LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.Best Political Blog Winner, 2007 Webby Awards, People's Voice and Jury.   Dateline: Iraq - Anna Badkhen and Sarah Stillman on Assignment
 
May 18, 2008
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Reports

Arts & Culture

Digs
Inside the Data Mine

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Truthdig Bazaar
The Prison Letters of Fidel Castro

The Prison Letters of Fidel Castro

by Fidel Castro (Author), Luis Conte Aguero (Epilogue), Ann Louise Bardach (Introduction)
$11.86

more items

 
Reports

There’s a Republican Under My Bed

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   
Posted on Feb 11, 2008

By Eugene Robinson

WASHINGTON—It is insane to waste time and energy worrying that somewhere, doubtless in a high-tech subterranean lair, Republican masterminds are cackling over their diabolical plot: The use of reverse psychology to lure unsuspecting Democrats into nominating Barack Obama, an innocent lamb who will be chewed up by the attack machine in the fall. Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!

Or maybe Republicans are using double supersecret backward reverse psychology to exploit the Democratic Party’s congenital paranoia: Let’s say nice things about Obama so Democrats think we really want to run against him, and that will make them play into our hands by nominating Hillary Clinton, who so energizes the Republican base that we can actually win an election that we ought to lose. Cue another round of deranged mad-scientist laughter.

Amazingly, those are the kinds of things you hear Democrats say out loud these days. Let me suggest that the party has enough to think about without dreaming up imaginary dilemmas.

Democratic primary voters, caucus-goers and superdelegates are right to keep electability in mind as they choose between Obama and Clinton. But Democrats shouldn’t give a second thought to whether Republican strategists have some secret “agenda” in mind. No matter which candidate Democrats nominate, the Republican game plan is obvious: Go negative.

The Republican Party is saddled with an unpopular president, a long-running war and a slumping economy. In state after state, participation has been vastly greater in Democratic primaries and caucuses than on the Republican side—an indicator not just of where enthusiasm can be found, but of which way independents are leaning.

John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, should be able to capture some of those independents. But none of the fundamentals remotely suggest that this should be a Republican year. The party’s strategy almost certainly has to involve creating doubts in voters’ minds about the Democratic nominee, and how to do so is no mystery.

If Obama is the nominee, Republicans will attack on the question of experience and claim he’s not ready to be commander in chief. If it’s Clinton, the obvious ploy will be to remind voters of the tawdrier episodes of the Bill Clinton presidency and portray Hillary Clinton as a divisive figure. Subliminally, Republicans can try to undermine Obama with race or Clinton with gender. In either case, things could get ugly.

It’s worth noting that a recent Time magazine poll showed Obama beating McCain in a hypothetical contest by 48 percent to 41 percent, while a Clinton-McCain race was deadlocked at 46 percent.

Instead of letting Republicans get inside their heads, Democrats should come to their own conclusions about who is more electable. Neither has been able to consistently stitch together the whole patchwork of Democratic constituencies. Obama is relatively weak among Latinos—but not as weak as Clinton has been among African-Americans. White men have gone both ways, depending on the state; white women have constituted Clinton’s base. Younger Democrats are all about Obama, while older Democrats remain loyal to Clinton.

Frankly, I don’t see any of these groups defecting en masse to McCain. Would whites actually vote for an African-American as president? After Obama’s victories in states such as North Dakota, Idaho, Iowa and Maine, we might want to give him the benefit of the doubt. Would black voters return to the Clinton fold? I think most would, as long as she was seen to have won the nomination fair and square, with no more of the race-fueled nastiness we saw in South Carolina.

One indicator that might mean something is that Obama has done better than Clinton in red states, purple states and any-colored states with open primaries where non-Democrats are allowed to participate. This could mean he has more ability to win support from independents in the general election—unless, of course, the Republican Party’s evil geniuses have transmitted coded instructions to their loyal foot soldiers to vote in Democratic primaries, for Obama, whenever and wherever possible.

Enough with the Dr. Evil routine. I think there’s a simpler reason why so many Republicans speak admiringly of Barack Obama and say he would be the tougher candidate to run against. Obama disagrees with conservatives without demonizing them. He even invites Republicans to join him in building the post-partisan America he envisions.

Hillary Clinton, author of the phrase “vast right-wing conspiracy,” is more confrontational, to say the least.

