Hillary Clinton - Principles Versus Power

A few days ago, I wrote a post thanking Hillary Clinton for somewhat belatedly smacking back at Bush's appeasement comment, then at McCain, while also dialing back the negative ads. However, with her posturing regarding Florida and Michigan, I am starting to think she is reverting to the Hillary of the past few months. The solution to the Florida and Michigan issue is easy. Split the delegates, so they can participate in the convention. Problem solved. If HIllary was so worried about counting votes, then she should have spoken up earlier. She had the pull to get Florida and Michigan counted before the primaries began, but it worked to her advantage to avoid the chaos of states leapfrogging each other in the early primary season. The issue I have is that Hillary does not take responsibility for her role in this. The Michigan/Florida situation is as much Hillary's fault as anyone else's.

On the subject of race, I agree with Hillary supporters that Hillary is not openly advocating racism against minority candidates. However, Hillary's arguments regarding "working class whites," validate racism, because Hilllary has done little to speak out against racism. Instead, Hillary's arguments regarding why she is the "better" candidate simply accept racism as a fact. Hillary has a responsibilty to speak out and denounce racism, rather than to validate it by actively arguing that superdelegates should take into account that working class whites won't vote for Barack Obama. Do you speak out against racism or do you passively accept, and benefit from it?

Hillary has hid behind the argument, made in recent interviews, that sexism has cast perhaps a more profound shadow in this race than racism. However, as fellow DU'ers pointed in a question I asked, the exit polls show that relatively few voters considered gender to be a factor, and among those voters who did consider gender, the majority of such voters voted FOR Hillary. So, ironically, Barack Obama (not Hillary) is hurt by gender discrimination whereas Hillary benefits from those voters who cite race as a factor. Bottom line, racism and sexism do not cancel each other out as suggested by Hillary. Instead, among voters who cite race OR gender as a factor, Hillary gains a net benefit from the bigoted vote.

In short, Hillary has disappointed me. She is a Democrat who fights like Republican. Let me pose this question? Do you hate the GOP because of their stance on the issues or because the way manipulate elections and the media? For example, lets say a candidate who you agree with on the issues, ran Willie Horton type ads, cooperatd with Swift Boat type special interest groups, characterized opponents as elitist, and manipulated party rules after the fact to try to gain the nomination?

That is the dilemma I face, I agree with Hillary and Obama's stance on the issues. However, Hillary's approach to winning the election represents everything that I think is wrong with the Fox News dominated political landscape. Hillary appeals to my cynical side, regarding the reality of why people vote. People are racist. People are superstitious. People will believe that a tax cut to an oil company will somehow be passed on to them. Hillary is us against them.

Obama appeals to my idealistic side, regarding how elections should be conducted. Obama is trying to build a coalition by emphasizing the issues that Americans have in common, rather than encouraging Americans to consider differences between them. Obama emphasizes how we are one nation.

Do Hillary supporters seriously believe that Barack Obama is against working class whites? What policy position does Barack Obama endorse that hurts working class whites?

Barack spoke very frankly about race. He offered a critical of assessment of both African American and White racial attitudes that was very candid. Can Hillary do the same? Why hasn't Hillary done the same, if not for race, what about gender, since she has claimed to have suffered from it.

So, Hillary may very well win the general election, but long term I think this does irreparable damage to the Democratic party, because it validates the win at all cost approach that caused George Bush's campaign to run a whisper campaign against John McCain regarding the ethnicity of his adopted children. George Bush did it to John McCain. I guess we should not hold Hillary to a higher standard so long as we agree on her stance on the issues, since the GOP will do it to each other, as well as the Democrats.

My concern, of course, is whether Hillary has the conviction to stick to her stated stands on the issues? Or, will she be opportunistic, and sacrifice principle in favor of political power? I think the latter is true.

:kick:

It is sad, but I post a sligtly sarcastic/inflamatory post, and I get a long thread, but if I put a little more thought and effort, I get a much appreciated "K&R," then the post disappears from sight. I can see why Fox News is so popular.

*sigh*

The Clintonian DLC will destroy itself attempting to force HRC on the American people. The FOX news channel who's kissing up to HRC now will "TURN ON A DIME" the moment after she's stolen/cheated her way to the Democratic Nomination.

Given his serial and documented adultery, do you HONESTLY believe that Bill Clinton has kept to his "woman diet?" Do ya think that if he has NOT, FOX may just have VIDEO of Bubba?

Beyond all her "dirty tricks" HRC is unelectable because BILL still can't keep his fly zipped.

Bank on it. :nuke:

Subject: However , Hillary Can Slime Them Right Back
Message:
While I think Obama would have no problem linking McCain to Bush with impunity, I doubt that Obama would be as effective at smearing McCain as Rove did against McCain in the 2000 GOP primary. In particular, the smear about McCain's adopted daughter actually being an illegitimate daughter of black prostitute. This smear would be very effective with Hillary's movement among "white working class voters." It worked extremely well against McCain in South Carolina. With McCain having a minority adopted daughter, is he electable?

