Hillary to bear the sins of the world.

One of the main tactics Bush used in 2004 was to accuse us of what he was guilty of. This was to confuse voters and to divert attention away from his own shortcomings. This was largely done through media and 527 surrogates so Bush could keep his own hands clean. For example, even though Bush was a draft dodger with no qualms about sending other people to die, somehow Kerry who was wounded in action was the real coward and was "unfit for command." Likewise, despite Bush's war and the executions he authorized, Kerry was the one with no respect for life because we was pro-choice. And the list goes on. The day before the election, my mailbox was graced with photos of Kerry and Jane Fonda with an explanation of how he was a traitor. A 527 I never heard of sent them. I saw the same sort of thing by the R.s in 1988 and 2000. Now, in addition to corporate media connections and other conventional tools, candidates now have fan clubs to use on the internet.

Now the same kind of below-the-radar character assassignation is happening again. While Hillary Clinton fights a pretty conventional campaign for the nomination, those loyal to Obama and at his direction work tirelessly to discredit her. Candidates now coordinate internet posters to respond to specific criticisms. So when I ask about an Obama fan’s “boss” or “marching orders” I am not being figurative. The fact that all these Obama supporters are saying the same thing repeatedly means they are reading from the same script. Indicating undesirable characteristics in a primary opponent is normal campaigning. If you doubt it, consider the somersault ad Dukakis ran against Gephardt in 1988 or the old-time-religion ad Humphrey ran against Kennedy in 1960. Pretending to respect ones opponent while running a below-the-radar campaign of slander as Bush did to McCain in 2000 can only be called Rovian and dishonest.

Everything Hillary has said about Obama has been factually accurate and said by her or Bill Clinton without hiding behind anonymous internet users. Just because her observations bring up uncomfortable electoral realities that the left wing of the party would rather dismiss as irrelevant does not mean she is wrong. The R.s already know about Obama's faults and will exploit them aggressively in the fall. If anything, Hillary's attention to them will diffuse the impact in the fall.

As Bush did in '04, Obama through his agents accuses Hillary of what they are guilty of: character assasignation and damaging the party. (The details are already explained elsewhere.) As in '04, they take a kernal of truth and use it as the chewy center of a bullshit truffle. The outer layers are either taking something out of context, misrepresenting its meaning or imputing bad motivation or disloyalty where none exists. Note that wanting to win is not a bad motive. So how is this not a Republican tactic which Obama admirers purport to deplore? In psychology, this is called projecting ones faults onto others. This has sufficiently pissed of those of us that know better that the party really has been damaged by it. While we do not want more war and more debt, we do not want a president with a legion of fans walking in the lockstep of absolute loyalty either.

Obama's fans are emotionally invested in his candidacy to a fanatical degree. Nothing he says or does or is can be criticized without a vicious response. On the other hand, we on the other side know very well what faults our candidate has. We know the mistakes she has made. That is actually an asset because past mistakes are how one learns and grows. We are not irrational. We want a manager, not a superhero. Generally, we prefer feasible partial solutions to untested radical efforts. We also know that no one who fails to do well in popular voting in PA, FL and OH can possibly win the general election. And most of us feel that simply talking about hope or change will not make it happen even if he wins.

Well to top off everything, the Obamists are now grooming Hillary for a role as the scape goat. If Obama loses the nomination and she loses the general it will be her fault. If she loses the nomination and Obama loses the general, somehow that will be her fault to for reducing Obama in the public mind. What a lot of escapist horseshit. When Obama loses in the fall it is because he was inadequate. By claiming he is being damaged by HC’s essentially accurate criticisms, he is pretty much admitting that. Dealing with D. rivals is part of the campaign. It will be much worse against the R. so he and you all had better grow the fuck up and stop whining about the fact that not everyone thinks O. is a saint. If he loses it will be YOUR fault, so stop trying to heap the sins of the world onto Hillary. Carrying them is not her job.

As she sides with McSame. Spoken like a true Republican.

I agree with you. Others have noted similarities to the Bush and Obama campaigns (not to the people, but as to how their campaigns are run). This was a comment complaint against Gore in 2000, that he ran a bad campaign. Well, so what? I knew enough to vote for the candidate, not the campaign. I'm astounded that after 2000 anyone still does equate a good campaign with qualifications for office.

Jay Sus!

These delusional fantasies are like bedtime stories to me. Put me right to sleep.

You can not think Obama is a saint. You can think he's an ass. You can not vote for him. I don't fucking care.

