An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« ‘Many Dishes May Break’ at the Next NATO Summit

Spitzer »

Hillary Clinton’s Monster Mash: Apologizing Her Way To the Nomination & White House?

Posted by SHAUN MULLEN, TMV Columnist in At TMV.
Mar 13th, 2008 | Comments

The tactic is now well tested: A Hillary Clinton surrogate spouts something over the top and typically race laced about Barack Obama, Clinton looks the other way for a few days while the surrogate’s snark percolates in the media, and then when enough mud has stuck, she belatedly issues a statement of regret, repudiation and rejection.

And so it was yet again with L’affaire Ferraro.

In a campaign when the news keeps coming 24/7, nearly a week transpired from the time that Geraldine Ferraro did a pretty fair Archie Bunker imitation in claiming in an interview that Obama had gotten to where he is because he is black until Clinton finally distanced herself from the reprehensible remark. In the meantime, the news media was aboil with the story, which the unrepentant 1984 Democratic vice presidential candidate calculatedly kept ratcheting up.

Ferraro has now resigned from a position on Clinton’s finance committee but will keep on bloviating in the finest Gloria Steinem style about how unfair it is that a black man is upstaging the first serious White House run by a woman, Amazingly, Ferraro now claims that she is being criticized because she is white. (The victimhood thing is really getting old, gals.)

Meanwhile, a far younger and I daresay worldly-wiser woman, Obama foreign policy adviser Samantha Power, also did the resignation thing last week after calling Clinton “a monster” in what was supposed to be an off-the-record interview, but at least apologized on her way out the door.

There is a default position for the serial attacks that Clinton’s posse keep making against Obama with numbing regularity, but it makes her look just as bad: She just can’t seem to control her husband and other surrogates. If that is the case — and it isn’t since she could have made it absolutely clear at any point that such attacks are off-limits — what does that say about her claims that she has the managerial cred and experience to lead America?

I had a modicum of respect for Clinton coming into the campaign. I believed that she has been a not bad senator and while not my first choice, would be a not bad president. And Obama is certainly fair game insofar as whether he has what it takes when the red phone rings at 3 a.m., but not because he happens to be an African-American.

So it breaks my heart to say that while Power’s characterization was impolitic, she was right: Clinton is a monster.

Clinton is a monster who will tacitly approve any comment short of using the N-word that focuses unwanted attention on Obama. And she will employ any tactic necessary no matter how obscene or divisive in her lust for a nomination that seems to slip further from her slimy grasp with every passing day.

Clinton is a monster and that is truly horrifying when you consider the monstrosities that we have had to endure through over the last seven-plus years.

And you know what? Clinton’s monster mash just might work. She could conceivably slither her way to the nomination and then on to the promised land that eluded Ferraro and Walter Mondale 24 years ago through attacks that arouse the racist underbelly of American society followed by belated apologies. Do you think it’s an accident that so many hard-core conservative Republicans have been limbaughing over and voting for her in open primaries?

The beauty of this ugliness is that each time it is unleashed it is incumbent on Obama to fire back. And each time he fires back the focus shifts away from his message and what the campaign should be all about to his blackness.

Monstrously scary, isn’t it?

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

cosmoetica

Shaun: She will NOT get the nom. She can only STEAL it, and then would have to claim O's folk are playing the race card cuz she stole it fair and square.

But, it wd be a Pyrrhic victory, because the Obamaheads (both Dems and Indies like me who only voted Dem for him- or Edwards, were he in) will go third party or sit home. Big mac will win, despite his insane War stance, because Americans were repulsed by the 2000 W win, and won't allow it to happen a second time.

So, scared as you are , Shaun, it ain't gonna happen, and all that a piece like this does is further ratchet up the estrogen levels of the Feminazis and Hill Shillers like Jill, Damozel, and Holly. Hill will lose.

You would be better off focusing on the Mac-O matchup, and treat Hillary like yesterday's news- even if she picks up a dozen more delegates in Pennsylvania, only to give them right back in the last few primaries.

It's over, and the media- you included, have better things to opine on that a washed up middle-aged woman's identity crisis.

cosmoetica

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/13384

Good post on how Hillary's ID crisis vents itself.

superdestroyer

Isn't the real problem is that they do not differ on the issues, they will probably govern with virtually the same advisors, and make about the same political appointments. Thus, the election is about personalities and public perceptions. And for the candidates who is the the lesser of the two on likability, they have no chance but to attack.

Clinton was doing better when she tried to talk about the issues. The Obama campaign hurt themselves when they tried to talk about the issues in Ohio. But, I guess trade will not be as big an issue in the next few states.

PaulSilver

Policies might be similar but skills of persuasion are different. There are thousands of talented singers for every one who has the gift for connecting with an audience.

