That was powerful.

After watching the special comment and a number of related Olbermann videos in this Dkos diary, I am now firmly of the opinion that Hillary Clinton has betrayed the feminism, the feminist movement, women in America and basic humanity.

Respect is the fundamental principle of feminism.  You do not argue for rights without first recognizing the basic inalienable respect due to all human beings.  The fact that rights follow regardless of gender, race, creed, wealth or any other determinant is secondary to the basic respect owed to all human beings.

If ever a feminist argued that Hillary was the first, best choice for a woman to be elected president, this episode discredits the argument.  Hillary has not only failed the commander in chief test, but every leadership test, as well as the basic right of entry to the Democratic party, and the right to a single vote.  This is beneath contempt, reprehensible, and possibly the single most disgusting moment in our shared political life.

Despite 8 years of Bush, Hillary could actually secure the White House for a Republican, because even though nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people, America still believes in respect.

Ridicule me all you want, but I believe he's in the same league as Murrow and Cronkite.

What was great about Cronkite was that he gave you the news as it was, and left the opinions to you.  

Murrow told you the news, and what he felt about it.  Olbermann's "Good Night and Good Luck" is well chosen.

really needed to be said...her political team is just abysmal, they have gone so negative this campaign, they've burned every bridge that could get to.  It seems like she's running this primary like Bush is running for election, throw out the red meat to a narrow group of constituencies, and hope that gets you over the top.  She might just win it that way too..ughh.

I'm calling MJW out. Please explain what you found offensive about the three above comments. You rated each of them with a 1. This is uncalled for, and if you down rate a comment at least stick around to let them know why you are down rating them.

n/t

Some Hillary supporters, like aznew and AIAW, contribute genuinely and I enjoy the debate.  Some, like MJW and notwaltertejada, are the kind of people who have turned this primary so incredibly negative.

who simply drop a "0" or "1" rating, but don't really contribute much otherwise.  For instance, MJW has written a grand total of 18 comments and no diaries since he or she joined in April 2007.  But MJW hands out a LOT of ratings without any explanation.  That's really not the point of the ratings system, especially for people who don't really participate in this community.

Hillary is a good person, and she has proven this many times in her life. Many of us can only dream to achieve half of what she has done.

Yet Olbermann has correctly pointed out that Hillary and her campaign are engaged in what seems like racist campaigning.

Hillary knows that this is wrong.

Regardless of the religious beliefs that you have or may not have, this is the time to pray for Hillary, keep her in our thoughts, or wish her sound judgment, however you feel the most comfortable expressing the idea of taking a minute or so to wish that her heart will change.

I am going to Pray for Hugo's vision to return.

I am stuck wearing glasses for the rest of my life :P

Sorry if I am too obtuse, but what exactly are you objecting about my comment :)?  

I too wish that her heart will change.

Most of us saw this a long, long time ago. We saw that she cares only for her own ambition. We saw her trying to be Bushier than Bush. I pray for those of you who have not been able to see this character flaw, that your eyes will be opened.  

twists everything around so that it's always somebody else's (particularly Obama's) fault.  With the Clintons, apparently it's NEVER their fault, it's also a "vast conspiracy" of some sort or the other.  It really gets old.

Both she and Ferraro blamed Obama for the whole episode.  By what logic?

She is Balkanizing this campaign.  And in so doing, she is doing the GOPs work for it.

She also managed to succeed in totally eclipsing the twelve retired generals appearing with Obama yesterday to make the point that his foreign policy is solid, laudable, and forward looking.

that I thought that was a bit much.

I have expressed a similar opinion in posting here over the last couple of days with respect to Ferraro's comments. I'm just not sure that the Clinton's inept tactical response warranted a 9-minute rant.

I don't want to go point-by-point refuting what KO said. I understand that he expresses the depth of what what many feel. I'll take just one example.

KO mentions Clinton's "hesitation" in responding to Steve Kroft's "Is Obama a Muslim" question on 60 Minutes. While KO allows for the possibility that the reaction to that was excessive, why even bring it up at all? Hillary Clinton did not hesitate in answering Steve Kroft -- she answered him immediately and unequivocally. It was only when Kroft kept asking the same question that she got a bit confused, probably wondering why Kroft was asking the question again.

