If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination chiefly by virtue of:

1) dishonest mailings sent to New Hampshire on the eve of the election falsely accusing Obama of not being pro-choice and wanting to raise taxes on poor working class workers.

2) a lawsuit launched in Nevada to "punish" unions that had not endorsed her campaign by disenfranchising their voters.

3) in Nevaada, bitterly renouncing Obama on television for not criticizing commercials that blamed her for the lawsuits.

4) robo calls that went out on the eve of the Nevada elections accusing Obama of taking money from Washington special interest groups and repeating his middle name, Hussein, four times

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Robocall_trashes_Barack_Hussein_Obama.html

5) on election day, turning away people from the caucus centers who were not her supporters

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/obama_clinton_won_dirty_clinto.php

6) going on national television a week ago to accuse Obama's supporters of bringing up and using "race" in this election, and in effect trying to call her a racist

7) going on Tyra Banks television show and talking about Bill's infidelity on the eve of the election (Tyra having people phone in to say whether they had "changed their minds" about Hillary).

8) If black and brown people, to borrow a phrase, split into factions with "brown" people reminded continually of Barack's black skin, and accusations that he is running a "racial" campaign.

Theoretically--if these stories and more like them are the basis of Clinton's win of the nomination, are you still going to consider it a victory for Democrats? I'm just wondering where the line is for Clinton supporters, or if there is a line of shame that you would not want her (or any other candidate) to cross in order to achieve the prize.

Anyone?

Have you ever read Animal Farm by George Orwell? I once taught High School English and the students thought that Orwell must be a conservative. He was actually a socialist--but he critiqued the worst possibilities of socialism in order to embrace it.

Wanting to know the truth about the campaign and how it is being run isn't Clinton-hating. However, bashing all people who criticize Clinton as "Clinton-haters" is sure to make many people who did not hate her before, "hate" her eventually when they don't like something that she has done--and her supporters call them a Clinton-Hater. If hating anything that she has done means hatred of "her" as a person--then you are constantly adding to her enemies and decreasing from her supporters.

I have said many times in previous threads that I voted for Bill twice and that I will vote for Clinton if she is the Democratic nominee, but my question remains: is she above criticism?

Your answer makes me sad. It makes me think there is a fundamental difference between those who support Clinton and those who support Obama, one that won't go away by your calling me names and accusing me of Clinton hatred. Obama supporters want a different kind of politics in Washington, leadership that is not above criticism.

If not one of the items I brought up worries you, then I guess we fundamentally do not agree.

I don't mean that it's your choice of candidate that is sad--I'm just saying that I gave a list of several things that there is direct evidence that Clinton has done--like attacking Obama for the union ads in Nevada--or the mailings in New Hampshire with false information that had her name of them--there are several things that there are many pieces of evidence to suggest that she or her supporters are directly responsible for.

But every time anyone wonders--does this bother Clinton's supporters--I guess the answer is no. They are proud of her winning methods--even if she lies or cheats a little to get there. Another poster said that politics are dirty. Well I agree, they are. But to say that Clinton's campaign has been one to be proud of--well I guess I don't understand that. We're following one of the "dirtiest" politicians in US history with George Bush and we have real war criminals in Washington. But how can they be held responsible by people with their fingers in the same pies? That use the same methods of winning that Bush did back in 00--disenfranchising voters that they don't think will vote for them?

I once thought I would be proud to see her as president, but her tactics are making me want to never look at or think about politics again. Mindless support of a candidate--that's what Bush's coalition gave him--and now I think Clinton wants a similar crowd. I dislike her method of getting herself elected, and I dislike her supporters' tendency to overlook it every time she spreads false information. So it is the tactics of dishonest statements to the media and disenfranchising voters that I object to, and not, per se the candidate that you or anyone else chooses to support.

I hope that explains it.