Gone From the Granite State, But Tactics Not Forgotten
By Alec MacGillis
The presidential campaign has moved on from New Hampshire, but it has left behind it deep fissures and feelings of resentment among local Democrats that some fear may linger all the way until November.
Some supporters of Barack Obama, stung by his narrow loss to Hillary Clinton, are lashing out at a large group of Democratic women leaders in the state who signed a letter criticizing Obama's commitment to abortion rights, a letter that went out by e-mail to many New Hampshire voters two days before the primary.
Other Obama backers are upset about efforts by top Clinton supporters to remove poll observers that the Obama campaign had stationed around the state on primary day, an intervention that the Obama supporters say hindered their get out the vote efforts.
Obama supporter Bill Siroty, a former Democratic chair for the town of Amherst, said the ill will is running so high that it could keep Democrats in the state who supported Obama from rallying behind Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, should she win the nomination. In 2000, bad feelings that lingered among some Bill Bradley supporters about tactics used by Al Gore in the primary - including misleading charges about Bradley's health care plan - were seen as one reason why Gore lost the state to George W. Bush in November, thereby giving Bush just enough Electoral College votes to take the presidency.
"People are very upset about it," said Siroty. "I've heard one or two threaten they're not going to vote for Clinton at all. Tensions are very high, and it could cause a rift."
Bette Lasky, the assistant House majority leader and a top Clinton supporter who was involved in both the e-mail and poll interventions, said she was sorry to hear about the bad feelings but hoped Obama supporters would get over it. "It's politics, and it happens," she said.
The e-mail questioning Obama's commitment to abortion rights was signed by a who's who of the state's Democratic establishment, which is dominated by women who supported Clinton in the primary. In addition to Lasky, the two dozen on the list included Terie Norelli, the speaker of the state House, Beverly Hollingworth, a member of the state's Executive Council and a former state senator, House Majority Leader Mary Jane Wallner, former state party chairwoman Kathy Sullivan, and Katie Wheeler, a former state senator from Durham who helped lead the charge for Gore against Bradley's health care plan in 2000. Echoing an attack in a mailing put out by the Clinton campaign that arrived in New Hampshire mailboxes the Saturday before balloting, the e-mail criticized Obama for voting "present," instead of yes or no, on several abortion-related bills while in the Illinois Senate.
"The difference between Hillary's repeatedly standing up strong on choice and Obama's unwillingness to vote 'yes' or 'no' is a clear contrast, and we believe the voters in New Hampshire deserve to know this difference," the letter stated. "We support Hillary Clinton because she never ducked when choice was at stake."
The Obama supporters say the accusation, which was laid out nearly a year ago and has cropped up from time to time since then, is unfair, noting that Democrats in the Illinois Senate often voted "present" on controversial legislation, not to duck issues, but as a tactical response to Republican efforts to force Democrats into unpopular votes that could be used against them in the future.
An Illinois Planned Parenthood official backed Obama up on this score over the summer, in response to an earlier round of questions about his record, and Obama has a 100 percent rating with both Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America. To try to defuse the e-mail and mailing, the Obama campaign on Sunday rushed out an automated phone call from a New England Planned Parenthood official vouching for Obama -- which the Clinton campaign in turn challenged by saying that the call had gone out to at least two people on the do-not-call list, against state rules.
Obama supporter Carol Moore, a former state representative from Concord, said the attacks on Obama's record seemed to resonate. Many of the three-dozen canvassers she was helping oversee reported receiving questions on their house visits on Monday about Obama's commitment to abortion rights. On Tuesday, Clinton won by three percentage points, after being down about 10 points in most polls the day before, thanks in large part to a late surge in support from women voters. (Her campaign sent out another tough mailing in the final days before the primary, accusing Obama of favoring a "trillion dollar" tax increase on middle-class workers, a reference to his openness to the possibility of raising the $97,500 cap on salaries taxed for Social Security.)
"It is a direct lie and distortion of the facts of his 'choice' record and I believe it did a lot of damage," said Moore. "The women are all very prominent Democrats, many of them in leadership, and it is sickening."
Siroty sent out an e-mail after the primary to other Democratic town chairs and former town chairs around the state expressing his upset over the e-mail and warning of consequences for those who signed it, "who should know better than to sign their names to such a blatantly political piece which contains misrepresentations if not out-right lies."
State party leaders, he wrote, "will argue we should kiss and make up - after all we have to elect Democrats. However, this absolves these people of the responsibility of adding their names to this letter. People need to think first before they add their names to such a letter. Actions have consequences. These people should have thought about the long-term consequences of signing such a letter. Some of these people will soon send us letters asking for contributions to their campaigns and PACs. Did they ever consider that they would be insulting some of the same people they would be sending these letters to?"
Lasky said she had signed the letter because it was her understanding that voting "present" - which is not allowed in the New Hampshire legislature -- was nothing but an attempt to dodge tough votes. She said it "didn't make much sense" to her that Obama's present votes on abortion bills were part of a strategy by pro-choice legislators. As for his 100 percent ratings from abortion rights groups, she said she didn't know what those were based on and how much value they held.
"To me it doesn't show conviction to be present," she said. "He says he's pro-choice, but he doesn't show a whole lot of conviction when you have a chance to vote and you vote present."
Lasky said the letter should not stand in the way of Democratic unity come fall. "The stakes in this election are too high to be risked because of a last-minute letter," she said. "I would certainly not want to attach my name to anything false, and would hate to think that I did that. But that was one letter and one instance. The candidates were here for a year."
Lasky was also involved in the attempt by Clinton officials to remove Obama volunteers who had been sent to many polling places on primary day to check off the names of voters as they arrived so that the campaign's get out the vote workers would know which of their supporters had and hadn't voted. Clinton volunteers and local lawyers acting on behalf of the campaign demanded in Nashua, Concord and at least one other town that poll moderators ban the Obama volunteers from the polls, saying that their presence violated a state law stating that only the state party chairmen can delegate people to monitor the polls.
The Obama campaign countered that that law applied only to monitors who are at the polls to challenge potentially invalid voters, a practice that is usually limited to general elections and which their volunteers were not engaged in. The attorney general and Nashua city clerk confirmed this when they were called about the dispute, saying that the Obama volunteers were allowed as members of the public to observe the polls, as long as they didn't get in the way.
But the Clinton intervention at Ward 9 in Nashua nonetheless persuaded the moderator to ban the Obama observers. And the disputes, which dragged on for hours and grew quite heated, generally scrambled the Obama efforts to keep track of who was and wasn't voting, said Obama supporter Andrew Edwards, a rookie state representative assigned to observe the polls in Nashua, where Clinton ran up a big margin in her favor. Edwards was confronted by Lasky and by another veteran Democrat, state representative and Nashua Democratic chairwoman Jane Clemons, who he said issued a veiled threat during the dispute that he would face a stiff primary challenge in Nashua if he ran for reelection.
"The effect of it was that it basically disrupted our get out the vote operation," said Edwards. "My effectiveness that day [in checking off names] was less than 50 percent as a result of the people who kept coming in" to protest the observers.
Clemons, whose son Nick Clemons managed Clinton's campaign in the state, said she objected to the Obama observers because she said she had been told by the Nashua City Clerk the day before that such observers would not be allowed and that letting the Obama use them conferred an "unfair advantage." In an interview Friday, the city clerk, Paul Bergeron, said this was not the case, that the discussion before the election had regarded volunteers challenging voters, not those checking names off lists.
Clemons denied that she had threatened Edwards with a primary challenge, saying that she simply asked him whether he was planning to run for re-election, which he may have wrongly interpreted as a threat.
Clemons did not sign the abortion rights letter because, she said, she was not asked to. She said she was not sure she would have if asked since she does not know the implication of a "present" vote in the Illinois Senate, as there is no such thing in the New Hampshire legislature.
