Third Party & Independents Archives

Unfair Attack on Hillary

Everyone has different ‘personalities’.
‘Which Hillary will be at the debate tonight?’

Ok. I don't care for her. I won't vote for her.

Even I say that these attacks against her over her 'split personality' are over the top.

MSNBC - who is hosting the debate tonight - should NOT be making this the story of the whole day.

Hillary can be nice.
Hillary can be nasty.
Hillary, like all of us, reacts based on a given situation.
Her biggest blunder in the past few days??? The end of the debate the other night when she talked about how honored she was to be sitting there with Barrack!

She, and her campaign, have good reason to complain about the difference in the media coverage between herself and Obama.

I keep hearing that Obama won't continue to get this free ride when he becomes the winner of the contest between the two candidates.
I have a problem with this.
If the press is going to scrutinize even one candidate then they need to do the same to all of them.
Waiting until he is the nominee is too late and unfair to all voters.

Posted by Dawn at February 26, 2008 11:47 AM
Comment #246468

I don’t see where asking which Hillary is gonna show up is an unfair attack on her. Specially if she doesn’t know.
I agree though that Obama should be getting the same scrutinization as Hillary. But he seems to be the fair haired boy of this race. And the sad thing is folks might never know where he really stands until after he’s elected. Then it’ll be to late.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 26, 2008 12:47 PM
Comment #246469
She, and her campaign, have good reason to complain about the difference in the media coverage between herself and Obama.
Hmmmmmm … Why?

How has the media been more unfair to Hillary?

The Main Stream Media can’t be taken too seriously.

Aren’t voters culpable too?
Hasn’t the media spread some false dirt about all of the candidates? (e.g. Obama wearing a turbin? McCain’s alleged affair? Hillary getting mad about some flyers? etc.).

While the presidential candidates get all the attention, voters have forgotten all about the Do-Nothing Congress, and will probably sabotage the next president (who ever that is) with the same corrupt, irresponsible Congress that will continue to perpetuate these abuses of most Americans.

Also, Hillary has the most (more than Obama and McCain combined) BIG money donors. The wealthy like Hillary. But the small donors ($200 or less) like Obama better. And McCain’s donations are way, way less than Hillary’s or Obama’s. It doesn’t look good for McCain, and Hillary’s BIG money donors may not be enough to buy the nomination. But, if she gets it, she will easily beat McCain. That is, unless there is some drastic upset in the next 8 months.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 26, 2008 12:58 PM
Comment #246485

Obama doesn’t get a free ride. He earns it by moderating his own behavior, and that of people working for him. He keeps his message consistent and appropriate, rather than being amiable one day, and hostile the next.

If you don’t keep it together, take a moment to just sit down and think about what you’re doing and why, you’re going to attract a lot of negative attention in a campaign like this.

All things being equal, the media doesn’t waste time where there isn’t news. An article about how Barack Obama remains civil and mild-mannered in his responses won’t sell papers or glue eyeballs to TV Sets.

But when Hillary’s people start talking about using the Superdelegates to overwhelm the pledged delegates, or even about lobbying the pledged delegates to defect, that certainly gets them attention: the wrong kind. Same thing with comments like “Change you can Xerox”, especially after Obama gave a reasonable explanation about using Deval Patrick’s words. She would have been better served to have stuck with what she said before that, that he should use his own words.

The negative attacks are a mistake. After years of strident Bush-Whacking, the American people would just as soon see somebody come along who isn’t talking and acting like a bully. Obama isn’t necessarily different on policy from Clinton, but his attitude towards the average American, as demonstrated by his broad campaign that valued even Red States and Rocky Mountain states, seems to be more inclusive. You’re involved. Which means that people who’ve become part of the base of Obama supporters might take it personally that somebody’s questioning their importance, trashing the candidate they’re supporting. Since Obama is normally reasonable, sympathies tend to flow his way among undecided.

The best and only way to really defeat Obama is to put yourself in front as an agent of change who has broader and deeper appeal than he does.

