Hillary Clinton Hates My Baby

a guest post from Joshua Green.

The setting: the Green household, Washington, D.C. The scene: late morning, my baby daughter is dosing off after having read “Good Dog, Carl” for the 432 time today. The phone rings. It’s Hillary Clinton--actually, a pre-recorded tape of Hillary Clinton, soliciting our vote.

Baby’s nap abruptly ends.

An hour later, the phone rings. It’s Bill Clinton this time. Same drill, same ruined nap. An hour later: sobbing hysterics have finally yielded to sweet sleep.

The phone rings. The baby wakes up.

It’s Jack Nicholson (!?) calling on behalf of Hillary Clinton.

Don’t listen to the whole tape. Not long after, the phone rings. It’s Hillary again. Baby appears to be suffering from Infant Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Evidently the Clinton campaign is not so short of cash as to have sacrificed a robust calling operation. Interesting, too, that she’s targeting Washington, D.C.

Comments

Moral of the story: Hillary Clinton will stop at nothing in her bloodthirsty quest to secure the Democratic Party's nomination. This includes - it would seem - robbing innocent children (who everyone knows are our future) of their precious sleep.

Posted by Jay | February 7, 2008 10:01 AM

Here's a thought: turn off the ringer on your phone.

Posted by evie | February 7, 2008 10:32 AM

She hates more than your baby. She hates anyone that isn\'t a direct boost to her Career. I wish people could see her when the cameras of the Press aren\'t shining on her.

Posted by Sphynx | February 7, 2008 10:39 AM

If it annoyed your guest poster, he's probably not alone. Four robocalls in a few hours? That's enough to push an undecided to the Obama side!

Posted by ClaudeB | February 7, 2008 10:44 AM

It takes the village to vote for Obama!
Good luk with the nap time-maybe you can use the $5000.00 Mother Hillary baby bond to purchase phones with ring volume adjusters.

Posted by Remus | February 7, 2008 10:48 AM

I am waiting to see if Monica Lewinsky has a recorded phone message that endorses Hillary.

Posted by Emily | February 7, 2008 10:57 AM

I have to add my experience with this - we got three calls in an hours time from RoboHillary as well.

Where's the 'REAL PEOPLE' Hillary?

Posted by TJ Baker | February 7, 2008 11:26 AM

Why are they wasting money to robocall in DC? They'll be lucky if they get any delegates in DC - she might not even reach the viability threshold.

Posted by John | February 7, 2008 11:51 AM

As true as many of these comments may be, and as obnoxious as the phone-bombing sounds, people need to tone it down. Nothing's more dangerous than a "victimized" Clinton. God I hope they're not the nominee. I can't take it anymore!

Posted by John Y | February 7, 2008 11:52 AM

That's why they're spending money. If they can hold Obama to less than 70%, he only gets 9 of the fifteen delegates.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | February 7, 2008 11:54 AM

turn off the ringer! what is so hard about that?

Posted by abdul rahim | February 7, 2008 12:04 PM

You might want to understand that Hillary needs your support so that your child can have affordable heathcare, will not have to stand aside in a school system that fosters ignorance, is not saddled with trillions of dollars of debt from a war designed to make the rich richer at the cost of your childs future and so your child will grow up KNOWING she can be President if she wants to be.

Or maybe you could volunteer to make calls for Hillary so the phone would be ringing with a real person who could understand your needs.

I can't imagine what could be more important to you and your childs future than who is the next President of the United States.

Posted by Cheryl Roberts | February 7, 2008 12:07 PM

Hi Cheryl,

You are absolutely correct - the things you've listed are very important indeed .. which is why my entire family and I volunteered to make phone calls for Senator Barack Obama ..... ;)

Hillary will accomplish nothing but more Washington infighting - the pubs hate her ... she will not get anything done except to bring more of the same old same old....

Posted by TJ Baker | February 7, 2008 12:23 PM

"I can't imagine what could be more important to you and your childs future than who is the next President of the United States."

I can. That the next president is not someone wedded to special interest and PAC money as she is. Because when they come a calling, it isn't a robocall. They send a lobbyist and let the candidates know that the next parcel of money comes with a price. So after elections are over we all lose if the special interests win.

Obama is getting millions in donations from average folks--you, me the next guy. That's who I want to win. Not because I think he is the second coming but because he will be beholden to us, because we not only elected him but gave him the money that elected him.

With Edwards gone that is unique. There is only one candidate left who isn't beholden to the same soul crushing money machines. That is Barack Obama and he will be our next president.

Posted by Michael Tenery | February 7, 2008 12:26 PM

Hmmm. Maybe the Clinton camp is a bit nervous?

On primary day, my sister in California received just two robo calls from Clinton. The irony: my sister is a registered Republican; my brother-in-law, the independent, was not at home for either call.

Posted by Jennifer Marks | February 7, 2008 12:28 PM

"I can't imagine what could be more important to you and your childs future than who is the next President of the United States. " - Cheryl Roberts

Yes, Cheryl, my child's future is the most important thing to me, which is why my husband and I for the first time ever are volunteering for a political campaign. This candidate CAN get us affordable healthcare; WILL build up our schools and teachers; and WILL get us out of a war we shouldn't have started in the first place.

By the way, that person is Senator Barack Obama. He is the sole candidate in either party that has the crossover appeal to actually make these things happen. Senator Clinton will not get Republican support, and without that, none of her promises can possibly be fulfilled.

My child's future? My child's dreams? - Obama is the one for the job.

Posted by Julia in Eugene, Oregon | February 7, 2008 12:28 PM

Well said, Julia.

Remember also - Hillary will have coattails - the kind only Republicans can ride.

If she is the nominee, even should she (somehow - agains all odds) win, we will be guaranteed an almost certain reversal of Dem fortunes in congress, and a return to Republican majority in the legislature.

Posted by Bruce H | February 7, 2008 12:39 PM

I don't know where this imaginary "crossover appeal" idea for Obama comes from... I haven't heard a single republican say anything good about either candidate. And all of you Obama people who think he is some kind of magical being who can be in politics on a national level and NOT be in POLITICS on a national level are crazy. He is as corrupt as anyone professionally involved in politics, he just has less of a history and rarely actually commits to any positions anyone can judge him on... until now... and now people believe what he says with no history to back it up. He is an unknown quantity and that should scare you more than any of your likability problems with Clinton or anything about the Republican candidtates - at least you know what they will do.

Posted by Timothy Jenkins | February 7, 2008 12:57 PM

A better parent wouldn't keep a phone in the baby's room during naptime. So you shouldn't blame Clinton for your baby's discomfort, it's all about your parenting skills. Hopefully your poor skills don't damage the child's development and leave a useless person for society to have to deal with later... All we need is another person who blames other people for their bad judgement... its enough that we have you.

Posted by Mother Goose | February 7, 2008 1:13 PM

Its funny how the guy gets attacked for "bad parenting skills" or for keeping his ringer on (maybe the guy CAN get an urgent call or something can't he?) etc. But then this style of retaliation goes with the territory for some campaigns, 'nuff said! :)

Posted by Curious Onlooker | February 7, 2008 1:27 PM

An urgent call would still wake a baby, would that mean that the person on the other end hates a baby? No it means a parent has made a decision to have a baby's nap time in an area where you should expect interruptions. If waking a baby with ringing phones is about hating babies, then I would say the person who has a baby sleep near a phone during normal daytime hours (where there is a chance of ringing) hates the baby because they have a choice about where to have their baby sleep. Hillary Clinton didn't put the phone next to the baby, the baby's father did... Sounds like the baby's fater hates the baby.

"But then this style of retaliation goes with the territory for some campaigns, 'nuff said! :) "

The tone was set by the Obama supporter who made a headline saying Hillary Clinton hates his baby because he put a phone in her crib....

Posted by Mother Goose | February 7, 2008 1:37 PM

"I don't know where this imaginary "crossover appeal" idea for Obama comes from."

Exit polling has shown Independents have been voting strongly for Barack. Of those, various amounts are Republicans in states where they can crossover. It isn't imaginary if it has borne out.

