Join 3,558 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Obama supporter shocked to see herself in Hillary ad
March 10, 2008 9:33 AM   Subscribe

Obama supporter shocked to see herself in Hillary ad. "Especially because she's a fierce supporter of Barack Obama." "But the young girl starring in the ad will actually be voting age next month and says she's no fan of Hillary Clinton." The footage is another example of the risks of using stock film or images to convey an advertising message. The footage comes from Getty Footage Stock. FYI that footage prices out at around $ 2,500 for national advertising usage. {via}
posted by doug3505 (125 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
And remember the footage is 8 years old.
posted by doug3505 at 9:39 AM on March 10, 2008


"I think it would be really wonderful if me and Barack Obama could get together and make a nice counter ad," she laughed.

Speechwriter?
posted by Senator at 9:40 AM on March 10, 2008


I liked the family's reaction, at least as portrayed in the article. They seem like a pretty decent group of people.
posted by six-or-six-thirty at 9:41 AM on March 10, 2008


The really funny part of this is that it wasn't just any ol' Hillary '08 ad, it was the infamous "3am and the phone is ringing" ad.
posted by NoMich at 9:42 AM on March 10, 2008 [2 favorites]


Whoopie. They pimped out the image years ago and sold the rights. *Gasp!* What if all those kids in the McDonalds ads really prefer Burger King? This is more empty inflammatory garbage to tear the party apart. Yoo-hoo, one of them is going to get the nomination and then we will all have to make nicey-nice and unify again. Or not.
posted by 45moore45 at 9:42 AM on March 10, 2008 [4 favorites]


This changes everything!
posted by brain_drain at 9:42 AM on March 10, 2008 [4 favorites]


Oh, heh, I was going to say. She's of voting age yet she looks really young in that footage.

Also, CNN article in which she mentions that she's actually pitched the idea of doing a counter ad to the Obama campaign. Hilarity ensues?
posted by booticon at 9:43 AM on March 10, 2008


Whoopie. They pimped out the image years ago and sold the rights. *Gasp!* What if all those kids in the McDonalds ads really prefer Burger King? This is more empty inflammatory garbage to tear the party apart. Yoo-hoo, one of them is going to get the nomination and then we will all have to make nicey-nice and unify again. Or not.

Someone needs a hug.
posted by kbanas at 9:43 AM on March 10, 2008 [3 favorites]


Hilarity ensues?

No, Hillary sues.
posted by dw at 9:44 AM on March 10, 2008 [3 favorites]


I saw her on CNN this morning. She said the counter ad thing was a joke. She might be appearing in Oregon though, as their primary voting is in early May. The interviewer was treating her like she was a toddler. "So you said you first started liking Barack in 2004. That was about at age 14 - wow, you were so young to be thinking about this stuff!" What the hell, man.

Also, I don't know if this really needed an FPP. But I guess one can never underestimate "another example of the risks of using stock film or images to convey an advertising message"
posted by cashman at 9:44 AM on March 10, 2008


This is exactly the kind of tempest-in-a-teapot that will distract the distractable American electorate from the necessity of getting these monsters out of the White House [WSJ link -- may be restricted]. Eyes on the prize, people!
posted by digaman at 9:44 AM on March 10, 2008


This is more empty inflammatory garbage to tear the party apart.

With a hothothot local TV news angle!
posted by mediareport at 9:45 AM on March 10, 2008


I love that William Kristol openly recommended "the politics of fear" (they're not even bothering to mince words anymore), and Clinton took his advice. Then she endorsed McCain. It's like she's somewhere between Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller.
posted by mullingitover at 9:46 AM on March 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


Of all the dirty tricks in this election, this one is surely the worst!
posted by Krrrlson at 9:47 AM on March 10, 2008


dw: "Hilarity ensues?

No, Hillary sues.
"

IANAL, but could she really sue? It's just stock footage she paid to use. I thought if you did that the copyright holder retained the rights to it while makin' the ching.
posted by booticon at 9:48 AM on March 10, 2008


The really funny part of this is that it wasn't just any ol' Hillary '08 ad, it was the infamous "3am and the phone is ringing" ad.

Not just funny, it's poetic justice. The centerpiece of Hillary's GOP-lite "politics of fear" campaign gets shown up as a fraud based on dated, crappy stock footage that even the child actress featured in it knows is make-believe.
posted by jonp72 at 9:49 AM on March 10, 2008


The terrible swift sword of irony. Snuffing out the Clinton campaign aborning. She's such an underdog, why won't they just leave her alone instead of beating her over the head with inflammatory garbage like this?
posted by XMLicious at 9:49 AM on March 10, 2008


45moore45 writes "Yoo-hoo, one of them is going to get the nomination and then we will all have to make nicey-nice and unify again. Or not."

Supposing Clinton takes the nomination, what percentage of the black vote would have to sit on their hands in order for the democrats to be routed in the general election? I seem to recall that number being 5%.
posted by mullingitover at 9:50 AM on March 10, 2008


Question is, do you really want a candidate who did not foresee this answering the phone in the White House?
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:50 AM on March 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


45moore45, maybe that girl hates Hillary because she's really sexist, and admires Michelle Obama's docility.

Also, this maybe should be posted in the existing "your candidate sucks" thread that I just linked to.
posted by ibmcginty at 9:51 AM on March 10, 2008


Is this really that 'inflammatory'? I didn't see much to get outraged at over this whole thing, but it sure was a good source of irony. It seems easier to take the route the family did and mostly just be amused about the whole thing.
posted by six-or-six-thirty at 9:54 AM on March 10, 2008


What is your point? First of all, not all black voters vote alike anymore than all women vote alike or all republicans vote alike. Second of all, this kind of thing is all a distraction and I am really shocked how many people are getting embroiled in it, hating on Hilary when the real question needs to be do you want a democrat or a republican to win? If you want a democrat to win it is counter-productive to continue the Hilary bashing. Can you talk smack for the next 4 months and dredge up meaningless dreck like this story and suddenly unite on party lines? We are canibalizing ourselves and undermining the democratic chances as a whole with all the potshots. One of them will win the nomination and one will not. Can you stomach that or will you vote republican?
posted by 45moore45 at 9:56 AM on March 10, 2008


IANAL, but could she really sue?

She can always sue. She doesn't have any case of any sort, but she can always sue.
posted by dw at 9:57 AM on March 10, 2008


Point taken, dw. That's exactly why IANAL.
posted by booticon at 9:58 AM on March 10, 2008


It's like she's somewhere between Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller.

Lieberman's always been a Scoop Jackson strong-defense Democrat, while Zell Miller is crazy. What's Hillary's excuse?
posted by dw at 10:00 AM on March 10, 2008


WHAT!?! YOU MEAN TV COMMERCIALS ARE NOT REAL!?!
posted by rusty at 10:00 AM on March 10, 2008 [4 favorites]


Point taken, dw. That's exactly why IANAL.

I just thought it made more sense than "Hillary ensues."
posted by dw at 10:00 AM on March 10, 2008


We are canibalizing ourselves and undermining the democratic chances as a whole with all the potshots.

Well, I think some of us are just laughing at unexpected coincidences.
posted by 23skidoo at 10:04 AM on March 10, 2008


This is akin to the Mac people getting all excited whenever a PeeCee company uses a Mac in their print ads. A tempest in a teapot.

Can either of the candidates start talking about issues instead of each other? Or is that just boring?
posted by Gungho at 10:06 AM on March 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


dw: "Point taken, dw. That's exactly why IANAL.

I just thought it made more sense than "Hillary ensues."
"

Not that any of this matters because at this point most of us have our minds made up already (although apparently a lot of people were swayed by this stupid fucking ad), but it at least would have generated a chuckle to see the same girl in both, possibly in Obama's stating, "If I were sleeping in bed at 3AM and something was going on in the world, I'd rather have Obama pick up the phone, and before six rings." Or at least it would have been funny to hear about on TDS.
posted by booticon at 10:09 AM on March 10, 2008


Is it possible that there's a plate of beans within the teapot tempest?
posted by shakespeherian at 10:11 AM on March 10, 2008 [4 favorites]


when the real question needs to be do you want a democrat or a republican to win? [...] Can you stomach that or will you vote republican?

Oh, the false dilemmas! Would that I live in such a binary world, I wouldn't have to think at all!