But you will never change my mind that Hillary is a SLEAZY MONSTER who is using Rovian politics to harm another Democrat. People are sick of it and the Superdelegates are about to OBLITERATE her campaign of doom. It's not about scapegoating. It's about doing the right thing for the party and ending the tyranny of a candidate so power hungry she will destroy anyone in her path.

with the 527's

In Hillary Land, time froze in 1999 and the Clintons have been perfect angels ever since. No shady alliances or backroom deals whatsoever by Bill. Oh, and I hear that "woman diet" his handlers put him on is working beautifully! :sarcasm:

WTG leftofcool!

Whoever becomes the Democratic nominee will win handily. Stop your whining.

:eyes:

Projection!

By you!


Accusing Obama of what Hillary is doing!



Awesome work, dude.

"Bearing the sins of the world" ... ?????

Bush-bots look like rational people, in retrospect.


The absolute ugliness of the soul-searing hatred, displayed by some here, convinces me that I could never join forces with people who embody that level of gleeful vitriol.

made me waste some much needed scotch! lol.

im just sayin ....good scotch ......
i would have to vote for beating if my good scotch got wasted

What next? Hillary saying, "Bless them, Father, for they know not what they do."

I'm beginning to think all that cult talk was right -- just applied to the wrong campaign. First we get the "Goddess of Peace" and now this drivel.

as you spend writing this nonsense, she might have a chance to come in a close second instead of a distant second.

huh?

I thought you wanted Rocky.
or Paulette Revere.
or Goldilocks.


I want someone who can leads this country out of the mess we are in. I want someone who rules by the will of the people. I want transparency in government, I want the people in the WH to know they work for US. I don't want more closed door meetings, backroom deals, laws for corporate interests and needless posturing. I don't want to be lied to anymore.

If that is what the OP wants, then support Obama. Hillary is always pointing to her failure to manage her funds and how badly it hurt her in PA. Do we really want someone so financially irresponsible that they took the one of the largest political juggernauts in recent history and bankrupted it, running our healthcare system?

Nothing against managers, but I always thought of POTUS as a leadership role, not a paper pusher.

Too bad those that need to read and understand this (the blind and faithful) have most all Hillary supporters on ignore. Oh well, it's their loss...the Dem's loss and McCain's gain! There's going to be a lot of crying!

This is the first post I think I've ever taken offense to. You say alot about me because I support a different candidate than you. Your post basically insinuates that as an Obama supporter, I:

* Hate Hillary Clinton and am doing everything possible to 'assassinate' her character.

* Am reduced to being the equivalent of a Bush supporter.

* Hide behind anonymous internet attacks on Clinton and champion such behavior.

* receive payment because I somehow don't fall into line with your thinking.

* Cannot think clearly because I'm in love with my candidate.

* Plan on blaming Hillary Clinton for Obama losing the general election if she loses the nomination and McCain wins the whole kit and caboodle in November.

What I find most offensive is how none of your animosity or anger is directed in real specifics. Just grandiose rants about how the whole fucking world is against the most rational of all train of thought: yours. And you've decided, instead, to make yourself feel important (or elitist, if you will) by damning folks who are supposed to be in the same camp as you in the assumption that we're paid off shills trying to raise trouble on the interwebs and disrupt the master plan of instilling the greatest president of all time. And you do this because why? We disagree. Maybe, just maybe, issues like a vote for the IWR doesn't settle well with this veteran of nine years and I find the other candidate to be more suitable.

Oh wait, you already know better - you're completely omniscient. Since you've got a crystal shoved up your ass and you know so goddamned much about what I'm thinking and feeling, why don't you run for President? Sounds like you've got all the problems in the world figured out.

Sheesh, and to think we're all supposed to be Democrats.

Nice job, Symarip.

I'd like to just add my thoughts. The OP is pretty much discarding any character assassination the Clinton campaign has conducted over the last three months. He/She gives me the impression none of those things ever happened. Clinton has used just about every surrogate she can to attack Obama. Her husband said some pretty nasty things after South Carolina. James Carville called Richardson a "traitor".

If I were a Clinton supporter, I'd ask myself where did this campaign take a wrong turn? Why are so many Democrats leery of her? If she was such a strong candidate, why can't she win more primaries?

I'm an Obama supporter and proud of it. Last Spring (around March 2007) I had narrowed my choices to Edwards or Obama. Before deciding which candidate I'd support for sure, I sent both money. About a month or so later I decided to support Obama because he supports the issues that matter to me: ending the war, improving the economy, providing health care to every American and building diplomatic relations with other countries.

As someone who has lived overseas for over 4 years, I've watched Bush squander opportunities to forge ties with allies and build new ones with countries which we haven't yet done so. When I was living in another city here in Korea, there was a protest downtown with pictures from Iraq of the prisoners being tortured. Frankly I am embarrassed my country supported the Iraq War.

This election I've made my voice heard and myself and millions of others are calling for change. Drop the rhetoric and stop the assassinations, this is our shot at making a difference. The wedge issue politics of the past are dead.

