Hillary Clinton's Ruthless Campaign

Democrats have long complained that they need a presidential candidate who knows how to fight and win.

On Tuesday night, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, flew to Florida for a "victory rally" in a state that was awarding no delegates, because it was penalized by national party officials for holding an unauthorized early primary. Last summer, she and the other candidates pledged not to campaign in the Sunshine State. Still, Clinton held the rally, declaring victory on national television. Millions of people in the 22 states who will vote next Tuesday probably saw her, not knowing the Florida vote was moot. And in Florida, Clinton pledged to seat its delegates at the Democratic National Convention.

"Hillary won the highest turnout Democratic primary in Florida history," her website gushed, on a page giving daily talking points to supporters. "Hillary received more votes in Florida than Sen. (John) McCain, the winner of the Republican primary. Hillary also received more votes in Florida alone than Sen. (Barack) Obama received in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina."

If Clinton's boast makes you grimace -- she also charged that Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL, was first to break the DNC's no-campaigning pledge by running a national cable ad that was seen in Florida and by getting good press after winning big in South Carolina -- then these brazen moves give a very clear view of Clinton's leadership style. Regardless of her center-left positions on issues, Hillary Clinton is fighting to win.

In fact, there may be no better illustration of the divide-and-conquer style of politics that Obama seeks to overcome than the tactics of his most aggressive rival, Hillary Clinton.

Link to entire article: http://www.alternet.org/election08/75523/

A badge of honor to hate Clinton

And now he has the audacity to claim their votes don't count.

in place by TERRY McAULIFFE. Did you attack McAuliffe for setting up that rule in 2003-4?

Did you attack the states who voted to KEEP that rule in place in 2006?

NOW you want to PRETEND outrage over Kerry stating exactly what that rule means?

Have you tried to reach Terry McAuliffe at the Hillary Clinton campaign and ask HIM for a clarification of the rule he set in place so you will no longer spread false attacks?

Because too many of us have missed that one.

TeamClinton thinks some Democrats are so dumb that they can be spun into attacking other Democrats for stating FACTS about rules that a member of their own campaign led the drive in 2003-4 to PUT IN PLACE.

They believe that some Democrats are so dumb that they can be spun into attacking the current chair of the DNC, Howard Dean, for that rule that was crafted by Terry McAuliffe, the previous chair.

Yep - TeamClinton KNOWS they can always expect there are enough dumb Democrats who will buy into the spin and promote it for them.

1.5 million Floridians voted in the democratic primary

Kerry does not want you to talk about that.


I wonder why?

There was no rule against running in FL in 2004 - so how could he try the tactic of making a fuss about winning a primary that didn't count.

Kerry thanked everyone in his Faneuil Hall speech when he conceded.

It seems you simply have your nose out of joint that he has been an excellent surrogate for Obama. HRC agreed before Iowa that FL and MI didn't count. I think it's a stupid situation - but it was one ALL the candidates should have fought together before the final DNC ruling.

Conservatives are always claiming that liberals/progressives are naive. They view the "real world" as requiring the pursuit of money, war, and "doing whatever you have to do to win". Some of them may say they wish it were otherwise, but alas it is not. The world is full of "bad guys" and you do not deal with them with kind words and sitting around the campfire with them.

Perhaps there is certain amount of the "non-progressive" movement that we could adopt so as not to be considered politically naive. The toughest call is to judge how much of the "win at all costs" campaign strategy is consistent with a progressive ideology, before you cross a line into campaigning like the worst Republican using the same tactics just with different talking points.

There is no one "right" answer to the vision/transformative/kumbaya campaign vs the compassionate/competent/bare knuckles approach (at least, that we would likely agree on). Obviously, some middle ground may be the best, but where on the continuum you fall has a lot to do with which candidate you support at this point.

1. What 'progressives' wish they could do
2. What 'progressives' WILL do.

Example: From 2001 - 2006, there was a constant call from the left for our own Karl Rove. But when some Democrats (like Rahm Emanuel) ramped up their "win at all costs" strategy, 'progressives' got cold feet.

High ideals are fine but we're not dealing with people who respect them. The right wing has an agenda we deplore. They're willing to engage in knife fights to make sure their agenda wins the day. I believe we should be prepared to draw our own knives to make sure it doesn't.

AFTER the polls closed for going to the polls and giving them her support. How tasteless and arrogant. She was obviously there to influence their vote. Which would be against the rules if there actually was an election for them to vote in. Wait a minute, there is. It's on November 8th. I am sure it is against SOME rule for Hillary to attempt to influence the Florida vote in November, I'll go looking for it as soon as I am done typing this.

The fact that she skipped out of town and out of state on her South Carolina voters, supporters, and volunteers without the same sort of recognition.

So on one hand she skips out of town after a real primary because she lost but on the other she makes a big point of making it to a state that didn't have a real primary. And all of this is to make her look good. However, to anyone really watching, it makes her look opportunistic and distastful.

And if you actually read the article you would notice she had surrogates organizing within the state whereas according to the article Obama avoided that.

Also what's really interesting is how her NOW President in NY who is a campaign booster of hers according to the Alternet article, actually accused Edwards and Obama of "gangbanging" Clinton.

But if these kinds of low class tactics are good enough for you, then I guess you deserve the government you get.

Don't come crying if you don't like what happens.

What are we picking and choosing the facts to suite Obama?

I thought Obama had all of them...to hear you all tell it anyway....SC was a lost cause for Hillary.

I don't feel a need to want to defend everything any supporter of Clinton says or does. Obama delivered his victory speech in New Hampshire with just one sentance devoted to acknowledging that he actually lost there, and flew out of Nevada without saying a word to his supporters there. There were pro-Obama flyers being distributed inside Florida, they were posted here on DU, and there were those campaign ads that only Obama couldn't figure out how NOT to run inside Florida.

I commented on what the OP commented on.

to take on the Rethugs and their corporate money and their swiftboaters.

If you've ever read Animal Farm you'll be wise to remember the point in the book when the Pigs start wearing clothes and sitting at the tables with the Humans. It's at that point you will realize that what you are supporting is a charade.

denying that she has been ruthless?

Even those of us who don't like it will admit that the Clintons are fantastic campaigners who are very good at playing hardball and doing what is necessary to win. (Some in the Clinton camp claim that as a badge of honor.) It is ironic, though, that when they employ such tactics, successfully or not, and it stirs up hard feelings, their defenders will claim that there was no attempt offend or do anything underhanded (wink, wink). The other side is just too sensitive and whiny.

Of course, the next day the defenders will proclaim that we need Hillary as the nominee because the Clintons are better able to play hardball in the GE and do what needs to be done to win.

swifting involves complete lies to denigrate a candidate

as in the purple hearts story

quiet along with Bill and even used their cache to SUPPORT Bush on his decisions, defending him PUBLICLY from the criticisms of the left.

also thanking voters is hardly an underhanded move.

was that the people most likely to see that as an offense are mainly not Hillary supporters. Even understanding the simplest explanation of the controversy and the rules and the "boycott" is probably so minimal among most voters that the impression of "victory" works completely. Playing the people's ignorance is not half as bad as vowing to seat the delegates they way she did and when she did. Whatever else there is about the political perception and toughness strategy, it is a blow against democracy in the primaries, the rules and for prejudice and ignorance concerning the case.