On topic: this is deliciously ironic, and I agree that the family's response to this is spot on--it is pretty funny.
posted by LooseFilter at 10:13 AM on March 10, 2008


This is exactly the kind of tempest-in-a-teapot

This is akin to the Mac people getting all excited whenever a PeeCee company uses a Mac in their print ads. A tempest in a teapot.

I'm with shakespeherian. You guys need to quit bashing tempests in teapots. If one could actually buy a tempest in a teapot, that would be fantastic. Just a little miniature tornado in a big white teapot. Maybe throw a hamster in there, or some ants. You could set it on the mantelpiece and just listen to the whir on lazy winter evenings while reading a book.
posted by cashman at 10:13 AM on March 10, 2008 [11 favorites]


I can't speak to the appropriateness of using stock footage here, but watching Clinton's 3am video again, I'm struck by a couple of things:

Who the hell doesn't have voice-mail or an answering machine nowadays? I mean, that phone rings like six or seven times! And, to be perfectly honest, no one should be selling themselves on readiness in the Whitehouse in a video where no one can get to the phone in more than 25 seconds.

Not to mention the fact that those kids must be tranquilized to not be waking up with the ringer that loud in their room.

Vote for Clinton: She drugs your kids and dodges your calls.
posted by quin at 10:14 AM on March 10, 2008 [2 favorites]


I liked this better on Drudge. It was posted days ago and had no superfluous discussion. Better headline, too.
posted by 1 at 10:19 AM on March 10, 2008


but watching Clinton's 3am video again

Also, why would Hillary answer the phone herself? That sure seems like a waste of a president's time, given the volume of calls the White House must receive.*

*-(I like to keep my analyses on the level of the thing I'm analyzing.)
posted by LooseFilter at 10:21 AM on March 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


1: "I liked this better on Drudge. It was posted days ago and had no superfluous discussion. Better headline, too."

Then what are you doing here?
posted by booticon at 10:22 AM on March 10, 2008


Or, to elaborate, where were you days ago to post it yourself?
posted by booticon at 10:23 AM on March 10, 2008


45moore45, besides the fact that Mister_A seems to have been joking throughout this thread, you realize that the fascist insult you used doesn't actually make sense? A fascist, succinctly, would be someone willing to give in or submit to a greater authority system or dictatorship for their perceived benefit. Flagging your comments en masse, while being dismissive ("Your comments stink!") doesn't necessarily rise or lower to the label of "fascism."

I think what Mister_A was trying to point out, however, without going to MeTa, is basically you are trolling the political blue today. No, not because you disagree with people, but because you are disagreeing with them in a very petty, insulting manner that is only inciting flameouts -- not rational discourse.

You've made a lot of contributions to AskMefi so I have to wonder if you're just having a bad day and choosing to excise it here on the blue. I hope you can take a break and review your comments? Express your mind and let's discuss whatever politics you want to discuss, but maybe in a more constructive or thoughtful manner that doesn't mean aggressively throwing non sequitur labels at people?
posted by cavalier at 10:29 AM on March 10, 2008 [5 favorites]


Obama and the Bigots
posted by homunculus at 10:31 AM on March 10, 2008


[not facist]
posted by Wolfdog at 10:33 AM on March 10, 2008


[A bunch of stuff deleted. If you want to have a personal squabble, write each other email or something, but drop it here.]
posted by cortex at 10:45 AM on March 10, 2008


I have to admit, I'm a facist--I can't help it, people's faces are the first thing I look at.
posted by LooseFilter at 10:45 AM on March 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


I liked this better on Drudge. It was posted days ago and had no superfluous discussion. Better headline, too.

From now on, you should just stick to "Drudge", then.
posted by signal at 10:54 AM on March 10, 2008


The goat in the Ron Paul ad actually supports Nader.
posted by mattbucher at 10:57 AM on March 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


First of all, not all black voters vote alike anymore than all women vote alike or all republicans vote alike.

Well, in the context of 2008 presidential primaries, black voters absolutely, clearly do vote alike more than women and definitely more than Republicans. I don't think that's a bad thing, but it would be silly to deny that it's true.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 10:58 AM on March 10, 2008


Stock footage, eh? Has it been used elsewhere?
posted by Sys Rq at 10:58 AM on March 10, 2008


quin writes "And, to be perfectly honest, no one should be selling themselves on readiness in the Whitehouse in a video where no one can get to the phone in more than 25 seconds. "

Also, who in their right mind would borrow campaign ads from Mondale?
posted by mullingitover at 10:59 AM on March 10, 2008


XMLicious wrote: She's such an underdog, why won't they just leave her alone instead of beating her over the head with inflammatory garbage like this?

Underdog, you say? With that bankroll? What the hell, man, are you on glue?

The only reason why Obama isn't the underdog here is the enormous groundswell of popular support. If it wasn't for that very real support, he would be the underdog. Financially and on all other counts, bar none.

To call Clinton the underdog is foolish. She had everything required for a successful campaign - money, support, volunteers, national media presence, all of it in spades.

Her failure to capture the public is her own fault, not ours or anyone elses, and to place that blame on anyone but herself, her records and her actions is an outrageous stupidity - particularly when said criticisms are coming from her own party and ex-supporters.

45moore45: What is your point? First of all, not all black voters vote alike anymore than all women vote alike or all republicans vote alike. Second of all, this kind of thing is all a distraction and I am really shocked how many people are getting embroiled in it, hating on Hilary when the real question needs to be do you want a democrat or a republican to win? If you want a democrat to win it is counter-productive to continue the Hilary bashing. Can you talk smack for the next 4 months and dredge up meaningless dreck like this story and suddenly unite on party lines? We are canibalizing ourselves and undermining the democratic chances as a whole with all the potshots. One of them will win the nomination and one will not. Can you stomach that or will you vote republican?

What are you, 90 years old? With visions of a simplistic two-party system and a universe modelled on Platonic solids and unadorned Newtonian physics?

Nice and clean and simple, eh?

No. See, it doesn't work like that. It never worked like that, neither the US political system or the world at large, and it's just this kind of thinking and world-view that got us this far up shit creek in the first place.

Me, I'm done thinking this way. I know a lot of other people are done, too. Reality is far more complex than we truly understand even yet - and this goes for everything in it, including social interaction, law and government.

Overly simplistic thinking is now - and always was - officially considered Harmful in this dynamic universe.

We've been voting for "The lesser of evils" for two decades or more, and this is where it led us. We've been voting along "party lines". People have tried voting by the book - and that playbook is old, moldy and out of date. The system is broken, but perhaps it never truly worked in the first place.

Screw Hillary Clinton. I don't like her at all. In fact, I think I even like her even less than I like Ron Paul or Lyndon LaRouche, or even McCain. She's a wolf in a sheepskin, her image has been carefully calculated and manipulated to soften this, and she wears this like a royal cloak. The emperor's new clothes, for sure.

I don't trust her. I don't like her ties to industry. I don't like her voting record on the Patriot Act, on DCMA, on her ties to lobbyists from the RIAA and MPAA, I don't like her opportunistic stance on the miserable failure of a drug war.

Look, honest criticisms aren't "potshots" and to call them that makes you sound just as scary as a Karl Rove-worshipping Bushite. That's what one would call a "suppressive" environment or tactic. And it's fucking bullshit.

And if that's what it means to be a fucking Democrat these days, count me Independent.
posted by loquacious at 11:02 AM on March 10, 2008 [21 favorites]


Not that any of this matters

Actually, it does matter in at least one respect. Since World War II, we have gone from being the nation with "nothing to fear but fear itself" to a nation of Chicken Littles who have surrendered basic rights & freedom based on bogus, manipulative scenarios about "Teh terroristzz R cummin to get us!!1!!!" When it turns out that one of these advertisements intended to perpetuate the politics of fear is a complete sham made out of shitty stock footage, it makes me smile. It may not warrant trumping front-page campaign news, but it is newsworthy based on the irony value alone.
posted by jonp72 at 11:02 AM on March 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


Also, why would Hillary answer the phone herself? That sure seems like a waste of a president's time, given the volume of calls the White House must receive.*

Especially at 3 a.m. Think of all the prank calls people are going to start making if she gets elected ("Hey, Hil! Just making sure you were gonna answer!"). Do we really want a sleep-deprived president who was up all night answering the phone? I didn't think so. Vote Obama '08 -- He'll Answer the Phone When He's Good And Rested!
posted by pardonyou? at 11:04 AM on March 10, 2008 [3 favorites]


"The centerpiece of Hillary's GOP-lite "politics of fear" campaign gets shown up as a fraud..."

