the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down

The Clinton campaign has run a gambit since Pennsylvania.

They've found a strategy and they've doubled down.

After Pennsylvania, the press, the pollsters and the pundits started talking about "white working class voters" and the Clinton campaign ran with it. After Pennsylvania, the press, the pollsters and the pundits ran another cycle of Rev. Wright's rants and the Clinton campaign ran with it.

So, in anticipation of Indiana and North Carolina, Clinton doubled down.

Clinton pandered on a gas tax and on guns. She reaffirmed her talk about "obliterating Iran." She expressed "outrage" about Rev. Wright on Bill O'Reilly's show. She lambasted economists as elitist. She vilified Wall Street as if she and Bill had never met or taken a dollar from anyone who worked for Bear Stearns or Morgan Stanley.

The Clinton campaign has triangulated to such an extent that, at this point, she is running to the right of Joe Lieberman.

That's saying something.

If Clinton wins North Carolina and Indiana this way, if she uses this rightward gambit as the lever that wins her the nomination of the Democratic Party in Denver, then she has so thoroughly painted herself and our party into a corner that it's not clear what it means to be a liberal Democrat much less a progressive grassroots or netroots activist intent on reforming our party.

Can any of us expect that we will get a real Cap and Trade on Carbon if the gas tax pander is what won Hillary Clinton the nomination?

We won't.

It doesn't matter what she says now. It won't happen.

Nor will any progressive reform we have in mind come to pass. If one thing is true in politics, you don't turn your back on the voters and the politics that brought you to the dance.

::

However, there's a problem. Clinton is weak in Wisconsin and Iowa and Minnesota and Colorado and Virginia and Washington and Oregon and Nevada and New Mexico. She will have to scramble to beat John McCain in any of those states.

To win in the general election Hillary Clinton will have to go right back to Ohio and Pennsylvania and New Jersey and Florida and Michigan and repeat the exact same rhetoric that she's used in Ohio and Pennsylvania and Indiana and North Carolina.

Only this time she will be running against John McCain, and all those voters who seemed to eat up her "to the right of Joe Lieberman" rhetoric in the Democratic primary will have a much different choice to make.

Given Republican or Republican Lite, voters will be tempted to choose the Republican line.

So Clinton, having painted herself into this right-wing ideological corner in Ohio and Pennsylvania and Indiana, will find herself looking for votes and volunteers from the other part of the Democratic Party. The liberals. The progressives. The big cities. The folks who read Dailykos. The folks who joined MoveOn years ago. Some, but, critically, not all of, the folks who worked our asses off to help the Democrats of all political persuasions win back a majority in the House and the Senate in 2006.

And at that point, Clinton will talk to us about health care and cap and trade and George Bush and the "rainbow of voters" in the Democratic Party.

And the only problem will be that she'll be standing in a corner. Painted in.

She'll be waving from the tiny little ideological space that she carved out for herself with Evan Bayh.

You know that space. That corner.

It's the space in Democratic politics where it's okay to belittle economists and academics as elitists. It's the space in Democratic politics where it's fine to run against MoveOn.org and misrepresent the views of millions of activists who do things like donate and get our the vote and remind people about the war in Iraq. It's the space where you can rake in $109 million after leaving office but call your political opponent an "out of touch elitist." It's the space we reserve in our party where incredibly wealthy people who take millions in donations from lobbyists and industry can pander to "regular people" by lambasting Wall Street as if they'd never heard of the place...and get away with it.

And that corner has a new aspect for Bill and Hillary Clinton, it's also now the corner of Democratic politics where it is apparently alright to label your opponent's African-American Church as associated with Hamas and Louis Farrakhan. I don't think Joe Lieberman would have done that.

::

Barack Obama is not perfect.

I happen to like him a great deal and, despite what some might tell you in the blogosphere, I don't agree with him on everything. I don't think he's the "progressive savior" and I never did.

He's honest. I happen to like that. He has the support of a broad cross section of our party's elected officials. I like and respect that, too. His wife is an amazing woman. He has innovative policy positions and includes cutting edge advisers with Democratic warhorses on his policy team. He's run a truly excellent, textbook-rewriting campaign. And, more than anything, Barack Obama goes out there and does his best whatever the demographic challenges he faces.

Remember Obama in Pennsylvania? With Senator Casey? They visited small towns where they knew they would go on to lose by big margins. (And, yes, there were also some they won and some they kept close.) That says something about the guy.

Remember Obama in Indiana at the nursing home and the VFW Hall and in that surprise visit to that small town? He was out there talking to people whom he knew weren't all going to vote for him this primary. He was reaching out, not taking our party to the right.

Why?

Because that's the way Barack Obama is.

He hasn't painted himself into a corner. He's extended his hand and greeted folks who disagree with him with a smile. And when he's talked to us, he's done his best to tell all of us the truth.

That might not win him North Carolina and Indiana outright. That might not change the demographic breakdown of this race for the nomination of our party.