Barack Obama is riding on political dynamics that are greater than himself, and since his message is as much or more about what the audience thinks, he doesn’t have to be perfect.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 26, 2008 3:01 PM
Comment #246497

I disagree that Obama has earned anything. He himself was saying less than a year ago that he was simply not qualified to be president. As far as asking whether or not the super-delegates can make their own decisions… well, that’s the point of having them. I don’t like the notion of not reflecting the voters wishes either, but isn’t that what’s already happened when we decided not to count the votes of Florida and Wisconsin? I’m embarrassed that this country would turn its back on a loyal, hardworking candidate like Hillary for an empty suit full of promises. Its like Bush all over again.

Posted by: Max at February 26, 2008 5:49 PM
Comment #246507

Their purpose was to surpress popular revolt within the party. They should be superfluous, and if possible, gone by the next election, because they suit a party where party elites did not trust the people of the party to move it in the directions it needed to go. That was the Democratic Party of the 1968 convention. It’s not the party forty years later.

The idiot who tries to win by superdelegates will undermine their own support in an instant. It’s a move that was better suited to party where less sunlight reached the upper eschelons, and which is suicidal now to any candidate who wants popular support in the general election.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 26, 2008 9:25 PM
Comment #246522

Max said: He himself was saying less than a year ago that he was simply not qualified to be president.

So what makes him or anyone else think he’s qualified now? Does a year make him qualified? I doubt it.
But your right, he aint earned a thing. He’s just getting buy with his phony message of hope with no substance because he’s the Democrats fair-haired boy right now.

I’ve decided that experience or lack of it aint an issue anymore . In fact I’d like to see someone with absolutely no experience run for President. And win. Hell they just might accidentally get things straightened out in this country.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 26, 2008 11:54 PM
Comment #246552
In fact I’d like to see someone with absolutely no experience run for President. And win. Hell they just might accidentally get things straightened out in this country.

Where’s “Dave” when you need him?

[The movie, just in case anyone hasn’t figured out who “Dave” is…]

Posted by: Rachel at February 27, 2008 12:10 PM
Comment #246588

The media has been very soft on Sen. Obama. For instance, when his wife said she was proud of her country for the first time … that received very little play. Virtually anyone else would have been fried. Imagine if Bill Clinton said “Under Bush I haven’t been proud to be an American.” Sen. Clinton, her husband and the entire campaign would have been buried for days. Obama said “She was taken out of context.” and the story died. When she essentially said that she would not support Clinton as the nominee, the Obama campaign pointed to her tortured, dragged out “Well, I guess if I have to …” the media allowed the matter to drop. True, spouses shouldn’t matter, but the media makes it point to get the spouse to screw up just to make her story. The notion that the media doesn’t waste time where there is no story misses the point: the media will make a story where there isn’t one. Michelle Obama has provided a good deal of ammunition, but the media has not followed up.

When Sen. Obama’s absentee rate was brought up and compared to Sen. Clinton’s and McCain’s (Obama has missed considerably more votes) it was barely mentioned; when Clinton was fried for supporting the vote to list Iran’s Republican Guard as a terrorist organization, but then it turns out that Sen. Obama wasn’t even there for the vote, again, he says “I should have been there, but I was campaigning,” the media just backed off. The Republicans were brutalized, and rightfully so, for blowing off a minority sponsored debate for fund raising. Why wasn’t Obama taken to task for missing that vote - which he made a point against Clinton?

Each time the Clinton camp tried to attack Obama, they were vilified in the press - at one point even being accused of playing the race card. (Fortunately Sen. Obama would not allow the campaign to sink to that level.) They constantly had to back off. Their campaign has been strongly inhibited. So Sen. Obama has been even-tempered because it’s all the media reports. But anytime anything was said, his camp immediately went ballistic. Obama is thin-skinned and McCain and the Republicans will go gutter on him quickly. These are the swift boaters. Sen. Obama sounded shrill from the little bit of negativity the Clinton campaign threw his way. He’d better toughen up quickly because the media can only protect him so far.

Posted by: KJeroH at February 27, 2008 5:55 PM
Comment #246591

Is the media protecting someone?