She, too, hoped that the Obama supporters would get over their resentment. "You work so very hard for so very long that, yeah, there are raw feelings the day afterward," she said. "We try to give people time to get over it
Posted at 3:51 PM ET on Jan 12, 2008
Share This: 
Technorati
| Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Union Files Suit Over Casino Caucuses |
Next: At Daughter's Urging, McCaskill Backs Obama
Get This Widget >>
Posted by: Braden tnifg | April 9, 2008 11:18 AM
Hillary is being ridiculous. A lot of Dems feel t hat if Hillary steals this nomination they won't vote at all or will vote for a Republican. If you feel this way too please sign the petition at this link to let the DNC know how you feel.
www.kitchensinkpolitics.com
Posted by: theinkys | March 9, 2008 9:28 AM
Lets stop the drama, 35years experience with Bill
Vote Obama, 21st century leadership
Posted by: FebM | January 17, 2008 10:30 PM
i agree with chunkymonkey. as a woman and an independent and an obama supporter, IF obama does not become the nominee, i will vote for a republican. our country would be ruined by another 4 years of clinton/bush, and a vote for h. clinton would indeed be a vote to extend george bush's presidential legacy. i only hope that others can see this before it realy is too late. i also think that an obama presidency tends to scare lazy americans who only want to elect a 'leader' that they can blindly, vicariously follow, rather than take an active role in changing the country yourself. we the people have been complacent for far too long. it's time to act.
Posted by: april | January 16, 2008 2:24 PM
If Hillary Clinton becomes the presidential candidate for the dems, then I will not vote. I'm a strong democrat, and have actively campaigned many times, but I can't stomach the dirty politics employed by the Clinton campaign. Hillary Clinton and her campaign managers are sadly mistaken if they think registered democrats will blindly support such an unprincipled candidate. Sorry, but I'd rather see McCain in the White House. At least I know he bucks his party when he it conflicts with his strongly held convictions.
Posted by: megsharp | January 16, 2008 1:19 PM
It truly grieves me to have seen to what low levels here in Iowa and in New Hampshire, that the Clinton Campaign and the Edwards Campaign were willing to stoop. I too received negative robo-calls from CLINTON'S PEOPLE, and I am on the Do Not Call list; it's a non-issue. It was ugly and disgusting and while most of the time I only dumped it all into the recycling bin, it was horribly offensive and hurtful.
Meanwhile, Senator Obama made no claims to voting records that were inaccurate, he was positive in his approach to voters, he ran an exceptional ground game, and he spoke clearly and effectively on his record.
Iowans (and I truly believe NH residents as well!!) heard his message, and felt the positive energy and hope--yes HOPE--that his candidacy has inspired. My life will never be the same, I will never stand by and be apathetic about my government again.
Now isn't that what we want and NEED from our president???
Posted by: maryTnurse | January 16, 2008 1:08 PM
To Alec MacGillis:
As a present NH resident, I don't understand why is this sort of political game being allowed. Especially in a place where people may be a little more gullible than they portray. Why is dirty politics a thing of today? Why isn't campaigning better controlled?
I had a Hillary campaign worker end up at my door and I can honestly confirm some of the tactics used to sway a vote. Fortunately, when I make up my mind, my mind is well made up so the volunteer had little persuasion. But think of those that are easy to sway. That believe in anything they are told. This is somewhat an infringement on their personal right to choose the candidate THEY think is best. On end, the volunteer was VERY disappointed when I gave them a good finger shaking and told them where I stand on the process and the candidates!
When are we going to stop allowing candidates like this dictate the fate of our country? When are we going to be a people for a change? On end, Americans do not realize that it is THEM that either support this activity in a candidate or, stand for democracy! HC is showing that she is willing to play dirty politics to try to gain uneven flooring in a campaign that she is loosing fair and square. What does her activity has to say for the entire United States as a people?
Posted by: gwhitt50 | January 14, 2008 12:56 AM
There is one thing I have noticed that is very consistent in all of this; Hillary seems to really have it in for Obama. Can anyone explain? Coming out of Iowa, Hillary was succeeded by Obama and Edwards. It doesn't seem as though ANY of this hostility is geared towards Edwards! John Edwards was ahead of Clinton out of Iowa as well. Why isn't she trying to hurt Edwards character as much as she is trying to destroy Obama? Is this democratic at all?
What is her hate with Obama? Even though Edwards and Obama beat her in Iowa, she seems to only be stuck on Obama. Correct me if I am wrong but, this seems to be discriminating! What problem she has with Obama that she couldn't have with Edwards as well? When Edwards jumped to Obama's defense, I can somewhat see the reason why. All along this trail Hillary seems as though she has a problem with Obama being in the race; she's always up his butt about one thing or another.
Sort of like the one black kid in the class is being picked on by the one white bully that just can't get over the one black kid being in the same class; like it JUST shouldn't be! That is how I visualize Hillary's attitude; she is being so profoundly focused on Obama that she must have a problem with him being a candidate. Problem is, SHE is the only one that stands out in the entire crowd of candidates that seems to be that one bully in the clasroom!
I don't like seeing this sort of behavior out of leadship! People like that doesn't need power; whether they have experience or not! They are dangerous people...
Posted by: gwhitt50 | January 14, 2008 12:29 AM
Just when we thought the Clintons couldn't possibly bring any more shame and humiliation to the Democrats, they proceed to blow away all the hard won remnants of the Party's respectability. Will the Bush/Clinton era of inane politics ever go away?
Posted by: katefranklin | January 13, 2008 7:29 PM
jsan321, Karl Rove is still on his own planet. He says: "That means Florida on the 29th looms very large. The outcome of the contest in the Sunshine State is likely to have a disproportionate impact on the 23 contests on Super Tuesday."
Florida's Democratic delegate count doesn't count, because they broke Party rules. So just what 'outcome' is he expecting?
Posted by: TomJx | January 13, 2008 5:59 PM
pssst
Karl Rove
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119992615845679531.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Posted by: jsan321 | January 13, 2008 5:29 PM
Advice to voters in the remaining states:
If you get a negative mailer less than a week before the election, vote against the attacker rather than the intended victim.
The above is what I posted earlier. I would now add, write DELIVERY REFUSED - RETURN TO SENDER in heavy black marker on the piece and re-mail it. Make a statement about the state of politics.
Posted by: TomJx | January 13, 2008 4:57 PM
Sending out false e-mails at any time but especially that voters receive the day before the polls should be against the law and actionable and certainly does make a difference in how voters vote at the polls. If the 35 yrs of experience that Clinton claims were valid, she & her supporters wouldn't need to use every down and dirty trick to get votes, she would be able to stand on her record. I will not vote for Clinton under any circumstances!
Posted by: Katy7540 | January 13, 2008 1:02 PM
In the 2000 NH primary it was Al Gore thugs, like Chris Lehane, who ran their dirty tricks campaign against Bill Bradley. The stench from that sorry campaign caused many of us to vote for Ralph Nader rather than be complicit in endorsing the low-life tactics Al Gore used to win the NH primary.
In the 2008 NH primary it was more of the same. This time chief Clinton strategist, Mark Penn, who also does PR work for Blackwater, used lies and distortions against Obama to steer the election their way. And like 2000, there is a stench in the air in the aftermath of the Clinton's narrow win.
The Clinton's "win" was really a victory for their egos and power cravings, and a slap in the face to everyone who campaigned in good faith for the Clintons or Obama.
Now we are witness to more of the same sleazy electoral tactics being used by the Clinton's in Nevada.
If the Clintons go on to take the nomination of the party, I would not be surprised if many Obama supporters refuse to vote for the Clintons. Losing to the Clintons does not mean we have to endorse sleazy, do anything to win candidates like the Clintons. Enough is enough. And I've had enough of the Clintons.
Posted by: twessels | January 13, 2008 12:47 PM
Lylepink -- I posted at 7:27 p.m. yesterday, 11:22 and 12:20 today, and now. Ideally the last one. I am not a "so-called" Obama supporter, am an Obama supporter. I didn't accuse of you being part of hillaryis44.com, or even knowing about it, I suggested you check it out. Thanks for doing so. I presumed you were an assigned commenter, because you are behaving like a watchdog on this article, doing what you are accusing Obama supporters of doing. That's a presumption that can't possibly be verified as FACT. So please don't call me a liar. Now I'm falling into the trap of commenting too often, mostly to rebut rebuttals directed at me. So let's call it even. Later.
Posted by: kparrparr | January 13, 2008 12:41 PM
Hilary brings division and acrimony to the democrat party in NH. Hilary brings division and acrimony to the unions in NV. Hilary brings division and acrimony to the African-American community.
What will Hilary bring to Washington and the nation if she is elected?? Division and acrimony.
If you want division and acrimony, by all means vote for Hilary.
