This is my first diary on MyDD. I've been a commenter for a couple of weeks now and, like most if not all of us, am extremely caught up in the Democratic Presidential primary contest b/w Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I have some questions about those supporting Hillary Clinton that I would love to discuss with them in an honest, rational manner. The questions involve comments made to me about her campaign on this site as well as my own observations of the two campaigns. For what its worth, I posted diaries on Dkos as well, but my questions were largely met with silence by the Clinton supporters....months before many of them left the site. Just for the record, I was a John Edwards supporter, both in 2004 and 2008, and I voted for Obama in the boutique primary of MS after Edwards had dropped out.
First off, I don't understand the disenfranchisement argument being made by many on this site. Disenfranchisement implies that something unfair, indeed an injustice, is taking place. While I'm sure Hillary is kicking herself for her posturing before IA and NH, I've seen nothing that warrants an argument of disenfranchisement when it comes to Mi and FL. Those states knew months in advance what the consequences would be if they violated the DNC calendar. They either decided the DNC was bluffing or they didn't care. As it turned out, the DNC was not bluffing. So why is this Obama's fault? Now Hillary is calling for re-votes in both states....with absolutely no basis for it. No one was disenfranchised, at least not by the DNC or the Obama campaign. Hillary supporters should be focusing their wrath on the morons who allowed this nonsense to happen in the first place...Governor Granholm, Senators Levin and Stabenow, their Congressmen and Congresswomen in both states and their representatives to the DNC. I'm not seeing much anger directed at them, it's all directed at Obama for DISENFRANCHISING voters in MI and FL.
One cannot ignore the point that Clinton agreed with this plan. Her own campaign strategist, Harold Ickes, voted to approve it. Not only that, but her attempts to manipulate the re-vote in MI were laughable. She wanted to limit the re-vote to just those who voted the first time, in a contest where she conveniently got 55% of the vote. Then she wanted to change election law to bar independents and GOP voters. A great idea for future efforts, but surely no one approves of changing the rules in the middle of the game? You guys call the unwillingness of Obama to allow such nonsense disenfranchisement? Really? Hillary allowed the plight of MI and FL voters to happen as much as anyone. She didn't object, she endorsed the plan, she thought it was fine. Indeed, she told IA and NH voters that she fought for them to remain first by punishing states who wanted to creep up on them. She was proud of it. I grant you, she's probably pissed off now, but she should be at herself for her own posturing, not at Obama. Obama's position has been entirely consistent. He supported the plan BEFORE the primaries (when he didn't know how they would turn out, especially in FL where he remained on the ballot), he supported the plan AFTER those primaries. What did he do wrong in your eyes? He did oppose plans that would give Senator Clinton a ridiculous unfair advantage in a re-vote. Senator Clinton should know by now, manipulating the rules until you win is not acceptable. Hillary supporters had also lobbied to make the re-vote available only to Democrats, not Independents or Republicans...in FLAT VIOLATION of current state election laws.
I'm all for making all 50 of our primaries closed. Fantastic idea! Independents and the GOP have no business voting in our primaries, which have helped both candidates, depending on the state in question. But that's not how it is now. It's too bad for Clinton, but she can't change the rules in the middle of the game. I also opposed the DNC plan as I think IA and NH going first is counter-productive, not to mention unfair to the rest of us (such as the ones Clinton called boutique). But that was the plan, and both Clinton and Obama agreed to it. If Clinton wanted to fight it, she could have. Hindsight is 20/20.
Another point that I'd like to hear opinions on is the "misstatement" of Hillary Clinton regarding sniper fire. How was it a misstatement? She repeated it multiple times, and even wrote about it in her memoir. She really was writing a misstatement? No, it simply did not happen. What did she confuse it with? When did she ever have to run, with her head ducked down, to avoid snipers? I would buy that as a misstatement if she simply confused Bosnia with somewhere else? And, we all know, if the First Lady had ever been threatened in any way by gunfire or the potential of snipers, we'd have heard about it in the media. We heard about it when the plan carrying Congressmen in Iraq had to perform evasive maneuvers on its way back. Congressmen!! I have no doubt that the plan may have performed evasive maneuvers...fine. It probably did and I'm no position to question that. But running across the tarmac, staying low to avoid snipers, and cancelling the welcoming ceremony? That simply never happened. That's not a misstatement, its a lie.