Does that mean we aren’t getting a fair shake on our vote?

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 27, 2008 6:25 PM
Comment #246612

Just a reminder that everyone agrees to the Rules for Participation when they post a comment on this site, those comments that violate those rules are removed. If you are unfamiliar with the rules that you agree to by posting a comment, please make to read them ASAP.

Posted by: Column Manager at February 28, 2008 1:39 AM
Comment #246616


Have you got that right. Obama is like a faith healer, or as I wrote - a blank slate. His audience is seeing what they want in him. There is nothing really there but a shoeshine and a smile - and lots of pretty word well delivered.

Posted by: Jack at February 28, 2008 7:39 AM
Comment #246621

He has outlined positions on just about everything. Saying he has no substance is the hot talking point - but you could say that about anyone. Could anyone list Hillary’s accomplishments? How about McCains?

Posted by: Schwamp at February 28, 2008 9:35 AM
Comment #246707
Hillary, like all of us, reacts based on a given situation.

Exactly, Dawn. Good article. Obama is getting a free ride from the media.

There was an interesting op-ed in my paper today on this subject: Is media gender bias hurting Clinton?

Talking about the last debate, it says:

The moderators could have posed tougher questions to Obama, but for whatever reason chose not to do so.


A high-level Democratic strategist told me months ago that internal polls showed some groups of American voters were more likely to vote for an African-American man than a woman of any color.

I think that’s true — unfortunately.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 28, 2008 9:07 PM
Comment #246714

AP, wouldn’t internal polls also show that “some groups of American voters” are also more likely than others to vote for a woman over an African-American man? Or for a Mormon over an African American man? Or for an Asian American lesbian over either a straight woman OR an African American man?

Without specifics, that seems a pretty meaningless observation—simply that there are “some groups” who have certain preferences. What groups? How large are they? Where are they?

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at February 28, 2008 10:16 PM
Comment #246807

Have you got that right. Obama is like a faith healer, or as I wrote - a blank slate. His audience is seeing what they want in him. There is nothing really there but a shoeshine and a smile - and lots of pretty word well delivered.

Come on Jack. Lighten up. These read like the words of a contemptuous cynic. Hop on for the ride. You might enjoy the feeling of having something to aspire to. ;)

Posted by: RickIL at February 29, 2008 10:01 PM
Comment #246811

Cynicism can be a very healthy response. And in this case, it is.

These read like the words of a contemptuous cynic. Hop on for the ride. You might enjoy the feeling…

I wouldn’t even buy a used car from somebody who asked that of me—to just surrender to happy thoughts and good feelings. Don’t be a cynic! Hop on for the ride! It will feel good, I promise. Just hand over your money… or in this case, your vote AND your money.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at February 29, 2008 11:07 PM
Comment #246820

Loyal that was funny and I couldn’t agree more.

At some point Obama’s going to have to grow some balls and come out strong on a position. How can you be a polition and not feel passion about anything, I guess except making us feel good.

Posted by: andy at March 1, 2008 2:42 AM
Comment #246888


I wouldn’t even buy a used car from somebody who asked that of me—to just surrender to happy thoughts and good feelings.

I am smiling and shaking my head at the same time. First of all the post was not directed at you or any other republican in general. It was merely an attempt at a little levity knowing that Jack enjoys a little light hearted agitation from time to time just to keep things stirred up.

But so long as you are on the subject. Please do not surrender to anyone. We need people such as yourself to remind us from time to time about the evils of hatred and bias. The rest of us gullible fools will probably tune out reality and tune in to a dream world where all is good and everyone, simply by imagining it, has everything they could possibly desire. ;)

Posted by: RickIL at March 1, 2008 8:07 PM
Comment #246929

If Obama has been forseen as a great threat to the republicans, Fox News wouldn’t have just kept on barking against Hillary all the time. They know Hillary is a tough competitor. That’s why they made a very calculated move to artificially build up Obama and sabotage her candidacy. If she wasn’t sabotaged, all the democrats (blacks, latinos, women, centrist), would have voted for her. If Obama becomes the candidate, quite a good amount of centrists will vote republican; women will not show as much interest for him as for Hillary; latinos might either not vote, or vote republican. So, again Democratic Party have screwed up their possibilities of getting the presidency back. They would have nobody else to blame but lefties like Kerry, Kenedy, etc. What a shame! I guess Democratic Party deserves an expensive lesson…

Posted by: ARBEN Camaj at March 2, 2008 8:03 PM
Comment #247122

Woman is the nigger of the world
Yes she is…think about it
Woman is the nigger of the world
Think about it…do something about it

We make her paint her face and dance
If she wont be a slave, we say that she dont love us
If shes real, we say shes trying to be a man
While putting her down, we pretend that shes above us

Woman is the nigger of the world…yes she is
If you dont believe me, take a look at the one youre with
Woman is the slave of the slaves
Ah, yeah…better scream about it

We make her bear and raise our children
And then we leave her flat for being a fat old mother hen
We tell her home is the only place she should be
Then we complain that shes too unworldly to be our friend

Woman is the nigger of the world…yes she is
If you dont believe me, take a look at the one youre with
Woman is the slave to the slaves
Yeah…alright…hit it!

We insult her every day on tv
And wonder why she has no guts or confidence
When shes young we kill her will to be free
While telling her not to be so smart we put her down for being so dumb

Woman is the nigger of the world
Yes she is…if you dont believe me, take a look at the one youre with
Woman is the slave to the slaves
Yes she is…if you believe me, you better scream about it

We make her paint her face and dance

J Lennon 1972

Posted by: gogglumpus at March 5, 2008 3:18 PM
Comment #247681

Does Senator Obama not proud of his heritage and his middle name that he has never openly said so ? I may be labelled a racist while asking such a question.
Whats in a middle name ? So what if his father was a moslem ? So what if Al-Quaida will celebrate Obama as American President.
All I say is that Americans are proud of their heritage, so should Mr Obama be.

Posted by: Mich at March 11, 2008 9:59 PM
Comment #248913

Rene said: “As a recently retired Hispanic Officer,”

Is that supposed to give credibility to your incredible comments? I used to live in Mo., so forgive me if I don’t believe that you are an officer with a college education or field promotion, or a doctor of something or another.

“I am not impressed with Gov. Richardson’s support of Sen. Obama.”

That’s fair.

“Obama’s proven poor ethics and covert racist views scare Hispanics.”

Care to provide that proof you refer to?

“Being in the military, I know what historical truly means”

Ohrealy, so your Ph.D. is in history? Or does this mean you got a dose of military history, which has little bearing at all on Obama’s candidacy or the history of civilian politics in America?

“and Obama’s speech was a political survival speech.”

Yes, that and much more. 62% of Americans polled liked his speech on race a lot. Verifiable, just Google ‘Poll Obama Speech’.

“Obama’s speech did not sway Hispanics.”

Polled them all personally did you? Would that be American Hispanics, or Mexican Hispanics, legal or illegal residents of this country?

“In Hispanics view, Richardson is indorsing Obama solely because of his hope to become Obama’s running mate.”

Care to provide a source for that opinion of yours?

“Also, Hispanics will never forget Sen. Clinton support of the Hispanic community since her was in her 20s.”

Since her was was in her 20’s?

“For Richardson to be a longtime friend of the Clinton’s, his support is based on politics and shows Hispanics that he is like Obama.”

And Hillary’s counting on Richardson’s support was not based on politics? Heard she got miffed when Richardson told her the disappointing news. Was that because she felt like a slave owner with an uppity slave, and tried to put him in his place, servant to the Hillary master, eh?

I expect cronyism loyalty from the GOP. I thought Democrats leaned toward people supporting candidates who best represent the people’s hopes and expectations. So, your saying Hillary does not lean that way, but, expects payment quid pro quo from her friends?

Or, was Hillary simply venting some disappointment without the presumption of being owed anything from Richardson?

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 22, 2008 6:36 PM
Comment #248914

andy said: “How can you be a polition and not feel passion about anything, I guess except making us feel good.”