Don Quijote

Big mac will win, despite his insane War stance, because Americans were repulsed by the 2000 W win, and won't allow it to happen a second time.

Which is why they reelected him in 2004!!! I think you mean third time...

Trying to be funny right?

All of you Obama supporters massively underestimate the innate racism of the American Voter. In the coming Obama/McCain presidential contest, I expect that McCain will pick up the standard Republican L (The south and the states between the Mississippi and the Rockies) plus quite a few so called safe Blue States.

But anything is better than that monster Hillary, especially when McCain invades Iran and starts another pointless war that kills a few hundred thousand civilians and kicks off a whole new bloodbath.

And don't expect the Democrats to moderate a McCain Administration, because they won't, spineless cowards every last one of them.

But go for it nominate Obama, and I will get the pleasure of using the four most beautiful words in the English Language on November 11th: "I Told you so".

cosmoetica

No, SD, it's not, because if tyou look at the two candidates' positions, while there's about a 90% agreement, the way they achieve those aims is radically diff. Hillary, as example, in healthcare, trusts the drug co's to lower prices, Obama does not. Obama takes a bottom's up approach to problem solving, like a grassroots organizer wd. Hillary, and Mac, for that matter, are top downers- they gather experts, listen to the blather, and delegate. That's old and has failed. Obama's way may fail, too, but at least it's different.

When folk like you try to blur differences you have no right to say they're all the same, when they are clearly different- it's why there is such a fierce battle- the old vs. the new, the elitists vs. the masses. And do you really think the Ferraros of the world will end up in an Obama White House? Where are you getting your blow?

'Clinton was doing better when she tried to talk about the issues. The Obama campaign hurt themselves when they tried to talk about the issues in Ohio. But, I guess trade will not be as big an issue in the next few states.'

Actually, that's a 180. The very reason that Hillary has ratcheted up the race issue is because Obama has KILLED her on issues, so she only has mud left.

So you are wrong on substantive differences within the campaigns and how the public has reacted to them.

This is why, along with Shaun's fanning the flames of a fire that is almost wholly out, political dialectic suffers. On a post below, Mark writes of the death of a truly great, hard-working Senator, and no one gives a damn, but this BS keeps coming- from folk like you, DLS, Kanzeon, and other demagogues of the Right, and from Shaun and the Hill Shillers on the Left.

A little analysis before opining goes a long way, even if it is not the way of the blog.

cosmoetica

DG: 'Which is why they reelected him in 2004!!! I think you mean third time...

Trying to be funny right?'

No, but 9/11 may have slipped your mind. A turd from my toilet bowl could have been Prez when that happened and gotten re-elected. Again, think b4 typing.

'But anything is better than that monster Hillary, especially when McCain invades Iran and starts another pointless war that kills a few hundred thousand civilians and kicks off a whole new bloodbath.'

Or vote for a woman who approved the war and will be the Dem's Nixon and continue it, as well. More specious logic. And you are underestimating the power of the under-40 voter and the anti-war folk. Hill will likely lose to Mac if she steals the nom, but O will win the general. Did you watch any of the debates. Mac is horrid, absolutely horrid, in debates, while Obama is slick and polished- not as good as Edwards, but better than Hill or any of the other folk who ran.

"I Told you so".

I'll remind you when Obama's sworn in, Hillary's in a white coat, and Mac is sticking pins in his W kewpie.

Pete Abel

Cosmo,

Our comments policy is very clear. Note point 6b from that policy, among others:
"Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers."

Your repeated, derogatory characterizations of several TMV bloggers have been largely ignored to date, but now you ratchet up this behavior with an inflammatory term like "Feminazi."

I can't speak for Joe or all the editors, but as one assistant editor here -- one who has benefited from constructive dialogue with you in the past -- I would personally ask that you return to such dialogue and discontinue inflammatory comments like those referenced above as they are in direct violation of site policies.

Thanks.

superdestroyer

Cosmetica,

I have looked at Senator Obama positions and just do not see bottom up. Look at the federal mandates for energy and the environment. Look at the federal mandates for healthcare while promising low costs (that used to be called Voodoo economics when the Republicans proposed harebrained schemes). Not many signed of bottom up but plenty of signs of Washington telling people what to do and how to do it. On a small topic, does having a federal mandate that child care center be tested for lead paint sound like the bottom up.

The best you can say about Senator Obama is that his policies sound like something a former community activity would propose, free money to as many groups as possible from the federal government with no questions about how to pay for it or how to measure outcomes.

Also, when looking at the advisors for both campaigns, it is the same list of Ivy league, wonkish political insiders. Their world view is the same. Do you really think that no one from the former Clinton Administration will end up in the Obama Administration?

cosmoetica

Pete:

1) the term Feminazi is common parlance, like it or not, for far left Idealogues who are female and call themselves Feminists while derogating other women who disagree with them. There are people who hate Bush and call him and Cheney Bushco. As well as far worse terms.

