From the other side of the aisle, an apology

This may seem opportunistic, or an attempt to jump on a bandwagon.  But the truth is, I've been moved by other diaries here, and I feel the right thing for me to do is, basically, to offer this to all who support Hillary Clinton on DKos.

I started out as an Edwards supporter.  When he dropped out of the race, my support swung towards Obama because he seemed, more than Clinton, to embrace the progressive ideals Edwards championed.  And too, Clinton had already turned me off with her early support of Bush's Iraq nightmare.  Nothing I saw or read could convince me that she wouldn't willingly turn down the same path if given a chance, or feel any remorse for her decision.

I also wrote one of the anti-strike diaries, purely out of frustration with what I saw as puerile, egregious behavior.  In it, I encouraged any pro-Clinton diarists to go out and find (or create) their own pro-Hillary site, if it was so important to them.  I was wrong, and I apologize.

Whatever happens, I will support the Democratic nominee--and I do mean whatever, be it decision by superdelegate, backroom deal, or meteor strike.  And to that end, I offer my hand in friendship to all of you here on DKos.  Argue with me, debate with me, persuade me or be persuaded by me; but please, do not turn away feeling I think of you as an enemy.  I have enough of those in my own family.

•  Pies, Rocks, Darts

  Throw 'em here.

  by Gemina13 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:21:15 AM PDT

  •  Good diary. I'm not a Clinton supporter, but

    this is exactly what we need to have a unified party.

    by TomP on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:29:34 AM PDT

•  I will never vote for Hillary, sorry

  My conscience won't let me.

  by davidkc on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:22:51 AM PDT

  •  Just please don't vote for McCain.

    I still can't believe there are people who believe he's pro-choice and a "liberal" Republican.

    by Gemina13 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:29:06 AM PDT

    •  i would never do that either, don't worry nt

      by davidkc on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:32:07 AM PDT

  •  My conscince will not

    let me refuse to vote for Obama or Clinton against McCain.

    Obama will vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination and campaign for her.

    How is your conscience more developed than Barack Obama's?  He would be the one who was hurt the most by losing. I think soem Obama supporters need to listen more closely to what Obama says.  You seem to be missing the whole point.

    The same is true for Clinton. Clinton will vote for Obama if he wins the nomination and campaign for her.

    by TomP on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:32:15 AM PDT

    •  I'm an Obama supporter who disagrees with him

      on some things.  That's okay too.

      I also disagree with your suggesting that because someone thinks different that they consider themselves 'more developed than.'

      You've blasted me on other posts for not 'helping.'  That's fine, I can take constructive feedback, although I use the term loosely here.

      However, I'd like to suggest that you take your own advice on this one.

      by ILean Left on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:37:36 AM PDT

      •  Have you checked out Hillary's

        voting record?  I mean really - gone to one of the political fact checker sites.  I know the mud wrestling currently going on doesn't give any kind of clear view.  Hillary and Obama have very similar voting records.  The bills they've sponsored and co-sponsored (and before the presidential race, they co-sponsored many of each other's bills) tend to have different focuses - his have been more "open government" and hers more health/family oriented - but they've been strong, progressive legislation.  Their Americans for Democratic Action ratings are identical for the years they've both been in office.

        Honest.  I don't ask you to like Hillary, or approve of her campaign.  I do ask you to check out her record and use that to determine what kind of president she'd be.

        by bfitzinAR on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:06:18 PM PDT

        •  Fair. I have and do not feel that her voting

          record is a problem - just her self-serving campaign that is trying to marginalize over half of the party's votes while claiming Obama is disenfranchising voters in FL and MI - among other things.