My, my, what power you imbue upon Obama. So, he has the power to make us feel good, huh? Wow! I am impressed. Damn sight better than Bush, don’t you think? Bush has 3/4 of the country depressed. I call that an abuse of power by someone who doesn’t understand its potential at all.

Thank you, I will add “Can you make you feel good” to his list of strengths as a candidate. Hadn’t thought of that one. Almost makes him a healer doesn’t it. Lord knows we need one after Bush’s 8 years of repetitive injuries and deaths set upon Americans. And all those broken promises.

Balance the budget. Then cut the deficit in half. Rebuild New Orleans good as ever. Leave no child behind in education. Piece of cake taking Iraq and making it an ally. Get the sponsors of 9/11. Unite, not divide.

And the list goes on and on and on…

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 22, 2008 6:47 PM
Comment #248972

If Obama was white he would not have been still running after all of that scandal with his “uncle” pastor. We, the “white people”, cannot use the word “black” in public, only African-American; while on the other side, a person that attends an African-American racist church every Sunday and listens to the bias of anti-white preaching, can still be running for president!!! Do you really think Wright has preached that kind of preaching just that one time? Also do not forget! Obama has been listening to Wright’s preaching for almost 20 years!!!
Obama said “the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning”. I don’t think so! I never ever heard of any white priest preaching from the altar such racist ideas against blacks, or any other segments of the American population. Probably that is happening in Obama’s neck of the wood… If he genuinely believed in solving the race issue, he should have done that “outstanding speech” long before his ass was in hot H2O because of his close connections with Wright
Obama’s rhetoric about “hope” & “change” is just a grammatically & ideologically misspelled propaganda…
Imagine him being the Commander in Chief…!!!
Well, if lefties (Kerry & Co.) succeed in hijacking the Democratic Party leadership, I can see that a lot of Hillary supporters would vote for McCain. Obama’s candidacy has been artificially blown out of all proportion. Does he really believe that he stands a chance to win the General Election? Everyone I know would vote Republican this time if Hillary is not going to be the nominee…
Obamatics forget that the majority of the US are not lefties. Bill Clinton knew this very well. That’s why he was able to build a centrist oriented coalition & won both elections.
Also, it was in Obama’s interest for Florida & Michigan not to rerun their primaries. Do not forget the majority of the voters in both of these states voted for Hillary. That’s why lefties are not interested in finding a solution. He knew full well he would lose both of them. So, how he is going to win without Florida & Michigan?
What a sad joke!!!
The whole point is supporting a winner in November. I can’t see that happening if the Democratic Party goes for Obama… A good portion of white Americans center-left, center & center-right either will vote for McCain, or will not vote at all; same with Latinos & Asians… He will lose Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. He will have a weak showing in New York, New Jersey, Los Angeles. He will lose most of the so-called red states that gave him their votes to just convincingly defeat him this Fall…
The rhetoric about Hope & Change is just propaganda, without being backed by substance. His voting records are disturbing. His pullout-the-troops plan without having a real plan is disastrous… And overall, when McCain will win the November Elections, the African-American community will feel even more anti-American & racial than they feel now, because their hopes got demolished by their hunger for power without the backing of the majority of the American people…
These are my reasons why I cannot support Obama.

Posted by: ARBEN Camaj at March 23, 2008 10:12 PM
Comment #253683

It is to bad, Hilary had 15 months to win. When
you like others, you become a target when you are
involved in campaigning. Get your head right, stop
picking on Obama, stop feeling sorry for Hilary.
Before you pass judgement, judge yourself first;
is your decision about Obama any better? Do not
pass judgement on Obama for you are no GOD, so
do not act like it;judge yourself for the type of thoughts you have is part of the reason the country is divided. You do not own this country in
the first place so track the real truth and live
with it. Just because someone else is different it
should not be your fear, perhaps it is your guilt.
Obama is very intelligent, possess more than the
ability to be PRESIDENT;he is not the reason the
country is in a fix, you should complain to the
responsibe ones and not take your frustrations out
on him. So, get a life, or seek thearpy.

Posted by: voter at May 26, 2008 7:47 PM
Post a comment