I examine her most recent (and perhaps craziest to date) diatribe against Obama:
Hillary Clinton has possibly lost her mind. For a long time I've thought she was a bad person, a liar, a selfish, power hungry politician, a fake...but now I'm starting to think she really may have issues. Now I've written in the past about hypocrisy and lies, a lot, because there is a never ending stream of it coming out of the Clinton campaign, but it has gotten to the point where it is bordering on pathological, as if she cannot help herself, or perhaps it is schizophrenic, perhaps she is mentally ill, so delusional she actually believes everything she says and does is honest and good. I had a moment where I had the same concern about Bush; at first thinking he was just a horrible person, and then starting to question whether there wasn't more going on, perhaps he is really so delusional, so messed up in the head, that he actually believes the constant river of lies and Orwellian reality flowing out of his mouth. I don't know what Bush's problem is, but I'm honestly starting to question the sanity of Hillary Clinton. Her tactics make no sense, she attacks others on her weaknesses and their strengths, she attacks others and plays the victim, she condemns for lack of experience and accomplishments when she is incredibly short on both, she has no chance of winning, yes she irresponsibly surges ahead like a bull blinded with rage, hurting everyone including herself, with absolutely no chance of personal gain. She obviously cares nothing about Barack Obama, who obviously will be our nominee; nor does she care about her party, which she is tearing apart with her spite; nor does she care about the voters, who she demeans when they don't support her; nor does she care about democracy, which she seeks to circumvent when inconvenient to her political ambitions; nor does she care about truth, which she distorts and manipulates with as little care as one would expect from Dick Cheney or Sean Hannity. All of this might make sense, if she could somehow gain from it, if she could somehow beat Obama with all of these attacks, and then go on to beat McCain, yet neither are possible. So her actions, her crazy, angry attacks against Obama, a good person, a potentially amazing leader, a member of her own party, our future Democratic nominee, only hurt her, and everything she says she values and supports, and it even hurts her reputation, just as her husband's attacks and race-baiting hurt his reputation. It makes no sense for a rational person to act in such a self destructive way, so has she lost her mind? Is she just that blinded by rage, that filled with spite? I don't know, but her recent outbursts make me seriously worry about her mental state.
So after all of the negative, false attacks, all of the dirty tricks, attempted disenfranchisement, rule breaking, lying, deception, fearmongering, race-baiting, she has this to say about recent mailers sent out by Barack Obama hitting her on her health care mandates and previous support of NAFTA:
That is no way to run a campaign here in Ohio about the importance of the election.
Enough with the speeches and the big rallies, and then using tactics right out of Karl Rove's playbook. This is wrong, and every Democrat should be outraged.
That is not the new politics that the speeches are about. It is not hopeful. It is destructive, particularly for a Democrat.
So shame on you, Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That's what I expect from you. Meet me in Ohio. Let's have a debate about your tactics.
She went on to attack him on health care specifically saying "Just because Sen. Obama chose not to present a universal health care plan does not give him the right to attack me because I did." She said Obama's health care mailing echoed talking points of the health care industry and its Republican allies. She said Obama's attacks would give "aid and comfort" to health care companies and the Republican Party.
Now this simply strikes me as amazing, given her record on all of these issues. When I first read these attacks I was amazed at the blatant hypocrisy of it all. But let's go through through these one by one.
She attacks Obama over the truth of the claims in the mailer. His mailer claims that her health care plan would force Americans to buy coverage even if they could not afford coverage, which is actually true. Her plan includes a mandate, without exemptions for those who cannot afford it, so if even after tax credits or government subsidies a family still can't afford coverage, they are still forced to get it. Ability here would be calculated by the government based on complex formulas, the same kind of formulas that currently set the poverty level at half of what it really should be. She refuses to give specifics (this coming from the person who constantly attacks Obama on supposedly not offering enough specifics) about how she would enforce compliance with her plan (and experts have agreed that without harsh penalties her mandate will not be effective), although she has floated the idea of garnishing workers' wages, wages that may be needed for food, or paying rent, or utilities for heat in the winter, among other things. In the end, her plan is likely to hurt low income families who simply cannot afford health insurance, and see it as a luxury of those with disposable income. Her plan actually takes the burden of providing health care from the government, and places it on families. Beyond the negative side effects of trying to force families to spend money without knowing their actual financial needs, such a provision would be suicide for the entire plan, because Americans do not respond well to government intrusion, and that is a fact. Whether you want to look at it as crap because it is unenforceable, or crap because it may put extra financial burden on low income families, or crap because it is politically stupid, it is clear that her mandate plan is not a good one, which is what Obama has been pointing out. Hillary also mentions that is talking points are coming from the health care industry and its Republican allies, never mentioning that she is actually their biggest ally. Hillary Clinton actually receives more money from the health industry than any other politician, Democrat or Republican. As Michael Moore, maker of the documentary SiCKO about the health care industry, recently pointed this out saying, "Can you imagine, every time Sen. Clinton says that (referring to mandated health insurance), the licking of the lips that goes on with these health insurance executives?" And Michael Moore is not some biased rival campaign tool, unlike Hillary's favorite pet Paul Krugman, in fact he has been openly critical, and rightfully so, of all of the frontrunners for failing to offer truly universal health care. So this claim by Clinton of Obama helping the health industry is not only false, it is completely backwards.
