I've said it before, will say it again -- Why are Republicans helping Hillary?

[JMDEM]

All of these "Obama is unelectable in the GE" arguments can be shown to be pure crap because it is obvious who the Republicans want to face -- Hillary.

I mean, how much more evidence do you need???

Rush Limbaugh's efforts to get Hillary elected.
Scaifie amd Murdoch and other right-wing moguls pushing for Hillary.
Repubican attack ads against Obama and none against Hillary.
Fox news being (relatively) kind to Hillary and ripping Obama to shreds.

I mean, how much evidence do you need???

Remember -- this is a LONG TIME Republican ploy, going way back. Nixon's CREEP was hugely successful in sabotaging Muskie's campaign in 1972, making the much weaker McGovern the Democratic nominee.

Wake up people! If the Republicans like a Dem, it isn't to get that Dem elected. It's to get a Republican elected!

[TwilightGardener]

1. Hillary people don't want to face this ugly truth. They are in denial

that the GOP WANTS to face her. They think she's so magically tough and skillful, that once she somehow shakes Obama, the GOP will be child's play. Fucking delusional.

[bigtree]

5. the GOP may THINK they want to face her

but who is really listening to the pack of buffoons who run that party anyway??

[TwilightGardener]

10. Yeah, she's so almighty powerful of a candidate, so skillful, so tough, so

wily, so UBER-competent, that she's effectively losing the nomination to a "newbie" black guy with a funny name. But, watch out, GOP! She's coming for you next!! If the superdelegates decide to snatch Obama's nomination away from him because he's "unelectable" (read: black), that is.

[PassingFair]

20. LOL!! n/t

[bigtree]

27. do you make any argument without exploiting the issue of race?

Do you realize that there are actually black voters who have rejected Obama at the polls and don't view him as experienced as Hillary Clinton? There are some, you know. Are they racist too for wanting Hillary Clinton to defeat him? Go ahead and tell me how a black voter calling for Obama to step aside and allow Clinton to be president would be racist.

Experience arguments are the heart and soul of presidential campaigns. That argument wasn't just invented for Obama. Countless candidates for the office have had to run that gauntlet of their opponent's claims of greater experience. You need to stop whining about bias and deal with the issue of your candidate's relative inexperience to Hillary Clinton without resorting to race-baiting and smears of anyone who dares question your icon.

[TwilightGardener]

33. The code word "electable" is all about race, at this point. The Clinton campaign

is trying VERY hard today to make that argument to the media and the SD's, using exit poll data. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous. I'm not "whining" about bias. I'm telling you that the SD's are not going to deny Obama the nomination based on "experience". Because compared to McCain, Hillary has very little. That's not an argument when it comes to SD's deciding their nominee. And the SD's WILL ultimately decide the nominee--it's just a matter of whether they decide to overturn the pledged-delegate lead Obama will have, for some sort of "electability" rationale, or not.

[anigbrowl]

53. bigtree, you should know better

Do you realize that there are actually black voters who have rejected Obama at the polls and don't view him as experienced as Hillary Clinton? There are some, you know. Are they racist too for wanting Hillary Clinton to defeat him? Go ahead and tell me how a black voter calling for Obama to step aside and allow Clinton to be president would be racist.

A classic straw man argument. Nobody argues that all people who support Clinton are racist. But arguments about 'electability in the GE' speak to fears about whether the number of bigots who would never elect a black person on principle are enough to swing the election to McCain.

Experience arguments are the heart and soul of presidential campaigns.

But we're not talking about an experience argument, as you know. She hasn't made that argument for a while, because

a) Obama has shown that he has experience of his own, and her examples of why she is more experienced have suffered under scrutiny (eg her perfectly valid experience in Bosnia has now been discounted because she exaggerated the difficulty and danger of acquiring it; and

b) a significant percentage of voters do not actually have experience as their #1 piority, and are aware of the fact that the Clintons entered office with little national experience (or even big state governance experience), while W's cabinet had experience in spades, but not the wisdom its supposed to bring.

That argument wasn't just invented for Obama. Countless candidates for the office have had to run that gauntlet of their opponent's claims of greater experience. You need to stop whining about bias and deal with the issue of your candidate's relative inexperience to Hillary Clinton without resorting to race-baiting and smears of anyone who dares question your icon.

Then why do we keep hearing the various talking heads in the media as well as those on Team Clinton talking about 'electability' rather than experience? You complain about race-baiting and say it shouldn't trump experience, and yet even you are not making any specific arguments about experience here. Obama and his supporters have shown themselves quite willing to substantively argue the value of his experience over hers, as well as to suggest that he brings a fresh approach to the job rather than retreading old paths. The great majority of the talk in the last few weeks has been about demographics and comes down to the question of 'Is America ready to elect a black man'?

Certainly demographics are a useful yardstick by which to try to predict electoral behavior. And certainly some people still won't vote for a black guy; while nominally Democrats, they are the self-interested rather than the principled kind and would feel more comfortable voting for McCain because he's 'more like them'. It's a pity, but old attitudes die hard and while you can legislate how people behave, you can't legislate how they feel, so it's a legitimate consideration for the party.

However, I feel that for Democrats, it's also a question of 'are we going to shy away from that battle or confront it?' This is an increasingly pressing question to me, not least because of these ads that a GOP 527 is starting to run in NC - associating Obama with gangs using the well-worn 'death penalty for everything' trick, and (as noted on the front of the WSJ this morning) showing pictures of him with his arm around a white woman (a Democratic candidate for NC's senate seat) - playing to the oldest stereotypes of black sexual voracity.

McCain is condemning these ads, though surely as much out of political opportunism as anything else; all the same, he's been on the receiving end of such gutter campaigning before so I'm willing to even grant him 5!% for sincerity. Now it's awkward for Hillary to do the same (both tactically and pragmatically) since she can hardly say 'these ads are terrible, so you should show you rejection of them by voting for me...er...'. I'm not going to say 'she must do XYZ' because her response depends on the local context a great deal. But I do wish she and her surrogates would stop kissing up to Fox News, Scaife et al., who have proven themselves hostile to Democratic voters' interests time and again. That's a Faustian bargain that to me screams of poor political judgment.

[Cali_Democrat]

30. LOL

:rofl:

[JackORoses]

41. so, you approve of Operation Chaos?

you approve of Republican intereference in our Primaries just as long as it helps Hillary?

Don't you realize how compromised your principles must be to willingly accept their help?

[redqueen]

2. At one time, I would have thought this wouldn't be such a tough thing to figure out.

Alas...

[dbonds]

3. While I do think they want to run against Hillary, it is a bigger reason...

She is owned by the same people that own Bushco and McCain. She will be a nicer face on the same big business policies and continue to let them rape our country. But she does give McCain a better chance of wining, as she will bring out all the Hillary haters to vote against her. But with Hillary vs Mccain, the owners win either way.

[JMDEM]

11. True. nt.

[TwilightGardener]

12. Yep.

[Liberal Gramma]

17. Bingo!

That is exactly it!

[butterfly77]

18. ditto

[Cheap_Trick]

45. Hillary Vs McCain

is a win/win for the right.

[TahitiNut]

48. Exactly. (It's remarkable how some are so deliberately ignorant of that.)

The failure of so many to see the ABYSMAL CORRUPTION of Global Corporatism is truly disgusting.

[bigtree]

4. are they helping, or do they just think they are? Why do you give them any credence at all??

[gsaguyCLW54]

9. Good Question.

did it ever occur to anyone that the Republican talking heads are wrong. Besides Rush and his nonsense, who are the Republicans (not TV or Radio entertainers) who are trying to get Hillary elected?

[TwilightGardener]

14. The crossover GOP voters in OH, TX and elsewhere who have taken part in

Operation Chaos, that's who.

[bigtree]

19. what about crossovers earlier on for Obama?

I don't think the buffoons who run things over there know what end to tug on to manipulate this race to their advantage, much less some individual republican crossover voters.

[TwilightGardener]

24. Have you heard about an organized effort to vote for Obama because

he was perceived to be weaker and more beatable? If so, please post a link.

[bigtree]

32. perceived by who? The republican buffoons whose intelligence you so strongly vouch for?

Why do you believe they are doing something straightforward here. Who knows what their ultimate goal is. Who cares? They can't shoot straight.

What HAS been recorded are the numbers of republican crossover voters early on in the primary. You don't have any credibility at all in questioning republican votes for Hillary Clinton while holding those republican votes for Obama up as virtuous and sincere.

[TwilightGardener]

38. Until you can come up with proof of a whole bunch of Repubs voting

for Obama NOT for sincere reasons, but for "mischief" reasons, then your argument is based on thin air. There IS, however, documented and widely-recognized efforts to persuade GOPers to vote for Hillary simply to make mischief for the Dem party.

[Liberal Gramma]

22. Why do you eliminate TV or radio?

They have a big influence, and they're using it pro-Clinton.

[JMDEM]

13. ?????

Read the original post!

[bigtree]

21. you really give these right-wing buffoons too much credit for brains or ability

[TwilightGardener]

26. They've pretty much been in power for the last 20 years, even with

Clinton in the WH--I don't think we've given them ENOUGH credit. If they hadn't fucked up Iraq, they'd probably still be the majority in Congress.

[bigtree]

35. so idiot shysters are able to sell snake oil to the gullible

that doesn't make them geniuses

[TwilightGardener]

40. Yes, it does, if they control this country and influence how it votes.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

28. And you really give them too little.

They have the brains and ability to OWN THIS FUCKING COUNTRY!!

[bigtree]

36. seig heil!!

[mrreowwr_kittty]

39. bigtree: "I'm not going to worry my beautiful mind about the VWRC supporting my candidate!"

[Occam Bandage]

52. Yeah, they've only controlled America for the last three decades. It's not like they know

what they're doing in politics.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

25. Um, maybe because they are media moguls who wield incredible power?

Could it be?

:eyes:

[bigtree]

37. powerful and influential perhaps

but that doesn't give them a lock on brains or ability. get a grip.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

42. bigtree: "La la la, I'm not listening! "

"Who are you going to believe? Hillary, or your lying eyes and ears?"

[Occam Bandage]

51. Disregarding their effectiveness, why do they want to help her?

[frickaline]

6. because of sexism, they dont think she stands a chance against McCain

I mean what republican wouldn't expect a man to beat a woman in a race to be head of the military?

[RBInMaine]

7. The Republican MEDIA is helping Hillary, because they want her to be the nominee.

Because she is seen as the weaker one and easier one to attack in the fall. Right now they are glorifying her and she's taking the bait. Wait until the fall if she nominated. They'll eviscerate her for the R party. A huge bait and switch.

[tularetom]

8. I f it wasn't for the fact that we'd wind up with Pres McCain

I'd almost like to see her get the nomination so we can see what a "fighter" she is in the face of the 20 years worth of clinton shit the gop will throw at her. And this "fighter" has already kissed McCains ass so much she will not even be able to respond.

She'd be a pile of mush by the time the campaign was over.

[TNOE]

15. Maybe the Bushes & the Clintons

are the same thing - and it has nothing to do with (D) or (R) but $$$$$$$

[invictus]

16. The Republicans are helping Hillary because ...

1) Obama is the stronger candidate.
2) Hillary is doing the Republicans' dirty work by attacking Obama.
3) Having Hillary as the Democratic candidate would unite the entire Republican Party behind McCain, whereas Obama has much cross-party appeal.
4) Because Hillary, through her voting record, her neo-con rhetoric, and her husband's conservative legacy as president is no different than a Republican whereas Obama is a real threat to the Republican agenda.

[Kitty Herder]

50. Good answers. nt

[yurbud]

23. She's a win-win in GOP mind: she is easier to beat, but if she wins, she will govern more like them

[TwilightGardener]

29. Word.

[TragedyandHope]

31. Yes, it's out there for everyone to see

Just open your eyes.

[jmg257]

34. They're helping Hillary to PROLONG the primary. Letting our 2 chew each other up, spend big $$, &

do free damage "vetting" each other is NOT good - it also causes splits and unhappiness and bitterness and disenfranchments in the party, & could cause havoc at the convention, which only helps their guy in the fall.

They know Hillary will NOT let go, no matter who helps her, even if it means 2012 becomes her next last chance.

[Cheap_Trick]

43. maybe they're actually stupid enough to believe

that after 16 years of DESPISING and attacking the Clintons at every opportunity, the right wing suddenly saw the light and did a 180. Well, Hillary supporters? How else do you explain the right wing love fest with the Clintons?

[baldguy]

44. The only winner from PA was John McCain

[Triana]

46. Bingo. Hillary supporters need to go to Mal-Wart and buy..

....some clues.

[nichomachus]

47. Even McCain is helping Hillary

He has ordered his staff to lay off her and focus on Obama. Almost all of his press releases are attacking Obama.

[Cleita]

49. Of course they know that McCain has a better chance of

running a dirty campaign against her than Obama. She has too much baggage most of it from her husband, the former President. If you think the lapel pins thing was petty, wait until they get Hillary under the microscope. All I can say is that I hope she never had an abortion that they can dredge up, never mind what they can bring up about Bill and his adulteries.