          I will keep trying but her campaign does not seem to care about losing my vote from the way that she is behaving.

          by ILean Left on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:30:35 PM PDT

          •  Since I usually avoid candidate diaries

            (although I love "reconciliation" diaries) and actually some of the Front Page stories along that line, I haven't seen what you have on that.  I go to Hillary's website when I want her stance on things, rather than a pro-Hillary site, and I've seen nothing on her actual website or any of the speeches or ads that I've read that say anything about any particular state or group of people "doesn't count".  She has said that in certain states the Dems are outnumbered by Rs, which is a fact we have to live with.  Since I'm not here to pick fights, I don't want to go into who I've seen pushing that "don't count" meme.  Honestly, I've never seen, heard, or read anything from Hillary herself suggesting anything other than every vote and every voter counts.  I'm not saying she hasn't said it - but I personally haven't seen it.

            by bfitzinAR on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:45:25 PM PDT

        •  I looked at a contrast

          between Clinton's and Obama's voting records in 2007.  It looked to me as though Clinton likes to support a lot of "medical research".  I know you can argue that that's a good thing, but I think some of it's just more big business - supporting the medical industries with little practical benifit to people who need health care.  Obama supported legislation for transparency in government, and summer programs for public school children.  I saw a more populist lean in Obama's record, and Hillary looked to follow the status quo in support for business/industry. They looked very different to me.

          by ozarkspark on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:43:02 PM PDT

          •  She's also voted to give military healthcare

            benefits to Reservists and National Guard (actually she sponsored that one), SCHIP, and many more.  Yes, she votes for research - including stem cell research - and that's going to be either "big business" or colleges, because that's who does research.  Hillary is a pragmatist - if you want research done, you fund the people who do it.  She also supports damn-near anything to do with education (pre-k for all is something she's been working on since she was the first lady of AR).  The 2007 session is not fair to either of them, since the MSM-driven campaign season made them miss votes.  Both of them had Americans for Democratic Action ratings of 95% in 2006 but only 75% in 2007 due to missed votes.

            by bfitzinAR on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:38:23 PM PDT

            •  that's why I was interested in 2007

              votes.  To see what was important enough to show up for when they were both on a busy campaign schedule.  And I liked Obama's bills and votes in 07 more than Hillary's.  As you can see, I'm not a fan of hugely funded medical research.  We're not even using knowledge we already have to the greatest benefit.  First things first.

              by ozarkspark on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:10:00 PM PDT

              •  A valid point. n/t

                by bfitzinAR on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:19:04 PM PDT

    •  Nail. Head. n/t

      by bustacap on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:47:31 AM PDT

  •  but my conscience won't let

    McCain win.

    by NYFM on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:06:43 PM PDT

•  I'm confused

  Which aisle are you on the other side of?

  Edwards, Obama, and Clinton are all on our side of the aisle.

  by N in Seattle on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:23:33 AM PDT

  •  The Obama/Hillary aisle

    It really feels like a family feud at a holiday dinner.  You've got everyone who sides with one party on one side of the table, armed with butter knives and hard rolls, and everyone who sides with the other party testing out the forks and coffee cups.

    I believe it's time to start doing my part to make sure we all aim for the McCain turkey in the middle.

    by Gemina13 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:27:25 AM PDT

    •  Family feuds are the most painful

      but I agree the "aisle" terminology is confusing due to its customary usage for referring to the two-party system.  I was certain I was going to find a recovering Republican diary, which is always a delightful genre.  Unity-within is a nice genre too, just not the one I was expecting.

      by lgmcp on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:47:02 AM PDT

      •  ::falls down laughing::

        My favorite converted Republican is John Cole--but I read Andrew Sullivan because, in spite of being an occasional jerk, he does seem to get how deeply he fell for the GOP spin.  But nope, no converted Republican on this side of the keyboard. :)

        by Gemina13 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:56:35 AM PDT

  •  Miles of Aisles

    You know how it is: bride's side, groom's side — two sides of one aisle, but we're all in the same church.

    by Ray Radlein on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:31:04 AM PDT

  •  And, IMHO

    more people here need to remember this.

    by Moody Loner on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:54:05 AM PDT

    •  And you would be spot-on right

      IMHO

      by dazed in pa on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:00:31 PM PDT

  •  Apparently many here would disagree eom

    by somtam on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:08:56 PM PDT

•  There are many people I highly respect

  who support Clinton, including George McGovern.  In my home town some progressives like myself are really strong Clinton supporters.  At our caucas, we could all agree that this will be a historic election regardless of whom we nominate.  Like you, I will vote for the nominee.  The alternative is just to sad to consider.

  by mystic on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:25:44 AM PDT

•  two men enter, one man leaves

  Why dilute the primitive beauty of the process with apologies? Let's get back to the purity of the founding fathers - Thomas Jefferson had his intraparty rival, Aaron Burr convicted and exiled for treason. Now that's playing hardball. Is Hillary trying to create her own empire in the West? Given her negatives, I'm sure a jury would convict.

  by Marcion on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:27:27 AM PDT

  •  Just as long as it's not

    a bowling alley they're entering.