Hillary has had virtually no Independent support and has only really earned majorities with older voters 60/65+, and women (again mostly older women). Also, among purely ethnic groups she has captured majorities of Asians and Latinos. This is a significant group of base democratic voters not to be undersold, but they are part of the base.

Barack has captured majorities of all the rest and Independents as well, which is why he has more pledged delegates than she does. If we were purely measuring historical base democratic voters she would be in the lead, but Barack has a more diverse coalition of voters (so far).

That's a simple fact. She may still win, but it won't be by appealing to Independents it will be by sealing the base behind her while converting some of Barack's appeal among the democratic base voters he has. I don't think anyone can claim with a straight face that Hillary appeals to Independents.

Posted by Michael Tenery | February 7, 2008 1:39 PM

I am a registered Republican voter since 1976 and I can definitely promise you that my family will go all out for the Rep. candidate if Hillary is the Dem. nominee. I would also seriously consider a cross-over vote to Obama if McCain is the Rep. choice. This is due to the fact that he so closely resembles a Dem that it would just merely be a choice of WHICH Dem to choose. Then I would choose Obama! I know that this is the way many Rep. voters are thinking in the Midwest as newspapers and debates are reporting this. I say NO to the TWO Clintons running for President!

Posted by Show Me Stater | February 7, 2008 1:45 PM

"I don't know where this imaginary "crossover appeal" idea for Obama comes from... I haven't heard a single republican say anything good about either candidate."

I am an Obama supporter who voted for Bush in 2000, became an Independent soon after the debacle of the Iraq war and only recently became a Democrat so I can vote for Barack. My in-laws are Republicans in TX who voted for Bush twice and they are voting Obama.

Sure, he is an excellent speaker and has drawn a huge following. That does not make him a cult leader. People are drawn to him because he does not take money from lobbyists, spoke out against the War from the beginning and he wants to empower us to change the country. His policies are very clearly stated on his Web site. Click on Issues.
http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

Posted by kem | February 7, 2008 1:52 PM

Crossover appeal from independents is not going to count for anything with the republicans in congress. They will be just as happy to work against Obama's liberal ideas as Hillary's. Most current rebublican congress members have plenty of republican support in their districts to stay in office or be replaced by more republicans. So after the main election it won't matter.

Obama's rhetoric of hope and change isn't something he can actually achieve. No one can right now. Society and Government are living entities. If you try to change (attack) parts of it, it will respond violently (explosively build up support against change...) and swallow up any chances of change being made. Our system can only change slowly, or it will reject the changes and either fortify the crap that exists or shatter altogether - both of which are bad for everyone. Hillary being considered part of the Machine is actually what makes her the best choice right now. If elected, she can set small changes in motion while still keeping up necessary parts of the status quo. All the while VP Obama would be gaining more support for 4-8 years, the older generation dies off a little, then President Obama can have momentum in socitey to actually bring about some change. Now is not the time - it might be good for 4 years with Obama in office now, but conservatives would lash out at the next election and undo all "changes" Obama can make.

Posted by Timothy Jenkins | February 7, 2008 1:59 PM

"Obama's rhetoric of hope and change isn't something he can actually achieve...."

And you know this how?

I will stand by this, not rhetoric, but amazing bit of a wonderful speech by Barack:

"We know the battle ahead will be long,
but always remember that no matter what obstacles stand in our way...
Nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change

We have been told we can not do this by a course of cynics.
They will only grow louder and more decedent

We've been asked to pause for a reality check.
We've been warned against offering people of this nation false hope, but in the unlikely story that is America, there's never been anything FALSE about HOPE!"

I want CHANGE! I choose HOPE!

Posted by TJ Baker | February 7, 2008 2:26 PM

Barack Obama has no morals a pretty face and good rhetoric I saw a sign for Obama that said "A Change We Can Belive In" what does that mean? we're suposed to pick a canidite that we agree with how they vote not because we "belive in them" and I think that the greatest thing the next president of the great United States of America is to people should only be on welfair for 8 months then they better get off their butt or they're gonna starve, FAIRTAX a tax on retail only so people who spend more get taxed more not people with 3 jobs, deport ambulance chasing lawyers,
end unions, and to bring industry back to America
health care would go down the dollar would go up
I'm 14 and this is the best future!!!

