Virtually every pundit, regardless of political bent, has propagated the meme that Hillary has run a scorched-earth, kitchen-sink campaign that leaves Barack Obama no choice but to reluctantly start playing a little hardball.
This meme has reached nearly 100% saturation. Even the seraphim that circle Obama’s head are surely telling him to take the gloves off.
This weekend, a friend wrote me, saying that Hillary’s “running the way a Republican would… always out to destroy their opponent… trying to emasculate him, belittling his credentials to be president, even as she dangles the second spot. That the kind of chutzpah you expect of GOP primary contestants in any year but this one.”
Another said that she gives the impression that “she would sacrifice her whole party and all semblance of dignity for her shot at the White House.”
And a third termed her response to the “Is Barack a Muslim?” question “sleazoid,” until I sent him Eric Boehlert’s thorough debunking of that mini-meme.
For those who’d rather print the fact than the legend, the Clinton campaign has assembled a strong case showing that the Obama campaign is, and has been, a veritable factory for tear-down-your-opponent mudslinging.
Clinton Internet Director Peter Daou has circulated an e-mail listing numerous examples of the Obama campaign using its famous way with words to completely belittle Hillary Clinton, doing what she’s endlessly accused of doing: endangering the opposing candidate’s chances in the general election.
The Clinton campaign also created a more-exhaustive compilation of Obama’s attacks on Hillary, dating back over a year, at www.attacktimeline.com.
Now, for those who are ready to rethink the media-fed myth that Hillary’s the low-blow artist in this fight, and that Barack’s a political pacifist, let’s consider the topics that are generally cited as the crookedest cuts of all.
First, the race card. Let’s not be lying nitwits here. Race (and gender) were always factors in this campaign. You could fill a library with citations about the “meaning” of this “historic” campaign, the signals it would send to the world, and so on. But bringing racism into the mix was the Obama campaign’s invention. What else do you call twisting Bill’s “fairy tale” comment about Obama’s Iraq War credibility into racism? And morphing his praise for LBJ’s role in civil rights into a dance on MLK’s grave, thereby helping seal for Obama a nearly unanimous black vote in South Carolina? It’s beyond me how anyone who has hit the fainting couch over divisive campaign tactics doesn’t recognize this as the low point of this campaign — the fabrication of claims that your opponent is a racist (and, to boot, so is the only Democratic president we’ve had since 1980).
Secondly, maybe you’re in a lather over the “3AM ad.” Putting aside the surreal New York Times op-ed which saw images of sleeping white children (two of whom, as the commentator observes with grave suspicion, “seem vaguely Latino”) as a callback to the Willie Horton ad and Birth of a Nation, the ad says — in its cheesy and derivative way — that the candidate who paid for the ad is the better bet in a crisis. Just the kind of underhanded implication you’d expect from someone who didn’t have the decency to quit the race when the Kewl Kidz said she should. Shameful. Why can’t she run uplifting ads, which claim her opponent will “say anything and do nothing.” What could possibly help the party more in the general election? If Hillary pulls this thing out, she’ll probably want to run that ad herself, with its warmly supportive message of progressive unity.
Finally, there is Hillary’s statement implying that only she, among the remaining Dems, can match up to McCain on experience. Given how Dick “Gravitas” Cheney wiped the floor with John Edwards in the 2004 debate (despite how singularly terrible Cheney’s “experience” is), this is a legitimate concern for the general election, no? Still, once again, Obama plays the gentleman, by saying that Sen. Clinton has “higher negatives” and reveling in the implication that his supporters won’t back her in November.
I’m going to name my Unity
Pony “higher negatives,” because that’s what a high-road candidate would say. Oh, and as with Obama’s other above-board blows, this preceded the offending Hillary statement or ad.
What Obama’s putting out about Hillary is good for the party, right? Just like his supporters’ endlessly perpetuating the myth that Hillary is a monstrous cheater, who runs like a Republican and will gladly destroy her party in a deranged and desperate grab for “her precious.” How could that possibly hurt her, and us, in the general election?
It can’t, because she’s a zombie, a machine, a bitch, and certifiably insane, as we hear 24/7. She may cry crocodile tears, but she isn’t capable of feeling any real pain — and if she does she deserves it, right?
Nothing you say about Hillary or her husband — no matter how demeaning or untrue — could ever hurt them personally, or could diminish her chances in the general election, because she mustn’t be allowed to be nominated. Even if Obama has to steal votes in FL and MI, with his cynical 50/50 ploy, because that’s the right thing to do.