But it sure makes me feel one hell of a lot better calling myself a Democrat.

::

VOLUNTEER. TAKE ACTION. DONATE.



Display:


Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (2.00 / 4)

Obama is not honest.  Look at the Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers controversy.  Obama lied about not knowing what his pastor was all about.  He's also lieing about his relationship with Bill Ayers.  It's much closer.  The guy is a regular old politician.  He's not anymore honest than anyone else.


by karajan72 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:01:31 PM EST

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (2.00 / 2)

and your proof of this is where, now?


Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:05:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (2.00 / 2)

Nowhere.  Proof is not required to make an accusation on this site.  As long as it's an anti-Obama accusation.


by Lawyerish on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:09:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (2.00 / 1)

Damn... you beat me to it....


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:10:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (2.00 / 3)

I can no more throw him from the bus than my racist grandmother a typical white woman

Oh Rev Wright said I am a politician???

Throw Rev from the bus

LOL

Do you guys think we don't read the news?


by DTaylor on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:27:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (2.00 / 1)

Rev. Wright did much more than that, and we both know it. Obama took the time to condemn Wright's statements because they were as if American is statically stuck in racial hatred. He justified why he did what he did.

Rev. Wright said Obama's justification wasn't real or accurate. I think Obama had to do what he did, and Rev. Wright's personal attack just made that easier on Obama's councious. (SP?)

He was just ridiculous...


by Falsehood on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:52:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton didn't 'express outrage' you are wrong! (none / 0)

she just said that Wright would not have been her pastor.

Thats IMO about as polite as she could have been..

You are twisting the facts on that one..


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Tue May 06, 2008 at 06:02:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton didn't 'express outrage' you are wrong (none / 0)

I beg your pardon, but I don't think I referenced Clinton in that last comment. Can you clarify?


by Falsehood on Tue May 06, 2008 at 06:19:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (none / 0)

Exactly.  Heck, when I read that line in the diary about Obama being honest, I knew that the comments section would be fully of Hillary supporters going "ZOMG WRIGHT AYERS REZKO."  


John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way
by bosdcla14 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:01:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, it's a strategy. (2.00 / 4)

I just fear she's going to succeed at hobbling Senator Obama, not to mention herself.  Senator Clinton has worked very hard to discount my state, my socioeconomic status, and my progressive views, but I'll still vote for her given the alternative.  But it won't be a happy day if it comes to that.


by McNasty on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:02:58 PM EST

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (2.00 / 3)

Hillary Clinton has always been a moderate/conservative Democrat. Where have you been? I suppose... not born yet.


by soyousay on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:05:50 PM EST

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (2.00 / 1)

Then why do so many on this site hold her up as a paragon of progressive values?


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:11:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (2.00 / 2)

She has always been more liberal than Bill.

But a lot of her support is from people like me who are Bill supporters and Hillary by extension.


by DTaylor on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:28:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (none / 0)

Wait, are you saying that you actually support Bill for president but you'll take his wife because they're married?


by shalca on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:48:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Healthcare for Poor And MiddleClass People That Ob (none / 0)

She is going to help millions of poor and middle class people get healthcare who STILL WONT BE ABLE TO AFFORD IT UNDER OBAMA..  They will under Clinton with her income-based premium cap.

MANY people are paying FAR more than 5-10% now and that WONT CHANGE SIGNIFICANTLY UNDER Obama - when he looks at healthcare - in 2012


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Tue May 06, 2008 at 06:04:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (none / 0)

Wait, are you saying that you actually support Bill for president but you'll take his wife because they're married?

Bingo. The dirty little secret of the Clinton campaign -- a majority of its supporters are actually voting to give Bill a third term. In NH, CNN asked in its exit poll whether supporters of both candidates would switch their votes to Bill Clinton were he in the race. 73% of Obama voters said "no", while 59% of Clinton votes said "yes". CNN hasn't asked that question since (and for good reason -- it's pretty embarrassing), but I would bet they'd find similar results elsewhere.  


by RP McMurphy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:55:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (none / 0)

I would vote for Bubba again in a heartbeat given the chance.  But she isn't Bubba.


Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome
by kasjogren on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:51:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (2.00 / 6)

Wow there's a lot of ignorance out there.

Do you remember HillaryCare?  That was more progressive than literally anything Obama's ever tried.

Hillary has repeatedly pushed health care, education, and other initiatives to help level the playing field.  

Obama has done no such thing.  His legislative record consists of a few low-hanging fruit (such as his anemic "ethics reform" bills) and a bunch of no-shows.

At the same time, he's repeatedly adopted right-wing frames and rhetoric in attacking universal health care (a "mandate" is now the worst thing possible, I understand, at DailyKos), government intervention and regulation in the mortgage markets (it would "disrupt" the free markets and raise rates for everyone-- nonsense, unless you took Econ 101, and no other Econ classes), and Social Security (raising the specter of privatizing part of it, and then of the danger SS was in without major changes-- again, nonsense except from the Cato crowd-- SS is fundamentally stable for at least 40 years; minor changes in GDP growth, aging, etc. would put SS in the black indefinitely).

