Shea-Porter Not Happy with Clinton Abortion Mailer

Not interested in a flame war? (0.00 / 0)

What do you think that starting this thread is going to do? Would a little perspicacity be too much to expect?

---

by: xteeth @ Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 19:51:28 PM CST

It Was A Lesson To Be Learned... (4.00 / 3)

The mailer was a lesson to be learned -- that a tactic like that between Democrats should never be used again.  Nor should what some in the Hillary Clinton campaign did by attacking Jim Demers.  I'm a Clinton supporter, and I was embarassed by both of those episodes.  Jim is a good Democrat who didn't deserve to be attacked as he was.  The mailer was way over the top.    

Let's remember all those things, and vow not to use inaccuracies or personalities ever again in Democrat-on-Democrat races.  Such serve no purpose other than to divide.

But let's also move on.  Let's remember that we have a war to end.  We have a state to bring reforms to.  We have health care to create for all Americans.  We do all that by winning the November election.

While feelings might be hurt from some of the really silly actions in the recent New Hampshire Primary, lives and futures are at stake this November.

We have to win this election.  We do that by forgiving, and continuing our cause together.  Our big edge this November, statewide and nationally, is the possibility that the Republicans will be divided while we are united.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 20:32:38 PM CST

Are you going to leave with no word of farewell? (0.00 / 0)

It's a lesson too late for the learning
made of sand, made of sand.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 21:07:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What? (0.00 / 0)

Please give me the quote where Jim Demers was attacked.  The actual quote.  You have said several times he was attacked.  

As for the mailer, I've addressed that previously, and I'm not going to get drawn into that again, other than to say for a lot of women, including the women from Illinois NOW who did not approve of Obama's present votes on choice, voting present on choice issues is never an option.

I found some things the Obama campaign did offensive - like Axelrod's comments after the Bhutto assassination, which Obama defended. I wasn't the only one - the Washington Post editorialized at the time:

Mr. Obama similarly began by offering bland condolences to Pakistanis and noting that "I've been saying for some time that we've got a very big problem there."

Then Mr. Obama committed his foul -- a far-fetched attempt to connect the killing of Ms. Bhutto with Ms. Clinton's vote on the war in Iraq. After the candidate made the debatable assertion that the Iraq invasion strengthened al-Qaeda in Pakistan, his spokesman, David Axelrod, said Ms. Clinton "was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, which we would submit was one of the reasons why we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan and al-Qaeda, who may have been players in the event today."

When questioned later about his spokesman's remarks, Mr. Obama stiffly defended them -- while still failing to offer any substantive response to the ongoing crisis. Is this Mr. Obama's way of rejecting "the same Washington game" he lambasted earlier in the day? If so, his game doesn't look very new, or attractive.

I found it offensive back in December when I heard about this story in The Atlantic:

His campaign staffers, too, have become frustrated by the focus of the media's attention, specifically that the press has not covered Clinton in the way they expected it would. During an interview this summer, Obama's friend Valerie Jarrett said to me, unbidden, "He is a man who is devoted to his wife. There aren't going to be any skeletons in his closet in terms of his personal life at all. Period." And at a campaign event in Iowa, one of Obama's aides plopped down next to me and spoke even more bluntly. He wanted to know when reporters would begin to look into Bill Clinton's postpresidential sex life.

Then there was the Obama radio ad in Iowa and NH (the one ABC News called the first nagative ad of the campaign) that falsely decribed both the Edwards and Clinton health care plans; here's the script:

MALE ANNCR: But here's the real difference on health care. Senators Edwards and Clinton favor mandates which the Daily Iowan says would, quote, "force those who can not afford health insurance to buy it, punishing those who don't fall in line."

FEMALE ANNCR: Barack Obama believes the solution isn't making it illegal not to have health care. It's making it affordable.

Making it illegal not to have health care? Yup, I'd say that was negative and misleading.

I'd like to "move on", as Jim suggests, and avoid firestorms. But you all aren't making it easy!  

Energy and persistence conquer all things.


Benjamin Franklin


 

---

by: Kathy Sullivan @ Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 21:38:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The ad you mentioned may have been misleading, but that's not the misleading part. (0.00 / 0)

Sure, Clinton and Edwards, just like Obama, want to make healthcare affordable for all.  HOWEVER, it is true, as has been pointed out on many, many occasions, that their plan would make it illegal not to have healthcare (yes, that's what a mandate is; I don't understand how you can deny it), and Obama's does not.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 00:35:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

criminal (0.00 / 0)

Douglas, the use of the term "illegal" is intended to make it sound like failure to have insurance would be criminal - that the government would haul you off to jail because you didn't have insurance, "even if you can't afford it."  Look at the use of the word "punishment".


