The Hillary I Know

Sadly, this is becoming the Hillary I know.  As I’ve made the point several times in the recent past, it bears repeating now; that the Clinton campaign has failed so utterly at defining Hillary Clinton in a positive manner, it is the negative actions of her campaign that eventually end up providing that definition.

This pattern first kicked into play in Nevada where nine at-large caucusing sites were established at casinos so that casino workers would be able to participate on the Saturday caucuses; the busiest time of the week for them.  More specifically, the pattern began after the Culinary Worker’s Union endorsed Obama.  Up until that point the Clinton campaign had agreed to the rules, lived by them, and accepted them.  After the rules no longer favored senator Clinton, however, that’s when the story changed.

Through surrogates the Clinton campaign supported a lawsuit that attempted to shutdown the at large sites, but when she won 6 of the 9, again the Clinton camp went silent.

There was Michigan and Florida, both states Hillary could have said something about long ago, but didn’t see fit to fight for the seating of their delegates until it became clear that she desperately needed those delegates just to keep up with Obama.

There was the mitigation of caucusing states… but only after this video turned out to be a failure:

The Clinton campaign has developed a pretty stable pattern at this point, one in which the rules of the game are fine right up until they no longer work for Hillary. At that point anything and everything is fair game, from “fact hub” websites to lawsuits, and Texas is no different.

We know the tale of the Clinton’s in Texas; there really isn’t much of one. They didn’t expect to have to worry about Texas–that the nomination would already be sewn up at that point. But not only did this turn out not to be true, the Clinton campaign set up Texas as their next firewall.

And then someone taught them a little dance routine called the Texas Two-Step; the hybrid delegate selection system of Texas that employs both a popular vote and a caucus. This qualifies as a big oops for the Clinton campaign that will not likely pick up more delegates than Obama in the Lone Star State even with a slim popular vote majority.

They had the opportunity to know the rules, the chose not to, and now that it’s looking real bad for them, they’re threatening to sue!

This is the Hillary I know–it fits. To be fair, the article does mention that the Obama camp has talked about lawyering up, but is unclear as to the capacity of such actions, and seems to be pretty clear on the fact that it’s not anything anyone really expects to happen. Hillary though, she brings with her the weight of the rest of this campaign season, and an established track record of trying to change the rules after the game has already begun.

Unfortunately, this is the Hillary I know, and I’m not overly fond.

5 Responses to “The Hillary I Know”

  1. DustinJames says:

    Well let me tell you about the Hillary *I* know.

    A buddy from Rhode Island asked –

    I’m not too big on politics and the only way I stay informed is by watching The Daily Show (lol). Still unsure who I will vote for. What reasons do you have for rooting for Hilary?

    Well, I have a host of reasons to support Hillary:

    She is for universal healthcare for everyone, not just some of the people. It’s a progressive plan, and is estimated (by a range of people who have analyzed her plan) to save Americans $662.5 billion dollars per year. It not only insures more people than Barack’s plan, but it also saves more money than Barack’s plan

    She has a better plan for the economy and pulling us out of this recession we’re rapidly heading toward. I could go into endless points on her plan and why it is superior, but I can point a couple of key ones:

    She supports a 90 day moratorium on Housing Foreclosures to keep americans in their home – Obama does not.

    She supports a 5 year freeze on Adjustable Rate Mortgages from adjusting higher to keep Americans in their homes – Obama does not.

    Obama proposes a 1.3 trillion dollar tax increase that mostly affects the middle class to stabilize social security, Hillary believes it can be done by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the rich only (such as, but not limited to, the capital gains taxes and the tax cuts on the highest end tax bracket of Americans), without affecting the middle class.

    And many many more –

    If you wanna talk about being ‘progressive’, which of these two candidates has actually marched in a gay pride parade?

    That would be Hillary.

    Who was the only candidate to take the time to go to the State of the Black Union, even though African Americans are clearly voting for Obama?

    That would be Hillary.

    Contrary to their belief that Obama has their interests in mind, Clinton has always been interested in the rights of minorities, and has worked hard in her lifetime to fight for them.

    She has the majority of the working and middle class americans in mind, and has the details hammered out, while Obama keeps making mistakes with the numbers.

    For instance, he has a lot of good ideas, like providing $4,000 for every college student, eliminating taxes on social security earners who make less than $50,000 – the total of his campaign promises are over $1.45 trillion dollars per year in new spending. He’s been answering the question of “how are you going to pay for that” with pointing to two sources – a Government Accountability Office study that says that the U.S. can save over $1.3 trillion dollars by eliminating wasteful and unneeded programs, and by ending the $300 billion of annual spending on the Iraq War.

    He shows his ignorance on the economy in both of these areas because one, the GAO study said that the $1.3 trillion could be saved in TEN years, not per year, so the only savings you are getting on an annual basis is approximately $1.05 billion. And two, the Iraq war money is money we are currently borrowing as a one-time emergency expense, it is not actually part of the budget. The Iraq war funds each year are simply adding to the trillions of dollars of deficit debt we already have – and “shifting” those funds to domestic programs is not a way to pay for his programs, unless he’s just trying to increase the deficit by borrowing more and more money each year.

    Hillary has the better plan for healthcare, economy, and foreign policy, and she walks the walk, not just talks the talk.

    And lastly, you know, if you really want to look at something that gets lost on a lot of people in this age of quickie divorce and las vegas weddings, she had all the reason to leave, and yet she chose to honor her vows:

    “For better or for worse, in sickness or in health, to love and to cherish ’till death do us part.”

    And in a way, even though I can’t get legally married, I think that makes me respect her the most.

    Hillary is a fighter.

