Hillary Hits Obama In New Speech: "I've Heard A Lot Of Talk About Turning The Page"

Comments (133)

NCSteve wrote on December 3, 2007 4:09 PM:

Man, this is such a mistake it makes me almost cringe to watch her do it. As was noted on the front page, she's already lost Bob Reich.

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-is-hrc-stooping-so-low.html

But, hey, at least its now crystal clear who's been calling the shots on a lot of the posts we've been seeing from some of the commenters here.

jimijazz wrote on December 3, 2007 4:12 PM:

I've also heard a lot of talk from you Hillary. But I've yet to see any substance.

Keith wrote on December 3, 2007 4:15 PM:

Greg:

You should probably note Obama's response and fact checking on her claims (at least regarding the "present vote")-he's already addressed the Social Security/Health Care attacks.

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/03/fact_check_clintons_attack_on.php

johny wrote on December 3, 2007 4:19 PM:

After working so hard to improve her abysmal likability ratings, Hillary is singlehandedly tossing them in the trash.

And Robert Reich is right:
I’m becoming increasingly concerned about the stridency and inaccuracy of charges in Iowa -- especially coming from my old friend. While I’m as hard-boiled as they come about what’s said in campaigns, I just don’t think Dems should stoop to this. First, HRC attacked O's plan for keep Social Security solvent. Social Security doesn’t need a whole lot to keep it going – it’s in far better shape than Medicare – but everyone who’s looked at it agrees it will need bolstering (I was a trustee of the Social Security Trust Fund ten years ago, and I can vouch for this). Obama wants to do it by lifting the cap on the percent of income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, which strikes me as sensible. That cap is now close to $98,000 (it’s indexed), and the result is highly regressive. (Bill Gates satisfies his yearly Social Security obligations a few minutes past midnight on January 1 every year.) The cap doesn’t have to be lifted all that much to keep Social Security solvent – maybe to $115,00. That’s a progressive solution to the problem. HRC wants to refer Social Security to a commission. That's avoiding the issue, and it's irresponsible: A commission will likely call either for raising the retirement age (that’s what Greenspan’s Social Security commission came up with in the 1980s) or increasing the payroll tax on all Americans. So when HRC charges that Obama’s plan would “raise taxes” and her plan wouldn’t, she’s simply not telling the truth.

I’m equally concerned about her attack on his health care plan. She says his would insure fewer people than hers. I’ve compared the two plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama’s would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC’s. That’s because Obama’s puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who’s likely to need help – including all children and young adults up to 25 years old. Hers requires that everyone insure themselves. Yet we know from experience with mandated auto insurance – and we’re learning from what’s happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated – that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can’t afford to insure themselves even when they’re required to do so. HRC doesn’t indicate how she’d enforce her mandate, and I can’t find enough money in HRC’s plan to help all those who won’t be able to afford to buy it. I’m also impressed by the up-front investments in information technology in O’s plan, and the reinsurance mechanism for coping with the costs of catastrophic illness. HRC is far less specific on both counts. In short: They’re both advances, but O’s is the better of the two. HRC has no grounds for alleging that O’s would leave out 15 million people.

Jeremy wrote on December 3, 2007 4:21 PM:

Hillary still hasn't said how she'll enforce her mandate, right? Has she responded to Obama's point that his program is actually more affordable for the folks that currently don't have insurance? And speaking of Rep talking points, isn't the idea that people are uninsured because they choose not to be (and hence need to be forced by mandate to purchase insurance) rather than because of the high cost a Rep talking point?

Hillary is flipping out and completely failing to respond to anything on substance. She must really think that baseless attacks are "the fun part". Why can't she debate on policy?

dcshungu wrote on December 3, 2007 4:22 PM:

NCSteve wrote on December 3, 2007 4:09 PM:

Man, this is such a mistake it makes me almost cringe to watch her do it. As was noted on the front page, she's already lost Bob Reich.

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-is-hrc-stooping-so-low.html

But, hey, at least its now crystal clear who's been calling the shots on a lot of the posts we've been seeing from some of the commenters here.

The same diminutive Bob Reich who had turned against the Clintons after they had plucked him obscurity to the limelight of a vibrant administration in the 90s? Well, Good Riddance!

As for Hillary "drawing contrast" with Obama being a "mistake", don't count on it. They don't make such "mistakes" easily over there. It is calculated to trip Trippi's boy, who is prone to errors when challenged. They are trying to bury him and end this thing right there IA...really.

Anonymous wrote on December 3, 2007 4:22 PM:

Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War.

She can blabber all she wants about anything -- it won't bring all the people she's killed back to life.

Jan wrote on December 3, 2007 4:23 PM:

well, I'm a Clinton supporter and I can't stand Robert Reich so no great "loss" as far as I'm concerned.

Obama supporters, do you think Social Security is "in crisis"...? Or do you think that's a Republican talking point?
Do you think Obama should have been there for the Kyl-Lieberman vote? And, since he didn't bother staying for the vote, should he now be labelling it "a rush to war"?
When he calls Clinton "unelectable" is that a GOP talking point, a policy difference, or just a plain old personal attack?

Just curious.

zzlag@yahoo.com wrote on December 3, 2007 4:25 PM:

If she keeps this up her campeign might just implode to the point where she is not in the top three. Looking like a desperate mudslinger totaly destroys that inevitability meme she has been running on. It was a mistake from day one to run based on invincibility. It makes you look like you know "The Math".

DRinOH wrote on December 3, 2007 4:28 PM:

Anyone who reads these comments knows I'm an Obama supporter, but I disagree with you guys who think this is a mistake by Hillary. She's got to do something, and her talking points are pretty strong here. Also, at least with this one as opposed to earlier today, she's done a good job of sticking to policy differences and not calling out character, which would be a mistake.

I'm still upset with Barack for missing that Kyl-Lieberman vote. He's got no credibility for criticizing her on it now.

Tom wrote on December 3, 2007 4:29 PM:

I'd just LOVE someone to ask her how she feels about her vote on Lieberman/Kyl in light of today's NIE.

STFU, Hillary - you're the reigning queen of empty shirts.

Asthmatic wrote on December 3, 2007 4:38 PM:

DRinOH,

Obama was in NH on the morning the K/L vote was held. Do we have any evidence that he knew about it far enough in advance to fly back and vote?

colonpowwow wrote on December 3, 2007 4:39 PM:

NCSteve:

I didn't get my talking points e-mail from the Clinton campaign today - so what she said.

rssrai wrote on December 3, 2007 4:39 PM:

I think attacking ones character is mud slinging. Didn't Hillary accuse JRE of mud slinging when he talked about their policy differences? Hillary wants to have it both ways. Just like her husband, who was for the Iraq war and than says he was against it.

Jason wrote on December 3, 2007 4:41 PM:

It's great to finally see HRC in panic mode. I'm an Obama supporter who completely agrees with DRinOH - stunned that Obama missed that vote (Kyl-Lieberman).

dcshungu wrote on December 3, 2007 4:46 PM:

Obama supporters, do you think Social Security is "in crisis"...? Or do you think that's a Republican talking point?

I am no Obama supporter but I'll chime in anyway. Obama wants to "FIX" social security (SS). This is a fact. Even, Josh Marshall, the blogger who had led the progressive's assault on Bush's attempt to "fix" SS by privatizing it (he is doing his best to appear "neutral" but Obama is his man), had expressed "puzzlement" at Obama's desire to "fix" SS.

Don't take my word for it. Just ask Josh or I'll dig his post out of the archives for you.

Obama cannot deny that he has proposed to "fix" SS or that he had said that the UN is a "flawed" institution (echoes of the Georges: Bush and Will)...And this guy dares to call Hillary, a Dem with solid progressive record, a "Bush-lite"?

"Fixing" SS, that's Bush country!

colonpowwow wrote on December 3, 2007 4:47 PM:

Again, the Clinton campaign shows its superiority and experience. Timing is everything. Undoubtably, as we've all noticed, the internal polls showed Obama's and Edwards's attacks to be effective in narrowing the gap.

She waited until they "blew their wad," and she will now have the last word (attack if you will) and frame the issues around attacking their strengths as indicated by the polls.

Candidates running close always attack (I mean show the differences between) each other. Are the anti-Hillaries really that green?

Get ready to see a preview of what the GOP fodder is going to get.