I guess we have different definitions of "fraud".
posted by GhostintheMachine at 11:08 AM on March 10, 2008


Just let the machine pick it up, Hillary. That giant smoking crater will still be there in the morning. Or, hey, maybe you could prevent the giant smoking crater? Then you could get your beauty sleep.
posted by Sys Rq at 11:09 AM on March 10, 2008


(And we could, too.)
posted by Sys Rq at 11:15 AM on March 10, 2008


The White House in one year, a compromise.
posted by dawson at 11:15 AM on March 10, 2008


"The centerpiece of Hillary's GOP-lite "politics of fear" campaign gets shown up as a fraud..."

I guess we have different definitions of "fraud".


Damn right. When I said "fraud," I meant it. The 3AM telephone looks like an outtake from 24 or some Jerry Bruckheimer schlock. It's BOOGA! BOOGA! politics of fear that does nothing to advance a substantive discussion of who's more competent to take control of our country's foreign policy.
posted by jonp72 at 11:19 AM on March 10, 2008


The White House in one year, a compromise.

Pretty funny. Also on the topic of "compromises," a few minutes ago I watched Obama giving a speech responding to Clinton's offer to make him the VP. He said something along the lines of, "I don't know how someone in second place offers the person in first place the opportunity to be VP." It was actually nice to see him defend himself a little more forcefully.
posted by pardonyou? at 11:20 AM on March 10, 2008


loquacious: Underdog, you say? With that bankroll? What the hell, man, are you on glue?

I was kidding. Saying her campaign was "aborning" was sarcasm too, it's been running continuously since 2000 (1992?)
posted by XMLicious at 11:27 AM on March 10, 2008


It was actually nice to see him defend himself a little more forcefully.

It is pretty interesting. He's been talking about how Washington politics need to change, but he needs to be careful in how he responds to these attacks so he doesn't succumb to the same rhetoric. Good on him, though. Also.
posted by booticon at 11:29 AM on March 10, 2008


Is it possible that there's a plate of beans within the teapot tempest?
posted by shakespeherian at 1:11 PM on March 10


Where's Teapot Prospero?
posted by oaf at 11:32 AM on March 10, 2008


I was kidding.

Sorry. I have yet to caffeinate this morning, therefore my sarcasm detector is underfueled. Carry on.
posted by loquacious at 11:34 AM on March 10, 2008


Where's Teapot Prospero?

This teapot's mine, by Sycorax my mother
Which thou tak’st from me!
posted by shakespeherian at 11:42 AM on March 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


Look. I get it. Footage of me was used for campaign ads a couple of times. Once as a child when I was innocently playing in my yard pulling petals off a daisy singing to myself. God damn it. I was gonna vote Goldwater, too.

Oh. And another time years later when my mug shot was used to symbolize our revolving door prison system.
posted by tkchrist at 11:52 AM on March 10, 2008 [3 favorites]


Well said, loquacious. Tangentially eponysterical, natch.
posted by LooseFilter at 11:54 AM on March 10, 2008


Screw Hillary Clinton. I don't like her at all. In fact, I think I even like her even less than I like Ron Paul or Lyndon LaRouche, or even McCain. She's a wolf in a sheepskin, her image has been carefully calculated and manipulated to soften this, and she wears this like a royal cloak. The emperor's new clothes, for sure.

This is an example of the issue I have with many Obama supporters. HRC is not the enemy. George W. Bush is. Why not save the hatred for him? The worst president in American history.

It's true that HRC is going negative on Obama but Obama supporters have been hating on HRC for months. It's this hatred of HRC instead of Bush that indicates to me that Obama supporters have been asleep for the last 7 years.

I'm a registered independent as well but I'll vote for whoever wins the Democratic nomination. I think most, if not all of HRC's supporters, will vote for Obama. I wish I could say the same thing for Obama supporters voting for HRC. Otherwise,we get another 4 years of Bush lite from a man who believes that the Iraq war could last another 100 years.
posted by cjets at 12:54 PM on March 10, 2008


It's this hatred of HRC instead of Bush that indicates to me that Obama supporters have been asleep for the last 7 years.

Again with false dilemmas--it is possible to hate GWB's presidency and to think a Hillary Clinton presidency would be pretty terrible too, you know. This is what drives me crazy about many among Hillary's supporters: too many are blind to the very valid reasons one could strongly dislike her as a candidate, to the point of (gasp!) not wanting to vote for her, ever. A bad candidate is a bad candidate, even if she were to run against a worse candidate.

I'd prefer not to have to make the choice this fall between what I see as terrible and really terrible (or staying home). To me, Obama is a good candidate, and I'd very much rather have a choice that includes him; this is not an irrational position.
posted by LooseFilter at 1:04 PM on March 10, 2008 [6 favorites]


Again with false dilemmas--it is possible to hate GWB's presidency and to think a Hillary Clinton presidency would be pretty terrible too, you know.

You would think that an HRC presidency would be equivalent to Bush's disastrous presidency? Talk about your false dilemmas!

Would HRC invade Iraq? Ignore the environment? Kowtow to her religious extremist base at the expense of the rest of the country? Appoint right wing supreme court justices? Allow no-bid contracts to Blackwater and Halliburton? And this is just a small portion of what this war-criminal has done.

You don't like HRC. Fine. Don't vote for her. But comparing her to Bush is the worst sort of hyperbole.
posted by cjets at 1:34 PM on March 10, 2008


You don't like HRC. Fine. Don't vote for her. But comparing her to Bush is the worst sort of hyperbole.

Yeah, but the point is I want a "good" president, not a president that's slightly better than Bush. Hillary's anti-hope rhetoric is merely a ploy to get the public to accept low standards of ethics and competence from its politicians.
posted by jonp72 at 1:37 PM on March 10, 2008


This is an example of the issue I have with many Obama supporters. HRC is not the enemy. George W. Bush is.

So, instead of acknowledging the 5 or 6 valid reasons loquacious gave for not liking her as a candidate (voting record on the Patriot Act, DCMA, lobbyist ties, etc.), you dive right in with accusations of hatred. Boy, where have I heard that before?

For someone that hates George W. Bush, you are very quick to adopt his tactics. In other words, you're being "irrational" and a "hater" if you don't like my candidate.

Look, there's no hatred here. I can't dislike Hillary as a person, I think she has many admirable qualities. She was incredibly generous and warm to me and my fellow volunteers when we went up to enemy territory (Amherst/Buffalo) to go door to door for her in 2000. I think she's incredibly smart, fast on her feet and a tremendous competitor.

But since she was elected Senator, she's done nothing but take the easy way out of every piece of legislation that has crossed her desk, she's continued to give non-answer answers to difficult questions when candor is required, and gets righteously indignant whenever anyone has the temerity to question her experience. I don't see anything presidential in her. She lacks political courage or even some kind of will to do anything other than win an election. These are not qualities I want in my President.
posted by psmealey at 1:45 PM on March 10, 2008 [3 favorites]


It's true that HRC is going negative on Obama but Obama supporters have been hating on HRC for months. It's this hatred of HRC instead of Bush that indicates to me that Obama supporters have been asleep for the last 7 years.

Coming from a Hillary-"McCain and I have passed the CoC threshold; Obama hasn't"-Clinton supporter, that's a laugh.
posted by kableh at 1:54 PM on March 10, 2008


For someone that hates George W. Bush, you are very quick to adopt his tactics. In other words, you're being "irrational" and a "hater" if you don't like my candidate.

I'm adopting his tactics? I find this portion of your post to be Roviean in the extreme.

The poster I quoted said "Screw HRC." and that he preferred McCain to HRC. That sounds to me like he hates her. I guess in your world, I'm not allowed to comment on that or I'm acting like Bush. If I said "screw" anyone, I'd expect to be labeled a hater.

And though I didn't use the word irrational, I do think that anyone who would vote for a Republican candidate after the complete disaster of the current admininstration is irrational. I think it's even more irrational to support Obama and then vote for McCain if Obama's not nominated.