    The other things I don’t like about Barack Obama is his constant flip flopping on issues.

    Flip Flop #1:

    As a senator in Illinois, he said in this survey (Question 35a):

    “Do you support legislation to ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns?”

    He answered: Yes

    Yet in Idaho, on the campaign trail on February 2nd, he said:

    “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.”

    Flip Flop #2:

    Obama said he was for single payer universal healthcare, the one championed by Hillary:

    And in the debates, he said he was never for it, and isn’t for it.

    Flip Flop #3:

    He tells people he’s a “new kind of politician”, that he won’t accept special interest money, and then takes $247,000 from nuclear lobbyists to water down a nuclear energy safety bill to the point that nearly everyone involved that was supporting him on the original bill calls the new bill “worthless”.

    Flip Flop #4:

    In the debate in Texas, he was called out on flip flopping his stance on Cuba

    (start out at about minute 4:10)

    Flip Flop #5:

    And then, he signs a document, saying he will go for public financing in the presidential election, and then, he renegs. He filled out a document and said “Yes, I will do this”, and then, he flip flops.

    Anyway, I could continue, but I just want someone who will talk to me and give me one answer, not give me one answer, and then give another answer later.

    We lost the general election with Kerry on the charge of flip flopping, Mr. Obama is setting himself up to be the same, and to get hit with those same charges.

    Is she perfect? No. Is she better prepared? Yes. I can get any number of candidates who can talk the talk, but can my president walk the walk? I know Hillary can.

    She is the better candidate in this race on the issues that matter to me most.

    I know Hillary, and Hillary speaks for me.

  2. Dynamic says:

    Check out her new ad campaign:

    Hey wait! It’s the same ad campaign!

    Somebody should let her know it isn’t working.

  3. Oh yeah, I saw that earlier today but didn’t have the chance to write on it yet. I’m going to try and get to it right now, but if not it may have to wait until tonight.

  4. sayno2clinton says:

    The latest smears issued by Mrs. Clinton’s minions are merel recent examples of how Team Clinton has chosen to run this race via character assassination and staged events, such as planting people who asked her rigged questions. Of course, it’s a free country and they’re breaking no laws. But contrary to their intentions, they’ve hurt Mrs. Clinton’s chances to win as well as Bill’s legacy, which, before this race, was reasonably respectable. Why?

    Because we all didn’t fall off turnip trucks out here. Because most of the people can’t be fooled most of the time. Yet, Team Clinton, relying on Mark Penn’s Focus-Group polling, decided from the beginning to discover common gullibilities and then exploit them. It’s proved to be a miserable failure, first because it didn’t work. Second, because it proves how inauthentic Team Clinton is.

    Team Clinton woefully underestimated the American skill at detecting snake oil. We may buy it for a while, but don’t keep shoving it down our throats after we’ve seen it for what it is. Mrs. Clinton didn’t get that memo.

    There are basically two areas that Team Clinton claims to have experience in – foreign affairs and economics – that seem to be convincing some people of Mrs. Clinton’s superiority. But a brief reading of some historical documents, and many individuals have come to realize just how damaging the Clinton Administration was.

    First, Mrs. Clinton has insistently claimed that she didn’t know that W was intent on going to war with Iraq, which is why she voted to give him the power to go to war. This is clearly not true. In 1998 the Project for the New American Century – a Neoconservative think-tank with Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz as members – wrote Bill Clinton a letter, urging him to seek regime change in Iraq. See: .

    In Dec., ’98, as a result of the Neocon pressure to attack Iraq, Clinton conducted Operation Desert Fox – the bombing campaign against Iraq (see: ). Then in ’00 the same team that had urged Bill to attack Iraq moved into the White House. It was only a matter of time before W was going to attack Iraq and both Clintons knew it. By ’02 Mrs. Clinton had no doubt whatsoever that W and his Neocon Administration were inevitably going to attack Iraq.

    There may be an argument for attacking Iraq, but there’s no defense for Team Clintons’ deceit regarding the issue. Also, what her flipflopping has done, which she never seems to realize, is that, like the previous Democratic loser, she was for the war before she was against it. How will that fare against McCain if she were to win?

    Team Clinton also exhibits a disturbing pattern of deception regarding Bill’s Administration and Mrs. Clinton’s original support for NAFTA. First, the econmy wasn’t doing well mostly because of Bill, but because of the prevailing circumstances in the country. They included, oil that was $10 a barrel, a computer and digital revolution, low interest rates, low inflation, early golbalization, inflation of housing prices that bolstered home owners’ portfolios, as well the deregulation of financial institutions. That deregulation, in part, set the stage for the current subprime meltdown.

    See: . This bill enabled banks and lending institutions to restructure and focus on credit and debt. It repealed Glass-Steagall, which had been constructed specifically so the country could avoid another Great Depression. It all changed, however, because of Bill’s allegiance to Big Business and to the Third Way (see: ) – a capitualtion to right wing economics.

    If you’re happy with the Neocon foreign policy of the past 8 years, if you’re content with the loss of American manufacturing, static and lower wages, trade that disproportionately favors Big Business, cheap labor, illegal immigration, and weakened unions, then, by all means, vote for Clinton. If you’re unhappy with those conditions, then there’s only one choice – vote Obama.

  5. jewel says:

    I feel like having a President who keeps all people who have donated to your and your husband secret then vote for Hillary. If you like having a President who will not divulge their I.R.S. Returns for any year vote for Hillary. If you like the idea of having a President who might be afraid of being upfront with us about all things but does it anyway vote for her opponent, OBAMA. He is a fearless leader who will take us into the future with the winning tools of unity for all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook