It's Impossible to be Proud of the Way Hillary Has Run This Campaign

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
I feel like asking the same question about elitists that Jim Mora once famously asked about the playoffs. Elitists?! Elitists?! We're talking about elitists?!

The Clinton and McCain families both have over $100 million. Barack Obama has a father from Kenya and mother from Kansas. Who are they kidding about elitism?

I don't think money is necessarily the determinative factor in whether you're an elitist or not. And I think the Clintons did work their way up in this world. But to claim that a guy like Obama who built his success completely on his own and from the bottom up is an elitist is beyond ridiculous. In fact, it's worse; it's Republican.

Republicans charge Democrats with being elitists every campaign cycle as they themselves are dripping with money, status and privilege. And they get away with it every time. George W. Bush's grandfather was a senator, his father was president, he went to Andover, Yale and Harvard - and he claimed the Democrats were elitists and he was the regular guy you could have a beer with (ignoring the fact that he is an alcoholic).

And the media lets them get away with this insane shell game. You can say Obama went to Harvard, too. But one thing is for sure -- his daddy didn't get him in. There is all the difference in the world between having your family name get you into Harvard and earning your way in. One makes you privileged and upper class; the other makes you an American success story.

One more thing about Obama. When he got out of Harvard Law, he could have made a lot of money in private industry. Instead, he went to work for disadvantaged communities in Chicago. This guy spent his life helping the poor when he could have been stinking rich instead. And now they call him elitist and the media mindlessly goes along with it.

Meanwhile, McCain wants to give away billions of dollars in tax breaks to the richest people in America. And he has the nerve to bring up elitism? He married a woman who is a multi-millionaire. He is from the party that stands up for multi-millionaires. And he is going to accuse a guy who came up from nothing and helped others struggling to do the same of being an elitist? How can the media not see through this mind-numbingly obvious political hackery?

Now, Hillary is playing this game, too. And this is what pisses me off about her the most. She buys into everything Republicans say about Democrats. She has now resorted to using GOP Politics 101 against Obama. Not only is this damaging to our eventual candidate (every dollar she spends now is a dollar in McCain's pocket), not only is it infuriating because it has absolutely no validity but it is also ultimately self-defeating.

Once she accepts the Republican framing, she has done their job for them. Even in the wildly implausible scenario that she becomes the Democratic candidate, she is signing her own political death warrant by agreeing to all of the Republican attacks against Democrats.

If she wants to be the candidate who is reflexively pro-gun, accuses others of not being sufficiently religious and charges Democrats of being elitists when they're trying to stand up for the little guy, she can piss off and become a Republican already.

Seriously, who is still proud to say they are a Hillary Clinton supporter? Are you proud of this campaign? Has she inspired you? Has she made you proud to be a Democrat?

If you're a Clinton supporter at this point and you're honest with yourself, you know she's running a Republican campaign against him. You might trick yourself into thinking she is just being tough and doing what's necessary. But she certainly isn't the one fighting for our world-view and our vision of what makes this country great. You might think she has to win by any means necessary, but you're certainly not proud of her.

Let's elect a Democrat who doesn't actually mind being a Democrat.

Watch The Young Turks Here

< Bitter Americans cling to constitutionally protected rights | Issues and the election: Polling Data >
 Display:

If Clinton has hit a jugular with her exploitation of  the gaffe Obama's calculations here are critical. His dilemma now is how he responds and the impact of the latest attacks on Democratic chances in November. 

  • Be nice and angle for a VP nod.
If they win...has has a 2016 opportunity at the age of 56. If not he has 2012. I think Clinton has a one shot deal here. Its win it all with no chance in later elections. Her tactics will leave a permanent case of Clinto-phobia at the DNC for 2012
  • Do nothing other than counter the charges and play the math game with the delegates.

If he wins, he's a hero. If he loses he can spin this as a gallant freshman effort. He'll have time to build a bigger resume in the Senate and bury the Wright problem. Either way I sure that Clinton will be eviscerated in the general and Obama would lose in a very tight race.

Maybe thats not such a bad thing. Given the state of the economy and Iraq, McCain will bite the big one, either figuratively or literally in his first term. Obama will be 52 and can say "I told you so..."

  • He can come out on the offensive and engage in equivalent scorched earth tactics to ensure Clinton will be eviscerated in the general.

This may be an option if he determines that based on the damage done he will lose the general regardless. He is only 48 so his " candicacy"  window is much larger than Clinton's. Again he'll have time to build a bigger resume in the Senate and bury the Wright problem. The downside here is that a lot of  animosity will be generated.

Or I could be overthinking this. 

by MRFred on 04/15/2008 01:46:59 PM EST


I've thought about that exact point actually, that maybe in the long run it's better if a Republican wins this year so *they* can deal with the giant bag of flaming shit left at America's doorstep by Bush & Co.

The tanking economy, inflation, job loss, energy prices and on and on...I'm really nervous that a Dem president would be brutalized by the (idiot) press and follow the lead of Fox News who would forget what/who created these problems to begin with.

There's only one small (read: enormous) problem you left out.  And here it is.

by ihavenobias on 04/15/2008 02:08:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Three days' worth of polling after the news broke that Sen. Barack Obama said some small-town voters are "bitter," he has edged out to his largest lead yet in Gallup's daily national tracking survey.

 

by MRFred on 04/15/2008 02:37:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]

When we all said things are going to get bad.  Maybe its best of the Repubs win then we can get it back in 04.

And in 1980 when things were awful (gas prices through the roof, major instability in the middle east, economy in the crapper, war with Iran on the horizon) people said the same thing.  We can get it back in 84.

And then there was 68.  Things were just awful.  Let them deal with it and we can get it back in 72.

I am just not sure this is a terribly good argument.  For either side. 

by ProfRich on 04/15/2008 02:44:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"I am just not sure this is a terribly good argument.  For either side."

Usually I don't advocate losing to win either, but 2008 is looking like a year to lose.

We've already analyzed the "eight year itch" and the even stronger "twelve year itch" in presidential politics.
If it's a mathematical certainty the GOP will lose in either 2008 or 2012, why not pick the year when things are going to hell, and we have an opponent who is guaranteed to look bad in office?

People always want to blame the president for all problems, domestic and foreign. So for the next four years, the citizens will be telling each other, "I can't believe we elected this fukking (fill in the blank)"

I think the blowback effect in 2010 and 2012 will be awesome. There is nothing better for the GOP than a Democrat president who is worse than Jimmy Carter. 

by KenTX on 04/15/2008 03:31:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]

If all that is trute then you must be terrified of what will happen to the GOP if Grampa Death and the Wargasm Tour come to 1600 PA Ave.

I mean if the public is going to hate anyone who gets elected next throw another war or two a few thousand more dead troops and an even worse economy on your "unavoidable" scenario.

Anyway, I think this is all rather silly as I showed a few posts up.  Here is some even more powerful proof.

Worst year ever for the U.S.?  I'll throw two at you.

1860- Repubs take over.  Win the next six elections and next 11 of 13. So all the problems were solved by 1864?  Not even close.  (or 1868 or 1872 and so on)

1932- Dems take over and win five straight and seven of next nine. Was America doing so much better in 1936 they reelected FDR?  Nope.

I am sorry but this theory just isn't borne out by any empirical evidence.

In fact, it seems that when one party runs the country into ditch really, really, really badly, the other party goes on a big run.  I think the question for 2008 is will that run begin now or in 2012? 

by ProfRich on 04/15/2008 03:51:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
“In fact, it seems that when one party runs the country into ditch really, really, really badly, the other party goes on a big run.” 

OK, let’s test your thesis. Back in 1980, Americans enjoyed four years of Jimmy Carter sunshine after eight years of mean old Richard M. Nixon.  Let’s see how well Americans liked Democrat governance:
how well America liked Jimmy 

Well, OK. Not so good. So Democrats lost five out of the next seven presidential elections. I guess we can agree that Jimmy Carter ran the country into the ditch really, really, really badly.

What about George W. Bush? Let’s analyze his negative coattails. oooopsie dooooopsie

Can Democrats win in 2008? Absolutely. The polls are close, and anything can happen, just like 2000 and 2004. Can Democrats win BIG in 2008? If the market dives 70% and economists start talking about a global depression, then there’s always a possibility.

But outside of some unforeseen global catastrophe, a blowout is highly unlikely. The reason Democrats are running so poorly in polls, even though we are at war, with a weak economy, and a very unpopular incumbent Republican president is because of one single, obvious, glaring fact:

DEMOCRATS ARE OFFERING NOTHING THAT RECOMMENDS THE PARTY FOR NATIONAL LEADERSHIP.

1. Withdrawal from Iraq, and surrender to al Qaeda.
2. Socialized health care similar to the Canadian system, that Canadians escape everyday when they come to the U.S. for medical treatment.
3. Socialized economic programs that have mired Western Europe in high unemployment and anemic growth for decades.
4. Affirmative Action programs that punish white people for the sins of their ancestors.
5. A “War on Al Qaeda” that will be waged with the entire U.S. Military safely ensconced in domestic facilities.

Can Democrats win in 2008? Certainly. But Democrats can never sustain long term governance. They have nothing to offer but global weakness and domestic socialism.

You keep forgetting an important point. We're Americans. We're not Europeans. Democrat Party philosophy does not sell here.

by KenTX on 04/15/2008 08:08:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Can anyone besides Ken and the Trolls find anything in this post that I haven't crushed personally in the last week?

Not to mention Tim, Fred, Spencer, Bias, Richard Short etc. 

This is a waste of time. 

by ProfRich on 04/15/2008 08:29:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
everytime you get your ass kicked.

Move along sonny boy.

by KenTX on 04/15/2008 08:36:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]

All those posts coming to your defense.  Calling me out for running away.
When I said I wasn't gonna dance with the trolls this is what I meant.  All of this shit has been addressed.  Recently.

No one buys any of this crap.  I can restate all the things I have said over and over and over and everyone who has already cared enough to follow along will get it and those who tune this crap out won't care and you and I will just lock into a "you're wrong" "no, I'm right" death spiral.

Pointless.  If anyone is curious as to what the respone to any of these points let 'em ask.  No one seems to be buying your crap. 

by ProfRich on 04/15/2008 09:02:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Whenever you are defeated in a thread, man up, behave in a sportsmanlike manner, and walk away.

Like you did in this thread.

by KenTX on 04/15/2008 09:15:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I didn't respond to that because it was irrelevant and it is also where you decided who I was without confirmation from me.

by ProfRich on 04/15/2008 10:43:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]

and cherrypicking. Plus we've seen it all before. A lot.

We need to take up a colletion so Ken can get off AOL dial up and download some different graphics for God's sake..same old fucking stuff. Spend some of that tax cut for broadband you cheap SOB!

 No matter, it was all fabrication and spin then. It's all fabrication and spin now.

Understand this, all Ken cares about is Ken. If a tax cut was to be had by killing puppies...there wouldn't be a wet nose or wagging tail, other than Larry Craig,(R) within 5 thousand miles.

You see the goverment does very little Ken values... except...when Bear Sterns tanks and we , meaning the US taxpayer, need to bail them out to save his neocon friends bacon. Suddenly a new solidarity is discovered by our Republican friends!

We are all in this together. Ken TX

 When you, Mr Citizen needs help...its socialism.  Basically conservatives are cheap bastards that would sell their own mother for a tax cut. If they didn't have a mother, they'd sell yours, and steal your tax cut

 Now back to the parade of falsehoods:

1. Withdrawal from Iraq, and surrender to al Qaeda. Lie Geroge Bush couldnt find his ass both hands...much less al Qeada. The only way Republicans can "kill" them is to invade the wrong fucking country, leave the boarder unprotected ( they know how to do that) and suddenly decide after 5 years they dont have enough troops. Idiots.


2.
Socialized health care similar to the Canadian system, that Canadians escape everyday when they come to the U.S. for medical treatment. Lie As a patriot I think America should have the best medical care in the world. People who are willing to settle for our current second-rate status, namely Republicans, must not love America as much as I do.

