Managing expectations in South Carolina

The South Carolina Democratic primary is, of course, underway, and from what I hear, turnout is strong. (The record for participation is 290,000 Dems, which most expect to be topped today.) The polls vary widely — while most point to a likely Barack Obama victory, I’ve seen margins ranging from eight to 20 points. The race for second may prove interesting, with some recent data pointing to John Edwards closing in on Hillary Clinton.

Voting won’t end until 7 pm (eastern), and in the meantime, the goal of many campaign spin doctors is to manage expectations. The Clinton campaign, for example, seems to be emphasizing the post-South Carolina contests. Here’s excerpts from a memo distributed by Clinton campaign communications director Howard Wolfson:

Regardless of today’s outcome, the race quickly shifts to Florida, where hundreds of thousands of Democrats will turn out to vote on Tuesday.

Despite efforts by the Obama campaign to ignore Floridians, their voices will be heard loud and clear across the country, as the last state to vote before Super Tuesday on February 5th. […]

Coming off of victories in Nevada, Michigan and New Hampshire, Senator Clinton has demonstrated the importance of focusing on achieving real solutions on the economy, health care and Iraq .

The Obama campaign wants to “ignore Floridians”? I just don’t understand what possesses Wolfson to make comments like these — all of the candidates pledged not to campaign in Florida. Last week, Wolfson accused Obama of secretly trying to reach out to Floridians; now he’s accusing Obama of ignoring the same state Clinton agreed to sidestep? Odd.

Speaking of inconsistencies, the Obama campaign also tripped on its own talking points lately. Earlier in the week, the campaign blasted Clinton for blowing off South Carolinians. Later in the week, the campaign highlighted all of the efforts Clinton was making to win South Carolina. Obviously, it can’t be both.

So, what’s the reality here? By all indications, the Clinton campaign really has made a considerable effort to win the state. Indeed, just last week, the Clinton campaign’s Don Fowler said of South Carolina: “I’m confident with the kind of campaign we’re running next week we’re going to win.”

Indeed, over the last few days, the Clinton team has acted like a campaign hoping to win the state.

The dean who introduced Hillary Clinton in the chapel of a historically black college yesterday made an impassioned plea for South Carolina’s African-Americans to vote for Clinton in today’s primary, and “focus on our community’s future rather than acting on pure emotion.”

Flanking Clinton on the chapel stage were two of the nation’s well known black politicians, Congressman Charles Rangel and David Dinkins, former mayor of New York. One hundred miles to the north, Bill Clinton was preparing to greet another audience.

It did not seem like a campaign that had given up on South Carolina.

The Clinton campaign has worked for weeks to lower expectations in a state where Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has been polling significantly ahead of the New York senator. And yet in the last few days, the Clinton camp has been trying hard to woo voters, especially African-Americans who have been favoring Obama, the first black candidate to make a serious bid for the party’s presidential nomination.

The good news for Clinton is, it makes the Obama campaign’s accusations that Clinton was ignoring the state look pretty silly. The bad news for Clinton is, if she loses, she won’t be able to say, “I wasn’t seriously trying to compete there anyway.”

Stay tuned.

“Coming off of victories in Nevada, Michigan and New Hampshire”?

You stay in a race you promised not to participate in, and then you barely get more than half the votes despite no serious opposition. This is ‘Victory’?

  • You ask an important question Steve. Why don’t you ask Wolfson what he means?
    I’d like to know as well.

  • I thought smear and lies were the baliwick of the corporate plunderers….not progressives. Whoops that’s right Clinton is not a progressive.

    sorry for being snide…a little…but not enough to delete.

  • Campaigns look the most ridiculous when they get into these silly PR games and horse race tactics. I know that for folks on the inside there must be an attitude of “whatever it takes to win” that comes over the staffers and makes them spew this stuff out, but even a slight distance away from the heat of campaign boiler rooms all of these strategies and pronouncements make the rest of humanity think that maybe modern democracy isn’t such a great thing after all. If these guys focused on the real enemies, the real problems and the real solutions, political campaigns would rise above the level of respect accorded to body lice and intestinal flu.

  • “coming off victories in Nevada”? What happened to “It’s the delegates that counts.”

