ZED

In this 1996 article from John Nichols of “The Progressive”. He found that Clintons court appointees were just as conservative as Nixon and Ford’s appointees. Link Do we want more of this?

BT!

No one likes importunate assholes who repeat themselves on this site, but…Hillary is campaigning for McCain because she’s the war candidate. She’s not playing to the electorate with this stuff, she’s playing to the press and everyone in the establishment with money to give who wants to keep the war going.

How do I express my exasperation with those who don’t see a difference between Obama and Clinton, as if the AUMF were just “one vote” (as if Kyl-Lieberman didn’t count as a second). You vote for Clinton and you’re voting for war.

Because she lost the nomination already and is trying to take the party
down with her… she, like all neocons, is ultimately a self destructive
enabler, too young to be where she is going and too old to go back again.

Ugh!

She’s beginning go get on my nerves.

Dang. Think of the bigger prize, Hill! You’re not the IT girl.

We all have work to do.

Having to slap Hill’s hand in the cookie jar is too much.

Agreed, BT. Cut it OUT, Hillary!

I know several federal judges who were Clinton appointees — and I can tell you from personal experience with them that is not an accurate assessment of the ones I know. Especially when compared to the judicial records of both Roberts and Alito thus far….HUGE difference in judicial temperament and reasoning. HUGE.

So, YMMV, but I’d suggest talking with more lawyers who have been in the trenches and asking them what their experience has been between recent appointments and prior ones…

Call me crazy, but generally speaking, it’s a good campaign tactic is to draw contrasts between yourself and the other side…

Um, it’s not really a stretch to say that she IS on the other side. And that ain’t poo fly pie.

And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold,” the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant’s bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.

“I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy,” she said.

Perhaps someone should remind Mrs. Machiavelli that her husband was a draft dodger with very little foreign affairs experience, but he became President. What really gets me is that, didn’t Bill campaign as the man from Hope? Wasn’t that exactly what he offered that got him elected?

I’ve heard of keep your friends close and your enemies closer. But a big, wet verbal kiss on the mouth to her general election opponent goes way too far for me. As far as “Knock it off, Hillary,” goes, you can’t unring a bell.

Calling her a “neocon” is closer to the truth than viewing these repeated endorsements of McCain as mere tactical shortsightedness. But you’re wrong: she’s trying to win the nomination with this endorsement of the war.

Christy,
Can you pick up the red phone and have a little chat with Hill, please? She needs a different advisor. Thanks much!

T-

Please don’t tell me that we’re going to be treated to a photo of St. McCain draping himself over Hillary Clinton anytime soon. After all, look how his little cuddle with Bush helped him…

Please.
-S

Comparing Clinton with Nixon and Ford appointees won’t tell you nearly as much as comparing anyone with Bush. John Paul Stevens was a Ford appointee, for instance.

if hillary really wants to overcome obama she’s going to have to start attacking the president, the third term president and then she can do something that might well get her the prize;

she can guarantee she will prosecute ANY officials who broke our law, whether under the guise of their false national security, their guise of “signing statements” and mostly, if they deliberately decieved us into war

that will guarantee for the women her candidacy

I live in a lily-white burg of OH, & I guess it’s imperative that I jump the gun and get cussed out by the township trustees for joining all the others putting up their Obama signs (too early, according to the local kingpinhead) - to match the votes we just gave Obama from our household.

Seriously, Hill. STOP it!

I think it’s Mark Schmitt who says, “If only the tsar knew about this!”.

Why is an “advisor” responsible? Has Clinton recanted her war votes? Isn’t the simplest explanation, that she’s sincere, the most logical one given her career?

Oh yeah, I’m so tight with the ordering presidential messaging around. *G* I’ll just get right on that…

How are things in the T- household these days? Is The Peanut’ future husband doing well?

That’s an excellent point. Hillary is essentially saying the country made a mistake when we picked Bill over HW.

Christy,
Can you pick up the red phone and have a little chat with Hill, please? She needs a different advisor. Thanks much!

I would be amazed if hillary or her staff did not come vist to quench their thirst for the pulse here at the lake of fire and dogs

You know, I don’t think this was Hillary’s best moment. In fact, I don’t think it was very helpful to her campaign or our party. But, I don’t think it can be fairly categorized as ”campaigning for John McCain.”

Like so much of the criticism of Hillary, this is way over the top.

Ah this is making me crazy. I can’t believe she is doing this.

I had finally convinced my Republican husband that it would be ok to vote for her, should she be the nominee. He hates Bush, he’s waiting for the party to come back to him, so he had said NO to McCain and the neocons. But he’s got years of antiHilary propoganda to overcome, and I’d finally gotten him to the point where I had convinced him she wasn’t a selfish, greedy, ambitious, powerhungry, wants-to-be-a-dictator, horrible (something) and it would be ok to vote for her. He was never gonna be a supporter, but he was gonna vote for her.

Then she pulls this garbage. Confirming in his mind everything he previously believed about her. Convincing him that her ambition trumps the good of the nation. Now, he tells me that if Obama is the nominee, he votes for the Democrat. If it’s Hillary, he votes for McCain.

My 20 year old college student daughter who is involved in politics for the first time, proud Obama supporter, feels the same way. If we’re gonna have four more years of Bush, it might as well be with a Republican, she says.

This makes me want to cry. I got them involved. I had them believing. Obama coming to Boise helped, but I had them convinced either one would be better - and she pulled this destructive, demeaning hateful (they see it that way) play into the same old tactics sh*t, and my fragile new participants don’t want to play any longer.

What’s more, she’s convinced me that I was the one in the wrong, and my husband was right. I’ll vote for her, but it will be reluctantly, and I’ll watch the returns in Idaho, where we could pick up both a Senate and House seat, but I believe won’t, if she’s on the ticket, and I’ll cry a little more for my country.

Somebody somewhere needs to convince her to stop. And I’ll tell you what - the monster comment aside, I don’t see Obama trying to destroy the party to ensure his win. I just don’t see it. That makes him the better leader, and the better choice.

Thanks for letting me vent. I had to get that out.

Did I miss the part where she said Obama is not qualified?

The New York Times tells me this morning that March is Optimist Month .
This food fight is ruining my Optimist Month.Foolishness.The momentum to continue this must be reversed.

Exactly, Peterr — the appointees from that era seem like they are from a whole different party from the GOP appointees of today. With Scalia and Bork as the mold from which they choose, it’s a whole different legal mindset these days…

Agreed that just about any moderate would be much better than the extreme Right Wing push that GW has put forth. I think it speaks volumes as to how far right the courts have shifted. I found the article to be intriquing. It was also written in 1996 which would have given Pres. Clinton enough time to make some changes and start appointing more liberals.

I would be amazed if hillary or her staff did not come vist to quench their thirst for the pulse here at the lake of fire and dogs

It would be better if they actually read the words…

Uh, how?

She says, repeatedly that:

1) National security is the key issue
2) John McCain is the most ready of the three remaining candidates to be commander in chief

I don’t see how characterizing this as campaigning for McCain is an exaggeration.

Sophistry. Or, put it colloquially, Kool-Aid.

So when is HRC going to trot out Zell Miller to shout down Obama and the other wicked Democrats, and to say how great the Republicans are?

yeah. i’m still puzzling over how wrong-headed Dodd & Kennedy could possibly be to endorse Obama. Whut were they thinking?!

THIMK! Hill! Read our lips! Greater good is the prize.

It’s not just all about youuuuu Hillary.

HI STRAT!

I miss ya, girlfriend. Hope the book is coming along well!

The math has eliminated any chance of “winning” the nomination. She is
demanding it by trashing the candidate who beat her… As for Neocon,
I mean it in the literal sense, her actions indicate a severe bent to
authoritarian thought and her political associations, especially in
NY and on “national security” are recycled Scoop Jackson types. She has
already lost and is quite boldly attempting to stampede by media assault
a nomination someone else already has.