3. Socialized economic programs that have mired Western Europe in high unemployment and anemic growth for decades. Big Lie Ken and Republicans have the fixation on Europe..beats me. Hey, wing nut, Europe is so yesterday...and they are overhere spending like muthas plus their economy has higher growth than ours of late...and they aren't running hugh trade deficits with fucking China


4.
Affirmative Action programs that punish white people for the sins of their ancestors. Lie plus a tad racist.


5.
A “War on Al Qaeda” that will be waged with the entire U.S. Military safely ensconced in domestic facilities.  A Lie plus hugely idiotic and demonstrates a total lack of understanding of military. 

Apparently Republicans feel the need to invade shit to justify the investment. Deterence and peace isn't good enough. I spent several years steaming around and never once launched a SLBM.

by MRFred on 04/15/2008 11:47:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Usually I don't advocate losing to win either, but 2008 is looking like a year to lose. 

In other words, let the other guy get the blame.  Congratulations, you are a true Republican weasel.  (If that wasn't already perfectly obvious to everyone)


I think the blowback effect in 2010 and 2012 will be awesome.

Ya' think?  I don't think we'll need to wait till 2010.  I think they should call the election coverage for this year "Blowback 2008".

by bfaul on 04/15/2008 05:08:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Its a crap shoot...the economic woes, statistically any way, will probably get better before 2012. Even if McCain does nothing the economy will most likely regroup before 2012 assuming the oil prices drop at some point in the future. How much, who knows (but before you say it Ken, it wont be back 20$ a barrel I'll wager). So you could be looking at an economic recovery in 2011-12.

OR

This downturn could be a real stinker, deep and long. They've shot the tax cut wad on Bushes binge.

I can envision 3 + years of "stay the course" spin waiting for the limited McCain economic stimulus packages ( that they can put together without creating a deeper deficit) to work. McCain will take have to take  deep cuts in Medicade DHS and lets face it DOD.

All this plus fighting the Iraq war will bury McCain and the US...by then his health and our patience will be shot anyway.

On the other hand McCain could be so inept that a rip roaring 20,000 point Dow wouldn't save him.

Note to John. Don't pardon Bush 

 

by MRFred on 04/15/2008 05:55:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]

No one gives a shit about the Pennsylvania comments.  Don't believe me?

Lets look at the middle of last month and the middle of this month.

March 13th - Wright controversy begins.  

Rasmussen Daily Tracking  Obama 48 Clinton 41

Gallup Daily Obama 50 Clinton 44 

March 17th (five days later)

RDT- Obama 46 Clinton 44 (Obama -5)

GD- Obama 44 Clinton 47 (Obama -3)

April 11th - PA controversy begins

RDT- Obama 47 Clinton 44

GDT- Obama 50 Clinton 42

April 15 (five days later)

Obama 50 Clinton 41 (Obama +6)

Obama 51 Clinton 40 (Obama +1)

I am gonna go ahead and say she missed the jugular.  I think she might have missed him all together.

Two more interesting things about the Wright stuff.  Obama's low point in its wake was 5-12 days after where he actually lost the lead.    A week after that he had a commanding lead again.

Y'all might consider the possibility that this whole thing is just something for TV people to talk about, conservatives to gloat over, Clintonites to dream over and Obamanauts to fret over.  It certainly doesn't seem to be anything people are going to vote over.

I will say it appears to give Hillary a bump in PA but she had been down so low it still leaves here well short of where she needs to be to even meet expectations. 

by ProfRich on 04/15/2008 02:38:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
We have been saying "I told you so" for four years at least.  No one is listening; they all make up their own minds based on whatever the whim of the press is on any given day.

by jarett on 04/15/2008 03:20:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]

"he was the regular guy you could have a beer with"

I always hated this concept.  Did it ever occur to these people that the loud-mouthed asshole drinking beers next to you in the bar is the last guy on earth you'd want to see as president? 