And, above and beyond this post, my experience, whether on Salon or Slate or Mefi or Huffington Post and even in my personal life, has been this hatred of HRC by Obama supporters. I do not find the same level of vitriol among the HRC supporters for Obama. Maybe I'm wrong but that's what I have encountered.

I prefer HRC but would gladly vote for Obama over any Republican candidate. I would hope that most Obama supporters would do the same because the real problem is the current occupant and the worst thing for the U.S. would be another republican president.

Maybe now you can tell me how I'm labeling Obama supporters irrational or Haters again.
posted by cjets at 2:11 PM on March 10, 2008


Coming from a Hillary-"McCain and I have passed the CoC threshold; Obama hasn't"-Clinton supporter, that's a laugh.

She's run a terrible campaign, I'd be the first to admit that. I still think she'd be a better and more effective president than Obama.

Regardless, the real enemies here are Bush and McCain, not Clinton.
posted by cjets at 2:16 PM on March 10, 2008


And, above and beyond this post, my experience, whether on Salon or Slate or Mefi or Huffington Post and even in my personal life, has been this hatred of HRC by Obama supporters. I do not find the same level of vitriol among the HRC supporters for Obama. Maybe I'm wrong but that's what I have encountered.

To suggest that this is an unfair disparity is to assume that the two candidates are equivalent on the hatability scale, though. Think: Do Bush supporters (and there are some!) hate Obama as much as Obama supporters hate Bush? My guess is: No, because from the perspective of the Obama supporters, Bush has done some incredibly loathsome things, whereas even from the perspective of Bush supporters, Obama is just another dumb liberal who hates America and whatever, nothing special.

Similarly, from the perspective of Obama supporters, Hillary has done some truly loathsome things (not on the same scale as Bush, because that's just an analogy). Whereas from the perspective of Hillary supporters, Obama is merely an opponent of their favorite candidate whose policy positions are less desirable and whose supporters are jerks.

See?
posted by shakespeherian at 2:20 PM on March 10, 2008


cjets writes "Regardless, the real enemies here are Bush and McCain, not Clinton."

She wanted to tough this thing out and go ballistic on Obama, when he was far ahead in delegate counts, total votes and victories leading up to TX and OH. It would be very hard for her to pull out a victory in delegates or votes, so why is she staying in the race? She's the one who went very negative from early on and used that recently. If she had bowed out before TX for the good of the party (because her staying in the race is not good for the party at this point), then Obama would already be able to campaign against McCain, but now he has to keep fighting it out with her for months to come. Before you ask why shouldn't Obama do the same - he's the front-runner, and in all likelihood will still be by the time the convention gets underway in June. Is Hillary still going to throw the kitchen sink at him then? How about all the ammunition she's given the McCain campaign (who recently thanked her for it)? Isn't it in her hands to help the Dems win? The only problem now is her limitless ambition, and her willingness to put it above party and the country's future.
posted by krinklyfig at 2:28 PM on March 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


Similarly, from the perspective of Obama supporters, Hillary has done some truly loathsome things (not on the same scale as Bush, because that's just an analogy). Whereas from the perspective of Hillary supporters, Obama is merely an opponent of their favorite candidate whose policy positions are less desirable and whose supporters are jerks.

Thanks for the thoughtful analysis, Bard. I do see what you're saying.

But I just can't compare HRC's tactics in an election to the way that war criminal Bush has truly damaged our country over the past seven years.
posted by cjets at 2:30 PM on March 10, 2008


Maybe now you can tell me how I'm labeling Obama supporters irrational or Haters again.

You side-stepped his reasons for disliking HRC, and instead focused in on his hatred for her. That's the Rovian tactic, right there. You didn't use the word "irrational", but it's strongly implied by use of the word "hating".

You simultaneously deny that there can be legitimate reasons for disliking her as a candidate, and paint it with the broad brush that all Obama supporters are Hillary haters. If you can't see that you've adopted the tactics of your declared enemy, I really don't know what to tell you. Maybe you should take a step outside for a breather.
posted by psmealey at 2:30 PM on March 10, 2008


Is there something wrong with using stock footage in the ad in the first place? This isn't a standard way to make an ad and not have to do everything from scratch, and save some money in the process? Were they supposed to spread out cross-country and find a girl who was ostensibly in presidential-level danger and then get permission to film her for the ad?

As for this girl, she and her parents got paid for her image being used in whatever way they contracted for. It doesn't sound like anybody is complaining that her image was used in a way counter to that agreement. (I'm kind of surprised that such agreements don't include language that deals with a situation like this.) If she didn't put restrictions on how her image was used then, she has no reason to complain now.
posted by troybob at 2:38 PM on March 10, 2008


You simultaneously deny that there can be legitimate reasons for disliking her as a candidate, and paint it with the broad brush that all Obama supporters are Hillary haters.

This is the second time you've twisted my words around. Maybe you're the one who should step outside and take a class in reading comprehension. I've never said that there are no legitimate reasons for disagreeing with her. Not once. Not even implied it. I even said that she's run a terrible campaign. If she loses, she pretty much deserves it.

As far as painting with a broad brush, you might recall reading the words "MY EXPERIENCE" as a preface to my description of the hating I've encountered. I even ended the paragraph thusly: Maybe I'm wrong but that's what I have encountered. How very Roveian of me to add those qualifiers and the possibility that my experience is different than others.

I'm happy to have a discussion about any of this. But you, psmealey, seem to want to advance your cause by putting words in my mouth and twisting them around. After reading your posts, I do need to go outside and get a breath of fresh air.
posted by cjets at 2:43 PM on March 10, 2008


troybob writes "As for this girl, she and her parents got paid for her image being used in whatever way they contracted for. It doesn't sound like anybody is complaining that her image was used in a way counter to that agreement. (I'm kind of surprised that such agreements don't include language that deals with a situation like this.) If she didn't put restrictions on how her image was used then, she has no reason to complain now."

Well, I don't think she's complaining all that much:

The Knowles family admit they have no control over how the footage is used. And while they see the humor of it all, they are mildly annoyed.

"I think it would be really wonderful if me and Barack Obama could get together and make a nice counter ad," she laughed.


It's a good news story, because it's a perfect example of how the party is divided and how unexpected circumstances can come of such a situation, but there is still cohesion:

Despite all of this, Casey Knowles admits if Clinton wins the party's nomination, she will vote for her.
posted by krinklyfig at 2:48 PM on March 10, 2008


Personally, I do not deny that there are legitimate reasons for disliking Clinton.

However, I cannot help but feel that any Obama supporter who either prefers a McCain presidency to a Clinton presidency, or who, in a McCain vs. Clinton contest, does not care which one wins to the point of not bothering to vote, is being extremely politically short-sighted.

I am glad that you are enthusiastic about your candidate. I can understand, although I disagree, why you might think that a Clinton/McCain contest would be a less-than-ideal "lesser of two evils" affair. However, I would hope that the last eight years have shown that, in a contest that appears to be a choice between the lesser of two evils, actually getting the lesser evil into office is tremendously important. And it is difficult for me to believe that anyone who supports Obama's policies and stance would find McCain's policies and stance anything less than repugnant in comparison to Clinton's.
posted by kyrademon at 2:48 PM on March 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


And it is difficult for me to believe that anyone who supports Obama's policies and stance would find McCain's policies and stance anything less than repugnant in comparison to Clinton's.

It's a tough call. At this point, for all of McCain's reputation as a "maverick", the cravenness he's shown in pandering to the right wing of the GOP casts suspicion over his entire record, not to mention his character. That said, if he navigates back to the person I suspect him to be (liberal on social issues and immigration, voting reformer, conservative on fiscal policy), I think he'd be a competent enough commander in chief.

On the other hand, I think there are legitimate questions raised about Clinton's credibility, conviction and her progressive bona fides, given the non-stance stances she's adopted over the years in the Senate with regard to the Patriot Act, the Iraq resolution, the Iran resolution and so on. When the primary is over (assuming she wins), there is no question in anyone's mind that she'll drive hard to the right, she'll have to.... particularly since she's already played the "experience" card against Obama in the primary, and it'll be laughable if she tries that tack with McCain. If she wins, I'm not even sure her administration will be recognizable as Democratic, I suspect we'll be seeing some Republicans in her cabinet.