Ding! and dang. and *&%^$% (self-edited to lighten the mods’ loads)

OT

msnbc just informed the world that McBush and his mentor ate hot dogs at their luncheon the other day at the WH…

makes sense.

Maybe Hillary is trolling for the coveted Joe Lieberman second choice endorsement.

I like Scarecrow’s take on this a little better than my own. It’s a form of blackmail:

“Should we conclude that the Clinton campaign believes their best strategy for capturing the nomination is to convince the superdelegates/party leaders they must choose her because she’s prepared to make it impossible for Senator Obama to beat John McCain?”

I like this interpretation because it gets at something important about this campaigning for McCain: she’s appealing to the superdelegates, not Democratic voters.

I enjoy your posts, BT.

I can feel the spunk all the way thru the toobz. ;->

If we’re gonna have four more years of Bush, it might as well be with a Republican, she says.

“Give the people a choice between two Republicans, and they’ll pick the real one every time.” -Harry Truman

Her vote on AUMF has hamstrung her whole campaign. They made the decision early on to stick by her decision to vote for that travesty, to never admit it was a mistake. But at this point I’m almost convinced that she doesn’t think it was a mistake, that she was really for invading Iraq, and she’s all for the neocon agenda.

Classy…isn’t that what he fed the French president as well? Seems to me that Shrub is a creature of habit on the hot dog front…

Uh-oh. Reminding people of Hillary Clinton’s genuine support for this war is “poo flinging”. Or maybe misogyny.

Like so much of the criticism of Hillary, this is way over the top.

Really? Then let’s talk about the politics of personal destruction she’s spent nearly her whole career whining about. Yet it doesn’t stop her from using that tactic when it’s convenient. That’s what being Machiavellian is. In my view, she’s shamelessly trying a scorched earth policy on her own party.

Nothing but first class from the Chimpster - as per normal.

I have read many of your comments and consider them thoughtful and reasonable, but this time, I believe you are wrong. Have you actually seen her make the comment? If so, I don’t know how you can reach any other conclusion than that she is saying that McCain and herself are the only candidates worth consideration, and the other person is not to be taken seriously. How can that be other than a completely self-serving and detrimental to the party? It says, “You should elect me, but otherwise, McCain is the only qualified candidate.”

Ever the Goldwater Girl.

I think the French president got les burgers de cheeze.

With a side of Freedom Fries? *G*

So, we are so worried about the “future” that we’ll let her get away with this shit? What does that tell your children?

Video Link, via TPM

Are you married to my husband?

I’ve been a registered Democrat since ’72, and I’m just about ready to vote for McCain.

Foreign policy is my main concern. Since Hil and John are the same, might as well vote for the person that least grates on my nerves.

I’m also concerned about healthcare reform. But I don’t think Hil can get it passed without 60 votes in the Senate, and I don’t think she’ll bring any down-ticket senators with her, so again, it’s a wash vis a vis McCain.

Where the hell’s Obama?

An Open Letter to Hillary Clinton.

Oldgold, I will happily, proudly, enthusiastically cast my vote for Senator Clinton if she is the nominee. I just don’t like being told that St. McCain is the 2nd best choice.

Well, take a look at how many people were, like me, undecided or their mates or friends were until she started going negative. When she started going negative I started actively working for Obama, knowing that because of the courts I’d vote Dem like I always do in the general, whoever is the nominee. Now I’m not sure I’ll vote if she’s the nominee and I never miss an election of any kind. And…take a look around….I’m not the only one. That winds up, if not deliberately campaigning for McCain, then indirectly doing so.

See my #36.

I’ve been a registered Democrat since ’72, and I’m just about ready to vote for McCain.

You could do that in the face of a vague promise that she would appoint better judges than McCain?

It’s not just all about youuuuu Hillary.

ummm, yes - it is actually.

Le Bigga Mac?

