An observation from an earlier thread

[politicasista]

that Mass posted about a month or two ago.


We all know and have heard the news stories about the Clintons of late. From Bill's "meltdown" on FOX to Hillary's refusal to defend Kerry from the GOP smear "botched" joke to her "Big Spending" ways.

Having read a couple of threads in GD/GDP, we have had issues with the Clintons, but are we helping Kerry gain support or alienating those who want to support him by "bashing" the Clintons, who are still popular after 14 years, despite Bill's policies and sexual misconduct, and Hillary as a polarizing figure.

Again, it's just a observation/question, not a defeatest or depressing attitude. I don't agree or like what the Clinton's are doing either, but by "bashing" Hillary, are we really helping Kerry gain support in the long run, or will this turn people off who either support (or want to) Kerry or may be looking for an Anti-Hillary candidate (if Gore isn't running).

[blm]

1. That would be assuming some of us are personality driven supporters - WE ARE NOT.

I'm anti-corruption. I am done making excuses for why the Clintons do what they do - Parry's article makes it clear, as does Clinton's own book. They have helped Bush cover up some of his most malignant crimes of office.

You may think that's something you just go along and downplay because he has such a warm tone to his voice, but, I say that is no comfort to the 9-11 families or to patriots concerned about the destruction of the constitution.

I am serious about this - people don't like it, tough - let them argue the points. They can't and Clinton gives them no help in his book, does he?

And shouldn't people be questioning the CLINTON OPERATIVES who are the ones who started the LYING attacks against Kerry that are sparking the COUNTERING by those of us who choose to do so?

[ProSense]

2. Who's bashing Hillary? The better question is: Will

Clinton's paid staffers and pundit supporters turn off people by bashing John Kerry and others?

She's already trying distance herself from Carville!

[politicasista]

3. We are not bashing her, but the perception is that we are...

and think it's going to help Kerry gain support.

[blm]

4. And TRUTH is that Clinton's operatives are LYING against Kerry and some us are COUNTERING

those attacks.

[ProSense]

5. It must be politics, because

my perception is that a lot of people, including Clinton supporters are bashing Kerry. There are a few Clinton supporters who have been bashing Kerry since I joined this board. Go figure!

[politicasista]

6. That's also true

but there are Kerry supporters that like the Clintons also.

[ProSense]

7. There are Kerry supporters who

have nothing against Clinton, but some found a reason when she dissed Kerry recently.

[politicasista]

8. Exactly n/t

[ProSense]

9. Really?

Do you have an example of that! I'm asking because I've never seen anyone lash out at a person for simply supporting Clinton.

[politicasista]

10. No it's cool.

Went back an edited previous post cause it's already been explained above. Thanks. :hi:

[karynnj]

11. You're paying too much attention to a few posters who

claim that any negative comments we make are bashing Hillary - even if they are amidst entire threads of Kerry bashing.

I do agree that we need to be careful as Clinton has enormous popularity. We need to be careful that what we say is 100% backed up and is fair. Some comments that I have made - that can be construed as bashing were attempts to question CW. The idea that BC is the best natural politician in history (actually said) and that the 1992 campaign was a model to emmulate as it was brilliantly executed - while Kerry is a dreadful politician and his campaign was atrocious ignores:

- Bush I had an approval rating nearly 10 points lower than W

- Perot did a great deal of damage to Bush - looking at exit polls doesn't get to this.

- A much friendlier media (imagine Kerry had written a letter that he loathed the military) or fought a "Flowers" charge by questioning the woman essentially as nutty or slutty - even after an audio tape appeared. (Clinton admitted under oath that they had an affair to Starr.) Clinton didn't brilliantly counter these charges - the media and people declared them not important. (Contrast the media condoning the purple heart bandaids used against a man still hurt to his highly decorated noble service.)

Kerry/Cahill had a much tougher race -

[TayTay]

12. John Kerry got more votes than Bill Clinton ever did

ten million more votes than Clinton in 96. Clinton *never* won the popular vote. The electorate was split and he got in as the least bad option. To claim otherwise is spin.

Clinton also was directly responsible for the defeat in 2000. He ran as the Great Triangulator who could govern without bothering with anything as pesky as principles or a plan or even goals. His plan was to not get defeated. His goal was to be just like the Republicans, up to a point.

People who love that forget just how unprincipled Clinton was, how much his undisciplined actions with Monica in the Oval Office hurt us and just how quickly Clintonomics fell apart. I do not want to go back to those days. I would rather win with real Democrats, not phony posers again.

[wisteria]

14. Absolutely! IMO, the Clinton's are bad for our party.

I agree with everything you say. And, personally, I don't care what the Hillary supporters think. Before her little stunt against Kerry, I disliked her because I find her unprincipled, and shady. I think the Clinton's are all about self and power. frankly, if she must run this time- let her. I for one hope she loses big. That way, we will be done with them once and for all. They have way to much influence over our party- for the worse.

[sandnsea]

13. I'm sick of them - period.

I do not want her as our candidate. End.Of.Story. If the primary is about the anti-Hillary, so be it. Obama, Edwards, Kerry - whatever it takes to make sure that wing of the party is not in charge again.

[wisteria]

15. I don't think it matters one way or another. I doubt that the Hillary

supporters would jump on the Kerry bandwagon. Most of these people are fine with what the DLC is doing with our party and have hitched onto Hillary, because they think she can win, by having Bill campaign for her and sell her to the people. I do not like the Clinton's and I never have. They are all about themselves and are not to picky where their money comes from. I truely believe they would sell our contry over to the highest bidder if it meant they got a large cut of the profit.

[JI7]

16. i'm not sure, the fact is that Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton

she does not have his talents that make him appealing to people. so i just wait until the debates and other events and will allow people to see the candidates up against each other and side by side and make their judgements. Hillary is not goinog to be able to make her husband fill in for her.

even Clinton wasn't so popular with his talents. he never got a majority of the votes in both the elections. in his first election he got less percent than Kerry did in 2004.

there are a few Hillary supporters who view any criticism of her as bashing yet they are hateful towards some other Dems. the whole Dean/Carville thing pointed this out to me. many of them seemed so eager to defend Carville and say he didn't want to get rid of Dean because he didn't say the exact words "i want to get rid of Dean". they ignore all the other things he did and said. and why so eager to defend Carville ? because he is a Hllary supporter. so it's not just about Kerry anyways.

but i try not to spend too much time on them. as you say, it's not just that it doesn't do much to help Kerry. but it's a waste of time after a certain point.

[karynnj]

17. I saw saw the thread this is likely coming from

I think that we need to differenciate between two very different types of posters. Some of them are simply there to provoke us - that in fact seems to be there chief occupation - one makes me realize that I may be as allergic to virtual cats as real ones. We do need to find a way to deal with these people. Maybe by not responding after one or two people have adequately done so - it also might be good for those of us who have had a run in to derfer to others - so it is less personal. (The moat dangerous are those who can appear rational.)

What we need to worry about more are the comments like one person who likes Kerry and is clearly getting annoyed with us. The problem is how do you try to counter what the powers that be are fixing as conventional wisdom - which is necessary because it is clearly their goal to use those misconceptions to avoid an under the radar victory like Kerry had in 2004. (Also when many of the attacks come from people like Carville who was very unhelpful in 2004 and want to be rewarded by a restoration, it's hard not to attack people associated with Clinton. )

[politicasista]

18. Thanks

I didn't not want to link the thread because it might cause division or be against DU rules, so just wanted to describe the observation.