I use it only as one example of the "Clinton Rules" in operation, and it is disappointing (although not surprising, based on a semi-personal experience with KO and his WPITW segment I had over the summer) to see KO using them.

Anyway, I woner whether MSNBC will allow him to anchor coverage of primaries going forward. He can say what he wants, but he has clearly put himself in the Obama camp -- not by his opinion, but by hi use of spin and Obama-friendly interpretation of facts to make his point.  

because they add up and start looking like a pattern.

You probably will agree with me that one of the problems with this whole issue is that it is not believable that the Clinton's are inept politicians.

So when a series of attacks start have a similar pattern, most of us have a hard time to believe that she was inept and attribute this to intentional acts.

Now, this may be the truth, they may have just have mishandled  these incidents. We are all humans.

What we need to see now from Clinton, and I believe that you would also agree on this, is for her to strongly denounce racial attacks and to renounce negative campaigning to clear up the negative taint that hovers around her campaign now.

Not only is denouncing this crap the right thing to do, I think it is good politics. I do not understand why they let this fester for more than a few hours.

I hear what you are saying about the pattern, and honestly, I'm not sure what to make of it. National campaigns are often less disorganized that we might think (for a variety of reasons, GOP campaigns are able to usually exercise better discipline), and my question is whether 6 or 7 incidents over a period of a year is a pattern that is evidence of intent, or is simply reflective of the sorry state of race relations throughout the country, of the prejudices that simmer below the surface.

Aznew you are a very intelligent individual.  I am not trying to be confrontational but I think you do know exactly what to make of the pattern but it doesn't sit well with you as a Hillary Clinton supporter.  Back in 2006, I would tell Allen supporters they can say they recognize that Allen has a bad history on race but are supporting him despite this because of his conservative stances.  I thought this was a somewhat fair position, though I strongly disagreed with it.  What I didn't respect is when they would totally disregard the pattern and insult others intelligence by trying to convince others that a pattern didn't exist.  I am not saying you are doing this intentionally nor am I saying Hillary Clinton compares to George Allen when it comes to race (they certainly do not).  You have also made it quite clear that you do recognize a pattern (I think).  What I am saying is all the premises are there.  All you have to do make the logical jump to the conclusion that people in her campaign think this is good strategy.  From that point I think it is fair for you to say you acknowledge that, think it is unfortunate, but will still support Hillary because of her policy proposals or alleged experience.

and it is certainly possible I'm kidding myself. I go through as many mental gymnastics as anyone in order achieve some sort of intellectual consistency in my beliefs.

And I don't doubt that there are people in her campaign who are not troubled by the race discussion because they believe that on balance the hidden racism of large segments of the American public exceeds those who are offended by racial politics, or those voting based on racial identity. Whether they are right I don't know -- polls suggest they might be.

But I'm not convinced this is a top down strategy from the highest levels of the campaign (although at the same time, I can't simply dismiss it either). I am more of the mind that this reflects the "never apologize, never explain ... until it becomes absolutely necessary" attitude that has been a feature of the Clinton machine since Arkansas days.

Still, I can see how a reasonable person could look at the facts and conclude that the campaign is affirmatively exploiting some perceived advantage here (I am not talking about the folks who simply see Clinton as evil personified and so view every word she utters and every twitch she makes through that prism).

Thinking it over, I could go so far as to agree that there is enough so that burden is certainly on Clinton to deal with it.

She took a step today. If I were her, I would also make some sort of public announcement that her campaign is simply not going to stand for this crap in any degree going forward from anyone, and anyone who even comes close to the line on this issue will be fired, or if they are a volunteer or supporter, repudiated.

Again, I think that would be both right and smart, although out of character.

I really like and respect President and Hillary Clinton. Say what you will about his own self-destructive behavior, they both stood up to vicious, vicious crap from the right-wing dirt machine for a long time, and our country is better off for it, IMHO.

