A Mason-Dixon poll out this morning has Clinton tanking in Nevada's general election, even losing against Romney.

I apologize if the following is a bit off-topic for this thread but, with TPM-EC delivering new posts rapidly, I am afraid that this long post-essay would be archived and not be addressed at all. I would like to get a response from the so-called "critical thinkers" out there, who seem to be more interested in stopping Hillary than in supporting their candidate and ultimately working to ensure a Dem victory in GE, regardless of who is nominee.

In response to the following comment that I had posted late last night:

Astute observation that explainsI believe explains Hillary's success at keeping and increasing her level of support: she is attracting loyal Democrats who see in her a candidate with the experience, leadership quality, intelligence, and political acumen to be a strong post-Bush POTUS. And, her supporters are loyal Democrats because, as you correctly point out, there has not been a single Hillary supporter in these threads who has threatened to just "sit this one out" if HRC is not the Dem nominee. Au contraire, we, her supporters, have all stated that regardless of who wins the nomination, we would go to the polls to ensure a Dem victory in GE, which is actually quite telling: Obama's and Edwards' supporters' primary drive appears to be to stop Hillary from winning the nomination and the presidency, and not because they are passionate about their candidate. In that respect, they seem to have a lot in common with conservative Repubs who have so far come out in support of Rudy, despite his history of social liberalism: They are more interested in stopping Hillary than in staying true to their conservative values... As long as Rudy appears like the man who can stop Hillary, they will prostitute themselves with and for him.

Poster DonnaG responded:

DonnaG wrote on October 14, 2007 11:54 AM:

Well, yes dcshungu, the Hillary supporters are counting on democrats being like sheep following a brand bell instead of being critical thinkers.
The slime in your statement is to conflate critical thinking during an important primary with disloyalty to the 'D' brand. The democrats critical of Hillary perhaps share my concern that she may be too republican in her corporate support system and in her hawkishness to do more than nibble the edges of change.

DonnaG. Please do not flatter yourself. There is no evidence of "critical thinking" in anything that the ABC ("Anybody But Clinton") crowd spews in these threads. And, for your edification: "critical thinking" without the intellectual honesty to recognize or discern when one's thinking is flawed is called "delusion" or "willful deception", also known as lying.

If you did any “critical thinking” at all, you would know that Hillary is no hawk who is going to keep Bush's Mesopotamian Misadventure going or attack Iran in a war of choice. Ask yourself this simple question and do a little bit of "critical thinking" in answering it: Why would a smart person like Hillary Clinton, if she is elected the first ever POTUS, squander such a historic opportunity for herself, for women everywhere, and for humanity in general, in pursuit of senseless wars of choice, instead of working to craft a legacy that would do justice her for eternity? Inquiring minds wanna know, but I will provide you with a few hints to help your "critical thinking" along: (a) her chief adviser and political strategist was a POTUS who was no hawk and is still admired worldwide for his stewardship of American FP at the turn of the century for his measured response to crises that faced the world and his adminstration; (2) Hillary has already stated that she sees Bill's role in her administration as that of an ambassador for peace, who will crisscross the world to try to undo the damage that the current Village Idiot has done to the US standing as a country of laws and a beacon for hope and democracy; (3) Hillary is a woman, so don't you think that her purported hawkishness may be a deliberate attempt to show that in this male-dominated world, a woman POTUS would have cojones big enough to retaliate decisively in defense of America's national security and interests everywhere?... (I suspect that part of her dominance in the polls is helped by her no-nonsense approach to defending America, a test that a man is automatically given a pass on, but that a woman would fail unless she proved. Hillary has passed that but she is no more hawkish than her life-long partner was, as POTUS.)

