I know that in time many Obama supporters at DU

[Vattel]

will remember some of their smears of Senator Clinton and feel at bit embarrassed. It's well-trodden ground, but here are two examples of the many possible sources of embarrassment.

Example #1: The Muslim Rumor.

In a few months, ask yourself if Clinton was suggesting that Obama might be a Muslim. Here's what she said:

CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, that's--you know, there is not basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.
KROFT: And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim.
CLINTON: Right. Right.
KROFT: You don't believe that he's a Muslim or implying? Right.
CLINTON: No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.
KROFT: It's just scurrilous --
CLINTON: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time.

Example #2: The reference to RFK's assassination.

In a few months, ask yourself if you agree with Olbermann that Clinton was "implying, whether it was intended or not, that she was hanging around waiting for somebody to try something terrible." Here's what she said:

HRC: People have been trying to push me out of this ever since Iowa.
Q: Why?
HRC: I don't know. I don't know. I find it curious. Because it is unprecedented in history. I don’t understand it. Between my opponent and his camp and some in the media there has been this urgency to end this. And historically, that makes no sense. So I find it a bit of a mystery.
Q: So you don't buy the party unity argument?
HRC: I don’t because again I've been around long enough.
My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?
We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it. There's lots of speculation about why it is.
Q: What is your speculation?
HRC: I don't know. I find it curious. And I don't want to attribute motives or strategies to people because I don't really know, but it's a historical curiosity to me.

Words to live by: "I don't want to attribute motives or strategies to people because I don't really know."

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MonkeyFunk]

28. Pointing out the Obama fan lies

isn't trolling, no matter how uncomfortable it makes you.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vattel]

34. This is a good illustration of the problem

You choose the most unsympathetic interpretation of someone's behavior and then somehow convince yourself that it must be true.

[Raster]

36. Don't even.

[musicblind]

76. It is not at all a troll post, and will not be deleted from DU when GD primaries ends because

it does not smear Obama, or say single negative thing about Obama, AND in fact talks very positive about a fellow democrat! The thing is, when GD: P closes the rules will change so that we are no longer allowed to break DU rules and be so harsh on our fellow democrats. People will no longer be allowed to bash Obama or Hillary. They wont be allowed to call out posters, to call posters trolls, to accuse a poster of being a freeper, to TELL another person they are alerting or ignoring them or their thread, to call out moderators, to promote Nadar, Barr, or McCain for presidency. HOWEVER they can still state that they are voting for someone besides Obama, they just aren't allowed to advocate that other people do such a stupid thing.

I have the utmost respect for Obama, and plan to vote for him. I am just saying that this post doesn't really meet the requirements for trolling as it says nothing defensive except to defend a fellow democrat on a democratic message-board (seems to be within the rules). In fact the post goes along with the views of Skinner... the owner... who has stated he too believes it was a vicious smear to claim Hillary was waiting for Obama to be assassinated. So seeing as it is in-line with the rules of the board, seeing as it is not vicious, seeing as it is not a SHORT hit and run post, and seeing as it featured full dialogue snippets so the readers can come to their own opinion... it isn't techincally trolling.

[davidinalameda]

32. are you still here

thought you would have left with the rest of the haters

[Forkboy]

41. If someone did the same about Hillary you'd be among the first to complain though.

:shrug:

[LisaM]

1. I've never, EVER understood why they slammed her for that Muslim question

You'd think they'd be pissed at the interviewer for persisting with the question after he'd already had an answer. In fact, in both interviews, they kept pressing her to answer a question she'd already answered. As a journalistic technique, it's kind of tabloid. They wanted to push her into a "gotcha" moment.

[PBS Poll-435]

12. It was all phony-outrage and a way to get their post counts up

As far as I know.

[hokies4ever]

15. What did her statement say to correct the misinterpretation of the context of her statement?

*crickets*

[Vattel]

25. Huh?

[hokies4ever]

38. Sorry for speaking above your level

:rofl:

[Vattel]

55. "misinterpretation of the context of her statement" Huh? n/t

[hokies4ever]

59. dictionary.com

check it out if you need a definition. Here's the link:

www.dictionary.com

:rofl:

[RazBerryBeret]

37. I'm not being combative,

but I feel the same way about the "you're likeable enough" comment. I still don't get why that's a sexist comment. especially when no one else on the stage said a word....

[Vattel]

70. I agree n/t

[musicblind]

77. It wasn't a sexist comment.

I didn't come off as overly polite, but it is the same as the Hillary quotes in the OP. It was taken way out of context when everyone KNEW Obama wasn't trying to say anything bad about Hillary. Both sides have done wrong in twisting words into things they never meant. "Likeable enough" was not meant in a devious way, nor were Hillary's remarks in the OP.

[ccharles000]

73. I agree.

[MadBadger]

2. I've already forgotten about Hillary altogether.

[JimGinPA]

3. Maybe Those Would Embarass Honest Clinton Supporters...

Among other things, upon reflection.

[Zhade]

10. Are those the same "honest" supporters who deny the Tuzla video proved there were no snipers?

The cognitive dissonance is way too entrenched for some of her boosters.

[LisaM]

14. Or honest Obama supporters who don't care that he flat out lied

about his parents getting together "because of events at Selma" when he was already born and toddling around when Selma happened, and his father wasn't even in the country.

Sniper fire? Big deal. Okay. Then using Selma to tell a phony story is a big deal, too.


On edit: PS - I actually think both events were part of a larger campaign narrative each was telling. I don't think either intentionally lied. But I think that they are very equal statements as far as what happened and what didn't. The only thing that was treated unequally was the coverage of it. If Hillary had messed up the Selma timeline, she would have been decried - again - as a racist. Obama says it - media gets selective hearing.

[hokies4ever]

16. I call you on that and raise you Hillary's murder of Vincent Foster

You should fold 'em and not double down.

[Willo]

46. Nice one, if I do say so myself.

And I do say so myself.

[Zhade]

62. Right, because someone getting facts during his time as a TODDLER mixed up...

...equates to a repeated, proven lie that there was no sniper fire to run from.

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure. That's logical.

Do you people even listen to yourselves?

[Vattel]

18. I didn't claim

that Clinton was smeared on the Tuzla thing.

[Zhade]

63. I understand. Many clinton dead-enders, however, do - when the video PROVES she lied. Repeatedly.

NT!

[Lilith Velkor]

84. I bet you spent 2000 squealing about how Gore claimed he invented the internet.

And you know nothing about snipers. I envy your ignorance, but not your smugness.

[LakeSamish706]

4. I kinda think that these posts are over on DU you guys... Get over it...n/t

[jillan]

5. That would only be true if some of those posters had a conscience.

'nuff said.

[MadBadger]

7. Do you mean that angel lookin thing with a halo that looks like you, floating by your shoulder?

Yea, I got one of those. But I also have that devil lookin thing to balance it out.

[lojasmo]

6. You're right. I am embarrassed for Clinton

and her stupid, race-baiting, and fearmongering comments.

[Vattel]

8. I said to wait a couple months. n/t

[lojasmo]

43. I'll still be ashamed of her stupid shit.

Hell. I'm ashamed of her IWR vote still.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Buzz Clik]

11. Poor, poor, Hiilary. Always being picked on. Never starting a fight. Always a victim.

:cry:

[MaraJade]

60. Hillary has never, ever been picked on by anyone at all.

I don't know why people keep bringing that up. Hillary has been accorded nothing but
fair and equal treatment by everyone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcdnlNZg2iM


:sarcasm:

[Buzz Clik]

82. Shame, shame on those people!

Let's enlist a large group of hard working white people and call whoever made that video at 3 am and tell them that John McCain is better prepared than Obama to be president!