Likewise, McCain has admitted that he had affairs while still married to his first wife, particularly after she was disfigured in a car accident. So, even before the GOP goes after Bill, Hillary will probably preempt them by weeping tearfully, and pointing out that Cindy McCain is the "other woman" and wondering how John McCain's first wife feels.

In other words, Hillary will be much better than Obama in slinging mud. Of course, it has no relevance to the issues, but again, we are talking about power versus principle.

Article re Bush 2000 smear campaign against McCain:

* * *

Bush Waged Nasty Smear Campaign Against McCain in 2000
Bush Supporters Called McCain “The Fag Candidate.” In South Carolina, Bush supporters circulated church fliers that labeled McCain “the fag candidate.” Columnist Frank Rich noted that the fliers were distributed “even as Bush subtly reinforced that message by indicating he wouldn’t hire openly gay people for his administration.”

McCain Slurs Included Illegitimate Children, Homosexuality And A Drug-Addict Wife.
Among the rumors circulated against McCain in 2000 in South Carolina was that his adopted Bangladeshi daughter was actually black, that McCain was both gay and cheated on his wife, and that his wife Cindy was a drug addict.”

Bush Campaign Used Code Words to Question McCain’s Temper.
“A smear campaign of the ugliest sort is now coursing through the contest for the presidency in 2000. Using the code word "temper," a group of Senate Republicans, and at least some outriders of the George W. Bush campaign, are spreading the word that John McCain is unstable. The subtext, also suggested in this whispering campaign, is that he returned from 5 1/2 years as a POW in North Vietnam with a loose screw. And it is bruited about that he shouldn't be entrusted with nuclear weapons.”

Bush Supporters Questioned McCain’s Sanity.
“Some of George W. Bush's supporters have questioned Republican presidential candidate John McCain's fitness for the White House, suggesting that his five years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam drove him insane at the time.”

Bush Supporters Spread Racist Rumors About McCain’s Daughter.
Bush supporters in South Carolina made race-baiting phone calls saying that McCain had a “black child.” The McCains’ daughter, Bridget, was adopted from Mother Teresa’s orphanage in Bangladesh. In August 2000, columnist Maureen Dowd wrote that the McCains “are still seething about Bush supporters in South Carolina spreading word of their dark-skinned adopted daughter.”

Rove Suggests Former POW McCain Committed Treason and Fathered Child With Black Prostitute.
In 2000, McCain operatives in SC accused Rove of spreading rumors against McCain, such as “suggestions that McCain had committed treason while a prisoner of war, and had fathered a child by a black prostitute,” according to the New Yorker.

After Rove Denied Role In McCain Whisper Campaign, Reporters Concluded He Was Behind It.
A December 1999 Dallas Morning News linked Rove to a series of campaign dirty tricks, including his College Republican efforts, allegedly starting a whisper campaign about Ann Richard being too gay-friendly, spreading stories about Jim Hightower’s involvement in a kickback scheme and leaking the educational history of Lena Guerrero. The article also outlined current dirty tricks and whisper campaigns against McCain in South Carolina, including that “McCain may be unstable as a result of being tortured while a prisoner of war in North Vietnam.” (DMN, 12/2/99) After the article was published, Rove blasted Slater in the Manchester, NH airport, “nose to nose” according to one witness, with Rove claiming Slater had “harmed his reputation,” Slater later noted. But according to one witness, “What was interesting then is that everyone on the campaign charter concluded that Rove was responsible for rumors about McCain.”

Rove Was In Close Touch With McConnell, McCain-Feingold’s Chief Opponent.
Senior White House adviser Karl Rove was in close contact with Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) during McConnell’s effort to fight the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Bill in the U.S. Senate. According to Newsweek, though Rove and Bush have publicly kept their distance from McConnell on the issue, “sources tell Newsweek that Rove is, in fact, in close touch with McConnell as GOP experts study the bill for hidden land mines.”

Bush Campaign Accused of Using Push Polls Against McCain.
College of Charleston student Suzette Latsko said she received a telephone call from a woman who identified herself as an employee of Voter/Consumer Research, and that the caller misrepresented McCain’s positions and asked if Latsko knew McCain had been reprimanded for interfering with federal regulators in the savings and loan scandal. Voter/Consumer Research is listed as a polling contractor on Bush’s Federal Election Commission filings; the Bush campaign has paid Voter/Consumer Research $93,000 through December 31, 1999. Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer denied the call was a push poll, but said it was important that the Republican Party remember McCain’s role in the S&L crisis.

Bush Campaign Acknowledged Making Phone Calls.
Tucker Eskew, Bush’s South Carolina spokesman, acknowledged the Bush campaign made such calls, but claimed they were not “push polls.” Eskew added, “Show me a baseless comment in those questions.”