Asthmatic wrote on December 3, 2007 4:49 PM:

If you don't think the GOP field will tear her to shreds with stuff like this, you are completely delusional.

FDR-RFKdem wrote on December 3, 2007 4:52 PM:

The bulk of this attack is clearly aimed at Obama rather than Edwards. In fact, notice that at the end of this speech she talks about what a fighter she is and how she'll stand up to drug companies and insurance companies to insure that healthcare legislation is passed. Not that this rhetoric is copyrighted, but it is worth noting that it is lifted from Edwards' speeches. Of course, it ignores the fact that she has taken more money from these companies she claims she'll stand up to than any other candidate, either democratic or republican. Can she bite the hand that feeds her?
I know everything in the mainstream media tends to center on Hillary and Barack, but a story in the NYT today notes that Edwards just won the endorsement of a key Iowa U.S. congressman. This is welcome news. Although it may be hard for out-of-staters to believe, but locally such an endorsement might even overshadow an Oprah or Barbra endorsement. Everyone seems to think that Edwards is on his last legs, but he is still in the "post position" in this race coming into the final lap and turn. I read on another blog that Ted Kennedy might be endorsing Obama. That might do Obama some good, but Kennedy endorsed Kerry and we all know how well that turned out for the democratic party in the general election. Take a look at the incredible speech Edwards gave at the DNC (http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/11/john_edwards.php) if you want to see how a strong, committed campaigner looks. He's Bill Clinton at his best without the baggage. If the past six years have taught us anything it is that Edwards' message that the democrats need a fighter to get their legislation passed is much more accurate than Barack Obama's wishful thinking about working collaboratively with entrenched special interests on big issues like healthcare or environmental policy, no matter how much his inspirational message about hope and a new politics resonates on an idealistic level. Just as an aside, I donated to Obama and had his sign in my yard, even did door to door for his Senate campaign. I would gladly do it again. However, having grown up in Oklahoma I firmly believe that with his rural and southern roots Edwards would be the strongest candidate for a true national campaign, ceding as few electoral states to the Republicans at the outset, and bringing the largest Democrat majorities to the Senate and House along with him. I hope he wins Iowa, for the sake of seeing real progressive policies enacted over the next four years.

anon wrote on December 3, 2007 4:53 PM:

Methinks after reading these remarks that little Ms. Hillary is feeling a tad insecure.

What I like the most about it is that she makes the utterly false claim that her character has been attacked. Out of all the falsehoods in her speech, this is by far the most egregious one.

I would love to see someone respond to her speech thusly:

No, Your Majesty, no one has attacked your character.

Your opponents have criticized your record of supporting an illegal, disasterous and pointless war. Your opponents have criticized your evasive, deceptive and sometimes contradictory responses to clear, direct questions. They have questioned your absurd claim of being the experienced candidate in the race even though your handful of years in the Senate hardly compares to the decades of unquestioned public service that people like Dodd, Biden, Richardson, and Kucinich have had as elected and appointed officials. They have criticized the cozy nature of the relationship between Your Highness and the defense industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the health insurance industry and other special interests that are financially pillaging and at times impoverishing average Americans and their families. While it is true that all of this does raise questions about the kind of person they are criticizing, they have not even come close to attacking your character. Their criticisms are all regarding legitimate issues and policies. Sadly, like our current terrible President, it is quite obvious that Your Majesty simply calls foul if anyone dares to question your position on anything no matter how bad the consequences for the American people. With any luck, the American people will be spared another such leader in you.

BlueDog wrote on December 3, 2007 4:53 PM:

Hillary supports, read the awesome new post on mydd in support of her cadidacy

http://mydd.com/story/2007/12/3/163255/921

Go Hillary!!! O-bomb-ah is going down

Keith wrote on December 3, 2007 4:54 PM:

Jan:

1A. Yes, Social Security does have a short-fall, no matter how you slice it. And Bill Clinton agrees (see below). And Senator Obama hasn't suggested that it the changes need be implemented in 2009.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/01/19/sotu.transcript/

1B. And the one adopting Republican talking points is your dear Senator Clinton.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/cda05-04.cfm

2. As for KLA, I'll direct you to the Congressional Record for September 25-26th. Short answer: it was tabled for the near future (Sept 25th); was still be considered (and not scheduled) during the morning session (Sept 26th); vote was announced at 12:14 (beginning of afternoon session) and held at 12:44 (see roll call)

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/07crpgs.html

If you don't want to bother scrolling through the Congressional Record (it takes awhile to load the pages), here's a blogger who follows the Senate closely:

http://cboldt.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_archive.html

3. As for unelectability, I guess it depends in large part whether you think the polling regarding her unfavorability is accurate. Some have it as high as 57%, but others have it lower 44%. But in any event, it's based on polling results more than a Republican talking point.

Keith wrote on December 3, 2007 4:57 PM:

Sorry for the typos.

Derek wrote on December 3, 2007 5:01 PM:

RE: Missed Vote

Congressional Record:

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. REID. Mr. Chairman, there will be no more votes tonight. We have tried to work something out on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment and the Biden amendment. We have been unable to do that.

We have been very close a few times, but we have just been informed that Senator Biden will not have a vote anytime in the near future. [b]There will not be a vote on the other one anytime in the near future.[/b] We hope tonight will bring more clearness on the issue.

But right now, I think it is fair to say there will be no votes tonight.

Does the Senator from South Dakota have any comments?

Mr. THUNE. No, I do not. I would say to the leader, that is good for our Members to know. We have Members who have been inquiring whether they will be able to vote.

The next morning, Sept. 26th, opening announcment of daily proceedings:

Mr. REID. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will conduct morning business, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two sides, with the majority controlling the first half hour.

We are working hard to come up with an agreement on how we can dispose of the Biden and Kyl amendments. We were very close to being there several times yesterday, but we are still not there. Once we reach an agreement, Members will be notified of when the votes will occur.

The vote was brought up shortly after that.

LJ wrote on December 3, 2007 5:04 PM:

I'm still upset with Barack for missing that Kyl-Lieberman vote. He's got no credibility for criticizing her on it now.

I'm still upset with Hillary for making that Iraq War vote. She's got no credibility for criticizing the war now.

wes2 wrote on December 3, 2007 5:05 PM:

Why is it that when Edwards criticized Hillary, everyone tutted, wrung their hands, and spouted conventional wisdom about how badly negative campaigning is received in Iowa, but when Hillary does it, conventional wisdom seems to take a vacation?

Jim H wrote on December 3, 2007 5:12 PM:

Criticizing somebody's record, or stance on the issues, is perfectly all right. Going after the front runner is perfectly all right. Welcome to first place in Iowa, Barack!

It does depend on the terms of your criticism. Criticizing Hillary from the right and pretending to be on the left is called triangulation, and Obama's been doing it like crazy.

As for fighting back being a mistake, what do you mean, it's unladylike?

hwc wrote on December 3, 2007 5:21 PM:

Obama was in NH on the morning the K/L vote was held. Do we have any evidence that he knew about it far enough in advance to fly back and vote?

Yes. The original Kyl-Lieberman was scheduled for a vote on a Tuesday. The Democratic leadership, including Clinton, disagreed with the language and worked on Tuesday night to change the resolution. The revised resolution came to a vote on Wednesday.

I checked Obama's schedule and votes. He was not in the Senate all week that week. He missed votes on Monday. He was not there on Tuesday when K-L was scheduled. He was not there for the negotiations on Tuesday night. And, he was not there on Wednesday for the vote. Just like he ducked the moveon.org vote, even though he was in the building and voted on a different matter an hour later.

Obama never had any intention of voting on Kyl-Lieberman because he knew voting would require taking a tough stand.

A President can't vote "present".

BernieO wrote on December 3, 2007 5:22 PM:

Grow up about the Iraq War Resolution already! Did you not want the inspectors to go back into Iraq? Do you think they would have been allowed by Saddam if the resolution had not passed? Read the actual text and you will see that it authorized war as a last resort. This is how diplomacy works, folks. No threat of force, no agreement. Just look at North Korea. Surely no one believes that they would have agree to stop their nuclear program if they weren't afraid of us.

As for the Republicans tearing Hillary up, did you all sleep through the last two elections?! They will tear up any Democratic candidate (See: Gore is a liar, Kerry lied about his war record, etc.) until we stop allowing it. Whoever is the candidate, they will be slimed by the well financed right wing smear machine and the media will go along with them.