2) The Hillary campaign has blatantly been niggerizing Obama- another valid term about politicians trying to racially scare voters. You may not like THAT term, but if it is being done it is fair to use it.

3) I did not call any of the TMV bloggers Feminzis. Here is what I wrote: 'So, scared as you are , Shaun, it ain't gonna happen, and all that a piece like this does is further ratchet up the estrogen levels of the Feminazis and Hill Shillers like Jill, Damozel, and Holly. Hill will lose.'

If you read it, I an actually CHIDING Shaun for continually antagonizing the 3 bloggers here who are blatantly pro-Hillary, often to the point of resorting to smear and fear tactics themselves- points on which they have all been called out on.

So, if you do not want 'flames'- to which I have contributed embers, I wd suggest that you, Joe, Shaun, the three women bloggers, etc. all parley and stop with the war of words yourselves.

You cannot have it both ways, criticizing commenters- on left, rt or center, from riling up, when posts like this are designed to goad the pro-Hillary crowd, who respond in kind with the posts that Holly, as example, does in return, and which often follow up Shaun's posts minutes later, in an obvious tit for tat.

I can send you links where I have produced lengthy rebuttals and detailed point by point analyses, only to have a blogger or commenter say something outrageously condescending. If I point that out, however, I'm flaming?

Gimme a break.

If you are serious in yor claim, then you should email Shaun and the Hill Shillers and tell them to quiet down.

Otherwise, your last post is just as disingenuous as any of the 4 bloggers here I mention above.

cosmoetica

SD: from the mortgage crisis to healthcare to foreign policy on trade, Oraq, Iran, and so many others, his ideas and ways of implementation are antithetical to Clinton, Mac, and the host of former Prez's. Of course there will be policies that are status quo. One does not go from Hitler to Mao Zedong to Castro to Chaves to Churchill and back overnight. But his whole tone and tenor is different, as are most of his approaches. Actually listen to a speech or a debate.

cosmoetica

Pete: Also look at Shaun's post's title- reusing the Monster tag that so riled Hill Shills. If you don't believe he did that for that express reason you are naive. So, get to calming your co-bloggers.

cosmoetica

The old PSA was rt: Reading is fundamental.

Kanzeon

"Niggerizing" Obama? "Feminazi" is common parlance? Wow. Just amazing.

It's bad enough that this site has posts validating the use of the term "monster" for anyone short of Stalin. But you have one of the most vile shriekers I've seen on the net spewing personal attacks on anyone who dares think differently, or tries to maintain civil dialogue.

I'm mentioned, and I've only posted on this site a half-dozen times.

The reason I bookmarked this site was because it was called "moderate." I think you guys need a serious reevaluation of your message. You might post something that justifies your name, and learn effective moderation.

I have no intention of coming back to this cesspool, btw.

cosmoetica

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nazi

Main Entry:
Na·zi Listen to the pronunciation of Nazi Listen to the pronunciation of Nazi
Pronunciation:
\ˈnät-sē, ˈnat-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
German, by shortening & alteration from Nationalsozialist, from national national + Sozialist socialist
Date:
1930

1: a member of a German fascist party controlling Germany from 1933 to 1945 under Adolf Hitler2often not capitalized a: one who espouses the beliefs and policies of the German Nazis : fascist b: one who is likened to a German Nazi: a harshly domineering, dictatorial, or intolerant person

see definition 2b, above

In short, the use of -nazi as a suffix has, in the last few decades become popularized, in ironic terms- from Seinfeld's many uses of it to Rush Limbaugh's.

cosmoetica

Kanzeon: you're the guy who called Obama a smear merchant, even though he's been chided for running a clean campaign.

This is you: http://themoderatevoice.disqus.com/veeptalk_or_...

'Obama is a lowlife race baiter. See the media matters link, and then Axelrod's repeating of that smear on the CNN link. You can't get lower than that. NO, that is not "ordinary" debate, or ordinary tactics. It's low and disgusting.
The idea that Obama isn't engaged in major mudslinging is delusional.'

See, Pete? That's the sort of poster posts like Shaun's and Holly's bring out.

Davebo

Shaun, this post is over the top.

And Cosmo, Pete is right. Your comments are also over the top.

And remember, I'm an Obama supporter.

Kanzeon, Holly and others have gotten a bit shrill of late. But attacking candidates, even unfairly or dishonestly is different from attacking posters and commenters.

cosmoetica

Davebo: 'Kanzeon, Holly and others have gotten a bit shrill of late. But attacking candidates, even unfairly or dishonestly is different from attacking posters and commenters.'