She then goes on to say that "Just because Senator Obama chose not to present a universal health care plan does not give him the right to attack me because I did." This, as I've repeatedly pointed out, is a blatant lie, because NEITHER plan is truly universal health care, and both fall short. This has been a consistent line of deceptive attacks from the Clinton campaign, and now she is distorting the truth at the exact same time she is attacking Obama for supposedly distorting the truth, when he isn't.
Obama also points out in his mailers that Hillary originally supported NAFTA in the 90s when her husband was touting it as the best thing since sliced bread. This is also true. Hillary takes exception to his mailer saying she said it was a "boon" to the economy, because she didn't say the word "boon" even though she had referred to it as a success and praised corporate leaders for their support of it. The actual word "boon" came from an independent article describing her support of it, but regardless of whether or not she used that specific word, she indeed supported NAFTA, she said it would bring widespread benefits to people all over the country, which is what the mailer was all about. So again, Obama's mailer was factual. A spokesman for Obama's campaign responded to her attacks saying, "Everything in those mailers is completely accurate, unlike the discredited attacks from Hillary Clinton's negative campaign that have been rejected in South Carolina, Wisconsin, and across America."
He raises a good point. While Hillary is firing off at Obama for sending out supposedly false mailers, the kind of actions that are supposedly "no way to run a campaign" and "wrong" and "straight out of Karl Rove's play book" and "destructive", and while she says that "everyone Democrat should be outraged" and "Shame on you Barack Obama", what about Hillary's tactics? As they say, let [s]he who is without sin cast the first stone.
It turns out that, unlike Obama, Hillary has actually sent out plenty of mailers containing flat out lies about Obama's record and past positions, as a little fact checking quickly makes obvious:
Hillary Clinton has just proliferated a mailer via snail mail which FactCheck.org declares, "twists Obama's words and gives a false picture of his proposals." The mailer accuses Obama of 1) wanting "to raise Social Security taxes by a trillion dollars" (a "big distortion"), 2) having "no plan" for a moratorium on foreclosures (falsely deceiving) and 3) voting for "Dick Cheney's energy bill that gives huge tax breaks to oil companies (largely distorted).
While Clinton's letter seems unenlightening as to Obama's actual record, it sheds a great deal of light on Sen. Clinton, her character and the tenor we may expect from her campaign. John McCain is smiling.
She also repeatedly attacked his past record on abortion rights by misleading the public about his voting record while in the Illinois legislature. She highlights his "present" votes on many abortion-related bills, saying that he failed to stand up for women's right to choose, conveniently leaving out the fact that his "present" votes were actually part of a larger strategy conceived by Planned Parenthood to defend other legislators from political attacks based on their votes on the issue. Indeed the pro-choice community has come to his defense:
A letter from Planned Parenthood/Chicago Area President and CEO, Steve Trombley:
I’m here to set the record straight about Barack Obama’s record on reproductive choice. Barack Obama has always been committed to a woman’s right to choose. He has a 100% pro-choice voting record both in the U.S. Senate and the Illinois Senate.
Barack Obama has NEVER wavered.
You wouldn't know this from Illinois NOW's recent statements on Obama's record. The fact is that it is NOT Obama who has wavered, Illinois NOW is the one who’s changed its mind.
When Obama was an Illinois state senator he worked with Planned Parenthood to develop a strategy combating a series of extreme anti-choice measures designed to paint pro-choice legislators into a corner. Obama and numerous other state senators voted "present" on these bills in order to protest the politicization of the health and safety of Illinois women. Illinois is one of the few states that allows legislators to voice their objections to legislation through a "present" vote. These "present" votes are counted in the official roll call of the bill, and they DO affect the outcome. For all intents and purposes, they are a vote against the bill. As a matter of fact, Senator Obama wanted to vote "no" on these bills. But, he stood with his colleagues in protest against the anti-choice extremists who controlled the Illinois Senate at the time.