Posted by: wpost4112 | January 13, 2008 12:36 PM
kparrparr: FYI, I am not assigned to anything and have no connection with the Clinton campaign whatsoever. This is but more LIES put out by you so-called Obama supporters, such as yourself. About the hillaryis44 site you reference, I did not know anything about it, A quick cursory inspection found it to be quite accurate, although, I have limited knowledge about the land deal mentioned, it appears Obama was a little on the sleazy side with this guy. Peggy Noonan was a Repub last time I checked, and this guy points out accusations made by her was not based on FACTS. I don't recall seeing any other Posts by you, and I didn't Post very often on this Blog until recently. A little advice, Get Your FACTS straight before making False allegations.
Posted by: lylepink | January 13, 2008 12:30 PM
Kelly in Lenox --
At the risk of turning into Lylepink and repeatedly commenting, I'd like to say that this is not an Obama campaign. I'm just a voter, a registered Dem in Maine, about to leave to go to my town's caucus organizing meeting. That's about as big time as I get. I'm just sharing my opinion, I'm not trying to be a thug, and I am trying like heck to keep a positive image of HRC in case she's the nominee. It's just when I see the Clintons play their power-at-all-costs game (read the article above), it makes me ill. I get it if you prefer her, I get it if Obama doesn't do it for you, but you're projecting on the cheap, dirty, old-style partisan thuggishness. If most of the commenters on this post are pro-Obama, it's because we're the ones most likely to have 1) read it 2) reacted in a negative way. And why is it outrageous to say we'd stay home or vote for a McCain? I never, never read pro-HRC people claiming they will vote for Obama if he is the nominee. Why is that? I'd love to read your thoughts, but I've gotta go be a Democrat.
Posted by: kparrparr | January 13, 2008 12:22 PM
I am an Obama supporter and I do not hate Hillary. I am just tired of her brand of dirty politics that trys to tear down their opponent but never addresses the issues. For example, why is Hillary not discussing her record on the war in Iraq? Why is she not telling us how she and her husband promoted NAFTA and shipping out our jobs and what is their plan now? I only see attacks from Hillary but no substance of what she would do to repair her damage to this country.
Posted by: Sis_O | January 13, 2008 12:22 PM
kparrparr--I agree with Lylepink. Most of the posters on this blog are hostile and angry Obama supporters. Hillary won in New Hampshire because a majority of its residents believed in her over Obama at the end of the campaign. Now the offended Obamaniacs are threatening the state's democratic officials who questioned Obamas commitment to abortion rights, and, equally outrageous, are implying that Obama supporters might stay home in November, potentially throwing the election to whomever wins on the republican side. This is cheap, dirty, old-style partisan thugishness (paging Richard Nixon). Obama's Illinois state house roots are showing. Give up trying to label the Clinton team as divisive--This Obama campaign smear-and-slander attack shows who is a divider!
--Kelly in Lenox
Posted by: KellyBostonMA | January 13, 2008 11:55 AM
Lylepink, take a nap and get a life. You're calling the people who question the Clinton campaign anti-Hillary trolls and non-Dems, and some of your allies are calling us "haters"? What are you talking about, you're here all day and night exhorting people to read the Iraq resolution, blah, blah, blah. You're one of these people assigned to watch blogs like this and comment repeatedly. And you want negative, go to hillaryis44.com, and see what hate and lies are. Hypocrite.
Posted by: kparrparr | January 13, 2008 11:22 AM
I'll say again and then take a nap. The overwhelming majority of the "Hate Hillary" comments are coming from so-called Obama supporters. This has been going on for months and as I have said many times, this fits in exactly with the Repub strategy to stop Hillary at any cost/price or whatever.
Posted by: lylepink | January 13, 2008 10:33 AM
How the HillBillys stole New Hampshire is just like How the Grinch stole Christmas. There were many things at play in New Hampshire.
1. Bubba credited himself the term "the comeback kid" while he came in second in New Hampshire. But who remembers who came first. Somehow the NewHampshirites thought they get the credit for electing the first Clinton, therefore they may get the credit for electing the second Clinton to the White House and blidly voted for Hillary.
2. Bubba and Sister Frigidaire both know how to lie through the teeth and wiggle around the accusations. Bubba knew he can exploit racism as long as he can plant it in certain people's mind using subliminal messages. As long as he words it so that there is an escape route later, he is off the hook. Bubba's statement about a black man's hope and dream is 'just a fairytale' somehow gave the racial impetous to the whites to stay away from Obama and vote for Hillary.
3. Just like how Bubba took care of the racial factor, Hillary's melting point was pre-planned and captured with a prepositioned camera and a plant. This was done in such a way that women who cry and band together when they see another woman cry were all affected by this clever ploy.
4. Women who were not swayed by the crying are usually women who are a little more aggressive and who have a thing against men in general. She caught their attention by planting the sexism card by asking two boys to come and pose as boys who want their shirts ironed by Hillary.
Now Hillary is after the Latino voters in California and New Mexico. She will haveother cards to play there.
But whichever way you slice it, the Clintons thrive on divisive tactics. They figured if the old British ruled the world by divide and conquer why not do the same in the good old United States.
We have a sliver of hope left for this country. That hope is in Obama. Hillary's tactics worked in N.H. But people saw right through it after the results came. Hillary will drive away many independents and democrats to the republican side or if Bloomberg runs as an independent, to Bloomberg's camp.
In the end, if Obama wins the primary, 99% of Hillary supporters will support Obama. If Hillary wins the primary, 75% of Obama voters will probably vote for Bloomberg or the republican candidate whoever it may be.
It is hard to reverse the anti-Hillary trend in this country.
Posted by: ChunkyMonkey1 | January 13, 2008 10:02 AM
Maybe with Hillary the Neo-Cons can now be called Neo Libracons. The NeoCon movement is not just a Republican problem. They've effectively destroyed what being a Republican meant and out to do the same on the Democratic side. A vote for Hillary is a vote for Dick Chenney, he must find it all very humorous, in their joint march to power. I'm not even an anti-war type and I find it incredibly disturbing.
Posted by: dmthurman | January 13, 2008 9:51 AM
Bette Lasky sits on the NH House Judiciary Committee, how's that for irony? Now, what have we complained about these 7 years with Bush, among many things? Using the judiciary, the courts, the Attorney General's office, for political gain.
So, tell me again why I, a Latina, a 50 yr old female, mother, should vote for this outrageous lying woman who is not satisfied with over $50 million dollars and wants to rip our party apart to get millions more? Am I supposed to be a complete idiot?
If she gets the nomination, I'll do as I did when Carter seceded to Reagan, vote for a third party or Independent candidate, and no, it won't be Ron Paul. But, no Hillary, no third presidential term for Bill, no way.
I pledge right now to gather 10 Democratic women to donate to the NH candidate, especially any current Obama-supporter, who runs to unseat Bette Lasky, Terie Norelli, the speaker of the state House, Beverly Hollingworth, a member of the state's Executive Council and a former state senator, House Majority Leader Mary Jane Wallner, and anyone endorsed by Kathy Sullivan and Katie Wheeler. Put these names on a list and blackball them.
Let's help all current Obama-supporting office-holders get reelected and throw these election-stealers out!
Posted by: VCubed | January 13, 2008 9:25 AM
HoMugwump: Thank you for confirming what I have been saying for so long now. Only don't repeat the LIE about Hillary giving "Bush blank checkes on Iran and Iraq." Your spelling of "Checks" ??
Posted by: lylepink | January 13, 2008 9:11 AM
PLEASE SIGN PETITION ask-marian-wright-edleman-to-support-barack-obama
LINK BELOW:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/ask-marian-wright-edleman-to-support-barack-obama
Petition short version:
We the under signed ask Marian Wright Edleman to show
her support for Barack Obama for president 2008. We
also would appreciate Marian explaining why her
husband resigned from Bill clintons cabinet and why on
July 24th when Marian Spoke to Amy Goodman at
democracynow.org she didn't eleborate further in her
views of Hillary Clinton who proclaims to be the
candidate for childrens right.