Frog Leg wrote on December 3, 2007 5:24 PM:

I love the small of fresh desperation in early December. So virulent, so strong, to be so short-lived.

AlwaysTiptheWaitress wrote on December 3, 2007 5:24 PM:

Okay. This speech made me mad. As I said, all candidates should attack and criticize each other's positions. Fair is fair, but the Kyl-Liberman "Obama didn't bother to show up" canard is driving me nuts. I was upset about this and investigated why Obama did not vote. Anyone who researched this knows the vote time was changed and he had no time to get back to Washington. Senator Clinton only puts me off when her people feed us this c***
. The trouble is that in the age of the internet it is very easy for any sentient being to find out what the truth is. I still am making up my mind but leaning toward Obama. This just might drive me to taking out my check book and send him a check .Insult each other. Insult yourself. But don't insult my intelligence.

stemper wrote on December 3, 2007 5:28 PM:

I'm also curious about the Obama supporters' views on his votes earlier this year to continue Iraq war funding.

Brad Burklow wrote on December 3, 2007 5:28 PM:

Did you see where the psychos at HRC Inc were pointing to Obama's kindergarten essay as proof of his early ambition to become president? What a bunch of jerks. Hillary implies she has "walked the walk" while Obama has only "talked the talk". Which category would you put her vote to authorize the Iraq war in? Seems like in what was the most important vote of her senate career, she was "walking the walk" of GW, Dick Cheney and the Neocons while Obama was unequivocally opposing it. That's basically as much contrast as I need to cast my vote.

colonpowwow wrote on December 3, 2007 5:30 PM:

It's a riot to watch all of the posters who have been raving that Hillary is "Bush-Lite" "in the pocket of the corporations" "is responsible for the Iraq War," etc. now complain that it's UNFAIR to criticize Saint Barry for missing the vote (he did, you know) on Kyl-Lieberman.

Boo friggin' Hoo.

keith wrote on December 3, 2007 5:32 PM:

HWC:

Can you provide a source that says he wasn't in the Senate prepared to vote on the 25th? There were NO votes on the 25th and his Senate schedule isn't public.

stlounick wrote on December 3, 2007 5:33 PM:

Ah, the campaign has finally begun with Senator Clinton joining the fray. Good for her!

Forecast: Hillary will soon drop the SS nonsense because it has no traction--it is AMERICAN to want SS in as good health as possible, it is not left or right or polka-dot. If Hillary wants to attack on Iran, then she better be prepared for a response that answers Iran and includes Iraq. And for being ambitious, what a lot of nonsense--are we now to count the years, months and days against some undetermined scale to see if someone has wanted to be Prez for "too long"? Again, no traction.

middlepath wrote on December 3, 2007 5:34 PM:

The wording of Senator Clinton’s criticism of Barack Obama on Social Security is telling and dismaying: “Now he says he is for lifting the payroll tax, which would be a trillion dollar tax increase. Again, I disagree. I don’t think we should fix Social Security on the backs of our seniors and the middle class.” Although I agree that Obama is making too much of a Social Security crisis, and Senator Clinton has a point in suggesting that imposing the payroll tax on all income above the 97,500 dollar cap might impose greater hardship on those earning between perhaps 100,000 to 250.000 dollars annually, Obama was correct in saying that only about six percent of the population earn more than 100,000 annually and that extending the payroll tax in this manner to preserve the long-term financial solvency of social security cannot be considered a tax on middle class Americans. Clinton’s language on this issue, and her suggestion that it will fall primarily on the backs of “our seniors and middle class” is disingenuous and actually sounds like the most devious of Republican talking points whenever a Democrat proposes that social programs that benefit people actually require revenue. Would she now also say that restoring the estate tax (which affects only about the top two percent of individual estates in the United States I believe) is a trillion dollar tax increase? We know the Republicans will.
By the way, in a recent speech in Davenport, Iowa, John Edwards addressed this issue by noting that it would be fair to ask individuals with high incomes to pay a portion of it in for the Social Security payroll deduction (consistent with his general emphasis on the idea that income from inheritances or investments should be taxed at the same rate as that of ordinary wages), but that he would consider the idea of keeping a window open for exempting taxes on the income from about 97,500 to around 200,000. Sounds like reasonable proposal.

hwc wrote on December 3, 2007 5:35 PM:

Derek:

The problem is that Obama wasn't in the Senate on Tueday, the day you quote, either. Nor on Monday before that. He never had any intention of participating in the K-L discussions, nor voting on it.

After all, K-L was tough vote. Why bother showing up just to say "present".

NCSteve wrote on December 3, 2007 5:36 PM:

Oh, Colon, I know you're not on the mailing list for Big Sister's Order of the Day. I can tell because sometimes you make sense.

For what its worth, I think her real mistake was explicitly embracing the "inevitability" thing back at the end of September when she pulled her Sunday show stunt and began acting like her opponents' were so over she could start her general election campaign. It was not an irrational play, and kind of gutsy, in a hubristic kind of way, in that the idea was to bury Obama and Edwards by the end of October.

The danger was that it left her with nowhere to go if she started tanking. Do nothing, and her campaign gets labelled walnut-brained dinosaur lumbering toward the tarpits ala Bush I in 92. Go on the attack and she risks being labelled panicky and desperate. So yeah, it was wrong of me to call this the mistake. What it really is is the consequence of a colossal blunder she made two months ago.

Frankly, of the two poor options she has, a display of unruffled unconcern over a predictable tightening of the race ("pish posh, that's why we ran up the lead before the half, you silly media people") would have served her better. Unfortunately for her, things are unfolding in a way guarenteed to bring out the worst in her personally and the top echelon of her campaign.

I've suspected for months that Penn's internal polling showed this potential trend weeks ago (and I've said so here, thank you very much). I think they were totally suprised by it when it surfaced but hoped it wouldn't actually translate into a real trend. Now that its happening and the externals are catching up, they are, in fact, in a state of panic so they're gone with the Full Rove: attack the other guy on his strengths and your weaknesses. The two flaws to this plan are a) these are attentive Democratic primary voters they're trying to run the Rove on, not a bunch of half-engaged DINO's and GDI's who get 100% their news from the Today Show, and b) they risk showing Hillary at her absolute worst.

The one place they absolutely cannot go is "shrill harpy." It reminds people of every negative association they have with her personally and with Clinton War I in general. Now, not only has that side of her been unleashed, her top advisors are enabling rather than protecting her and the one guy in her circle who might have the political instincts to see its a mistake, Bill, is apparently in the doghouse right now over that bizarre "I was against the Iraq war" cock-up.

Keith wrote on December 3, 2007 5:40 PM:

She's in right to criticize him. He missed the vote. What raises my ire, though, is her suggestion that he missed it because he was ducking a tough vote.

She knows WHY he missed, just like she knows WHY John McCain missed it (he co-sponsored KLA as well). It happens (missing votes) when you are running for president (All of the Senate candidates have missed over of 60% of the roll call votes(Obama, though, is leading the pack by healthy margin)).

If that's all she's got though, I'm not going to get too exercised about it.

colonpowwow wrote on December 3, 2007 5:42 PM:

It's too bad Barry wasn't available to go on the record for the Iraq Authorization vote. Not present, I guess.

However, since he's been in the Senate, he's voted in lockstep with the evil warmongerette herself - when he's shown up to vote anyway.

DTM wrote on December 3, 2007 5:44 PM:

As I noted before, I'm sure she is aware this is likely to hurt her in Iowa. I think the calculation is that she can survive an Iowa loss as long as Obama doesn't win, so this is an attempted murder-suicide.

Frankly, it may not even be about keeping him from winning. It may just be about keeping him close.

Jeremy wrote on December 3, 2007 5:46 PM:

I'd just LOVE someone to ask her how she feels about her vote on Lieberman/Kyl in light of today's NIE.

Hillary doesn't base her judgments off of those. LJ wrote on December 3, 2007 5:47 PM:

Jan wrote:

Obama supporters, do you think Social Security is "in crisis"...? Or do you think that's a Republican talking point?

I think Social Security starts paying out more than it takes in around 2017. I think Obama has said he would be open to raising the cap on the 6% of rich Americans who make more than $98,000 a year. I think Hillary has dodged the question of what she would do, other than wanting to form a commision to study the problem. No word on why she wants to form a commision to study the problem if she thinks none exists.

To actually learn about Barack Obama's position on social security:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/seniorsFactSheet.pdf

Jan wrote:

Do you think Obama should have been there for the Kyl-Lieberman vote?

Scheduling shenanigans, as others have pointed out here. The well informed already know the missed vote angle is nonesense.

And, since he didn't bother staying for the vote, should he now be labelling it "a rush to war"?

It consistently amuses me that Hillary supporters want to vilify Obama for missing this vote yet have no problem with Hillary showing up for the Iraq War vote and voting wrong. Which is the bigger sin? How many people have died as the result of Hillary's yes vote? How many have died from Obama's missed vote?

When he calls Clinton "unelectable" is that a GOP talking point, a policy difference, or just a plain old personal attack?

While I'm sure it's fun to vacuously run around labeling everything you don't want to hear a "Republican talking point", there is actually polling that suggests Hillary does have some electability problems.

Just curious.

Actually, you're not curious at all. You blindly support Hillary and are not at all curious to learn the actual positions of the other candidates.

NCSteve wrote on December 3, 2007 5:51 PM:

Okay, Colon, that part where I said you sometimes make sense? Not so much when you're playing the "he missed the KL vote" cheapshot game. And also not when you're playing and the "he's voting in lockstep with her on Iraq" game. She's the one who's care in ensuring there's no daylight between them on Iraq votes has been much noted an ballyhooed as evidence of the Infallible Political Instincts that are driving her Practically Perfect in Every Way Campaign.

Keith wrote on December 3, 2007 5:52 PM:

Colonpowwow:

Here's your answer on his votes for war funding (from Meet the Press):

SEN. OBAMA: I, I, I disagree with that. You know, throughout I was a constant critic. The first hearing that I had was with Condoleezza Rice in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This was a few months after I had been sworn in as senator. And I told her at that point, we need to wind this war down. It is true that my preference would not be to end this war simply by cutting off funding. My preference would be for the president to recognize that we needed to change course, and that was what I continually pushed for. At the point where we realized the president was not willing to change course, I put forward a very clear timetable for when we should remove our troops. And, when that was vetoed, I then suggested that the only way to get the president to the table to negotiate how we’re going to move in a different direction in Iraq is by not giving him a blank check when it comes to funding.

But, look, throughout this process my views have been consistent. The question has been, given the situation on the ground, how can I be most constructive not in scoring political points, but making sure that we have the best possible outcome after what I considered to be a tragic strategic mistake in the region.

MR. RUSSERT: But you have changed in your support now of withdrawal. You have changed now in your support of cutting off funding.

SEN. OBAMA: But I haven’t changed in my opposition to the war. Look, you know, at the time when we were trying to convene a government in Iraq that would work, it was important, I think, for me and others who opposed the war to hope for the best possible outcome in Iraq. You know, I’ve never rooted against success in Iraq, I’ve just been skeptical that this was the right approach for us to take. I have also been very clear throughout about why this was such a strategic mistake. The president now is talking about the grave threat that Iran faces, and he’s absolutely right that Iran is a serious threat if they develop nuclear weapons, their support of Hezbollah and Hamas. The biggest beneficiary of our invasion of Iraq has been Iran. And it gives some sense of why we’ve got to have a president in the Oval Office who’s making decisions not based on ideology, but based on knowledge of the region, based on the players that are involved, based on what’s good for our long-term national security. And that’s something that I believe I can provide as president.

Jan wrote on December 3, 2007 5:52 PM:

Asthmatic wrote on December 3, 2007 4:49 PM: "If you don't think the GOP field will tear her to shreds with stuff like this, you are completely delusional."

Well, I may be completely delusional, but personally I think Hillary Clinton is going to rip the entire Republican field a new hiney. She doesn't take a lot of crap from anyone, in case you haven't noticed... and crap is all that Rudy and Romney serve up.

McCain?
The GOP field is busy ripping HIM to shreds over immigration, torture, and campaign finance reform.

No, I don't think the GOP field has a snowball's chance in hell of ripping Senator Clinton to shreds.

Peggy Bruce wrote on December 3, 2007 5:56 PM:

Does anyone really think that she deserves to be President? Would you trust the country to Laura Bush also?

She is a polarizing, political creature driven by polls. She has no soul, spine or ability to lead.

How anyone could think she is capable of leading the country is beyond me.

colonpowwow wrote on December 3, 2007 6:03 PM:

NCSteve:

Sorry. I do get carried away sometimes. Unfortunately, people sometimes actually mischaracterize things like Kyl-Lieberman, you know, like the import of the bill re leading us to war with Iran and missing the vote, but with a good excuse.

Does that make any sense? I have a headcold today, didn't get my memo, my dog, Hillary, is getting feisty, nothing is going right.

MarkL wrote on December 3, 2007 6:08 PM:

I think this is a very strong statement from Hillary. I agree with every major point.

colonpowwow wrote on December 3, 2007 6:10 PM:

Hey!

Picture this!

After Obama wins the nomination, it's time for his acceptance speech

He runs on stage, salutes and says,

"Senator Obama - Present and reporting for duty!"

acf wrote on December 3, 2007 6:12 PM:

Robert Reich walked away from the Clinton administration because it was not liberal enough for him. Bill Clinton offered little or no support for Reich when he ran for governor of MA a few years ago. It's no surprise that he has harsh words for the Hillary Clinton campaign. As for the Clinton attacks, just remember the old axiom, always attack up, never down. In this case, polls show her trailing Obama, there she attacks to try and change the dynamic. If you recall, a week or so ago, it was Obama that was doing the attacking. What about the attacks, have they been vetted for accuracy, not emotion?

DTM wrote on December 3, 2007 6:24 PM:

acf,

Actually, for the most part it has been Edwards doing the attacking on Clinton. Clinton has been attacking Obama rather than Edwards, however, and Obama has been counter-punching more than trying to push attacks.

All of which does make sense, however, based on their perceived electoral position.

Bill McD wrote on December 3, 2007 6:24 PM:

A President can't vote "present".

Sure they can. They don't speak on an issue, don't address it, and then let the bill sit in a drawer for the pocket veto until it expires.

Please. It's a nice sound bite, but it's patently false.

Keith wrote on December 3, 2007 6:42 PM:

Obama has more to say:

"Here's what I know,” Obama said. “Over the last couple of days, she has cited the supposed memories of my kindergarten teacher about my presidential aspirations. That is the level of silliness we've been hearing out of Senator Clinton and her campaign. I don't think that's what the people of Iowa are looking for right now."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/03/494595.aspx

BlueDog wrote on December 3, 2007 6:46 PM:

Cato Calin will have a better chance of getting elected than Barry after Hillary is done with him. Go Hillary!!! Speak truth to phoniness.

TruthSeeker wrote on December 3, 2007 6:58 PM:

If you want to know the truth on missed Senate votes:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/

http://mediamatters.org/items/200711020015

Why do people quote and believe in information that has been thoroughly debunked? Why do people omit important details in their "analyses" here? With information so readily available via the net... Ignorance can no longer be bliss.

john mccutchen wrote on December 3, 2007 6:59 PM:

Running scared now

DTM wrote on December 3, 2007 7:01 PM:

Keith,

That of course is the problem with throwing everything you can think of to see what sticks. Some of the stuff that doesn't stick can be used to make you look silly.

john mccutchen wrote on December 3, 2007 7:12 PM:

"I'm not interested in attacking my opponents, I'm interested in attacking the problems of America..."
Hillary Clinton, 11/10/07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNoc0tKeXOQ

Help track Clinton slime
http://hillaryattacks.barackobama.com/

savvy wrote on December 3, 2007 7:16 PM:

Jan
I think the point you are glossing over is that Hillary's vote FOR the KL amendment does not change by Barack missing the vote.

You see it is her judgment that is being questioned, not whether Barack was there for the vote. So no matter how much you bring up he missed the vote it does not change her judgment on HOW she voted. That is on Hillary. Which is why HOW she voted is fair game as it goes directly to her judgment.

People accept that Barack missed the vote and they know how Hillary is now manuevering in that she purposefully waits to see how Barack will vote to blur their differences. In short, she does not vote on principle she votes for the political gain. That is the huge difference and the crux of the issue. People see Barack as being principled and they see Hillary as being calculating and doing whatever is politial expedient. That dynamic is not changed by bringing up that Barack missed the vote.