Given Obama's appeal to independents and moderate Republicans alike, I don't see him shifting much if he gets the nod. He can pretty much stay on message and win. Given where we've been, with Bush and Rove and Ashcroft and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Gonzo... this is exactly the tonic the country needs.
posted by psmealey at 3:06 PM on March 10, 2008


However, I cannot help but feel that any Obama supporter who either prefers a McCain presidency to a Clinton presidency, or who, in a McCain vs. Clinton contest, does not care which one wins to the point of not bothering to vote, is being extremely politically short-sighted.

I see a lot of concern trolling by Sen. Clinton supporters about Sen. Obama supporters not supporting Clinton in the GE. However, there's some evidence that the opposite is more likely to occur and that those of us who support Obama are the ones who will watch a significant number Clinton supporters sit at home or vote for Sen. MCCain on election day.

From this Pew report:

The vast majority of Democratic voters say they would support either Obama or Clinton over McCain. But in an Obama-McCain matchup, 14% of Democratic voters say they would support McCain, compared with 8% who would do so if Clinton is the nominee.

One-in-five white Democrats (20%) say that they will vote for McCain over Obama, double the percentage who say they would switch sides in a Clinton-McCain matchup (10%). Roughly the same number of Democrats age 65 and older say they will vote for McCain if Obama is the party's choice (22%). Obama also suffers more defections among lower income and less educated Democratic voters than does Clinton.

In addition, female Democrats look at the race differently depending on the matchup. While 93% of women in the party say they would vote for Clinton over McCain, just 79% say they would support Obama over McCain.

A quarter of Democrats (25%) who back Clinton for the nomination say they would favor McCain in a general election test against Obama. The "defection" rate among Obama's supporters if Clinton wins the nomination is far lower; just 10% say they would vote for McCain in November, while 86% say they would back Clinton.


Luckily, Sen. Obama makes up for this back-stabbing by picking up independents -- a group that doesn't like Sen. Clinton very much at all.
posted by lord_wolf at 3:09 PM on March 10, 2008


McCain is not, and has never been, even remotely liberal on social issues. He is much, much more conservative than Clinton by pretty much every measure. If seeing "some Republicans in [a Clinton] cabinet" is a potential turnoff for you, I do not understand why you would consider McCain comparable or even potentially preferable.
posted by kyrademon at 3:11 PM on March 10, 2008


I don't consider him preferable... it's still a toss up for me. Both Clinton and McCain have huge negatives for me. What I'm struggling with is having followed Hillary for 8 years in the Senate, she refuses to take any position that's remotely controversial, and worse, has frequently and consistently backed the wrong horse. This kind of slipperiness gives me great unease were she to become President.
posted by psmealey at 3:14 PM on March 10, 2008


(My former post was to psmealey. To lord_wolf:)

I consider any Clinton supporter who would vote for McCain over Obama (or not vote in such a matchup) to be equally short-sighted (and, from a political policy standpoint, equally incomprehensible to me.) I was responding here to Obama supporters; were any Clinton supporters here to say they wouldn't vote for Obama come the general, I would have said the same to them.
posted by kyrademon at 3:15 PM on March 10, 2008


I guess when it comes right down to it, there's only one reason I would vote for HRC over McCain: John Paul Stevens is going to be 88 years old next month.
posted by psmealey at 3:18 PM on March 10, 2008


I consider any Clinton supporter who would vote for McCain over Obama (or not vote in such a matchup) to be equally short-sighted (and, from a political policy standpoint, equally incomprehensible to me.) I was responding here to Obama supporters; were any Clinton supporters here to say they wouldn't vote for Obama come the general, I would have said the same to them.

As another Clinton concern troll (or is that Concerned Troll), I would have to agree with that 100%.
posted by cjets at 3:19 PM on March 10, 2008


psmealey - I understand the perception that Clinton has been a political triangulator on a few high-profile issues. I personally think that perception is overblown, but I understand where it comes form.

On most bread-and-butter policy issues, however, Clinton has been entirely consistent. So has McCain, but with opposite stances that I consider horrible policy, such as:

McCain is against publicly-funded health care, universal health care, or health coverage mandates.
McCain is against any guarantee of net neutrality.
McCain has voted in favor of abstinence education and allowing prayers and religious symbols at school.
He does not support even civil unions for gays.
He has waffled on his stance about abortion, but most recently said he believes that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned, and has generally voted for pro-life legislation.

He has a few stances on which he is better than most Republicans (immigration and the environment, for example), but Clinton still has a better record than he does on these issues.

That is why I have a hard time understanding an Obama supporter not preferring Clinton over McCain. Politically, Clinton and Obama are similar on many issues. McCain is out in right field on most, although admittedly not all.
posted by kyrademon at 3:25 PM on March 10, 2008


Policies are only half of the equation. In a democracy, procedure, by which I mean broad dissemination of facts and arguments, the manner in which one gathers political clout, and how the minority viewpoints are dealt with are all incredibly important. Maintaining the balance of powers between branches is also crucial for maintaining just governance.

I remember when McCain was finished off by Bush in 2000 with that odious South Carolina smear campaign that preyed on every stereotypical fear possible: homophobia, miscegenataion-phobia, and drug-phobia, and it really sickened me. That was my first (as I didn't know much about him) clue that Bush would be an absolutely awful president. His complete disregard for accuracy and rampant fear-mongering are emblematic of his entire presidency, and without the use of these procedures throughout his presidency he never would have been able to enact such awful policies.

In addition, he has expanded executive powers to what I see as dangerous levels. I see it as critical that the next president reject the "legal innovations" of Bush in order to return the office to a less powerful position and prevent abuses such as rampant torture and disregard of legislation through signing statements.

So fixing what I see as the errors of the Bush reign requires attacks on two different fronts: political procedure, and political policy.

Now, as I see it, policy comes from both Congress and the President. If a Democratic congress would finally grow a fucking backbone, and also have a stronger majority, then the desirable policy changes of both Clinton and Obama can be enacted with a McCain presidency (shudder). And, honestly, I think that Clinton would have nearly as good a chance at enacting her health care plan from the Senate as she would from the White House.

However, I do not see Clinton relinquishing executive power, leaving it fully in tact for the next Republican president, whenever that may be. I also see a horrific nightmare of political discourse if Clinton is president. In the past, I would have placed the blame for this on the far-right, but seeing how she campaigns I know that Clinton would shoulder much of the blame for the paucity of reality in US politics.

Also, I'm not so sure that Clinton is any more peace-loving than McCain. I don't see her preventing any more wars than McCain.

I can't see myself voting for McCain, but Clinton owes the Democrats a lot of apologies for her behavior. If she doesn't apologize (and really, I can't ever see her doing that), then she might be able to squeak a guilt-ridden vote out of me at the last second, but she won't get contributions, phonebanking, or lawn-signs. I thought I would be able to get over her pro-war vote, subsequent justifications that rang hollow, and Iran saber-rattling, but I never thought I would have to get over bullshit like this 3AM ad.
posted by Llama-Lime at 3:27 PM on March 10, 2008 [2 favorites]


Sorry so long to reply, but cjets I think you're projecting an awful lot onto what I actually wrote:

You would think that an HRC presidency would be equivalent to Bush's disastrous presidency?

No, I don't, and I never said that. You're the one drawing equivalencies and creating false dilemmas.

You don't like HRC. Fine. Don't vote for her. But comparing her to Bush is the worst sort of hyperbole.

I won't vote for her, and am glad to have your permission to do so. I simply said that it's possible to think Bush is a terrible president, and that Hillary Clinton would also be a terrible president. I don't think they would be equally awful--they certainly would be differently terrible; I also think the scope of Clinton's mistakes would be much more manageable. My only point was that thinking Bush is terrible and that Clinton would be terrible are not mutually exclusive ideas to hold in one's head.

The poster I quoted said "Screw HRC." and that he preferred McCain to HRC

Again, no, I said neither of those things. Are you reading my actual words? I said that I think Hillary is a terrible candidate and that McCain is a worse candidate. My point was that a choice between what I see as bad and worse (Clinton and McCain) does not have to happen, it is not a fait accompli; thus my support of Obama.

This concludes the reading comprehension portion of the test.

kyradaemon: That is why I have a hard time understanding an Obama supporter not preferring Clinton over McCain. Politically, Clinton and Obama are similar on many issues.

I prefer Clinton over McCain, but still don't know if I can vote for her, were she to win the nomination. I simply do not believe she has the courage of her convictions--she says many of the right things, her stated policy positions are mostly acceptable to me, but when she has had the opportunity in the past seven years--as a very visible member of the Senate and powerful member of her party--to stand up to the current criminal administration, she has stayed in her seat. (Like the recent telecom immunity vote--Obama flew back to DC to vote against immunity, Clinton was a no-show.)
posted by LooseFilter at 3:31 PM on March 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


Llama-Lime, I think the president has more power to set the domestic policy agenda than you give credit for. The power of the veto, the power to instantly make any proposed legislation high-profile, the power to make appointments to government agencies (FDA, FCC, EPA, etc., etc., etc.) and to some extent the power to appoint Supreme Court justices give the executive a *lot* of clout over legislation and domestic policy.

I really don't want to see McCain with those powers. Even with a strong democratic opposition, which is hardly guaranteed. I would much rather have Clinton with those powers than McCain. Think of her what you will, in my opinion her policies and appointments would be infinitely better than McCain's.
posted by kyrademon at 3:35 PM on March 10, 2008


John Paul Stevens is going to be 88 years old next month.

Also, Souter is 68, Breyer is 69, Kennedy is 71, Ginsburg is 74. All of the liberal justices are over retirement age.

By contrast, Roberts is 53, Alito is 57, Thomas is 59, and Scalia is 71.

The next president will likely decide the makeup of the Supreme Court for decades.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:41 PM on March 10, 2008


LooseFilter - I do understand that. Where I think I differ from most Obama supporters is that I think that is also an argument that can be made against Obama. Telecom vote aside, he does not seem to have made any particularly notable stands against the Bush administration during his tenure in the Senate, including on the Iraq issue. And that is taking into account the fact that he has had the advantage of a slight democratic majority during his tenure in the senate, whereas Clinton for the bulk of it did not.

It's a point that can be argued, and a couple of individual votes could be brought up on both sides, but frankly the record of Clinton and Obama in terms of how they voted in the Senate, as opposed to what they have said, has been nearly identical. It is one of the things that make me think both Clinton's reputation as a political triangulator and Obama's reputation as an honest straight-shooter are overblown.

That being said, once again, I would prefer either in a heartbeat over McCain.
posted by kyrademon at 3:44 PM on March 10, 2008


However, I cannot help but feel that any Obama supporter who either prefers a McCain presidency to a Clinton presidency, or who, in a McCain vs. Clinton contest, does not care which one wins to the point of not bothering to vote, is being extremely politically short-sighted.

I actually think it would be short sighted to vote for Hillary Clinton, because you'd literally be setting your sites not on any long-term change but merely winning the next election. But if all you care about is winning elections no matter what, you will never actually accomplish anything. As long as the democratic can't even be bothered with really simple things like opposing warrentless wiretapping, torture, pre-emptive war or even political honesty then why in gods name should I support them? Those are not things that are politically unpopular by any stretch of the imagination, and it's not like they make you unelectable. It's not like I'm asking for unilateral nuclear disarmament, massive wealth redistribution, or an end to the War on Drugs here.

If the democrats can't stand up for those basic things, they don't deserve to win, and voting for them would always be short-sighted.
posted by delmoi at 3:52 PM on March 10, 2008 [3 favorites]


The poster I quoted said "Screw HRC." and that he preferred McCain to HRC

Again, no, I said neither of those things.


The poster I was referring to was Loquacious. Here's the post and he did say "screw Hillary Clinton."

This concludes the reading comprehension portion of the test.

So I'll ignore that.
posted by cjets at 3:55 PM on March 10, 2008


cjets, I see. But you did quote me, and misrepresent what I wrote nevertheless.
posted by LooseFilter at 4:03 PM on March 10, 2008


If the democrats can't stand up for those basic things, they don't deserve to win, and voting for them would always be short-sighted.

This is where I find myself these days. As of now, I'll vote for Obama or stay home. I may change my mind, but I'm pretty sick of the establishment.
posted by LooseFilter at 4:04 PM on March 10, 2008


delmoi - as long as the democrats are still more liberal than the republicans, I think it's important to keep fighting for both at once: getting better democrats in office, and just winning the next election.

Years of dispiriting losses by the democrats did not do much to move the party to the left. All it did was convince most of them that the country preferred republicans, so they had better move to the right. Holding fast to ideals and letting the right-wingers win doesn't seem to work. Voting for an ideal in the primary, and then trying to win the general election whoever gets it (within reason) might.

I don't think "things have to get worse to get better". I think things getting worse just makes things worse. If it's a choice between a wishy-washy centrist and a right-wing nut, I want the wishy-washy centrist. In that situation, I can try to get a real left-winger in office once things have moved far enough back to the center that the left is no longer the fringe. Obviously, I'd prefer to be able to vote for a leftist candidate in the first place, but if I can't, I think it makes as much sense to vote *against* the far right candidate.

Obviously, my "within reason" above seems to be a sticking point for many. I would not vote for say, a racist, pro-life, baby-eating candidate just because they happened to be a democrat. Some people clearly think Clinton is too far past the line. I don't. I think she's a perfectly reasonable centrist. (I think the same about Obama, frankly.) So I'd prefer either to McCain, who has a couple of reasonable policy positions and a whole lot of positions that suck.
posted by kyrademon at 4:05 PM on March 10, 2008


She's run a terrible campaign, I'd be the first to admit that.

It's not that Clinton has run a terrible campaign. It's that she's run a campaign that's disloyal to the Democratic "team." Republicans have a culture that respects "taking one for the team" (cf. Scooter Libby) much more than Democrats. Contrast how Romney dropped out of the race against McCain, even though he had lots of money to compete with and could have kept going for several more primaries, because "the terrorists would win" if we elected a Democrat. The contrast with HRC could not be more striking.
posted by jonp72 at 4:11 PM on March 10, 2008


Do you honestly believe that Romney would have dropped out if he were as close in votes and delgates to McCain as Clinton is to Obama? I don't. Romney also ran a negative campaign against his republican opponents that makes Clinton's look like a love-letter.
posted by kyrademon at 4:17 PM on March 10, 2008


Do you honestly believe that Romney would have dropped out if he were as close in votes and delgates to McCain as Clinton is to Obama? I don't.

When he dropped out, Romney still had a base of support in the Mormon West that could have damaged McCain, even if he was a long shot to win the nomination. Romney certainly had the money to continue, and under the Republican rules, he had just as low a probability of winning fairly and cleanly as Hillary Clinton does now. In addition, Romney was close to McCain. It's just that the winner-take-all rules of the Republican primary process made it easier for McCain to wrap up the nomination much faster than Democrats under the proportional + unelected superdelegates system.
posted by jonp72 at 4:31 PM on March 10, 2008


Would HRC invade Iraq?

Uhhh... You do understand that she voted in favor of the Iraq war, and that her husband was the one that started the whole "Saddam has WMDs" thing, right?
posted by Sys Rq at 4:32 PM on March 10, 2008 [2 favorites]


cjets, I see. But you did quote me, and misrepresent what I wrote nevertheless.

OK, you really want to have that discussion? Here's what you said (my comments in bold).

You would think that an HRC presidency would be equivalent to Bush's disastrous presidency?

No, I don't, and I never said that. You're the one drawing equivalencies and creating false dilemmas.

You don't like HRC. Fine. Don't vote for her. But comparing her to Bush is the worst sort of hyperbole.

I won't vote for her, and am glad to have your permission to do so. I simply said that it's possible to think Bush is a terrible president, and that Hillary Clinton would also be a terrible president. I don't think they would be equally awful--they certainly would be differently terrible; I also think the scope of Clinton's mistakes would be much more manageable. My only point was that thinking Bush is terrible and that Clinton would be terrible are not mutually exclusive ideas to hold in one's head.


So, according to you, she would be terrible but not as terrible as he is. Right? So you can compare the degrees of terribleness, but I've misrepresented you if I say you've equated them.

And even worse is that you dislike her so much that you think her perfomance as president could be comparable to Bush (you did compare them, right?).

It's that she's run a campaign that's disloyal to the Democratic "team."

If she believes that she would have a better chance to win or be a better president, why is she being disloyal? And if she folds up shop now isn't she being disloyal to all the states that voted for her?
posted by cjets at 4:44 PM on March 10, 2008


45moore45 writes "Whoopie. They pimped out the image years ago and sold the rights."