The following are a few articles explaining in some
detail as to the clintons dealings with regards to
Marian Wright Edleman. (note: these articles can be
found at the petition site by clicking petition
overview under Marians picture)
PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY ASAP
Danielle Clarke
""Hillary Co-Ops Marians organization as if Marian is
endorsing her""
NOTE: The link to Hillary's site is below.
http://hillaryclinton.com/issues/family/
Go to hillaryclinton.com. Click 'HILLARY" tab at top
of page and select "Hillary's Story". Then on the
right of the page under "HILLARY ON THE ISSUES" click
"Supporting Parents and Caring for Children". In the
second paragraph read..."From her first job out of law
school at the Children's Defense Fund..."
Hillary is effectively associating herself with the
CDF without seeking actually saying she is and without
saying why Marian the individual citizen, her mentor
at CDF is not supporting her for the nomination. This
mention of the CDF by Hillary in this fashion does not
give the correct impression. Namely, that neither
Marian nor her husband, who resigned the Clinton
Administration in PROTEST, are at odds with the
Clinton's in a most serious way. What is the nature
of that disagreement when the Clinton's are giving the
impression that all is well with her relationship with
the CDF. This is SO a typically Clinton (not quite
honest) maneuver. Marian has a Christian and
Citizenship duty to correct that false impression. To
share the truth with the Democrats and the American
people BEFORE they nominate another Clinton to the
important job of President of the United States at
this critical point in our Nation's history.
Posted by: DANIELLECLARKE | January 13, 2008 9:03 AM
When Lasky says, "It's politics, and it happens," she must realize that this is exactly the kind of politics Barack Obama is running to change. I'm appalled that she essentially admits that she did no research on Obama's "present" votes before signing the damaging mailer and, therefore, did not recognize that his votes were part of a strategy by reproductive rights organizations in Illinois. In fact, the CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, Pam Sutherland, was quoted, "The poor guy is getting all this heat for a strategy we, the pro-choice community, did."
Posted by: longjaro | January 13, 2008 8:47 AM
This Republican's supported Obama since he announced in January, 2007. We need to get past the Clinton-Bush "slash and burn" politics as usual. If Obama is the nominee, I will not only vote for him, but volunteer and contribute again for him. If Clinton, with her sleaze factor, manages to wrest the nod, then I will vote for any, repeat any, Republican running. There are million of us out there who feel the same way.
Clinton can cry, scream, lie or whatever and it doesn't change the fact that she gave Bush blank checkes on Iran and Iraq, refused to tell us how she'll pay for "mandated" health care. There's a "fairy tale" to be sure and it's the Clinton's. They just love black folks too so long as they can be used to achieve their goal of power at all cost.
Posted by: NoMugwump | January 13, 2008 8:36 AM
You gotta love these "in spite" voters. Maybe that's how the clown in charge won in 2004. Go ahead and vote republican if Hillary gets the nod,you'll get what you deserve. Another 4 to 8 years of lying,cheating,war profiteering,etc........
I didn't have such a bad life in the 90's under Clinton,oops,yes Clinton. With the right people doing the right jobs things were accomplished,not like the incompetent cronies who've pretty much destroyed a once great nation. So go ahead and vote out of spite,I don't have much longer in this world anyways,but I would like to see Hillary turn everything around and prove how wrong all of you are.I guess it's the "in-thing" to hate Hillary,not for me.
Me,I'm voting for her just to spite all of you haters. LOL
Clinton/Biden 08'
Posted by: jime2000 | January 13, 2008 8:33 AM
kelsey: I see you and others are picking up what I have been saying about the Obama supporters. Like I have Posted on several sites a bunch of these folks never had any intention of voting for Obama in the GE, likely were not Dems, and part of the Repub strategy to stop Hillary, then going back to being Repubs or whatever, should by some miracle the Repub strategy of stopping Hillary did work. This viseral Hatred of Hillary is not coming from the most ardend Repubs I know, although they tell me to a person they "Fear" Hillary the most because, again every one of them KNOWS they can't beat hillary in 08 and are chomping at the bit in hopes of running against Obama. Yes, these folks are Repubs friends of mine for more than 30 [thirty] years and we do not lie to each other about politics, and Fight like hell for our parties.
Posted by: lylepink | January 13, 2008 8:01 AM
I have always respected the Clintons for their intelligence and hard work, but I have never had much respect for their tactics and their evasiveness. Now my feelings for them are increasingly negative, as it seems they leave a trail of divisiveness in their wake wherever they go. As they say, old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill. Let's just hope that Obama, and the American voter, will prove them wrong and that we are finally tired of the same old mud-slinging, whether it comes from the GOP or within the Democratic party. Shame on you, Clintons!
Posted by: clapol | January 13, 2008 6:38 AM
Now Hillary herself is saying that the offensive sense given to her New Hampshire-uttered words, and one imagines those of her Bill at Dartmouth, is due to the Obama campaign. She stopped in front of the press yesterday, Saturday, pre-loaded with comments on her comments on Martin Luther King, Jr. having been a failed change-agent who needed Lyndon Banes Johnson to make change occur, a simple effort of building on her idea of contrasting those with "dreams" and simple "words" to those who "act" with political experience -- seemingly to suggest that Obama, like King, is a wild-eyed idealist but politically-impotent wordsmith. Her denial of the importance of words in the New Hampshire debate--which tends to confirm a belief that, for her and others with experience, words are just so many disposable utensils--seems to have painted her into the proverbial corner. How to get out? By claiming that the Obama campaign is somehow controlling either how the words are heard by third parties everywhere, particularly black third parties, but also the press, or somehow are responsible for what she said in the first place. They put the words into her mouth! We are in a hall of mirrors where nothing is what it seems to be.
The Clintons have been running on the notion that she can get down and dirty and go toe to toe with the "Republican Attack Machine". But it seems to me that in their twenty-year push-pull relationship, The Clintons are a central cog in that machine. Would John McCain and Barack Obama be engaged in these types of underhanded activities -- from the race/gender gimmickry to vote suppression efforts, to full-court press efforts to distort your primary opponent's record and statements, or to drown out his voice, beginning on "day one" of his campaign? I do not think so. Let's insist on a modicum of honor and integrity. Otherwise, we can all shed crocodile tears.
Posted by: rarignac | January 13, 2008 6:03 AM
These Obama people are full of hatred, and, in fact, never would have voted for Hillary in the first place. His base is heretofore indifferent "independents" and Republicans. So once the primary season is over, they can go back to being indifferent and Obama Republicans can go back to being Republicans.
Hillary is supported by most registered Democrats. There is no Hillary backlash among real Democrats, and much to their chagrin she is still polling ahead of Obama in the primaries and all Republicans in the general election. So clearly, them spewing their vile hatred at her isn't working. I hope they keep it up, though, she could use more sympathy votes.
The fact is, no matter how you twist it, community organizing, ducking controversial votes in the Illinois state senate (and yes, he did duck votes contrary to all his talk about being "bold" and "changing the status quo), and a couple of years in the US Senate do not qualify Obama to be President. He's just too inexperienced.
And by the way, Clinton did fight against Reagan's cuts when she was on the board of the Legal Services Corp as she sat on that board well into the 80s. Nice try at trying to nullify that credential, though.
Posted by: DJK1 | January 13, 2008 5:48 AM
I think The Clintons would say a win is a win, even an ugly one. They are wrong, so wrong that they should be soundly rejected by voters everywhere. The extent of their dirty-tricks operations is impressive. No one in the Clinton campaign understood much of anything, didn't know they were distorting the record, impeding legitimate get out the vote efforts, playing the race card, manipulating women, and who knows what else. The whole vast choreography was but an accident, a mosaic of unwitting acts that weren't what they appear. And things are just warming up. I hope to God that the New Hampshire recount goes through and we can just be sure that there weren't other errors, accidents, misunderstandings. The U.S. needs no more duplicity, no more Clinton-Bush.
Posted by: rarignac | January 13, 2008 4:40 AM
Advice to voters in the remaining states:
If you get a negative mailer less than a week before the election, vote against the attacker rather than the intended victim.