Maybe you should ask why Keith Olbermann, who was outright fawning over the Clintons just a year ago has been brought to this point.  You are blaming everyone but those responsible.  You really need to take your blinders off and see things as they are.

She did everything she could to NOT answer the question unequivocally. "..based on what he has said" and "as far as I know" is NOT unequivocal.

She knows the guy is a Christian. She knows he's been going to the same church for 20 years. She knows his two girls have been baptised. She knows that he is extremely conversant on BOTH the Old and New Testament. She has seen and heard him pray. She could have mentioned any of these things, but she chose not to..and it has nothing to do with "confusion." I'll grant you that she was speaking very carefully, however--careful to plant little seeds of doubt while still not saying anything overtly.

I don't know much about Hillary's religious background. She doesn't seem to be a very spiritual person or maybe she just isn't familiar with the basic tenets of Christianity. Perhaps she doesn't realize that Christianity doesn't require Christian bloodlines. It doesn't matter who your father was or your mother--what matters is if YOU accept Jesus Christ. See, that's why Jesus sent out all his disciples to the far corners of the world; it didn't matter if you painted your face blue, worshipped trees, had a convenent with Abraham, or refused to eat cows. Accept the savior and you are in.

to understand how and why this is even a story:

http://mediamatters.org/column...

Here is the start, but the entire article is worth a read. Eric's one of the best out there covering the inanity of our media.

Less than one second. That's how long it took Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to answer, "Of course not," to Steve Kroft's question on 60 Minutes about whether she thought Sen. Barack Obama was a Muslim. You can time it yourself by watching the clip at YouTube.

Still, that didn't stop MSNBC's Chris Matthews from complaining on-air last week that it took Clinton "the longest time" to answer Kroft's question.

Lots of eager, tsk-tsking pundits and reporters agreed. They said Clinton was guilty of "hemming and hawing" in response to Kroft's peculiar, repeated insistence that she make some sort of declarative statement about her opponents religious beliefs. And then when she did, Kroft asked that she do it again. That's when Clinton, looking befuddled by the multiple requests, added some qualifiers to her response, including "as far as I know." What stood out in the exchange was not Clinton's responses, but Kroft's weird persistence in asking a question that Clinton addressed unequivocally the first time, as though he was trying to draw out something she was not saying.

of these various events make a pattern, even to those not paying much critical attention. What strikes me about the campaign of the Clintons (plural) is the scorched earth policy which became evident after Obama suddenly looked like a serious contender. While I found it impressive that Hillary doubled down and fought back, what eventually turned me finally against her candidacy are:

1) Her obvious willingness to destroy the Democratic Party in order to rack up a personal win---- there are ways to fight back, even to "go negative" without engaging in such destructive behavior;
2) Like Bush and the neo-cons, she apparently did not think more than one move ahead, giving NO thought to how this would play out in the general election; the Republicans are gleefully watching the Democrats self-destruct, and will be using every one of her anti-Obama attacks as their own in the general;
3) If how one runs a presidential campaign is an indication of administrative competence and control, and evidence of one's true vision and ability to lead, then Hillary is clearly not ready to assume the Presidency.

How can we expect someone who is so willing to immolate the Democratic party and another Democratic candidate in order to rack up a win to reach across the aisle, to listen to disparate voices within her own party, or to form a strategic vision of how to accomplish the almost identical goals she shares with the opponent she and her surrogates are so willingly trashing?  If this is how they treat their friends, then how are they to be expected to deal with those who COULD be allies if treated right?

The shocking truth may turn out to be that the black majority will never vote for a Clinton again. They already had had enough after Bill's smiling commnents comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson in South Carolina as a way to try to discredit Obama's win. Anybody think blacks might be even ANGRIER now! What Ferraro can't admit is that the Clintons have driven black Democrats away.  

who are outraged!!  Nor should it be!

I was apoplectic during and after the South Carolina primary.  In this day and age I never guessed that I would see discussions of race in a Democratic primary contest for president that have taken place this year.