  • I love the fact that Steve points out how BOTH campaigns talked out of both sides of their mouth and in almost the exact same way – Clinton about Obama and Florida, Obama about Clinton and South Carolina – yet the first several people posting all essentially said “see how dirty Clinton is!”

    This is what some of us here mean when we say the Obama supporters are completely blind – either by CDS or cult-worship of Obama – the notion he may have any faults.

    Clue: if what Clinton did is was prevaricating, so was what Obama did. You can’t have it both ways – your Messiah isn’t so clean, nor is Clinton so dirty. The wild, breathless exaggeration of every little aspect of this campaign to put the most moral distance between Obama and Clinton both looks foolish, is easily debunked, and worst of all is the biggest cause of this alleged (and also overblown) rift in the Democratic party going into the fall.

  • Zeitgeist;

    I only see one post of the 7 previous to yours that pretty clearly implies Clinton is Dirty, and that one just is a stretch because it doesn’t call her a Progressive.

    In fact a lot of posts in defenc of HRC tend to point to a lot of smoke but no fire.

    Do you see dead people a lot? Or do you just reflexively a have a need to be a victim?

  • This is what some of us here mean when we say the Obama Clinton supporters are completely blind – either by CDS CWS or cult-worship of Obama Clinton – the notion he she may have any faults.

    Your language befouls your point.

  • Next time I need more of a preview:

    Zeitgeist;

    I only see one post of the 7 previous to yours that pretty clearly implies Clinton is Dirty, and that one just is a stretch because it doesn’t call her a Progressive.

    In fact a lot of your posts defending HRC tend to point to a lot of smoke but no fire.

    Do you see dead people a lot? Or do you just reflexively have a need to be a victim?

  • The problem with making Obama a paragon of virtue is that he ultimately will do something to disappoint his followers. No one can be everything to everyone all the time.

    While it may be cynical to state that in ten years progressives will hate Obama/his decisions as much as some now hate Hillary Clinton, it also conforms to reality.

    Let me explain my reservations about the Obamaniacs. When I was in my teens I was one of the Clean for Gene kids. He was going to solve all the problems. Within ten years I realized how lucky we were as a nation that he hadn’t been elected. Idealism is great on paper. Woodrow Wilson would be one of our greatest presidents if it worked in politics.

    I still wish anarchism were viable but wishing and hoping don’t make it so.

  • Zitgeist wrote: The wild, breathless exaggeration of every little aspect of this campaign to put the most moral distance between Obama and Clinton both looks foolish, is easily debunked.

    Easily debunked eh? Hmmm. Where should we begin? College republican days? No I know. Can you debunk this from the wikipedia for me:

    When Clinton denied having an affair with Flowers, she held a press conference in which she played tape recordings she claimed were of secretly recorded intimate phone calls with Clinton. Hillary Clinton, for the first time, made the media rounds to rebut sexual allegations against her husband. When asked why Clinton and Flowers called each other “honey” in the tapes, Hillary explained that this was how people talked in Arkansas. At least two Arkansas state police officers who had formerly guarded Clinton when he was Governor backed up Flowers’ story. Clinton also apologized to Mario Cuomo for remarks he made about him on the tapes.

    In his autobiography My Life, Clinton acknowledged testifying under oath that he had sexual relations with Flowers on one occasion only. When Flowers learned of it, she went public again to tell her side.

    Awaiting breathelessly, some moral clarity over here.

  • Hillary cannot seem to run on her own record: it is too corporate, too pro-war and too pro-Bush. She was temporarily saved by some rigged vote counting in the New Hampshire Primary Election (with right-wing Republican corporations “counting the votes” electronically, Republicans can easily manufacture any outcome that they choose and dare to give to the public). Hillary and Bill have gone to the Karl Rove playbook of lie, slime and smear. Hillary surrogates whisper about Obama’s drugs, Obama’s being a Muslim and other untruths.
    So if Hillary “wins” the South Carolina Primary election, check on which Republican corporation is “counting the votes.”