Posted by Andrew Derhammer | February 7, 2008 2:43 PM

My 66 year old, white, mother and my 64 year old, white, aunt who have both voted Republican all their voting lives are now campaigning for Barack Obama. I would say this represents some crossover appeal.

Is Mr. Jenkins unfamiliar with the "Republicans for Obama" movement?

If Hillary gets the nomination, the Republican candidate will get their votes.

Hillary means politics as usual. Does anyone really believe that Hillary and "the right-wing conspirators" will clasp hands and work together to help the poor, the under-educated, and the uninsured? That really is a fairy tale.

To those who don't believe Barack Obama can accomplish change in DC, look at how he has changed the tone and the message of this election. Americans, Republican and Democrats, have sent their representatives a very clear message that they don't want politics as usual. Hillary, McCain, Romney are now proclaiming that they are the candidates who can bring change. The example of their "experience" tells us that change is something none of these three can deliver or even intend to deliver. They talk the talk, Obama walks the walk.

Don't be afraid to believe that we can actually have a president with the integrity, vision, commitment, energy and appeal of Barack Obama. We can.

Posted by Susan S | February 7, 2008 3:09 PM

"Barack Obama has no morals a pretty face and good rhetoric"

Andrew, young man, you should enlighten yourself before you make statements like that. If you want to make a blanket statement such as 'he has no morals', you should at least back it up with some facts. In FACT - it's impossible for someone to have 'no morals' ... only morals different than your own.
I value the youth of our great country, and I put even more value on those youth who educate themselves.... as this young man so very well exemplifies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kica8hmSdAM&feature=RecentlyWatched&page=1&t=t&f=b

Get the facts young man.....

Posted by TJ Baker | February 7, 2008 3:32 PM

Why should a person be FORCED to turn off their ringer. Is this the best advice Clinton supporters have to offer this poor parent? Boy, did you guys MISS the point!!!
OBAMA '08!!!!!!!!!

Posted by val | February 7, 2008 4:28 PM

I'm a 57 year old white male who has voted Republican in most of the presidential elections in the last 35 years. This is the first time in my voting life that I have a choice of candidates that actually means something. Yes, both Clinton and McCain can do an OK job as president. But, I believe we deserve more, something more than "business as usual". I believe that Barack Obama is the voice of hope. He seems to actually understand that we are more than votes; we are people. He will get my support, my vote and my confidence.

Posted by M. Scott | February 7, 2008 4:39 PM

I read your article and the posts that follow with interest. It is plainly clear that you support Mr. Obama's candidacy with open fervor and enthusiasm. That, of course, is your birth-right and the freedom to choose. It is my perception that your column, however, is a joke. Your love for Mr. Obama (that spills into your work) borders on the obsession of a religious zealot.

Mr. Obama's campaign's platforms in this race are "hope" and "change". You and his followers have built him a lofty, but imaginary pedestal of infallibility, while he is yet to pass any serious litmus tests in his fledgling political career. You consume him like elixir when he could as easily be toxic waste. One can only 'hope' for 'change', for as the adage goes, there are no guarantees in life.

Failure is a definite probability when one is forced to make hard choices. What are you going to do when that inevitably comes to pass in Mr. Obama's case? Where are you going to hide if and when his policies fail? What makes you assume that he wields a magic wand that will make the aisles disappear and unite the legislature? What makes you think that the keys to the White House unlocks the doors at Capitol Hill? What makes you buy his logic that four years of elementary school in a foreign country is adequate diplomatic experience? You have specialized in blowing things out of proportion.

Maybe, Mr. Obama really believes that his dreamy visions will quickly blossom into reality, embraced by all with open arms (maybe even as easily as the war was won), in which case he would be incredibly naïve, or as intelligent as the incumbent administration. Maybe, he knows that his words are empty rhetoric and maybe he knows that his ideals are like a mythical chimera, in which case he is plainly deceptive. Maybe, he does not know that his vision is hollow, in which case he is a fool. However I suspect that he is mostly arrogant. Like a preacher at an altar, his commanding speeches incite the lemming like masses to fall into a collective coma or nirvana; which one, I am not yet certain. The obvious consequence of this frenzy, is for a hero-craven, salivating mass-media, which now includes independent bloggers, to anoint him as the next coming of Jesus Christ, MLK and JFK, all rolled into one. For that, I pity you, your ilk and the figments of your imagination.

Of course all politicians lie and deceive. That is what they do. What is galling about Mr. Obama's campaign and his minion followers is that it is so blatant. The same goes for the dismal lack of thorough critical analysis of his campaign promises. How are you going hold him responsible for not making “changes”? What yardstick are you going to use to measure the quantity and quality of change? Maybe this is wishful thinking on my part, for we live in an unfortunate epoch of fast-foods, sound-bites and crude celebrity. For that, I pity a majority of the population, that presently sports the Halloween costume of a sheep’s brain.

Please understand that this is a criticism of a philosophy that drives your work. More specifically, it is a commentary on the complete lack of rational discourse in your column. This is not a knee-jerk and reactionary response but is an evolved set of thoughts. To be certain, this is not a criticism of Mr. Obama himself. To his credit, he is a magnificent orator and he also has a reasonable grasp of the issues at hand and those that he may face. In this regard and many others, I consider both the leading democratic campaigns to be quite similar.

However, I observe one clear distinction between the two candidates. Permit me to employ an analogy from common American experience to clarify this perceived difference: It is simple to get a crowd excited and baying for blood prior to a college football game. All you need is a pep rally and some alcohol thrown in for good measure. To win the game, one needs a determined coach who has mastered the x's and o's. You need a coach who will take nothing for granted and one who is prepared to face any eventuality. You need a coach who has experienced the bitter taste of a loss. You need a coach who values the spirit of the game more than the ephemeral notions of victory and defeat.

In the matters of policy and “getting it done”, Ms. Clinton is hands-down superior to Mr. Obama. She is a hard-worker and will deliver. She has been an able social activist in the women’s and children’s rights movements, even during her formative years at Yale university. Why is she not mentioned as an agent of positive change? I find the nearly no mention about changes that she has already effected, to be incredibly ironic and downright hypocritical. She has proven this and much more in the past. You will naturally rebut these claims by enumerating Ms. Clinton’s missteps from her previous public service record. If you did, you will be walking into a rational cul-de-sac. The counter argument that dwells at the dead-end of that road is that she has made mistakes before, learnt from them, sports those ‘war-wounds’ for everyone to see. Yes, she has fallen before, but has risen with vigor every single time. Do you know how Mr. Obama is going to get back up, when he trips? It is a complex global culture that we inhabit now. The whole world will have to collectively pay for the huge gamble and leap of faith that you and his supporters are poised to take. Will your conscience be able to bear that weight, when it all goes horribly wrong?

I want to be swayed by reason, not by faith and heresy. There are many case studies from the history of this world, that validate my choice for being reasonable. Irrational decisions and discussions have usually and predictably led to disaster. Many a great war has been fought and far too many valuable lives have been lost, as a consequence of irrational choices. A case in point, would be the current American administration. On their campaign trail they too promised to unite us all. They too created a campaign about personalities rather than one about policies. The masses fell for it, hook, line and sinker. Most of our planet reaps consequences of that action, even as you read this. It seems that the lessons learnt four years ago have been forgotten.

It is of course definitely probable that Mr. Obama might turn out to be a very good President, if afforded that chance. If that be the case, I am convinced that it would be an exception of the Rationale versus Faith argument, not an evidence to that theory. I have rapidly come to the realization that hope-mongering is not very different from hate-mongering after all. They are equally irrational.

You choose to blind your readers much in the same way that Mr. Obama’s speeches and many of his juvenile followers divert the debate from focusing on concrete ideas and policies. I am of the opinion that it is better to be droll and correct than to be exciting and wrong. It used to be said that the pen is mightier than the sword. Today, the keyboard is mightier than the pen. Use it with care and sufficient caution. Be the change that you wish to see. Your writing and character assassination of Ms. Clinton has more in common with the agenda-driven values and vision of Fox news and the other right-wing mouth pieces. This applies equally to those that throw dirt at all the other candidates, obviously, including Mr. Obama. Is it too much to ask for a civil but spirited debate about matters that matter the most?

It may sound patronizing and I wish to unapologetically remind you that your work is to help the readers make an informed choice. Your work, like that of a referee’s, is to bring some sanity into the proceedings. Let us be the judge in the end. Isn’t that what democracy is about? Empower us by arming us with the information needed to make an intelligent choice, whichever one that might be. Your work is most definitely not to agitate the already combustible air that surrounds us. Leave that job to the politicians for they seem to excel in that task. If there is any solace to you, despite this being solely addressed to you, there are (unfortunately for us) many others who have fallen prey to this disease, that is rife in the community of journalists, political commentators & others in the mass-media. I speak for most people when I say: Educate me. Don’t try to cloud me further. If you fail to do that, you have zero credibility.

Of course, these thoughts of mine are probably academic in the end, for this humble man’s meek voice cannot be heard in an arena of impolite shouters. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to voice my concerns.

Kind regards,
A concerned citizen

Posted by vta | February 7, 2008 7:58 PM

Hello Concerned Citizen,

If you would like to be educated, I invite you to read for yourself Mr. Obama's stance on the issues:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Your statement of that Mrs. Clinton is 'hands down better at getting it done' seems to contradict what is happening across this country. It would seem that Senator Obama is in fact far better at getting it done when it comes to motivating the people of this great nation to be involved in politics. Now, if you want to compare this to a coach at a pep-rally filled with drunks, then that goes to show your ignorance. The people who are getting behind this 'movement' have shown to be some of the most educated people in the country. The fact that Barack Obama has gained such momentum is testament to his ability to 'get it done' does it not?

Barack Obama's ability to lead by inspiring people to believe in our great nation and get involved has to be given credit... you cannot take away from that. I believe he can use this gift of leadership to get things done in Washington as well.... whereas, the Clintons have historically been known to be some of the most divisive people in politics.

Posted by TJ B | February 7, 2008 8:54 PM

\"A concerned Citizen\": Why do people try to turn other people\'s blogs into their own? Dude, get your own blog site.

Anyhows, the fact that for the first time in my life there are so many people actually excited about a candidate, and not just voting for the lesser of evils, says alot. We\'re not google-eyed at his campaign slogans. We\'re awed by his history, his empathy, his energy, and his book.

And honestly, all the reasons people list for not voting for Obama are the reasons I\'m voting for him. His lack of experience in the political cogwheel is one of the primary reasons for me. For once it feels like we\'re voting a person into office.

Posted by Sphynx | February 8, 2008 2:53 AM

\"A concerned Citizen\": Why do people try to turn other people\'s blogs into their own? Dude, get your own blog site.

Anyhows, the fact that for the first time in my life there are so many people actually excited about a candidate, and not just voting for the lesser of evils, says alot. We\'re not google-eyed at his campaign slogans. We\'re awed by his history, his empathy, his energy, and his book.

And honestly, all the reasons people list for not voting for Obama are the reasons I\'m voting for him. His lack of experience in the political cogwheel is one of the primary reasons for me. For once it feels like we\'re voting a person into office.

Posted by Sphynx | February 8, 2008 2:53 AM

Hillary is a selfish, vindictive woman who wants power. She is for HERSELF.

Posted by Paulette | March 4, 2008 11:17 PM

Hillary is a selfish, vindictive woman who wants power. She is for HERSELF.

Posted by Paulette | March 4, 2008 11:17 PM

Hillary is a selfish, vindictive woman who wants power. She is for HERSELF.

Posted by Paulette | March 4, 2008 11:17 PM

Paulette is a bitter dried up old woman unable to achieve her dreams. Like a crab unable to escape an open bucket, she spends her time pulling the others back down.

Posted by Hillary | March 23, 2008 1:15 AM