Barack still has the moral high ground in describing it as a rush to war because he is not the one who decides how Hillary should vote, if she is principled in opposing the war as he has been and as his track record of judgment on this issue shows him ..his record shows consistency...hers does not.

No matter how many issues Obama steps out on and takes a leadership role Hillary fails to do so, she only votes with Barack when she views it as a political gain. When left to her own devices she votes in a manner that is political expedient. That is why he has the moral high ground.

While you accuse Barack of using GOP talking points,I am unaware of Barack having made a statement that Hillary is unelectable. Do you have a quote from him that asserts such?

The key issue here is that Barack has been consistent on the issues and Hillary has not. She is engaged in doubletalk and waffling on issues because she 'shifted' to the general election mode without any votes being casted because she believed that she was inevitable. She told Couric that she WOULD be the nominee. Where does such certainty come from? What is that based on? It sounds like hubris.

So yes, Barack missed the vote but how does that change HER judgment?

That is the core issue and that is why Hillary attacking Barack on the integrity and honesty does not wash.

At the end of the day..she made her decisions and that decision is consistent with more war. Hillayr proclaims that she wants to fight the GOP.

America is TIRED of that. We want a leader not a fighter. We have learned over the last 8 years that fighting is not the answer. We need to build consensus in order for this nation to move forward. We want to work for progress not further partisan bickering.

Will the GOP relent, no. But if fighting is the only options they have proved they will fight forever. We want to build consensus not re-fight the 90s.

Folks want progress and only leadership will bring that...not how well someone knows how to fight.

Leadership, principles, and integrity is the key...not continued partisian bickering.

dcshungu wrote on December 3, 2007 7:31 PM:

Okay. This speech made me mad. As I said, all candidates should attack and criticize each other's positions. Fair is fair, but the Kyl-Liberman "Obama didn't bother to show up" canard is driving me nuts. I was upset about this and investigated why Obama did not vote. Anyone who researched this knows the vote time was changed and he had no time to get back to Washington. Senator Clinton only puts me off when her people feed us this c***
AlwaysTiptheWaitress wrote on December 3, 2007 5:24 PM:
The trouble is that in the age of the internet it is very easy for any sentient being to find out what the truth is. I still am making up my mind but leaning toward Obama. This just might drive me to taking out my check book and send him a check .Insult each other. Insult yourself. But don't insult my intelligence.

Well save your money or send it to someone who is worth it. Even if you give Obama the benefit of the doubt that he could not make it back to DC for the K-L vote consider the following:

(1) Obama never took the senate floor during the K-L debate to express his "opposition" to it.
(2) That same night, there was a debate in NH dring which the issue of K-L came up, but Obama kept silent.
(3) The most objectionable provision in K-L is that it would declare the Iran Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization, which some (Sen Webb) had argued was a back door to allow Bush to invade Iran. But guess what? Obama had co-sponsored a bill earlier that had, in fact, urged the secretary of state to declare the IRGs a terrorist organization!

You put all together and you come away with the unshakeable realization that Obama had no intention of voting on K-L. He'd ducked the vote because he knew that it would be politcally sticky for him. But then after ducking the vote, he turned around and slammed Clinton - who'd bothered to show up and vote her conscience - for her "yea" vote on the bill! Is this the sort of "upstanding", "new kind of politician" you would like to send your money too? Please be my guest... The guy just thinks that those who have been supporting him so fervently are just a bunch of dope heads, who cannot see through his mendacity (he might have a point)!

If anyone is insulting your intelligence, it is Obama!

The "Audacity of Dope", indeed, and the dope, that is you...

AlwaysTiptheWaitress wrote on December 3, 2007 7:52 PM:

FLASH. It just came over the internet. Obama definitely is a panderer who cannot be trusted by decent people.
He brought an APPLE to his first grade teacher!!! Ah. Always seeking to make himself look better than the nice, polite girl in the front row.

Can we stop this silliness.

dajafi wrote on December 3, 2007 7:52 PM:

On both the Iraq AUMF and Kyl-Lieberman, Senator Clinton shows herself to be one of three things:

1) a warmonger--like Lieberman, who at least is utterly sincere and transparent in his desire to bring the swift sword of military might down on the heads of Muslims, and whoever else is in the kill zone

2) a naif--if she seriously thought that the war-addled nut jobs in the Bush administration would use the authorization to avoid rather than pursue war.

(N.B. "Experience" ain't worth much if the judgment it informs is as bad as hers seems to be)

3) a cynic/hypocrite--she cast the vote because she figured it would burnish her "toughness" credentials with the DC Kool Kidz

My guess is #3. Traumatized by the conservative ascendancy in which they politically came of age, the Clintons are the sort of politicians who believe that war is always good politics. They're very, very brave when it comes to spending other peoples' lives and the public treasury.

The cowardice only comes when they're faced with the prospect of getting slammed as "appeasers" by Serious People like David Broder, Chris Matthews and Tim Russert--the establishment whose blessings they crave all the more for the fact that the Broder crowd spurned them 15 years ago.

This sort of "leadership"--informed by politics rather than principle--is the very last thing our country needs after eight years of Bush.

MikeB wrote on December 3, 2007 7:53 PM:

What, Hillary is supposed to stay quiet and smile while Obama the Pure lies and lies and lies some more?

Obama has presented a fraudulent image of himself to the voters throughout the campaing. Everybody has treated him with kid gloves.

According to the Obama version he is a living saint. He didn't want to run for president. He was dragged kicking and screaming. He has no personal ambition. Unlike the calculating, scheming, ruthless Hillary. No, Obama is pure as the driven snow. He has never cut dirty deals. He has always voted his conscience. He doesn't calculate. Sure kept voting "present" when faced with difficult votes but that doesn't mean anything. The guy is principled. Not like those other politicians.

Eventually somebody will expose Obama for the fraud that he is. If Democrats are lucky it will happen during the primaries. If it happens during the general election the GOP will slice and dice him and the media which seems to like him so much now will join in the lynching.

colonpowwow wrote on December 3, 2007 7:53 PM:

Just the thing to combat the wimping-out factor. Put up a "Hillary is calling me names.com" web site.

LOL

dcshungu wrote on December 3, 2007 7:57 PM:

savvy wrote on December 3, 2007 7:16 PM: You see it is her judgment that is being questioned, not whether Barack was there for the vote.

How "Savvy"...

Hillary might have shown "bad" judgment on the largely ceremonial and non-binding K-L bill, but Obama showed no judgment at all, and this is part of pattern.

If voting "yea" on the ceremonial K-L was the epitome of "bad judgment", how can you reconcile the fact Sens. Durbin (who is supporting Obama) and Levin, who had voted AGAINST the Iraq war authorization bill and were pointed to as the epitomes of "good" judgement, had vote FOR the K-L bill? Don't you see the simplistic nature of your notion of "good" and "bad" judgment?

Obama has not taken a stand on anything that has mattered. He claims to have opposed the Iraq war bill when he was in no position to vote for or against it, but then when he had the opportunity to substantively express his purported "opposition" to that war, he repeatedly voted to give GWB blank checks to perpetuate the war.

He now wants to "fix" social security, is pushing a health care plan that would leave some 15 million Americans uninsured, and is calling the U.N. a "flawed" organization. Where is the difference between Obama and GWB? BTW, with such a high regard for the UN, do you think Obama would have voted to give the UN Inspectors a chance to complete their work in Iraq? Think again! This guy would have sided with Bush, despite his claims to have "opposed" the war.

I have no idea what Obama stands for really, besides spewing sophomoric verbiage about how he is going to change Washington, without spelling out just how he would do it. The disconcerting thing is that so many have been taken in by empyu rhetoric! Remember, GWB was going to be a "uniter and not a divider" and look at what we got! The only thing that is driving Obama is pure blind ambition. Anyone who writes two autobiographies before age 45 is certifiably full himself!

MikeB wrote on December 3, 2007 8:06 PM:

"We want a leader not a fighter."

To be a leader you have to be a fighter.

I look at Obama and see a weakling who has never been tested in life. In the state legislature when faced with a tough vote he always ducked and voted "present". In the senate whenever there is a tough vote he disappears.

You can't be a leader repeating "lets hold hands and lets all get along" slogans. You must be willing to fight and offend.

If Obama became the Dem nominee the GOP would eat him alive. He won't know what hit him. So far he has had fawning coverage from the corporate media because they hate the Clintons and the GOP has left him alone. If he became the nominee the Right Wing Noise Machine would descend on him. He has never faced that kind of blitz krieg in his life. He would fold like a cardboard.

Sorry, I want a fighter. I don't want to hold hands with the GOP and sing kumbaya.

Lis wrote on December 3, 2007 8:11 PM:

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/

Who says the man is too inexperienced?

wes2 wrote on December 3, 2007 8:14 PM:

Since we're back in KLA land, does anyone know if Obama will change his stance on declaring the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization now that the nuclear threat has been downgraded? That was his rationale, wasn't it? I'd be very impressed if he responded somehow.

readyfortherenewal wrote on December 3, 2007 8:17 PM:

Are the Hillary/Obama altercations beginning to get to you? Need a break? Paul Krugman wrote a column a few months ago counseling us to look at a candidate's positions on policy issues to see where that person was likely to try to take the nation. Take a look at Edward's carefully considered and progressive policy positions (e.g. his healthcare plan the covers all and preceded Clinton's simulacrum by months, his strong support for workers' rights and recognition that NAFTA has been a colossal failure, etc.). Now take a look at his riveting speech at the DNC (http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/11/john_edwards.php) to see what a candidate willing to passionately fight for those policies sounds like. Kevin Phillips for many years has pointed out that the Democrats seem to lack the will to boldly confront Republican economic and social policies. Take a look at Edwards to see the alternative.

Anonymous wrote on December 3, 2007 8:17 PM:

If Obama gets the nomination Dems will suffer a McGovern scale defeat.

This guy was in the state legislature 2 years ago where he consistently voted "present" to avoid making hard decisions.

He arrived in Washington, unpacked his bags and started running for president. He has never been tested in his entire life. To say elect me president because of my experience as community organizer or foreign policy expertise gained living overseas as a 5 year old is laughable. The guy is not qualified for the job. He is even less qualified than Bush was in 2000 because at least Bush had national political experience through his father.

If he becomes the nominee the GOP will tar and feather him. The media will join in the fun. Maureen Dowds and Frank Richs who are fawning over him will join in the lynching. He will lose on a catastrophic scale.

Obama is a goldmine for GOP negative ads. His statement about meeting foreign dictators alone will launch a dozen ads. I can see pictures of him and Ahmedinejad in ads.

Anonymous wrote on December 3, 2007 8:18 PM:

DRinOH said "Anyone who reads these comments knows I'm an Obama supporter, but I disagree with you guys who think this is a mistake by Hillary."

No, sorry DRinOH, I don't know who you support. All I know is that one tactic used all day every day by Hillary lovers is to say, "I don't like Hillary, but she sure was impressive when she said..."

Get real. No one falls that stuff.

Jim Martin wrote on December 3, 2007 8:20 PM:

dcshungu wrote on December 3, 2007 4:22 PM:

NCSteve wrote on December 3, 2007 4:09 PM:

Man, this is such a mistake it makes me almost cringe to watch her do it. As was noted on the front page, she's already lost Bob Reich.

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-is-hrc-stooping-so-low.html

But, hey, at least its now crystal clear who's been calling the shots on a lot of the posts we've been seeing from some of the commenters here.

The same diminutive Bob Reich who had turned against the Clintons after they had plucked him obscurity to the limelight of a vibrant administration in the 90s? Well, Good Riddance!

Robert Reich posts some criticism of Clinton.

dcshungu's immediate response is to mount an ad hominem attack on Robert Reich.

QED.

Again.

MikeB wrote on December 3, 2007 8:22 PM:

"but Obama showed no judgment at all, and this is part of pattern."

His pattern is to avoid confrontation.

He thinks the day he is inaugurated the Right Wing Noise Machine will go out of business. Rush/FOX/WSJ will say gee what a nice guy, lets give him a break for the good of the country. Republicans in Congress will give him a hug. Polarization will end. Politics as we know it will come to an end. People will agree on all big contentious issues. It will be like an Oprah show.

Sad thing is there are fools who buy this bs.

Anonymous wrote on December 3, 2007 8:24 PM:

colonpowwow said: "Again, the Clinton campaign shows its superiority and experience."

That is too hilarious for words. The Clinton campaign is in an absolute panic. There internal polls show huge declines, Bill is doing more harm than good, and Hillary only has three settings: SPIN, CACKLE, ATTACK.

Someone who knows her well long ago said:
"Hillary doesn't know the difference between being tough and being mean. She's really mean."

And the voters and the world as seeing the real Hillary show her teeth. Once again she's also showing that she gets terrible advice and has severely flawed judgment. This is superiority and experience at work? Make me laugh.

Concerned in Iowa wrote on December 3, 2007 8:32 PM:

BernieO said "Grow up about the Iraq War Resolution already! Did you not want the inspectors to go back into Iraq?Do you think they would have been allowed by Saddam if the resolution had not passed? Read the actual text and you will see that it authorized war as a last resort."

What triggered the last resort BernieO? Saddam had no WMD, the inspectors said he had no WMD, Bush said disarm or we attack. How could Saddam disarm?

Hillary Clinton voted for war in Iraq as a cacluation it would make her look stronger as a presidential candidate. PERIOD. She never looked at the intelligence reports, she never considered the cost in lives, dollars and American prestige... it was all about Hillary. What a horrible judgement she and her advisors made, enabling the worst foreign policy disaster in American history. We simply can't have more of that type of flawed judgment in the White House.

Iraq wasn't one vote, it was a test of leadership and judgment that Hillary failed BIG TIME!

savvy wrote on December 3, 2007 8:33 PM:

Leaders are principled they have the courage of conviction they need not fight to stand on conviction. They simply have to take a stand and work to build consensus on that view.

Hillary simply fights. Just as she is doing here. She is not standing on principle she is simply picking a fight because she is behind in the polls. Her only principle is that she is not winning. That is not principled.

Obama takes a stand and is consistent. He opposed this war and he still opposes it. He believes health care being affordable is the issue and he has a plan that addresses affordability. He knows that mandates do not address affordability. He knows that we need a new strategy in Iraq and he stands on that.

Hillary equivocates and wavers on everything. She takes a stand on nothing and votes for what is politically expedient. That is not leadership. Leadership is taking a stand and showing why that view is important and why there should not be compromise on those values and principles. Hillary claims that health care is important but she capitulates to the insurance industry by MANDATING it? That is not progress it is catering to the lobbyists that donate to her campaign. It is unprincipled and does not address the needs of millions of Americans who cannot AFFORD healthcare. Her mandating them to purchase what they cannot afford does NOT address the core issue.

Hillary does not stand against war she capitulates to fighting Iran and keeping our troop levels up to fight Iran despite the NIE report showing Iran is 20 years away from being a nuclear threat. That is unprincipled. She wavers based on the polls.

We need leadership not fighters. You must understand that war is nothing but the continuation of politics by other means. If you win the war and lose the politics, you actually lost the war. That is what is happening in Iraq right now. We are there, we have dominated them militarily but we are tied down in a quagmire because we did not win the politics. Hillary thinks that power is a substitute for leadership. It isn't.

Leadership BUILDS consensus and uses diplomacy to gain agreement and does not fight for fighting sakes. Hillary does not understand that..she thinks might makes right. It doesn't.

Barck upholds the principles of America without getting bogged down in senseless fighting that is not progress. That is why he is able to turn the page. He brings people to the table and gains agreement. THAT is leadership. Fighting is not.

You confuse fighting and power with the ability to gain agreement based on common principles and values. When Obama was in the state legislature he was successful with bringing healthcare to millions because he understood the politics. Hillary has not ever been successful in gaining consensus for ANY legislation. She is uncompromising and does not know how when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em she simply becomes belligerent and threatening. That produces NO outcomes. If she was in grade school she is the one who takes her bat and ball and goes home because folks will not play the game by her rules. Guess what? The game goes on without her, because someone else always has a bat and ball. Hillary doesn't get that.

Obama is no weakling and Hillary has found that out..he is also not naive and irresponsible..she would love it if he were. Obama stands on principle with conviction he does not lack moral clarity. Hillary does. She is driven by polls not principles and that is why she fails to gain conssensus as no one ever knows where she stands.

The GOP will not eat Obama alive. He knows when to stand on principle and when to have the courage of conviction and more importantly he knows how to gain political consensus, which is why his policies end up enacted and Hillarys do not.