The ABC crowd's main argument for HRC's unfitness to be POTUS is that she voted for the AUMF bill (and now the K-L bill), and therefore that shows that she has poor judgment in general. In scholastic logic that is called inference (to generalize from one or a small number of observations), and it is inherently much less reliable than deduction (when you draw a conclusion from many, many valid observations). I have never tried to defend HRC's AUMF vote because ex post facto it was wrong (Bush waged a terrible war and made a mess of things, so that, in retrospect, the vote for it looks bad); but I never felt that it disqualifies her or anyone else to be POTUS because I am not a single-issue person...I do not suffer from obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), like HRC's detractors. What I have tried to make the "critical thinkers" who attack Hillary on her AUMF vote understand is something that a little bit of "intellectual honesty" would easily reveal to them: It is not very smart to keep ranting against HRC for that vote because none of the other candidates is without blame in that respect. Please use a little bit of "critical thinking", sprinkle it with a heavy dose of "intellectual honesty" and tell me how blameless Edwards and Obama are with respect to their respective positions on the war. I have asked this repeatedly but none of the "critical thinkers" out there has volunteered some critical analysis. Below is a post from thread that discussed the teaming up of Obama and Edwards to accuse HRC of being a flip-flopper. If anything, she has been the only consistent candidate in this campaign!!! Please chew on the following and let's see what you'll spit out. I suspect that you'll ignore it, just like you conveniently ignored the fact not a single HRC supporter has vowed to "sit this one out" if she is not the nominee, while we've heard the ABC crowd state that it would sit this incredibly important election out if she is nominated, which may even give victory to Rudy -- a la Naderites in Gore v. Bush in 2000. If that is "critical thinking" and “loyalty” to your party, then we must redefine these concepts. Here we go, from a post on Friday:

A couple of pots teaming up to call the kettle black. Here's the sort of hard-hitting truth that I hope the HRC camp would include in their rebuttal of this farcical "Hail Mary" attack:

John Edwards, he was so much for the UAMF bill that he co-sponsored and voted for it, but then the shit hit the fan and for sheer presidential politics expediency and opportunism, he did a 180-degree flip and became the legendary serial apologizer for his vote on his bill. HRC has stood firm by her vote and has asked those who fault her for it not to support her.

Senator Obama, who was purportedly "opposed" to the war, was in no position to vote for or against the AUMF bill, but had said publicly that he was not sure how he might have voted had he been in the US Senate at time (really, Senator? Remember that your were "opposed" to the war, so therefore, the AUMF vote should have been an easy one, right?); however, when he got to DC, the Good Senator from Illinois, who claims to have "opposed" the war, did a 180-degree flip and voted, not once or twice, but repeatedly, to give George Bush more money (billions of it) to continue his misadventure in Mesopotamia. So, which is it Senator? Were you for or against the war? And, Senator, to criticize anyone for their vote on the Kyl-Lieberman bill on Iran is what they call in Hebrew chutzpah...something beyond arrogance. Oh, BTW, you wouldn't happen to have skipped the K-L bill for fear of getting caught voting "nay" on a bill similar to one that you had co-sponsored, would? It does smell like "politics as "usual" to me, Senator Barack New-Kind-of-Politics Obama...sheesh!

A note added for the benefit of the "critical thinkers" outer: you'd lauded Sens. Levin and Durbin for voting "nay" vote on the AUMF bill, calling it the epitome of good judgment, but what do you "think" of the fact that both senators voted "yea" on the K-L bill that you are now citing as further evidence of Hillary's unfitness to be POTUS? The cognitive dissonance and your silence on it are truly deafening! Let's see some critical thinking, for a change, and reconcile these contracting facts. At least, HRC has been consistent, which is not only highly principled but also good politics...

A Mason-Dixon poll out this morning has Clinton tanking in Nevada's general election, even losing against Romney.

"Tanking" in a state that went for Bush (even narrowly) is a mis-characterization, I think. It suggests that this is a place where the Dems should be cruising. But before Edwards' and Obama's supporters begin reading signs of Clinton's demise in this poll, here's the rest of the story that Daniel's post left out (but his website has it):

# Clinton would lose all three of her match-ups, never exceeding 44% -- even against Mitt Romney! She loses 51-44 against Rudy Giuliani, 50-44 against Fred Thompson, and 49-43 against Mitt Romney.
# Mason-Dixon did not poll other Democrats in general election races.
# In her primary race, Clinton leads with 39%, with Obama at 21%, John Edwards at 9%, and Bill Richardson, who hails from a neighboring state, at 8%.

Clinton is clearly still the stronger Dem candidate even if she is "tanking" Nevada.

Sheesh Marie, people.

HRC voted in favor of the AUMF because she is a work-within-the-system church-going middle-American former Goldwater-girl centrist who thinks Congress should defer to the Presidency in matters of national security. I disagree with her and I hate her AUMF vote, but things are so far gone in this country that I cannot make that a litmus test for my support. I'm sure I'm not alone.
Besides, none of the top 3 are proposing to get out of Iraq any faster than she is, and that I think is a shocking act of honesty about how difficult it is really going to be to avoid having our boys and girls shoot their way to the exits under fire. I only wish they'd be *more honest*.

It's all fine to place some of the blame for this at the feet of HRC and other congresscritters, but it's not even close to the level of blame that lies with Bush. Put it this way - Edwards and HRC voted for it, and Obama's protests to the contrary, I have little confidence that he wouldn't have, and in any case he wasn't there. I have no doubt whatsoever, though, that none of them would have invaded Iraq if they'd been President.

dcs, you asked and you shall receive.

stlounick:

Thanks for taking a crack at it but it is more of the same:

1. I have never justified HRC's vote: ex post facto, it was the wrong vote. Ex post facto, meaning that with the perfect 20/20 vision of hindsight, after Bush went to war and made a mess of it, we know that it was the wrong choice to give him the authority to attack. Had Bush waged the war brilliantly and managed its aftermath in a way to would have prevented the current quagmire and allowed peace and democracy to bloom all around the region, we would not be talking about HRC's AUMF vote today, and nor would you be hyperventilating in asking that she be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for her "yea" vote. Bush would be taking credit for it all, and the pundits would already have declared him the Honest Abe of the 21st Century. That vote is "wrong" only because the results have proved disastrous...ex post facto. It says nothing about a candidate's fitness to be POTUS, because we all do make mistakes all the time. Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs or Bill Clinton and the Lewinsky fiasco did not diminish them or their other wast accomplishments as POTUS. Bill Clinton left office with an approval rating of 65%, the highest since Roosevelt, I think (check Wikipidia). BTW, 50+% of Senate Democrats voted for the AUMF and that is hardly a minority as you claim. And now, Levin and Durbin, who were against the AUMF bill, just voted for the K-L bill, that you insist proves that HRC has poor judgment. Think about that!

2. My point was that if you are going to criticize HRC for the way she voted, intellectual honesty requires that you do the same for Edwards (who'd co-sponsored the bill and voted for it - showing poor judgment - and then apologized repeatedly for political expediency), and Obama, who claims to have "opposed" the war but then voted repeatedly to perpetuate it, once he was in position to substantively express his purported "opposition." You are trying to make a non-existent distinction between authorizing and voting for funding to perpetuate the war. A distinction without a substantive difference. When you fund, you are continuing the authorization. Kuccinich opposed the war from the get-go (no quotation marks around opposed), and has consistently voted against funding it. That is consistency. Obama's claims that he had "opposed" the war when he could do nothing about it are meaningless in the light of his repeated votes to fund it, when he had the opportunity to do something that could end it. To stop war funding would have a better chance to stop the killing of more young Americans and innocent Iraqis! But let's corner you on the logic for continuing the war funding. Why is Obama now for voting "nay" on any war funding bill that does not include a timetable for withdrawal? Why couldn't he have done the same from the beginning? I will tell you why: Political expediency; it was unpopular back then to withhold funding, but he wanted to preserve his chances to be POTUS. Therefore, I am nearly certain that had he been in the US Senate, he would have voted for the AUMF bill. His is not just bad judgment but hypocritical bad judgment. To see how it is simply dishonest to single out HRC for crucifixion on this requires more intellectual honesty than the ABC crowd is apparently capable of.

