Hey Obama -- Who Are You Calling Desperate?
Big, big questions abound in the Democratic Presidential primary today. Such as: Exactly what, or who, is the Obama campaign calling "desperate" with the new Website they launched today?
This morning the news broke that the Obama camp has produced a site called DesperateHillaryAttacks.com.
This naturally gives rise to the question: Is Hillary being called desperate here? Or are her attacks being called desperate? Is "attacks" a noun or a verb here?
Well, the Obama campaign says only the attacks are being called desperate, not Hillary, presumably because the Obama camp doesn't want to open itself to the charge that it is attacking her personally:
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton denies that his campaign is calling Clinton "desperate." Rather, he insists, they are calling her attacks "desperate."
But wait! Over on DesperateHillaryAttacks.com, we find this:
As her lead in the polls shrinks, Senator Clinton's flagging campaign grows more desperate each day.
It looks as if Obama is saying that Hillary, or at least her campaign, is desperate, after all. Which means the Obama campaign may have just opened themselves up to...a potential attack.
In fairness, it should be noted that most of the site is devoted to saying that her "attacks," not her campaign, is desperate. And that gives rise to one final question which we'd love to hear from readers on: Does calling someone's attacks desperate count as an attack, too? Or does calling someone's attacks desperate fall short of an attack?
Let us know.
Late Update: I feel almost embarrassed to add this, but this post was intended as a joke -- as a spoof of the fact that the campaigns are all attacking each other relentlessly for attacking. This whole effort by all the campaigns to portray everyone but themselves as the real attacker seems to me misguided -- primaries should have conflict in them; they should be animated by aggressive disagreements.
Comments (119)
NCSteve wrote on December 21, 2007 11:17 AM:Hmm. It didn't seem to count as an attack back in the summer and fall when Hillary's machine began every single damn press release, statement or email about Obama with the assertion that whatever he did was a "desparate" attempt to revive his "flagging" campaign.
Jesus, guys, leave your irony detector at home today?
hisgirlfriday wrote on December 21, 2007 11:18 AM:Between the non-apology apologies and the attacking defenses from attacks this primary season can't end soon enough.
grover_rover wrote on December 21, 2007 11:21 AM:are you serious? is this the kind of shit passing for news or controversy now?
i agree with NCSteve, Hillary has been there and done that, although that hasn't stopped her ever before.
this is just dumb
Kefa wrote on December 21, 2007 11:25 AM:Thats fair game.....HRC can take it, bring it on. Just don't cry and whine when it come back. Like you all do. Hardball.
cms wrote on December 21, 2007 11:26 AM:I wish the Obama team hadn't done this. Honestly, perhaps I'm out of the demographic, but I find all these site to be incredibly juvenile. Don't these campaigns have enough online outlets to describe problems and rebut attacks without resorting to "presentvotes.com" or "desperateattacks.com?"
Really, they are all just silly. And only the media reads them, anyway.
Kirk wrote on December 21, 2007 11:31 AM:My comment is that the "great" new progressive blogs sound more like the main street media every day. What kind of question about what kind of insignificant matter is this?
Greg wrote on December 21, 2007 11:32 AM:guys -- this is a friggin' JOKE. it's making fun of this whole thing. is this not obvious?
criminy.
gunadi wrote on December 21, 2007 11:35 AM:The only thing that is desperate here is Sargent's search for a legitimate news story. This is a big, big question? C'mon... get back to work.
gunadi wrote on December 21, 2007 11:38 AM:Such is the state of our news... a fine line between parody and real news.
Keith wrote on December 21, 2007 11:39 AM:I see that you say that this is a joke . . . clearly you must be getting joke writing tips from Mark Penn and company.
Greg wrote on December 21, 2007 11:41 AM:Keith -- for god's sake. you don't think the obama campaign wants us to do a long item on their site, with a link to it?
Clay wrote on December 21, 2007 11:42 AM:Isn't it interesting that Hillary's campaign has taken page one out of Karl Rove's playbook. Remember? Find the candidate's greatest strength and attack there. With Kerry, it was his military record, as you recall. Now, Obama wants to be a new kind of candidate that doesn't get down and dirty with politics as usual. Hillary's campaign is turning that desire for ethical rhetoric into a liability.
Good news is that all of this will hopefully help John Edwards.
I guess it depends on what the definition of "is desperate" is, no? Must be nice to have time to talk grammar on the deck of the HRC battleship as it heads full-berg ahead.
eli wrote on December 21, 2007 11:49 AM:Another way to parse the title. Could this website be a desperate attack on Hillary?
Ben wrote on December 21, 2007 11:51 AM:I would say that this campaign hasn't been very negative at all, and I've been annoyed by Obama's criticizing Hillary for "going negative" so much. How about, instead of constantly trying to pin the "negative" label on each other, they do something actually positive, such as reiterate their respect for each other and their recognition that, in spite of the differences between them, any of the Dem candidates would be light-years better for America than any of the republicans? Doing so certainly wouldn't be "politics as usual," I understand, but I also think the first one to do it would get a bounce. Look at Huckabee's "tired of all the political ads" commercial--all of the other Republican campaigns called it "brilliant." Something similar on the Dem side would be a smart move.
Tom wrote on December 21, 2007 11:52 AM:Greg, you have shown so much bias against Obama that it is hard to tell when you are being sarcastic or have just gone off the deep end. Is Greg your real name, or are you actually Mark Penn?
Tara wrote on December 21, 2007 11:54 AM:Hey OBAMA fans!
Those that live in glass houses.......
OBAMA ATTACKS!
BluePuppy wrote on December 21, 2007 11:56 AM:This post is not to argue the merits of either candidate, but to comment on campaign tatics. I think that Clinton is smart to raise subtle doubts Obama and then assert her experience and the successes of the '90s. When you consider the challenges of globalization, a weak dollar, the solvency of medicare, China, terrorism, Russia and Putin, it does make me concerned to put someone in office with virtually no international experience. I suspect that Iowa and New Hampshire voters took a look at Obama but are now trending towards Hillary again because of these issues.
Sylvan Migdal wrote on December 21, 2007 11:57 AM:This post is almost awful and depressing and shallow enough to be a mainstream news article.
willyjsimmons wrote on December 21, 2007 11:59 AM:zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
comical.
Happy Friday everyone!
Keith wrote on December 21, 2007 11:59 AM:Greg:
You are getting touchy. My comment was a joke. I think we all need a break from the comment threads for a couple of days....
Greg wrote on December 21, 2007 12:00 PM:Tom -- I guess you missed the whole series of posts we did attacking the washington post for the obama muslim story.
did you miss those posts, Tom? There were about a dozen of them. and as a result, we were the primary reason their ombud had to criticize the story in the end.
Or maybe those were biased against Obama, too, somehow?
