Senator Clinton puts her foot in it; it must be our fault. Fine. Now go away.
After moderator Stephanopoulis claimed the gotcha questions dominating Wednesday’s debate were apropos because they covered controversies that took place since the previous debate, I remained skeptical. After all, the false Bosnia sniper scandal also took place in that interim nd where were the gotcha questions there? So almost every gotcha question was aimed at Barack, not one of the Clintons, whose backs he rode to his current prominence. Coincidence? Sure, George, sure…
And Clinton followed her debate edge with a fresh gaffe today, attacking the Democratic base:
At a small closed-door fundraiser after Super Tuesday, Sen. Hillary Clinton blamed what she called the “activist base” of the Democratic Party — and MoveOn.org in particular — for many of her electoral defeats, saying activists had “flooded” state caucuses and “intimidated” her supporters, according to an audio recording of the event obtained by The Huffington Post.
“Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] — which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down,” Clinton said to a meeting of donors. “We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn’t even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that’s what we’re dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it’s primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don’t agree with them. They know I don’t agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me.”
MoveOn responded:
In a statement to The Huffington Post, MoveOn’s Executive Director Eli Pariser reacted strongly to Clinton’s remarks: “Senator Clinton has her facts wrong again. MoveOn never opposed the war in Afghanistan, and we set the record straight years ago when Karl Rove made the same claim. Senator Clinton’s attack on our members is divisive at a time when Democrats will soon need to unify to beat Senator McCain. MoveOn is 3.2 million reliable voters and volunteers who are an important part of any winning Democratic coalition in November. They deserve better than to be dismissed using Republican talking points.”
Just when Gallup showed her narrowing the gap nationwide post-debate, in direct contrast to a Newsweek poll showing she was losing ground up to the debate. Her supporters had finally been heartened and now that afterglow is fully dissipated.
After that false claim about Afghanistan - hell, most online progressives have said all along that we should continue the pursuit of Bin Laden - I now abandon my former position that Clinton should stay in the race as long as she saw fit to, without party officials or any other politician asking her to step aside for the sake of party unity.
Here’s the deal, Senator Clinton: you’re not going to win enough pledged delegates. You’re not going to convince the remaining majority of superdelegates. The people who decide these things are us, the party’s base of active primary voters. It will be us who complete the job of defeating your endeavor and you’ve made that a fait accompli with your dishonest remarks that now try to slur all of us who’ve fought against this damnable war in Iraq since well before the first shot was fired. Even a majority of Congrssional Democrats voted against the AUMF while supporting the effort against the Taliban and Al Qaida.
Portray the results ahead as anti-Clinton bias or even misogyny, if you need to to salve the wounds of your political defeat. The reality is, most of the activist base ultimately turned against you because of your arrogance and incompetence. You refused to apologize for your AUMF vote, you blew the health care plan in ‘94 and had no replacement 13 years later at the outset of this candidacy, undermining your claim that your experience and compassion amounted to a hill of beans. You went back on the united pledge to penalize states that moved up their primary date. Please, quit blaming your problems on everyone but yourself.
I don’t trust you to work for party unity even after the dawdlers recognize that Obama’s the nominee. Too many of your supporters have indicated otherwise to pollsters and I fully expect enough of them to follow through, damaging the country to make their point that it’s only going to be you, or McCain can have it.
Kindly go away; you’ve done quite enough. We still intend to work for a win by our qualified nominee and we don’t need your gnatbuzz around pestering people you once had ready to work for you. Bush and the GOP have always been what this primary race was really about and it just became clear that your interests were different, and in the end, you made everything all about you.
Deal with the result, which judgment was, indeed, all about you: your actions and choices and destructive games. And finally, you even pissed me off, which very few can do.
.
April 19th, 2008 at 6:10 am
Great job dismissing the Clinton supporters who disagree with you–great job advancing the Obama mantra of unity. I notice that you didn’t didn’t dispute the comments about Obama supporters being intimidating at the caucuses. Wonder why that is? Could it be because they did and are intimidating people. What a great group the democrats are. They are no better than the republicans. We forget that we are Americans first and our political party should come second. It has become acceptable to spew venom at anyone for any petty reason. We have become a nation of horribly nasty people. Good job–keep it up. And just to reiterate the point I am talking about EVERYBODY–even those holier than thou Obamabots.
April 19th, 2008 at 6:47 am
what she has done to the election cycle and party is just despicable
to think i actually used to like and respect her and voted for her TWICE
never again — it will not happen
April 19th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Oclday: I don’t represent Obama. I have friends and family who’ll be voting for Clinton and I fully respect their choices. I’ve found there’s some noxious people on both sides, and I feel no compulsion to cater to any of them.
Party unity is something both of the candidates have spoken of. My interests in it are solely for the purose of reaching necessary humanitarian goals. If i could find a faster way to achieve those without the cumbersome processes and giant egos they entail, I’d happily tell both parties to go to hell, and those politicians too arrogant to conduct themselves as public servants, and more than a few of their supporters for what I perceive to be misplaced priorities.
But then, I’m arrogant. I think eliminating mass deaths and the alleviation of suffering require address before most everything else, be it other single issues, a compulsion to be led, hero worship, or Robert’s Rules of Order.
I don’t believe in providing Pampers to any candidate, so that makes me not so much fun at a (political) party. I view parties as a tool to be used to get a job done, not a social event, (though for the sake of my peers working towards common goals, I try to restrict my belching and farting, meeting the minimum qualifications of sociability.)
I didn’t address the intimidation factor because I’ve never attended a caucus in my life. Some of the descriptions make them sound like barely managed chaos, but I don’t find that sort of thing intimidating. Hyperbole and rhetoric aren’t scary to me. Unless there’s guns or knives involved, it sounds like a rather lame complaint. From the political analysts who’ve reported on them, I’ve gotten the impression that Obama’s team has done a better job recruiting more supporters and organizing their efforts. Even if one feels outnumbered at such events, it’s still not a gang fight.
I disagree that Democrats are no better than the Republicans, though I’m certain some Dems are worse than some Republicans. I don’t forget that we’re Americans first, and even more important, we’re humans with far more commonalities globally than the differences imposed upon us by ideologues of division.
Venom-spitting is not something I do much of. But, on rare occasion, when someone moves past stupidism into intentional harm, I can spit it as well as anyone. It may not be particularly persuasive, so I try to offset it by keeping it rare, preferring courtesy and consideration in between.
Horribly nasty? For displaying a rare moment of anger? Look, almost anyone in any country is - in my view - justified to criticize leaders when their egos compromise their humanity and civility. A jerk by any other name is diplomacy.
I am holier than nobody. But I’m way more ethical than some political and moral authorities have ever been. And even at that, they’re all welcome to rehabilitate themselves and surpass me. I don’t have a superiority boot on their necks.