And, nope, I'll write in a name on the Prez general election if Hillary is the candidate. Don't like it? Tough. I simply do not care what you like or do not like. It's part of the Dem decision-making process. And it's fair.

You are free to vote as you please, but let me ask you how you feel about Gore - the guy who would be POTUS had it not been for the Naderites' vote for their ideologically "pure" candidtate -
winning the Nobel Prize? That is what happens when people think that way you do. But for your ilk, "ideological purity" ist alles!

Take home message:
"Critical thinking" without "intellectual honesty" is delusion.

You can quote me on that...

"Authoritarian-minded bullying Republican twits" have been winning elections over us noble minded free thinking logical Democrats. Why is this? In part because they do understand the value of propaganda. Reagan's thirteenth commandment has stood them in good stead and it has harmed the country because it paved the way for GWB.

That said, the difference between any of the Democrats and any of the Republicans is so great that any campaigning against any Democrat in the GE is at the risk of harming our country. If the Rethugs retain control we can kiss free and fair elections good by. This is not true for any of the Democrats. If you want to make HRC appear inevitable announce that you will vote against her in the GE. This doesn't arise unless she wins the nomination.

Hillary knows that the Great Right Wing Conspiracy did exist and was targeted atainst her husband and the Democrats. It is a stretch to go from there to the idea that a president -- even George Bush -- is going to drag the country to a badly designed avoidable war of choice that was going to provide a new recruitiing grounds for Al Qaeda. It was in both his interest and the Rethugs interest --not to mention the country's --- not to mess things up so badly.

Normal individuals tend to be blindsided by pathological liars because the normal people believe that nobody would lie that baldly about something that important. The NIE changed the minds of some who read it but expecting that the administration had relayed the gist accurately is an understandable position even though an error in hinds sight. Biden in defense of his own vote has offered the context of the times. I can still see Colin Powell before the United Nations.

The other thing is that it is impossible for a President to use a credible threat of force if he has to say if you do this I will go back to Congress. The resolution was to give him the ability to say I will resort to force unless you do what we want. The problem was that Bush would not take yes for an answer. I am not sure that that response was predictable.

K-L was interpreted by people who voted against the AUMF as supportable. Obama was not there when the vote was called and some of his supporters claim that this was a political trap laid for him. An alternative view is that everyone knew that this vote was hanging fire and Obama did not regard it as a critical enough vote to hang around for. If it is not important enough for you to stay within voting range I don't think a candidate is in a position to criticize the people who did stay and vote.

It took no political courage to be a state legistlator standing before an anti war crowd with and anti-war Senator and say you,tto, are oppose it. To be a Senator from New York refusing to authorize the President to threaten force would take an urge for political suicide.

PS -- Don't so easily dismiss the idea that Rethugs peruse liberal blogs to see how they can dimnish support for the Democratic nominee. Where do you think they got the idea of funding Nader?

dcshungu's ego process:

Hi, I am dschungu's ego telling it like it is. I happen to be extremely intelligent and moreover, and for those who don't believe that, just notice how I am consistently self-referencing, because that just makes such obvious sense to me. Yes, I am also laudably loyal to my own superior ability to do critical thinking and to offer that rarity called 'intellectual honesty' right alongside my critical thinking.

But, lest you don't appreciate these qualities of mine, you should be thanking me! By now, anyone who is aware has noticed that I have placed all my abilities into a higher cause, which is Hillary's manifest destiny to be president! Don't you lesser beings realize that I demonstrate that selfless part of my nature by sacrificing my time for hours on these threads, ferreting out every teensy bit of sloppy uncritical thinking about Hillary so that I can offer my valuable critical thinking to those who need it?