    In a side note, it was reported on Yahoo News this morning (1 26 08) that Insane John McCain had accused Mitt Romney of actually wanting to end the occupation of Iraq…Imagine that…

  • wow, blame the victim much?
    confronted in public with her husband’s possible affair, she makes excuses – either for him or due to her own denial. that is immorality? really? that’s what you’ve got?

    must be nice to have the life to be all holier than thou. around the time of my own divorce, when none of our friends had seen it coming, i realized how little anyone knows – much less is in a position to judge – what goes on in a private, personal relationship. and my own continuing success in my career through that period made pretty clear to me that one’s private life and one’s public life need not have much to do with one another. but if you think you are in a position to stand in judgment of HRC’s decisions pertaining to or in the context of her marriage (unless you’re a family member posting anon), you go right ahead and flatter yourself.

    me, i think attacks on Hillary for Bill’s infidelity are about as cheap as they come. and if that’s what you’ve got, you pretty well prove my point.

  • Zelig,

    Wives usually believe their husbands. The first couple of times. We will even defend our husbands. It’s called both denial and love.

    I hope after the election, some perspective and humanity return to the Democratic party. They were supposed to be some of the qualities which differentiated us from Republicans.

  • Zeitgeist wrote: i think attacks on Hillary for Bill’s infidelity are about as cheap as they come.

    Oh I see. You are playing the Hillary-was-naive card. She didn’t know he was lying; I got it. So Bill let her go all over town telling bald lies for him. Nice guy. Can’t wait to have him as First Gent in the WHouse. Well lets just never mind that bit of moral clarity. This is about Hillary not Bill. And if the First Gent is a bit of a cur we should have no moral argument with that. Who says both people in the WHouse have to have moral integrity? Now spool the story ahead a few years: Later in history when the Monica thing comes up she again goes all over town telling lies for him!
    Question: Does she ever learn from her mistakes? Or… is the Hillary-as-naive-sucker card starting to look a bit overplayed? Or are you going to play the wives are trusting blah blah blah thing again. If so, then you are playing the gender card. Personally, I want a president who isn’t NAIVE. I prefer shrewd.

  • i didn’t say she was naive (read for content). what goes on in people’s private relationships has little to no bearing on anything else — the dynamics, the entire world of family relationships is a world unto itself, cannot be extrapolated into their careers, etc.

    then again, given how callously and arrogantly judgmental you seem about other people’s ralationships, perhaps you haven’t had a lot of relationships yourself.

    either way, my time isn’t worth arguing with someone who is such an evident ass.

  • Zelig,

    Maybe some things you have to live through to understand. If understanding is one of your goals.

  • I’ve been thinking a lot today about Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate race.

    That year, she won over a lot of New Yorkers by going around the state, famously “listening” rather than talking, and sticking obsessively to substance. And she won over voters who’d initially been opposed to her pretty much by reflex through this approach: she convinced them she’d hear their concerns, and she wowed them with policy substance.

    In glimpses through this campaign, she’s shown the substance–and even I, a reformist progressive who at this point can’t stand the Clintons, am always impressed by this. But the relentless spin, the endless distortions, and the sleazy little tactics like criticizing Obama for national advertising in Florida one day and then pushing to have Florida’s delegates seated three days later–not to mention Bill Clinton unloading on Obama (as he never did on Bush; maybe fellow presidents/dynasts get more deference than uppity dynastic challengers, principle and worldview be damned) make it hard to remember how good Sen. Clinton can be on the substance.

    If she’d stuck with her 2000 Senate approach, I suspect this race would be over or close to it–and without the collateral damage the Clintons have caused and the debasing of Bill’s legacy.

  • Let me explain my reservations about the Obamaniacs. When I was in my teens I was one of the Clean for Gene kids. He was going to solve all the problems. Within ten years I realized how lucky we were as a nation that he hadn’t been elected.

    jen flowers–the McCarthy campaign was before my time, but I’ve studied it pretty closely–as I have Obama.

    While their appeals might be similar in some respects, and they share powerful intellects, these are not similar guys. McCarthy saw himself as a pure outsider who would stand up for principle, but through his political career he’d been known as lazy and disengaged. His personal life was at least sporadically unhappy, and in some sense I don’t think he knew who he was. Obama–as the Clinton supporters endlessly remind us–is not pure, and he doesn’t present himself as such. He’s a Chicago politician, and he came up as a community organizer. He works hard, and he fights.

    No politician is going to “solve all our problems.” But to me the enduring appeal of candidates like McCarthy, or Howard Dean, or Barack Obama, is that they send the empowering message that ultimately we’re responsible for solving our own problems. The president serves more as a focusing agent and messenger in this conception of the job.

  • Those of us who are married or in committed relationships will be the first to tell you that it is often hard enough to understand your own relationship, much less anyone else’s – especially when those other people are public figures. Oh, Entertainment Tonight and Access Hollywood and People Magazine have all tried to make us think that we actually know these famous people, and that means we know what is going on when the cameras are off and the doors are closed on the media.

    We don’t, and anyone who thinks he or she does is kidding themselves.

    Do I personally admire or respect a man who cheats on his wife? No, I really don’t. Is it up to me to decide whether Hillary did or did not do the right thing by staying with Bill? No, it sure isn’t.

    It has always bothered me that there has been more than a little belief that somehow Bill’s cheating was her fault, because if she hadn’t been lacking in some way, he wouldn’t have strayed, again and again and again.

    Maybe what Hillary knew was that of the two of them, she was the strong one and he was the weak one, and that being the strong one, she could choose to stay with someone she loved, whom she believed still loved her. Maybe she took her wedding vows seriously. Maybe she believed they could work through it – as thousands of other couples do.

    Who knows? Not me, and not you.

  • David,

    It is questionable what such web stats mean. On the one hand, Ron Paul certainly shows that web interest does not necessarily correspond to support in the real world. On the other hand, there was tremendous web interest in John Kerry prior to the Iowa caucuses in 2004. I don’t have the numbers handy any more, but with all the attention given to Dean’s influence on line by the time of the vote some of the numbers were much more impressive for Kerry.

  • dajafi, i don’t know if you are right about that approach wrapping it up for her, but it would have been great had she tried it. i think the crowds and enthusiasm Obama was able to draw with his oratorical skills caused a panic in Team Clinton and they went off plan – which, initially, seemed to be exactly what you describe.

    i had the luxury of seeing her in Iowa before she had lost. in that time period, everywhere she went in person her poll numbers would go up – she was warm, charming, substantive. the problem was, she would go to Iowa City and draw 1500 people — when Dean or Kerry or Gore would have drawn 300 in the past. and then the next day Obama would draw 3000. at some point i think they became frustrated with how you run against a phenomenon – she was drawing record crowds with positivity and substance, only to have him come break the record. i suspect they decided the only viable option was they had to take some of the glow off of him.

    i have been no fan of the tenor of this campaign since then. but there are brief moments, like in Las Vegas when she got into sovereign wealth funds, where it is just abundantly clear that at this moment her command of the details of issues is in a whole different category than Obama and Edwards. moments like that give credence to her “ready on day one” theme. i hope they can find a better balance that recognizes they have an opponent and have to run against him (against them, sorry Anne 🙂 ) while still allowing more of those policy-wonk moments to shine through. maybe its my own bias being wonky, but one of my favorite things about both Clintons has always been the serious wonkiness.

  • “Coming off of victories in Nevada, Michigan and New Hampshire…”

    This is just part of the long standing Clinton strategy of portraying a sense of inevitability.

    Actually Obama will probably beat Clinton for delegates in Nevada, Michigan doesn’t count, and they tied for delegates in New Hampshire. On some days they claim that delegates are more important, but apparently not in that statement.

    (For perspective, this example is typical campaign spin, not anything unique about Clinton, as opposed to other aspects of her campaign which do demonstrate a serious lack of integrity.)

  • dajafi,

    The politicians may be different but the responses engendered are very similar.

    Whenever a politician’s rallies are like revivalist meetings, I worry. We all too easily get swept up in sweet rhetoric.

    And this country seems obsessed with electing presidents who would be great to go have a beer with.

  • Zeitgeist

    Being wonky can often be a good thing, but in Clinton’s case I find it a problem. She seems far too concerned with the details of doing everything with big government programs but misses the big picture. This leads to her support for nanny state ideas, for her overly regimented health care plan, and for being so wrong on Iraq.

    If I could create an ideal candidate, I would certainly have one with more experience than Obama. He’s far from perfect, but he’s right on the principles where I frequently disagree with Clinton.

    I would far rather have a candidate with principles I respect but who is less of a wonk at all the details of policy like Obama than someone like Clinton who is more hands on, but would use this ability for different overall policies than I would want to see.

  • Zeitgeist:
    Please simmer down – you are starting to sound like Swan. Some Obama supporters have gone overboard (as have some HRC supporters), but many of us haven’t.

    Jen Flowers,
    I hear you regarding “Clean for Gene”, and that idealism can be overblown, and charisma can be dangerous. On the other hand, inspiration can shift paradigms and move the popular will, and note that if what you want in a presidential candidate is experience and technocrat/wonk qualifications, you’d be hard-put to dream up a better presidential candidate than Herbert Hoover.

    The last 38 years have been so discouraging, I’m ready to try a little inspiration. Nothing else seems to be bringing average voters to their senses.

  • “if what you want in a presidential candidate is experience and technocrat/wonk qualifications, you’d be hard-put to dream up a better presidential candidate than Herbert Hoover.”

    Or this year if experience is the criteria we should all vote for McCain over any of the Democratic candidates. Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee also beat them in terms of executive experience.

    It is necessary to consider all the factors of the candidate and not just who is more experienced. Besides, from the perspective of what I want the next president to do, Obama’s experience is far more important to me than Clinton’s. I’m more interested in restoring the Contsitutional balance between the Executive Branch and Congress, and firming up the wall of separation of church and state than the type of economic policies which Hillary is more into.

    Obama’s experience as a professor of Constitutional law is more significant to me than Hillary’s experience. Obama also has more legislative experience overall, but I would give Clinton some points for having the experience in Congress as opposed to the state legislature. I’ve been far more impressed by some of Obama’s discussions of the Constitutional issues I’m concerned about than Hillary’s technocratic skills.

  • N. Wells @ 27 “The last 38 years have been so discouraging.”

    Are you saying LBJ was the last great pres.? You’re certainly not suggesting Nixon. I’ll give you civil rights, but Viet Nam? Or maybe you meant 28.

  • Anne wrote: Do I personally admire or respect a man who cheats on his wife? No, I really don’t. Is it up to me to decide whether Hillary did or did not do the right thing by staying with Bill? No, it sure isn’t.

    Are you daft? Should Hillary become the candidate every American is going to make lots of moral judgement about her and her family and her marriage. That I’m-okay-your-ok transactional pschological babble is morally bankrupt when it comes to selecting a presidential family. Like it or not every American is going to make a decision if the do-anthing-to-win Hillary was really lying back then when she made her snotty remark: When asked why Clinton and Flowers called each other “honey” in the tapes, Hillary explained that this was how people talked in Arkansas. And every American has a right to make such judgements. Whether you think they do or not.

    Furthermore every American is going to look long and hard at Bill Clinton and decide if they can tolerate a First Gent who is a serial womanizer and a blatant liar. All the BS upthread about “we need to be tolerant about the complexity of relationships” is la-la liberal dreaming land. Scolding Americans for making moral judgements about a screwed up First Family is probably the silliest idea I’ve heard this week.

  • Ron C @ 26 – hold that thought 🙂 I’ll be back on with more time later and want to get to that post.

    And N Wells, I will not simmer down re the offensive position Zelig takes. And don’t ever compare me to Swan.

  • And don’t ever compare me to Swan. -Zeitgeist

    Yeah, let’s not get crazy! 🙂

    Seriously, Wolfson, counting Michigan as a win is little shady.

  • I will not simmer down re the offensive position Zelig takes.

    WTF? Nothing I wrote is offensive. Americans have a right to make moral judgements. What kind of cabbage are you smoking over there? Whether you or Anne or Jen Flowers like it or not, Americans will morally judge. Unfortunately since Obama is such a sissy we won’t be forced to make our collective judgements on the sex offender Bill and his Lying Hill until November. That will be the issue in the Fall. You can pout about all you want, and call names, but who cares? Again: That will be THE issue in the Fall. Americans will morally judge the Clinton’s sexual ethics and family dysfunction yet again. Grow up. Get used to it.

  • Danp, sorry, my reference to 38 years ago was personal and therefore completely cryptic – I moved to the US in 1967, and really only started paying proper attention to US politics after I got into high school in 1969. Since then, far too much of what has happened has been disappointing, starting with peace with honor, secret peace plans, Kissinger “realpolitik”, and Watergate, and largely going downhill from there. The all-too-brief democratic ascendancies of Carter and Clinton and post-Nixon Democratic majorities in Congress were disappointing, albeit all for quite different reasons, and did little to halt the overall slide represented by Ford, Reagan and the Bushes. Heck, Nixon is now looking like a liberal whom I’d happily vote for if the alternative was Reagan or Bush 2, and both of those guys have, in retrospect, made Ford look like a wise and thoughtful statesman in comparison. How discouraging is that?! And all that happened against a background of the far-too-quick revival of republican fortunes after Watergate, followed by a steady rising influence of hypocritical and sanctimonious religious conservatives and other bat-guano crazy loons of the right. I’d really like to feel positive about American politics, and Obama seems to me like the best way to get there in a long while. (Also, this whole ‘competing dynasties’ trend worries me greatly – I’d rather try somebody else’s mistakes for a while.)

    (However, I do hear good things about Hillary from people who see her in person, as Zeitgeist said above, and as FillPhil said on another thread, so I hope to attend one of her campaign rallies eventually.)

    Zeitgeist, “Swan-like” was indeed a low blow to get your attention, but if you don’t want to sound like him, please quit overgeneralizing about Obama supporters.

  • As the resident “Anti-Swan,” I hereby declare that zeitgeist is in no way similar to Swan (zeitgeist doesn’t even capitalize his screen name, for crying out load).

    As for the expectations coming out of SC, I think it’s safe to say that the abusive negativity that’s been coming out of the Clinton camp—specifically, from Billy J—has had a profound effect on the results.

    It looks like the Obama vote alone might have surpassed SC’s previous TOTAL record Dem turnout. That, in and of itself, would suggest a rout. Roughly one-fourth of the white vote went in his direction—which would have compared favorably to the same number of votes that whites gave the previous SC primary winner in 2004. THAT is not exactly what anyone could call “chump change.” On top of that, and on top of winning in almost all age categories (I will not try to cover up the fact that Hillary carried the “Bill O’Reilly Fan Club” age-group), a lot of the exit-poll replies indicate that people changed their minds within 72 hours of casting their votes, with a big chunk of those changes coming from a core disgust of the negativity from Fortress Hillary. If that issue gains any traction at all, we might see a lot of pre-vote poll number shift decidedly away from Clinton, and toward Obama.

    If her support begins to wane—and if that waning support begins to listen to Obama’s message, and to appreciate that message—then one might even begin to describe such an elemental shift as a ” political epiphany….”

  • (thanks, Steve – but an interesting bit of trivia is that wholly by accident i use a lower case “z” on my home computer and a capital “Z” on my work computer – a fluke that got in the cookies and i am too lazy to make it consistent! so if that is part of my differentiation from Swan I may be in trouble!)

  • No sooner do I go and buy a whole case of Girl Scout cookies, you have to blame a typo on a “cookie fluke.” I’ll never be able to think of a Thin Mint the same way again. But at least your cookie fluke hasn’t declared me to be an Obama troll—yet.

    As an aside, the tone in Edwards’ concession speech suggests—at least to me—that he’s probably ready to be done with politics. I’m anxious to see if he throws his support in a particular direction, or chooses the route taken by Kucinich—and supports no one. This also wasn’t what the polling experts foresaw….

  • As someone else who’s been arguing with zeitgeist a lot recently, I want to add my voice to those asserting a comparison to Swan are way out of bounds. For one think, zeitgeist is clearly worth arguing with.

    But I also wish he’d quit over-generalizing about those of us who support Obama; if nothing else, he’s casting a wider net of insult than I think is his intent. In the context of a hard-fought campaign, we’re all guilty of subjective perception and personal bias, but the community suffers when we fail to rein it in.

  • Have to agree with an underlying theme in Zelig’s posts up-thread: lots of voters choose between presidential candidates based on their perceptions of character and personal morality, and with the two Clinton’s campaigning together, Bill talking about his role in his wife’s administration, etc., his serial infidelities and subsequent lies will be front and center in many, many Republican outlets, and the mainstream media won’t leave it alone, either. I don’t think that HRC can totally compartmentalize herself away from it, e.g., Zelig’s correct that she went out and defended him, and her assertions of his innocence turned out not to be true as well. If she was also the unknowing victim of her husband’s lies, then why is he campaigning alongside her as the potential ‘co-president’?