"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:59:39 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It doesn't have to be a felony. (0.00 / 0)

I'm sorry, Kathy, but there's no getting around the fact that if the law makes something punishable, then it is, by definition, illegal.  Driving 80mph in New Hampshire is illegal, no?

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 13:42:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Logic and its discontents (4.00 / 1)

Dean Barker: "Let's not have a bonfire."  [stacks dry wood and kindling, crumples up newspaper]

Kathy Sullivan: "NO! Let's NOT!" [pours gallon after gallon of gasoline on wood, lights Molotov cocktail and hurls it at pile of wood] "What is it with you people and fires?  I'm trying to keep it cool around here!"

Your candidate is going through difficult times, Kathy.  The high hopes that seemed so close, indeed at times so certain, are drifting away from her and from you.  This is not the first time in the last year that reverses have been deeply felt.  The Dodd and Biden and Richardson and Edwards and Kucinich supporters -- and yes, also the Obama supporters -- have tasted plenty of bitter disappointment.  Their hearts are, to be certain, no less pure and devoted to America and to the good than yours, their efforts no less passionate and earnest, their affections for those to whom they have given their loyalty no less painfully and stubbornly true.

Yet such times, that do indeed try men's and women's souls, including the souls of all of us here, find you undergoing those trials with rather less dignity than befits a well-regarded former state party chair, notably less dignity than those about you, and far less dignity and decency than the likes of Jim Splaine (if there are, in fact, any "likes of Jim Splaine") so frequently provide evidence of.

---

by: Tim C. @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:05:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Dignity and Decency?? (0.00 / 0)

Kathy Sullivan has displayed the traits of dignity and decency through years of perilous challenges. It is offensive to all of us who know Kathy to insult her in such a derogatory manner.

Kathy is strong woman making a case for her point and she should not be feared nor maligned because she is able to stand up to those she disagrees with.

Just because she does not have a passive/aggressive bone in her body or her loyality is legendary or she is vacant of the ego far too many are consumed with does not make her less dignified or decent. In fact, just the opposite.

What is up with your frequent personal attacks anyway?  

Democrats solve problems, Republicans sit and say no.

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 06:29:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

What is up? (4.00 / 1)

At some point you have to decide 1)whether all the people doing the attacking are nuts or insincere or misled or evil 2)all these screen berets have nothing else to do - essentially folly or 3)there is some actual reason for the attacks. Since there is nothing you haven't done to refute 1 & 2 perhaps taking the criticism seriously and not seeing it as an attack might be a new approach. Or, maybe not.  

---

by: xteeth @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:12:18 AM CST

[ Parent ]

And I'll Add That... (0.00 / 0)

And I'll add that Kathy Sullivan has done tremendous work for the New Hampshire Democratic Party.  In 2002 after an election year (post 9/11) that wasn't very grand for Democrats statewide or nationally, a lesser soul would have headed for the woods, Kathy stayed in there and contributed to turning defeat into victory.

I always admire most the Democrats who were in the trenches when it wasn't as popular as now to be a Democrat.  That we sometimes have our disagreements only makes those many times when we agree more golden.  

And yes, the same can be said of Ray Buckley, who gives me headaches now and then, but that he gives me headaches only makes those other times when he brings a smile to my face more meaningful.  And HE certainly was in those muddy trenches with few troops in past decades, so whenever someone gets angry with him or takes exception to something he says or does we have to remember the good things he's done.  

I figure if I'm right, or think I am, 51% of the time I'm beating the odds, and probably exceeding my expectations.  I try not to judge others too harshly, because 90% of politics is just opinion.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:31:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Dignity and decency. (4.00 / 1)

Kathy Sullivan has displayed the traits of dignity and decency through years of perilous challenges.

Perhaps she has.  As I haven't closely observed her personal behavior over the years, I have minimal basis for judgment on this and do not dispute, and have not disputed, this assertion, which is utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand.  I was speaking entirely of her current behavior, as was entirely clear.

It is offensive to all of us who know Kathy to insult her in such a derogatory manner.

Nonsense.  If Kathy is being insulted in a derogatory manner (as opposed to exactly what other kind of insult?) then you might have a point, even if it is presumptuous of you to speak on behalf of everyone who knows her.  But there was no insult.  What you apparently mistook for an insult was my statement that she was bearing herself with less dignity than she should, and the implicit statement that she should amend her conduct accordingly.  No reasonable person could consider that an offensive and derogatory insult.

Kathy is strong woman making a case for her point and she should not be feared nor maligned because she is able to stand up to those she disagrees with.

Red herrings galore.  If you had actually accused me of calling Kathy a weak woman, or someone who should be feared and maligned, or someone whose right to "stand up to those she disagrees with" was in any doubt, I would call your accusation false and ridiculous.  But you are just coming out here in favor of Mom and apple pie, and putting it in the form of a reprimand, with the implication that I previously opposed Mom and apple pie.  So I will just call your statement irrelevant.

Just because she does not have a passive/aggressive bone in her body or her loyality is legendary or she is vacant of the ego far too many are consumed with does not make her less dignified or decent. In fact, just the opposite.

If these things are true, and I will grant you and her the benefit of the doubt (and of your far greater familiarity) that they are, then your claim here is absolutely correct.  And again, absolutely irrelevant.  My criticism of her has nothing to do with these admirable traits (though loyalty can be misplaced or given precedence over superior claims).  It has only to do with the less than admirable behavior I have seen from her here of late.  And just as I did not buy Kathy's "Humphrey was a great hero for civil rights in 1948, therefore he shouldn't be condemned for his utter failure to stand up to Johnson on Vietnam in 1968" line, so do I not buy your "Kathy has a long history of being a wonderful person, therefore no condemnation of anything she does could possibly be valid or acceptable" line.

What is up with your frequent personal attacks anyway?

I care about politics.  I care about the language of politics and believe that when it is distorted and abused, our cultural and political environment is polluted.  I believe that this is not just an ivory tower concern to be tossed aside whenever political convenience dictates.  I believe that doing so undermines democracy and empowers corrupt liars like those who have been destroying America for the last seven years.

Being true to this principle may from time to time involve strong criticism of those who you would prefer not to see strongly criticised.  The inability to tell the difference between personal attacks and strong, even vehement criticism is a rookie mistake.  There is no reason for you to make it.

---

by: Tim C. @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:20:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I hate it (0.00 / 0)

When people talk about me like I'm not in the room!

This is not about me. This is about keeping the record straight. There have been a lot of posts critical of Hillary Clinton at BH; many of them take the attitude that she has run a negative campaign while Obama has run an entirely positive one. If people continue to want this discussion, then someone needs to give the perspective of a Clinton supporter. Or do you think that Clinton supporters should go sit quietly in the corner? That isn't dignity; that is allowing yourself to be cowed.  

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 13:16:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Kathy this is absolutely about you, and your lack of "dignity and decency". (0.00 / 0)

Just like the time you killed my cat so Hillary would win New Hampshire.

Wait, WHAT?

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:32:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

She only won by a whisker. (0.00 / 0)

That's nothing.  They're planning on fire-bombing the Daisy Hill Puppy Farm to win Texas.

---

by: Tim C. @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 13:54:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Did you hear somebody is coming out with a book accusing Hillary of hiring a hit on her cat in the '90s? (0.00 / 0)

Google it, it's an entertaining read.  I think we can all come together, Clinton and Obama supporters, Democrats and Republicans, men and women, cat lovers and others, and reflect on the awesome comedic value of the idea that somebody wrote a book accusing the then-First Lady of the United States of hiring a hit-man to take out her cat.  It's almost as good as the time the Vice President shot an old man in the face--and that actually happened!

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 14:50:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No! Not Socks! (0.00 / 0)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...

---

by: sdoyle @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 15:33:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not the Clintons' cat, the accuser's cat. (0.00 / 0)

Obviously Socks has Secret Service protection anyway, as does Barney Bush, my favorite member of that family.

I wrote an article for my school's newspaper last fall about how Bush would clearly choose Barney to succeed Gonzales as Attorney General because, as the President predicted, only Laura and Barney still support him at this point.  To this day, I can't believe I got that one wrong.

Fake quote from the President:

Barney Bush is tough, loyal, and knows what it takes to protect Americans from the terrorists, who are hiding under your bed!  Barney's good folk; he's the kind of guy who's not afraid to take a dump in public, if you know what I mean.

Well, we all knew he wanted a lapdog AG...

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 21:17:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sleepy says "Don't play with Clintonism." (0.00 / 0)

www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:44:56 AM CST

We don't need no stinking badges (0.00 / 0)

"Poetry is not an expression of the party line. It's that time of night, lying in bed, thinking what you really think, making the private world public, that's what the poet does." Allen Ginsberg

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 19:00:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Mel Brooks Style (0.00 / 0)

---

by: sdoyle @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 19:04:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

you talkin to me ? (0.00 / 0)

"Poetry is not an expression of the party line. It's that time of night, lying in bed, thinking what you really think, making the private world public, that's what the poet does." Allen Ginsberg

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 19:13:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]