Hillary's BIG FLIP-FLOP on who is qualified to be president

[Martin Eden]

If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee I will not hesitate to vote for her over John McCain, but casting that ballot will leave a bad taste in my mouth because it is very difficult to swallow so much of the BS that has characterized her campaign.

This commentary appeared in Sunday's Chicago Tribune:

Clinton's endearing fictions
by Steve Chapman

April 27, 2008

During the Pennsylvania primary campaign, Barack Obama made a rather charitable gesture not only toward his Democratic rival but toward the presumptive Republican nominee as well. "You have real choice in this election," he told a crowd in Reading. "You know, either Democrat would be better than John McCain, but . . . all three of us would be better than George Bush."

That was all it took to set off Hillary Clinton. She rattled off a list of McCain's misguided positions, asking her audience over and over, "Is that better than George Bush?" She concluded, "We need a nominee who will take on John McCain, not cheer on John McCain, and I will be that nominee."
<<snip>>

A few weeks ago, campaigning in Texas, Clinton sounded downright glowing about McCain. Referring to those 3 a.m. phone calls at the White House, she said, "I think you'll be able to imagine many things Sen. McCain will be able to say. He's never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Sen. Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002."

Let's review. Clinton criticized Obama for ranking McCain No. 3 in a four-person assessment, ahead of Bush. But Clinton herself put McCain No. 2—or maybe even in a tie for No. 1—in her evaluation of the three candidates.

She thinks McCain is better than Obama and McCain is no better than Bush. Which can mean only one thing: Bush is better than Obama!
<<snip>>

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/columnists/chi-oped0427chapmanapr27,0,6482683.column">full commentary

[Jack Rabbit]

1. Apart from Mrs. Clinton's artless flip flopping on the matter . . .

I think it's a given that McCain will be a better president than Bush. For crying out loud, Buchanan, Harding and Nixon were better presidents than Bush. Bush's ancestor, Franklin Pierce, was a better president than Bush.

[WillyToad]

3. Hmmmm, if Obama says it, it is just the truth...

But if Hillary says it, she is campaigning for McCain?

Hypocrisy is an odd thing...

[Jack Rabbit]

4. Excuse me . ..

Obama said McCain would be better than Bush. What Mrs. Clinton said or strongly implied, and as the piece in the OP points out, is that McCain would be better than Obama. There's a big difference. Obama did not say the same thing as Mrs. Clinton.

I happen to agree with Senator Obama that either he or Senator Clinton would be better than McCain and that all three of them would be an improvement over Bush. That's really not a remarkable statement.

[qazplm]

6. so's an absence of logic

or is it disingenuousness in this case for you?

[sellitman]

2. Great post.

"You have real choice in this election," he told a crowd in Reading. "You know, either Democrat would be better than John McCain, but . . . all three of us would be better than George Bush."

What part of this does she not understand? How can anyone not agree with the pecking order? Why can't she be as magnanimous as Barack? Maybe folks wouldn't hate her as much if she did.

Naw .....never mind.

[noel711]

5. That's what I've been sayin'...

She's had several opportunities to step up,
be presidential, to be generous to her
'worthy opponant' (the term used in the past).

If she took the step to be more inclusive in her
perspective (the party as winning )
rather than see the primaries as her personal battles
she'd look so much better.

She missed some chances...

Not good for her, not good for the party.

[bernynhel]

7. OK so all the above are better that Bush!

On that we agree but yet so many want to debate on who would be a better president or Hillary said this or Obama's minister said that - how about this: I'm for Clinton AND Obama - in that order! 8 years for Clinton then 8 years for Obama. It will be such a relief knowing that that asshole is anywhere else doing anything else I don't want it to last only 8 years! Hillary'd be great (or so) but if not elected in November how likely is it that she will run again in '17? Not as likely as Obama! And wouldn't we agree that Obama, if not elected this time, would very likely run again eight years from now and still be viable? That should be the focus of anyone hoping to keep the GOP from the presidency for a period of time that could really make a dent in the damage from the last eight years! Why alienate or otherwise paint Clinton or Obama in a funky light in the eyes of future supporters or anyone else for that matter when we all agree either would be relief from the Bush crisis? Even good presidents, maybe! It's a good concept to rally around instead of everybody playing Nancy Grace on behalf of their favorite candidate-of-the-day and wasting all this effort on villifying two perfectly capable and popular candidates like we have not enjoyed the likes of for a long, long time. And someone needs to tell A Huffington to just shut up for a minute! Did anyone else hear her on Bill Maher Friday? Jeeziz!