    Look, Clinton wasn’t my first Democratic choice in 1992, but I voted for him anyway, and I defended him when he was impeached. But I have to say that I very much resented having to stand up for a man who turned out to be, by his own admission, a serial adulterer, and who lied to the whole country about it before he was finally found out. Yes, Hillary may have forgiven him or not, I don’t know, but, honestly, I haven’t forgiven him, and I wish he had stayed on the sidelines. Notwithstanding the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the Republicans, Bill Clinton did a bad and idiotic thing which seriously hurt his party, and I’m not ready to punch his ticket back to the White House. I think many other people feel the same way.

  • thanks, dajafi, and i appreciate the point – i mentally exclude you and doubtful everytime i post one of those.

    but just with the past 48 hours you have Cleaver lamenting that the only Democratic president in the past 30 years wasn’t assassinated. Your have ROTF first claiming Obama was the smartest person ever, and then gidding all giddy and gloating like this was a high school football game, not serious stuff. and i wont bother going back further because i know you read the boards, but numerous commenters have suggested that not just the Clintons, but anyone who supports them are collectively stupid or corrupt.

    these are the regulars, not just trolls passing through. while i know some pro-Clinton fly-by-nighters have said some offensive things, i would challenge you to find 1/4 the cult-of-personality stuff, the juvenile stuff, the group insults, the ad hominem attacks from Clinton supporters directed at Obama and his supporters as from Obama supporters directed at Clinton and her supporters.

    perhaps you’re suggesting that the Clinton side should just be the bigger people and rise above, which I think would say something interesting about whose camp is more ready to President.

    otherwise, while i appreciate the sentiment, i would appreciate it more if you’d call your own colleagues to heel, to get your own house in order before worrying about mine. because frankly your side (not you personally) has been much more of the problem. so its convenient you can call me out, but not ROTF or Cleaver or the others.

    yes i know – Swan, a Clinton supporter – is an ass. one, that has nothing to do with Clinton v Obama – Swan has been that way long before this dispute cropped up. And second, I do call Swan out as often or more than I call out Obama supporters.

    so while i apologize to you and doubtful for any offense taken, i’m not sure i’ve ever seen an Obama supporter spologize for much of anything. and i doubt i will.

    thats where i’m coming from, and where i’ll keep coming from, particularly when people like Zelig want to blame Hillary for Bill’s infidelity or cast ignorant personal aspersions at someone else’s personal life.

  • and let me add one more thought: to a person, every Clinton supporter or defender (to include Anne) that is a regular here has at some point posted that they would absolutely support Obama in the fall if he is the nominee. I would venture that the number in the Obama camp among the regulars who have said the same is around 1/2. I find no small irony that the folks supporting a candidate they claim can unify are the ones who wont come together, and the folks supporting a candidate who allegedly is tearing the party apart have committed to working for whoever the party’s nominee is. We are the team players here, not the bad guys. But the level of vitriol nonetheless directed at both our candidate and at us (which seems rather unecessary since we are already outnumbered about 10-to-1 here) does get a little old. I try and keep my posts (ok, not the occasional intentional one-liners, but most of them) pretty darned substantive. But having been on the receiving end of a lot of the other junk, I think I’ve earned the right to occasionally not take it so well.

  • z, fair points as usual. I did think Tom’s post was well over the line, and said as much in another thread. And ROTF… well, in her/his case I think sometimes the presentation takes precedence over the substance, which is not how it should be.

    With respect, though (and you knew this was coming… ;)) I would look at the “I’m against them now, but would/wouldn’t support Clinton/Obama in November” question in a different light. The Obama people who won’t vote for Hillary–and I’m very probably one of them–feel disgusted by the Clintons’ tactics, and probably exhausted (see below) at the very thought of having to be reluctant defenders of these two supreme narcissists for another 4-8 years. (The war vote–to me, the ultimate moral decision–probably figures into it as well. What she did was unforgivable there, and I don’t have faith she wouldn’t do so again were there a perceived political gain to it.) Perhaps the Clinton backers just haven’t seen as much in Obama’s campaign to be disgusted with.

    I think OhioDem captured my feeling perfectly:

    Look, Clinton wasn’t my first Democratic choice in 1992, but I voted for him anyway, and I defended him when he was impeached. But I have to say that I very much resented having to stand up for a man who turned out to be, by his own admission, a serial adulterer, and who lied to the whole country about it before he was finally found out. Yes, Hillary may have forgiven him or not, I don’t know, but, honestly, I haven’t forgiven him, and I wish he had stayed on the sidelines. Notwithstanding the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the Republicans, Bill Clinton did a bad and idiotic thing which seriously hurt his party, and I’m not ready to punch his ticket back to the White House. I think many other people feel the same way.