Some people have questioned her judgement bringing Chelsea to such an area if it was so dangerous. I would argue that her bringing Chelsea was only more proof that she knew there was little to no danger. Chelsea was 15. Hillary, by all accounts, is an EXCELLENT parent, who would never put her child in harms way deliberately.
It always amazes me when politicians get caught like this, in a ridiculous lie that they try to spin their way out of. Hillary's explanation was a rather simple one...she was tired from the campaign..in her own words "sleep deprived," and that's why she said what she did. I wonder if it's occurred to her that Presidents are often sleep deprived. If this is what we can expect from her simply b/c she lost a little sleep, then she clearly is not ready on day one. I shudder to think of her judgement when the phone rings at 3AM if she is so tired that she completely forgot (multiple times) that she was never shot at or in danger of being shot at. Sorry Clinton supporters, this just doesn't pass the test. It doesn't come close. She got caught...and tried to lie her way out of it. Tell me your side, I'd love to discuss it, but I don't see any possible "misstatement" here. I see a lie in an attempt to solidify her Foreign Policy credentials over Obama. A foolish move...and one that warrants some anger...but not at Obama or his attacks on her for it. Lets face it, had Obama made such an absurd claim, many of you would be all over him and rightfully so. You should be angry, but at Clinton for lying, not at Obama or his supporters for pointing her out.
Another topic of discussion is the McCain praise. What on Earth was Clinton thinking? Suppose Kerry had made those kinds of comments about Bush 4 years ago when it looked like Howard Dean was going to be the nominee? Many of us I daresay would've hit the ceiling and rightfully so. How can any Hillary supporter defend such praise of McCain? She validated his candidacy. She left for no room to go after McCain herself should she somehow get the nomination, at least not on foreign policy.
Lastly, (for this diary anyways) the Clinton logic regarding victory in November. Who is she kidding? She's claimed that b/c she's won more big states, that makes her more electable against John McCain? Well McCain won FL too. McCain also won OH. My point is, where you win amongst your own party is not indicative of general election strength...it never has been. Obama is not insisting that he can win Texas against McCain, even though he won more delegates than Clinton. He's not insisting that Hillary can't win in IL or Wisconsin for example. By Hillary's own logic, she can't win Iowa, or Missouri, or Wisconsin, Washington, Maine, Vermont, Maryland, Delaware, DC or Connecticut. All of those states, except Missouri, were won by Democrats in either 2000 or 2004, several of them in both years. Is Clinton arguing that she can't win in such states b/c she lost those primaries? Well that makes her textbook unelectable doesn't it? Is she arguing that only she can win CA and NY? Those states will vote GOP unless she's the Dem, simply b/c she won the primaries there? That's an argument that has no basis in fact or reality. She doesn't even have election history on her side. A state like CA, which hasn't voted for a GOP candidate for President since 1988, is suddenly going to vote GOP if Hillary isn't the nominee? It's almost embarassing how absurd that argument is.
If Hillary were more electable, she'd have put Obama away by now. Her vaunted political machine has gotten beat. She had the money, she had the endorsements and she had the most solid political team the Democratic Party has field in quite some time, including people such as Mandy Grunwald, Mark Penn and others, the only ones to have won a Democratic Presidential race since Jimmy Carter in 1976. Despite all of these advantages, she's blown every one. Even when given a second chance after IA, with victories in NH and Nevada, she still blew it. How is she more electable than Obama?
This is not meant in anger or derision. Simply put, I don't understand these arguments. They make absolutely no sense to me. I have no qualms about Clinton staying in the race, I could care less...it's up to her (as Obama has said also). Comments like those by James Carville don't bother me. I'm not so emotionally involved in the campaign that I would compare a losing candidate's endorsement of my opponent as equal to a man who sold his friend to the executioner for a few pieces of silver (truly reprehensible, whether you believe in Christ as the Son of God or not). I just would like to understand why Clinton is so much better in your eyes. I don't see it. I would like to understand the arguments that I've discussed. They make no sense to me!
Open for discussion!!
|
|
|
Permalink :: 88 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