Democrats can and should argue about which approach is better. But they should worry about their own strategy—and not obsess about Republican mind control. 

Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com. 

© 2008, Washington Post Writers Group

Email Newsletter

Get truth delivered to your inbox every week.

Previous item: The War Against Tolerance

Next item: A Conflict of Conscience

Jump to Comments

Advertisement


Elsewhere: .

Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

By John Patterson, February 14 at 9:00 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

“After Obama’s victories in states such as North Dakota, Idaho, Iowa and Maine, we might want to give him the benefit of the doubt.”

Nicely understated, still snarky enough to get a snicker…

Obama’s campaign may have transcended the race issue altogether, in terms of actual electability impact.

This is no longer a battle between regressive Republicans and digressive Democrats, now it is a story of the younger generation taking power in the Democratic Party; this has become a campaign fought between the generations, not between ethnic or gender divisions.

To the young, and young at heart, of every race and either gender, Obama is a kindred spirit. A powerful bond of trust has formed between the candidate and his supporters because if it. Whether imaginery, contrived or very real, that is a hard bond to defeat.

Hopefully, Obama can and will live up to all those hopeful expectations.

Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report this

By Conservative Yankee, February 14 at 2:21 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Re:

Here in Maine, (population 1.3 million) where there is a Democratic majority, fewer than 4,000 people bothered to vote.

Reply to this | Report this

By cwhipps, February 13 at 11:49 pm #
(43 comments total)

Eugene, I’ve admired your self-control in supressing the kind of full-throated laughter that Pat Buchanan’s xenophobic rantings now regularly inspire in his peers at both MSNBC and McGlaughlin.

Just this morning he suggested the only way to stop Obama’s surge was for Hillary to “drop a bomb” in a debate. Whether it would have been an I.E.D. or a veiled reference to “slumlords” wasn’t exatly clear, but coupled with Pat’s need to justify the theme of his latest book, it’s getting pretty comical down there.

I just wanted to tell you I really loved this column, today, and I’m still listening to you on cable. You’re becoming the voice of reason at MSNBC. (But if they offer you a seat at the host desk, make sure you have an exit stategy. Look how quick poor Schuster got taken out.)

Reply to this | Report this

By MackTN, February 13 at 9:44 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

A president who'll defend me over embryonic tissue

I must admit that at first I spent a lot of time worrying about the diabolical plots of the Republicans--they are known for hatching them, after all.  But when it comes down to the general election, I do know this...I won’t vote for a Republican.

Republicans scare me.  Despite their clamoring on ideology and conservatism, they support gross invasions of privacy like data mining and recruiting the phone companies to lift your conversations. 

In addition, it appears that what they really want as government is a theocracy, not a democracy.  I was always taught that religion was a private matter that had nothing to do with government.  Given that, I just don’t give a s..t about what religion you are. 

Huckabee simply terrifies me.  I’m apalled to see a grown man whine about embryos on television and declare that embryonic tissue is what separates republicans from all others.  Its downright medieval.

What interested me most was to see a response to Blue Cross recruiting doctors to help cancel patients.  Clearly the next president has to be willing to fight the corporations for whom people are merely pests that endanger their profits.  These are the issues that define the mettle of the candidates--I want a fighter (for me, not for embryonic tissue).

Reply to this | Report this

By Bill Jones, February 13 at 1:10 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

If it’s Obama that will pretty much guarantee a
“major terrorist attack” a few weeks before the election

Reply to this | Report this

By THIRD, February 13 at 6:51 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

I like this article by Robinson.  He has explained the republican’s dirty tricks very well!  While knowing just how dangerous these people are when they reach power, I am not intimidated.  I still adhere to the principle laid out in our Constitution that all government employees are our SERVANTS, rather than our masters, as they aspire to be.
The Bush years brought our country closer to dictatorship than ever before.  This is a turn of events that all Americans should stand up and screams against with all their lung power.  We have the “Homeland Security” hoax devised by Bush, which is not much more than a plan to spy on American citizens.  He has passed numerous bills through his right wing congress that go directly against the wellfare and the will of the people.  Irregardless of the many crimes committed by this individual, I don’t see him being brought forth to answer for even one!  Thus, when he’s all done in Washington, he’ll ride off into the sunset to languish for the rest of his life under full protection at tax payer expense!  Is this insanity, or what?
Yes, I believe Obama will face unrelenting pressure beneath the Washington wheel.  His experience is not as full as Clinton’s, yet I believe he is capable of rerouting the country from certain disaster to a more safe plane..., if allowed!  I fear the iron-clad support of Kennedy and what he expects to glean from it in return.
All this being said, I reiterate.., there is no goddamned republican under my bed!!

Reply to this | Report this

By samosamo, February 12 at 7:19 pm #
(88 comments total)

I is not enough to get one person elected as president to hopefully take charge of bringing this country back to the democracy that is once was and that has to go back to before the time the corporations started subverting the government for its on agendas because it will not happen. The 2006 election should be and indicator of this.
What needs to come about to reclaim our democracy is the vote out the incumbents in congress, impeach or remove the supreme court judges that stopped the vote re-count in Florida in the 2000 election and make it clear that outlawing lobbying is top priority number 1 which should break the corporate political connection.
Otherwise, taking up arms and reclaiming our country by force will be the only way the democracy will be brought back.

Reply to this | Report this

By HQX, February 12 at 5:21 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

I agree with the first assertion that it is insane to worry about what the Republicans will do to the Democratic nominee, right now.  Of course they’ll do something and they will do every bit as much as they can get away with.  They play hard and they play dirty.  And they win that way.

But if you’re on a desert island, you don’t worry if you’re going to get seasick on the rescue ship.  You do everything you can to get on board and worry about the next journey when it’s presented you.

Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report this

By cyrena, February 13 at 8:26 pm #
(4172 comments total)

Re:

I love this reason and logic...especially the desert island rescue, and the concern about becoming seasick.

In short, just SAVE my ass, and I’ll worry about the throwing up later. (surely somebody will have dramamine or a health care plan, eh?)

Since we’re all in this together, I’m ‘hopeful’ on the rescue part. wink

Reply to this | Report this

By PatrickHenry, February 12 at 3:54 pm #
(1114 comments total)

Under Beds?

I thought closets were the Republican norm.

Reply to this | Hide 2 replies | Report this

By Louise, February 12 at 4:48 pm #
(761 comments total)

Re: Under Beds?

Good one! Hee-hee! smile

Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report this

By troublesum, February 13 at 5:07 pm #
(317 comments total)

Re: Re: Under Beds?

Public restrooms.

Report this

By Druthers, February 12 at 3:23 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

The Democratic Party has been behaving for years now like retarded adolescents.  They no longer act, they react to the Republicans, to their fear of the Republicans, of what the Republicans will say and in doing so have turned themselves into a doormat...a yellow doormat. 

They stand for nothing and the same members of the Democratic Party continue to vote with the Republicans.

The Democrats roll over time and time again; they have abandoned the Constitution, their own Constitutional duties, the American people and behave like vulgar ner’do wells selling themselves to the highest bidder just as they sold out the airwaves, the press and TV.

We are already in Pravda land and it may get worse.
It is understandable that all these young people are sick of sermons ladled out like soup from old fogies who have spent their lives in their Congressional bubble, paid for by money pulled from our pockets. 

No wonder Obama inspires.  He is like a breath of fresh air in a smelly hospital ward.  What a change from the usual Bush, Clinton, Bush and now another Clinton or Ole Man McCain headed off to a Hundred Years War.

Reply to this | Report this

By bert, February 12 at 1:26 pm #
(686 comments total)

The Time Magazine poll numbers you cite leave out much important information that is out there. But I would expect as much from a regular contributor to the Misogynist Sexist National Boys Club (MSNBC.) Reminds me all over again of that wonderful book, required reading in my statistics classes, Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics. Maybe you should read it.

In the first place, polls are not predictive in nature. Using polls to predict human behavior is an exercise in futility and is a complete and total misuse of such instruments. Nine months is a long time in politics. It is an eternity. So stop using a recent poll to predict what is going to happen in the future. You think you would have learned your lesson after New Hampshire. 

There is a recent Washington Post (WaPo) survey that shows more nuanced information. I would think that you have easy access to this and why you didn’t include this in your editorial is stunning.

About 60% of Clinton supporters adamantly support her, while only about 50% of Obama supporters adamantly support Obama. In other words, his support is softer. He has been winning caucuses with the help of a lot of independent and swing voters. That is a highly volatile group. Their vote in November is not a sure thing.

Further information gleaned from the WaPo survey show that independent Ds support Clinton 52% to Obama’s 38%.

This next figure is not from the WaPo survey, but just general knowledge of the make up of the Democratic Party. But it clearly relates to the figure in the previous sentence. Clearly 40% of Democrats are not liberal at all, in fact they are conservative. Just ask any Democratic Congressperson from a red state. Who ever the nominee is they have to win these folks too. Democrats can win in red states. But they have to make sure their rhetoric does not turn those voters off. The trick in a primary election is to keep your base but not lose the rest of the voters. A very hard balancing act in any election year, but more so this.

Where Obama does better in the WaPo survey is with rich, white extreme left liberal Ds. This is exactly the group that supported George McGovern, and those of you who know your history remember how well that turned out.

Further information from the WaPo survey shows that 50% of mainstream Rs are now supporting McCain, and that 66% of independent Rs have very strong support for McCain. He will be a formidable candidate.

A last item gleaned from the WaPo survey is that the economy is now the number one issue in the minds of Americans. Iraq is not as important any longer.

In closing, I cannot believe you would ignore the possibility that the R’s could be engaged in deceitful election practices this primary season.  It certainly is not out of the realm of possibility. I mean the Rs are the party of stealing elections, caging, jamming Ds phone lines on Election day, bogus bugs in campaign offices, and turning the Justice Department into a partisan political office. It is insane to think they are not engaging in dirty tricks in a primary.

Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report this

By Conservative Yankee, February 13 at 5:50 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Re:

Let me get this straight?

You spend the first part of your message telling us polls are not predictive of behavior, then you use polls (60& firm Hill-the-business-shill, and 50i;rm token)to predict how people will vote.

Weak

I frankly don’t give a rat’s ass how many (stupid??) people support the business-shill. I will vote R if she wins the nomination ALSO, it might be instructive to view CNN’s “delegate count” although the business shill has fewer rank-and-file delegates, she has almost twice the number of “SUPER delegates.”

You might want to check out who these super-peopel are.... the same party insiders who will prohibit meaningful reform… people like “impeachment off the table” woman!

Reply to this | Report this

By Luther Brixton, February 12 at 12:20 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

I really don’t see how the “Obama has no experience” moniker is going to stick to Barack.

Whoever throws it will just be setting themselves up to have it thrown right back in their faces.

Hillary’s vast experience is what lead her to not only rubberstamp Bush’s war of aggression on Iraq in 2002, but despite having to constantly defend that incredibly poor decision for the past 6 years, she proved in 2007 that her “years of experience” didn’t sway her away from voting for the insane Kyle/Lieberman amendment – a pretext for war with Iran! That decision, more than her stupidity in greenlighting the Iraq fiasco, is why I would NEVER vote for her. She has learned nothing!

And McCain’s wonderful experience has led him to the conclusion there is no way out of Iraq – period! Accepting that the US will remain bogged down there for the next 10,000 years (which he claims the American people really won’t mind!), McCain shows that his many years of experience and military acumen is no better than George W Bush – someone completely lacking in either knowledge or experience.

Imagine Bush or Cheney or any of their GOP surrogates, whose decision making has been so catastrophically wrong time and time again, now claiming that “Obama doesn’t have enough experience for the job”. Point to the person whose experience level he Obama should have and I’ll show you someone who has neither the brains nor the intellectual capacity for the job – and that includes not only Hillary Clinton and John McCain, but the entire beltway crowd and media superstars who have never acknowledged their critically important role in committing the greatest foreign policy disaster in US history.

Reply to this | Report this

By QuyTran, February 12 at 11:46 am #
(843 comments total)

THERE'S A REPUBLICAN UNDER MY BED

Who cares ? Just let’s it be.

Reply to this | Report this

By Louise, February 12 at 10:55 am #
(761 comments total)

There’s a Republican Under My Bed

Not mine!!!

I dragged him out and converted him!
Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!

Just kidding, the only thing under there are dust bunnies and an old banana peel.

I think ... maybe I better go look again.

Reply to this | Report this

By Aegrus, February 12 at 10:29 am #
(741 comments total)

Repeat Lies. Repeat Lies. Repeat Lies

Identity politics are a charade. Look at the real issues, and everyone makes the logical conclusion about Barack Obama being our best candidate. It is beyond me how so many writers are so oblivious to these processes. Our profession is littered with unskilled, uppity, ignorant chauvinists. Nice job with the echo chamber Washington Post!

Reply to this | Report this

By GW=MCHammered, February 12 at 9:26 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

The Only Die-Hard Republican

that remains in my circle is on the run 3 steps ahead of the IRS. Seriously. All others finally see there is NO real conservatism in GOP front runners.

Reply to this | Report this

By sovtek, February 12 at 8:54 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Electable?

The whole “electable” strategy showed its illogical weakness in 2004 when Kerry got creamed.
PEOPLE it’s the issues. The Democrats have no right to our vote...they have to earn it. So far neither Hillary nor Obama have promised to immediately withdraw from Iraq much less Afghanistan and vowed not to attack Iran. The majority of Americans support the ending of the Iraq war yet none of them acknowledge this. Nancy Pelosi has given up substantial support for lower approval ratings than Bush. It’s about issues people and none of the mainstream Democrats have the issues right. The Democrats could still loose if they continue to ignore what the majority want. It’s called Democracy and it’s part of their name. It’s time they practiced it!

Reply to this | Report this

By Conservative Yankee, February 12 at 8:46 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Head’s up:

They haven’t scrapped the electorial college, and the map still favors Republicans.

Arizona, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Alabama, Mississippi, Kansas, North Dakota, and Indiana are red States now and for the foreseeable future. The only States where the Democrats have the same Rock Solid claim are Massachusetts,Hawaii and Minnesota, and even these are not absolute, as Massachusetts and Minnesota went of Reagan in 1980, and Massachusetts and Hawaii went for Reagan in 1984.

No Democrat has carried Idaho or Alaska since 1964, and only one Democrat has carried Arizona in 60 years, and this was due to their dislike of Bob Dole. except for a brief stray into Carter Country in 1976, Alabama and Mississippi have not voted for the Democrat since 1956.

Hill-the-business-shill is HATED by 47% of the people, so I would guess (assuming the obvious victory of the Clinton machine) that this will be a close election.... Las vegas is giving the D’s a point or two, but my guess is that when it is McCain/Clinton, head to head, the points will be McCain’s.

Reply to this | Report this

By Tom Semioli, February 12 at 7:36 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

And?

And if the Democrats win? We’ll still have a war with Iran; we’ll still be in Iraq; we’ll still have a bloated miliatary budget; we’ll still have the NAFTA treaties and loss of jobs; we’ll still have insurance and pharmaceutical companines runing health care… The first Wednesday in November it’ll be business as usual.

Reply to this | Report this

By jackpine savage, February 12 at 7:04 am #
(704 comments total)

While the fear that Democrats have for Republican dirty tricks is justified, it also displays a fundamental weakness of the Democratic Party.

This fear makes the Democrats play defense, all the time.  Its real hard to win playing defense.  Sometimes the best offense is a good defense, but only if that defense is a means to lure your opponent into a scenario where your planned offense can pounce.  That’s hardly the way that the Democrats play the game.

Yesterday, it was reported that Sen Conyers was rethinking impeachment proceedings (though against whom it was not immediately clear...it may be Mukasky).  He then said that he was afraid that such an act would instigate corporate blowback against his party in the November elections.

He is obviously only concerned with playing defense.  He’s right about blowback, but fails to consider how many shouts of joy would be heard amongst the purple mountains’ majesty and the amber waves of grain.  He also fails to consider that any degree of success might start to show the inherent corruption in this administration.  For as much blowback as it impeachment proceedings might generate, they also might peel away moderate, conservative votes from a candidate who represents the party in power.

Either candidate will get smeared terribly.  But opening up impeachment proceedings would certainly shift the balance of smear.  It might also tie the administrations hands somewhat for the last 10 months of its reign.

But why play offense, playing defense has done the party so well in the past…

Reply to this | Report this

By Leefeller, February 12 at 6:29 am #
(1234 comments total)

The Russians are coming

We head that for years, now it is the Moslems are coming, the Mexicans are coming, in my case it is the Norwegians are coming. The Republicans are coming.

What fear mongering?

Reply to this | Report this

By cyrena, February 11 at 11:50 pm #
(4172 comments total)

• If it’s Clinton, the obvious ploy will be to remind voters of the tawdrier episodes of the Bill Clinton presidency and portray Hillary Clinton as a divisive figure.

