Will the real Hillary Clinton please stand up...

I've seen two Hillary Clintons. There is the Hillary that kicks butt in debates, has consistent, thoughtful, well-prepared, often detailed and substantive answers while staying graceful, charming and avoiding negative attacks. Then there is the Hillary between debates that attacks her fellow Democrats, is tone deaf to racial issues, allows her attack dogs to use disgusting, slimy tactics and seems willing to do anything (including fear mongering) to gain power. Which is the real Hillary?

I must say that she is making my choice for candidate in this primary easier. If she ran a more positive, clean, ideas and issues campaign, I'd have a terribly hard time choosing between her and Barack. I do think she will be better prepared on Jan 20th to be President. Having had a longer life in politics than Barack and having been part of the political establishment for so long, she has the contacts, people she knows and has worked with ready to take key positions in her cabinet, staff and administration. I don't think Barack's presidency will be as smooth in this one sense. He will probably be dismissing and replacing more people, some appointments may come more slowly, his administration will likely spend more time gaining its footing. I think he compensates for this adequately by appealing to a broader cross section of America, by having an uplifting, energizing and unifying message. Hillary talks about energy independence as a great mission for America like going to the moon, but I somehow doubt she has the type of leadership to inspire that type of sacrifice and dedication.

So based on just what the candidates offer as positive distinguishing characteristics: competence and readiness from Hillary, inspiration and unity from Barack, it may leave me somewhat undecided. But the clear tie-breaker for me is that Hillary is engaging in and allowing her campaign and political allies to engage in negative, attacking, smear-filled campaigning and yes, she has used the politics of fear that the Republicans have used so effectively to cow a once great nation and proud electorate. Barack on the other hand is caught between running his campaign in a clean, upright, positive fashion, and being forced into difficult decisions on whether to address attacks from Hillary. I'm sure he is getting lots of advice to respond, attack back, go negative because she has gone negative. And so far I think he has done a pretty good job of saying no to those voices in his camp.

The media certainly doesn't help by amplifying dumbass comments from Hillary supporters and not letting those retarded comments die a quick death as any reasonable person would, but rather purposefully lowering the discourse to churn up controversy hoping to sell newspapers and fill commercial TV air time.

So in the end, I'm somewhat thankful that Hillary has made my decision easier.

•  There are Two Hillary's

  Early in the debate Tim Russert asked Hillary about Bob Johnson's loaded crack about how the young Obama was "doing something in the neighborhood," a clear insinuation about Barack's admitted cocaine use. Citing the way Hillary booted Billy Shaheen out of her campaign for touching the same topic (in far more explicit fashion), Russert asked whether Hillary would bar Johnson, the Black Entertainment Television founder, from her future events. Her answer:  

  "Well, Bob has put out a statement saying what he was trying to say, and what he thought he had said. And we accept him on his word on that."
  Given that Johnson's statement amounted to a totally implausible claim that he wasn't referring to anything untoward in Obama's past ("My comments today were referring to Barack Obama's time spent as a community organizer, and nothing else. Any other suggestion is simply irresponsible and incorrect."), it's hard to believe Hillary really buys the excuse. (Bill doesn't seem to.)

  And sure enough, after a Hillary gave an answer downplaying the relevance of surrogate comments ("what somebody [people] never heard of said"), Russert followed up on Johnson: "Were his comments out of bounds"? This time, Hillary offered an entirely different spin: "Yes they were. And he has said that."

  So, to recap, Hillary's positions were:

  1. Bob Johnson issued a statement denying that he did anything wrong and I accept that.

  2. Bob Johnson has admitted doing something wrong and I agree with that.

  Am I missing something? (And when did Johnson ever admit his comments were out of bounds--as opposed to just misconstrued?)

  - Michael Crowley

  by Steven R on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:29:56 PM PDT

•  Tips

  tip jar.

  by blzabub8 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:31:06 PM PDT

  •  My advice. . .

    would be to give more weight to the candidate you see (in the debates and other appearances) and less to the candidate you read about in distorted reports written by spittle-stained anti-Clinton crazy people.

