe in the "change". Just today he's saying gas prices are high bcz of the ways of DC.

Yet,he proposes no way he's going to change it. Empty words invite scrutiny.

Those of us ask, how are you going to change DC have yet to get an answer. Criticizing the status quo is nic, but saying one thing and doing another is going to get you the empty rhetoric and thats policitian speak label.

If Hillary is part of the DC culture, she proves to me she can work in it to benefit all of us including the lobbyists. Thats the diff here.

She's not perfect, I disagree with some of her votes, but if we get healthcare out of her presidency it will be like FDR bringing Social Security.


I don't care (5.00 / 5) (#31)
by Nadai on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:17:50 PM EST

that Obama's a politician. I care that he pretends to be above mere politics and that his supporters willingly close their eyes to all evidence to the contrary. Frankly, I'd rather everyone saw him as just another politician instead of the Great Agent of Change come to lead us out of the desert.


I do not know who you are referring to (none / 0) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:35:51 PM EST

Obama's (none / 0) (#69)
by txpolitico67 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:40:38 PM EST

the one running around talking about being a post-racial (wtf THAT means) and a "new" style politician bringing about 'change', 'hope', yada yada yada.

Hillary is what she is. She's not proclaiming to be something she knows she isn't. She's a skilled politician who is fighting not only her own party, but the media as well.

Why does it fail any Obama supporter that when he is called something that 'they' don't see in him those people are racists, liars, or any other
disparaging comment?

It's not a double-standard. It's the damn truth.


BTD, I'm shocked. (none / 0) (#16)
by 1jpb on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:37:07 PM EST

You are amazingly capable of picking apart non sequiturs.

Please show me where anyone from the HRC team has been accused of hitting below the belt because they:

say that Clinton is the candidate best able to withstand the pressures of the presidency and do what's right for the American people, while leaving the decisions about Obama's preparedness to the voters.

Not only hasn't she been chritisized for this comment, she's never made it. Please show me where HRC said she is:

the candidate best able to withstand the pressures of the presidency and do what's right for the American people

Nobody would care if this was all she was saying, but she hasn't limited herself to this language.

okay, this is pretty funny (5.00 / 5) (#20)
by Kathy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:44:05 PM EST

Because either you or another group of trollbots was screaming bloody murder weeks ago when Clinton made these claims.

Google "commander in chief threshold." While you're there, poke around a bit. We'll wait for you to get back. Honest.


3AM Ad? (5.00 / 5) (#21)
by sleepingdogs on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:45:22 PM EST

Wasn't this this whole point of the 3AM ad? I remember Obama supporters went on for DAYS about how it was unfair of her to portray herself as capable because that could ONLY mean he clearly wasn't.


So all the kerfluffle about a shot of (5.00 / 5) (#26)
by tree on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:54:07 PM EST

OBL in Hillary's PA ad didn't happen? She made no mention of any other candidate in that ad and pointed out that she was best capable of withstanding the crises that can occur during a Presidency. Exact same thing with the 3am ad. No mention of anyone else, just a statement that she is best qualified to take that call.

Apparently you too think that she can't promote her own strengths because to do so might imply that Obama is not as strong a candidate as she is.


I Believe That It Is The Creative Class' Position (5.00 / 3) (#47)
by BDB on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:48:02 PM EST

That it is not appropriate to ask who would be the best person to deal with Osama bin Laden because either the next president won't have to or it's not something the American people should base their vote on.

It's amazing to me because I'm pretty sure Obama has made the argument that he would be better to deal with bin Laden. However, when he does it, it's perfectly okay. But then he doesn't use incredibly inflammatory pictures of bin Laden hiking.

If you wonder why Democrats lose elections it's because of things like this. Of course the American people should consider which candidate would best serve the country in a crisis. If merely asking that question is fear mongering, then Democrats scare way too easily. When Clinton or Obama suggest that the nomination of the other will result in a nuclear bomb going off somewhere in the U.S. - as Cheney did about Kerry in 2004 - then I'll call out fear mongering. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned all either of them are doing is claiming they are better qualified for the job than the other.


Is there a quote? (none / 0) (#33)
by 1jpb on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:19:32 PM EST

Here is what has been supposedly called below the belt:

Make sure to include links so that the full context can be reviewed. Thanks.

Campaign ads are fun. If the HRC campaign had said; it's not fair for people to complain when we throw out ads at the last minute that have scary images. Well, that would be one thing, but the quote BTD has given doesn't defend scary images in ads, why is that? For the record, I've never been animated by these kinds of fear mongering ads. I can't understand how a person could be so weak minded that they are influenced by images of atom bombs or Bin Laden, but who knows. The HRC team has repeatedly used this last minute strategy, so they must think it works. And, if you deny it is fear mongering, why is it only sprung at the last minute? And, what exactly do images of destruction have to do with a candidates' track record? For example, does HRC really want to open up a discussion of WJC's record on Bin Laden? Is that a winning argument for her?


We have to lead you to water (none / 0) (#58)
by tree on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:19:06 PM EST

AND push your head into the wet trough as well??? Look, we've given you several examples of exactly what you asked for and you refuse to address any of them. The Clinton campaign has been criticized innumerable times for the 3am ad, the "OBL" ad, the CIC comment, Bill's comment that it would be nice if we had a campaign based on policy differences, etc. We're not going to waste our time giving you quotes and links because you are surely familiar with all of these, and it appears that your request for quotes and links is made in lieu of any reasonable counter-argument on your part.

And as for Clinton's ads being "fearmongering", I have to disagree. I see it this way: I live in California. I've been through a couple of big quakes and expect to see at least another big one, if not more, in my lifetime. I'm not afraid of them; if I was I wouldn't live here. But I know d*mn well that the federal response after the Northridge quake was responsible for easing a lot of suffering here and that, in contrast, the federal response after Katrina was a cruel joke. A good competent President can make a big difference there. It is not fearmongering to remind people that a President may have to deal with unforeseen difficulties and that Hillary Clinton is competent to deal with them. I'm not living in fear of anything but I sure as h*ll want to make sure that the person I elect can deal with adversity. I'm not looking for a personal savior; I'm looking for a capable administrator.


How do you know that HRC (none / 0) (#59)
by 1jpb on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:44:39 PM EST

can deal with unforeseen disastrous events? When has she done so in the past? The biggest thing she's ever run is her presidential campaign, that's had problems. During her time in the Senate she hasn't been the lead D on any major legislation that affects all Americans or the world (e.g. arms control and disclosure of federal spending, or 1/4 of the ethics reform team.) We know know that she wasn't the lead on SCHIP or FALN. She wasn't "instrumental" to Irish peace, she didn't survive sniper fire. She voted to authorize war without reading the classified NIE. She, likes to talk about how she'll obliterate Iran (more extreme than McCain's bomb, bomb, bomb Iran jingle, imo.) She disagrees with BO's willingness to go after terrorists in Pakistan, even though, since BOs comments, we've seen that this tactic took out top leadership of Al-Qaeda. She wants to provide a NATO like umbrella to Saudi Arabia who, kicked us out of our base there, uses oil as a weapon against us, funds radical madrassas around the world, has been the home of a lot of terrorists who attack US interests (and the homeland on 9-11.)

Please tell me how you know that HRC can deal with unforeseen disastrous events. When has she done so in the past?

PS When you talk about New Orleans don't forget that it was generally believed that Bush had a great response to 9-11. I never shared that opinion, but polling indicates I was in the minority.