    Thunderdome I'm fine with, I bet he could take her down fast with the chainsaw, if it starts up.

    by drbloodaxe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:32:18 AM PDT

    •  gotta watch out for the dogwhistle

      Hillary is deadly with that dogwhistle. Still, my money is on the long legged freak.

      by Marcion on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:34:38 AM PDT

    •  Hillary did an "April Fools" challenge

      to Obama - they bowl for delegates.  She said she'd spot him two frames.

      by bfitzinAR on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:07:44 PM PDT

      •  I know. I figure

        that it's her last best hope to win, since she said 'winner take all' in her challenge.

        by drbloodaxe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:33:43 PM PDT

  •  I love much of our FF's legacy.

    But I don't see any kind of "beauty" in that. It sounds more Roman gladitorial (is that a word?) to me.

    by anotherCt Dem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:02:55 PM PDT

•  I want so bad to be where you are...

  But I am stuck in the double standard of the Clinton campaign.

  i don't believe in disrespecting supporters, that is not right.  However, you cannot criticize their candidate without them taking it personal and if that's how they feel - it's okay.  I am just tired of being accused of not 'helping' when, in fact, her campaign is steady slandering Obama for votes.

  I hope I can get where you are.  I really do.

  by ILean Left on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:27:49 AM PDT

  •  I can understand that.

    And maybe it's just that my inner optimist has chewed through the restraints again, but I have faith in the netroots' ability to come together and fight.  The anger and resentments are going to last; I'm not belittling that at all.  But it's past time to stop cutting each other up.  Not because it's hurting the Democratic Party, but because it's hurting us.

    As noted elsewhere, we are not the Republicans.  We can't start devouring our own in the name of ideological purity.  And if it has to start with a little hand-holding and Kum-Ba-Yah singing, well, what the heck.  I've always been a closet sentimentalist. ;)

    by Gemina13 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:35:10 AM PDT

    •  Okay, Gemina13. You might have reached me.

      by ILean Left on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:38:55 AM PDT

      •  additional thought...

        I feel my stress level decreasing as I entertain your thoughts here.

        I will make you a promise.  I will never slander Hillary's supporters - I never have for the record.  However, I will only respond to the unscrupulous charges lobbed at Obama as warranted.

        I am a Dem at heart and I work hard with others in my state to elect local leaders and do not want to see these efforts go to waste.  But, I have a way to go before I can say that I will vote for her.

        by ILean Left on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:45:48 AM PDT

        •  :)

          Hey, you don't have to promise me anything.  Keep that for yourself. :)  But thank you anyway.

          by Gemina13 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:47:05 AM PDT

          •  I know-Just feel more committed if I say it aloud

            by ILean Left on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:52:38 AM PDT

        •  Peace IS less stressful. It's not the same

          as capitualtion.

          by anotherCt Dem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:00:39 PM PDT

  •  Is There No Shades of Grey?

    Do you ever cringe when you see an Obama supporter attack a Hillary supporter without justification? Or is "our" side perfect in all respects? And their side is unspeakable in every comment?

    We need the Hillary supporters to be able to win in November. They are essential to us.

    by Tuba Les on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:45:11 AM PDT

    •  Absolutely.

      Let me just state this:  I would love to see a woman become President in my lifetime.  I wish I could get over my reservations about Hillary.  As it is, my mother supports her wholeheartedly; I'm certainly not telling her she's an idiot for doing so.

      Ad hominem attacks count whether they're directed at Hillary or Barack.  Period.

      by Gemina13 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:50:19 AM PDT

    •  I do cringe. I really do!

      I do not think that attacking supporters is right under ANY circumstances.

      However, I have been accused of attacking supporters simply because I identify flaws with the candidate!  This when there seems to be no problem with doing the same with Obama.  I'm wiling to get past it, but I truly contend that this starts with the candidate.

      This is because I feel strongly about needing to speak out for a candidate who is trying to elevate a process in such a way that leaves him handicapped, as well as speaking out for a party that is made up with as many of folks like me as it is white ethnic voters, TX latinos and women over 60.