Because she’s the devil. This I know, because AM radio told me so. It would be bad for the party to think otherwise.
Front page
Democratic Party? Obama Don't Need No Democratic Party
He’s a movement, don’t you know?
And it’s a good thing he doesn’t need us Democrats because as Jerome Armstrong pointed out, after having his supporters call half the party racists and having his own team push racism charges against the Clintons and her prominent backers (and always right before a primary in a state with a large black population, coincidence I’m sure), good luck getting the folks you’ve repeatedly called racists to support you. From Jerome’s Post (see http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/16/2059…):
My solution will be...
… to vote for the guy, if the country is unfortunate enough to have him as the nominee, and work for policies that I support. If he felt he needed my vote, he would have asked for it, and heck, these guys are experts, so who am I to argue?
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Lambert, I think he *is* asking for your vote...
… as long as you regret your bickering in the 60s and 90s — and if you’ll pledge unity with your conservative cousins. And if you’re sorry for failing to understand that religion is the key to morals, values, and culture.
Look, he gave up Rev. Wright, so why can’t you give up a little something?
I'd send this out in an email
but I don’t want to lose a swath of friends who’d reply saying ’this is all completely false!’
Sigh. Just like the comedian said about being a husband: “You can be either Happy… or Right. You choose.”
Blogtopus, as a Buddy Holly fan...
… I’d love to hear the crickets singing when you ask your friends what’s false about it.
Oh, don't worry, they'd reply
The level of double-talk obfuscation would be enough to pucker the Grand Canyon.
On it!
I have an entire booksmarks folder on debunking links, with even damn subfolders (e.g., Obama and the media smearing the Clintons as racists; Iraq war; “kitchen sink” myth). However, I doubt the truth will set the OFB
free and even when my sane friends, acquaintances are set straight they still can’t quite believe it (But TV said so!). The greater the lie, the stronger the myth.
I wish the Attack Timeline included debunking links next to each attack (as much as possible considering how many are personal like this gem, which isn’t on her site). Her Fact Hub is good, but becomes a bit difficult to search through, as it’s chronologically based and does not include tags or allow for topic or keyword search.
Hillary's positive campaign
Last fall probably seems like ages ago at this point, but think back….
Hillary Clinton was running a wholly positive, issue-focussed campaign — and she was winning. All the candidates were running positive, issue oriented campaigns. While Obama rose quickly in the polls, he plateaued weil below Clinton, and then started slowly fading.
Suddenly, the media is full of stories on how Obama has to attack Hillary if he is going to gain any ground on her. And Obama announces to the NY Times that he is going to attack her in the next debate. And everyone at that debate (except for Richardson) went after her — so much so that Obama’s “weak” attacks wound up being criticized, and Edwards was finally getting some media love because his attacks were much shaper. So Obama sharpened his attacks.
This is the real origin of the degradation of this campaign — Obama’s understanding that only by doing the media’s bidding, and attacking Clinton, would he remain the media darling.
a hurting the country list is needed too--
-Reviving Harry and Louise, which ensures no progress on universal healthcare for another 20 years.
—Willfully minimizing and ignoring and denigrating the real racial problems we have until now as just something we need to move on from and that they’re just old ways, etc—all in order to reassure whites which perpetuates and enables their stereotypes and fears as completely valid.
—Ignoring the fact that it’s not partisanship alone and “old fights/old politics” —-but GOP partisanship and crimes alone—- that have hurt us, and ignoring the willful obstructionism and dismantling of our safety nets/oversight/etc that keeps these fights necessary.
—(connected to above—Casting very real and needed and ongoing fights for justice and equality and rights and services and needs, etc, as things we need to move on from and as “divisive” and “partisan” instead of fights all should be fighting or as causes worth the fight.
—Adopting GOP frames for many issues, which reinforces them and further castrates liberal/progressive progress. (this really is a fundamental hurt happening overall)
—Pushing a “unity” thing that further weakens our checks-and-balances system, and weakens all opposition—all things our very system of govt is explicitly set up to have if it is to function effectively.
….
You know what I want to know?
The older women who are Hillary supporters — the new voters that nobody covers. How do we in what remains of the blogosphere get in touch with them? Are they ever online? Where? Forums?!?!? Who knows?
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
i thought they were the base-old voters and loyal to
bread-and-butter issues—
i hear over and over that female voters always vote more practically than men do. And that we Dems have always gotten more women than the GOP —and that older ppl vote more always too.
I know the demographics...
… but where do they hang out online?