Posted by: TomJx | January 13, 2008 3:30 AM
The Nashua Democrats website lists the events of all the candidates, implying they weren't playing favorites. But look at who's on the committee (Bette is married to Elliot.) Then they kick out Obama volunteers? If I were a Democrat in Nashue, I'd be asking those 'officers' a whole lot of questions.
http://nashuademocrats.blogspot.com/
Nashua Democratic City Committee
Jane Clemons, Chair
Bette Lasky, Vice-Chair
Paul Johnson, 2nd Vice-Chair
Elliot Lasky, Treasurer
Roberto Fuentes, Secretary
Posted by: TomJx | January 13, 2008 3:12 AM
That these Clinton spokespeople say 'meh, it's just politics, get over it' blows my mind. How they can be part of a dirty negative-trick campaign and expect people to just accept it is disgusting. Winning at all costs is a very hollow victory.
And these women who use the excuse that they don't understand Illinois' present vote just exhibit ignorance. The story has been on any number of front pages if they had any interest in finding out the truth and it's also extremely easy to find many quotes from the head of Illinois Planned Parenthood when she praises Obama's efforts to the hilt and calls him one of the leaders of the pro-choice movement. It makes me sick to my stomach to read how quick they are to lie about Senator Obama for Hillary Clinton's political gain. Disgusting.
Posted by: knuckleroad | January 13, 2008 2:52 AM
The easiest way for me to explain it is this: I'm a "Gen X Feminist" (if you're into stereotypical labels). Would I love to see a woman elected president? Absolutely! Am I willing to sacrifice my progressive politics to see it happen? Absolutely not!
Posted by: corrina_loca | January 13, 2008 2:48 AM
You have to be pretty stupid to sign a last-minute campaign letter without bothering to check it out first. Ms Lasky is 60 years old and has been a Representative since 1998 - ten years. Where's that vaunted Yankee skepticism? And removing Obama volunteers from polling stations? And all she can say is "that's politics"? Reminds me of what Hillary said about attacks on other candidates - that was the "fun part".
Here's a clue, Ms Lasky: that old-style politics is EXACTLY why people are supporting Barack Obama. If you stick with Team Clinton and sleazy tactics like this, you may want to have a Plan B for your own election.
Posted by: TomJx | January 13, 2008 2:43 AM
"Gossips get caught in their own Mouth Traps."
Posted by: lylepink | January 13, 2008 2:36 AM
I just want to mention that while MLK was leading the Civil Rights Movement, Hilary was a "Goldwater Girl."
Posted by: anitapreer | January 13, 2008 2:15 AM
Wanted to add to the Hillary resume comments:
1974, member of the Watergate impeachment staff.
Google "Hillary Nixon impeachment" for stories of how her lack of ethics started even then. Her boss, Jerry Zeifman, a Democrat, was the House Judiciary Committee's chief counsel when Congress was considering impeaching President Nixon, writes about it in his book:
1979, chair of the Rural Health Advisory Committee, successfully expanding health care funding in poor areas of Arkansas.
Appointed by Bill as governor.
1982-1992, chair of the Arkansas Educational Association, raising educational standards statewide.
Another Bill appointment.
1992-2000. Most important advisor in the White House.
I remember that she was kicked out of the adminstration because people couldn't stand her. I remember it because she was relegated to working with kids, it was so traditional it was sad.
Dick Morris noted above, opposes Hillary now.
2000-2008. US senator, sits on several important committee.
But, she has not produced any notable legislation.
Posted by: kiku | January 13, 2008 2:15 AM
Clinton, Lasky and others knew they were lying about Obama's record. They knew he had a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood and Noral. They understood the reason for the present vote, that it was designed to help the pro-choice legislation, at the request of pro-choice advocates. They knew all this. They just lied. In order to win. It's not just politics, get over it. It is lies!! That's why I, along with millions of AMericans are supporting Obama. We are sick of the lies; People that lie during a campaign will continue to lie to the American people. The way you run your campaign is the way you will govern. Shame on Lasky and the others and shame on Clinton. I am a feminist. I am disgusted with the women in the Clinton campaign and with Clinton herself.
Posted by: anitapreer | January 13, 2008 2:13 AM
BOKO: READ THE BILL.
Posted by: lylepink | January 13, 2008 2:11 AM
The Clinton campaign is apparently allergic to complexity and nuance. Any chance they get to simplify, distort, and lower the discussion to the lowest common denominator, they take. It's sickening. Anyone who knows anything about the Illinois State Senate supports Obama's "present" votes, and to misconstrue that record is reprehensible.
The Clintons should realize that you have to earn people's votes, they don't simply default to you after you've beaten everyone else in your party down. I may stay home in November, or at least my ears will be wide open to Mr. McCain, Mr. Bloomberg, anyone, really...
Posted by: PGriffin82 | January 13, 2008 2:02 AM
Thank you, Kiku.
Posted by: bokonon13 | January 13, 2008 2:00 AM
I've culled through several different sources, and put together Obama's list of accomplishments:
http://kikustuff.blogspot.com/2008/01/obamas-experience.html
This is just what he's gotten passed in the Senate, it's about as long as Hillary's resume posted above:
US Senate, 2004 - present
He is a member of the several Senate Committees:
* Committee on Foreign Relations, that plays a vital role in shaping US policy around the world.
* Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that addresses, among other things, issues of immigration and our borders.
* Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions: oversees our nation's health care, schools, employment, and retirement programs
* Committee on Veterans' Affairs: focused on providing our brave veterans with the care and services they deserve.
Legislation Passed in US Senate
* 2005-2006: Environment and Public Works Committee, which safeguards our environment and provides funding for our highways
* Cosponsored the Healthy Kids Act of 2007 and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Reauthorization Act of 2007 to ensure that more American children have affordable health care coverage.
* Obama worked to pass a number of laws in Illinois and Washington to improve the health of women. His accomplishments include creating a task force on cervical cancer, providing greater access to breast and cervical cancer screenings, and helping improve prenatal and premature birth services.
* As a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Obama passed legislation to improve care and slash red tape for our wounded warriors recovering at places like Walter Reed. He passed laws to help homeless veterans and offered an innovative solution to prevent at-risk veterans from falling into homelessness. Obama passed legislation to stop a VA review of closed PTSD cases that could have led to a reduction in veterans' benefits. He passed an amendment to ensure that all service members returning from Iraq are properly screened for traumatic brain injuries
* Lugar-Obama Act for reduction of conventional and nuclear weapons world wide
* Coburn-Obama Transparency Act transparency in federal spending
* Congo
* Darfur
* Introduced Patriot Employer Act, August 2007, to reward companies for keeping jobs in the US
* As a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee, Obama helped pass legislation in the recent improvements to the Higher Education Act to increase the maximum Pell Grant award to $5,10.
* Obama passed legislation with Senator Jim Talent (R-MO) to give gas stations a tax credit for installing E85 ethanol refueling pumps.
* Obama sponsored an amendment that became law providing $40 million for commercialization of a combined flexible fuel vehicle/hybrid car within five years.
* Congress ethics legislation passed by Obama and Feingold that ending subsidized corporate jet travel, mandating disclosure of lobbyists' bundling of contributions, and enacting strong new restrictions of lobbyist-sponsored trips
* Obama has introduced and helped pass bipartisan legislation to limit the abuse of no-bid federal contracts.
Posted by: kiku | January 13, 2008 1:53 AM
lyle, buddy, she DID vote to authorize the war. If you are claiming that she cast the vote in good faith, and did not know that Bush would take advantage of the opportunity it gave him to attack Iraq, well.... EVERYONE knew at the time that such was Bush's goal, and for Hillary to say that the bill 'included safeguards' and that the attack was only supposed to happen 'as a last resort' is just a little too clever.
She either knew perfectly well what was going to happen, or she is nowhere near as intelligent as her supporters make her out to be. and in re: "Hillary Hater" - I know it's alliterative, but it's also an overstatement. I don't "hate" Hillary. I've never met her. I will say that I dislike the public face of her campaign, especially in light of push polling, misinformation, and the other sneaky tricks listed elsewhere which I'm too tired to repeat here. It's all just much too Florida 2000 for me, especially coming from a supposed Democrat.
I will be voting a straight D ticket this fall, just like I always do... but if Hillary is the nominee, I will leave the line for president blank - either that, or write in Obama, Al Gore, Mike Bloomfield, maybe even Col. Bruce Hampton.
Hillary could have had my vote - I refer you to earlier posts on the Fix where I said I would vote for her if she were the nominee - but I do not now feel that she deserves it. If it's any consolation, I had thought about McCain, but some of his positions are too creepy for me, esp. about nukes and "Christian" moral values.
