Should Hillary & Bill Clinton Be Punished?

the clintons are fighters. they are not john kerry and, as much as i admire him, they are not al gore. the high road does not lead to the white house. it leads to the all but forgotten list of losers. barack obama had better take a page out of the clintons' playbook if he's interested in actually getting to the white house rather than just a lucrative speaking tour where his followers will pay up to be inspired at $500 per plate. posts that talk about punishing the clintons for waging battle in an election really tick me off. it's just another sign that democrats don't know how to win. as someone posted elsewhere, it's just another "clutch my pearls" or "eek! it's a mouse!" reaction from a liberal democrat who doesn't get it. as a life-long democrat, this primary election has really opened my eyes to all the cliche attacks of democrats over the years... i never used to believe them, but as the far left of the party turned viciously on both hillary and bill, i now realize that this isn't a party that knows how or even wants to win. so, go ahead... punish the clintons, condemn them... i care less and less everyday about what you guys say or think.

Hate mongering, divisiveness.............HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

The kettle seems to be obsessed with calling the pot black.
I prefer to take advice from people who don't practice what they preach against.

Punishment is unnecessary. Their punishment will be to sit and smile as their irrelevance becomes increasingly obvious to them. Hillary will simply be the junior Senator from NY (D-Carpetbagger), and he her husband. For most people that would be plenty. But not for them.

The irony is bracing even now when I hear many of their remaining supporters note how Obama better get smart and use their tactics or he can't win - even while he cruises to victory over those very same "kitchen sink" tactics, ahead in popular votes, pledged delegates and finally, superdelegates.

Few things. First, no matter who the VP is, the role should be shrunk "it from its Cheney-esque heights." Two, of course she shouldn't be punished. She shouldn't get the nomination in spite of trailing in every metric, but one shouldn't forget that she and her husband are extraordinary even as they sully their own names. Finally, what chapters of the Clinton play book should he study? Chapter one on over-reliance on antiquated forms of fundraising or chapter 5 on lead-blowing?

On a less civil note, as a younger voter, I can not express how happy I am to see the party moving away from old rightward leaning Willie Horton Democrats. Sick to death of them. They are the past. Barack Obama has already earned a place in the history of this country by running a ground game that's practically and literally teaching effective grassroots organization around the country. A side effect of the highly organized ground game he's run has been that many people are learning to lead on a local level. Even after the campaign is over, many younger activists have found each other. I do not want the top-down approach of the DNC to come back. Frankly, how much more naive is it to expect one person, Hillary, to be able to turn an entire country around on her own by way of her "fightiness?" Please follow politics more than once every 4 years.

Well I bet Shaun is one of those Obamaittes who will not vote for Clinton should she win the nomination.

With posts like this dont you suppose that you are just continually stirring the pot of anger and animosity towards the democrats in general and pretty much pissing off half the Democratic party who supports Hillary Clinton.

Do you not see the destructiveness of your own posts Shaun. Your continual unabated hatred for all things Clinton continues to drive people such as myself farther and farther away from embracing Barak Obama.

It is not because of Barak Obama that Clinton supporters will stay home this fall. It is because of his venom laced "I hate the Clintons and cant yell it loud enough or long enough" Obama supporters that will keep many Clinton supporters at home or even more worrisomely put them in the McCain court.

I suppose you can't see this Shaun because you still have a fear that Clinton might pull off a victory somehow but your postings and those like them all over the internet are exactly what the GOP is counting on to split the Democrats.

What you and yours are failing to grasp in all this is how the gop has no illusions about winning the white house but they do have fears of a landslide victory against their House and Senate members. A continual hateful rhetoric coming from the democrats towards each other will keep people home in November and perhaps avoid this bloodbath to the local House and senate candidates.

You Shaun must have a Dittohead button on your lapel as you write these posts.

And please Shaun. Defend your position if you choose to respond with dignity instead of telling me not to let the door hit me in the ass on the way out. You choose to write these UGLY posts and then get obscenely angry when people call you to task on them.

the hautiness of your post is part of what i'm talking about... first, while admirable, barack obama has not earned his place in history (yet) any more than howard dean did back in 2004 for generating grassroots support and internet funding. driving a stake through the heart of what you call "old rightward leaning willie horton democrats" is a recipe for disaster (eventhough i don't know what a "willie horton democrat" is.) your coalition of many younger activists will not win the white house alone. we've seen this movie before. maybe it's you, "as a younger voter" who needs to "follow politics more than once every 4 years" (especially if you've only been watching politics for the last 4 to 8 years)...

I agree with janinedm point about Obama's grassroots approach to this election. But this isn't new, Pat Robertson and the Religious Right used this approach to gain power within the Republican party. While Pat ran for President, his supporters ran for local positions within the Republican party. Even the former Republican John Cole at BJ is amazed at the grassroots organization of Obama.