Wait a sec. You're not a Hillary supporter, which would be so delightfully droll here.

You're just trolling, if you're using the same phrase to refer to this little girl, "pimped out", that Hillary went to war against David Schuster for using in reference to Chelsea Clinton's work for her mother's campaign.

The same Hillary, incidentally who says that the guy -- John McCain --who jokes about Chelsea being "ugly" has met the "Commander-in-Chief threshold" and has a collegial relationship with the Clintons.

And for what it's worth, I'll be volunteering for and contributing to Obama when he becomes our nominee. If through some trickery Hillary gets the nod, I'll be one of many Democrats, black or not, sitting on my hands. Because not only has she proven by her actions in the primary that she's no more a Democrat than Droopy Joe Lieberman, she doesn't have a chance to win the General Election even if every Dem got behind her and rewarded her sleazy choices in the primary.
posted by orthogonality at 5:02 PM on March 10, 2008 [2 favorites]


cjets writes "If she believes that she would have a better chance to win or be a better president, why is she being disloyal? And if she folds up shop now isn't she being disloyal to all the states that voted for her?"

You're so busy defending her and the party that you can't see the problems she's causing the party. There is almost no way for her to win with pledged delegates, or even total votes, if it comes to that. So, why is she still in the race? For her to win now requires such a clawing, scorched-earth effort that she's bound to do more damage than good to the party, and that seems to be her MO. I cannot see a Clinton win being obtained without damaging the party's chances, but to her it's a zero-sum game.
posted by krinklyfig at 5:05 PM on March 10, 2008


What Would a McCain Supreme Court Look Like?
posted by homunculus at 5:35 PM on March 10, 2008


You're so busy defending her and the party that you can't see the problems she's causing the party.

First of, I'm a registered independent. The only party I'm defending is the one at my house on Saturday.

HRC is in a tight battle for the nomination. A nomination which traditionally isn't won until June. If your candidate is so strong, then what does he have to worry about. Clinton going negative? Do you think the Republicans won't go negative?

Here's a sports analogy for you. The teams that emerge from the toughest divisions usually have the best chance in the playoffs.

Whoever wins the Democratic nomination will be battle tested.
posted by cjets at 5:46 PM on March 10, 2008


The Clinton campaign folks are probably waiting to pounce if the Obama campaign says anything substantial about this.

Obama: "Look how silly Clinton is. She used an image of one of my supporters in her ad."
Clinton: "I'm concerned about all Americans, not just those who support me. Senator Obama seems to think differently."
posted by joaquim at 5:47 PM on March 10, 2008


I would like a Clinton supporter two explain two things:


1) The mailer that said Obama is "unwilling to take a stand on choice" because he voted present as part of a coordinated effort by Planned Parenthood (if anything, you could argue he's too far in the pockets of pro-choice groups). [more].

2) Claiming only she and McCain are competent to be commander-in-chief.

I'm seriously interested in responses from Clinton supporters. Do you dislike the tactics and consider them mistakes? Should she stop saying this? Do you think they are unfortunate but necessary measures to take because of the good a Hillary presidency will do for the country?

She may get my vote if she gets the nomination, but only because of the Supreme Court issue.
posted by null terminated at 5:50 PM on March 10, 2008


You know who else used stock footage?

Ed Wood.

...no real assertion there, just y’know, thought you’d like to know he used a lot of stock footage.

“As of now, I'll vote for Obama or stay home. I may change my mind, but I'm pretty sick of the establishment.”

You could always vote 3rd party, say, the Greens.

“Would HRC invade Iraq? Ignore the environment? Kowtow to her religious extremist base at the expense of the rest of the country? Appoint right wing supreme court justices? Allow no-bid contracts to Blackwater and Halliburton?”

Yeah, she voted to invade Iraq. (She’s pretty good on the environment tho) She’s said she thinks the jury is still out on the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs. She supports making flag burning illegal. She hasn’t signed on to end torture or the use of military commissions to prosecute war crimes or restore habeas corpus and she’s a a strong believer in executive authority. And Mark Penn who was her chief campaign strategist helped Erik Prince (head of Blackwater) prepare his testimony for congress and polish up their image after, y’know, abusing and murdering Iraqi civilians. Now, to be fair, the connection there is loose, as Penn’s firm (he’s the CEO) does PR work for Shell Oil, Dow Chemical, Eli Lilly, General Electric, Coca-Cola, etc. etc. But there is this corporate connection deal, same as Cheney had with Halliburton and the branding and selling of the message.

And indeed, she’s said Blackwater needs to be reined in, she’s said torture should end and use of military commissions and so forth should stop - but she supported the IRTPA (leading me to think wiretapping would not only continue but expand), she supports the death penalty, and she thinks video games like GTA are a major threat to morality.
Maybe this morass got so tangled because she’s been in the public eye for a while and maybe incestuous corporate relationships are part of doing business, maybe some of the same kind of criticisms can be levied at Obama (albeit not in amount or disparity, but she’s been high profile longer).
So she’s not necessarially “as bad as Bush” but some folks might not think she is ideal.

Equating Obama supporters with Bush supporters, or criticism of Clinton as support of Bush’s policies is not a realistic argument. There are shades of desirability that lead to a preferred choice for a candidate.

Folks who agree with Clinton on the issues should vote for her. If not, it’s perfectly reasonable that they vote for someone more aligned with their position without having to be castigated as supporting a plethora of unrelated repugnant policies and actions.
posted by Smedleyman at 6:20 PM on March 10, 2008 [5 favorites]


2) Claiming only she and McCain are competent to be commander-in-chief.

I've said earlier that she's run a terrible campaign. This would be an example of that. It was a stupid thing to say.
posted by cjets at 6:42 PM on March 10, 2008


null terminated - Frankly, I consider both of those to be incredibly minor campaign tactics that have been way overblown, not nearly worthy of the outrage that has been generated about them. The first one makes as much or as little sense as browbeating Hillary over not putting in a just-for-show vote on the doomed telecom thing, and the second was a response to an Obama attack saying, a little while beforehand, that both Clinton and McCain were against hope and change (essentially, she fired back with - I paraphrase - "Oh, yeah? Maybe the real difference is that both Clinton and McCain know what they're doing.")

There are *lots* of things about Clinton I don't like (same goes for Obama). But all this uproar about how her really very minor negative campaign tactics are so-horrible-and-she-will-destroy-the-democratic-party-in-her-unstoppable-lust-for-power have really failed to impress me as anything other than go-my-team hype from the Obama side.

The facts in Smedleyman's post, above, is the kind of thing that disquiets me about Clinton far more than sniping over campaign tactics. But I also agree with his conclusion, and so far, Clinton has a very tiny edge over Obama for me on the issues.

Doesn't really matter, my state has already voted, and I'm going to throw my time and money behind whoever is the nominee rather than wasting it on a primary battle between two candidates I consider almost equivalent.
posted by kyrademon at 6:47 PM on March 10, 2008


(Oh, and by the way - those of you saying Clinton should bow out: I would find that argument a lot more convincing if Obama would, you know, actually win it. He's had every chance to deliver a knock-out blow - he could have done it by winning the popular vote in New Hampshire, in California, in Ohio, or in Texas - and he never quite closes the deal. Doesn't it worry you in the least that he keeps losing in the clutch? And, in terms of getting Clinton to bow out, the popular vote is what matters here, because that is what drives reporting and public perception.)

(And as for the delegate vote, it is still very much up in the air. Don't get me wrong; he had an incredible run in February, and it is factually true that he has a lead in both the popular vote and delegate count nationwide. It is not a gigantic lead right now; there's maybe a 2%-3% spread here. And, yes, I've read the projections which purport to prove that Clinton cannot catch up, and right now, they are pure spin - they fail to take into account completely obvious questions such as what happens if Florida and Michigan re-vote, or which way unpledged delegates might jump if she wins the popular vote but is behind on unpledged delegates.)