Posted by: bokonon13 | January 13, 2008 1:49 AM
lylepink:
Here's what happened to the Democratically held offices when the Clinton's were in office, and why the Repubs can't wait to run against Hillary:
1. In the 90s the Republicans regained the Congress for the first time in decades.
2. Dems lost 9 Governor positions.
3. Al Gore, the sitting VP, lost the following election.
4. Hillary did win the Senate. She claims campaign prowess got her there. In reality, Giuliani dropped out of the Senate race with Hillary, she basically had no opponent. Her re-election opponent was under funded. So, she can't claim her Senate seat as proof of knowing how to win.
What does this predict for the current elections: Two seats in the Congress were just now won by Republicans when campaigns linked the Dem contenders to Hillary.
THE PATTERN:
The Clintons are lethal to the Dem party, as much as people may remember the Clinton years fondly, it is not the Clintons who can bring them back.
Posted by: kiku | January 13, 2008 1:28 AM
vwcat, Boko, Marnie42, & Donna L. aka feathered-head: All of you are Obama supporters, and just read what each of you are Posting [saying] very carefully. At least have the courtesy of looking at what anyone would think you are anything else other that a "Hillary Hater". My 08:47PM Post in a reply to JPRS is 100% accurate, someone has brought up she voted to authorized the war in Iraq again, which is False, and has been shot down by reading the actual Bill she voted for.
Posted by: lylepink | January 13, 2008 1:25 AM
Here is part of an article that was linked to the front page of the Concord Monitor last Tuesday when NH voted:
Sen. Barack Obama faced a barrage of criticism on the campaign trail and in mailboxes yesterday, with his rivals criticizing his support of nuclear power and accusing him of taking an ambiguous position on abortion rights. Members of one advocacy group supporting Sen. Hillary Clinton called on its leader to stop a negative ad campaign against Obama.
...
Here is a rundown of the day's negative campaigning:
• A Clinton campaign flyer criticizing Obama's stance on abortion rights landed in New Hampshire mailboxes yesterday, accusing the Illinois senator of being "unwilling to take a stand on choice." On one side the flyer says, "a woman's right to choose . . .," with the backside displaying side-by-side comparisons of Clinton's and Obama's efforts to support abortion rights.
The mailer says Obama had seven opportunities in the Illinois state Senate to "stand up against Republican anti-choice legislation," but seven times he voted "present," instead of "yes" or "no."
"Being there is not enough to protect choice," the flyer says. In bold letters at the bottom it reads, "On January 8 you have a choice."
Obama campaign spokesman Reid Cherlin said the claim was false and already backfired once when Clinton tried to make it in Iowa. The campaign also provided a prepared statement from Lorna Barrett, the president of the Chicago chapter of the National Organization for Women. Brett called the mailer a "red herring."
"Barack Obama is and always has been there for the choice community. I know - I was there with him in the trenches," she said.
"This is offensive. I am pro-choice, pro-truth, pro-Hillary - in that order. And questioning the latter. I am very disgusted by this tactic being used by the Clinton campaign."
A story in the New York Times last month described Obama's "present" votes and quoted a spokeswoman for Illinois Planned Parenthood saying that the votes were actually part of a strategy to stymie anti-abortion legislation.
• Clinton also leveled some of her most pointed criticism of Obama on the campaign trail yesterday. At a stop yesterday morning at Merrimack Valley High School in Penacook, she told voters it was a mistake to support a health care plan that would not mandate health insurance for everybody.
"It's a mistake politically because it cedes to the Republicans the argument that we can't do this," she said. "I just totally reject that. Not only can we do it, we must do it. And it's wrong of us not to start out by trying to insure every single American. Because otherwise, we're going to start by leaving millions of people out."
• The American Federation of State, Municipal and County Employees, which has endorsed Clinton, has also blasted Obama's health care plan with several campaign mailers and radio ads in New Hampshire. Yesterday, Time's Mark Halperin posted on his blog a scathing letter written by AFSCME's executive board asking the union's president to stop the negative attacks against Obama.
Calling Obama "one of the great friends of our union," seven members of the group's International Executive Board said there was widespread agreement among board members to refrain from negative assaults against Clinton's rivals when the board voted to endorse her. The board members said they were "shocked and appalled" by the AFSCME campaign against Obama, which they said has been orchestrated by only two of the group's staffers with no input from its president, Gerald McEntee.
"It is also worth noting that the campaign that AFSCME is waging against Sen. Obama is fundamentally dishonest and inconsistent with past positions of our union, i.e. attacking him for not forcing individuals to purchase health care even if they can't afford it," the letter said. "The ads are a misleading in attempting to give the impression that they are associated with John Edwards rather than Hillary Clinton and in their claims that Sen. Obama's health care plan will exclude 15 million people when in fact every person will have the opportunity to participate."
The negative attacks give the union a "black eye" and hurt its chances of working with Obama if he becomes president, the letter says.
Concord Monitor
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080106/NEWS01/801060396/0/FRONTPAGE
Posted by: kiku | January 13, 2008 1:21 AM
"Hillary has so much experience, it''s ridiculous:
1970, provided free legal advice to the poor and researched for the Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor."
Translation: she was a law student doing basic volunteer and internship work. Compare this to Obama's law school record.
"1979, chair of the Rural Health Advisory Committee, successfully expanding health care funding in poor areas of Arkansas."
Maybe this is where she gained her deep insights into the cattle markets.
"1982-1992, chair of the Arkansas Educational Association, raising educational standards statewide."
All the way from 50th to 49th in the nation.
"1992-2000. Most important advisor in the White House."
Except for Dick Morris
"Meaning Hillary has been a public servant since Obama has been in diapers."
I'm guessing he wasn't in diapers when he was 9, or is that phase 2 of the kindergarten attacks?
Hillary is an intelligent human being with a great deal of life experience and policy work. Her actual experience as an elected official is far more limited.
Posted by: jonathanmstevens | January 13, 2008 1:04 AM
Kucinich is financing a recount in New Hampshire. Hillary's resume includes being the first woman on the board of Walmart.
Posted by: Marnie42 | January 13, 2008 12:59 AM
BOKO & Others: I always have said support the candidate of your choice, and I have defended Repubs when blatant Lies have been Posted against them. I make no bones about my support for Hillary she has the most to offer in getting things done that most of us want. It gripes the hell out of me when I see these blatant Lies Posted against anyone. Check and Re-Check when any of you see anything negative about anyone, above all check the source. Most times you can pretty well tell by the source whether it is a parsing of even a single word to fit, for or against. The folks that do these things are very, very good at what they do.
Posted by: lylepink | January 13, 2008 12:52 AM
Voter intimidation is a crime. The New Hampshire Attorney General ought to investigate what happened at Ward 9 in Nashua and at any other voting sites where such intimidation is alleged. He or she should do so regardless of the party or candidates involved, wherever there is a sound basis to believe that someone's voting rights were interfered with. C'mon - this really is outrageous.
Posted by: wesfromGA | January 13, 2008 12:52 AM
It's sad how the Hillary campaign is trying to destroy the best chance to get a Democrat in the White House by using their dirty tricks on Obama. Republicans would love to compete against Hillary...she was on the top of Judicial Watch's list of 2007 Top Ten Most Corrupt Politician. Obama has a greatness that could bring unity just as Hillary would bring division. Obama would be good for the country, Hillary would not.
Posted by: Marnie42 | January 13, 2008 12:48 AM
These Hillary supporters are clearly delusional. They simply cannot comprehend why their poor, sweet teary-eyed gal is receiving so much blowback from her fellow democrats -- so of course the dissenters must really be be republicans trolls! This is truly bizarre. WAKE UP FOLKS. I am a 50 yr old life long democrat -- voted democrat in every damned election no matter who the idiot was. This time we finally have a candidate WORTH VOTING FOR and all the Clintions and their minions can do is try to destroy him with racial slurs and fear-mongering. Who needs Karl Rove when we've got our very own! Well Hill -- here is an honest gal that is telling you the painful truth -- YOU'VE SCREWED-UP AND NOW I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR YOU OR ANY DEMOCRAT THAT ENDORSES YOUR CANDIDACY. So sincerely, Donna L.
Posted by: feathered_head | January 13, 2008 12:24 AM
Moreover, if the Clintons claim one more time that voting for the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" was not a vote to go to war in Iraq, I am going to have serious doubts that they can even read.
Posted by: pvanheesewijk | January 13, 2008 12:00 AM
and Lyle, btw, one of my colleagues, who is a somewhat active Republican, tells me that the GOP WANTS to run against Hillary... why else have they been demonizing her for so long? After the years of preparing their base for this election, they would be helpless, without a strategy, if they had to run against a newcomer like Obama. You will not accept this, I know, but the Republicans want and have been planning for Hillary as an opponent for several years.
Posted by: bokonon13 | January 12, 2008 11:53 PM
Make this a FRONT PAGE HEADLINE STORY. Follow it up and give it the life span of the "tears"...This one IS news.
Posted by: amstaur | January 12, 2008 11:52 PM
Samson says:
"1978, board member of the Legal Services Corporation successfully fighting President Reagan's attempts to reduce funding."
which is amazing, seeing as how Reagan was not elected until 1980, and not sworn in until January 1981. This and the other "experience" he lists are why we are apparently supposed to revere Mrs. Clinton. Lyle, whom I know from The Fix, is a dedicated Clinton supporter but a nice guy (as far as I can tell), although he will accuse me of "Hillary Hatred" after reading that I now plan, if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, to either leave the presidential line blank or to write in Obama or Bloomberg or someone.
After 8 years of W, the Democratic Party had better offer a clean and positive alternative, and this ain't it. Did she learn NOTHING from the hanging chads in Florida? or just the wrong lesson?
Posted by: bokonon13 | January 12, 2008 11:46 PM
To Samson:
One other thing to add to your list of Clinton's accomplishments.
2002- Voted to authorize the war in Iraq.
Posted by: pvanheesewijk | January 12, 2008 11:39 PM
Samson says:
"1978, board member of the Legal Services Corporation successfully fighting President Reagan's attempts to reduce funding."
which is amazing, seeing as how Reagan was not elected until 1980, and not sworn in until January 1981. This and the other "experience" he lists are why we are apparently supposed to revere Mrs. Clinton.
Posted by: bokonon13 | January 12, 2008 11:36 PM
I have been a democrat my whole life and have backed the nominee, as horrid as the candidate was, but, if Hillary is the nominee I will not vote for her.
I cannot stand the Clintons and their Rovian tactics and find them an embarassment to our party. They cling to power and demand more when they should have long ago bowed out.
I will either vote independent or stay home but, I will never give my vote to Hillary.
I am hoping my party shows more sense this time and nominates the superior candidate, Obama
Posted by: vwcat | January 12, 2008 11:23 PM
so,how did that 2004 hand recount work out?
Conspiracy theories tend to rebound.
Posted by: auntbeth | January 12, 2008 10:55 PM
Samson,
If Clinton has been in public life since 1971, its the high time this baby-boomer called it a day.
Sad, Bill was president when it was actually her turn, unfortunately its Obama time
Posted by: FebM | January 12, 2008 10:54 PM
It is very upsetting that we allow things like this to go on and public officals shrug it off saying "we need to get over it" and think it will go away. This is the United States Of America and I say if we are going to hold Marion Jones accountable for her actions then why not our Elected Officials. If this is true Hillary Clintons' name should be romoved from all state ballots. It would be un-American to continue to support her.
Posted by: nawtitus | January 12, 2008 10:48 PM
zukermand: Take a look at the Post just after yours by ngatabaki. This is exactly what I am talking about. When they don't get their way, it is exactly like the Bush "My way or the Highway" or "You're with us or against us." I believe with all my heart Obama has ZERO chance of winning in 08 and Hillary is the only Dem that can win in 08. I base this on many things, and the one I find most convincing is The "Fear" Factor Repubs have of Hillary, because most of them KNOW they cannot beat her.
Posted by: lylepink | January 12, 2008 10:32 PM
There is something to be said for integrity and honesty. There is no way I'd vote for the likes of Hillary or Romney. I'm a Democrat and I'm hoping that Obama gets the nomination. I'd even enthusiatically support John Edwards if he staged a comeback. If Hillary wins the nomination, I'll be first in line to cast a vote for a Republican.
Let's face it, these cheap tricks cannot be discounted as hard-knuckled politics. A liar is a liar...period. Hillary is so divisive that she has already created a deep divide in the democratic party, to say nothing of the visceral reaction she evokes from Republicans.
And for all you touting Hillary's "experience", I have two points for you to ponder. First, Cheney and Rumsfield had all the "experience" in the world and look where that got us. It's not about experience, it's about judgement. Secondly, to break the gridlock in Washington and actually get things done, one will need to build a working majority. Hillary failed miserably in her attempt at Healthcare reform in the nineties largely because she does not have the capability of bringing people together.
Obama, McCain or Huckabee for President!!! We need some integrity, honesty and class in the Whitehouse. Additionally, we need someone whose first instinct is to build concensus and is able to garner support from Independents and members of the opposite party.
Hillary benefitted from a "protest vote" by the women of NH. Ironically, if she wins the nomination, she'll lose Dems in the General who'll give a "protest vote" to the Republicans. I'm proud to say that one of those protest votes will be mine.
Instead of Congress investigating cheating in baseball, how about they investigate cheating in politics?
Posted by: ngatabaki | January 12, 2008 9:37 PM
It's either triumphant chest-beating or whining, with no in between. Obama supporters sound entirely too much like Republicans for my taste.
Posted by: zukermand | January 12, 2008 9:24 PM
Wow! You get the feeling here that the win-at-any-cost tactics have become so dirty that an ABC (anybody but the Clintons) reaction may last into November...unless citizens of states beyond these New Hampshire women rise up and put a stop to personal smears, voting impediments, and distortions of a candidate's record.
Iowans played fair. Perhaps New Hampshire will prove an aberration.
Posted by: FirstMouse | January 12, 2008 9:20 PM
The Clinton distortions and outright lies in New Hampshire are not rumors, they are established facts. In the short-run these tactics may benefit her in the run for the party nomination, but they will cost her in the general election if the GOP provides a moderate alternative -- or if an independent candidate offers a compelling alternative to either of the major party candidates.
The Democratic party will have a very difficult time winning in November purely on the backs of the old guard Democratic establishment if Clinton is the nominee. It is a sad statement that the old guard is more intent on maintain control over the primary process than it is in winning in November.
At the very least, it is comforting to know that we are likely to retain control of the House and Senate going into 2009. The party establishment exhibits at least some interest in expanding its base of support in these elections -- and the results paid dividends in 2006. At least in the case of New Hampshire though, it does not appear that the party's old guard learned the lessons of the 2006 election cycle.
Posted by: JPRS | January 12, 2008 9:20 PM
Re: fluter.harpsong
"It certainly seems that the mainstream media is doing all they can to silence and force Dennis Kucinich out of the race"
I believe the voters are doing a decent job with that. We've learned from 2004 that Kucinich will not stop running. Even once Kerry had knocked off every other opponent and had an insurmountable lead, Kucinich was demanding 1 on 1 debates. Hey, he enjoys his time in the spotlight, but isn't a serious candidate. Not that he's not serious, but can anyone seriously think he could win the primaries, let alone a general election?
BB
Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 12, 2008 9:05 PM
JPRS: These are not rumors. Indeed they are a Proven FACT. I watch polls on a daily basis and most of them are slanted, just take a look at what happened in NH only a few days ago. The high negatives you mention are only the result of mostly FALSE accusations that have been repeated over and over again for at least the past 15 [Fifteen] years or so. Mr. Starr knowingly had innocent people indited, convicted, and sent to prison while Bubba was Prez in an effort to get him along with Hillary as well. Again, I caution you and others to check and recheck whatever bad information you read or hear about the Clintons.
Posted by: lylepink | January 12, 2008 8:47 PM
Lylepink, my guess is that those rumors that you were hearing originated somewhere inside Hillary Clinton's headquarters.
The reality is that all three of the Democratic candidates have their own electoral advantages and disadvantages. A lot depends too on who the GOP nominee is, and whether there are any legitimate contenders running as independent spoilers.
Clinton though has incredibly high negatives already -- ranging from 42 to 46% of the electorate. Those negative numbers will not magically disappear over the course of the next year.