I'm so sick of Hillary Clinton being victimized ... well, it makes me want to get shitfaced while being recorded.

[genna]

13. Would you feel better if we all said you were right and we were all wrong?

Intentions speak in words, deeds, and action.


If these were isolated words in a long campaign, we'd all be able to say...not a big deal.

But what about all these other things that made it into a pattern and a practice for Clinton? I can list them, but they are all too well known and I've been backing away from the extraordinary anger I felt toward Clinton because of them.


Yes, she thought she'd be able to tear us up and apologize later: hardball politics.


Well now that she did this pattern and practice thing, lost and then says forgive me---I can only say what I believe when she turns away from that behavior (there is no election), she asks to reconcile (the concession speech), and she takes on a new walk (she actually goes out on the road and campaigns as hard as she can for Obama)...then we will be even.

I don't have to say she didn't mean those things with her heart of hearts in order for me to believe that the strategy was deployed so she could gain voters from it.


I'm living forward, not backwards. She showed me what she was worth. I believed her. I hope the voters of NY were paying as close attention as I was and will be.

[Vattel]

21. That is a common rationalization for smearing

Michael Kinsley recently said that Clinton deserved to be treated unfairly with respect to her RFK remarks because of other objectionable things she did. Sad, really.

[genna]

67. Are we talking about the same guy who bent the meaning of offense out of shape?

Let me be absolutely clear where I stand on all of this. There is no room for sexism in a modern political campaign. There is no room for racism either. There is no room for remarks that could reasonably be interpreted as sexist or racist. In fact, given the history of sexism and racism in this country, there is no room for remarks that could even be willfully misinterpreted as sexist or racist. There is no room for rudeness, or for the appearance of rudeness. There is no room for comments of any sort by anybody a candidate might have met under any circumstances in the course of his or her life, unless they have been vetted for sexism, racism, rudeness, or the appearance of these qualities by the campaign's senior staff. There is no room for unfair accusations that the opposition candidate has engaged in sexist, racist or rude remarks, or that anyone he or she has ever met has engaged in such remarks. And of course there is also no room for perfectly fair accusations of this sort, which can be misinterpreted, and usually are.

Basically, in the modern political campaign, there is no room for remarks of any sort on any subject which could be interpreted as giving offense to anyone, and that covers just about every subject there is. Therefore, my campaign will enter a cone of silence from now until I am sworn in as president next January. And I call upon my distinguished opponent and her campaign to do the same. The stakes in this election are much too high for anyone to say anything.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/15/AR2008031501004.html


His is the opinion I should rely on when I think of a pattern and a practice?


Or better yet, how about this taste of irony from the venerable Kinsley?

Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, best known recently as friends of Barack Obama, disappeared in 1969 after two of their colleagues in the Weather Underground died while building a bomb. Ayers and Dohrn spent 11 years setting off bombs and putting out statements threatening violent revolution. They promised to kill innocent Americans and praised the lunatic murderer Charles Manson. In 1981 two policemen and a security guard were killed in the botched holdup of a Brinks truck. Fake IDs used to rent getaway cars in an earlier robbery had been traced to a store where Dohrn worked. A grand jury wanted her testimony. She refused. Said she didn't believe in grand juries. Spent seven months in jail, and then the matter was dropped. Other charges against Ayers and Dohrn were dropped because the evidence was tainted by the Nixon Administration's illegal wiretaps. Ayers put it well: "Guilty as hell, and free as a bird. It's a great country."

Years later, Ayers threw a fund-raising party for Obama. They sat together on the board of a community group. Is this association between Obama and these dangerous radicals a scandal? Or is the scandal digging up all this ancient history? Those have been the options in the debate. But the truth is a third option: Ayers and Dohrn are despicable, and yet making an issue of Obama's relationship with them is absurd.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1810338,00.html

But yet he goes on to do so.