Thank you guys for pushing this story this morning. I have become angrier and angrier over the days listening to Hillary increasingly spout GOP talking points.

What the hell is she thinking? Does she want McCain to win the freaking election?

So while I have said it several times today, again I say, my days of defending this womans campaign are over. This week Hillary Clinton officially made me an Obama supporter.

How far up the ‘thought-chain’ are certain of the comments coming from the Clinton ‘camp’?

Understand, Obama leaves much to be desired as well, as many thoughtful commentators here have underscored…

But, at this rate Clinton and her minions will alienate many voters and convince
a significant number of others that under no circumstance will they vote for her.

Clinton knows better, or should.

If her ‘judgement’ is so lacking now, how may we trust her to think and behave ‘better’ regarding our common interests and shared fate?

I don’t imagine that I am the only one asking these questions. I am certain I am not.

This raises the serious overarching question: How much better, in fact, will Clinton’s policies be than those of the thugs?

We can’t, obviously, ‘know’ the answer but we must face ‘the’ question.

It’s not merely “going negative”, which is perfectly tolerable, even desirable, in a political campaign. It’s a scorched earth tactic, and if she wins it will be a Pyrrhic victory that gives voters a choice of a steely-eyed (i.e., insane) warmonger and a flip-flopping one.

Raven — if you are going to start advocating for McCain here, we are going to need to have a talk. *g*

o/t

brendan - if you are still here

through sheer chance (I don’t regularly watch teevee) have seen Smerconish twice in the last few days and it’s as if he’s had some kind of come to jeebus moment - both times he talked reality based, grown up stuff - he even corrected Tweety’s bs
what the hell ? are these simply his sunday best manners in prep for the PA media onslaught, was he losing ratings for his show ? or just some anomaly ?

and yes, I agreed with Scarecrow downstairs the HRC camp is speaking to superdelegates

msnbc just informed the world that McBush and his mentor ate hot dogs at their luncheon the other day at the WH…

Bet those hot dogs were not steamed, either.

I am not and I totally respect your perspective.

It’s not about the voters at this point. It’s about the press and the remaining superdelegates.

Thanks RonD, I have fwd that piece to friends, fine piece.

I think you’re confusing me with another commenter.

How are you doing, btw — you back home again or still on the road with family? So sorry again for your loss. It’s been a rough year for that it seems like for a lot of folks here. Having aging relatives is so tough…

There is perhaps more to this. At the risk of having to start running around in a tin foil hat, I offer this information that I just came across yesterday. The implications, to me, are staggering.

So we know that Clinton’s chief of strategy (who may be the source of this McCain support from the Hillary campaign) is one Mark Penn who, in his day job, is CEO of a public relations/public affairs/lobbying firm called Burston-Marsteller. We also know that one of McCain’s senior advisers and strategists is one Charlie Black, an uber-lobbyist and, in his day job, the Chairman of a lobbying firm BKSH.

Okay, so what I learned yesterday that is troubling to me not so much for the clear and present conflict of interest that this displays, but for the implications of how completely and hopelessly entwined the politics of corruption is in our system, is that BKSH (Charlie Black’s outfit) is a subsidiary of Burston-Marsteller. That means that Mark Penn is nominally Charlie Black’s boss. Put another way, both the Clinton campaign and the McCain campaign are being run by the same company.

So tell me. How exactly is that good for our election process, our democracy or our country? How is that not a conflict of interest?

And as to the tin foil hat implications, what is the possibility that the strategies of the campaigns are being designed or manufactured in common? To what exact end, I am at a loss. The ultimate conclusion is too far round the conspiracy bend for me. But this definitely deserves a lot more looking into especially considering the pro McCain campaign strategy that Clinton has developed.

I wonder if they were in Super Tuber form?

From TPM … “Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell said it would be important for party unity to have the eventual winner offer the running-mate spot to the losing candidate … ” Link

I guess Ed has been pulling a “Van Winkle” this past week …

You’re being to broad here. Her “policies” generally will of course be far better than any Republican’s, all moot if you have a trillion-dollar a year war going on. The immediate issue, however, is her claims on being “Commander in Chief” and how we’re to interpret her endorsement of McCain in that role.

Thx, off to Colorado for the funeral in the morning. Mrs Raven insists that she can take care of herself with the help of our friends so, against my better judgement, I’m going. Did you pick up on my post that we got flowers from a Firepup? This is a great “place”.

Is Samantha Powers calling Hillary Clinton a “Monster” and effective or responsible way for Obama’s foreign policy teamm to express differences in policy? Is Susan Rice stating that neither Obama not Clinton is ready for a “3 AM call” helpful for either Obama or Clinton? Clinton did not say Obama was not ready, she said it is up to him to demonstrate that he is.

Then she kind of threw him a hardball by releasing a comprehensive policy document on Afghanistan. Since Obama has been too busy to hold any hearings or anything. No mention of this important document anywhere.

I like it RonD and I’m glad it’s out there.

The only other member of the congressional Democratic caucus who praises McCain this much is Joe Lieberman.

hillary is getting REALLY bad advice and if THAT’S the judgement she wants to demonstrate then obama is gonna distance himself easily

if she made any one of us her campaign manager we could turn here campaign around in one week;

she needs to begin PUNISHING this president for every depraved decision, all of his ILLEGAL activity, TRASHING the constitution, ABUSING our armed forces and DECIEVING US INTO WAR

now, if she starts doing THAT, and let’s us know she WILL prosecute war criminals and she will RETURN the assets stolen by war profiteers, THEN she will overtake obama

must be something in the ethers, Raven. I’m watching closely too, & ain’t so greatly amused.

I don’t just have to be “happy”, but be careful, pups. Be very careful.

And, silly uptown as I may appear *sigh* I say FLOOD Hill’s mailbox with angrygrams, not poo, not junk, but just HAMMER her for this.
She’s lost her compass. Throw her a magnet.

I know FDL isn’t endorsing one candidate over another, but for those who consider topics under discussion as the “straw that broke the camel’s back,” it would seem to me that the point of view is best expressed to the superdelegates and to anyone involved in Democratic politics in Pennsylvania. Senator Obama’s web bage contains a method of messaging superdelegates (also noted in the previus thread). Otherwise, any Pennsylvanians might be able to express their views with Ed Rendell and other Pennsylvania politicians and voters.

Raven:

Yes. Vague promises don’t motivate me.

yep *shudder*

But don’t you see she doesn’t object to this war?

No — and I believe BT linked her comment in his post above — about the third or fourth link down. And, FYI, Scarecrow linked it in his post below where you also put a similar comment in his thread.

Everyone, do try clicking through the links, please…

Well, after having stayed out of the fray since Edwards dropped out I just gave Obama $100 and signed up to volunteer. Oh, and I sent a note to superdelegates letting them know I will never vote for Clinton. Let then know you agree here.

Yep and hopefully ‘Blog Mommy’ Christy won’t have to pull over the car today … *g*

Leinie, it’s good to see you, too! The book is going fine. I miss you, though!

-S

So, McCain’s definitive promise to appoint judges in the mold of Alito, Roberts and Scalia isn’t definite enough to motivate you, then? Because it sure as hell motivates me to NOT elect him.

While I have no doubt that Dubya actually likes hot dogs (he is a 10 year old boy), I think he also likes quail wings, filet mignon and French delicacies that few of us have had the opportunity to taste. McCain, even more so.

This is the second overplayed hot dog munching story in a Freidman Unit. It is designed to make McCain (like Dubya) appeal to blue collar types who’ve been robbed of their jobs, homes and retirement by the Republicans. Many rubes are still stupid enough to buy the never ending GWOT and hotdog-munching Presidents (whom are like themselves).

Please remember that enough people in this country thought that the war was a good thing even as Bush was blowing it that they re-elected him. For many people national security is a huge issue (as narrow minded a definition of it as they may have). Seems to me that Clinton is actually fighting for the Democratic party by making sure that the party offers an experienced candidate.

Can anyone point to anything substantial that Obama has accomplished — please don’t respond with Clinton bashing. Answer the question, don’t go negative — what has Obama actually done besides his 2002 speech.

Or Mark Penn could simply be an idiot.

For the sake of discussion, suppose that HRC doesn’t actually intend to endorse McCain if she loses the nomination battle with Obama. What, then, was she trying to say? The best, most charitable interpretation that I can come up with is this: “Look, McCain’s the GOP nominee, and he’s going to run on experience. OK, I’ve got some credentials to match that. (Ed.: Let’s just let that pass for the moment. One discussion at a time.) All Sen. Obama’s got to match it is some nice speeches. Which one of us would you rather have taking on McCain’s experience?”

That’s the most charitable way I can read it, and there’s a lot of assumptions built into it. IF that’s what HRC meant to say, then she damn well better step up and say it like that.

sorry dear, apparently so - thought you were Philly brendan

Dandy! Bravo!

I’m glad you mentioned that. It’s a reminder that it’s not merely a matter of voting for the Democratic candidate, whoever it may be. Sure, we’ll all do that. But will we give money or time to a candidate who touts McCain and implicitly reaffirms her support for the war?

Was chatting yesterday, EPU got the sweetest little puppy, have you seen the pictures? Too cute.

And I agree - no pictures of Hillary hugging and kissing on McBush. Mr. L is thinking of putting that picture of Bush and McCain hugging on his truck, with a “four more years” sarcastic kind of commentary.

After the last few weeks, from “Shame on you, Barack” to the clips KO ran last night, Hillary is fair game. She started this Pie fight and she will lose quite badly …

You know, I don’t think this was Hillary’s best moment. In fact, I don’t think it was very helpful to her campaign or our party.

Look, I said I did not care for the remark and that it was not helpful.
My disagreement with most of you is that I do not think it constitutes campaining for McCain.

Now, do you really think that was her intent? I don’t.

I think we have two great candidates. I will support either one them happily.

I just grow a bit weary of the pounding Hillary takes every damn day here.
I, like most of you, find plenty to be critical of her for, but I do not think she is the devil incarnate or that Obama is something other than a very good politician.

hillary is getting REALLY bad advice

I’ve become convinced that, even though I’m not a chess player, I could kick the crap out of any one of Hillary’s “brain trust”.

These people can barely see the very next move, and what’s coming four or five moves down the line…… well, they’ll just deal with that later.

She hasn’t said all that already, explicitly even?

And if she hasn’t, how does putting it the way you have mitigate the destructiveness of it?

It’s not just one remark, though. It’s a pattern.

You’re kidding, right? Have you ever heard of reading?

Thanks guys. My attempt to make a small contribution.

Safe trip Raven.

Very sorry about your loss. Take care, friend.

Eyes on the prize…circular firing squad doesn’t get a McCain defeat in November. Neither candidate should be fair game. Which, I believe, is BT’s point above. Otherwise….well, who wants a continuous =, stupid, self-perpetuating pie fight? Only people who like pie fights…and the GOP and the media, who feed off this crap.

With experience like McCain and Clinton have, who needs enemies?

for yourself, I mean. We’re all too busy to do your reading and thinking for you.

Why the presumption that it’s “advice”, and not her conviction? This is a form of apology for her worst dimension.

No one is fair game.

It’s about protecting the brand, regardless of who wins the nomination.

Peterr - I am also trying to “read it generously”… my thought is that Hillary is signaling she’s going hard after McCain next… she seems to have that habit of complementing, then pivoting right around for the attack…

Time will tell.

The Clintons hav always put themselves ahead of the party.

Add to that Hillary’s choice to work for a union-busting law firm, her choice to sit on the board of a union-busting company and her choice to hire union-busting staffers, and I wonder how on earth do good Democrats contemplate voting for her?