Obama is not a liberal.  Hillary's instincts are liberal.  But you go on your merry way, and criticize a progressive tax proposal as "conservative" and keep drinking that Kool-Aid.  And then wonder why those "low-information" voters won't vote for your "progressive" candidate who never talks about progressive solutions.


by RedSox04 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:33:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (2.00 / 1)

No-shows?

So Google for Government, Nulear Proliferation, and Ethics reform don't deserve attention?

On Foreclosures, please note the date:

http://obama.senate.gov/press/070322-oba ma_urges_ber/

I reject the idea that there's a single line from LLiberal to Center that we can peg people to.


by Falsehood on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:57:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama is siding with thr RIGHT on healthcare... (none / 0)

Look at his main healthcare point man..

Jim Cooper for example.

Cooper has probably brought a lot of money to the Obama camp, but IS it the right kind?

NO

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht ml?res=9B00EEDD1431F93AA25757C0A96295826 0&scp=14&sq=%22Jim+Cooper%22& ;st=nyt


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Tue May 06, 2008 at 06:07:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is siding with thr RIGHT... (none / 0)

A lack of mandates isn't conservative. It's not as liberal as one can go, but "Conservative," in this case, is NO government involvement.

Obama does support Single Payer in principal, just as Clinton does...


by Falsehood on Tue May 06, 2008 at 06:21:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

whats with insistance on (2.00 / 3)

catch phrases and then writing entire diaries to explain the use of said catch phrase?
by linc on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:07:09 PM EST

Clinton has thrown the (1.75 / 4)

Democratic party under the bus.

I try not to say bad things about her during this primary.  Because of that, I find I am without words.  


No Way, No How, No McCain!
by GFORD on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:07:18 PM EST

Re: Clinton has thrown the (2.00 / 6)

Examples?  Particularly those that haven't been repudiated?  

Way I see it, Obama's thrown us under the bus.  Examples include his race memo, which created this toxic split in the party and dropped Hillary's support among blacks from like 80% to like 10%; his claims that Hillary had sent the media a photo of Obama in Kenyan clothing after that claim had been totally debunked (conveniently before a black crowd in MS- Obama's definitely above "dirty politics" isn't he); misrepresenting Hillary's universal health care plan; repeatedly calling Hillary divisive and unelectable; having his proxies threaten black Hillary superdelegates; having his campaign manager claim that Hillary working class supporters would never vote for Democrats anyways...

There is a divisive candidate here, and his name is Barack Obama.  I certainly don't think Hillary's the perfect candidate.  But Obama is just awful.  He's got a record that's incredibly thin, he's already been exposed to a bunch of critical lies about his basic biography (e.g., he claimed that he opposed Iraq during his US Senate campaign-- not true; his claims about his parents marrying because of Selma; his claims about what he did as a "community organizer" in Chicago, etc.), and his unfavorables are already near Hillary, BEFORE THE REPUBLICANS HAVE EVEN UNLEASHED THE FULL FORCE OF THEIR ATTACKS YET.


by RedSox04 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:40:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton has thrown the (none / 0)

So Obama put out a memo and all black people ceased thinking about and voting on issues and just backed him based on a piece of paper?

No, that's not insulting.


by shalca on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:50:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton has thrown the (2.00 / 5)

umm, that's not what i said, dude.

The timeline goes like this: Obama sends out memo.  Media then dutifully follows up, and shows out-of-context clips of Clinton and friends making statements, and then asking whether they're racist.  The racist meme took over all media coverage for like 2 weeks.  

I know politico types who were bamboozled by the media into thinking that Hillary had done all sorts of nefarious things, based on all sorts of out-of-context and edited Hillary clips.

So do I think Obama supporters, including African Americans, are prone to being misled by the media?  Sure.  Just like everyone else.  If that's insulting, so be it.  

However you want to spin it, that's the timeline.  Clinton's numbers among black voters dropped AFTER the Obama memo, not before.  And they dropped not because of this memo, but because of the one-sided media coverage it provoked.


by RedSox04 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:23:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

False (none / 0)

The timeline is that Representative Clyburn, the House Whip, officially neutral then and now, disagreed with Bill and Hillary Clinton's racial rhetoric in New Hampshire. The reporting for the interview took place well before this blew up in advance of the Nevada debate.

Many don't even who Jim Clyburn is, even though he's the third-highest ranking Democrat in the House and has the position Tom DeLay held for many years when the GOP was in the majority.

South Carolina African-American voters know who Jim Clyburn is, and they took what he said in public and private seriously and considered his opinion plus a wealth of other factors when casting their vote.

That's the core of the story.