(Right now, acting like she is a spoiler is just silly. Obama has a slight lead in a nearly tied contest.)
posted by kyrademon at 7:51 PM on March 10, 2008


(wins the popular vote but is behind on pledged delegated, that should have been)
posted by kyrademon at 7:52 PM on March 10, 2008


cjets writes "Here's a sports analogy for you. The teams that emerge from the toughest divisions usually have the best chance in the playoffs. "

Sports analogies don't usually work that well. I mean, it sounds nice, but I'm not sure if there's hard evidence of this being true for politics. When one party wraps up their nomination several months before the other, they have a decided lead. All they have to do is land the occasional blow, not say anything stupid and gear up for the big race. It's lucky for McCain, too, who has never had that much money. If he were in Hillary or Obama's position with his money, he'd be pretty desperate. This gives him a lot of time to raise money and remain in the news without having to get caught up in the tricky waters of party politics, although he does manage to step in it anyway - unfortunately for him, his party isn't that thrilled with him, but they're trying hard to be nice to each other. Everything the Dems use against each other at this point will be used by McCain, no doubt about it, and it will serve to further solidify the party. The Republicans had pretty much given up the ghost until the Dem primaries got dragged out. They think they have a better chance against Clinton, so they're sorta encouraging her, but this is all greatly amusing to them, and they want it to continue as long as possible. If you don't think so, you aren't paying attention to right-wing news sources and pundits.
posted by krinklyfig at 10:48 PM on March 10, 2008


Its a ten percent spread, kyra. Clinton has already lost the pledged delegate race. She cannot win it. Her only option is to get the nod from the superdelegates, which would be problematic.

This is not spin, this is math. Even if Michigan and Florida were seated right now, as voted, she could not win the delegate count without double digit wins from here on out.
posted by OldReliable at 5:19 AM on March 11, 2008


Its a ten percent spread, kyra. Clinton has already lost the pledged delegate race. She cannot win it. Her only option is to get the nod from the superdelegates, which would be problematic.

Another problematic factor is that Hillary Clinton, along with Obama, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, and Richardson, was a signatory to the Four-State Pledge, which obligated the Democratic candidates to (1) support the DNC's nominating calendar, (2) pledge not to campaign in Michigan and Florida, and (3) accept the DNC's decision to strip Florida and Michigan of delegates. Regardless of whether you agree with the merits of this pledge, Clinton has violated this pledge for self-serving reasons, not for reasons of principle. In fact, Clinton's advisor Harold Ickes used his position as a voting member of the Democratic National Committee to vote for stripping Michigan and Florida of its delegates. Since then, Ickes has only reversed himself, because he's working for Clinton. Obama, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, or Richardson could have all improved their delegate count by refusing to sign the Four-State Pledge and campaigning in Michigan and Florida, but HRC was the only one who violated the pledge.

This is why I want Hillary to drop out. This is why I view her as disloyal. The only way that it is mathematically possible for her to "win" is to win in an extremely ugly, mud-slinging, underhanded, unprincipled way.
posted by jonp72 at 6:54 AM on March 11, 2008


But if all you care about is winning elections no matter what, you will never actually accomplish anything.

This is my feeling too. This is what we got with Bill. We had 8 years of expert, excellent governance, but from a Presidential visionary perspective, we got nothing. Whatever impact the Clinton presidency had on the US, it was all but an a memory 9 months after he left office. Sex years worth of kowtowing, backsliding and compromising to the Republicans in Congress left us in deep shit. Though many enjoyed the easy money and fast times of the Clinton era, it by and large left us worse off than we were when he came in.

For all the talk about Hillary being very close to Obama on the issues, I have a deep distrust of her conviction to those stances and have serious doubts about her political abilities (not to mention the other side's willingness to work with her). I have every expectation that she'll either bomb Iran, or trash her healthcare plan at the first sign of adversity or tragedy. Obama might be less progressive than I'd like, but I do get the sense from him that he has both intelligence and integrity, and moreover and ability to calmly reason on his feet and drive to an appropriate solution to a problem or crisis.

Of course, this is all based on having seen them govern and campaign. As I said elsewhere, it's almost impossible to determine what kind of president someone is going to be until you see them try to grow into or shrink from the mammoth responsibility of the office.
posted by psmealey at 7:10 AM on March 11, 2008


It's actually a 6 percent spread in the pledged delegate count (1347 to 1200) and about a 3 percent spread in the popular vote (13,025,003 to 12,421,316), but you are correct that she would need to win about 56% the delegates from the remaining states, including the theoretical Florida and Michigan revotes, to tie Obama - a double digit spread of 12%. Unlikely, but ... impossible? Really? 56%?

She would need to win big in Pennsylvania and the theoretical revotes - by bigger margins than she has been, but not by much (not all her wins have been squeakers; she's gotten good-sized wins in OH, NY, NJ, TN, AR, and OK, for example.) She would need to win WV, KY, and IN by unexpectedly high amounts, keep Obama down to small wins in MI and NC, and pull out a couple of surprise victories in OR, MT, or SD.

Is this likely? Heck, no. It would probably require Obama screwing up in some major way in the next month or so, getting crushed in PA, and going down from there. Unlikely. But impossible? Nah. If you were 150 delegates shy with 1,000 or so still to be decided (counting MI and FL), would you throw in the towel? Really? Just after an important victory?

And a lead in pledged delegates, while important, is not everything. If she ends up sailing into the convention with a lead in the popular vote, having just won a string of important victories, don't you think it's a little more ambiguous which way the PLEO's should jump? Neither one is going to be able to carry this on pledged delegates alone.

This is not to say that I think this is an ideal situation. I don't want this to go all the way to the convention, although I think it doesn't hurt for it to drag on for a few more months yet. I don't know what the best resolution is right now.

But my question for you is - if the vote and delegate count were reversed, would you be calling on Obama to bow out so Clinton could take the presidency? Or would you be campaigning your heart out for him in PA and hoping for a stunning victory?

If the former, I admire your willingness to support a candidate you may have qualms about before the matter is truly settled in order to block the Republicans at all costs. If the latter ... then look at those who are voting for Clinton, and see yourself reflected.
posted by kyrademon at 7:35 AM on March 11, 2008


(previous was addressed to OldReliable)
posted by kyrademon at 7:37 AM on March 11, 2008


But my question for you is - if the vote and delegate count were reversed, would you be calling on Obama to bow out so Clinton could take the presidency? Or would you be campaigning your heart out for him in PA and hoping for a stunning victory?

I did some thinking on this issue last night, and, when I forced myself to be honest about it, I realized that if the shoe were on the other foot, I would in fact be campaigning my heart out for Obama and hoping for a string of significant victories in the remaining contests.

So while I wish Clinton would drop out of the race, I can't really fault her or her supporters for standing up when the bell for the next round rings. As George Foreman would say, if you've got a puncher's chance, keep punching.

However, I will continue to object to characterizations of Obama supporters as fanatical or cult-like, and I will reject the "all style and no substance" talking points, and I will continue to vigorously refute the implication that a massive percentage of Obama supporters will stay home or vote for McCain this November when the available data suggests that the number of Clinton supporters who will do that is much, much larger.
posted by lord_wolf at 8:31 AM on March 11, 2008


But my question for you is - if the vote and delegate count were reversed, would you be calling on Obama to bow out so Clinton could take the presidency? Or would you be campaigning your heart out for him in PA and hoping for a stunning victory?

An excellent question, and I would in fact do what I could to help Obama win. In this regard, my problem does not lie with the fact that Clinton continues to campaign hard on the outside chance she could grab the nomination; my problem is with how she is doing it. Winning isn't everything, especially in something as consequential as a presidential election; how you win matters, at least to me.
posted by LooseFilter at 9:47 AM on March 11, 2008


Kyra, I wouldn't have to. He would have been Huckabee'd and erased from media coverage. He does not have her name recognition or inevitability aura to protect him from setbacks. Unlike Hillary, Obama had to win early and keep winning to stay in this. Hillary just has to not get crushed.

If Obama was right were she was right now, I'd probably call him done and walk away, but he probably would not be talking up John McCain and calling her unfit for office, so its hard to say if I would feel like he was hurting her chances in the GE.
posted by OldReliable at 10:48 PM on March 11, 2008


psmealey writes "Sex years worth of kowtowing, backsliding and compromising to the Republicans in Congress left us in deep shit"

Little freudian slip there?
posted by mullingitover at 1:25 PM on March 12, 2008 [1 favorite]


Response video released.
posted by aqhong at 1:58 PM on March 21, 2008


« Older If you're anything like me, at least one out of ev...  |  Presented in a way that is fam... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments