Hillary Camp: We Do Not Condone Drug Comment In Any Way
The Hillary campaign is condemning remarks made by New Hampshire co-chair Billy Shaheen, who said earlier today in an interview that Barack Obama's past drug use could be used against him by the GOP, thus calling his electability into question.
The Obama campaign directly blamed Hillary for the remarks this afternoon, saying that it was born of a "desperate effort to slow her slide in the polls."
Now Clinton spokesman Phil Singer has sent us this statement:
Senator Clinton is out every day talking about the issues that matter to the American people. These comments were not authorized or condoned by the campaign in any way.
Late Update: Shaheen himself adds in a statement: “I deeply regret the comments I made today and they were not authorized by the campaign in any way."
Comments (97)
john mccutchen wrote on December 12, 2007 6:11 PM:WWKD?
What would Karl do?
Just that. Swift Boat Billary to the attack!
cms wrote on December 12, 2007 6:11 PM:Yup, and kindergate was all a big joke. Honestly, the NH co-chair IS part of her campaign. No word on Shaheen stepping down I see.
RaymondA wrote on December 12, 2007 6:12 PM:It's not enough to say you do not "condone" remarks by your own official chairperson and staffer. Dems should demand that Hillary fire Shaheen's ass. The stuff he said about "drug use" is run of the mill idiocy. The innuendo about Obama selling drugs is beyond the pale.
"Crap. Well, it was worth a shot... let's try the Muslim thing again. Get Drudge on the phone!"
Keith wrote on December 12, 2007 6:13 PM:So they fired Shaheen right? I mean they dismissed a county chair and another volunteer for forwarding an email. He's got to be fired right? They've already established the precedent.
dcshungu wrote on December 12, 2007 6:13 PM:It is time to rein in the over-zealous supporters. Tell them that under no circumstance can anyone "go negative" without an explicit green light from the HQ.
AlwaysTipTheWaitress wrote on December 12, 2007 6:15 PM:"I was against that remark before I was for it." I am so glad Clinton put this to bed fast. It made the kindergarten remark look moderately sane.
bridoc wrote on December 12, 2007 6:15 PM:It seems like she needs to control her posse a little better, given that lately more and more high up people are saying (or emailing) negative and abhorrent things about Obama, and each time she comes back saying, "oh, but I didn't authorize it" yet nonetheless, it is dispensed by her campaign and is now circulating in public. Either she is surrounding herself with a bunch of loose-mouthed hotheads, or they have a nice little plausible deniability racket going on here in the swing states.
EricW wrote on December 12, 2007 6:15 PM:Yeah right. They've been telegraphing the effort to put Obama's past drug use into the media for a couple of days now. Lying about it now only makes it worse. Hillary's campaign seems to be in a messaging melt-down. Their attacks on Obama are all boomeranging on them. And isn't one of the prime rationales for Hillary's candidacy that she's tough and savvy enough to beat a Republican in the general? That line of reasoning isn't looking very solid these days.
Michael A wrote on December 12, 2007 6:15 PM:Everybody hear that bus revving up. I wonder if she backs it up over him as well.
I didn't realize that this bozo is the dem senate candidate's hubby. Uh, oh, that's not a good thing. This guy should take off with mr. bill to bora bora until the election is over. Hopefully, people will forget about him by then.
BDB wrote on December 12, 2007 6:16 PM:But..but..but
Obama's campaign yesterday said his campaign manager in 1996 was a "staffer" and that Obama couldn't be held to the positions the "staffer" indicated on the questionnaire.
Anonymous wrote on December 12, 2007 6:17 PM:Well, I'd have to say this looks like coordinated good cop/bad cop to me.
It's a little gambit to see how the Obama campaign responds, and to see if the cable news shows will cover Obama's drug use more.
Not a very convincing denial, but I guess that it is the best that can be done under the circumstances. I am delighted to see my man's main rival shoot herself repeatedly in the foot, but one does rather have to wonder when exactly the good lady senator plans to begin to demand a little internal discipline among her staff.
DRinOH wrote on December 12, 2007 6:18 PM:"Senator Clinton is out every day talking about the issues that matter to the American people."
See what I mean. That accomplish-nothing response from Plouffe just gives them a platform to speak from. Just let them dig their own grave and stop getting caught up in these petty rapid response wars. If someone trying to hit you with a grenade throws it straight up in the air, you can either swat it away and claim victory, as Plouffe did, or you can let it come down and watch the other person self-destruct, as Plouffe should have done.
Still, she's going to catch a lot of flack for this.
RaymondA wrote on December 12, 2007 6:18 PM:Preemptive strike against the expected Hillary apologists. Recall how apoplectic Wolfson was way back in March when David Geffen, a guy with no position at all on the Obama campaign, trashed Hillary and Bill for being less than honest and pardoning Marc Rich? He demanded Obama return Geffen's money. More recently many Hillary-philes said it was not enough for Obama to disavow the homophobic remarks of a guy whom the campaign merely asked to sing; he had to fire the singer or Obama was the equivalent of a Klansman (I don't exaggerage; pro-Hillary bloggers went there.)Well none of these admittedly off-the-reservation remarks by Obama backers ranks with having an official campaign state co-chairperson engaging in the lowest for of innuendo re drug selling.
FIRE. SHAHEEN. NOW.
cms wrote on December 12, 2007 6:19 PM:Jeanne Shaheen, btw, is a top-level adviser for the HRC campaign. Did Hubby really go off the reservation?
It is increasingly obvious to me that it has become hard to run a "textbook" campaign when everyone owns the same textbook.
"Class, please open your textbook to page 101 and read the section on 'trial balloons'."
JubleJohnson wrote on December 12, 2007 6:23 PM:Look their the play blewup in their face hence the comment "we don not condone".Old style politics must go.
Keith wrote on December 12, 2007 6:24 PM:The Co-Chair is not just a county coordinator or some volunteer off the street. He's got to go.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=1408
RaymondA wrote on December 12, 2007 6:24 PM:It's very unlikely that Mr. Shaheen went off the reservation. That's why a statement that Hillary does not "condone" the comment is weak tea. To prove that this was not a good cop/bad cop innuendo ploy, and that it really was a STATE CHAIRPERSON going off message, Hillary must fire Shaheen. NOW.
Dan wrote on December 12, 2007 6:27 PM:So she appoints incompetent people to important positions in her campaign, such that she has to disavow their comments?
This is a good indication of the type of people she'd appoint in her administration.
She can't even run her campaign, how is she going to run the country?
Does ANYONE believe Singer?
If anything, this makes me wonder if the madrassa smear-peddlers were acting on instructions from on high.
NCSteve wrote on December 12, 2007 6:31 PM:Riiight. They've been quietly pushing the story behind the scene for days now with no takes so they finally selected some poor expendable state campaign chair to go out and take one for the team.
For example, although everyone seems to have fogotten it already, there was this little gem in the HuffPo yesterday.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/11/as-iowa-nears-clinton-al_n_76235.html
This is a desperate attempt on Clinton's part, and a dumb one. The word "desperate" has become attached to her over the last week. Obama's camp is using it, the press is using it, and because she's falling like a rock in the polls, there is credibility in that assessment. No one believes that she's not behind this drug use smear. Three of her staffers have been caught trying to spread the "Obama is a Muslim" smear and we already know about Kindergate. She will go down in flames. I want her HUMILIATED.
Keith wrote on December 12, 2007 6:34 PM:Greg:
Have you asked Singer if Shaheen is going to be fired?
Let's be honest wrote on December 12, 2007 6:35 PM:From HRC's website:
"Bill Shaheen knows how to win New Hampshire primaries," said Nick Clemons, Clinton's New Hampshire State Director. "He will be pivotal to the campaign bringing a tremendous amount of excitement and energy with him."
Jeremy wrote on December 12, 2007 6:37 PM:Is this the kind of discipline we can expect from the Hillary camp IF she reverses the momentum and gets to the general election? Blech.
timbnyc wrote on December 12, 2007 6:37 PM:We're finding that Clinton's ability to attack and counter-punch, which was supposedly such a great advantage that Dems just had to have her as the nominee, is actually pretty laughable.
Andrew wrote on December 12, 2007 6:38 PM:Somebody should be fired for this sort of outrageous remark. This is worse than the overzealous field staffers in Iowa forwarding the Muslim smears. This is the campaign's co-chair in New Hampshire. If the Clinton camp truly doesn't "condone" this bullshit, Shaheen should be canned.
Does anyone think the republicans won't attack Obama for his drug use? If you do, you're an idiot.
RalphB:
And your point is what? Their politics of fear justifies HRC engaging in those same politics?
DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 6:45 PM:RalphB,
That isn't the question. The question is whether it would work, and we are getting some good evidence that it would actually backfire.
vena wrote on December 12, 2007 6:45 PM:Of course the Repubs. will try to attack Obama for his drug use, but by then(if he gets the nom) it'll already be old news b/c Hillary used it first.
NCSteve wrote on December 12, 2007 6:45 PM:You know, what I find particularly dispicable about this is the press (and, yes, blogger) complicity. Gawd, where are Colbert and Stewart when we need them. The Huffpo item is not the only one I saw this week indicating they were working off the record to try to get the press to do a story about this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/11/as-iowa-nears-clinton-al_n_76235.html
When that doesn't work, they send out this guy to turn it into a story and then, when the blowback is immediate and bad they disavow the guy and the press just transcribes the denial and disavowal as if they had no frakkin idea that it was being pushed and the denial was prefectly credible.
This is how the MSM has worked for years now, but when bloggers do the same thing it kind of makes that sick "the Republic is Doomed" feeling come back.
Michael A wrote on December 12, 2007 6:46 PM:I guess I'm an idiot ralphb, because I don't think they will. It really is old news and I don't think it will play well, as I am sure clinton II is seeing. It's out there and people know about it. Now if he was clintonian and said he didn't inhale or that he didn't snort it all the way, the republicans would have a field day. The way he has handled it has totally defused the issue as far as I can tell.
DRinOH wrote on December 12, 2007 6:50 PM:Good points NCSteve. Sullivan will point out this denial and Huffpost link. He's one of the more credible sources left out there. I also think Greg will have a post up about it soon, don't dismiss these guys too quickly.
Auntie B. wrote on December 12, 2007 6:52 PM:The nation's consciousness is rising. Folks see through the pettiness and games currently going on.
We have serious problems to solve as a nation. Let's focus on issues. It's time to grow up.
Auntie B.
DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 6:52 PM:NCSteve,
We'll have to see, but my guess is that the press will hold her responsible for this attack in their typical roundabout way. That would not involve directly confronting her denial, because the point of "plausible deniability" is that you make sure it is indeed plausible (see page 207 of your textbook). Rather, the press will simply not credit her denial, and that will take the form of continuing to write stories in the future implicitly attributing responsibility for this attack to her campaign.
Orange wrote on December 12, 2007 6:56 PM:I think RalphB meant that Shaheen said that Republicans are going to bring this up and ask these kinds of unfounded questions, which Shaheen himself labeled "Republican dirty tricks." So what he said is actually true.
Having said that, he said it extremely clumsily (a la Kerry and his botched joke) and it came out very badly.
The most professional and discplined campaign does not do anything clumsily.
john mccutchen wrote on December 12, 2007 7:03 PM:A few weeks ago - I can't remember which Mr.Bill bungle prompted it - I asked whether Democrats wanted to spend 2008 parsing and spinning Clintonian bullsh*t.
Someone asked whether I knew what "parsing" was.
See Orange's comment above
Nice, if awkward swift boat Mrs. Bill. You'd think with all that *experience*, she'd do a better job
Carl Nyberg wrote on December 12, 2007 7:05 PM:This attack by Team Clinton is so lame.
I think the Clinton campaign is trying to evoke the idea that HRC has endured the worst attacks of the GOP so she's got nowhere to go but up.
But I think there's something counter-productive for HRC going negative.
I think that she's made a political career (if one can call two U.S. Senate elections a career) out of playing the wronged-victim role.
But, when her campaign attacks Obama on thin stuff, I think she cuts into her support as the wronged-victim.
I would think Clinton's best move is to get Edwards into the mix. If Edwards wins Iowa, HRC probably has better chances in NH and SC. And I assume she'd like to force the contest deeper into the big states where she's ahead in the polls.
Also, HRC probably has at least as good a shot at get the endorsements from Biden, Dodd and Richardson as do Edwards and Obama, provided the contest isn't over.
John McCutchen wrote on December 12, 2007 7:38 PM:
Days since Senator Clinton promised she was not interested in attacking Democrats:32
Days that Senator Clinton has spent attacking Democrats since making that promise:28
Chicago Tribune: "Hillary as Kindergarten Cop: The defining blunder of Campaign 2008, already?"
"It's silly, it's desperate, it's easily parodied and it's even a bit chilling: It suggests that Clinton will stop at nothing -- not even the line of adolescence -- to try to destroy her political foes. She, or more likely some lower level campaign functionary, has blundered into illustrating one of the more unflattering caricatures of her, but in a way that invites not sober criticism but mockery." [Chicago Tribune, 12/4/07]
The Clintons, their sycophantic advisors, and the dittohead-like Clinton followers are trying to make hay out of something even RUDY GIULIANI (!) defended... on Fox News, of all places!
Isn't it time everyone with half a pulse finally called out HRC for what she is: a glorified teacher's pet running for hall monitor.
http://cameron.blogs.foxnews.com/2007/11/20/rudy-defends-obamas-discussion-of-previous-drug-habits/
Go Blue in '08!
RaymondA wrote on December 12, 2007 7:48 PM:NCSteve's post is dead on and his link to the Huffpo article is dynamite. Greg, are you reading the comments? If so, take his comment to heart.
Separately, I will commit a heresy. The Republican attacks against Hillary stick because Hillary is not likeable and there is a (small) element of truth in their caraciture of her as arrogant and self-righteous. Hillary supporters always claim that the Republican attacks stick, because Republican attackers are so darn brilliant in an evil genius way that they could make St. Francis Assisi look like a child molester. They are wrong.
Consider: Rush Limbaugh attacked Michael J. Fox. Did it stick? Nope. It helped elect Claire McCaskill. There are other folks the Repubs tried to attack, and failed. See, for example, Jim Webb, whose novels had some weird pederasty sex scenes in them.
Let me be clear: The Republican attacks against Hillary are not FAIR, but they often stick because many independents whose votes we need just don't like her. It's absurd but true -- as everyone who went to a big high school knows -- that when you attack one of the smug uptight people unfairly, people believe it even if it's false, and when you attack one of the nice people with a legitimate attack, it often does not stick.
Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000 were good men, but even an admire of both of them (as I am) had to admit that their personalities were offputting to many; they were aloof or haughty or something that people did not warm to. So unfair attacks stuck to them. I fear the same will happen to Hillary.
Obama, on the other hand, won over many when he said on Leno in response to "Did you inhale?" "Yes, Jay, that was the whole point!"
Usually the Repubs nominate the guy who seems more normal and regular; this time the Dems have a chance to do that, with Obama.
John McCutchen wrote on December 12, 2007 7:52 PM:London Gets It
Yesterday, AP ran an analysis piece - What is Mrs. Bill's Plan B...well that was New Hampshire
That was yesterday
Blow for Clinton as Obama takes lead in key stateAnonymous wrote on December 12, 2007 7:53 PM:
· Rival ahead for first time in New Hampshire
· Campaign team planning to step up attacks on rival
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/story/0,,2226551,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
Michael A wrote on December 12, 2007 7:55 PM:Excellent post Raymond A and spot on.
Keith wrote on December 12, 2007 7:58 PM:Thanks anon. The Guardian hit the nail on the head.
dcshungu wrote on December 12, 2007 8:27 PM:RaymondA wrote on December 12, 2007 7:48 PM:NCSteve's post is dead on and his link to the Huffpo article is dynamite. Greg, are you reading the comments? If so, take his comment to heart.
[....snip....]
This post started with a thesis and stopped with the anti-thesis without providing the obvious synthesis.
Thesis:
Hillary's negatives are "high" because of how long her detractors have been after her. Gore and Kerry also "suffered" the minute they stepped into the limelight and were "defined" for the voters by the Republican smear machine. Obama is a newcomer who has not yet been subjected to vicious attacks by the right-wingers and thus still has relatively high likability numbers.
Anti-thesis:
Michael J. Fox v. Limbaugh: Rush simply went too far and beyond the pale. There is, of course, the possibility that the GOP's attacks against Obama might also go too far (low tolerance threshold against some forms of racial smears), just as they might against Hillary (irritation for dredging up stuff that we've already heard ad nauseam; or the "Lazio" effect for picking on a woman). ..
Synthesis:
We should recognize and expect the fact that Obama's "negatives" will almost certainly go up should he win the nomination and is "introduced" to the electorate by the GOP smear machine, unless it goes too far, wherever that may be in electoral politics. To believe that Obama would embraced and toasted by the Repubs and that his negs would remain where they are is to be as naive as Obama himself...
Unrelated, but has anyone noticed that many of the usual Hillaroids have been absent lately?
I remember taking a dejection break of my own when Hill's numbers were peaking back in October, so I imagine some of them are doing the same. But, though I hate to admit it, but I kind of miss some of 'em.
Carl Nyberg wrote on December 12, 2007 8:40 PM:dcshungu, how is Obama naive?
The guy gets legislation passed.
He's pretty good on the issues.
And his analysis of the folly of invading Iraq was exceedingly detailed before the invasion happened.
RaymondA wrote on December 12, 2007 9:03 PM:NCSteve--
I can relate to the dejection break. For me it was a combination of dejection and a crushing workload at my day job.
Things can turn in an instant, however, and those Hilloids will be back to gloat.
The remarkable thing is that Obama himself seemed to have the disciplined long view even in the abyss of the dejection period, which is unusual for someone as, yes, inexperienced in running in this kind of campaign. The truth is that Obama is something of a natural, as his '04 Convention speech indicated. And a natural doesn't need as many test runs as an overachiever like Hillary.
On the Clock wrote on December 12, 2007 9:13 PM:... But do we apologize for the comment? NAAHHHH.
DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 9:41 PM:I think it is instructive to remember what happened with Bill Clinton's negatives in 1992. Of course Bill gave the GOP a lot to work with, and they did get his negatives up for a while. Then his negatives came back down in time for the election.
Was that because Bill was great at dealing with personal attacks? No, actually, he generally mishandled them. Rather, in the end people liked Bill, and liked his upbeat style, and decided to overlook the attacks.
In short, RaymondA is right.
Michael A wrote on December 12, 2007 9:42 PM:I hear the winds of change blowing, finally. I bet they are at gale force in about a month and then hurricane force in November. Go Obama.
NCSteve, I noticed the same thing about a week or so ago. There were some really strange exchanges and then silence. I think someone from the clinton II campaign reined them in because they were way, way, way over the top with their insulting posts. It obviously could not be helping the clinton II campaign with some of the bizarre things that they were saying. Even dc is nowhere near as obnoxious as she/he used to be.
Michael A wrote on December 12, 2007 9:57 PM:Once again DTM, absolutely right. You are totally spot on and it makes total sense. Same thing could be said about the king and kerry in 04, as well as Gore (who I really like and has become incredibly more likeable in the last 7 years) and the king in 00, Dukakis and bush I in 88, Mondale and the b-movie actor in 84. Totally spot on. It's that common sense thing that we all forget.
nrglaw wrote on December 12, 2007 10:08 PM:I'm sorry to say this, but what I see in this thread is mostly a circular firing squad routine. This is great practice for the General Election--and if Hillary is the Democratic candidate, what are you going to do? Take shots at her when she takes shots at the GOP.
This is a campaign. Obama opened the door on this issue, and Shaheen (authorized or not authorized) is right to this extent: this issue would be fair game if Obama is the candidate, and the GOP would most certainly pursue it. What I am waiting for now is some thoughtful response to Shaheen's point from Obama, because I'd sure like to know how exactly he will respond to it when it comes up in the GE.
nrglaw
DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 10:09 PM:Michael A,
And the irony is that the people promoting fear of the dreaded Republican Slime Machine seem to be overlooking the fact that the Republicans are also practical enough to keep nominating likeable people (except Bush I, but as the sitting VP they didn't have much choice). So where is the fear of the equally dreaded Republican Charm Machine?
I think part of the answer is that these people tend to support a particular candidate and are tailoring their arguments to fit. But part of it is probably that Democrats have a hard time accepting that people like Reagan and Bush II are in fact likeable, so want to attribute their success solely to negative attributes.
nrglaw wrote on December 12, 2007 10:11 PM:carl nyberg--Which bills has Obama gotten passed? That us, bills that he introduced, passed the Congress and were signed into law.
Dave wrote on December 12, 2007 10:18 PM:carl nyberg--Which bills has Obama gotten passed? That us, bills that he introduced, passed the Congress and were signed into law.
Coburn-Obama Federal Accountability and Transparency Act.
Lugar-Obama Non-Proliferation Initiative.
Dave wrote on December 12, 2007 10:21 PM:forgot to close the link tag there. But there you go, three big bills passed into law.
zoot wrote on December 12, 2007 10:23 PM:Shaheen is a national co-chair. While he can be a loose cannon, it's inconceivable that in so tightly disciplined a campaign he'd do any free-lancing.
Besides, he didn't just fall off the turnip truck. He knew what he was doing, and so did his superiors. Their reasoning is pretty straight-forward - it really doesn't matter if you have to disavow his authority to speak so long as you get it out there, because the stink will linger long after the non-apologies are forgotten.
It's highly likely he was directed to do this, or coordinated it with the tacit approval of Grunwald or Penn. The Clinton campaign has hit its natural ceiling. She has nowhere to go for additional votes, so she is compelled to play out electability, which in their playbook means personal attacks. HRC of course can never get her prints on this, so it's left to some other hapless soul to do the handiwork.
Somone commented to me today: "How like the Clintons. If they're unable to get the nomination on their own merits, they're hell-bent to spoil it for everyone else."
Oh well, we would have learned if we were paying attention in the 1990s.
DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 10:25 PM:nrglaw,
As alluded to in the Obama campaign's statement, Obama has consistently dealt with this issue whenever it has come up by stating his drug use as a teenager was a mistake and explaining the lessons he learned. Most people seem to accept that.
What Romney (and now Clinton, or Shaheen if you really believe Shaheen was acting on his own) have done is try to suggest that somehow Obama's candor itself is a problem. Most people don't seem to think that Obama's candor is a problem, and question why someone would attack him for it.
So there you go.
benintn wrote on December 12, 2007 10:30 PM:Wow ... Shaheen backed off his own comments. I think he should sue himself for defamation of his own character.
benintn wrote on December 12, 2007 10:36 PM:to nrglaw,
not that I speak for any Obama camapaign official or anyone other than myself... however, if I was Obama or his campaign manager, I would handle past indiscretions in the same way that GW Bush handled his past drug use history. In fact, ironically, on the same day Shaheen made his comments, GW Bush talked openly about his past alcoholism (including 1976 DUI arrest) and the fact that he was out of control and needed to stop.
Obama has already won over this GOP supporter ... and any fuddy-duddy old school conservative who doesn't believe in redemption won't vote for GOP candidate regardless. Obama has won the critical change vote and the all-important independent and crossover vote. His appeal transcends party politics, and that's why he's more likely than HRC to win in 08.
Dawn wrote on December 12, 2007 10:38 PM:I think I may be one of the heretofore absent Hilloids, since up until now I have kind of instinctively defended her. But these last two weeks have been so stupid, even I can't make the case anymore.
I have to admit that as a 50 yr old woman the chance of having a woman president in my lifetime was making me wish away Hillary's obvious, well documented faults. (Let's face it, I only have 8-10 elections left.) I like Obama a lot, but kind of wish he had waited at least until 2012. I'm not one who believes it is heresy to challenge a president of your own party, and if Hillary were to get elected now and not do a good job I would fully support Obama challenging her in 2012 (as I will also if the reverse happens.)
I also believe that in a normal year with a reasonably attractive Republican candidate Hillary would have a better shot in the general election. To paraphrase Mencken, no one ever went broke overestimating the racism of the Republican voters. I think it would be a huge mistake to think the general electorate is as ready to embrace an African-American candidate as is the Democratic base.
However, my calculus has changed a lot as the Republican candidates have proven to be so repellent. I'm not as worried about electability. I now think that there is such a slim chance that any of the Repugs will win that I am more willing to take a chance with Obama. I think the current Hillary supporters would rally around Obama a lot more than the reverse, and his candidacy would be a truly united watershed movement.
Besides which I realize that I am just plain sick of talking about the Clintons. I know a lot of that is not their fault, but there it is. I still want to see a woman president soon, but maybe not this woman.
So, you all have won me over.
Dawn wrote on December 12, 2007 11:01 PM:As usual, Kos said it better than me
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/12/175918/99/746/421319
Senator, I served with Bill Clinton. I knew Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Bill Clinton. (Sorry Lloyd Bensten; rest your soul.)
Mrs. Clinton certainly is proving that she can't pull of the attacks that her husband could with all of his charm and Bill Clintonnesse.
She's proving that she's the least electable Democrat:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/guy-t-saperstein/hillary-clinton-might-be-_b_76162.html
meowwwwww!!!
Showing her true colors.... she should do us all a favor and drop out before it gets really bad, pathetic and desparate.
Carl Nyberg wrote on December 13, 2007 12:51 AM:Dave, thanks for fielding the question on Obama legislation enacted into law.
Let's turn the question around. HRC has been in the U.S. Senate quite a bit longer than Obama.
What significant legislation has HRC passed into law?
Could it be that Obama has been more productive in less time in the Senate than HRC?
DemAC wrote on December 13, 2007 1:03 AM:vena wrote: Of course the Repubs. will try to attack Obama for his drug use, but by then(if he gets the nom) it'll already be old news b/c Hillary used it first.Michael A wrote: I guess I'm an idiot […] It really is old news […]
Marvelous! Old news will not and can not be effectively used to attack a candidate. Excellent! Here I was, all worried that you Obamaramas somehow harbored a grudge against Hillary Clinton as a candidate because of old news that somehow could be used against her in the General Election. Some have even claimed to “vet” her with all sorts of old news and even older bullshit and what have you not.
Alas, no more! Old news and old shit are truly old, and will not be effectively used against the candidate in the future.
The real beauty of it all being, of course, that if it’s true, it’s true for everyone. And if it’s the usual horse shit, then it’s horse shit for everyone. You can’t have a double standard. If you honestly believe that the Rethugs’ gazillions of commercials hammering Obama for buying cocaine in the general election (if Obama is the nominee) won’t be effective, fine. I’ll even take your word for it. But then I expect to here no more old news on Hillary Clinton. Because then you’ve proven yourself full of… (you know what).
dcshungu wrote on December 13, 2007 1:08 AM:The Dissembler:
In short, RaymondA is right.
Considering the source, any other conclusion would have been earth-shattering...
jbentley wrote on December 13, 2007 1:18 AM:This is a non-issue. Bill got blow-jobs from an intern while he was in office, and I honestly don't think that was an issue. He also gave some billshit about how he didn't inhale. Pleeeeeeze. And George W. was only drunk the one time he got caught. Again, pleeeeeeeze. Obama deserves credit for being honest. I don't care if any of them got high in the 60s, 70s, or the 80s. We all did. it's not the end of the world. Personally, I'd trust Obama, even if he did get high now and then, rather than trust this country to some gung-ho fool like Rudy, Mitt, or some fundamentalist like Mike Huckabee.
Carl Nyberg wrote on December 13, 2007 1:42 AM:DemAC, do you believe Shaheen's attack was authorized by the Clinton campaign?
If HRC wants to go after Obama for stuff in his book, do it.
But HRC is trying to have it both ways here. She wants to make the attack (throw the rock) but not take responsibility (she hinds the hand).
It makes her look petty and like she's out of her league.
HRC trumpets her experience on the national stage, but she can't even conduct a straight-forward attack w/o it backfiring on her.
Do you really think this candidate--a candidate that comes to the table with more than her share of negatives--is ready to go up against a tough Republican?
The evidence--HRC's own campaigning--suggests she's not ready for prime time.
And if HRC hasn't learned how to play the game by now, I don't think she's gonna learn by next November.
DemAC wrote on December 13, 2007 1:48 AM:Carl Nyberg wrote: Do you really think this candidate--a candidate that comes to the table with more than her share of negatives--is ready to go up against a tough Republican?You seriously believe Obama to be more apt to take on the Rethugs in the General Election than Hillary Clinton??? Are you for real??? Or are you entirely new to politics??? CalD wrote on December 13, 2007 3:12 AM:
DTM wrote:I think part of the answer is that these people tend to support a particular candidate and are tailoring their arguments to fit. But part of it is probably that Democrats have a hard time accepting that people like Reagan and Bush II are in fact likeable, so want to attribute their success solely to negative attributes.
True 'nough. I never cared much for either of them, quite frankly, but as H.L. Mencken said, no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American people.
Here's a little exercise for you though. First make a list of this year's crop of Republicans in order of likability. Then then list them again in order of probable electability. Then compare the two lists and see if they match.
Smith wrote on December 13, 2007 4:38 AM:Wow. This is a sad day for Democrats when our supposed front-runner dives into the deep end of race baiting. I hope Hillary remembers Lee Atwater, the guy who gave us Willie Horton. While dying of cancer shortly after the 1988 election (in which he and HW Bush won, in no small part, due to their willingness to raise the fear card when it came to race) Atwater had a chance to reflect on his life. He wrote this:
"My illness helped me to see that what was missing in society is what was missing in me: a little heart, a lot of brotherhood. The '80s were about acquiring -- acquiring wealth, power, prestige. I know. I acquired more wealth, power, and prestige than most. But you can acquire all you want and still feel empty. What power wouldn't I trade for a little more time with my family? What price wouldn't I pay for an evening with friends? It took a deadly illness to put me eye to eye with that truth, but it is a truth that the country, caught up in its ruthless ambitions and moral decay, can learn on my dime. I don't know who will lead us through the '90s, but they must be made to speak to this spiritual vacuum at the heart of American society, this tumor of the soul."
I turns out that in the 90's Bill showed promise but failed. In the 00's W failed miserably. Hillary is showing that she is capable of failing every bit as spectacularly as the worst of them with this bit of race baiting.
Here's why I will vote for Obama with great enthusiasm: Obama represents a chance to vote for what's best in America rather than what's ugliest. We've got some deep ugliness down in our national DNA - it's about time we reckoned with it. I think Obama can help lead us there and do so in a way that can bring healing.
turtleguy wrote on December 13, 2007 4:53 AM:This might end any chance Clinton had of getting my vote in the primary. She's acting a GOP candidate and I want no part of it. Let her run on the GOP ticket if she wants to pull this crap.
DemAC wrote on December 13, 2007 5:02 AM:Geez… You guys think this is the worst Obama is gonna get, should he be nominated???
Obama has never once in his life been confronted with the Big Red Slime Machine on the scale of the coming General Election.
Now, why on earth would the hard pressed Rethugs want to air ads of a black Democrat dealing in drugs? Especially as Obama’s campaign points out that those charged with crack cocaine possession will be allowed to apply for early release before a federal judge.
You can’t envision the ads already? OK, could you then contact me privately? I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Nice price, only for you… The naïveté and idealism of you Obama supporters is all cute and cuddly, but get real will you. There is an election coming, not some liberal love in.
DemAC wrote on December 13, 2007 6:26 AM:An excellent piece on Shaheen and Obama this morning by mhinds01 over at the DailyKos.
ron wrote on December 13, 2007 7:04 AM:I agree with most of what people have said. This Shaheen should be fired for sure. I am a Hillary supporter and I realize that in the end it is her campaign, but at the same time people should not be so quick to spew such hateful vitriol towards her every time some lackey says something stupid. If you want to disagree with her do so in the same way you do with the other candidates, on both sides. I understand not liking someone's political ideologies but for the most part the reasons I see stated for not like Hillary Clinton have nothing to do with her politics but more to do with how she appears to people. "She looks crafty", or "I don't get a good feeling from her." You don't see these kinds of comments being made about other candidates. Is it a sexist thing? Are people just offended because she's not all warm and fuzzy? Doesn't matter to me as long as she gets the job done and gets the US back on track. When people start listing legitimate complaints about her policies then maybe you'll make some sense, until then save the Jerry Springer comments.
Grant wrote on December 13, 2007 7:20 AM:Ron: I’m a Clinton supporter too and I wholeheartedly concur with your post, bar one thing: Obama’s drug use is a legitimate question to raise. Shaheen shouldn’t have apologized and certainly shouldn’t have to go. Obama has never ever met the Republican attack machinery in earnest. He is as green as they come. His will be a rude awakening and cost the Democratic Party a lot of votes if we are so unlucky that he gets the party’s nod.
DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 8:21 AM:CalD,
Actually, I have long felt the Republicans' two most likeable candidates were Huckabee and McCain, and I also believe those are their two most electable candidates. And while I am reluctant to make bold predictions, I suspect that the Republicans will in fact end up choosing between those two candidates.
DemAC,
Over and over again, people in these conversations have attempted to frame the issue as whether or not we believe the Republicans will try to use these lines of attacks against Obama. And over and over again, it has been pointed out that of course they will, but the real question is whether these lines of attack are likely to work, or rather more likely to backfire. And all the evidence points to these attacks not working but rather backfiring, as Clinton is currently finding out.
That is the real disconnect here. No one doubts the Republicans will TRY to use the same playbook they have been using in every single Presidential election since at least Dukakis. But only some people are convinced that the Republicans running the same old plays will work against Obama, and even fewer people are convinced that they will be more effective against Obama than Clinton.
DemAC wrote on December 13, 2007 8:44 AM:DTM,
Yes I can read too you know. I perfectly well understand that you chose to believe that “drug dealing by black male candidate” will not be in any way effective in the hands of the Big Red Slime Machine. I thus took the liberty of pointing out that I find this wishful thinking to be incredibly naïve.
Hi, demac. You are way off base as usual. The drug use issue is old news because its out there and been thoroughly discussed since his book came out 2 years ago. Get that in the last two years its been discussed repeatedly. He's not playing games with it "like he didn't inhale." People are desensatized to it. Same thing goes for the bs madrassa thing. It's been slung around for the last year repeatedly. Who cares?
Now, you want to talk about the republican slime machine and skeletons in closets. Let's look at your wonderful candidate. I have been trying to remember all the bs from the 90's, that's lets see 8 to 16 years ago, and I can't. If she gets the nomination, I am sure that I will be reminded about the garbage though from the big mean republican slime machine.
One interesting thing of note from what I recall of the many controversies clinton II was involved in them. Maybe that was emphasized by republicans in the political wars of the nineties because Mr. bill was likeable and she was and is not.
1. Travelgate - If I recall correctly she fired the entire travel staff, career civil servants. She fired them because she was "unhappy" with their performance.
2. Rose lawfirm issues - that was her lawfirm and they were her billing records.
3. Healthcare debacle - It was her face all over that one. One of the issues was that she didn't want to negotiate with a democratic controlled congress?
4. Whitehouse teas - I can't imagine Mr. bill sitting there sipping tea with donors without clinton II in the mix. Same thing with the lincoln bedroom. She was first lady and running the whitehouse, wasn't she?
5. White house papers - She and Mr. bill are refusing to disclose the papers from there administration. I don't think there is anything in them, but of course the republicans will make up all kinds of stuff and it won't be able to be rebutted because the papers are "secret."
I'm sure this only scratches the surface, because at my age the memory starts to fade. However, I am sure that the republicans will refresh it for me and the rest of the electorate.
Obama has handled each controversy like a champ and with class. He hasn't tried to hide the ball or play games. Clinton II has been acting like an amateur and will get hammered if she gets the nomination. She gets the nomination and dems lose big time.
I still don't understand what has been going on with her campaign. It is mindboggling. Dems actually think these keystone cops could beat the republican nominee in a general election? They keep shooting themselves in the foot. It is way tooo funny.
DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 10:30 AM:DemAC,
History says the "Big Red Slime Machine" does not in fact always work, but rather sometimes backfires. So, rejecting your unfounded assumption that the "Big red Slime Machine" will automatically be effective in this election is simply a matter of being well-informed about history.
Bupalos wrote on December 13, 2007 10:31 AM:I think this has crystallized things pretty well, especially the exchange between DTM and DemAC. For my money, democrats who tailor their choice based on fear of "Big Red" simply have a losing mentality. You guys just aren't used to being on top. The 'tards have horribly flawed candidates, every one, and we are romping. The only chance they have is the four corners stall-ball offense that Hillary represents.
DTM is exactly right. The Republicans are going to do what they do. The question is who does this kind of thing stick to and who does it roll off. And you can take your pick on that, but for my money, this is where likeability comes into play.
Honestly, after Clinton denying that this drug plant was deliberate (after stories are that the campaign was trying to push this for days before) coupled with the "negative innoculation" we talked about yesterday, I find her totally incredible. People don't trust her and don't believe her. How can you? She seems to be operating on the same level of plausible deniability as Bush, which we should start to call plausible plausible deniability, or "plausible" deniability. Your state chair just shot his mouth off. Right lady. Next.
For me, there are now only two viable republitards that would cause me to vote Hill. A Split government with McCain or Romney is a better option to me than her. McCain is no less liberal than she in ways, and Romney will be a weakling.
bupalos wrote on December 13, 2007 10:55 AM:"When people start listing legitimate complaints about her policies then maybe you'll make some sense, until then save the Jerry Springer comments."
O.K., how about calling raising the payroll tax ceiling on individual incomes over $100G a "trillion dollar tax increase on the middle class."
How about not understanding even now that the Iraq War authorization was a mistake?
How about going for Bush bait a second time by designating the Iranian military a terrorist organization?
How about prefering nothing to a compromise on Healthcare reform way back when?
She's a "my way or the highway" military hawk who's campaign just counselled her primary opponent to lie and obfuscate in fear of the Republican machine, who attacked him for pursuing handgun registration in the 90's, and who still can't give us a clear statement on torture.
That do it for you? You want to let me know what problem you have with Obama's issues, other than that he's "unelectable"-- which is apparently now a codeword for being too black and too honest?
Michael A wrote on December 13, 2007 11:07 AM:bupalos, the only point that I have been raising about the garbage and the slime machine is to anticipate the attacks. The way to defuse a line of attack is to get ahead of it and make it old news. Desensatize people to the problem. Obama has been doing that with the drug issue. Clinton II has been doing obama a favor by getting it in the news. I really don't think it will be an issue for him in the general. The republicans put a coke head in the white house, so what.
The problem with the dems is that they are not raising clinton II's garbage to desensatize the people. That's part of the purpose of primaries. To get all the info, good or bad, out there. People then get informed and make an informed decision. There has been no discussion at all in the media or the campaigns about all the garbage and drama of the clinton I years.
People are looking at clinton I through rose colored glasses and nobody is breaking them. I guarantee the republicans will and will have a field day if she gets the nomination. They want to refight the wars of the 90's as much as the clintons do. I don't.
DonnaG wrote on December 13, 2007 11:09 AM:Dawn [10:38pm],
Thanks for your comments. I believe it takes a certain inner strength to write as you did. You have my admiration.
What I sometimes do to try to gain perspective on a situation on the ground is to imagine that I am somewhere far away from the immediacy; sometimes, then, it seems possible to glimpse the whole instead of just the parts.
All of the 'parts' playing in this upcoming primary and general election scene are represented by candidates stressing their answers [and their individual strengths] to address the hot issues affecting America: immigration, war, taxation, economy, health care, climate change, religion in politics and so forth.
On the other hand, the 'whole' picture looks like a populace taking a deep collective breath from the exhaustion of not only struggling with those issues, but also from pitting themselves against other Americans on those issues. It is what I imagine Americans must have felt when the Civil War had raged for awhile: exhaustion and regret and deep alarm at what had come to pass, a country weakened by internal division.
The obvious difference between now and the time of the Civil War is not just that Americans aren't actually killing other Americans, but that, [except for the similarity to Civil War carpetbaggers] today's divided America has to deal with the reach of corporate powers in Washington and in the consolidated media who do benefit from the status quo of keeping Americans divided, as in 'divide and conquer'.
I think this fatique is very widespread. Edward's 'Two Americas' theme accurately depicts the economic picture, and his derisive treatment by the MSM reflects just how right-on are Edward's statements. Obama's message of unity really does resonate with a majority, and across the political spectrum, as well. Hillary's 'fighting spirit' conversely increases the extent of fatigue for too many.
Whatever happens in the next year, I believe many Americans will be voting for relief from divisiveness, whatever their positions on specific other issues.
Smith wrote on December 13, 2007 11:14 AM:To me the question isn't whether or not Obama will face a slime machine from Republicans if he gets the nomination. I've always assumed he would and I've always calculated that he would handle it better than any other Democratic candidate. My issue is the use of race baiting by a top Democrat. Part of why I am a Democrat is because Republicans campaign on racial fears, not Democrats. I don't think its a small deal at all. For me Hillary has crossed a crucial line.
Carl Nyberg wrote on December 13, 2007 1:55 PM:DemAC:
You seriously believe Obama to be more apt to take on the Rethugs in the General Election than Hillary Clinton??? Are you for real??? Or are you entirely new to politics???
From my perspective it looks like Obama is handling himself and his campaign better than HRC.
While you may want to give HRC a bunch of credit for taking blows as First Lady, fighting on the campaign trail is something different.
And at this Obama looks like the more skilled fighter on the campaign trail.
votenic wrote on December 13, 2007 5:09 PM:2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.
Carl Nyberg wrote: And at this Obama looks like the more skilled fighter on the campaign trail.Fighter? Whom has Obama had to fight when??? He has never once in his life stood up to the Big Red Slime Machine. You think this civil primary in Iowa is going to prepare him for the Rethug onslaught, should he capture the nomination? Dream on, buddy, dream on… DemAC wrote on December 14, 2007 4:22 AM:
Michael A and DTM,
You logic is skewed. Either old horse shit does count or it does not. If you seriously believe that the Rethugs cannot/will not do anything on Obama and drugs because it is old news and has been discussed ‘til death, OK you chose to believe that.
By the same logic then, as all the horse shit you Michael A remember has been discussed ‘til death, you obviously don’t expect the Rethugs do anything on Hillary Clinton and you old horse shit either.
Because if you do, you display a troubling double standard where, in your view, Obama somehow magically is immune to Rethug attacks when all other candidates are not.
Decide and move on.
络龙医疗健康搜索 wrote on December 25, 2007 7:44 AM:"I was against that remark before I was for it." I am so glad Clinton put this to bed fast. It made the kindergarten remark look moderately sane.