    But that's just me.

    PS: I'm an undecided voter.

    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:37:07 PM PDT

    •  my problem is

      with both the anti-Clinton and anti-Obama crazies. But I don't see Obama swimming in this sewer, I see him trying to keep himself out of it based on a set of principles, victory be damned. I see Hillary watching public reaction to these negative attacks and weighing their benefits vs. their costs. She lost Iowa, it was a shock, she needed to go negative to have a chance of winning (I think this is what her advisors told her) and she lacked the character, the principle to reject that premise.

      by blzabub8 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:42:55 PM PDT

      •  You do?

        I see Hillary watching public reaction to these negative attacks and weighing their benefits vs. their costs.

        When you say you "see" it, I assume you mean you imagine it.  Unless you're deep inside the Clinton inner-circle, surely you're not actually privy to whether or not this is really happening, right?

        I see no evidence that either of the candidates is responsible for the actions of their more lunatic supporters.  You seem to assume Clinton is, and Obama isn't.

        by LarryInNYC on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:45:29 PM PDT

        •  for someone who claims to be undecide Larry

          you always seem to be defending Clinton and putting Obama down.  So don't claim to be undecided.

          by ronnied on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:49:41 PM PDT

          •  I've never put Obama down. . .

            around here -- although I slam the crazier of his anti-Clinton supporters.

            And yes, I do stick up for Clinton because, frankly, she's the one who needs it most around here.  When Obama was being roundly criticized over the McClurkin incident (and Kos described the "amazing implosion" of his campaign) I was one of the few people sticking up for him -- in the face of some of his so-called "supporters", in fact.

            In the tradition of speaking truth to power, I stick up for Clinton -- because the power around here is insanely anti-Clinton and the truth is that 80% of what's said about her is lies.

            by LarryInNYC on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:53:32 PM PDT

          •  PS:

            And I am indeed undecided (between Obama and Clinton) and will continue to state that fact even if you find it hard to believe to be true.

            by LarryInNYC on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:54:29 PM PDT

        •  i assume you don't know either

          unless you are inside the Clinton inner circle. So the most either of us can do is make our best judgement based on what we can see. I see Hillary going negative, not before Iowa when she was expected by everyone inside the party and by the mass media to easily win the nomination, a coronation, they said. No it was after Iowa when she received a stunning defeat that negative attacks arose from herself as well as her operatives and political allies. We are not talking about some 14 year old pimply kids on a blog, we are talking about the candidate herself, her campaign staff and political allies like NY Congressmen Rangel. This seems to me a calculated campaign strategy.

          by blzabub8 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:55:51 PM PDT

•  Oh, she stood up tonight

  and kicked your candidate's ass.

  by Manny on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:31:14 PM PDT

  •  What's Good for Hillary Clinton

    Must be good for the Democratic party, amirite?

    lawl sarcasm, god i don't want another 8 years of the baby-boomers.

    Economic Left/Right: -8.50

    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.51

    by MrrarA on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:33:18 PM PDT

    •  ageism

      great rationale for your vote!

      by Turkana on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:50:14 PM PDT

  •  maybe

    but doesn't that say something about her as a candidate that even if she wins a debate, she cannot win my vote?

    by blzabub8 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:36:54 PM PDT

    •  Your choice

      if you want another Republican president, but don't blame Hillary.  Blame yourself.

      P.S. I will gladly vote for any Democrat in the general election.  Its really a no brainer.

      by Manny on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:40:15 PM PDT

      •  i don't agree

        I think Hillary stands a much greater chance of losing a general election than Obama. Hillary's negatives are high even in her own party, especially amongst affluent men. Her negatives with Republicans are astronomically high. Barack on the other hand can and has won Independents and some Republicans.

        by blzabub8 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:45:50 PM PDT

        •  What you said is that

          you won't vote for her.  I assumed that you meant in the general election.  I think that Hillary stands a much better chance of winning than Obama. But that doesn't mean I won't vote for him in the general.  Hell, I would be proud and happy to vote for him.

          by Manny on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:48:23 PM PDT

          •  I never specified primary vs. general

            So to clarify my own statement, I was speaking of the primary, not the general. If she were to win the primary, I'd be caught in a very difficult position. To be totally honest, I'm not sure right now what I'd do in that scenario. That's a problem I'm hoping I won't need to face.

            by blzabub8 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:02:28 PM PDT

            •  Very difficult?