Jon Stewart had some fun with this "elite" thing on his show last night. 

by bfaul on 04/15/2008 02:06:09 PM EST


watching MSNBC.  It was sometime after 1pm if I remember right, and there were two political analysts (or whatever) with the host. 

The host brought up the "who you'd want to have a beer with" thing and one of the analysts (can't recall his name, although I should see if I can find it) said something like "yeah, and you know people in a bowling league see Obama bowl a 31 and they think 'I just can't relate to this guy'".

Seriously, I came *this* close to throwing up in an envelope and mailing it to him.  I couldn't believe it...I know, I know, the MSM sucks, but I STILL couldn't believe it.

I was incredulous.  I watched it 3 times just to make sure I wasn't missing something, or to see if maybe he was joking. Nope, he was dead serious.  And IDIOTS like that help frame the issues, and it's infuriating and pathetic.

by ihavenobias on 04/15/2008 02:11:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Did anyone else find it strange that Bush admittedly had a problem with alcohol, claimed he had stopped drinking but had his campaign push the guy you can have a beer with line?

Do you know anyone whose life was seriously damaged by alcohol abuse but is now a non-drinker?  Can you imagine them agreeing to be branded this way?

That assclown is the least principled person I have ever seen. 

by ProfRich on 04/15/2008 02:42:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
its be a while. let me refresh your memory...he was a guy you could go to a meeting with.

by MRFred on 04/15/2008 02:45:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]

That was for meetings where I live!

Actually I don't drink much.  Not worth the pain these days. 

by ProfRich on 04/15/2008 02:56:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Cenk, get over it, stop blaming Hillary and admit the truth.  Obama screwed the pooch  big time on this one  -- like the rookie pol  he is. He could resist a little condecending pop sosh potificating about Hillarys blue collar base to a rioom full of West Coast Leeberals and he got his etc caught in a crack. True or false on the face of it, what Obama said has handed the GOP fodder for 10,000 commercials in the general.  Obama ggave this to the GOP, not Hillary and he did it by just being himself and saying what he thought. Parsing it out won't change that.

 
You need to starting thinking more like the sharp political anayst you are and less like a panting Barack accolyte.  If any other pol had screwed up this bad, you would have raked them over the coals.  Obama has just cranked up the odds for yet another Republican in the White House.  Politics is at least as much about image as it is about "THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH."  You should know that by now.

by winsor on 04/15/2008 03:43:01 PM EST


is that Bobo and Lord Foul have a new play pal!

;)

by ihavenobias on 04/15/2008 04:04:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Please refer to my News Flash posted earlier in this thread.

by ProfRich on 04/15/2008 05:00:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It's probably a good idea to read the thread before you add to it.

You know so you don't say something that a PREVIOUS POST disproves.

Just a thought.

Palin in 2012? Bitch, please! No, really, please run in 2012, bitch. ;)

by richardshort2001 on 04/15/2008 11:50:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I don't know if this will put me in trouble, but I cross posted this to MyDD.com.

 It's common there for people to cross post blogs (because most have nothing to say)  so I figured as long as people were doing it I would one up them with a logical framing presented by Cenk.

Go check it out, the commenting is endlessly entertaining:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2 008/4/15/15387/8944

 

by GeorgeP922 on 04/15/2008 03:49:59 PM EST


I just can't believe it.  That elitist, Obama, might as well be sipping lattes as he writes his pre-9/11 manifesto at Le Cygne on the Grand Place.  Really McHill and Lieb - you make me sick!

by rev24 on 04/15/2008 05:07:22 PM EST


Cenk,
You need to check Obama's background.  You will find there is much that you don't know and much that you are misinformed on.

I used to listen to The Young Turks daily.  I quit because I don't support Obama and I got tired of the propaganda.  It made me sad because I used to think that you said important things even if I disagreed with much of what you said.  Finally, you just were no longer worth the effort.  Also, I am still able to catch the better part of the program by seeing Ben on TCM.

by macmcd on 04/16/2008 06:19:29 AM EST


I have a question for you. If Barack Obama wins the nomination, will you vote for John McCain in the general election?

by KenTX on 04/16/2008 07:08:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
 Display: