I see two problems with this. First, it illustrates that the Clintonites are incapable of distinguishing between legitimate criticism and below the belt smears.
For instance, the Edwards "attacks" cited on the Clinton timeline, largely center around Hillary being too close to corporate interests and too willing to compromise with Republicans. But Hillary doesn't dispute that she is more willing to engage with corporate stakeholders and Republicans. She argues that her ability to do so is a strength of hers.
In other words, Edwards is merely making voters aware of a very real and very differences in their governing philosophies. But it isn't an "attack" unless you believe that Clinton's way is the wrong way. How anyone could compare this to attacking Obama's past drug use or suggesting that he has a "Muslim" background is beyond me,
Second, if the Clintonites are trying to argue that there is a double standard against Hillary, I fail to see how that is a selling point for her candidacy. Why should Democrats nominate a candidate that is going to be behind the eightball for the next 4 to 8 years. Personally, I think the Clintons proved that they couldn't handle the media during Bill's Presidency. Hillary seems to be arguing that her administration would be savaged in the same way. Great. Where do I sign on?
Posted by space at December 15, 2007 11:46 AMWelcome to presidential politics, Sen. Clinton. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. LOL!
Talk about sour grapes, that site's a joke. If she thinks this helps her, she's wrong. It's like she's complaining about nothing. Imagine if she was running against the Republican candidate. Legitimate questions about her specific stand on aspects of Iraq policy from another candidate would be the least of the "attacks."
Luckily for the Dems, I think her days as the anointed one are over.
Posted by Brian Bell at December 15, 2007 11:47 AMIt's about freaking time!
The media's campaign to sell Obama as the next Messiah has been nothing short of nauseating.
Posted by Claudia at December 15, 2007 12:02 PMHi eriposte,
While I have never actually posted a comment here, I do come often to read your posts. Thank you, they are quite informative and full of facts. And that link to the time line of attacks against Hillary is pretty incredible, I had no idea just how extensive they actually were. Call me naive, but I find it pretty astounding that Obama calls himself "an agent of change" and "above the political fray", when he employs the same political mechanisms as everybody else. Anyways, keep up the good work.
Space,
Since we're having a debate on the merits, let me point out a few things:
1. Edwards is in a very poor position of campaigning against a Republican on the "I'm no corporate Democrat" angle. They will destroy this pitch by playing back his similar campaign against Lauch Faircloth (R-NC) and his subsequent voting like a "corporate Democrat" (his words, not mine, since his voting record is overall not exactly better than Sen. Clinton's). When they're done with that they will try to destroy him further by making him look like John Kerry.
2. Hillary Clinton's legitimate, on-the-point response to criticisms by her opponents has been used to portray her responses repeatedly as "attacks". So, it is perfectly legitimate for her to portray her opponents criticisms as attacks. The website has some criticisms that are on policy positions, but also others which are personal character attacks.
3. Arguing there is a double standard has nothing to do with being a "selling point for her candidacy". This is the kind of non-sequitor that I usually hear from the David Broders of the world. The issue is that when any human being is portrayed as an "attacker", it is the right of that human being to respond by pointing out that he or she is responding to attacks on him/her, and not the other way around - and to highlight how the media or the Reality Based Community seems to have a hard time acknowledging basic facts. Now, if you or others don't consider Hillary Clinton a human being, then of course, we can agree to disagree on this.
4. Any Democrat running for President and any Democratic President will be savaged. Anyone who doesn't understand this has been asleep for the past two decades. Indeed, Edwards is being savaged for his haircuts and the size of his home and God knows what else. Hillary has been more on the receiving end only because she is hated more and because people like Obama and Edwards have been feeding the frenzy. If she loses and Edwards or Obama wins, there will be a new target and I don't want to see Obama or Edwards supporters who condone the media attacks against Hillary whining about that.
Posted by eriposte at December 15, 2007 01:01 PMNo to Obama!
No to Hillary Clinton!
And by the way, has anyone ever actually LOOKED at Hillary's record of virtual all-out support for Bush's imperial wars up until quite recently?
Posted by Shirin at December 15, 2007 01:38 PMWhat worries me is lots of voters still don't see through Obama and still think he is the one. I want to do something to let voters realize that if Obama win, it is very dangerious. They have no idea yet. For e.g. I just finished watching Obama's town hall meeting from c-spam. Let me tell you, this is why Obama is not what people think of him. He repeatedly said" I am not going to say what you want to hear...." You know what he means here - Hillary. But by keep repeating this every time he talks to voters, that is attack, smart attack. I just hate that.
Another one. Obama was the one first mentioned drug thing himself, and now he is still talking about the drug thing in his fundraising. Does he really want people stop talking about it or he actually profit from it ? Sly !
BY THE WAY, First Read, MSNBC, all those sites will NOT publish your post like eriposte. I tried, many times. ( It was a great opportunity that some voters ask how come we don't have a clear records of candidates votings on certain issues.) I posted eriposte article "who I vote..." with the link, 3 times, all killed. They just don't air it, no publishing. Scare of the sun, baby ! Fight like a man ! I sent email questioning why not air my posts. no anwser. I should know better because they are, same as Matthews, only look for rating, don't care about heart and soul. Of course they don't air it.
The qestion is HOW OR WHAT WE CAN DO TO MAKE THINGS RIGHT. I just want voters know the truth before it is too late. They have been fed and fooled and still don't realize it.
I don't mind you guys laugh at me. Last night, while talking to my girls friends (all baby boomers age)I proposed a great suggestion and all my friends agree and insist I put it here, so here it is.
BREAKING NEWS: "MAKE IT RIGHT" SPECIAL CONFERENCE WILL BE HELD AT 2:00PM Sunday. Special Host: eriposte
Make it big, make it nationwide, make it right.
Let's do something.
Posted by Maryann at December 15, 2007 01:41 PMMaryann,
One of the problems during the Clinton years was the media filter which prevented a lot of the real facts about the Clintons from getting any airtime. For example, see The Hunting of the President by Joe Conason and Gene Lyons. That dynamic continued against Al Gore and then against John Kerry (to a slightly lesser extent). Now we're seeing the same dynamic against Hillary Clinton. So, I'm not surprised.
I appreciate your efforts to get the facts out. I think letting your friends know and making them aware that there is more to know about the candidates than the media wants to reveal is probably the best thing we can do at this time.
Posted by eriposte at December 15, 2007 02:00 PMGood post.
Obama and Edwards, as well as their spouses, have been blasting the Clintons for months.
The Clinton's should be afforded the exact same opportunity that the MSM affords (read encourages) Obama and Edwards.
Either all of it's OK, or none of it's OK.
Posted by JoeCHI at December 15, 2007 03:02 PMHillary will win the nomination....but what she has to do to win the nomination will ensure that she will not win the general election.
Posted by Bagley at December 15, 2007 03:30 PMoh the voice from on high, the bagless one has spoken...asshole that he is....
Posted by headxray at December 15, 2007 04:07 PMI injected my gag-reflex with steroids and Dramamine and got thru the entire Tweety hour today and learned the following:
1. Hellory is the most disgusting evil candiate to ever dare run for president, and may as well quit right now, it's over for her.
2. Saint O'Bambi is on the high road, has all the mo, is as clean and pure as Iowa snow, and is holding up well after the terrible attacks by the afore mentioned she-devil.
3. Edwards and his $400 haircut are irrelevant.
Posted by TIKI AL at December 15, 2007 05:13 PMThere is something very deep and disturbing about the irrational hatred towards Senator Clinton. Anything she does is watched with sadistic anticipation. And honestly, when you look at their histories and records there's not much difference except she's been through the republican slaughter house and came out alive. I'm just disgusted by a lot of the liberals' attitude towards her.
Posted by sarahfd at December 15, 2007 06:24 PMGiven all of the hate for Hillary Clinton that I see on the web, it is amazing that she is still standing. I'm 100% behind her and will be all the way unless she drops out. If that happens, I am going to sit back and watch the Republicans eat Obama alive and I will laugh the whole time.
Here is the question I keep asking Obama supporters and no one has been able to answer it:
If Obama is the one candidate that can "bring us together" and he is the only one who can cross party lines and get something accomplished, I want to know why he is not employing his powers in the US Senate. The last time I checked he was still a member of that body. I do not see Mr. Obama bringing the republicans and democrats together to get legislation passed that is vital to our nation. Where is his magical power and pixie dust to get the SCHIP expansion passed. Where are his powers to get our troops out of Iraq? If he is the chosen one as Ms. Winfrey has said, then the Messiah needs to show what he can do.
Hillary is an extremely gracious candidate, really.
She has spent her life standing up for the weak and needy. How can anyone doubt that she will do the same for all of us if elected?
Another great post eriposte. The media are hammering HRC at the moment (for what exactly I don't know). There's no attempt at balance anymore, it's opinion driven news.
Posted by j at December 16, 2007 06:46 AMI wish they would stop trying to sell Obama as a messiah. The first casualty is always the truth.
Posted by j at December 16, 2007 06:47 AMSome perspective on the hate....
First, there's been hate against both Bill and Hillary since at least 1992, probably when they had the Governorship of Arkansas too.
There was similar hate against JFK, especially in Dallas. When the first news of his assassination came out, people assumed some Dallas Right-Wingers had done it. (And there is still hate against the Kennedys, even the current generation.)
Robert F. Kennedy Jr has recently posted (on Huffington Post) about similar hate toward FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt.
Whether that was all Right-Wing or there was a Left-Wing extreme going after JFK and FDR I don't know, but Bill had flak from the Left, and Gore also.
I suspect it's less the character of the target, than the office of the target. Someone who actually won something, and might win again.
1950democrat.livejournal.com
distinguishing between legitimate criticism and below the belt smears.
Bill has been trying to explain to the public that distinction since at least Hillary's 2000 campaign. She talked about Lazio's(sp?) VOTING RECORD, and was accused of attacking him personally; same now with Obama's voting record.
(And in both cases, iirc she didn't begin criticizing their voting records till they'd already done a lot of really personal attacks on her.)
Posted by 1950democrat at December 20, 2007 04:18 AM