When the GOP machine descends on Obama he will whip them with honesty and integrity..he will transcend their petty politics because he believes in America and Americans he does not pander to the cynicism that says you must cave when folks use fear and corruption. Obama knows how to fight the good fight he has been doing so for far more years than Hillary and unlike Hillary he actually accomplishes his goals.

Hillary simply goes with the polls, triangulates, equivocates and panders without success time after time. You cannot not point to any time that Hillary has prevailed over the GOP with productive outcomes but she has not done so. NOT ONCE. She simply FIGHTS.

This is the new millenium and we are tired of that type of politics we want progress and we are ready to turn the page. The Clintons had their turn. It is time to move on with real leadership and the moral clarity to prevail.

Obama 08

Anonymous wrote on December 3, 2007 8:41 PM:

"Obama takes a stand and is consistent."

What stand? What consistency?

The guy has a paper thin resume. What little experience he has had shows he is timid and avoid taking tough position as seen from his "consistent" voting of present when faced with controvertial votes. In the senate the short time that he has been there he skips town when there is a tough vote.

To his cult followers he is FDR, IKE, JFK all rolled into one. But those leaders became leaders by constantly challenging themselves and taking on the enemy both on the battlefield and in the political arena. They would not be caught dead repeating Obama platitudes about healing, hugging, and other Oprah slogans. They understood the nature of power and were willing to make enemies.

MikeB wrote on December 3, 2007 8:44 PM:

"When the GOP machine descends on Obama he will whip them with honesty and integrity.."

You honestly believe this?

You are a true believer. Facts mean nothing to you.

Wake up. Obama is not the Savior. He is just another politician, ambitious, compromising and ruthless.

There is something awfully naive and immature about Obama cultists. They no longer see him as human with warts and all. To them he has become the Messiah. He can do no wrong.

Jim Martin wrote on December 3, 2007 8:48 PM:

OK, either I screwed up the blockquotes or else blockquotes within blockquotes don't work. Trying again.

NCSteve wrote on December 3, 2007 4:09 PM:

Man, this is such a mistake it makes me almost cringe to watch her do it. As was noted on the front page, she's already lost Bob Reich.

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-is-hrc-stooping-so-low.html

But, hey, at least its now crystal clear who's been calling the shots on a lot of the posts we've been seeing from some of the commenters here.

dcshungu replied on December 3, 2007 4:22 PM:

The same diminutive Bob Reich who had turned against the Clintons after they had plucked him obscurity to the limelight of a vibrant administration in the 90s? Well, Good Riddance!

I respond:

Robert Reich posts some criticism of Clinton.

dcshungu's immediate response is to mount an ad hominem (and substance-free) attack on Robert Reich.

QED.

Again.

MikeB wrote on December 3, 2007 8:49 PM:

"Welcome to first place in Iowa, Barack!"

Hmmm. You might wanna check out the AP poll that came out today showing Hillary leading in Iowa.

gagaforobama wrote on December 3, 2007 8:50 PM:

I like Obama himself in many ways. He happens to be my senator and I supported his campaign for that office. BUT have you NOTICED that many of his FERVENT supporters in this campaign EXPRESS themselves by using all-caps to signal their deeply held emotion. THIS feature COULD be a SIGNAL that, somewhat like their candidate, THEY are NOT quite READY for prime-time presidential politics. By the way, I am not saying this as a Hillary supporter--there are countless other reasons (some fair, some undoubedly not fair, but all real factors) why she who was Bill Clinton's First Lady will not be the optimal candidate in this election cycle. Consider the alternatives.

DTM wrote on December 3, 2007 8:55 PM:

I have to say that even funnier than the Clinton talking point that Obama said he wanted to be President in kindergarten is the Clinton talking point that Obama was running for President as soon as we was in the Senate.

I'm waiting for Clinton to just start shouting, "I'm rubber and you're glue!"

savvy wrote on December 3, 2007 8:59 PM:

Obama reminds me of Truman. Not JFK, RFK or FDR..but Truman.

Mike B.

Honesty, integrity and the belief in the America and what we stand for will indeed prevail.

History is full of people propelled to the top on the basis of leadership.'

Obama is a leader. America has not seen leadership in so long that many no longer recognize it and are content to be sucked into the losing position of not standing for anything so as to offend the least. That type of pandering results in the partisanship and lack of governance we have experienced for the past 10 years.

Americans are tired of such and we are inDEED turning the page.

In Hillaryland, hope and truth might be contradictory; in America, hope and truth are synonymous. That is the America Obama intends to lead.

Michael Caine wrote on December 3, 2007 9:08 PM:

Really?!?

MikeB wrote on December 3, 2007 8:44 PM:

"When the GOP machine descends on Obama he will whip them with honesty and integrity.."

You honestly believe this?

You are a true believer. Facts mean nothing to you.

Because right now, the FACTS are that Obama is chewing Hillary apart. To bad you are the one that Facts means nothing to.

Name one thing, other than winning in Democratic Blue New York State, that Hillary has beaten the Republicans on. It may take you a while.

john mccutchen wrote on December 3, 2007 9:08 PM:

Days since Senator Clinton promised she was not interested in attacking Democrats:23

Days that Senator Clinton has spent attacking Democrats since making that promise:19

Democrats - Do you really want to spend 2008 explaining Clinton lies and double talk?

DTM wrote on December 3, 2007 9:09 PM:

By the way, I also love the argument that people like FDR and JFK would eschew platitudes and slogans.

"The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."

"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

And so on.

Not only have some people forgotten what leaders look like, apparently they have even forgotten what good politicians look like.

Michael Caine wrote on December 3, 2007 9:10 PM:

MikeB wrote on December 3, 2007 8:49 PM:

"Welcome to first place in Iowa, Barack!"

Hmmm. You might wanna check out the AP poll that came out today showing Hillary leading in Iowa.

You mean the ones that were released today, yet stopped actually gathering data nearly 2 weeks ago?

Anonymous wrote on December 3, 2007 9:32 PM:

MikeB said: "Hmmm. You might wanna check out the AP poll that came out today showing Hillary leading in Iowa."

The AP is so pro-Hillary, its credibility is shot. Does Bill's wife look "regal" in the new AP poll?

Concerned in Iowa wrote on December 3, 2007 9:38 PM:

Well finally, Hillary's dark secret about Obama is revealed: He is a liar because he said when he launched his campaign he had no real plans to run for president.

NO NO NO, not sooooo, says Hillary with arms flying and eyes bulding. Obama wrote an essay IN KINDERGARTEN about wanting to become president.

Has Hillary lost her marbles? First it's kind of scary that she tracked down Obama's kindergarten "essay." Second, does she really think that she's caught Obama in a character-diminishing lie. Third... rocks and glass houses.

corinne wrote on December 3, 2007 9:57 PM:

A pox on all your houses. If either HRC or Obama is the eventual nominee, I will hold my nose when I vote. I am sick to death of both of them.

Matt in NYC wrote on December 3, 2007 10:23 PM:

As a neutral observer, it looks as if Clinton has peaked in her popularity and appeal to Dem voters. She hasn't distanced herself as so many pundits thought would happen by now. And for having probably the best name recognition for any non-incumbent on the Democratic side in a long time, she's only polling in the high 30s nationally and in the mid 20s in Iowa.

I just don't see this trend breaking the other way. And for anyone who knows how Iowa works, you can probably count on the Obama and Edwards people making a deal (much the same as the Kerry, Edwards and Gephart people did to Dean in 2000) to stick with each other to ensure that Clinton doesn't win.

Anonymous wrote on December 3, 2007 10:29 PM:

savvy wrote on December 3, 2007 8:33 PM:

Leaders are principled they have the courage of conviction they need not fight to stand on conviction. They simply have to take a stand and work to build consensus on that view.

Hillary simply fights. Just as she is doing here. She is not standing on principle she is simply picking a fight because she is behind in the polls. Her only principle is that she is not winning. That is not principled.

I was going to read through what I imagined would be the same ol', same ol', but I had to stop because after reading the line that I emphasized above, I knew that it was going to be worse. Below is why. I did all the work so you wouldn't have to. The given poll numbers are the latest available for each state. Despite all the noise, Obama is competitive only in IA. Got that? There is no doubt that the polls would tighten (they always do) but at this point, Hillary remains very much the candidate to beat. She has gone on the offensive to try to bury Obama in IA and get over with, but, as you can see below, she is the only candidate who can lose ALL the early primary and caucus states and still win the nominaton (her husband lost both IA and NH, but went on to win it all). On Super Tuesday, Hillary will carry all the delegate-rich states of NY, CA, NY, etc... In the Table below the number of delegates per state are the numbers just to the left of "Clinton." Go over the numbers and kindly revise your post to reflect this new information. Hillary is not behind in poll anywhere. Not even in Iowa!