      I believe that I joined Kos after the 'strike' which may mean I lack some perspective here, but I just want some consensus that pointing out Hillary flaws is NOT the same as digging on her supporters - unless they CHOOSE to take it that way.

      by ILean Left on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:51:05 AM PDT

•  I am sorry

  you have "enemies" in your own family. I am so wildly fortunate we are all Dems in mine. Some HRC supporters, some BO - but we all respect each other's choices. It's not quite analygous, but the idea of destroying the bonds in my family over Dem primary choices is absurd.

  I will vote for HRC if she is the nominee. McCain will not get this by default with MY help.

  by anotherCt Dem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:29:06 AM PDT

  •  No kidding

    My brother (HRC supporter) and I (Edwards supporter) got into a heated debate on Christmas Eve. But it was about policy, not personality, and neither one of us ever thought twice about taking it personally.

    Of course, we called each other names over other things, but that's because he was such a spoiled brat when he was a teen. ;)

    by BoiseBlue on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:33:34 AM PDT

    •  I wish I were so lucky.

      My oldest brother has made it perfectly clear that (1) he's voting for McCain, and (2) I'm an idiot for still voting Democrat.

      That particular family feud really doesn't need any more gasoline. :(

      by Gemina13 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:39:40 AM PDT

    •  My sister

      is for HRC, but is "so proud" of the three frontrunners (when JRE was still in) My 80's mother wants to see a woman president in her lifetime. One of my mother's major complaints about Bush is his stupidity ("he's so stupid!!!!!!!!") but respects the IQ's of both HRC and BO. Common ground. If you make an effort, you can find it.

      My sister and I spent half our teen years not speaking :)

      by anotherCt Dem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:42:17 AM PDT

•  Thank you for this diary

  We still have some whiny children in our midst (I can some have commented already), but be sure that you have expressed the consensus opinion. We're gonna have a Democratic President sworn in next year.

  There will be no McCain standing there, taking the oath. If you are pulling for Obama, attacking the Hillary camp is wasted time and energy.

  by The Raven on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:36:50 AM PDT

•  Went an deleted my 1 & only Hillary bashing

  diary this AM. McCain is dangerous and any of us that consider him an viable option just plain suck!

  by tnichlsn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:37:10 AM PDT

  •  It's time to cut McCain off at the knees

    I may need to change my signature line.

    by Gemina13 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:42:21 AM PDT

    •  the more hardened your stances become on this

      the more hardened you are likely to make the folks on her team's stances. Remember that. You folks making these bold pronouncements may well be sowing the seeds of Obama's downfall in november. He has called for an end to the vitriol, what part of that plea don't you understand? You're making all of our jobs much more difficult.

      by tnichlsn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:47:40 AM PDT

      •  You assume that some JUST decided not to vote for

        her.  There are those in my local Dem group who vowed to never vote for her back when she casted the war vote - before there was an Obama.  That is a substantial group.

        Respectfully, I think some Kossacks exist in a vacuum and think that this rift started here.  It runs deep in the community at large and won't go away by our holding hands on this site.  

        I don't say this to be pessimistic, but in the effort of trying to get on the harmony train, what can we do about this when one candidate is still leading the troops down the divisive path?

        I am REALLY trying.  I promise!  So don't shit on me here.  I just know that I am not alone and have many friends not on this site who struggle with the same.

        by ILean Left on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:58:58 AM PDT

        •  I understand. The problem is so many

          people have taken that one vote and treated it as if it were the only thing she's done since she took office in 2001.  I understand her rationale for that vote.  I don't and didn't agree with her - and unless you want to hear it, I'm not going into what that rationale was - but I have weighed that in the scale with the rest of her work.  I can't say it didn't matter - there are too many people dead, injured, and displaced for it not to matter - but her votes to get Reservists and National Guard covered by military insurance and other benefits, to get everybody healthcare (even if she has to do it one segment of the population at a time), to improve education, to get all kids into pre-k - just to mention a few, also count.  Or should.

          by bfitzinAR on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:17:30 PM PDT

          •  The war she, and Kerry, and many others voted for

            is not the war we got.

            by adamantius on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:23:09 PM PDT

            •  ::smacks inner Rummy::

              Not gonna say it . . . not gonna say it . . .

              by Gemina13 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:26:52 PM PDT

              •  I live in New York

                For all I know there are still municipalities where the police don't carry guns all the time, but once upon a time, there were definitely such places. Every so often police officers use those guns inappropriately, and sometimes they even lie about it afterwards. While the city council, mayor, and police commissioner may have some culpability when/if a cop pulls the trigger in  bad way, it is the person who pulls the trigger that bears the greatest responsibility by far.