During his time as a state senator, no major pro-choice organization questioned Obama's present votes. Instead, Obama received endorsements from Personal PAC, NARAL of Illinois PAC, the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, and, YES, EVEN Illinois NOW.
That’s right! Illinois NOW endorsed Barack Obama in his elections in 1998 and 2002 AFTER he voted "present" on several bills. As Illinois NOW officials have stated, they were aware of the "present" vote strategy, and they still endorsed him. They also endorsed several other prominent Illinois politicians who voted the same way.
It is only after years have past that Illinois NOW has changed its mind. Apparently, these days they don't agree with the strategy that they originally endorsed. Why didn't they think that in 1998 or 2002?
I don't know why Illinois NOW has changed its opinion of Barack Obama since his record has remained the same and since his time as a state senator, he has only demonstrated a full and steady commitment to choice.
I don't take issue with Illinois NOW having a preference for a woman candidate for President. However, I do take issue with their distortion of Obama's record.
My organization has not made an endorsement yet because we have two solidly 100% pro-choice candidates running for President. However, we feel it is important to defend Senator Obama (or any candidate) who has stood with us to protect our precious reproductive freedoms.
If we don't defend people who stand with us, how can we ever expect them to be there when the going gets tough?
The CEO and President of Illinois Planned Parenthood at the time has also came to Obama's defense:
There is a presumption, if one is not familiar with the mechanics of the General Assembly, that a present vote is a 'duck.' I think it's not well-based...I think it's somebody who doesn't understand how the legislative process works.
And Helen Halpin, Professor of Health Policy at U.C. Berkeley further backed up his firm and documented commitment to the right of women to choose:
When South Dakota passed a law banning abortion, they asked all U.S. Senators to please help them to defeat this law, and Barack Obama was the only U.S. Senator who stood up and raised money to help successfully turn over the ban on abortion in South Dakota.
Despite Obama's strong career-long commitment to the pro-choice cause, Hillary and her equally shameless promoters at NOW have repeatedly attacked Obama on this issue, even after it has been debunked through and through, and even though there is no wiggle-room in the attacks: they are blatantly false.
Now I could go on, because there have been countless false attacks by the Clintons, all thoroughly deceptive and unethical, but for the sake of blogspace, I need to move on.
She attacks Obama for Karl Rove-like tactics, which is quite funny given her embracing of Bush/Cheney's most potent and shameless attack against Democrats: fearmongering. She actually had the audacity to suggest that if she wasn't elected (or if Obama was) we may be attacked by terrorists (as early as Day One, no less), just like almost happened in Britain when Gordon Brown took over as Prime Minister. If that isn't straight out of Karl Rove's playbook I don't know what is!
Keith Olbermann was quite amazed by the blatant fearmongering, and took exception to it:
Does this not sound like exactly the kind of politics, in a milder form, that you have so eloquently criticized and so many other Democrats have criticized, done by the Bush administration and by Republicans for, well, really since 9/11 itself?
He also rightly stated that her comments put her "in the position of having to defend herself against charges of some kind of fearmongering a la Karl Rove." Yet she accuses Obama of using Rove-like tactics when he rightly criticizes her real flaws in her health care proposal, and her real past support of NAFTA. Talk about schizophrenic.
This of course aren't the only low Republican-like tactics she has employed throughout this campaign, especially when her back was against a wall. Lest we forget:
- Hyping up Obama's admitted adolescent drug use, and raising questions about whether or not he was a drug dealer as a teen
- Flat out lying about Obama's observations about Reagan's role in American politics
- The misleading accusations about Obama's plans for Social Security
- Conducting research on Obama's presidential ambitions from his days in kindergarten
- Not supporting the right of students to exercise their legal right to vote and participate in elections in Iowa
- Possibly having a hand in (or being complicit with)electoral fraud in New York City
- Lying about Obama's consistent opposition to the Iraq war
- Attempted anti-union voter disenfranchisement in Nevada (and trying to change the previously agreed to rules just days after the union endorsed Obama rather than her)
- Completely misrepresenting Obama's personal and legislative experience and achievements (which are actually more impressive than her own)
- Exploiting the Michigan-Florida controversy for political gain
- Organizing a swiftboating campaign to attack Obama to circumvent campaign finance laws
- Recently hyping up a past meeting with local constituents in Chicago who happened to be past members of a radical anti-war group in the 60s as connections to radical terrorists, despite of the fact that Bill Clinton actually pardoned a member of the same group, along with many others convicted of terrorist activities
- Recently attacking Obama on so-called "plagiarism", while at the very same time plagiarizing lines and attacks left and right
- And perhaps the worst of all, conducting a long race-baiting campaign trying to ruin Obama's candidacy by marginalizing him as the "black candidate"
Now all of these are perfect examples of flat out lies, deception and appalling tactics, all aimed at a fellow Democrat (and this is by no means a comprehensive list, these are just off the top of my head). Any one of them is magnitudes worse than anything Obama has directed toward Hillary. His attacks are at least 99% accurate, semantics aside, while hers are blatant and have been repeatedly debunked, yet nevertheless many of them (such as the pro-choice attacks) are repeated in state after state, usually the day before the polls open, so as to limit Obama's ability to set the record straight in time.
