Would you continue to support Senator Clinton if you knew for a fact

[Raven]

that her campaign strategy is to wound Obama so badly that he loses to McCain in November, McCain serves 4 years and she comes back for the Presidency in 2012?

Given the state of the Supreme Court, do you feel that this tactic, if the rumors about it are true, would be supportable?

Please don't tell me how good Obama is or how good she is or how bad they both are...

If you are supporting Clinton, do you endorse this tactic?

[mudesi]

1. It is true

Considering that she knows how to add and subtract, there is no other conclusion to be drawn. That is exactly what she's trying to do.

[Tribetime]

6. that's the only thing that makes sense to me

[doublethink]

2. Sounds unbelievable to me still ....... but maybe she is running as Mc-lames VP.?

:shrug:

[stray cat]

3. Probably only because I don't want 4 years of McCain instead....

[Johnny__Motown]

4. There are some who suspect the Clintons of under cutting Kerry in '04 so she could run now.

I don't think it they can prove it. Pure speculation, but it seems a bit more plausible lately.

[roseBudd]

61. There was the Carville snitching in '04 over Ohio

[Muttocracy]

5. I think it's more likely she hopes Obama stumbles

some scandal, misstatement, whatever that she will try to pounce on. And since everyone else already quit, she'd be the automatic winner.

[MercutioATC]

24. Agreed. She's going to spend 3 months throwing shit and hoping something sticks.

I think she's in it for 2008.

The conspiracy theories about 2012 have some merits, but they seem a little :tinfoilhat: to me.

[wain]

30. I also agree

It's 2008 that is the goal. She'll worry about 2012 only if she does not get the nomination.

[totodeinhere]

36. But that's a very risky strategy.

It seems that when she tries throwing shit it comes back and sticks on her instead. She might knock Obama down a couple of points but it knocks her down even more. The only one it helps is McCain.

[MercutioATC]

50. Have I mentioned that I think she's a little nuts?

You're right. That strategy makes no long-term sense.

We tend to view our politicians as smarter or wiser or better-informed than the rest of us. Most of the time, this isn't true.


I still believe that it's her strategy.

[KittyWampus]

51. Yes, but she could suspend her campaign and still be available in that case. So that doesn't work

[Life Long Dem]

53. McCain said he is thinking about a 4 year term.

Obama would be 8 years. It's to Hillary's advantage if McCain won. Either way she could run against McCain in 4 years whatever McCain does. Bill Clinton beat Bush Sr. after one 4 year term.

[Johnny__Motown]

52. You would stumble too if you were knee capped. Tanya Harding needs to chill out

[moriah]

62. WTF is it with the Tonya Harding comparison?

It pisses me off. I don't think it's accurate. It feels sexist but then again I'm a pretty strong feminist, so I may just be oversensitive on that part. But I still don't think it's accurate.

Something I don't understand regarding the whole Tonya Harding comparison is this.

I'm sure you knew that "desperatehillaryattacks.com" was purchased by Obama for America. It was created on December 2, 2007.

The sites that Hillary bought, "votingpresent.com" and "votingpresent.org", were bought on December 4, 2007. "plantsforhillary.com" was purchased on November 13th, 2007 (by Edwards, however.) Attacktimeline.com was bought on December 7th.

If anything, it looks like that her opposition was trying to kneecap HER! She didn't attack back for a long damn time. The "now the fun starts" statement was on December 2nd, but if you actually *look* at attacktimeline.com (and I've read desperatehillaryattacks.com too) you see that Obama was being quite negative early on, before she was. So get her pissed off, attack her, if she complains that you attack her then she can't beat the Republican nominee, she's not tough enough, she's wimping out because she's a girl, it's not really attacks, etc. Then when she does respond back by "drawing contrasts", she's a harridan attacking. A desperate harridan.

-----------

And to answer the OP:

I don't believe that is her plan or tactic. If, God Forbid, McCain was to win the GE, WHOEVER is the Nominee, I would want the other to run in 2012. I want WHOEVER is the Nominee to be running in 2012 for re-election! I may prefer Hillary but either is better than McCain.

I don't believe Hillary's master plan (or, plan B even) is to tear apart our party to come in and "save" it later -- brings up images of that nurse in Texas who would try to induce her patients to go into cardiac arrest so she could "save" them. And I hope that comparison makes you understand how sick I think the idea is.

If it was her plan, I would not support it, no. I will be voting for the nominee in the GE.

[TahitiNut]

56. It doesn't have to be "either/or" ... it's a double-pronged scorched-earth strategy.

She'd rather burn the house down than be evicted. The attacks on Obama and kidos to McCain CLEARLY are knee-capping. The approach does NOTHING to glean support for HER. If she gets the nomination, her chances of winning are diminished by the wounded whe leaves lying around.

[elocs]

7. After what Hillary has done so far in this campaign with her scorched earth policy to win,

she would be lucky to win election as the national Dog Catcher if there was such a position. Her motives are becoming more transparent to more and more people, even those who had not been Obama supporters. You cannot give support, tacit or otherwise, to the Republican nominee and expect to be applauded by those who are Democrats.

[DemGa]

8. Yet another attack on Clinton's character from the Obamas

And there have been many -- directly from the BO campaign and BO himself. I wonder if they are even aware they are engaging in smear -- perhaps just routine by now.

[SeattleGirl]

10. Gosh, I'm an Obama supporter, and I didn't see my name on the OP.

:shrug:

[Raven]

11. OK, so I take it that you think such a tactic would be indicitive of

poor character on Clinton's part?

[DemGa]

16. The question itself mimics the attacks on Clinton's character

we've seen from the Obama campaign: "calculating, dishonest, do anything to win." How is this anything other than the same kind of attack?

[Raven]

19. I've asked if Clinton supporters would agree with this tactic...a simple

question. The answer can't be that difficult. I haven't said she's chosen this tactic, I've asked what you would say if she did.

[Botany]

18. You can not attack what is not there.

Hillary has shown herself to be a mean nasty piece of work.

Wright
NAFTA
Bosina
Relegion
Race
Drugs
"Karl Rove Playbook"
Running ads in Spanish papers in Texas that Obama is a Muslim Devil
Changing the rules in the middle of the game
Richard Mellon Scaife
Going on Fox
Bill going on Rush's show
Northen Ireland
Strong arm tactics
Making fun of Obama's speeches and supporters
Pimping for John McCain
and I could go on & on too.

Everything I listed she or her campaign has done.
BTW In 2006 I gave money to and worked @ least 200 hours
for a women running for congress.

[FatDave]

34. But...but...but...

Obama said she would do anything to win! That's as bad as all those things put together!

(Need I say :sarcasm:?)

[Life Long Dem]

55. MSM seems to want to make a point of the Clinton's never giving up.

[moriah]

68. I hate to ask, but could you provide links for a few of those?

... they are things I was not aware of, and I'd like to read more about them.

Specifically, the one about ads in Texas newspapers. Please. I'm not pulling an "I don't believe you", I sincerely had not heard this one. I listen almost religiously to XM Potus 08 (when I'm in the car, it's on, and I drive a lot for work), and I'm really upset to have missed this.

Thank you for your help. I'll Google in the meantime if you don't see this.

[Life Long Dem]

54. I thought they called this a discussion board.

We are discussing Hillary's plans. You don't want us to discuss this?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

9. you are delusional and talking utter nonsense

just talking out your ass

[Raven]

13. Ah, yes, just another civilized post from you. Just answer the

question, would you, please?

[Heathen57]

39. And I'm sure

you can back up your brilliant statement with facts that she and her campaign has never done any of those things.

How about putting your facts where you fingers are and post just how Clinton and Company never did anything on that list.

I'll be waiting, but won't hold my breath.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

58. I don't see a damn link in the OP's BULLSHIT post

[NanceGreggs]

12. I am not supporting Hillary ...

... for reasons other than those posed. But the conduct of her campaign does seem to lend credence to this being the strategy.

Unfortunately for Ms Clinton, her tactics thus far have left a bad taste in too many mouths for her to be a viable option in '12 (or any time in future). She continues to destroy any credibility she once had.

I know it's often said that the voters have a short attention span, and tend to forget politicians' behaviour from year to year. However, that bad taste I'm referring to has a tendency to linger ...

[helderheid]

15. Ditt...

Damnit!!!!

[NanceGreggs]

17. You're just a NanceGreggs dittohead!!!

:rofl:

:hi:

[Raven]

20. Lot's of 'em here Nancy! :-)

[helderheid]

25. Guilty! :D

:rofl:

[DemGa]

29. Hillary Clinton's credibility is just fine

She'll withstand the left-wing smears just as she has those from the right. She continues to rate very highly with DEMS -- BO Underground notwithstanding. And it is sad to see Hillary Clinton accused of such things based on pure supposition.

[Raven]

31. So I assume you're saying you would not support such a tactic. n/t

[FatDave]

40. Am I the only one who worries when...

...a democrat is said to be withstanding "left wing smears"?

[DemGa]

42. Two ends of a spectrum: far left; and far right

Two sides of the same coin essentially. That leaves an extremely broad middle.

[NanceGreggs]

57. Except that this is not "pure supposition" ...

It is based on the conduct of her campaign, the statements made, and the behaviour of the candidate herself.

As for her credibility, after the sniper-fire tale, it is far from being "just fine".

[FatDave]

38. Not only is she leaving a bad taste...

...she's losing a lot of friends in the democratic party. The senate may end up a not very hospitable place for her by the time she's done.

[apocalypsehow]

14. Since honesty and the average HRC booster are on different wavelengths, I'll answer for them: Yes.

To both her supporters and her, it is a self-evident truth that if Hillary Clinton can't be the Democratic president in the White House, there shouldn't be a Democrat in the White House.

That is how powerful the sense of entitlement is from the Clinton camp: they truly believe that if the majority of Democratic primary voters are too "stupid" to see that Clinton is the second coming of FDR, JFK, & Susan B. Anthony all rolled into one, they deserve to suffer under four more years of Republican misrule - the country be damned.

[BenDavid]

21. You Obama folks do not see it, nor get it, nor understand it. HRC

is taking this thing to the convention and HRC will force Obama to become the guy who's against counting every vote. After the 2000 debacle,and so many blacks taken off the voting rolls and so many votes under counted does Obama want to be that guy?

[FatDave]

45. Dude, that is getting so fucking tired.

The MI and FL Democratic Parties fucked themselves. They knew the consequences and they broke the rules anyway. You're the assholes who, having seen that the results of these negated primaries favor your candidate, want to count them anyway. If they hurt Hillary, you'd be fighting not to count them, and you damn well know it.

But don't listen to me: If the rules don't favor your candidate? Just change them midway through! That'll work.

Also, by the time the convention rolls around, it isn't going to make jack shit difference if the MI and FL delegates are seated. Obama will still lead, even if they are. So kindly drop the propaganda. You're fooling no one.

[Lucky 13]

72. You know at this point I think we SHOULD change the rules just for Princess Hill

So that Obama can go to Michigan and wipe up her sorry ass and end her bullshit once and for all.

[yardwork]

22. I don't support Clinton but I'll respond anyway.

I don't know if she's willing to give the election to John McCain or not. I kind of doubt it. I think that her plans are a lot more direct than that. I think she wants to win the presidency now in 2008.

I think that most national politicians have enormous egos and never allow themselves to believe that they won't and can't win. I think that Hillary plans to win the presidency this fall. I don't think that she is thinking about 2012.

I don't think that she will.

[Raven]

27. Thank you for giving me the first direct answer to my question!

Actually, I tend to agree with you. I'm an optimist!

[FatDave]

47. "I think that Hillary plans to win the presidency this fall."

But how? How does she think she can pull that off? Does she really think she can swing enough superdelegates? And what of the party if that strategy succeeded?

She's got to know it's unwinnable. That's where I have trouble with her motives.

[yardwork]

78. I don't know, because I'm not Hillary, but she seems to think she can do it.

All I've heard is that politicians have enormous egos and they never allow themselves to believe that they've lost. Even their defeats are simply retreats to plan another assault.

[shockra]

23. The title of this OP sounded like the lead-in to a push poll type question.

So I can't take it seriously.

[Raven]

28. Well it wasn't and you should. :-)

[Blarch]

26. She is campaigning for McCain.

Simple as that.

[PresidentObama]

32. She is purposely trying to damage Obama for the GE to cling on her on selfish ambitions.

While McCain goes unopposed, and gets to define himself to the American people.

"If we have an ugly, divided convention, we will lose" - Howard Dean.

Dean is right. And Hillary doesn't care, she'd rather not face the facts and instead push on with a losing campaign using the Karl Rove tactics that George W. Bush used against John Kerry in 2004.

[democrattotheend]

37. Whoa, this coming from a former Clinton supporter

You've really done a 180!

[graycem]

33. Nah, now now now! is what she wants...

She's just staying around because she's close enough that in the event of some drastic implosion of the Obama campaign, she is the nominee by default. She even said on FOX news of all places, that if she has to go all the way to the convention she will, that's what credential fights are for... soooo, she's in this for the long haul. And, Plan B, in my opinion, hoping that in order to "save the party" the big wigs will try to talk both camps into a compromise of a joint ticket. She knows they don't want our party fractured by a floor fight, so at this point, I think she's trying to at least be promised VP.

After all, they are all megalomaniacs to some degree otherwise they wouldn't be seeking the most powerful position in the world probably. :p

[Raven]

35. Welcome! Good points! n/t

[Swamp Rat]

41. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Skip Intro]

43. I'd need to see some exaples of her "wounding" Obama.

I don't recall her calling Obama, "bush-cheney lite" or her comparing him to gouliani or romney or her calling him untrustworthy. I do recall him saying those things about her, tho.

[Raven]

46. I'm not sure she's really wounded him yet. My question was meant

to address going forward in this campaign, not what's been done or not done in the past.

[SeattleGirl]

48. But do you recall her saying, on several occasions, that she and McCAIN

are ready for the WH but Obama isn't?

Do you recall her on stage, on camera, saying, "Shame on you, Barack Obama," like a mother scolding her child?

You probably don't because you seem to think that Hilary Clinton is absolutely perfect and beyond reproach. But guess what? She isn't. Nor is Obama. Stop being so blind. If Hilary does end up getting the nomination, and winning the Presidency, I'm afraid you will be sorely disappointed, not because she would be a horrid President (I don't think she would be), but because eventually you would realize she is a human being with clay feet.

[LiveLiberally]

44. Another NanceGreggs dittohead here in that I don't think a "scorched earth" campaign will

set Clinton up well for 2012. Nor, to be honest, do I think that either Bill or Hill has set their sights so low at this point. But I wouldn't put it past some of their surrogates to sow the seeds for 2012. Take Carville's "Judas" comment about Richardson's endorsement. I question whether it was meant to "brand" Richardson (as he claimed) so as to stem the tide of superdelegates towards Obama. Did he not, instead, hope to tarnish Richardson enough so that Obama, as the nominee, would hesitate to choose Richardson as a VP and thus create a potential winning ticket in November?

[Mike03]

49. No. I would never ever support her under those circumstances. It would disgust me. NT

[ClassWarrior]

59. Not a single answer from Tonya's followers.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

63. And STILL no answer.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

64. And still no answer.

NGU.

[greguganus]

60. 2012 my ass! People will NOT forget what she has done to the party. n/t

[devilindisguise]

65. I would always support Hillary

Knowing and thinking are two different issues. I just think she wants to win, not wound. If she wanted to wound, she could always bring up Larry Sinclair and the others who claim to have gay relationsips with Obama. Watch it all on youtube. Besides, Obama is obviously friends with unsavory people like the preacher and Rezco.

[PBS Poll-435]

66. Let's See

If she brings something out now, that the McCain camp will in October, then what's the difference?

[ClassWarrior]

67. True. There'd be little difference between HRC and McBush if that were to happen.

NGU.

[PBS Poll-435]

69. Forest. Trees. Anything?

After 8 years, I want a democrat to win. That is why these two are running. Some Obama people want to stop playing baseball in the 7th inning stretch.

And in case you are kidding, there is no comparing McCain and Hillary Clinton. Doing so makes you appear ignorant.

[ClassWarrior]

70. You didn't answer the original question. Not doing so makes you appear desperate.

NGU.

[Raven]

71. So, after 70 posts here, how many direct answers to my question

did I get? Two, three? That tells me that many Clinton supporters endorse this tactic and would support her if she uses it. To that, I say, see you folks in 2012 when it's quite possible that those of you of child-bearing age will have lost the right to choice and many others of you will have had your privacy invaided in ways you never imagined. I suppose by then Clinton will be promising to clean up the horrendous mess that McCain made...with her help.

[applegrove]

73. Absolutely not.

[Enrique]

74. no

[OzarkDem]

75. No, that's not true

and shame on you for suggesting it.

[apocalypsehow]

76. It absolutely is true - and the OP should be commended for pointing it out.

n/t.

[Enrique]

79. Raven, please remind people that this is just a rumor

it looks like some people are misunderstanding your post.

[MonkeyFunk]

77. Would you vote for Obama if you knew for a fact

that he's only running to fulfill a lifelong dream to smoke crack in the oval office?

That's just as likely as your scenario.