If Obama's relationship with Ayers, however tangential, exposes Obama as a radical himself, or at least as a man with terrible judgment, he shares that radicalism or terrible judgment with a comically respectable list of Chicagoans and others--including Republicans and conservatives--who have embraced Ayers and Dohrn as good company, good citizens, even experts on children's issues. Northwestern created a "family justice" center for Dohrn to run. Ayers is a "distinguished professor" at the University of Illinois. They write Op-Eds and are often quoted in the Tribune, where, if they are identified at all beyond their academic titles, it is usually as "activists" who have never abandoned their noble ideals. In 1995 the Trib reported on a party at their home to celebrate a new progressive website, designed by the person who designed President Bill Clinton's website. The designer said, "There is a lot of room for different ideas in progressive politics, and we're proud to be associated with Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers." Hillary, over to you.

He should know better than most..

[Vattel]

72. I was criticizing him n/t

[Forkboy]

17. ...

:popcorn:

[scheming daemons]

19. Hillary didn't mean anything by it.... AS FAR AS I KNOW......

....

[Vattel]

22. Exactly n/t

[Binka]

69. Holy Fark You Don't Get It Do You?

Your sig line is kinda strange, is it a typo or just more of your wisdom?

[scarletwoman]

27. *snap* (nt)

[elizfeelinggreat]

35. lol

Vattel didn't mean anything by it ... AS FAR AS WE KNOW ...

[blondeatlast]

20. Y'know, you've won me over. What do I do now?

:shrug:


PS: I lie a lot, too...

[Vattel]

23. Damn

I thought I converted one. Id be a lousy missionary.

[apocalypsehow]

24. There were no "smears," just some truth tellin' the HRC boosters didn't like.

"I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." -Harry Truman

Go ahead and snivel some more for us. :cry: :cry: :cry:

[Vattel]

29. You must be psychic,

being able to read Clinton's mind to discern her true meaning and motivation. Congratulations.

[apocalypsehow]

30. And I'd gladly say what you no doubt are, but the message would just get deleted.

"Tick. Tick. Tick. Tick. Tickety-tick..." Wednesday noon EST is just under thirteen hours away. Better have your fun while you still can.

[musicblind]

78. yes but Obama supporters wont get to smear Hillary after Wednesday noon either.

ALL of the republican talking points end at that point... and no more out right smearing of a democrat. All critisim will have to be measured, and constructive... not rude and/or bashing.

[Zhade]

64. Where's the link to the Tuzla video when we need it?

I swear, these people can't even accept the truth in front of their own eyes.

[Skip Intro]

26. How dare you not use your posting ability to praise Obama, and instead defend Hillary

from just a couple of the smears we've seen over the last few months?

Ten Unity Pledges for you tonight, and no dinner.

[GoldieAZ49]

33. I hope it gets seared, seared I say into their memory

:rofl:

sooner or later it will be :hi:

[Forkboy]

57. You should have included an evil Dr. Doom type cackle for maximum effect.

[Jed Dilligan]

39. Not embarrassed at all

Both those comments fucking sucked. As does your post.

[Crunchy Frog]

40. Yawn! Tomorrow noon can't come soon enough.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

42. Yet another flame-baiting thread that Mods refuse to lock! n/t

[Moochy]

45. In the Interest of Catharsis I guess..

:shrug:

[Vattel]

47. I'm not trying to cause trouble

I take very seriously the smearing of a candidate for the Presidency. Bob Somerby at www.dailyhowler.com put it better than I can:

"Because there’s something else Clinton didn’t say last Friday. As Matthews noted on Tuesday’s Today show, she didn’t say that she’s staying in the race in case Barack Obama gets killed. You can imagine she said that if you want to, of course; but that is what you are doing. You’re imagining—playing with dolls. Of course, this type of script-driven imagination has driven much of our political discourse over the course of the past dozen years; in 1999 and 2000, the press corps imagined many statements by Gore, and Bush ended up in the White House. Their interpretive conduct was utterly banal—and it had evil ends.