Bush Used Fringe Veterans Group to Attack McCain as “Manchurian Candidate.”
“In the case of Ted Sampley, the same guy who did Bush's dirty work in going after Sen. John McCain in the 2000 Republican primaries is doing the job against Kerry this year. Sampley dared compare McCain, who spent five years as a Vietnam POW, with ‘the Manchurian Candidate.’”

Sampley Called McCain a “Coward” and a Traitor.
“Sampley… accused McCain of being a weak-minded coward who had escaped death by collaborating with the enemy. Sampley claimed that McCain had first been compromised by the Vietnamese, then recruited by the Soviets.”

Obama must be the nominee.

Hillary being a better "smearer" than McCain does not give her my vote.

In fact, she lost my vote quite some time ago. But than as a Black person, I don't really count to her anyway.

Hillary wouldn't lose a GE because she's not good at smearing. She would lose the GE, because she has already smeared herself.

And yes, Black people in drove will not vote for her. YOu can take that to the bank. There are certain things that one doesn't forget. For Black folks, it will be the way that Hillary treated race in this contest.

This is why I pose the question of principle versus power. Democratics desparately want to win the 2008 election. However, at what cost? At what point, does winning at all cost deprive of us of any moral high ground?

The GOP and Karl Rove ran a very effective smear campaign against John McCain in 2000. Hillary Clinton can repeat that with gusto, since it would likely resonate with working class whites like it did among voters in the South Carolina primary.

Barack Obama, of course, is really not in an ideal position to start a whisper campaign that John McCain's adopted daughter is really his illegitimate black child. Likewise, Hillary will be questioned about Bill's adultery, which gives Hillary a perfect opening to bring up John McCain's actual history as an adulterer. Hillary can say: "Well, at least Bill did not abandon me like John McCain after I was disfigured to marry some pretty heiress." Also, given the Manchurian rumors that were started regarding Obama, Barack Obama can't really question McCain's fitness.

The fact of the matter is that history has shown that John McCain can be smeared, and that such smears do resonate well with working class whites.

Now, at what cost do you want to win? In some other posts, many DU'rs excuse this type of conduct as "Its Just Politics," so there is a segment of DU'rs who are willing to do whatever it takes to win back the Whitehouse, and I do admit that Hillary is more likely than Barack to fight, and do whatever it takes to win the Whitehouse.

Hillary versus McCain could be one of the dirtiest campaigns in recent memory, but I am confident that Hillary can give as well as she gets. So, I am somewhat torn. Principle versus Power.

...but now (even though FL broke the damn rules and she SIGNED ON to an agreement as to how they'd be punished for that - in FULL AWARENESS of it) she's OH-SO-CONCERNED about those FL votes in 2008 - now that she's losing and not "inevitable".

She'll sacrifice ANYTHING for political power and to get what SHE wants.

Damn right she will. Obviously.

NO WAY do I want that woman anywhere NEAR government - considering the way she has conducted herself and her campaign - and the way she's run her BUDGET. She has NO BUSINESS in charge of a national budget if she cannot handle her own any better than that.

Obama on the other hand - well - you see the difference.

George W. bu$h had EXPERIENCE too. EXPERIENCE DESTROYING every business entity and state he EVER TOUCHED OR RAN/GOVERNED. EXPERIENCE being a drunk coke-snorter. And he'd NEVER EVEN BEEN OUT OF THE FREAKIN COUNTRY for chrissakes!

F*ck "experience". OBVIOUSLY - it is meaningless. Hillary can stick hers in her pantsuit. I got no use for her "experience" in the type tactics she's put on display during this campaign.

What a disgusting woman.

How lovely. K&R.

But because the democratic race was so short, we really didn't mind as much. I think democrats just tend to get bugged about that stuff more. I'd like to think we'd all be really bugged at Edwards if he took Hillary's tacts to move the goal post every week as well. There is reason to be bugged at her.

But then again, the win at all costs model has served the republicans well. Other than Carter, the only president we've had for the last twenty years has used this approach, so you would have to call this an evidence-based approach to winning.

The downside of course is it poisons and polarizes the electorate and the governance structures. Gridlock is in part a direct result of these insanely divisive campaign styles. If Barack succumbs to this, his mandate will be just as useless as all the rest.

Adherence to the rule of law is not something normally associated with the clintons. Moreover, racial and ethnic disrespect, intimidation, exploitation and hate have always been a fundamental clinton tactic and the reflexive use the "N"-word and other racial and ethnic slurs, an essential element in the clinton lexicon. When the "first black president" and his wife ran Arkansas, the NAACP sued them for intimidating black voters at the polls.

Conversely, the clintons' refinement of the DNC drag and drop is, arguably, one of the more insidious and repugnant applications of their special brand of race-hate politics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oRwZQLdhEw