The relationship between Obama and his fans (which do not necessarily include everyone who voted for him) is completely one sided as it always is with charasmatic personality cults.

Anyway, it is pretty disingenuous and frankly not credible to make a personal attack against me in isolation without recognizing the the general climate in which my feeling and observations are made. This is a response to the consistent irrational and venomous attack on a candidate in this this party simply for standing beteen the fanatics and his goal. The IWR does not explain it since no such hatred was directed against Biden, Kerry or Edwards.

That shit worked for Bush in 2004 when his approval hovered near 51%.

History and context and events conspiring? Yeah, they matter.

Sen. Obama's latest smear seems designed to give him cover in case he fails to deliver a win this fall. He hopes to blame Clinton.

However, this strategy will fail. Note that the press has published all his campaign memos. They do not do this when Republicans send oppo to the press full of lies. Did we see Karl Rove's or the RNC's oppo published in Time in 2000? The MSM is setting Obama up to be character assassinated by McCain in the general election. If he is the nominee, the press will suddenly "discover" that they have been writing stories based upon oppo that is all a pack of lies. The "Race Memo" and the three memos about Hillary's foreign policy experience which I call the "Tea Party Memos" which were used to paint her as an inexperienced liar are all available online. The RNC will be able to use them to demonstrate that Obama defeated Hillary using dirty tricks while proclaiming himself "not a politician" and while his surrogate Clyburn claimed that Hillary was trying to kneecap him.

By the time the RNC is through with Obama he is going to look like Daley 1960. This has been the stated McCain strategy all along. The so called "Democratic leadership" needs to wise up. They may think that Axelrod and Obama have demonstrated "strength" with their ability to use old style dirty tricks against a fellow Democrat in the primary, but part of why it is working is because the MSM is getting ready for a GE narrative "Obama is a dirty trickster". Did no one but me notice the comments during the ABC debate about how the Obama camp issues daily memos saying that Clinton is a liar? If the public hears that story everyday for a week for three or four MSM sources, Obama's poll numbers will drop faster than the Titanic---unless he and Clinton are running mates.

Only the Unity Ticket can save Obama from the mess that his woefully incompetent to run against Karl Rove campaign manager David Axelrod has gotten him into. The very worst thing that could happen to him would be for Hillary to say in public "I give up. This has been too hard. The attacks are taking too much of a toll." And then cry. That is what the press is hoping for. That would be the last nail in the coffin of Obama's campaign hopes.

Anyone who doubts my prediction should go back and read the stuff I have been posting since last fall. I said that the RNC was aiming for a Brokered Dem Convention so that we would be like Chicago 1968. Well, now they have Rush Limbaugh spelling it out in big letters for the Republicans who are too stupid to catch the code that the people at MSNBC have been sending their way. Convention in chaos. And in February of last year, I said they would knock John Edwards out with "Edwards is a phony".

So, trust me when I say that they are now working on "Obama is a Chicago style dirty trickster". That is why McCain will not touch Clinton. He wants to be able to contrast how gentlemanly he has been with what a bastard Obama has been so that he can steal the female vote and the Reagan Democrat vote.

Obama supporters who really support Obama need to recognize that this is a serious problem, because apparently Obama and Axelrod don't.

when she and her campaign have pretty much devolved into its core of purely selfish blind ambition. Even Romney had more class than to stay in the race.

and then you proceed to do exactly that. wtf?

She's a witch, burn her!

:spray:

You seriously need to seek psychiatric help.

But Obama won't lose in November.

If he wins the nomination, we have to work our asses off like never before to register new voters and GOTV.

Read what you wrote take off the Hillary glasses and read it again. You are explaining your own post!

If you can't figure it out it is here:



"One of the main tactics Bush used in 2004 was to accuse us of what he was guilty of. This was to confuse voters and to divert attention away from his own shortcomings. This was largely done through media and 527 surrogates so Bush could keep his own hands clean. For example, even though Bush was a draft dodger with no qualms about sending other people to die, somehow Kerry who was wounded in action was the real coward and was "unfit for command." Likewise, despite Bush's war and the executions he authorized, Kerry was the one with no respect for life because we was pro-choice. And the list goes on. The day before the election, my mailbox was graced with photos of Kerry and Jane Fonda with an explanation of how he was a traitor. A 527 I never heard of sent them. I saw the same sort of thing by the R.s in 1988 and 2000. Now, in addition to corporate media connections and other conventional tools, candidates now have fan clubs to use on the internet."

so you are basically trying to paint Hillary's fascist style of campaign as a smear from Obama!

God it doesn't get any funnier then that.

You have it exactly backwards, you are projecting the faults of the Clintons onto their opponent.

Obama never mocked or denigrated anyone who supports Clinton (or McCain, for that matter). She mocks the Obama cult constantly.