Which I have not done, if you read my post. I did not call any blogger a Feminazi- I said that Shaun's post will rile those sorts, as well as the pro-Hillary crowd.

In looking at the post, I see the confusion may have been caused by a lack of a comma between Feminazis and Hill Shillers, but I did clarify that in a later post, so it is disingenuous to continue the meme that I was attacking any blogger.

I WAS, however, chiding Shaun for this post. If you consider that an attack, so be it, but to say I attacked anyone is simply and demonstrably false.

cosmoetica

http://themoderatevoice.com/general/18370/howar...

Compare this post with the one linked above. Only 2 comments there, and it will quickly be smothered by posts like this.

BTW- I've also told Mark that other bloggers could learn from the civil tone and content of his posts.

Kanzeon

cosmoetica:

My last post to you, and on this site:

As you will note, my previous post contained specific links, and dealt in detail with Obama's use of the "I told you so" gambit, which is, in my view, the lowest point in this campaign.

Validating the term "monster" in the main article, after the person who used the term resigned, is way, way over the top.

That is the reason I will not visit this blog again, or post here. That is the reason why the site owner should reconsider the title.

Use of the terms "feminazi" and "niggerizing" is about as offensive as a person can get. It isn't civil conversation. I don't care to read it. The tone of the site is set from the top, however. If the site owner sees fit to print articles validating the use of the term "monster," then they should expect the tone of the comments to go downhill from there. This site lacks discretion, even by internet standards. I say that as a sincere comment, with the hope that they will one day improve. Also, I imagine that you aren't permitted to post on many sites anymore, and a heightening of the tone of the dialogue here will give you just one less venue for your hate.

As to whether I'm "shrill" - Obama supporters would decide I'm shrill no matter what I do. Hillary supporters are always "shrill." It's a default adjective applied the instant we open our mouths.

shaun

Davebo:

Perhaps we can fashion an alternative to "monster" and I would be glad to consider it, but I stand by my post.

Hillary Clinton is nobody's fool but her own. She could have made it very clear from the outset -- or at least after the Shaheen outburst early on in New Hampshire about whether Obama may also have dealt drugs -- that she would not abide grossly polarizing statements and especially statements that factored in her opponent's race.

She not only has not done that, she has allowed her surrogates to repeatedly run wild and then, as I note, offer a pious apology after the mud has had a chance to stick.

I would urge people who support Clinton -- especially those bloggers here and elsewhere who have an audience and support her -- to go before the cameras and declare that her campaign is about who is best qualified to lead America out of the Bush quagmire and why and once and for all distance herself from the muck and mire.

My prediction: Pigs will fly before she will do such a thing because she cannot now turn back or push away from from the web of sleaze and desperation of she and her campaign's own making.

Remember that Ferraro quit. She was not fired.

It's bloody tragic.

Let me reiterate that using Samantha Power's wordplay was indeed strong, but there is no doubt that Clinton is inviting its use because of her own reprehensible low-road behavior.

Davebo

Shaun, just draw from Hollywood when describing the Clinton campaign.

It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

ChrisWWW

I have to agree with Shaun here. Like Keith Olbermann said last night, Hillary has had the chance to reject and denounce the sleazy and borderline racist comments from campaign surrogates including her husband. Her inability to do so swiftly and decisively certainly seems intentional at this point.

If Hillary Clinton isn't a monster herself, her campaign has certainly become monstrous, especially when you compare it to Obama's efforts. The difference is stark.

Slamfu

This is one of the best youtube clips on the topic. Once again the hip young Obama folks run laps around the Clinton Campaign.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SDHxaYhqAo

Slamfu

Wow, read the rest of your post and Shaun, you got a bad habit of hyperbole. A monster? She hasn't even killed anyone. Just ruthless campaigning and thats it, get over it.

awinters

I'm sick of all the apologies for stuff someone else is saying. Too much media time is spent on this stuff and not the issues. If this is what it will be like from March to November, screw it all.

Don Quijote

Too much media time is spent on this stuff and not the issues. If this is what it will be like from March to November, screw it all.</blokquote>

Issues? what are those?

Visualize the world of beverages, at one end of the spectrum you have unsanitary sewer water and at the other end you have $50,000 Chateau Margot bottles, with a wide range of choices in between. You could choose to drink a nice soda, a cold beer, a decent glass of wine , a nice scotch or just some wholesome tap water. There is a wide range of choices, something for every taste.

Now convert our political system to world of Beverages, and watch your choice get reduced: Pepsi, Pepsi Light and Jolt. Not much of a choice, and now you have to spend a fortune to convince people that there is a noticeable difference between Pepsi & Pepsi Light.

blog comments powered by Disqus