    I voted for Bill Clinton twice–the second time with serious misgivings based on his campaign finance improprieties. Through his near-total waste of a second term, I defended him too–because the Republicans were so clearly trying to mount a non-violent coup, and their hypocrisy bothered me more than Clinton’s astonishing irresponsibility with Lewinsky. But I was angry about it, and I’m still angry about it. And frankly I don’t trust him not to do it again. Though it isn’t exactly the same thing, I think he showed in South Carolina that his judgment and self-restraint are still very questionable.

    We all agree that there’s a lot at stake for our country over the next few years. I don’t want to miss another opportunity wallowing in the endless Clinton psychodrama, particularly when I’m not convinced that their commitment to progressive principles is very strong.

  • A long post about some of the up-thread issues for a Sunday night:

    Re supporting Democrats in the fall: I expect to vote a straight ticket aside from possibly having the Clintons at the top. Sure, I’ll probably end up voting for some non-perfect people, but the presidential vote is the most consequential, and the one where my threshold is highest.

    As dajafi alluded to his/her own rationale for the Obama preference vs. Clinton, I should also state that I’ve not been a Clinton supporter even from the start of this electoral cycle, i.e., Mrs. Clinton began pretty much at the bottom of my Democratic presidential candidate preference list, for a number of reasons. Her vote for the Iraq invasion resolution was something that I would actively punish any politician for, if they came back and asked for my vote. She’s not unique– I won’t give my vote to any of the other Democrats who aided Bush and Cheney, unless they admit it was a mistake and show some evidence that it won’t happen again.

    My judgment is also that when Feingold and others were fighting against FISA abuse, torture and secret detentions, and many other aspect of Bush policy beginning back in 2001, I did not see her take a leading role in the opposition. If she really has significantly more seniority and experience that Obama, why wouldn’t she use it to rally the Democratic opposition against those and other terrible abuses?

    Also, her sponsoring a Senate resolution to ban flag-burning was anathema to me. I think it’s a betrayal of the constitution, and I have consistently refused to support what I consider pandering to the ‘super-patriot’ mindset. If she wants to sacralize a flag, she’s not for me, even if it was some kind of calculated ‘gesture’ on her part. Yeah, I think it’s a big deal.

    Mrs. Clinton started at the bottom of my list also for an entirely practical rationale, which is that she won’t be able to win against the Republicans, IMHO. For reasons I’ve outlined here and elsewhere, I think she is far and away the candidate most likely to motivate Republicans and independents to vote against her and other Democrats, and in my judgment she’s pretty much certain to lose against McCain, maybe even against Romney. I’m less convinced than others who cite her ability to ‘punch back’ against the Republicans: it seems to me that as first lady/co-president (or however you want to define her role when BJC was prez) she actually did a pretty lousy job of fighting the Republicans back then. I know her husband dealt her a terrible hand to play, but I was still quite ‘underwhelmed’ with how she handled the opposition.

    Some cite her two winning Senate elections from New York state as a reason that she will defeat the Republicans nationally, but I don’t give that much weight, because her electoral opponents were extremely poor competitors, and the NY state Republican organization is overall much weaker now than in the 80’s and early 90’s (e.g., they’ve consistently been losing seats both in downstate suburban districts and even now upstate, so she’s hardly alone as a Democrat who is having success in that environment).

    Re the enthusiasm for Obama: It’s never been ‘Obama-or-nobody’ for me. I’d vote for Dodd or Edwards, probably even Biden, if they had won primaries and gotten broad support and the nomination, and also because they either opposed the Iraq war/occupation from the beginning, or later apologized for their initial support. Kucinich I agreed with on some issues, but never felt that he was electable, and Richardson is pretty close to too conservative for me, but I still might have pulled the lever for him. When I would take online polls to match my policy preferences to specific stands by the candidates, Clinton and Richardson were usually the candidates who least fit my own views.

    If people feel differently than I about Obama’s character, history, votes and prospects, and that his overall positive/negative ratio is worse than Mrs. Clinton’s, that’s fine, but I haven’t seen arguments on this thread or others that are convincing to me.

  • Comments are closed.