              You mean in the general election?

              You mean, like, if you had to choose between Hillary and McCain, or Hillary and Romney, or Hillary and the criminally insane Huckabee?

              Is that what you mean by "if she were to win the primary"? That you would be in a "very difficult position" deciding whether Clinton would be a better choice than these rethug bozos?

              by bluehawaii on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:47:18 AM PDT

              •  yes, difficult position

                because then I would be caught between a Republican candidate I don't want as President and a Democratic candidate I don't want as President. My choices would then be: Republican, Hillary, Independent 3rd Party, write-in, abstain. I'm not sure what I would do, probably move to France.

                by blzabub8 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:28:30 AM PDT

                •  I don't understand . . .

                  . . . how somebody gets to a position like you're in.

                  I don't think a lot of Obama or Edwards, but certainly they're light-years beyond Huckabee, for instance. Or Giuliani -- or any of these rethug creeps.

                  by bluehawaii on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:40:53 AM PDT

          •  Random Aside:

            Manny, is there any particular reason you are 'saving' a known Zombie/Troll from Hidden Comments?

            Pogoalwaysright17 was banned from DKos as Pogoalwaysright16. Therefore, based upon site rules, I really do not understand your uprates.

            Just wonderin'.

            Carry on.  ;)

            by carolinadreamer on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:03:55 AM PDT

      •  Hillary will give us anothre republican president

        because half of the country will never vote for her. And if she is the candidate Bloomberg gets in.

        by ronnied on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:52:05 PM PDT

  •  ha! my candidate wasn't allowed to be heard

    if he had i think you'd have heard a bit of dissension. i'm reasonably sure he would have answered the r.o.t.c. on campus question differently & a whole host of other issues. nbc thought they were going to get all kinds of fireworks tonight & didn't want anyone slowing it down with actual policy, what they got was the kids working on dad's funeral arrangements.

    by rasbobbo on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:44:59 PM PDT

  •  she didn't kick anyone ass

    In fact Obama seemed the most presidential.  Cool, calm and collected.

    by ronnied on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:50:53 PM PDT

•  I just wish

  Bill weren't around.  If he'd disappear I'd find it easier to muster positive thoughts are Hillary.  I won't blame her too much for her "surrogates" but I have trouble forgiving her for the way Bill is behaving.

  by JCross on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:35:29 PM PDT

•  poor Obama.

  maybe if Senator Clinton (D-Punjab) was taking better care of her own house, she'd deserve to be in the White House.

  cry me a river.

  by CC Music Factory on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:43:44 PM PDT

  •  well maybe she should muzzle her husband.

    And as a woman I find her playing the gender card disgusting. Please the poor me.  If Obama had ever done that he would have been crucified.

    by ronnied on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:54:26 PM PDT

•  The two Hillarys

  There is the Hillary that kicks butt in debates, has consistent, thoughtful, well-prepared, often detailed and substantive answers while staying graceful, charming and avoiding negative attacks. Then there is the Hillary between debates that attacks her fellow Democrats, is tone deaf to racial issues, allows her attack dogs to use disgusting, slimy tactics and seems willing to do anything (including fear mongering) to gain power.

  THe first Hillary is the one you see with your own eyes.  The second Hillary is the one you read about in the diaries and in the MSM.