But Eugene…they don’t HAVE to ‘portray’ Hillary as a ‘divisive’ figure, because she IS…and she does THAT much all by herself!!

Nobody cares about Bill’s tawdry episodes though, since I doubt you’re talking about NAFTA, or many of his other anti-labor actions.

• Subliminally, Republicans can try to undermine Obama with race or Clinton with gender. In either case, things could get ugly.

But, the repugs have already done this, and if Obama gets the nomination, things WILL get ugly, and it will be beyond the ‘subliminal’.

• Would black voters return to the Clinton fold? I think most would, as long as she was seen to have won the nomination fair and square, with no more of the race-fueled nastiness we saw in South Carolina.

Would black voters ‘return to the Clinton fold? What the hell choice would they have? On the other hand, I fear they would just stay home on election day, which would be just as bad.

• Democrats can and should argue about which approach is better. But they should worry about their own strategy—and not obsess about Republican mind control.

I agree Eugene. Enough of the conspiracy and counter-conspiracy, and double-looped back triple-dipple, double and a half reverse psychology conspiracies. Except, I do get to entertain my own, which isn’t all that complicated.

I think the Repugs would PREFER to lose to Clinton, (if they have to lose) at least as far as the oligarchy is concerned, because the bottom line is that ideologically at least, Hillary Clinton best protects their interests, and stays closest to their own self-interested policies. Now, ya’ll can call me a ‘conspiracy’ theorist if ya want, but I’m just saying….Hillary (for the repugs) is the next best thing. She WILL keep the war going, and she WILL keep the special interest money flowing…at least until they have time to escape with the last of it….

So, while I certainly agree that as a political entity, (democrats) we should simply consider the most electable, we shouldn’t IGNORE the possibly dirty tactics of the repugs, because they’re known for that. We don’t think the current Cabal is just gonna make some sort of ‘Clean Break’ now do we? Hillary would deliver for them, once they aren’t there to do it ‘hands on’ themselves, in a way that Obama simply will not. We can’t just ignore that.

Besides, Obama IS the most electable, as long as he can survive what is bound to be one gigantic and enduring swift boat style operation nasty enough to put hair on Hillary’s chest, and then singe it right off in the next round.

Besides, based on Hillary’s interview with Katie Couric, she’s gonna be the next president anyway, and it has nothing to do with whether the people select her. That’s what SHE’S decided, so all of this talk of US trying to figure out which of them is ‘most electable’ is an exercise in futility. (according to Hillary, and yes…that is my own translation/interpretation of what she said.) wink

Reply to this | Hide 4 replies | Report this

By GrammaConcept, February 12 at 4:26 pm #
(189 comments total)

Re:

......"Besides, Obama IS the most electable, as long as he can survive.....”

Reply to this | Report this

By sheila, February 12 at 12:23 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Re: Cyrena

Please join the Obama campaign as an advisor. If the super delegates” go for Clinton, as she expects, nutjob McCain will be the next president.  This possibility is as mindboggling as Bush as president.

Reply to this | Report this

By a human being, February 12 at 6:08 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Re:

great post… I just don’t see why people can’t see Hilary for what she is...a republican. Either way, if Obama wins or is undeniably the most electable...they’ll try to make an example of him just like they did the Kennedy brothers. Hope and change for the people is unacceptable to money and power interests.

Reply to this | Report this

By i,Q, February 12 at 1:49 am #
(109 comments total)

Hot peppers, Purell, and the Superdelegates

Roll over Karl Rove, Hillary’s got a new formula for Oval Office ascendancy!

God she reminds me of W sometimes. So stubborn, so unwilling to admit mistakes or take responsibility for them. So overconfident.

It’s no secret that the Republican strategists are drooling for the cooling she’ll put on the Democratic mojo.

Reply to this | Report this

Add Your Comment

Posts by unregistered readers are moderated. Posts by members
are published immediately. Why wait? Register today!






Notify you when others comment on this article?


Are you a human?
Retype the word you see here.


Please read and abide by our comment policy.
By submitting this comment, you agree to this site's terms and conditions.

Newsletter

Get Truthdig in your inbox

Privacy Policy

 
Click here to advertise with Truthdig
 

 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
Robert Scheer's new book offers first-hand insight into the presidential mind
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.