Now let's talk about whats destructive to the party, and helping the Republicans, and what all democrats should be outraged about. This is easy to sum up: everything Hillary has done that I've listed above. As I've discussed in previous blogs, she has absolutely no chance of winning this primary, Obama is going to be our nominee, so every attack she throws at Obama only helps John McCain. Her and the Republicans are actually trading talking points back and forth. They have been using her talking points against Obama, and she has been using all kinds of typical Republican attacks against Obama. Right now she is doing nothing but
backstabbing the only chance we have at winning in November, she is siding with McCain, essentially double-teaming Obama, for absolutely no logical reason other than to try to destroy the person who "stole" her "rightful" inheritance of the Oval Office. Nothing could be more obvious than this fact, the primary is over, she lost, yet she refuses to stop attacking her own party, what could be more destructive to the Democrats than that?
Shame on Barack Obama? Have you lost your mind woman?? Shame on YOU Hillary Clinton. Shame on you for being so selfish, power hungry and angry that you can't bring yourself to swallow your pride and step aside for the good of the party and the country. Shame on you for siding with the Republicans in attacking our nominee for president, who regardless of your disagreements, is a bright and exceptional leader. Shame on you for continuously lying about his record. Shame on you for trying to hijack democracy for your political gain. Shame on you for trying to exploit racism to your political advantage, trying to use race to destroy not only someone from your own party, but someone who will in all likelihood be America's first black president. Shame on you for suggesting that if Obama is elected president we will be attacked by terrorists. Shame on you for being an incredibly outrageous hypocrite. Shame on you for accusing him of being everything that you are, and what he definitely is not. Shame on you for being the most toxic and destructive threat to the Democratic Party in this election.
Either you are a despicable, shameless and power hungry liar, or you have some serious undiagnosed mental illness, much worse than whatever Britney Spears has going on in her head, I'm not sure at this point, but I know you are a danger to yourself and everyone around you, and I'm embarrassed to be in the same party as you. I'm ashamed of you Hillary Clinton, I'm ashamed for you.
You tell me, crazy or just despicable?
Update: Others weigh in here, and here.
Update #2: Some people are seeing this as a possible "Dean scream" moment for Hillary, where it becomes obvious that she has indeed lost her damn mind and it is the beginning of her final rapid fall out of the race. Only of course Dean was in no way crazy, and he in no way jeopardized his political future by coming off as crazy, selfish and vindictive. And Howard Dean never ruthlessly attacked members of his own party. Aside from that however, I can see this as one of those moments, because she really has gone a little nuts...we'll see how it plays out in the media I guess.
Update (2/24): This might settle the question. Huffington Post just posted a video of Hillary mocking Obama's message of change and a new direction in politics, and by "mocking" I mean perhaps the most pathetic, childish display I think I've ever seen from a politician. Keep in mind, once again, that she cannot win the primary, the math just doesn't add up, meaning she is mocking our Democratic nominee. This is beyond contemptuous. I think she planned this campaign President Hillary or bust, and this is the bust...apparently she doesn't care about her political future if she can't be president, which makes sense since her taking up a seat in the Senate for the last 7 years has only been because she wanted to be president, not because she cared about making a difference or changing anything, so I guess if she can't get there, she'll go out in a ball of flames, taking everyone around her with her. I'm actually shocked by how crazy she is getting; it IS a bit like watching Brittney shave her head is it not?
Oh, and keep in mind this is the same Hillary who just two days ago smiled and shook Obama's hand at the debate and said she was honored to stand next to him. Do we need any more proof that her "special moment" at the end of that debate was nothing but scripted bullshit?
http://thepersonalispolitical.tumblr...