I find it significant that your write Representative Clyburn out of the story entirely and run with Tim Russert's hyped and false tale of the memo.

(I've debunked that memo myth as well. The memo was simply press clippings. It had no other content. The clippings were accurate, they weren't all about "race"; they did document Clinton surrogates attacking Barack Obama.)

Regardless, your beef is with Representative Clyburn, the House Whip. Clyburn and Sen. Kennedy intervened post-New Hampshire asking for a change in tone from Bill and Hillary.

They did not get one.


k/o: politics and local blogs
by kid oakland on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:55:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Irrelevant (2.00 / 2)

Whether Clyburn came before the memo, or vice versa, it's irrelevant.  The point is that the Obama campaign decided to push a "Clinton is racist" meme as a campaign tactic, unless you are trying to argue that Clyburn, a close ally of Obama, was acting independently of, and without the approval of, Obama.

Which would be an interesting claim, given that most Obama supporters loudly proclaimed that Ferraro, who is barely associated with Hillary Clinton (a member of the "Finance Committee"), was acting on Hillary's behalf.

You haven't debunked anything.  You've simply shown more examples of the Obama campaign arguing, based on out-of-context statements, that the Clinton campaign was racist, right before the SC vote.

You also ought to brush up on your policy.  It's ridiculous to call Hillary a right-winger, vis-a-vis Obama, on economic issues.


by RedSox04 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:04:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Irrelevant (none / 0)

I see this argument time and time again, and yet I have not seen Obama or one of his surrogates call either Clinton a racist.

Clyburn is still neutral, though probably leaning Obama.  Back in January he was truly neutral and hadn't spoken a word about either candidate at that point.  Ferraro on the other hand raised money for Hillary Clinton and was clearly a supporter and surrogate in the press.


by shalca on Tue May 06, 2008 at 06:34:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False (2.00 / 1)

Also, in re your "debunking", wtf?  The memo argued that the Clintons were engaging in racist tactics, based on attacks on Obama, that were not racist, but which were cut-and-pasted in a way that seemed to indicate they were.

The "fairy tale" example is the most egregious, but they were all ridiculous.

Obama tried to paint Clinton as a racist, pure and simple.  And it appears to have worked pretty effectively.  


by RedSox04 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:06:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The memo didn't argue anything (none / 0)

it was a list of press clippings and the ONLY content was the press clippings. It only came out in public after Jim Clyburn's statement.

Ask Bob Beckel what he thought of the Clinton campaign in South Carolina and the dangers of exploiting Rev. Wright with Super Delegates:

the Republican right wing has seized on the Wright story and is unlikely to let it go. For John McCain this has serious downside potential. Anger in the black community towards Republicans is established and immutable. But if conservatives are perceived as exploiting yet another race story, anger could spread to moderate Republican and Independent voters, many in the suburbs, where the Republicans have been bleeding support the last decade.

For those supporters of Hillary Clinton who see the story as a way of selling superdelegates on Obama's unelectability, the downside is far more dangerous. If the Clinton campaign is caught using the race card, particularly after Bill Clinton's 'cracker tour' of South Carolina, it will assure a Clinton defeat in November. Not only will blacks boycott the polls, so will many of the millions of young voters Obama has brought into the political process.

(Many liberals like myself, who would be happy to support Hillary Clinton if she earned the nomination, would abandon her if her campaign seeks to exploit the Wright controversy either in the remaining contests or with superdelegates.)


k/o: politics and local blogs
by kid oakland on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:17:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Boiled water. (1.00 / 2)

Ingredients:
1 1/2 quarts water

Place water in 2-quart saucepan.  Place saucepan on stove at high heat.  Wait (but do not watch).
When large bubbles are rising to the surface at a rapid pace, remove from heat.

Serves 6


No Way, No How, No McCain!
by GFORD on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:41:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Lemonade (2.00 / 2)

Open can of frozen lemonade.  

Put into pitcher filled with 2 qts cold water.

Stir and serve.


by Montague on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:47:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow, I've been hide rated. (none / 0)

After all the comments I've made over the years, this is a new milestone.  I was feeling left out when all the other Obama supporters were being down-rated but now I'm cool too.  


No Way, No How, No McCain!
by GFORD on Tue May 06, 2008 at 05:02:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (2.00 / 3)

I guess your whole theory of her scrambling to beat McCain is unraveled by the electorate vote counter on the front page....


--++++Stay Gold, Ponyboy!++++--
by amde on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:07:22 PM EST

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (2.00 / 4)

Great another drive by from the wonderful world of KOS. You guys are just pissed that she turned his own little dirty tricks and games back on him. I know who was pushing right wing talking points back in Feb of  2007 and it wasn't Clinton.


by Iceblinkjm on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:11:42 PM EST

Actually we aren't pissed at all. (none / 0)

We're having a pretty good time.


No Way, No How, No McCain!
by GFORD on Tue May 06, 2008 at 05:03:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (2.00 / 11)

How is economic populism right wing?

Obama had a year and a half and $200 M, but he left economci populism out of his "let's hold hands with the Rs" gambit.

He chose to go with college students and the upper middle class, along with his support among African Americans.

He could have articulated a progressive populist position, but that's not him.  He is a centrist.  


by TomP on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:13:29 PM EST

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (1.25 / 4)

I guess economic populism, to you, means 'lying to uneducated voters who can't tell we're lying to them.'


by Lawyerish on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:18:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh please explain! I too dumb! KidO is ivy league! (2.00 / 1)

He went to Columbia - therefore I must let him tell me who to vote for!


by catfish1 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:55:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And he's almost 40! And he's still a kid! (2.00 / 1)

Anyone find that odd?


by catfish1 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:56:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If you keep posting personal attacks like this (none / 0)

you will get banned from MyDD. Trust me.

This kind of stuff is not kosher on Democratic blogs. And, to folks who are uprating this comment, I have the exact same advice.


k/o: politics and local blogs
by kid oakland on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:20:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You personalize your diaries (none / 0)

bringing in how you canvassed instead of just blogged, your nieces and nephews will be hurt by the gas tax-windfall profits tax issue.

Now you speak for all "Democratic blogs."

Give me a break!


by catfish1 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:27:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No (none / 0)

what I'm saying is that if you choose to keep making personal attacks on me like this, you will get banned.

There's a huge difference between me talking about myself in some other context in a previous diary on a different website and you making personal attacks on me here at MyDD that are completely unrelated to this post.

It's also against the rules of this website.


k/o: politics and local blogs
by kid oakland on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:40:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You mean you'll ask I be banned (none / 0)

"You will get banned." You're implying this is your blog?

The only reason I know all this stuff about you is you constantly talk about yourself! And I'm  in the Bay Area and surrounded by people who look down their noses at Hillary voters. "Oh well he is a low-information voter." Excuse me, I'm an independent contractor and really need health care reform. Obama "I'll do it at end of my first term" is not doing it for me. And how is Mr. Harry and Loise mailer not the right-wing double down?


by catfish1 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:46:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

First, (none / 0)

I haven't shown any disrespect to you despite how you've treated me.

Second, to have you bring up my age, my school, my family, my name, etc. etc. to attack me when I post here is frankly uncool if not a bit creepy.

When I say you'll get banned for doing it.

1. I'm basing it on five years of posting on blogs.

2. I'm also basing it on the fact that what you did in this thread is against the rules that Jerome has repeatedly posted on the frontpage.


k/o: politics and local blogs
by kid oakland on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:53:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Fine - the first post upthread (2.00 / 1)

was out of line on my part. It was in response to somebody saying this diary makes the (credible!?) case that low-information Hillary voters are voting against their own interests because they don't know better. Because I've read your diaries before, and you've talked about where you went to school, and I live in the same area, it hit a nerve. But should have kept that to myself.

Apologies.


by catfish1 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 05:03:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think any poor person who votes for Obama (none / 0)

probably doesn't realize how non-progressive Obama is on healthcare.

America can't afford Obama. Millions of people are going to be left out by his 'reforms' That includes HUGE numbers of black people.

Do they realize how much the insurance companies consider a 'fair price' for someone with, say, hypertension or athsma IS?


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Tue May 06, 2008 at 06:14:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But blog celebrities (none / 0)

Some writers write and keep themselves in the background. Others bring more of their own voice to the forefront and gain name recognition - partly by branding themselves, the writer Joe muses on x topic or y event.

So in the future, may I suggest keeping personal details out of your pieces if this bothers you so much? Or, if you want to brand yourself then learn to roll with punches a little more?

There. Had to say it. Ban away if you feel the need.


by catfish1 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 05:10:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't have much sympathy... (none / 0)

you're the one choosing how you act.

What does where I went to college have to do with this post? Nothing. It has nothing to do with TomP's comment, either.

I picked my handle on dailykos when there were 2,000 of us. You want to slag  me for choosing "kid oakland?"  Fine, be my guest, but that reflects on you, not me.

In five years of blogging I've never seen so many people make the "kid" joke as folks attacking me the last three months. Believe me, I've heard it before and it's not that impressive. I've been upfront about my age for as long as I've blogged.

Now, I mentioned in a diary that the gas tax pander makes me think about what that kind of pander politics means for my nieces and nephews, and a bunch of fellow Democrats here and at other supposedly Democratic blogs use that as an excuse to talk about my family, as if that's fair game?

You want me to feel sorry for you for choosing to do that to me?

Nope. I accept your apology, but I'm not conceding an inch.

Your choices and actions reflect on you not me.


k/o: politics and local blogs
by kid oakland on Tue May 06, 2008 at 06:15:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (1.00 / 2)

There are too may things to talk about how the Clintons have torn the democratic party up.  


by Spanky on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:23:33 PM EST

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (2.00 / 2)

Name a few.  Please.


by RedSox04 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:41:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (2.00 / 1)

I don't think she has "torn the democratic party up" but...

She has validated a lot of GOP talking points that we (progressives) have tried for years to combat like "latte liberals", "elitists", and the bashing of anything from S.F.  If she wants to flank him from the right, that in no way bothers me but using tired GOP code words only makes it harder to get them out of the lexicon.  Liberal is not a bad word and neither should any of the other things that the GOP has tried to brand us with, when Senator Clinton repeats it and owns it is doubly infuriating.

Being utterly dismissive of states she didn't win.  We (progressives again) have been trying to establish a 50 state strategy for years and her campaign's dismissiveness of states like MN, WI, CO, and WA are not only not helpful to the cause, they would hurt her in the general election.  If you take JUST CA, NY, NJ, FL, PA, and OH then she still loses the general election.  She still needs those "boutique states" just as Senator Obama does.  A lot of THAT blame I lay at the feet of Mark Penn et al but she still has to own it.

Both of these things are bad for the democratic party in not just this cycle going forward.  They don't rise to the level of "tearing it apart" but you would have to be pretty intellectually dishonest not to see where the greivance comes from.


Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome
by kasjogren on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:02:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (none / 0)

I will add for the sake of fairness that Obama going on FOX News sent a tinge of pain from the stabbing I felt in my back.  Then having to watch Clinton get chummy with Bill-o made it worse.  I think she wouldn't have done it if Senator Obama wouldn't have gone on Matthews first.


Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome
by kasjogren on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:06:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ouch (2.00 / 8)

The sheer weight of misinformation you pulled out was painful.  Not worth attempted dialogue, that's for sure.


by bobbank on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:24:41 PM EST

Then why did you comment? (none / 0)

Because just waving your hand and saying "this isn't worth my time" makes you appear not to have any substantive rebuttal.


by McNasty on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:27:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Then why did you comment? (2.00 / 3)

Sometimes you just want to let some know that you see through the BS.  You are welcome to peruse my diaries and determine for yourself whether I lean toward substance or fluff.


by bobbank on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:46:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Then why did you comment? (none / 0)

I've read them.  Meh.


by mikeinsf on Tue May 06, 2008 at 07:07:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, look, (2.00 / 7)

another "Clinton's an evil Republican" diary. Lovely. Thanks, we didn't have enough of these.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:24:52 PM EST

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (none / 0)

I appreciate that Obama goes into the small, white working-class towns to try to get is message out, since that democraphic has been eluding him. The same can't be said about HRC who has completely given up on the black vote.


by aaaa05 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:28:01 PM EST

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (2.00 / 4)

I seem to recall a certain Senator attending the State Of the Black Union event in New Orleans and it wasn't Obama.  


by Iceblinkjm on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:45:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (none / 0)

one event back in february...what about the last 2-3 months


by aaaa05 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 06:28:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (none / 0)

But let's keep in mind that Rush is not promoting Clinton because he likes her -- He's just trying to destroy the Democratic Party!!

Hear him thank his supporters in Indiana for holding their noses to vote for Clinton: http://i.timeinc.net/time/2008/thepage/L imbaugh_050608.mp3


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:30:20 PM EST

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (2.00 / 1)

Kid Oakland,
Great diary and nice to see you back here again.

thanks


"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Hillary's husband
by venician on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:30:59 PM EST

to the right of Lieberman? (2.00 / 3)

Give me a break. The Lieberman who doesn't want to  withdraw troops fom Iraq and is endorsing McCain for president?


by Mayor McCheese on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:40:46 PM EST

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (2.00 / 5)

Kid Oakland sounds right.  You are a kid, champ.  Hillary's not the one talking about how great Reagan was, or how the Democrats have sucked, or how we needed to curb the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s.

Yes, it must be great to be a low information Obama supporter.  You can totally ignore the history of this country until 2001, and forget about how Hillary was vilified as THE PARADIGM of liberal values, how despite that she has continued to push for quietly progressive reforms (albeit in an overly cautious incremental way) such as improved health care and food provision for kids, more help for mothers, better schools, etc.  You can also pretend that a non-vote in the Illinois Senate against the Iraq War is more important than the fact that Barack "Fraud" Obama has voted exactly the same as Hillary on Iraq since coming to the Senate, or that his 3 major vote differences from Hillary were more conservative than hers (Bankruptcy bill amendment, Cheney energy bill, Tort Reform) and totally in the tank for Big Business.

You guys are blind, and being led by a shyster.


by RedSox04 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:45:58 PM EST

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (1.00 / 3)

Facts on the ground: Kyl-Lieberman.  AUMF.  No against the Levin Amendment.  No against the cluster bomb bill.  

And you should know better than brining up the word "bankruptcy bill" in any defense of Clinton; she voted with the banks when she no one was looking.

Nice try, though.


by mikeinsf on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:28:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (2.00 / 4)

Actually, you're wrong on Kyl-Lieberman and bankruptcy bill.

On Kyl-Lieberman, Obama was absent, despite the fact that he knew about this vote.  Convenient non-vote eh?

On bankruptcy bill, Obama has outright lied about this.  Hillary voted for the 2001 Bankruptcy bill, which was a bad vote.  However, the 2005 Bankruptcy bill was much much much worse.  Both Hillary and Obama voted against this bill (neither had any choice, given their home states and how bad this was for consumers).  However, this vote was fairly meaningless, since the Dems knew the bill would win.

However, Obama voted AGAINST the Dem's main shot of weakening the bill.  After much agony in trying to craft a compromise bill to get enough votes to pass a usury amendment to mitigate the harsh provisions of the 05 bill, Obama stabbed us in the back and voted against it.  Hillary voted for the Dem amendment.

So to recap: 1) Obama lied about the bill, and has repeatedly conflated the 01 and 05 bills (so that people like you get this wrong on blogs); 2) both Hillary and Obama voted correctly against the final 05 bankruptcy bill; and 3) Obama voted against the main Dem amendment, which was viewed as a nice vote for the banks.

I'll look into your other claims, but given the lack of factual accuracy on the two i know, I'll assume you got your talking points from Obama Misinformation Central, and that they're probably also wrong.  As you said, nice try, though.


by RedSox04 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:40:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary did not vote (none / 0)

against the 2005 Bankruptcy bill. She didn't vote for it either.


by Bee on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:29:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (none / 0)

First, I was aware of her record before I was aware Obama was a candidate. I read the newspapers before 2007. So, no, unlike a lot of those who cut and paste from the Hillaryhub to this site, I form my own opinions.

Hillary-folk always make the mistake that those criticizing Hillary are all about Obama.  Me, I'm a Gore man, but that good man isn't running, so now I have two imperfect choices: a candidate who thought invading Iraq was a fine idea in '02, and another who didn't. If you want the War Candidate, that's your choice.

As for the bankruptcy business, I am aware there was more than one bill, and that her stance changed. I remember when that first bill went through and how my heart sank at one of the first clues about Hillary's true stripes (I naively supported her Senate run).  The fact that she was better on the issue the next time when she realized people were paying attention means little to me.

As for the pirouettes and hoop-jumping you're doing to clean up Hillary's record, nice try but it's just revisionism.  And it's not enough to say, "yeah, well, Obama's almot as bad, too."  Her record is her record, and you can say it a thousand times, but Hillary damn well knew what Bush was up to with AUMF and she signed off on it.  People are dead today, and still no apology.


by mikeinsf on Tue May 06, 2008 at 06:55:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (none / 0)

Oh, and WTF with the 1 and 0 ratings?  I don't like Hillary's record so that makes me a troll... on a pro-Obama diary? Total crap.


by mikeinsf on Tue May 06, 2008 at 07:05:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (none / 0)

I down rated you because you were spreading misinformation, that made it seem like Obama had voted one way and Hillary had voted another.  You also conflated, deliberately or not, the 2005 and 2001 bankruptcy bills.

I don't have any illusions about Hillary.  I don't think she's as bad as you guys are making her out to be.  She did try to pass a truly progressive universal health care plan.  I think she got burnt by Washington, and so what you see as "calculating" I see as caution.  But whatever.  She's far from my ideal candidate.  She's too hawkish for my tastes on foreign policy (although that is far different than saying she would have launched an unprovoked invasion and occupation of Iraq); on economic issues, she's more balanced budget (Rubin/Greenspan/Summers) than I'd like (although that attitude may be necessary now that US credit is going down the tubes).  But I know what I'm getting.

So no, I don't think Hillary's great shakes.  But I think Obama is much worse.  This whole "I'm better than the system" act is BS, and his voting record proves it.  He's been in the tank for the banks, the coal companies, and the corn lobby since day one.  Not coincidentally, those were his biggest contributors.  Now there's a mad rush to fund the Obama campaign coming from Wall Street and hedge funds.  And I'm supposed to believe that Saint Obama, who's never taken a hard position or hard vote in his life, and who regularly misrepresents the role of lobbyist contributions to his campaign (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/ obamas_oil_spill.html), is going to be immune from all this?  Why?  Because it's "change we can believe in"?  Because "WE are the ones we've been waiting for?"  Because, "yes we can"?

He's a fraud, and I've seen nothing to suggest he's not a neoliberal, or even neoconservative, on economic issues.  


by RedSox04 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:45:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (2.00 / 4)

Also, please look into the Republican led tort reform bill (Obama aye, Clinton nay) and the Republican led Cheney energy bill (Obama aye, Clinton nay).

Thanks for playing...


by RedSox04 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:41:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (none / 0)

AUMF yay.  Levin amendment nay. 4000 dead.

Thanks for playing.


by mikeinsf on Tue May 06, 2008 at 06:56:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (2.00 / 3)

Yep, as I thought, you're wrong.