                I have a hard time with the constantly implicit imagery of Hillary calling George on the hotline and saying, "Hey, George, you know what you oughtta do? Why not go into Iraq, and kill a million Iraqis and over 4000 Americans? If you're not too busy? Sound good?"

                Blame Bush, blame the Congress that first handed the power to attack countries without declaring war, but if Hillary is a villain, and I'm not saying she's not, this one is not really her doing.

                by adamantius on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:35:54 PM PDT

        •  it starts by not making things worse.

          Obama will find a way to take it from there. If he is going to be the leader (our leader) of the free world (the world), his diplomacy stills will come into play on this issue. If he can't win most of these folks over to his (our) cause, how will he deal with the real world diplomacy crises he'll be facing, left over from W's legacy? Have faith, we don't need to take this all on ourselves. We just need to stop making things worse!

          by tnichlsn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:33:41 PM PDT

•  Having to vote for Hillary

  really depends on if your state is in the 51% formula.

  by The Dead Man on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:46:36 AM PDT

  •  Actually - all Dems should vote for

    Hillary if she wins the nomination.  Whether or not you "have" to is determined by whether or not the state is "safely red" or "safely blue" - Molly Ivins rule

    by bfitzinAR on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:18:59 PM PDT

•  And

  for being a class act, have a tip and a recommend.

  by Moody Loner on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:55:08 AM PDT

  •  Thank you. :)

    Especially for the "class act" compliment. :)

    by Gemina13 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:58:06 AM PDT

•  Thank you. I'm a Hillary support.

  I was previously an Edwards supporter.  I think Obama is more like John in some ways, but Hillary's plans are closer.  That's why I moved to her camp.  But I'm a Dem first.  I grew up in TX - as Molly Ivins used to say, the laboratory for bad government - so I started out knowing about lesser evilism.  Having voted in so many election for lesser evils, I have been totally delighted to have a primary race of good choices.  Instead of being offered burnt brisket or raw hamburger, I've got a choice between charcoal-grilled sirloin or prime rib roast, both medium rare.  (I said I grew up in TX - beef is my meat.)  This intra-party warfare on this totally freaks me out.  Whether I end up being offerd the sirloin or the prime rib, I sure as heck am not going go for canned tuna that's mostly vegetable broth.  Most Dems - hopefully enough Dems - will take good beef over bad tuna any day of the week.  And we'll need ALL Dems to pull this off.  After Denver, we'll have the swiftboaters and the MSM McCain lovefest to defeat.

  by bfitzinAR on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:58:50 AM PDT

  •  Wow...after reading your post,

    I'm starving!

    by bubbalie 517 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:21:55 PM PDT

    •  No kidding!

      I'm eating jambalaya now for lunch, but I'm craving a HUGE rare ribeye so bad right now!

      by Gemina13 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:24:19 PM PDT

•  Hillary is not all that I would hope for...

  and neither is Obama. McCain is pretty much all that I have come to despise. Any questions?

  by adamantius on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:15:09 PM PDT

  •  Plan on seeing "Shine A Light"?

    Martin Scorsese does the Rolling Stones.  Does that sound like a great documentary or what?

    by Gemina13 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:25:50 PM PDT

•  The part I am having trouble with

  Don't take this wrong, but I do have terrible struggles with ... all the lies. Sniper fire, nafta, soft racism ..nobody is perfect. But it does seem that if HRC won, that something bad, a lot of manipulating not in a good way, will have won.