Really, the Messianism of Obama supporters is a very ugly thing. It's really too bad that it's infecting this site.
colonpowwow wrote on December 21, 2007 12:00 PM:Yeah.
Re jokes and such - what's that saying about "(s)he who laughs last" or something?
Enjoy the first two close ones. I love competitive races and I'm glad Obama is making it one. Obama is an outstanding candidate as are the rest of the Dems (even, ugh, Edwards). A true embarrasment of riches, I say. I'll happily support the winner, whoever she is. That's a joke.
Super Tuesday ain't too far behind. That's no joke.
Matt wrote on December 21, 2007 12:01 PM:Greg, I like your work in general but every once in a while you make a post like this and I keep waiting for the story or the controversy. There really isn't much here. It seems nit-picky.
bridoc wrote on December 21, 2007 12:01 PM:Ben, I agree with the bulk of what you said, but in the interest of fairness I'd like to point out that Hillary was the one whining about others "going negative" first. And speaking of firsts, she was the first to go negative when she attacked Obama for his thoughtful and well-reasoned position on diplomacy by calling him naive and then launching a wave of attacks (that continue to this day) on his "inexperience". Hillary is up to her ass in hypocrisy and misinformation, which have traditionally been the hallmarks of Republican political strategy.
Although I do think the new website is unnecessary, yet not as ridiculous as Hillary's new attack sites.
DonnaG wrote on December 21, 2007 12:02 PM:I got the joke, Greg. Whatever gets cooked up at EC, it is sure getting hot around here, huh?
Hillary camp loves to think anything coming from Obama to be an attack, even defensively and secondly setting up a site to counter not one, but two new recent actual attack-Obama sites from camp Hill.
Jack wrote on December 21, 2007 12:02 PM:Obama is just as sleazy is any other politician. He says one thing and does another thing. All this talk about "hope" and "new politics" is just a bunch of nonsense to fool the gullible!
mkolb wrote on December 21, 2007 12:04 PM:Criticism is not an attack. Hard to believe how juvenile that site is - not desperate, just junior high.
Greg wrote on December 21, 2007 12:04 PM:let me amend that: the messianism of a very tiny select few obama supporters is a very ugly thing.
and Matt, this post was intended to be a joke -- it was intended to spoof all the back and forth between the campaigns about who's attacking whom, which at some level is really absurd, since
(a) they're both attacking each other; and
(b) attacking isn't really bad necessarily; it's politics
Anonymous wrote on December 21, 2007 12:04 PM:The irony is in how desperate this article appears.
Dave wrote on December 21, 2007 12:05 PM:I think you maybe should have added some smiley faces.
Anon345 wrote on December 21, 2007 12:07 PM:When we're talking about elementary grammar, you know the primary season is just too long.
Keith wrote on December 21, 2007 12:07 PM:Greg:
You can't win for losing. Probably in October this would have been met with the humor with which it was intended, but if you've been following the threads for the last few days you'd know that folks are a bit on edge. January 3rd can't come soon enough.
indieFL wrote on December 21, 2007 12:10 PM:Uhh... it's the same site they've had for a while: HillaryAttacks. There's no "launch" going on here as they just purchased an additional domain name. What's up with the hissy fit, Greg?
Marc wrote on December 21, 2007 12:12 PM:Wait...another day and another anti-Obama piece by Greg Sargent. He is as shameless and ridiculous as Marc Penn. I wonder if he's fat too.
Paul Kekai Manansala wrote on December 21, 2007 12:16 PM:Note that this site is designed to respond to attacks from Hillary, not as a site to launch attacks against Hillary.
There's a big difference.
If Hillary stops with the relentless non-public-life-related attacks on Obama, the site will pretty much die out.
DonnaG wrote on December 21, 2007 12:18 PM:Wow, I am impressed, though, with Obama's site called DesperateHilllaryAttacks.com. There are potential voters themselves in videos..... and lists of links to news articles...... speaking of and reacting to Hillary going into attack mode, as well as a sidebar of videos and quotes from Hilllary herself.
I have not visited Hillary's sites attacking Barack, but I have visited the Hillaryis44 site which is filled with spun texts by anonymous persons dissing Obama.
RS wrote on December 21, 2007 12:18 PM:
This is the dumbest thing I've read on this site in a while. Though, to be sure, the trend towards dumb posts on this page has been clear for a while now.
Please try to keep the posts at least borderline substantive.
Greg-
I'm not sure about the 'desparate' question. However, I agree with you totally on the "messianism" of some vocal, blog-active Obama supporters. They've fine-tuned sensitivity to an unheard of level where any tiny criticism of their candidate on his record, policy proposals, etc. becomes a personal attack. You really see at over on DailyKos. Then they use the mythical attack to go harshly negative themselves.
Its really absurd at this point and makes me wonder a lot whether the Obama camp has the mettle to deal with a GOP onslaught in the general. The Republicans will just laugh if/when Obama and his supporters lament "negativity." So far, I think we've seen that both Clinton and Edwards will fight. And they will fight hard offensively, not rely on "hope" and the goodwill of opponents to compromise with them.
Obama supporters need to realize the compromise/bi-partisanship, etc. only works if both sides are willing to back down a bit. Bush and his GOP compadres in Congress have shown almost no proclivity for this. Now they're playing out a cynical strategy of stalling progress on key issues to make Dems look bad in hopes of winning in 2008. At this point, I think its way too naive to think there can be much compromise and bi-partisan success with this crowd.
bridoc wrote on December 21, 2007 12:24 PM:BluePuppy, you do realize that Hillary doesn’t actually have that much experience don’t you? She has had a unremarkable career in the Senate, and still has less legislative experience than Obama. And successes of the ‘90s? Last time I checked Bill was president in the 90s, and there really weren’t that many successes. Hillary did have one pet project in the 90s, oh, but that was health care and turned out to be a total failure, and showed how she was an amateur politician. Basically the only international experience Hillary has over Obama is traveling around the world as First Lady for ceremonies and photo ops, oh, and authorizing the Iraq war and then backing Republican warmongering on Iran, oh, and trying to get HW Bush to help her on diplomacy, yeah, that was a fun one. Time and time again she has shown herself to be not only inexperienced, but also to have a serious lack of good judgment. Inexperience in a particular issue I can forgive, as every president has a VP and policy advisors to balance out shortcomings (although she likes to pretend she can do it all from “day one” all by herself), but I cannot overlook the giant lapses in judgment she has shown on Iraq, Iran, Israel-Palestine and many other important foreign issues.
And I’d like to see these “trends” you speak of that show people going from Obama to Hillary in Iowa. Once again, BluePuppy, you have shown yourself to be utterly devoid of analytical ability or knowledge of the issues, everything you have posted on TPM has been the same blind, inept following of everything that comes directly out of the Hillary campaign headquarters. And this fearmongering you and other HRC supporters are attempting now with this “terrorism” dropping is despicable, straight out of Bush-Cheney-Rove’s playbook and I’m disgusted that a Democrat, particularly one with weak experience and even weaker judgment, is using these slimy tactics against other Democrats. You and Hillary both disgust me.
Keith -- point taken on your joke. Sorry.
In general, it's just sad how a tiny group of a few Obama supporters have turned these comment threads into shouting matches, where nothing can ever get discussed except for outright Obama hagiography.
yesterday is gone wrote on December 21, 2007 12:25 PM:hey greg, desperate is digging up kindergarten records.
Phidda wrote on December 21, 2007 12:25 PM:The attacks are desperate. We have the big dog going on Charlie Rose and sacrificing the goodwill he has in attacking Obama. Hillary has been constantly on the attack protecting her early lead.
This campaign has really highlighted the lengths the Clintons will go through to get back in power.
Jason wrote on December 21, 2007 12:27 PM:If this is a joke, it's not really funny. And I don't mean that in the "inappropriate" sense of "not funny," but in the "lacking humor" sense.
Your post isn't any more absurd than a lot of recent "serious" reporting. If you're trying to spoof them, you're supposed to comically exaggerate the absurd elements in what they do, not just imitate them.
Maybe the lack of the Daily Show and Colbert Report has dulled your sense of humor. Try spending some more time over at The Onion. :)
john mccutchen wrote on December 21, 2007 12:28 PM:Hey Sargent Kleefeld - Who are YOU calling desperate?
In fairness you moron,the site has been up for TWO WEEKS NOW.
Days since Senator Clinton promised she was not interested in attacking Democrats:41 Days that Senator Clinton has spent attacking Democrats since making that promise:37DRinOH wrote on December 21, 2007 12:35 PM:"I'm not interested in attacking my opponents, I'm interested in attacking the problems of America..." Mrs. Bill 11/10/07
Jesus people, settle down.
Anonymous wrote on December 21, 2007 12:36 PM:What Iowans Think
Which Candidate is the most negative?
Hillary Clinton 21%
John Edwards 9%
Dennis Kucinich 9%
Barack Obama 8%
Joe Biden 3%
Mike Gravel 3%
Christopher Dodd 3%
Bill Richardson 3%
None/Not sure 43%
Source: The Iowa Poll
[Des Moines Register, 12/2/07]
let me amend that: the messianism of a very tiny select few obama supporters is a very ugly thing.
Well, I thank you for the emendation, given that I am definitely an Obama supporter myself and still flatter myself to think that I am not guilty of making this place ugly. That said, I actually agree with your original remark. For what little my voice in this is worth, I would ask my fellow Obama supporters to cease with the constant protests of bias. Our man is bigger than that, and we should be too.
Paul wrote on December 21, 2007 12:38 PM:Greg: What Jason said.
Jalmari wrote on December 21, 2007 12:39 PM:I think the primary should've mostly been a contest to attack George Bush and the Republicans, not each another.
All this negative campaigning just drives up the negatives of the eventual nominee. Drive up the Republican nominee's negatives instead!
john mccutchen wrote on December 21, 2007 12:40 PM:Asses and elbows baby...politiks ain't paddycake no matter HOW infatuated I am with Eric Kleefeld and jealous that Sargent Shultz has him and not ME
NCSteve wrote on December 21, 2007 12:40 PM:Damn, maybe my irony detector is on the blink too.
Seriously, I think this site is probably intended, as much as anything, as a warning shot across Penn and Wolfson's bow as they contemplate which of the negative ads they've produced to actually run next week.
Greg, I appreciate your amendment of your comment regarding the messianism of Obama's supporters. The phenomenon in question is called the confirmation bias. We heard a lot about it last election.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=000CE155-1061-1493-906183414B7F0162
As I alluded to in another thread this morning, it is most definitely not the case that Obama's supporters have a monopoly on confirmation bias. The closer we get to the election, the more susceptible all of us are to it regardless of who we support. Taylor Marsh, for example, has been suffering from an case of it for Hillary that's long since slipped over the line into pathology.
What is interesting to me is that I see a lot more grumbling from bloggers about confirmation bias related comments by Obama supporters, particularly Ben Smith, than I do about supporters of other candidates (though Edwards' people get the occasional ragging as well.) This leads me to suspect that there is something about the way confirmation bias manifests in Obama supporters, as opposed to, say, Hillary supporters, that makes them stand out to professional insiders. They call it "messianism," and it jars them in a way that the tendency toward doublethink and condescension that are the most frequent symptoms of the Hillarite manifestation of the disorder doesn't. I’m not clear on why that is, but its probably just my own confirmation bias clouding my judgment again.
Okay, here's the "catch 22": If you criticize someone for being negative, is that being negative? I for one, believe you need to make an allowance for criticizing personal attacks without being called hypocritical.
It's like not tolerating intolerance and being accused of being intolerant for not tolerating intolerance. Get it?
So, in short, holding a campaign accountable for their attacks, could be called an attack in itself, but in my book, that is the one kind of attack that is honorable and allowable. Other personal attacks are not.
David wrote on December 21, 2007 12:44 PM:Is it me or aren't the Obama attacks on Hillary all directed at policy and none personal, while the Hillary attacks - from cocaine, to kindergarten, to rolling the dice, to Muslimism - are all nasty personal attacks on Obama?
Full disclosure: I am an Obama supporter and can completely see why he decided to attack back after getting hit by her all summer. But his attacks do not seem to be as vicious and Rove-like as those from team Hillary.
Moreover, I don't think being good at this style of politics means that you are necessarily tough enough to face the GOP. Obama has now brought team Hillary down from a feeling of invincibility to desperation. Certainly enough to risk throwing Bill out there to save the day and confuse voters as to who is really running here and on what record. That is no easy task and team Obama did based on shrewd strategy and good decision-making...not nasty brute force.
I find it also interesting that when you read any of the accounts of inside Team Hillary, you get this composite portrait of winning at all costs, discrediting anyone who disagrees with you, and hitting their kneecaps if they connect. Is it me, or does anyone else get the sense that this is who they all are? That it is really just a game for many of them.
If she governs at all like she campaigns or surrounds herself with the same type of people we are in for yet another 4 years of polarization, nastiness, and partisanship. I think the country is ready (and in desperate need) of something different: intellect, judgement, conviction, and leadership.
Anonymous wrote on December 21, 2007 12:44 PM:In our struggle against Clinton, Lieberman, Albright, Holebrooke and the War Wing of the Democratic Party - TAKE NO PRISONERS
RuthieM wrote on December 21, 2007 12:54 PM:Okay, let's put it this way. If there were no attacks by Hillary there would be no website DesperateHillaryAttacks.com. So why doesn't she and her campaign and the media stop whining and just tell her to stop the attacks then Obama couldn't catalogue them. They are calling her attacks desperate and they are. But why doesn't someone ask her: "Hillary, are you desperate? Are these attacks desperate?" And even if Obama was calling her desperate, then so what? She is. And her attacks against Obama clearly show that. But to me the question should be why is it she can create two websites for the sole purpose of attacking Obama, which she stated was the sole reason for her websites, and yet he is being questioned and asked the question: "Hey Obama - Who Are You Calling Desperate?" Where is the article entitled, "Hey Hillary - Why did you Create Websites Strictly To Attack Obama?" That, to me, should be the article, that should be the question. Obama's sites are set up to rebound Hillary's attacks, which I think is brilliant, which I think they did a great job too in setting up. Now let me see the article damning Hillary's attack websites on Obama. GO OBAMA!
john mccutchen wrote on December 21, 2007 12:55 PM:Obama Slams Clinton Smear Campaign http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071221/ap_po/obama_ap_interview;_ylt=An6.4rvIqXLSaufXm1XT5tqtOrgFJim H wrote on December 21, 2007 12:57 PM:
Sorry, until you've got a third party accusing Obama of being gay (a Rove favorite), or an accusation that Obama fixed his elections, and that HE recruited Alan Keyes to run against him, then you don't have "negative." Every charge made against Obama has been arguable -- like, for instance, his acknowledgement of drug use when he was young might make him a GOP target, or that he's not "experienced," or that he's "naive" -- and not truly negative. If someone comes out with a series of coordinated lies, like the Swift Boaters, that's negative. But the tail end of that whole attack was to attack Kerry for his participation in VVAW, which is legitimate, in that it was true, and that a lot of people still hate him for that. The prolonged softening up that went before, that told lies about his wounds, his service and so forth, that was "smear." This is not a debating contest, like it or not.
yesterday is gone wrote on December 21, 2007 1:00 PM:let me amend that: the messianism of a very tiny select few obama supporters is a very ugly thing.
what is messianic is hillary setting herself up as inevitable.
Jay wrote on December 21, 2007 1:03 PM:I agree with the general premise that negativity hurts all the Democratic candidates, but has anybody been paying attention to the Romney campaign? Now that's negative and we can expect it from him or whomever wins the GOP nomination (and/or their 527 supporters, etc.) For most of 2007, Obama went after Clinton and others in a very negative way for their 2002 authorization vote by questioning their whole character, personal judgment, suitability for leadership, etc. -- exactly the kinds of things that he now laments when done to him. Then, he missed the Iran vote that he then attacked others for. Its like not ever showing up to vote on Election Day, then complaining endlessly about whomever's in office.
Now we find out that Obama has a history of equivocating and/or passing on key votes when he was a state legisaltor. Making that point is not "going negative" -- its simply pointing out a major part of a candidate's history that also happens to accord with his recent actions (see Iran vote). Compared to the swift-boating of Kerry, Bush's 2000 campaign against McCain or linking Max Cleland with bin Laden, these are practically 'atta boys." If you want real negativity: see the GOP playbook and stop all the whining about the relatively benign Clinton strategy.
I think this
BluePuppy wrote on December 21, 2007 1:08 PM:
"Once again, BluePuppy, you have shown yourself to be utterly devoid of analytical ability or knowledge of the issues."
Your insults only confirm to me that Obama supporters sense that the tide is turning against them.
There were many successes in the 1990s, and I won't bother listing them because it's a waste of time and they are obvious and numerous. I will say, however, that Hillary had an office in the West Wing and was the President's principle advisor.
Many people say—and I think it is sexist--that Hillary was only the First Lady. But as a historical comparison, most Democrats I know think the country would have been better off if Bobby Kennedy had lived and was elected president. He was the attorney general for 3 + years and a senator from New York for 3 years. RFK was not a naturally gifted politician, and without JFK as his brother I suspect would have likely been a highly successful lawyer but not an elected official. RFK was his brother's principle advisor, though he, like Hillary, made plenty of mistake (allowing Hoover to wiretap MLK comes to mind and publicly supporting Johnson’s war policies until 1967). But RFK, like Hillary, grew into the leader we remember him to be now. We don’t say that he was only JFK’s brother.
I recently listened to an interview with Robert Rubin which I highly recommend (http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2007/01/22/1/a-conversation-with-robert-rubin), and in it he talks about having an office in the West Wing next to Hillary’s office for two years and how he got to know her, respect her, and how he believes she would be a superb president. Rubin also talks about the same issues I listed above, and he also talks about security, so unlike your accusation that I'm Rovian, I think security and terrorism belong in the national discourse. Rubin, by the way, thinks highly of Obama. Some of you may call Rubin a corporatist, but the truth is that Rubin is a serious person who is highly regarded by powerful people in both government and business. And he’s a Democrat.
I'm tired of the insults. As Democrats let's discuss policies, tactics, the merits of our preferred candidates, and this fascinating campaign. Happy Holidays.
Jim H wrote on December 21, 2007 12:57 PM:
you are arguing republican-styled attacks are legitimate. "the gop is going to hit obama on this anyways, so what's the big deal?"
how would you like republican-styled attacks against hillary?
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 21, 2007 1:16 PM:Now we find out that Obama has a history of equivocating and/or passing on key votes when he was a state legisaltor.
Man alive, some days this site is just like being cast in Rashomon - everyone watches the same events unfold, and yet each one sees something completely different than the others. For my part, I do not recall "finding out" any such thing as that which is described above. I "found out" that Sen Obama was a skilled politician who knows how to be both cunning as a serpent and guileless as a dove, and who used established parliamentary procedure to the best advantage of his constituents.
BluePuppy wrote on December 21, 2007 1:24 PM:Joseph Wilson on Obama's lack of foriegn policy experience:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/the-real-hillary-i-know-_b_77878.html
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 21, 2007 1:30 PM:But [Obama's] attacks do not seem to be as vicious and Rove-like as those from team Hillary. Moreover, I don't think being good at this style of politics means that you are necessarily tough enough to face the GOP. Obama has now brought team Hillary down from a feeling of invincibility to desperation.... That is no easy task and team Obama did based on shrewd strategy and good decision-making...not nasty brute force.
An excellent point, that. We Obama supporters are regularly ridiculed as "naive" to suppose that a Pres Obama will be able to accomplish anything by "sitting down and singing Kumbaya with the Republicans." This is, of course, a rather silly species of charicature, not argument, but even on its own merits it is belied by present realities. If Obama's charisma and charm were really as ineffective as we are told, then he would not be so obvious a threat to Clinton's campaign, a threat which they obviously perceive as indicated by their aggressive charicatures and dismissals. The fact that they are even talking about Obama gives the lie to the very arguments that they are advancing against him.
Meanwhile, the idea that Sen Clinton is a "fighter" (or, even better, a "knife-fighter" as some here have recently styled her) is as much a liability as an asset. The idea that much can be accomplished for the progressives' causes by "fighting" in a style as dirty and aggressive as the GOP's is plausible, but by no means obvious.
I would submit to you that aggression may well prove to be a one-way street. We tried not to long ago to take the fight to the Repbulicans on their own terms and it did not fare well. Air America was a flop. James Carville has never been as popular as Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.
By definition, the right prefers the status quo, while the left prefers dynamic change. As such, when things grind to a halt (as occurs when partisanship becomes too contentious) the right wins by default. To agree to fight on the Republicans terms (which is essentially what the Hillary-is-a-fighter camp is promoting) is to set ourselves at a disadvantage from the start. As such, paradoxically, the smart "fight" for the democrats is the one which is less bitter, less contentious. In other words, the irony of it is that in trying to beat the Republicans at their own game, it is the Clinton supporters here who show themselves to be naive. The true cunning lies in convincing the American people to play a different game, and that takes someone with a power to inspire. Suffice it to say, I am an Obama supporter precisely because I think that Sen Obama is that someone.
Tom wrote on December 21, 2007 1:33 PM:Greg, Obama is no Messiah. He is not perfect or beyond criticism. He is just another politician, but a good one in my book.
But I have sensed a bias against him from you for some time. So, when you posted this silly piece, I assumed you were serious. Coming back and saying that it was just a joke reminded me of Mark Penn claiming the kindergarten hit on Obama was just a joke.
Thanks for addressing the "Muslim rumor" issue, and others. But the personal attacks in the form of e-mails and statements by Iowa chairs on the Clinton campaign, Billy Shaheen, and Bob Kerrey have Obama supporters on edge.
Maybe you should be a little more careful with your humor.
john mccutchen wrote on December 21, 2007 1:37 PM:WTG GOVERNOR!
If you're not faithful to your wife, you're not faithful to the country. Gov. Bill Richardson on the CuckholdAnonymous wrote on December 21, 2007 1:40 PM:
I thought that a 'cuckhold' was a man who's wife was cheating on him, not a man who is cheating on his wife.
pacc wrote on December 21, 2007 1:46 PM:Meant as a joke or not, Greg, the fact is that the O-Bomb-A campaign is a dirty little bunch, from BO's gay bashing tour, from big-mouth Michelle's ugly race baiting and gutter trash talk, from the sleazy way they insinuate personal attacks of sexual misconduct against their opponents, from the cynical and racist way they exploit black Democrats' good faith, and the way they pit gay Democrats against black Democrats. And then there's Barry's dirty kick-back schemes with the indicted Chicago slum lord, Rezko... and so much more. I can't wait until this smarmy puer is knocked out of the race. Hopefully his political career will be dead after that.
yesterday gone wrote on December 21, 2007 1:49 PM:BluePuppy: Joseph Wilson on Obama's lack of foriegn policy experience:
joseph wilson vs majority of democratic foreign policy wonks:
In mainstream foreign-policy circles, Barack Obama is seen as the true bearer of this vision. “There are maybe 200 people on the Democratic side who think about foreign policy for a living,” as one such figure, himself unaffiliated with a campaign, estimates. “The vast majority have thrown in their lot with Obama.”
As Ivo Daalder, a former National Security Council official under President Clinton who now heads up a team advising Obama on nonproliferation issues, puts it, “There’s a feeling that this is a guy who’s going to help us transform the way America deals with the world.” Ex-Clintonites in Obama’s inner circle also include the president’s former lawyer, Greg Craig, and Richard Danzig, his Navy secretary.
[...]
Susan Rice, a former assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration who, along with [anthony] Lake, heads up Obama’s foreign-policy team, says, “You were considered naïve, wrong, weak, stupid to oppose that war.” Hillary Clinton (and John Edwards) voted for the war. Obama’s opposition to it showed Rice “a willingness not to be bound by conventional wisdom and the well-trod path.”
[...]
Obama also gained support from some unexpected quarters. In late August, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the hawkish national-security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, was asked to score the contest between Obama and Clinton. Brzezinski, who opposed the Iraq war and has become a fierce critic of the Bush administration, said: “I think Obama is clearly more effective and has the upper hand. He has a sense of what is historically relevant and what is needed from the United States in relationship to the world. . . . The senator from New York talks in very conventional terms, and I don’t think the country needs to go back to what we had eight years ago.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04obama-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 21, 2007 1:52 PM:Charming, pacc, quite charming. And a merry Christmas to you and yours as well.
brewmn wrote on December 21, 2007 2:08 PM:"There were many successes in the 1990s, and I won't bother listing them because it's a waste of time and they are obvious and numerous."
No need to list them all. Just name a couple. Because I think Bill Clinton was a mediocre (at best) president who only looks good in comparison to Bush, who has a liegitmate claim on the worst president in out history.
"RFK was not a naturally gifted politician, and without JFK as his brother I suspect would have likely been a highly successful lawyer but not an elected official."
You are an idiot. Read a book about 20th American history or shut up. RFK's rise had everything to do with his father Joe Kennedy, who as ambassador to Britain during WWII, and was a major funder of Democratic candidates in the decades immediately before and after the war.
CalD wrote on December 21, 2007 2:11 PM:Psssst, Obama campaign: Time for a new attack line. I don't think they're buying this one anymore.
patroclus wrote on December 21, 2007 2:11 PM:This article seems to be a desperate attempt to be funny...
Petey wrote on December 21, 2007 2:16 PM:"Late Update: I feel almost embarrassed to add this, but this post was intended as a joke -- as a spoof of the fact that the campaigns are all attacking each other relentlessly for attacking."
Yeah, Greg.
It's fucking hilarious.
The Clinton campaign is running a 24/7 slime machine, and you keep trying to make all of the campaigns seem the same.
Heckuva job, Greggie.
brewmn wrote on December 21, 2007 2:19 PM:BluePuppy:
I apologize for the second comment in my prvious post. I got my "J's" and my "R's" crossed.
That said, I will not apologize for supporting Obama, who I firmly believe could be a transformational president, not merely the better among two alterniatives who represent slightly positive (Hillary) or negative (Romney) modifications to the status quo.
BluePuppy wrote on December 21, 2007 2:39 PM:Thanks for the apology.
I think you're right. Obama could be a transformational president, but so could Hillary. I just don't think it's likely that he could win. I could be wrong.
yesterday gone wrote on December 21, 2007 2:39 PM:"There were many successes in the 1990s, and I won't bother listing them because it's a waste of time and they are obvious and numerous."
just answer me this: what did the clintons do to address failing schools? i don't count encouraging school uniforms to be an accomplishment.
lysias wrote on December 21, 2007 2:47 PM:Maybe attacks are to be expected in primary contests, but not all attacks are desperate.
An attack on what somebody wrote in kindergarten is desperate.
BluePuppy wrote on December 21, 2007 2:51 PM:During the President’s first term, Riley helped launch historic initiatives to raise academic standards; to improve instruction for the poor and disadvantaged; to expand grants and loan programs to help more Americans go to college; to prepare young people for the world of work; and to improve teaching. He also helped to create the Partnership for Family Involvement in Education, which today includes over 4,000 groups.
Riley’s efforts were so successful that President Clinton asked him to stay on in his second term to lead the President’s national crusade for excellence in education. Riley and the President agree that education must be America’s number one priority in the years ahead. Already in the second term, Riley has helped win an historic ruling by the F.C.C. to give schools and libraries deep discounts for Internet access and telecommunications services and helped win major improvements in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Riley’s goals now include helping all children to master the basics of reading and math; making schools safer; reducing class sizes in grades 1-3 by helping states and schools to hire 100,000 more good teachers; modernizing and building new schools to meet record-breaking student enrollments and to help students learn to use computers; and expanding after-school programs.
Southpaw wrote on December 21, 2007 2:57 PM:Greg DeLassus: great, great post at 1:30pm. +1 for that.
As for the other Greg: you *should* be "embarrassed." Not embarrassed on our behalf, because you had to clarify that your post is a joke (you know, the kind with no punchline). But embarrassed on your *own* behalf, because your political reporting, on the whole, has been a joke for some time now. It is not merely a "tiny select" group of Obama supporters who have problems with your and Kleefeld's biased (and at times just downright ignorant) coverage. Indeed, non-Obama supporters have been pointing it out as well.
Obama is not perfect, but his policy positions and public statements have been so carefully measured that someone in Hillary's position is in no position to take him on, substantively (at least not in a Democratic primary). That is, he is vulnerable on the *left* flank, such that someone like Kucinich (or often, Edwards) will be able to point out genuine differences in policy. A "seat at the table" for pharmaceutical companies does not go far enough, says Edwards. Anything short of immediate withdrawal of all troops from Iraq does not go far enough, says Kucinich. But Hillary, the war hawk and friend of corporate lobbyists everywhere, cannot criticize Obama for these positions (which are *still* to the left of her own). This is why she has felt compelled to resort to these non-substantive attacks. That she has done so through surrogates makes them all the more despicable. Obama's calling her out on these tactics is not, in itself, an attack. Indeed, were he not to defend himself against them, he'd be called to the carpet for being unable to stand up for himself, a la Kerry in '04.
So get it straight, Greg. And while you're at it, please stop being a hack and a shill, and do your job in a way that doesn't embarrass yourself and your boss, a journalist for whom (even when he expresses criticism for our favored candidates) we all still have the utmost respect.
Greg said: In general, it's just sad how a tiny group of a few Obama supporters have turned these comment threads into shouting matches, where nothing can ever get discussed except for outright Obama hagiography.
Really, the Messianism of Obama supporters is a very ugly thing. It's really too bad that it's infecting this site.
Very well stated. And not often enough.
"Unhinged Obama Supporters Unite God Dammit... or Else We'll Have to Fucking Kill You!" ;^}
BluePuppy wrote on December 21, 2007 3:16 PM:Obama Says He'd Consider Arnold For His Cabinet...........WTF????
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2862
David in Burbank wrote on December 21, 2007 3:17 PM:Is an attack of an attack an attack or is it it only an attack if it attacks a desperate attack?
loki wrote on December 21, 2007 3:20 PM:Obama on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger: "What (he's) doing on climate change in California is very important and significant. There are things I don't agree with him on, but he's taken leadership on a very difficult issue and we haven't seen that kind of leadership in Washington,"
Lovely. Just lovely.
Mitch wrote on December 21, 2007 3:26 PM:You missed a possible reading of the URL. There are three, I think:
1) Hillary is desperate
2) Hillary's attacks are desperate
3) Obama is desparately making attacks on Hillary, i.e., "here are Obama's desparate attacks on Hillary."
No comment beyond that, I'm just pointing out the third possibility.
loki wrote on December 21, 2007 3:28 PM:Schwarzenegger had his ass handed to him by the Democratic legislature and voters of CA...then and only then did he start acting and talking in a more left leaning style...so as to not get completely tossed out of office.
That's what you call that leadership?
David in Burbank wrote on December 21, 2007 3:40 PM:I'd consider jumping off a 10 story building right before I would reject the idea.
Anonymous wrote on December 21, 2007 3:42 PM:Well, Loki, look on the bright side - a governor of CA has much more real power than a cabinet secretary (especially one with a minor portfolio like transportation) so by getting Gov S out of office in CA, one would be neutralizing Schwartzegger significantly while freeing the spot up for a democrat. The governor's office is a much better launching pad for a run for the U.S. Senate than is a cabinet secretary's.
Greg wrote on December 21, 2007 4:28 PM:Tom, I appreciate your measured tone. One or two of the pro-Obama ranters here seem determined to get themselves ignored and to make themselves look like juvenile fools, which only hurts their cause.
I would just point out -- and I hope other "bias" screamers will listen, though they of course won't -- that we gave very, very prominent play here to both the Billy Shaheen story and the story about the Hillary volunteer spreading the Muslim Obama smear email that you mention.
I'm not sure how these facts, which are very easily verified with a look in the archives, square with allegations of bias against us.
Schellhase wrote on December 21, 2007 4:33 PM:"Attacks" is obviously a noun. If it were a verb, it would be paired with an adverb, "desperately," not the adjective, "desperate."
kozmik wrote on December 21, 2007 4:35 PM:I think Obama has been more than fair. He's run a positive campaign, but he can't do a Kerry or Gore and just be a doormat for the endless Hillary attacks and smears.
And he's just pointing out her endless smear attacks are desperate, and Hillary is dropping like a stone in the early primary states, and major states everywhere. If she loses Iowa, and even worse NH also, her "inevitable" veneer is shattered, which is big part of her support, not actually her the person and candidate. Then it's all downhill.
Is Hillary desperate? You bet.
People will make up their own minds about the kind of campaign they're both running, and people already have been. In every case I've seen Obama way up, Hillary way down.
Evadt wrote on December 21, 2007 4:35 PM:Sheesh, Greg! Where's the code of ethics, here?!! It seems blog-on-blog, you're always pitchin' Hillary. You manufactured suspense under the facade of legit reporting, and turned around and whacked Obama with it.
And what are we to do, now? No veracity for Greg until we get the follow-up disclaimer advising sincerity, or joke?
Obviously, TPM is not sponsor for any particular political group-think; and with exception of your Hillary drift demonstrated again initially on the topic - and the strange revise/extend/reversal "humor" - TPM posts and comments do an exceptional service informing readers and voters with great rant.
Please, Brother Greg: set aside personal politik, and stay out of the funny business - or hire a joke writer.
Simply letting us know that Obama launched desperatehillaryattacks.com would have been sufficient.
As other posters have commented, your blog spun-out as desperate journalism - not in keeping w/ TPM standards.
In writing, sometimes it's more important what you don't say: good word smithing phrase imagery can be relied upon to resonate meaning.
AGNOSTIC PRAYER: Dear gods, whatever, we pray that you lead us to truth, and deliver us from those who think they found it.
kozmik wrote on December 21, 2007 4:48 PM:"Obama Says He'd Consider Arnold For His Cabinet...........WTF????"
That's a great example of smart politics.
If he picks a few moderate Republicans with even left-leaning views on particular issues they feel passionate about, and limits them to those issues, then it's a rather brilliant move. It used to be how people did things. Find someone in the other party who agrees with you on an issue where they're more like your party, and bring them on-board for bipartisan support.
For example, do I like Schwartz? No, and never voted for him. And I don;t want him anywhere near tax policy or a lot of other issues. But, he does a few things well, and could be a great cheerleader on environmentalism, so long as you keep an eye on him.
For example, he's been relatively good at rallying Republicans on the environment. He could be used to promote renewable power and R&D. And that would be tremendously helpful in passing good legislation with bipartisan support.
People need to think and not just have knee jerk reactions. Republicans are not monolithic. The best way to pass legislation is to find the Republicans who have personal beliefs on particular issues, which are a-typical in their own party, and give them an opportunity to convince their own party that the opposition is right on certain issues. Which they will gladly take.
kozmik wrote on December 21, 2007 4:57 PM:Schwartz I'd never trust on a lot of policies, and I wouldn't exactly "trust" him on anything actually. He did have to be slapped down in the special election, which I'm happy to say I participated in. My district really cleaned his clock as a matter of fact.
Having said that, he's an oppurtunist and not ideological or a party faithful. He's pro-abortion and gay rights and has things where he knows he'll never be President. Becasue the fundies will always yank the rug out.
So, on certain issues that he sees as opportunities, he's actually ahead of the Republican curve. Plenty of Republicans would like to be more environmental, which is certainly where the electorate is going, but their hands are tied by big oil and such.
Schwartz, or someone like him, can be an envoy to Republican voters, and to Republicans who can split from their party to give bipartisan support to the issue. It's very smart to use someone like him on a single issue basis.
kozmik wrote on December 21, 2007 5:04 PM:And just to be clear, Obama didn't say he'd make Schwartz a cabinet member. What he said is that he'd "consider" moderate Republicans for posts where they could do good on particular issues.
Basically he said he'd be happy to consider facilitating Republicans who want to change their own party to be more Democratic on particular issues.
brewmn wrote on December 21, 2007 5:06 PM:Greg S,
Since you're so troubled by accusations of bias, explain to me: when you had an Obama accusation against Hillary last week, you appended Hillary's own fact check site for her rebuttal. Yet, this week, when she set up her "votespresent" site or whatever, no corresponding link. Why is that?
I like the site, and I'm reluctant to charge bias over questions of tone, and frequency of pro- and anti-posts. However, this issue I just raised clearly suggests a double standard, and I think an explanation is in order.
cwnidog wrote on December 21, 2007 6:07 PM:See what happens when a primary season stretches out to 18 months? After awhile, nobody can tell parody from real, or should I say the real becomes a parody.
Sheeesh.
Jessica wrote on December 21, 2007 7:56 PM:I don't know why this is "breaking news". This site has been up and running for a month and a half. I guess it shows you how little the press actually scrutinizes Obama, they're barely figuring this out. Funny.
Anonymous wrote on December 21, 2007 8:00 PM:All of Greg Sargents Hillary-biased posts are a JOKE, intended or not. Can't TPM afford to hire it's own bloggers rather than count on loans from Hillary Central? Oops. There is no difference TPM is a subsidiary of Hillary Central.
acf wrote on December 21, 2007 8:03 PM:Desperate Attacks? This is SOP politics. It's a given that in politics you always attack up, never down. The reason, I assume, is because when you're ahead, you want to maintain that appearance of calm, controlled, competence, without any nastiness. When you're behind, it becomes necessary to attack to reduce the leader's positives and increase their negatives, bringing them back down to your level. Obama had no problem sniping and having his people attack Hillary Clinton when she was ahead, now that he's ahead, she's attacking him, and he doesn't like it. Tough. If he really believed in a new way of politics, none of this would be happening.
David wrote on December 21, 2007 8:20 PM:Doesn't this speak for itself:
Gordon Fischer, the former chair of the Iowa Democratic Party who is now backing Obama, says that attitude represents an “evolution.”
“The strong pitch made to me and others not that long ago was that we had to be for Hillary, because Hillary was going to be the inevitable winner,” Fischer told me. “They have come a long way if they now think Iowa is just survivable.”
Bridoc, thanks for giving me the opportunity to recycle a post.
It was the press, especially the "liberal" press, that spread the meme that Gore and Bush had basically the same qualifications. All of Gore's foreign policy was tossed on the garbage pile by Washington's chattering pundit class, and all his accomplishments were limned with false assertions of lies and hyperbole.
Similar things are happening with Hillary vs. Obama. Hillary had an impressive college and post-graduate record starting in 1965 as President/participant in various political and academic campus organizations (including editorial board for Yale's law and social review and a paper in Harvard's Educational Review), campus protests, working on numerous national campaigns (Rockefeller, McCarthy, McGovern, Carter), child research, US congressional boards (Mondale labor, Watergate), teaching law, etc. Combine this with her various children's foundations and legal work on children, education and poverty. All of this is ignored. It's as if Hillary didn't help Bill become AG, Governor and President, but instead waltzed in as a trophy wife First Lady in 1993, screwed up health care and went away for another 8 years. You'd never guess at the extensive international initiatives and travel she was involved with from the 'common wisdom' of the press. They can only keep whispering "Lincoln Bedroom" as if it means something. Travel to 80 countries, involvement in adoption, microloans & other women's and children's issues, more attention for Africa, schooling, the arts, etc. Check out her bio and the historical First Lady's page (office in the West Wing):
http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/firstladies.aspx?biography=43
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/issues.html
Obama worked on a 4-month get-out-the vote drive, his sole noted activity in school was getting elected President of the Harvard Law Review, his only professional foreign experience was a year's stint as copy-editor for an industry magazine. He's then got 3 years of community organizing work and 3 years as a community organizing lawyer before his 8 years in the Illinois Senate and 3 years in the US Senate.
So compare the records. And Hillary's right, the mantras of "they're both the same" or "it doesn't matter" have a lot to do with how the current idiot got elected.
DemAC wrote on December 22, 2007 5:29 AM:Greg,
I think it’s pretty funny. :-)
Already in the second term, Riley has helped win an historic ruling by the F.C.C. to give schools and libraries deep discounts for Internet access and telecommunications services
quid pro quo. telecom industries contributed to clinton's campaign so he rewarded them with subsidized contracts to schools. internet access was a bone to reward cronies. terry mcauliffe got wealthy off global crossing.
internet access doesn't address the root of failing schools. unequal funding between rich districts and poor is what needs to restructured.
yesterday gone wrote on December 22, 2007 9:34 AM:BluePuppy wrote on December 21, 2007 2:51 PM:
i heard bill clinton on cspan last year talking about his record. he talked about the millions he spent on education. hell, my city alone raises millions in bonds to fund money for schools. for clinton to have made real national impact, he should have spent billions with a "B" to improve schools.
yesterday gone wrote on December 22, 2007 10:01 AM:Desider wrote on December 22, 2007 1:32 AM:
how many pages of the clinton white house record is being held back?
Greg wrote on December 22, 2007 10:21 AM:brewmn, it's just silly to base an accusation as broad as "bias" on a comparison of one post to another. we do literally dozens of posts a day here. if we forget to add a link to a fact check on one side or the other, it's probably an oversight.
again: we gave very, very prominent coverage to all the stories that were very, very bad for Hillary, and very, very good for Obama. we post every poll here, whoever it favors.
when the media attacks obama or edwards in ways we deem unfair, we are every bit as aggressive about defending them as we are when the media attacks hillary. anyone who's charging "bias" should actually look at what's on this site and on the Horse's Mouth.
the "bias" charge is pure B.S. End of story. and no, just because I'm arguing back against it doesn't mean we're "oversensitive" or some such. it's just that we're gonna respond to B.S. charges whenever we need to. It would be really great if the "bias" screamers would stop ruining these threads with their juvenile nonsense.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 22, 2007 11:09 AM:It would be really great if the "bias" screamers would stop ruining these threads with their juvenile nonsense.
I'll second that.
Desider wrote on December 22, 2007 12:37 PM:yesterday gone,
I take it you haven't clued in yet that the Clintons do not decide when Executive Branch records are released. If they did, perhaps we'd have more info on 9/11, the attorneys firings, the build-up to Iraq, phone jamming, Duke Cunningham, the outing of Valerie Plame, and a number of other issues.
If you do think the Clintons hold the keys to this, please do us a favor and contact Leahy and Waxman tout de suite - they're obviously barking up the wrong tree.
In any case, is there anything in particular you need to know about Hillary that isn't in the available records? Like how many times she scorched her shorts? I'm sure you're really looking for something relevant to compare with all the relevant documentation you've already looked up on Obama and Edwards.
A few more testimonials if you've finished the other ones (consider this extra credit, I suppose):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/the-real-hillary-i-know-_b_77878.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/derek-shearer/hillary-as-an-agent-of-ch_b_76156.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lissa-muscatine-and-melanne-verveer/hillarys-unprecedented-e_b_76883.html
Desider wrote on December 22, 2007 12:37 PM:
I take it you haven't clued in yet that the Clintons do not decide when Executive Branch records are released.
from newsweek:
Under the 1978 Presidential Records Act, the former president and the current president get to review White House records before they are disclosed. Either one can veto a release.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/57351
A few more testimonials if you've finished the other ones (consider this extra credit, I suppose):
policy papers outweight testimonials. probably why the clintons are holding them back.
But [hillary] Clinton's appointment calendar as First Lady, her notes at strategy meetings, what advice she gave her husband and his advisers, what policy memos she wrote, even some key papers from her health-care task force—all of this, and much more documenting her years as First Lady, remains locked away, most likely through the entire campaign season.
1 life long dem here voting gop if hrc gets the nomination.....doubt that im alone. wake up people
loki wrote on December 22, 2007 9:43 PM:Anon @ 1:42PM,
Pathetic and laughable.
morris1030 wrote on December 22, 2007 10:41 PM:Obama's performance in copping out on votes in Illinois speaks to his evasiveness on his voting record as state senator.
He took the easy political cover offered by "present" over 144 times on controversial issues that he had to duck from to give him cover.
Ant-abortion bill..."Present". called for a resounding NO vote. He helped out his pro life Dems and gave cover.
On evidence admissions in trials, etc...same thing, and regarding sex offenders who left prison a bill was introduced to identify these criminals when re entering society. Obama voted "Present" as the only senator to do so.
There is money from Wal Mart and other lobbyists, and more. Obama's records in Illinois are not revealed.
And he thinks the GOP won't eat him for breakfast, lunch, and dinner?
darrell wrote on December 22, 2007 11:14 PM:"Late Update: I feel almost embarrassed to add this, but this post was intended as a joke -- as a spoof of the fact that the campaigns are all attacking each other relentlessly for attacking."
You should be embarrassed. And this disingenuous comment-- perhaps you’re kidding yourself, but no one else.
You were taking a bitchy, low blow, innuendo filled swipe against Obama on behalf of the Clintons. That is your prerogative, but don’t feign surprise by the response. Grow some balls.
yesterday gone,
And what policy papers are you missing?
What records are you assuming Bill Clinton vetoed, or do you know?
And what are the official papers you're referring to from the Obama archives - would like to do apples vs. apples.
the whole article / topic is a joke but I'd ask anyone to honestly assess the discourse and try to convince yourself that the comments from Obama have been of the same tone as those from Hillary and her surrogates. There's no question that Obama has showed differences in approach and been willing to draw attention to those differences... but never in the form of a personal attack. The toxic demeanor of the Clinton campaign is exactly what will keep this country in the same partisan BS that we have struggled with since the 90s. Obama rises above. He's the only one who is presidential. He is the only one who beats all Rs in 'head to head' match-ups. He is the only one who has a record of addressing campaign reform and ethics reform. He is the only one who opposed the war from the beginning. He's the only uniter. The only change agent. The only one who really can unite the country and the world!
HE IS PRESIDENTIAL
OBAMA '08
Loan Offer Here,Apply Now
Are you in need to secure funds for that dream project of yours?
Have you been turned down by other lenders
Do you want your dream house, Farms & Land, car now and yet you can't, just because of your financial status?
Fox Roger Lending Firm is granting loan this opportunity to actualize your dream.
If you are interested in obtaining a loan,kindly contact us through the below email address for your loan request: foxrogers2@yahoo.com