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
ohhh--ivillage? those senior sites? hobby/craft sites?
nostalgia sites? sites that teach stuff, like eldercollege(?)….
Many women in their 50s and younger are at all the usual sites, i find.
But are there "usual sites" that I don't know about?
All I know is the blogosphere. See?
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
you'd have to slice and dice--
everywhere from giant catchalls like yahoo games to knitting sites to ebay to community sites that have grown up around places like ebay and tv shows, etc…Oprah’s site has a gigantic community online, and Ellen’s show too, i think.
communities of all sorts—it’s not like there are 10-20 places where you’re sure to find a million older female voters, i don’t think (except maybe Oprah’s). There are gigantic shopping/bargain/coupon communities too, etc, but i’m stereotyping.
it's single women who need to be brought in,
i think—there are too many young and older who just don’t vote at all.
They’re natural Dems but don’t participate.
Older women (like me as both Jewish and gay) already are involved and loyal and wouldn’t go GOP—the older ones tried that w/Reagan (my mom did so after a whole life of Dem voting before and since), and he hurt women and families and society/community, etc.
here’s a q i should have asked earlier—What for? Why know their communities online?
what for?
, i should have asked earlier.
What for?
So we can post and comment there!
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
lambert, i'm nearly 50. i hang here, at Eschaton, at Allpar,
sometimes on icanhascheezburger.com, daily at FirstDraft, and at least twice a week on a sewing/crochet site.
Don’t go to Oprah or Ellen, though … check with leah and xan and CD, dude. Gardening sites (even the gardeners’ space at the great orange has some sensible people left in it).
Women will be where good writing happens.
Women will be where the things they care about make headlines.
Women are at corrente, and I suspect we could get more to stop by if we try.
where are the olde wimmin at?
hell, they’re everywhere! as many feminists have pointed out, the problem with getting old when you’re a woman is that you become…invisible. menfolk cease to see you once your girl parts aren’t fluffy.
anyway, i second what sarah said. women are all over, where there is good writing and topics of interest. what do older women do? well, everything, truth be told. from raising children to caring for elders, to working at a job in managment, administration, education, gov’t. from caring for a home to raising money for charity, to churches and houses of worship to stockholder groups and political clubs.
this may be too much, but i’ll say it anyway: older women run the world. men just pretend otherwise, and give themselves fancy titles and fat paychecks, while they leave all the actual work to “secretaries” and “project managers.” if all women over 45 disappeared at the same time, the world would come to a grinding halt in about, say, thirty seconds.
older women are everywhere. just go out there and call to them, they will come. they’re serious though, more than we are, many won’t like that you say Fuck
all the time. ;-)
Well, if I have to swear off saying Fuck...
… to push Hillary forward in her demographic, then I will. That’s the goal.
On the other hand, there are plenty of crones who don’t mind salty language at all. Perhaps that is where I/we/some ought to be looking.
You know though, neither you nor Sarah give me anything concrete go on. What site do I get a login for, and head for the political forums? I don’t, er, knit.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
going with what i know:
start with gardening sites. here’s one. does the league of women voters have a blog/forum? what about some of the bigger “women’s organizations?” everyone is getting with the online program these days. seems to me you should start with what you know (politics) and ask around from there where else those readers go.
you know my problem: i only read about politics, and gardening/crafting. other than that, i’m quite interwebs-illiterate. that reminds me- you may want to try a celebrity site. i guess people already mentioned oprah’s. would that be worth it? more people do celebrity blogging than political, but a huge amount.
One of the big craft sites is...
http://www.etsy.com
There are forums, but they don’t seem to be super-political.
Other Popular Sites for Women
Here’s a list of supposed popular sites for women -http://mashable.com/2007/11/19/comscore-popular- womens-sites/ . It looks www.cafemom.com and www.ivillage.com might be good bets. I know ivillage used to be huge, even though I personally have not participated.
Also, Facebook is the most popular site for young women and My Space is second.
And, of course, there is always www.Blogher.com, which has lots of blogs by women and might be a good source to other women-friendly websites.
I tried to think how I find websites, being a woman and all, and I’m not sure. I don’t think I routinely visit any “women’s” sites. But even though I am nearly 40, I have a number of friends who recently joined Facebook. Constantly getting the links.
Update: Oh, wait, I do go to a number of fitness sites even if I don’t participate in their forums. It looks like Shape Magazine has a forum that includes a thread to discuss lots of things, including politics (http://boards.shape.com/ib/ikonboard.cgi…). Not a lot of posts in the threads, but there is one on Obama’s speech, so clearly politics is discussed there.