Howard Dean's support was not organized/marshaled by Dean and his staff in any way comparable than the Obama juggernaut. The Dean campaign largely fell apart from lack of organization, which you cannot deny Omaba has shown in spades, particularly in the caucus states. You're right that I may be premature in judging how lasting it will be. But comparing the discipline and organization to that of Dean's campaign only works if you ignore nearly every detail except for the words grassroots and internet.

Two, by younger, I mean younger than 60, though I've had to follow politics all of my life when both of your parents work in the Dirksen building you find yourself following politics closely to see who their new bosses are going to be.

I'm just a supporter and not a campaign surrogate so I have the luxury of stating my honest belief. If you want to pretend that my words speak for the Obama campaign, that's your choice. I'm not advocating driving a stake through anyone's heart, just arguing that Dems' campaigns no longer need to be 100% or even 80% directed at them. Why is spending less than all of your attention on older voters seen as throwing them under some sort of bus? Many of the problems facing this country will have to be borne by people currently under 60. Who's going to pay back the mountains of debt we owe to China? I'm thinking it will more likely be ken than kensdad. Just sayin.

You can choose to repeat Hillary's biggest mistake, which is re-running the last presidential campaign. Your arguments are a perfect description of the 2000 and 2004 environments. The fundamentals ("right track/wrong track") polls are so strongly in the Dems favor that why can't we try to get some of the untapped market of people not voting. Some of that is already happening, with historic jumps in Democratic voter registration in every state. Why not work to do more than get a 51% squeaker and work toward rebuilding a Democratic party with new and consistent message. I understand it's a risk. I'm willing to take it because Dem's odds are good and it's not as if Hillary Clinton is any sort of sure thing.

I just made up the phrase "willie horton democrat." It brings to mind someone who will fall for anything as long as it supports the status quo. There's usually a bogey man of some sort involved.

as for the mountains of debt that we owe to china (and others) it is hillary who has repeatedly addressed that issue. it is hillary who finds a way to pay for all of her proposals. hillary is the candidate of specifics.

and yes, i am looking at a 51 pct squeaker. that is realistic. a massive "movement" to elect obama is not going to happen. he is not going to re-write the electoral map of 2000 and 2004, because the battlelines are too well drawn. i can see him taking IA (maybe), but not even CO, and certainly not VA. hillary puts more red states in play (esp. FL and OH... but also, AR, TN, KY, WV, NV, NM)... she might have more work to do in keeping WI and MN than obama, but there are other blue states that obama might have to fight to hang onto... hillary is the stronger candidate in a 51-49 general election. an "obama landslide" is likely to be one that he is on the losing side of...

Fine, the "better campaigner" chestnut. If that's the case, why has she bungled the primaries so terribly? Why ignore caucus states? Why ignore Iowa until it was too late? Why be so slow to adjust after Super Tuesday? Why not know the rules for Texas? Come on now, Hillary would have been far from a sure thing. Could you imagine what would have happened if her deeply flawed campaign infrastructure only became apparent in September or October?

This isn't a particularly new problem for her. Her last Senate campaign in New York cost $36 million. $36 million, in a basically uncontested campaign where she was a popular incumbent. So forgive me if I'm still waiting for evidence of this uncanny campaigning ability. She'd be strong against McCain but is not a sure thing by a long shot.

On that note: while you speak of her many promises, if you judged Hillary's executive abilities by the campaign she managed (in both her and Obama's cases, it's the largest organization that either has ever led). Hillary's lacks discipline is disastrously disorganized and $20 million in debt. Oh, and leak prone. But I'm sure the general election would have been easier/smoother for her...somehow.

I certainl "DONT LIKE" the Clintons, but I am not suicidal when it comes to win the GE. If you care to reda THWP entry, Obama has certainly a problem w/some white people. Calling them "racists" will not change the problem or change them for that matter. But also what matters is the standing of the US abroad, and we are being looked very keenly. While we must and will not elect a president to please the other countries, failling to elect Obama because the issue is his color is not going to endear us abroad. Possibly O. ran too early, possibly we are unable to elect an AA , possibly some of us too many of us are not clor-blind and this election may be a dangerzone. And giving other countries this message will not hep us, we are already low since iRaq, how much more low can we get. Naturally , they dont have many AA or North African or Asian ministers not to mention PM there , but this is a pb. By taking HRC as his VEEP, he would send a reassuring white message to HRC voters and she is right on spot and give the US a fighting chance. I am not sure wheter we are ready to lect an AA but sending the message we are not ready will lower us once more, not to mention the AA population who certainly did not need to be given that type of message these days and by the Democrats BECAUSE IT WILL BE PAYBACK TIME FROM THIS NICHE OF VOTERS if the message we get from WV, kENTUCKY and the GE that an AA cant be elected as the voters dont look further than his name. The simple fact some people think he is a Muslim still and the fact he is a Muslim should not be considred if we were a religion/gender/color blind society . But we are not we are huma and we have a lot of sins. The rest of the western world also, but we have been usded to stand on the high moral stand and since IRAQ IT SEEMS WE ONLY KNOW HOW TO GET LOWER AND LOWER GROUND.
So we need the Clintons because a Black man and a White woman are indeed a message of hope to the world. hrc FOR ALL HER QUALITIES IS A DOWN TO EARTH PERSON and Obama has cle=arly seen MLK Dream.
In the Bible there is a Martha and a Mary aand Jesus loved them both.
We need active daily toiling HRC not funny not fancy but when the going gets tough, our tough lady can get going and we need the Visionary we need the one who see the new Frontier. Martha cant get across the Jordan and Mary needs things going.
This is not punishment - in fact to speak of punishment is rude and stupid. We need unity and united we stand. Besides if we know the Cheney years, at least we shall have a wise Veep and an active POTUS. wE SHALL BE WININNG ON both sides. It is time sto go together forward and Craville is indeed smart. Most of both camps have been angry at each other because of some fools, lets be smarter we are worthier than that.

ugh, not that again... if we are selecting presidents by their ability to win elections (even after the entire country knows that he's a screw-up), then GWB should be the greatest president in american history.

i'd say that hillary has gotten her act together lately... since march, she's won OH, TX, PA, IN, RI while obama (the frontrunner with massive amounts of dough has outspent her 3-to-1 and has the superior, no "historic" organization) has won VT and NC. now she is declared the "loser" and she's going to blow-out the "presumptive nominee" in WV and KY... seems to me that america seems to be having second thoughts about the under-vetted and relatively unknown obama who won ran up 11-in-a-row in february.

if the superdelegates were really to do their jobs, then they would be endorsing hillary as the candidate who has the best chance to win in november. endorsing obama is the easy (and cowardly) thing to do right now... and if you flip from hillary to obama like joe andrews, then the media annoints you a star and you get to show your cowardly face on all the cable news programs.

Yes silly cowards, honoring the wishes of voters in 30 of 50 states that have voted so far. Are you prepared to revise the "second thoughts" narrative after Oregon or South Dakota?

huh? winning OR and/or SD will negate the impact of losing OH, PA, TX, RI, IN, WV, KY... i don't think so... especially after he was the prohibitive favorite to get the nomination. all the losing he's managed since march is an indication that dems are having second thoughts. it's ironic that winning NC by 14 pts when he was supposed to have won by more than 20 was hailed by the media as the crushing blow to clinton. they are so in the tank for him it's ridiculous. just like tonight, they will declare hillary's blowout win as irrelevant. the only problem is that voters are voting (against obama and for hillary) while the media is bloviating (for obama and against hillary)... obama is a weak candidate. a strong candidate with all that money and all that organization would have closed out hillary a long time ago. those damn pesky voters keep leaving the door open, but i'm sure that the DNC will slam it shut on may 31st, so you can rest easy. the cowards at the DNC are on your side.

So wait, Hillary's ahead in popular votes and pledged delegates? They have different electoral maps to be sure. I ask, if you're arguing that Hillary would have been a sure thing, then I must ask who is really blinded by the personality of their candidate.

Trailing in every metric is not a resounding show of strength. I always wonder about that line of reasoning. If Obama's so weak, why can't she overtake him? I played around with the delegate counter at CNN. Even if we give her 80% in WV and KY and 70% in FL and MI and Obama a mere 53% in the remaining states where he's polling ahead, she still ends up behind in pledged delegates. Losing narrowly is not winning.

Also, you gave me an opening to remind you that she lost TX in pledged delegates due to lack of ground organization and not knowing the rules, thanks for that.

...and I'm done.

One more thing, if you think that Hillary would have been able to take WV in the General, then you're dreaming.

ok, i thought i had mentioned this (as the key to what i was saying).... there is buyer's remorse on obama... he was unvetted... he was unknown... yes, when he amassed all those wins and delegates in february. did he have a great campaign? yes. good organization? yes. did hillary's campaign mess up early on? yes. has it been a different story since march? yes! obama is not the same candidate as he was when he was getting a free ride in the media. he is not going to do well in the general election.

as for TX... she got over 200,000 more votes than obama, but he got more delegates. wow! of course, you don't see the ridiculous aspect to that. why should the candidates with more votes get less delegates? makes sense to me!

as for WV, you are completely off base... you have no basis to argue that hillary can't win WV in a general election. bill clinton won WV twice, and WV has more registered dems than republicans. it has a democratic governor. it has 2 democratic U.S. senators in jay rockefeller and robert byrd. how is it dreaming to think that hillary would win WV in a general election? you are the one who is dreaming, but that is the typical case with (some) obama supporters. you are blinded by the hype.