Ah, sometimes it is frustrating to be so purely wise and to have my freely offered gems be unappreciated. I have therefore put my thinking abilities to this conundrum, and darn it I had to since there are still so many ABC's at EC that this on-going frustration is too maddening to not do so. I will now give you the fruits of my intellectual labors: It's a problem of faulty reception within the ABC's! Look, no matter how many times I repeat my superior thinking, they just fail to get it.

I have to conclude that the failure I'm having with getting the ABC's on my wavelength is they, oh dear souls, suffer cognitive dissonance. Let me give you an example, so that finally, we can be in agreement. Ok.....in shorthand, here is the result of my cognitive clarity: Hillary is no hawk, because her main advisor is no hawk [like Bush two is his Dad's son, get it.....dopes], but even if she acts hawkish, she's not really, because she's smart, unlike Cheney, for example. And to top it off, don't you realize she's a kettle being called black by two pots.! Geeez, folks.

Signing off, this is dcsungu's ego.

dcs,

First, I consider the war vote a matter of supreme importance. You don't. Hence our difference. Check Pelosi's statement with her vote of "nay" and you will find my position as well as the position of Senator Obama. And, nope, it never mattered if the war went well--that's Hillary's position and yours, not mine.

Second, I also would not support Edward, Biden, Dodd, and Richardson as the nominee. Reason? Poor judgment of their war vote. It's that important.

Third, you are the one adding vote for war to vote for funding the troops and saying they are the same. I disagree and I pointed out the reasons. You chose to ignore them.

Finally, dcs, I don't base my hard-won opinion on whether or not it is popular. I'll leave that to others--you are one and there is some suspicion that Hillary is another.

If Hillary is the Dem candidate, I intend to either write-in a name or to skip that one election on my ballot. Last time I checked, I could actually do that. Just be glad that I actually am revealing what I plan to do instead of keeping it private as I suspect a signficant number of normal Dem voters will do.

I belong to the section of the Dem Party where the majority of Congressional Dems actually voted AGAINST this miserable war. Too bad you don't think they exist in any appreciable number. They do. Hillary is not amongst them. You are also not amongst them. Too bad. But I've been a card-carrying Dem for a long time and I suspect you have not been.

stlounick

I don't believe for one second that you're a card-carrying Dem. I happen to do a lot of work for our county Democratic Party, and even though people are for certain candidates at this time, everyone agrees that this is the best field ever, and the idea that there is anyone that they wouldn't vote for out of the bunch is absurd.

So, did you not vote for Kerry in 2004? If so, could you explain the substantive differences in candidate Kerry and candidate Clinton?

And if you didn't vote for Kerry and you're supposedly a card-carrying Dem (LOL), then you're a worthless card-carrying Dem.

So, stamp your little feet and sit out the election when Hillary wins. Don't let the saloon door hit you in the elephant on your way out of the party.

For my part, I plan to sign up and drive about 10-15 new voters to the polls to cast their vote for HRC in November 2008. I think I'll give one of them a little card upon which is written the word "stlounick."

Who said this?

"so-called critical thinkers", and "not passionate about their candidate, just want to stop Hillary, so have a lot in common with conservative Repugs who prostitute themselves" and "for your edification" and "serial apologizer" and "please chew on the following" and "very not smart" and "here's the hard hitting truth" ,

and who said in response to stlounick's earnest reply, "thanks for taking a stab at it, but its more of the same"

and who said in response to NCSteve, "intellectual honesty requires.....that you follow my thinking"

And who said, in response to FreakyBeaky, "ah, you agree with me, so you are a critical thinker and have intellectual honesty."

Why, dcshungu's ego said all that. That's the ego that needs propped up by the other 'intellectually honest' dredgers on the thread who will attack stlounick's democratic credentials, or use terms like Hillary-Haters or Hillogynists or O-Bomb-A.......but, er, that stuff is nothing like what comes out of Rovian politics. Nosireee, that stuff is all critical thinking and intellectually honest.

FreakyBeaky, I do not put you in this sorry clique. I used you for an example of how dcshungu's ego works.

colon, you misquoted me in order to smear me. I never have gotten specific examples of anything to point to leadership abilities in Hillary as a Senator. Her senate record is reviewable for facts, unlike her First Lady years record which is held out of public view. In the senate, fully 78% of her so-called successful legislation was fluff about naming buildings or honoring specific individuals. That is a paltry record for her years there. She may be a work-horse in committees, but never rose to be leader on issues of national importance.

I compare that record to Obama's shorter record which already provides strong initiative and leadership on critical issues of cleaning up the muck in national government.

We all hope you are right that the polls do not signify victory. Look at what happened to Howard Dean, right? Hillary is a ruthless, power hungry bitch. Let's hope Hillary tanks because she is the only one who can stop Rudy Giuliani from becoming President. We sure don't want to go back to what we had during the 8 years Bill Clinton was President.

Of course the Democratic nominee (Kerry) also lost in 2004, in part because his vote for the Iraq War resolution was used to great effect against him.

So one would think the Democrats would have learned their lesson from 2004, and would make sure to nominate someone who did not vote for the war resolution.

I searched TPM in vain, for any mention of Kucinich. Where do you get your talking points from? Limbaugh? This is not a football game. It's democracy. Wait for the votes. The polls lie.

stlounick

Now that you've persisted with the nonsense that you're a card-carrying Dem (please stop, you must be embarrasing yourself), while poised to render yourself irrelevant in the 2008 Presidential election, let me just say once again.

You have motivated me (in my sixth decade as a real liberal Democrat - just like Hillary is), to make an extra effort to get "just one more new voter to the polls to vote for HRC" in your honor.

Now I wonder if I can come up with any angle to motivate some of the first time women voters here on campus. Hmmmm?

PEACE

DTM wrote on October 15, 2007 6:41 AM:

Of course the Democratic nominee (Kerry) also lost in 2004, in part because his vote for the Iraq War resolution was used to great effect against him.

Kerry won the Dem nomination despite having voted for the AUMF and neither he nor Edwards having apologized for it at the time. He lost in GE not because of the AUMF vote but because he waffled on his vote to fund the war: "He was for it before he was against it"...in his in words. Kerry waffled about a lot of things too. Maybe you can see why HRC's refusal to apologize for her vote is smart GE politics. Edwards will be creamed for his position on it and so would be Obama. Edwards was for it before he was against it, and Obama was against it before he was for it. Only HRC has been consistent, making it easier for her to defend the position, and to go on the offense saying that it was Bush to made a mess of things.

One can always hypothesize that this time, when challenged the nominee's spin of their vote will be better. But the alternative approach is to make sure they do not have something like that to spin in the first place.

Deshengu,
Your description of HRC's few statements of position is depraved. You assume, probably correctly I guess, that her vague non-commitment about Iraq is based on winning red states in November, and not on any feeling about what's right for the country. And she's your candidate,right? You think that's good?

That kind of thinking will get us a candidate who is just barely to the left of the most extreme right wing politician in our history.
So, you sound like a Republican to me.

stop the polls says:

"Deshengu, you sound like a Republican to me."

Yeah, not like someone who supports an excellent Democratic candidate with the 12th most liberal voting record in the Senate.

deshengu,
Being the 12th most liberal in this senate is like being the 12th tallest midget in the world. Creators of Patriot Act 1&2, approved Roberts and Alito, war in Iraq, and Afghanistan etc. Biggest military budgets ever. Being a member of this august body is not really a recommendation.

stop the polls or at least audit them

Do you have a candidate in this race that you favor? Who might that be. Are they someone who should be ashamed of being in Congress now or at some earlier time, so that shouldn't recommend them in any way? How does your preferred candidate's liberal voting record stack up against Hillary's?

Just wondering.

I hope you're not just some cynic about this whole field, or about the whole party, or about the whole process. If so, why bother voting at all? It will just make you feel so dirty.