And I never guessed that I would see the types of comments coming out of Bill Clinton's mouth.  Bill Clinton has always had a special connection with black voters and vis-a-versa.  And as a Democrat having grown up in Virginia, that relationship always made me so proud of Clinton.  And now he sickens me, just by hearing his voice or seeing him on television.  He's nothing but a political whore who will say or do anything to get what he wants.  And I know that is a very strong statement that some will STRONGLY disagree with - but I stand by it.

And add Geraldine Ferraro's coments to what Bill Clinton was saying in South Carolina and you really have to worry about the Clinton campaign staff running a general election.  The Clinton staff, according to The Washington Post, wanted to bypass the South Carolina primary, but Bill would not hear it and decided he would save the state for Hillary.  The Clinton staff was unable to stop Bill Clinton, and they handled the Ferraro flap poorly.  As a group, their inability to manage their campaign obviously shows they are not ready for prime time and they should not be trusted to run an effective general election campaign.  

 

by racist remarks and negativeness is a typical Rovian tactic, which has worked very well for Republicans over the past 10 years or more. It is disgusting to find it employed by a Democrat.

If none if this sticks to Obama, then it may not work for the Republicans later on either. However, I think the Party owes it to itself to do some house cleaning after all this is over. I'll leave the meaning of that to everyone's imagination.

perhaps the party can send all of us who support Clinton to re-education camps?

Clinton supporters will have to search their own consciences to find out what they should do next.

If Clinton wins the DEMOCRATIC PARTY nomination, I will strongly support her in the general election.

If Obama wins the DEMOCRATIC PARTY  nomination, I will strongly support him in the general election.

I will be strongly supporting Tom Perriello, the DEMOCRATIC PARTY nominee for congress in the Fifth District where I live.

I will continue the volunteer work I am engaged in for the Charlottesville DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

That is, unless the Party chooses to purge me in a house cleaning for some heresy that I committed in supporting Hillary Clinton in the nomination battle. Then the plan might change.

I think its time people decide whether or not attacks based on race bating are acceptable or whether they just choose to pretend they aren't happening, or worse, that these attacks are ok.

I think many people in the party would like to see more people take some kind of stand on these things rather than just whistling in the dark and pretending its all just part of normal campaigning.

that is exactly what you are saying. It may not be what you think you are saying, or what you mean.

No one thinks race-based are acceptable, or at least I don't. And I don't pretend they are not happening -- I just see and interpret events differently than you.

As I have repeatedly made clear, I respect and understand the views of folks who see it differently. I don't think, nor do I claim, they are dumb or deluded or unable to perceive reality.

But as you have made clear, I am either pretending, or alternatively, I think race-based attacks are ok. You state that I need to examine my own conscience to justify my political opinion.

Your opinions, as I have seen them expressed here, simply don't allow as an alternative that I might be a perfectly sane, reasonable, even intelligent individual acting in good faith who just happens to see things differently than you do.

That is demanding an orthodoxy of thought and opinion, any way you cut it.

Oh, and I have taken a stand on these issues.

When I joined the local Democratic committee I had to sign a pledge never to support a candidate running against a Democrat.

Bill Clinton campaigned for Joe Leiberman after Joe left the Democratic Party and was running against Democratic Party choice Ned Lamont. I would say that if Bill is held to the same standards we impose on the committees, he should be removed from the Democratic Party apparatus.

I do not believe Bill Clinton campaigned for Leiberman after Leiberman lost the primary.

That said, I am faced with the logical dilemma of proving a negative. Can you provide a link to where Clinton campaigned for Leiberman after he left the party?

Virtually the entire Democratic screwed Lamont after the primary, including Obama. See this My DD post for a quick primer on what happened:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006...

I'm not saying Clinton was right, but to single him out, well, I'm not sure that's justified by the facts.

Bill Clinton campaign for Lieberman when he was running in the Democratic primary, but I don't recall Clinton campaigning for Lieberman after Lamont won the primary.

Maybe the articles I read were wrong. I suggest someone do some research.

I think you are right that Bill did this before Lieberman left the party.