  This comment is not a slam--it reflects my real concerns. I don't buy all politicians are evil by the way.

  by lascaux on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:43:30 PM PDT

  •  Valid concerns

    They are the impetus for a lot of the ... excitement around here. I'm feeling this as kind of fork in the road coming up:

    a. Hillary vs Obama
    This one is "fear versus hope." You vote Hillary because you hope for a woman, but also fear that Obama is unelectable. So it's got a measure of feel-good, a measure of "making history," and it's very pragmatic.

    b. Hillary vs McCain
    This is "fear versus fear." This is the "hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils" election, if you aren't in camp Hillary. If you're pro-Hillary, then you get more feel-good out of the deal.

    c. Obama vs McCain
    "Hope vs Fear."
    You vote Obama because you're inspired, you get the "hope" thing, and the "history in the making" thing. All positives. You vote McCain if you're wedded to the idea that our president has to be some old conservative white guy, and anything is just too scary. Plus you hate muslims. That's the total "fear" vote.

    So given all this, I can still see myself voting for Hillary if I must. I hope I won't have to, but there are more reasons to pick her than to pick McCain.

    by The Raven on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:14:56 PM PDT

    •  no doubt

      Of course, I will vote for hillary if I have to. How can we talk to hillary supporters if Obama wins or before. I honestly don't know what to say.

      by lascaux on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:23:48 PM PDT

      •  How about - I think his plan for X

        (give overview) is really the best way to go v. Hillary's plan (give overview) for same.  As a Hillary supporter, I'd like that kind of talk.

        by bfitzinAR on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:04:08 PM PDT

        •  Just keep it clean;-)

          Yes, I get it. I think Obama's plan for health care is more achievable because it has a regard for all sides of the table. Many Americans have heard the argument about socialized health care for a long time and unfortunately it has made a mark. Hillary's plan is very well thought out and shows real concern, but I feel its out of step with where we really are, in terms of what the next step is.

          How's that?

          by lascaux on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:30:36 AM PDT

          •  Great. I disagree, but that's what I

            wish these conversations were about.  I think Hillary's plan is the 1st step necessary to get to single-payer from where we are.  I think Obama's while possibly easier to achieve, is about 3 steps back - and if there's one thing the Bill Clinton administration taught me, it's that you can't "tinker" with something once it's through Congress, so start as far along as possible.

            by bfitzinAR on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:18:27 PM PDT

  •  OK, some of this is valid but most

    of this is media-driven.  The sniper thing is a good example.  It's the flip side of McCain's "stroll" through Bagdad - we pulled the cameras back and saw the military unit surrounding him and the Apache helicopters overhead.  On Hillary's trip to Bosnia, they went in knowing snipers were in the hills.  The ceremony at the airfield was shortened due to the danger, Hillary and Chelsea were surrounded by military units with helicopters (I don't know military equipment enough to know if they were Apaches) overhead.  But we don't pull the cameras back for that, we zoom in so all we see is Hillary being greeted by a little girl (whose presence freaked out the military escort).  While no sniper fire actually occurred, that memory was heavily tinged with the possibility of it - and the presence of military units and helicopters overhead probably had as much to do with no sniper fire in Bosnia as it did years later in Bagdad.

    The whole campaign is mud wrestling right now (or maybe you prefer the pie fight image) and it's mostly to keep the media with us.  They will go 24/7 McCain lovefest - they're barbeque buddies, after all - as soon as we either 1) stop fighting, or 2) get passed Denver.  I want them with us as long as possible.

    by bfitzinAR on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:01:47 PM PDT

    •  sniper fire

      For me this is just code for obvious, I am being asked to take seriously someone who basically has allied with a powerful husband and sort of used his resume. Stay with me everybody, don't get riled. This is what I see. It is very trouble.

      Media driven--no. I get it  both McCain and Hillary embellish to make themselves more than they are. I am not attacking--this is what I see.

      by lascaux on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:06:26 PM PDT

      •  I know the "Billary" thing is very

        troubling to people who aren't familiar with the Clintons' AR gov terms.  Hillary isn't Bill and never has been, but she has campaigned for him and supported him in his administrations, both Little Rock and DC.  In AR she was on many of his research and action committees.  In DC she couldn't be, since LJB presidents can't appoint close family members to official positions.  That means everything she did in DC was unofficial.  Now she's in the position of trying to claim credit for work she did unofficially.  She's also has to deal with stuff she didn't support in committee, but did publically as part of her support of her husband's administration.  Since I was in AR during the Clinton years, I know how they work together - but that doesn't make them the same person.  I trust her much more with economic things than I ever did Bill.