  You make the call.

  by DaveOinSF on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:13:35 PM PDT

  •  I saw Hillary

    with my own eyes explain to a news reporter that Martin Luther King's dreams of Civil Rights in this country was only made real when President Johnson made it so. I didn't read about that in a diary or in a news article. I saw it and heard it unspun, uninterpreted, raw. I made my call, that's what this diary is about. Perhaps the Hillary supporters here would be better off advocating for their candidate to return to her original message of competence and readiness and drop the negative attacks rather than trying to convince me that I'm simply confused.

    by blzabub8 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:29:15 PM PDT

    •  Live

      Did you see it as it happened or was your attention drawn to it due to the controversy it caused?

      In any case, one of the sad things about the episode is that Johnson's legacy seems completely forgotten.  

      http://www.archives.gov/...

      by DaveOinSF on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:43:16 PM PDT

•  Why Hilary troubles me.

  Intelligent tough and by being exposed to the white house for eight years has at least an idea of how to start. That said I consider her polarizing and a good trigger to galvanize a robust opposition. She used to be a Republican in her younger years and her votes against Ethanol in favor of big oil as well as her votes for the Iraq war as well as the Iran revolitionary guards aligns her with Bush. She is ruthles and the behavior of her surrogates and "friends" did not happen in a vacuum. This was orchestrated and the reason a truce was agreed upon was to stop the negative publicity that she was atracting.Finally the republicans are dying to have her as candidate because all the scandals of the 90's are going to be resurfaced for our horror and the eventual trivialization of the presidential race. To those are going to be added the campaign contributions from unsavory characters and any other major or minor pecadillo that the Republicans,Im sure will produce. That is why Hilary troubles me.

  by AVillamil on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:19:02 PM PDT

•  Yes, HRC definitely has some anger issues

  I guess living with BC for 40 years could do that to most anyone. Don't get me wrong, he's a great politician and was great for the country.

  by Steve Everett on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:02:53 PM PDT

•  "readiness"

  People always forget that the candidates don't get catapulted into the WH as soon as they're nominated. They have about nine months of general election in which to put together their cabinet, prepare to serve, etc.

  In any case, I think I speak for the Obama camp when I say welcome. You're going to like it here. :)

  by a synthetic cubist on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:34:02 AM PDT

•  There really was nothing...

  ...to the alleged nasty side of Clinton in this campaign.  The MLK/LBJ thing was, in fact, the side you like: the analytical wonky side.  It was distorted into something else by people who don't like her.  As for the other stuff, Clinton didn't say it, there is no possibility that she or her professional campaign staff asked anyone to say it, and it's a whole lot of nothing.

  You've pulled off something unusual: a pretty fair-minded study of something that isn't real.  You should be a religious studies professor!

  by Rich in PA on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:39:16 AM PDT

  •  I'm not as sure as you

    You call it wonky/analytical, I call it tone-deaf and insulting to many, many people. Also, since Hillary's style of management is extremely competent and tightly controlled, I suspect that some of those political allies discussed a response with her before giving interviews on the subject. Every good politician knows what every good salesman or con man knows, if you don't know the shot, don't take it. An experienced political ally doesn't put you in a difficult position with their statement, they consult you first to see if you want them speaking on the issue or not. Okay, some of the responses were just wingnuts jumping into the fray on their own, those people should be publicly discredited and distanced from the campaign, but other statements were from friends and experienced politicians, unlikely to fire off something that could be damaging to their friend without discussing it first.

    by blzabub8 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:07:15 AM PDT

    •  Tone-deaf yes...

      Remarkably, Clinton (who's always accused of thinking politically first, middle, and last!) gave a sensible political-science answer rather than a politically-savvy answer.  That's the sense in which I called it wonkish.  But I really think the malice came exclusively from how the answer was framed by her opponents, rather than from her.  

      by Rich in PA on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:36:14 AM PDT

  •  and you may call it unreal

    but the candidates did call for a public truce on the issue. you don't typically call a truce unless there has been some shooting first.

    I wish the Hillary supporters would just admit that she made a mistake with the original statement and further worsened it by allowing people around her to respond for her, deepening the muck. The campaign is essentially doing this, so why can't her supporters?

    by blzabub8 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:12:07 AM PDT