: Again you change the subject (none / 0) (#64)
by tree on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:53:41 PM EST

Does that mean that you have conceded the point that her campaign has been unfairly criticized?
And do you likewise concede the point that the ads weren't fear mongering?
Because if you haven't, why are you now veering off to disagree with my perception(apparently shared by a lot of other Americans) of her ability to lead in a crisis and why are you stooping to using false and frankly right-wing talking points to do so? I'm getting ready for work and don't have the time (or the inclination) to rebut you point by point now, but suffice it to say that I strongly disagree with your jaundiced view of her "lack" of accomplishments, and that I'm well aware that I'm not going to convince you of anything because you already think you know it all. But again, the original point was that her campaign ads were not attacks on Obama, but were instead aimed at promoting her perceived strengths. By arguing that you think that public perception is wrong, you are only bolstering the original point that Garin was making. You really don't have a case to make that the ads were negative towards Obama. You just don't agree that the public perception of her strength is right, and so therefore you don't like her appealing to that perception. In other words, you are objecting to her campaigning for herself, which is really quite an inane and insane objection to make, if you would just stop and look at it.
And my P.S.: Bush's response to 9-11 was as pathetic as his response to Katrina, and neither were a surprise given his lack of experience and his history of running everything he touched into the ground.

To Be Fair (none / 0) (#35)
by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:22:33 PM EST

Hillary pointing out her strengths does make a thinking person do a compare and contrast with Obama. It is not Hillary's fault that a lot people think he doesn't come close to competing. If he could compete, there would not be all this outrage.


Fairness? (none / 0) (#41)
by 1jpb on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:38:25 PM EST

I suppose fairness was less of a concern when you have repeatedly neglected the rules for troll rating.

A
B

You're not alone, there are many on talkleft who should review the policies here. And, I've found your comments thoughtful, unlike the comments of many who throw around the troll ratings.

And, saying that she and McCain are wonderful (paraphrase) and BO has a speech, is not expressed by your retelling of reality. What she said should be denounced because it's ridiculous. You, and those who think like you seem to believe that BO should just agree that all he has is a speech. Absurd!


Election Campaigning 101 (5.00 / 3) (#52)
by jackyt on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:58:15 PM EST

Hilary Clinton: Tell voters why she is best for job.

Barack Obama: Tell voters why he is best for job.

Nowhere is it written that candidate A must stump for candidate B and vice versa.

Sheesh!


I Like Accuracy Myself (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:08:51 PM EST

So if you would like to show me the TR rating rule on Talk Left that I've neglected, I would appreciate it. BTW I meant the "1" rating on A and didn't mean to rate B.

You seem to have a tendency to label everything Clinton says as a right wing attack while you chose to ignore all the times that Obama repeats actual right wing attacks on Hillary.

Do I expect Obama to admit that all he has is a speech? No. He is a politician and it would not be in his interest to do so. Will I criticize Clinton for saying that? No. She is a politician and it is in her best interest to make that statement. Do I think that Obama is lacking the experience necessary to be president. Yes, I most certainly do.

: I think Jeralyn has some rule (none / 0) (#60)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:57:24 PM EST

I do not enforce it at all as ratings have no effect here. I could not care less.

And don't forget (5.00 / 3) (#32)
by echinopsia on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:19:04 PM EST

Bill Clinton's remark when asked about Hillary v. McCain, when he didn't even mention Obama's name - wasn't even talking about him - and he was called McCarthy-like.

Because you can't say something nice about Hillary without saying something equally nice about Obama, because it's not faaaaaiiiiiiirrrr. And you're exactly like McCarthy if you say Hillary and JOhn McCain are people who love their country. Exactly.


: Republican hogwash, but I got an email-- (none / 0) (#57)
by Molly Pitcher on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:49:43 PM EST

"As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides," Obama said. "There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might salute it."
They are ba-ack again!

Intentionally. Man my typing is off (none / 0) (#38)
by Joelarama on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:33:59 PM EST

today.

what comes after A Jillion? (none / 0) (#46)
by DandyTIger on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:45:30 PM EST

because you know there will be more double standards coming. I think you've counted yourself into a corner. :-)

A Gazillion? (none / 0) (#51)
by themomcat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:53:12 PM EST

: Although when it comes to counting (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by badger on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:35:18 PM EST

double standards or hypocrisy, the preferred unit is Brazileons.

: Googleplex (none / 0) (#55)
by badger on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:33:14 PM EST

I must be coming down with something. (none / 0) (#70)
by halstoon on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:18:23 PM EST

I actually agree with BTD and the Clinton camp.

I need sleep.