        by bfitzinAR on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:27:25 PM PDT

        •  Good point

          Won't we really have him in the White house as well--if she is elected? The two of them may not be the same but they do seem locked in some kind of lying love fest. I can see why Rethugs hate them so much now. Don't get mad anyone. I just want to get this out.

          by lascaux on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:31:10 PM PDT

          •  That's the "threat" - that it would really be

            another Bill administration.  You may not realize how very sexist that is - the suggestion that Hillary isn't her own person and that of course Bill will actually be running things.  Hillary is not Bill.  She supported his administrations (state and fed) and will expect him to support hers, but just as she could not have an official position in his administration, he can't have an official position in hers.  (And truth to tell, he's more self centered than she is, and probably would/will spend most of his time with his Foundation rather that working on much of anything in her administration, presupposing she has one.)

            by bfitzinAR on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:23:07 PM PDT

            •  How is this suggestion sexist?

              Where is the evidence that she has a life outside her husband's command? It is clear how much damage his role in the campaign has caused. If she has an independent life outside of Bill, then I think a truly independent woman would have sent him packing. Why is this point of view sexist?

              I think that without him and is 'ilk', she would have been a much more credible candidate, at least to me.

              by lascaux on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:52:15 PM PDT

              •  It is sexist in the assumption that Bill

                would actually be in control.  That he would determine what she would do and how she would do it if she were president.  It isn't sexist in that it seems to be aimed at only Hillary Clinton by people who otherwise wouldn't think of making that kind of assumption.  I doubt that you'd insist that if Elizabeth Edwards was running for president that it would really be John running things.  I've really never understood the "evil, ball-cutter, Bill puppet" Hillary things, since they are diametrically opposed - I just figured that was RW logic (i.e., none at all).  I still don't understand it, but especially when it come from progressives.  The RW complaint about Hillary boils down to "she's a strong woman".  The progressive one seems to be "she's Bill's puppet".  That does not compute.

                She can, and has been trying (to little avail amongst progressives) to separate herself from the things Bill's administration, of which she was an unofficial part, did that she didn't approve of.  She doesn't want to seperate herself from the things his administration did that she's proud of.  Let's not insist she "throw the baby out with the bath water" here.

                by bfitzinAR on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:16:04 AM PDT

                •  You didn't answer my question

                  Where is the evidence that she has a life/policy/pov outside his control.

                  I can assure you, I am a strong woman. I see not one iota of proof that she is anymore than someone's very powerful wife. She seems thin on character and quite separate from the world we live in. Women like this are, sad to say, a dime a dozen. It is easy to be a ball buster with the fire power all around. Remove Bill, her trumped up resume and she is a empty shell, or rather a creature without one.

                  Watching her has actually been a huge wakeup call for me. I have utterly renounced that kind of strength. Forever. It's very scary and very unreal.

                  We used to laugh and act proud about being bitches. I think it is sad to watch now.

                  That much I can thank her for.

                  by lascaux on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:01:14 PM PDT

                  •  Where you see a woman living in a man's

                    shadow, I see a woman working through a man's position.  Her interests have always been kid focused - basically health, education, and welfare of children, and by extension the adults who care for them.  When the courts said AR had to redo their school system, Bill could have just played with a few laws and redid the bussing (God knows the number of southern governors who did just that) - instead he appointed Hillary to research the situation and come up with a real plan for AR education, which she did.  Her research and plan were then submitted to the Lege and for a short period of time AR had a school system other states were immulating.

                    Assuming that a woman who has worked in partnership with her husband would be nothing without him is buying a sexist line.  My grandmother ran my grandfather's office.  Yes, he did the building, but he'd have gone under in 6 months without her work.  He could have hired office staff.  She could have worked elsewhere.  Together they created a company that built solid houses for regular working people - something they may or may not have been able to do separately.  Hillary made the conscious decision to support Bill's political career and try to get her goals accomplished through his political career rather than on her own.  He's better at "retail politics" than she is and the situation played to both their strengths.  Once he finished out his time in office, she had to choose between giving up her goals or going into elected office herself.  She chose the latter.  I admire her for that choice.

                    by bfitzinAR on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:22:01 AM PDT