The dead of Iraq stare up from the ground at many “imagined” Gore statements."

This is not faux outrage on my part. This is our political culture we're talking about. This stuff is deadly.

[Binka]

71. Thank Gawd You Are Not Trying To Cause Trouble!

If you were trying your post would not be so pathetic. Run along Vattel. Scoot.

[Vattel]

74. you really don't like me, do you?

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[musicblind]

79. That might be because it's not flamebait

would be the most logical reason :shrug:

[swishyfeet]

44. There were piles of stupid threads on either side. Move on please.

[sniffa]

48. When does smear = fact?

You spin me right round baby, right round.

[Vattel]

50. Facts rock!

It is a fact that Clinton mischaracterized her landing in Bosnia. Go ahead and say it all you want. Shout it from the rafters. But don't accuse a public figure of something scandalous unless you know they are guilty. Or so I would urge.

[Zhade]

66. You wish. The video proves there was no sniper fire. You can't escape that fact.

You can deny it all you want, but the rest of the world's seen it, and they're not willfully blinded.

[musicblind]

80. It looks like he admited that her lie about the bosnia landing was fact in the post just above yours

:shrug:

[guruoo]

49. Wonder how the usual suspects are dealing with the thought of Hillary

campaigning for BO?

[Vattel]

51. By the way, I support Obama n/t

[guruoo]

53. Me too.

I always believed he'd make a fine President.

Even though I was a Hillary supporter I still found myself
going to his defense from time to time.

[TahitiNut]

52. I guess some people are just too fucking stupid to get it.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/TahitiNut/526

[Vattel]

54. OK

So not only is every word and phrase calculated, but Tahiti Nut knows what it is calculated to accomplish. You are one smart nut.

[Hugabear]

56. LET IT FUCKING REST

Seriously - why do you feel somehow compelled to bring up this shit now? These are subjects that have gone round and round here on DU.

[MaraJade]

61. I agree, lets forget all about everything now. . .

after all, we have Obama, the Second Coming has begun.

[Chloroplast]

58. Eh, neither is that big a deal now....

Example #1, I have no idea what the big deal is about the words themselves. Looking at them, it looks like the reporter was badgering her BUT, taking into consideration her tone from the video could belie a different intent. Either way, it's excusable. The one situation that I have never been able to understand was why she brought up RFK in the first place. If I can have that explained to me (without giving me the 'she was tired' line), I might be able to believe that she didn't give us a peek into how black her soul can be.

[Vattel]

81. I guess I disagree

about the tone. When the tone is added to the words, it seems to me to be even less likely that she was trying to suggest that maybe Obama is Muslim. But my main point is that for all you or I or any DU poster knows, her remarks were completely innocent.

As for the reference to the RFK assassinatiuon, there are any number of explanations of why she didn't just say that the primary battle between RFK and HUmphrey went lasted into June. It could be that she wanted to suggest by implication that it might have lasted even longer but for the assassination. It could be that for her like many of us it is difficult to think of that primary without thinking of the assassination. It could be because it would make it easier for people to remember that that primnary did last into June. One needn't assume some carefully calculated choice of words. Actually the second is the most likely of these. (There are many more possibilities, of course.) You don't have to assume that everything a politician says is carefully calculated. That's not the real world. Attributing it to a lack of sleep implies that there was something wrong with what she said, and there wasn't. it would have gone unnoticed had the NY Post not decided to initiate the whole silly scandal.

[cornermouse]

83. I think its our subconscious at work.

I realized the other day, he's younger than what we normally get, good speaker and thought to be charismatic, young pretty wife, and two small children who although a little older than Caroline and John Jr. are younger than what we usually see. And then there are the media's comparisons between Michelle and Jackie. I think its our subconscious working overtime.

[anonymous171]

65. What was the first gate of the season?

[JVS]

68. Survey SAYS

X

Bzzzzzzzzzzzt!