AUMF and the Cluster Bomb bill, yes they're bad votes.  No doubt.

However, you're comparing apples and oranges.  Apples to apples would be the contemporaneous terms of Obama vs. Clinton.

During that time, I'm aware of only 3 differing votes of any major import: tort reform, the Cheney energy bill, and the 2005 bankruptcy bill (which is not the same as the 2001 bankruptcy bill, but thanks for spreading that little piece of Obama fraud).


by RedSox04 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:43:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (2.00 / 1)

Apples to oranges, because they occurred before Obama was a Senator.


by RedSox04 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:44:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (2.00 / 2)

little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Obama co-sponsored the Iran Counterproliferation Act of 2007 which had the exact same language as Kyl-Lieberman. So ducking the latter vote for political expediency does not provide him much cover.


by tarheel74 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:51:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (2.00 / 1)

This guy is an Obama-troll from DKos. Correntewire has been making fun of him for sometime. Nothing that he says makes any sense anyway.


by tarheel74 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:54:00 PM EST

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (2.00 / 1)

I never thought I'd see the day where Kid Oakland would be called a troll on a supposedly progressive website.  

Do you folks not even know who you're talking about?

Argue the merits of his post all you want.  But he's no troll.


by Same As It Ever Was on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:07:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Welcome (none / 0)

to Bizarro Blog.


by McNasty on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:29:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (none / 0)

We're coming to the bitter end of the Clinton campaign. Some people are saying a lot things they'll forget or regret later. But it will probably get still worse before it gets better.


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:30:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (2.00 / 4)

The Clinton campaign has triangulated to such an extent that, at this point, she is running to the right of Joe Lieberman.

That's saying something.

Yes, it's saying something that's clearly false.  I didn't even bother to read past this obvious bit of hyperbole.  Tell me, did you go on to say that she's running for George Bush's third term?


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:05:11 PM EST

Please (2.00 / 4)

go back to the DailyObama.  We came over here to get away from you.


by curryorama on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:12:42 PM EST

Re: Please (none / 0)

Hard for you to read something that's not written by alegre, is it?


by mikeinsf on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:33:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (2.00 / 1)

KO - my guess is most of these commenters didn't read the whole diary. Brush your shoulders off man. Good diary.
John McCain isn't evil. He's just wrong about a lot of things. Vote Obama!
by proseandpromise on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:18:11 PM EST

Talking of right-wing ideas... (2.00 / 4)

Obama has made noises that he would look at partial privatization of Social Security.  And that's the ONE issue where Democrats in Congress finally had the nerve to take on Chimpy and say "No."

Now here's Obama, offering tidbits and freebies to the Rethugs.  Not what I want in the White House.


by Montague on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:42:58 PM EST

Re: the big Clinton Right-wing Double Down (none / 0)

I missed Kid Oakland's asinine comment on Cap-and-Trade vs. carbon tax.

for what it's worth, Kid, the carbon tax is considered exponentially more progressive than cap-and-trade.  Cap-and-trade was the compromise from carbon tax, not vice versa.  

Same with Obama's "universal" health care plan, which is universally considered more conservative than Hillary's plan.

And for what it's worth, "elitism" is a term I use to describe people pushing right-wing "free market" U. Chicago solutions from their Ivory Towers.  I hardly deem these people progressives.

True progressives are the ones pushing economically populist solutions.  Thanks for playing though Kid.  Go back to Oakland with your totally uninformed rants, and come back when you know something about economics.  Thanks.


by RedSox04 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:57:14 PM EST

Clearly (none / 0)

I must have hit a nerve RedSox, because you've clearly wasted your time commenting in this thread.

Fwiw, the diary doesn't mention a Carbon Tax:

Can any of us expect that we will get a real Cap and Trade on Carbon if the gas tax pander is what won Hillary Clinton the nomination?

Try reading.


k/o: politics and local blogs
by kid oakland on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:07:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clearly (none / 0)

Lol. Another great diary from KO.

It's not fair to ask RedSox to read a diary before attacking it for supporting Obama. Lol.


McCainuire, The Wrath Of Not Enough Naps.
by catilinus on Tue May 06, 2008 at 05:02:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Hillary Clinton LEFT-Wing Double Down (none / 0)

She has been the Democrat on Social Security, Obama has been the Republican talking points crisis-mongerer.

Her health care plan covers everyone, Obama attacks it Republican-style as not forcing people to join.

She kicks Obama's do-nothing rear with her pro-active proposal to freeze mortgage foreclosures.

THEN SHE DOES A LEFT-WING DOUBLE DOWN,

taking a strong populist stance on a gas tax holiday plus paying for it with an oil company windfall profits tax! Obama attacks with his usual corporate-friendly do-nothing alternative, even though he voted for an effective gas tax holiday in Illinois.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Tue May 06, 2008 at 05:00:50 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.