Her very presence on the ballot will drive the opposition to the polls. She also tends to get high negatives from independents -- meaning that she is going to be pressed to get cross-over support in battleground states. She cannot win in most battleground states if she does not win the independent vote by at least a 5 to 10% margin.
The other side of Clinton's scorched earth primary wedge strategy is that it risks alienating voters who might otherwise be sympathetic to Clinton on some issues (if she wins the nomination), so not only will she go into the general election with those very high negatives, but she's going to have to spend a lot of time attempting to rebuild bridges within the party.
Posted by: JPRS | January 12, 2008 8:26 PM
I notice most of the "Hillary Haters" comments are coming from those that claim to support Obama. Now I have no way of knowing if these folks actually support Obama or not, but I learned a few months ago about an all out effort by Repubs to stop Hillary, even going as far as to changing their voter registration. I have Posted this information on several sites, and advise each of you to be careful when you see things like--"There in no way in Hell I will vote for Hillary." or words to that effect.
Posted by: lylepink | January 12, 2008 8:01 PM
It certainly seems that the mainstream media is doing all they can to silence and force Dennis Kucinich out of the race:
http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2008/01/12/nbc-un-plugs-kucinich-from-presidential-debate/
Kucinich was had been invited to participate in the Jan. 15 Democratic Presidential debate in Las Vegas, but NBC re-wrote the criteria and un-invited him. This is just so wrong.
Posted by: fluter.harpsong | January 12, 2008 7:33 PM
As a former resident of NH, I am reading these comments with such disappointment, but not surprise. The Kathy Sullivan-connected Dems in 2000 did the same to Bradley supporters (I heard personal stories of local officials who were told that if they endorsed/campaigned for Bradley over Gore, they would be ostracized by the State Party. Many of the women's names don't surprise me at all. I adore Paul Hodes & Carol Shea Porter, who had the chuzpah to back someone other than the State Party choice. I hope that the 2 of them will have enough clout to turn this little inner circle around. As a Boomer Woman in my 50's I will never, never vote for Hillary Clinton. I will also not vote for a Republican in this presidential race. It may well be the first time since I turned 18 that I don't exercise my right to vote in a general election for president. I'm hoping that it won't come to that. I simply don't understand how voters can continue to allow themselves to be so manipulated. Ugh.
Posted by: jrsweld | January 12, 2008 7:28 PM
I'm pro-Obama, but I've said all along that I'll happily support the nominee. Then I read things like this, and I understand why my husband, a lifelong Democrat, says he'd vote for McCain over Clinton.
This story just underscores why it's important to break Iowa and NH's stranglehold on the early polling. Especially in NH, where the Republicans' GOTV phone-jamming scandal a few years ago all seems part-and-parcel of the way business is done there. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Mme. Clemons, when are you up for re-election?
Posted by: kparrparr | January 12, 2008 7:27 PM
It certainly seems that the mainstream media is doing all they can to silence and force Dennis Kucinich out of the race:
http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2008/01/12/nbc-un-plugs-kucinich-from-presidential-debate/
Kucinich was had been invited to participate in the Jan. 15 Democratic Presidential debate in Las Vegas, but NBC re-wrote the criteria and un-invited him. This is just so wrong.
Posted by: fluter.harpsong | January 12, 2008 7:27 PM
Which candidate is the most searched for on Google.com? The answer may surprise some:
http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=31
Posted by: davidmwe | January 12, 2008 6:48 PM
Hillary has so much experience, it''s ridiculous:
1970, provided free legal advice to the poor and researched for the Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor.
1974, member of the Watergate impeachment staff.
1977, co-founder of the Arkansas Advocate for Children and Families.
1978, board member of the Legal Services Corporation successfully fighting President Reagan's attempts to reduce funding.
1979, chair of the Rural Health Advisory Committee, successfully expanding health care funding in poor areas of Arkansas.
1982-1992, chair of the Arkansas Educational Association, raising educational standards statewide.
1992-2000. Most important advisor in the White House.
2000-2008. US senator, sits on several important committee.
Meaning Hillary has been a public servant since Obama has been in diapers. He dipped his toe in the Senate, and now a year later he thinks he's qualified to be President? Really? Change? Change what? Fired up and ready to go...ready to go where? Yes we can...do what? All slogans, no specifics. All words, no actions? All charisma, no competence.
He's just not qualified to be President, sorry.
Posted by: samson | January 12, 2008 6:33 PM
One slight clarification. By harping on the "present" vote the Clinton campaign was recycling attacks from Dem and Repub opponents in Sen. Obama's 2004 campaign - 4 YEARS AGO. It didn't work then but it wasn't dropped on voters 2 days before the vote then. The Clinton campaign shrewdly saved this for a last minute tactic because they knew it would not stand up to scrutiny.
See the repost of a March 19,2004 blog article by Chicago Tribune's, Eric Zorn:
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2007/12/disparagement-o.html
If you want to see substantial discussion on the difference between an Illinois bill and a Federal bill see Eric Zorn's archive and look for the August 19, 2004 entry:
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2004/08/index.html
Posted by: johnnyna | January 12, 2008 6:19 PM
geez, i wonder how NH will rally behind Obma after he called them racists.
My guess, they won't.
Posted by: newagent99 | January 12, 2008 6:04 PM
"Get over it" is what the Bushies kept yelling after they stole the 2008 Presidential election. Tread carefully Hilary! Next you may try to call yourself a uniter not a divider.
Posted by: thebobbob | January 12, 2008 5:46 PM
In '04 the party was behind Sen. Kerry and his platform and his plan to change our approach to the war on terrorism.
Earlier this week two days before NH primary Pres. B. Clinton made the argument that Sen. Obama's position on the war had changed and the he was disingenuous and then capped the argument with the "pure fantasy" comment. In '04 Sen. Obama suporrted Sen. Kerry's candidacy and even gave the keynote speech at the convention. Two days after NH Sen. Kerrry endorses Obama.
This story has legs not just because of the "pure fantsy" comment, but because the Clinton's never gave up power over the Democratic party. Kerry never got the help in '04 in front or behind the scenes. Pres. B.Clinton used Obama's support for Kerry against him.
If i were Kerry I not only would have endorsed Obama I would have explained to the Democratic party why.
Posted by: vaderduck | January 12, 2008 5:45 PM
If Hillary wins - she should not be supported by Dems - teach these people that these types of tactics will not stand.
Posted by: vn313 | January 12, 2008 5:43 PM
albeit vice-versa, Ron Paul the most like Martin Luther King, grammatically speaking.
Posted by: davidmwe | January 12, 2008 5:28 PM
Martin Luther King may be more like Ron Paul:
"Martin Luther King, Ron Paul and war."
http://ronpaul.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=28
Posted by: davidmwe | January 12, 2008 5:25 PM
The Clintons have been at the center of American politics for a looong time; and during that time we've seen so much rewriting of history to suit their purposes, so much distortion of the records of their opponents, so much effort put into severely discrediting anyone who threatens their power. They have consistently engaged in a base, cynical form of politics---pushing the emotional buttons of folks whose lives don't allow them the luxury of a higher education nor the time for sophisticated analysis.
Looks like some folks In New Hampshire have seen more than enough of this Clinton/Rove style and are pushing back.
Posted by: ricknej | January 12, 2008 5:22 PM
The Clinton machine's tactics are vulgar and reflective of her true values: power at any cost. Clinton's comparison of Obama to MLK and herself to LBJ is more telling than she may have intended.
Posted by: Seytom1 | January 12, 2008 5:09 PM
When the election began, I just thought Hillary was dull--another Gore or Kerry. She's not. She's far worse. Why on earth would people who flocked to Obama for a positive uplifting message, just "get over it" if their candidate is successfully slimed by Mrs. Clinton. I don't think there is much likelihood of this, but as my son likes to say "just what if."
I have voted for the democratic candidate for president every year since I first voted at age 18 over 2 decades ago. I am shocked to even be considering not voting for the democratic candidate, but if it's Hillary, well, I may be washing my hair.
Posted by: AgathaX | January 12, 2008 5:08 PM
Barack Obama for President of the UNITED States of America.
End Nepotism in the White House.
America is a Democracy - Not a Monarchy.
Posted by: PulSamsara | January 12, 2008 4:36 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Keep working ,great job!
http://www.newfxlive.com/testing-forex-trading-software.html " target="_top">testing forex trading software