The Early Primary and caucus States

January 3, 2008 Iowa caucus 56 Clinton 25% - Obama 28% (JRE 23%)
January 8, 2008 New Hampshire primary 30 Clinton 30% - Obama 23%
January 19, 2008 Nevada caucus 33 Clinton 45% - Obama 20%
January 26, 2008 South Carolina primary 54 Clinton 45% - Obama 21%

Super Tuesday States (February 5)

Alabama primary 60 Clinton 40% - Obama 21%
Alaska caucus 18
Arizona primary 67 Clinton 44% - Obama 14%
Arkansas primary 47 Clinton 49% - Obama 15%
California primary 441 Clinton 53% - Obama 25%
Colorado caucus 71 Clinton 36% - Obama 20%
Connecticut primary 61 Clinton 45% - Obama 19%
Delaware primary 23 Clinton 41% - Obama 17% (Biden 19%)
Georgia primary 104 Clinton 40% - Obama 27%
Idaho caucus 23
Illinois primary 185 Clinton 33% - Obama 37%
Kansas caucus 40
Massachusetts 121 Clinton 32% - Obama 19%
Minnesota 88 Clinton 47% - Obama 22%
Missouri primary 88 Clinton 36% - Obama 21%
New Jersey primary 127 Clinton 52% - Obama 21%
New Mexico caucus 38 Clinton 17% - Obama 8% (Richardson 44%)
New York primary 280 Clinton 45% - Obama 19%
North Dakota caucus 21
Oklahoma primary 47 Clinton 29% - Obama 13% (JRE 29%)
Tennessee primary 85
Utah primary 29 Clinton 31% - Obama 18%
Total - - - - - - 2064

Rest of February (Delegate-rich states only)

Maryland primary 99 Clinton 48% - Obama 29%
Virginia primary 103 Clinton 49% - Obama 25%

March & Beyond (Delegate-rich states only)

Texas primary 228 Clinton 51% - Obama 17%
Ohio primary 161 Clinton 42% - Obama 17%
Pennsylvania primary 179 or 181 Clinton 48% - Obama 15%
North Carolina primary 110 Clinton 43% - Obama 19% (JRE 25%)
Oregon primary 79 Clinton 26% - Obama 18%

I will keep updating that Table and periodically repost it as warranted...

CalD wrote on December 3, 2007 10:31 PM:

Matt, seems like everyone in the Democratic field has been pretty flat for the last month. Even so, it's always better to have a 15-20% lead in an election campaign than not to have one. So as things stand right now, it doesn't exactly suck to be Clinton.

dcshungu wrote on December 3, 2007 10:37 PM:

I am "dcshungu" and I had authored and approved the preceding post...but that should have been obvious from the extensive documentation therein... :-)

dcshungu wrote on December 3, 2007 10:47 PM:

NY, CA, NJ, etc...

colonpowwow wrote on December 3, 2007 11:06 PM:

Yeah, Michael Caine:

Obama is just chewing her up. What with him being even with her in Iowa (like it's been all year) and only being down 7 or so points in New Hampshire and losing most every other state by double digits to her in the most recent polling data.

Tsk, tsk. You're not sharing your smoking materials again.

Maybe Barry should start a web site: Hillary is saying stuff about me.com

Oh, that's right, Mr. Chewing Nails did.

anon wrote on December 3, 2007 11:11 PM:

Colonpowwow:

You wrote:

"NCSteve:

Sorry. I do get carried away sometimes. Unfortunately, people sometimes actually mischaracterize things like Kyl-Lieberman, you know, like the import of the bill re leading us to war with Iran and missing the vote, but with a good excuse.

Does that make any sense? I have a headcold today, didn't get my memo, my dog, Hillary, is getting feisty, nothing is going right."

I am simply astounded at your ability to convince yourself with your own Hillary-style doubletalk and never remember that voters have memories. How can anyone supporting the lady who "misplaced" legal documents in the White House for over two years and suddenly "found" them once the investigation is essentially concluded accuse anyone of offering a poor excuse for anything?

Hillary is a creepy, power hungry broad who latched onto her husband's extraordinary abilities and wants to complete her ambitious fantasy of becoming Queen and revel in her own glory for as long as possible. She will say and do anything she thinks will advance her own egomaniacal quest.

Today's "speech" (more like screech I'd say) lays out her very dark and unattractive---true self for the first time. I am glad she has done it and pray she does more of it so people can recoil in horror at seeing what motivates her.

She is not at all unlike a character from Tolkien's Lord of the Rings who briefly had some contact with the ring of power and now will stop at nothing to get it once again, but this time for keeps. Once you recognize her motive for what it is, it is really repulsive.

DTM wrote on December 3, 2007 11:16 PM:

I always find it amusing when people comfort each other by pretending that the results in the early states have no effect on the results in the later states.

colonpowwow wrote on December 3, 2007 11:27 PM:

Hey, anon:

I was making a joke with NCSteve. Lighten up. Blind Hillary-hate is turning you into a sourpuss.

PEACE

anon wrote on December 3, 2007 11:30 PM:

It isn't hate Colonpowwow: it's digust and revulsion combined with fear for my party and my country.

colonpowwow wrote on December 3, 2007 11:39 PM:

anon:

You really do need to lighten up.

Seriously.

And it's not your party. It's OUR party (yours and mine) and WE'LL chose the nominee we prefer and everything will be just fine.

Take a deep breath. Relax.

PEACE

DutchHenry wrote on December 4, 2007 12:10 AM:

Doesn't HClinton supporters remind you of Bush's supporters in the first couple of years:They would say anyhting & show no respect for the facts ?Now they have gone as far back as his years in kindergarten.Look for them to next attack his cat or dog.

CalD wrote on December 4, 2007 12:24 AM:

Ouch. Nice push-back. That one's definitely going to leave a mark.

CalD wrote on December 4, 2007 12:27 AM:

BTW, I was referring to Clinton's speech in my previous comment just now (if it wasn't obvious).

DTM wrote on December 4, 2007 12:30 AM:

DutchHenry,

I have a feeling "Kindergate" is going to end up being as much of a watershed moment in retrospect as the J-J Dinner. It was indeed one of the most tone deaf things I have seen a political campaign do in a long while.

Margaret Charney wrote on December 4, 2007 3:11 AM:

Hillary sure seems like the Reese Witherspoon character in "Election" these days.

AlwaysTiptheWaitress wrote on December 4, 2007 7:09 AM:

Am I the only one creeped out by the fact that Clinton seems to have sent an opposition research team to Indonesia to suss out dirt on Obama (how else did they get their mitts on the kindergarten teacher?). This is almost Nixonian in its creepiness.

colonpowwow wrote on December 4, 2007 8:37 AM:

Sorry to bring it back on topic after your laughable failures to get traction with Hillary's stupid statement about Obama's distinguished kindergarten career, but that's not the point (we already know about Hillary from your sanctimonious attacks from the last few months).

Anyway, what about the things that are actually going to get traction with voters re Obama:

1. Leaving 15 million Americans uncovered with his healthcare plan?

2. Using Republican nonsensical scare tactics to describe the Social Security situation and advocating raising payroll taxes on the middle class as the "solution" to this "crisis?"

3. Not speaking out on, showing up to vote on, or mentioning in the later debate about the KL amendment, then attacking Hillary on it days later?

4. Ducking controversial issues for political reasons by voting "Present" especially on issues important to protecting women's rights?

5. Addressing his "wimping out" problem by instituting a "Hillary's saying things about me" web site?

I wonder what will get more traction with voters - Hillary's stupid statement re Kindergarten or her beginning to point out the truth about Obama's inspiration talking not matched up too well with his continually wimping out on every controversial issue for political considerations over and over again?

Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 4, 2007 8:43 AM:

One hundred and ten posts wasted on the two crappiest Democrats in the Democratic field. All the electrons spent fighting on whether Ms Right of Center is better or worse that Mr Right of Center . . . And so few on those individuals who if elected may actually do something positive for our country.

Thank you all for playing the right-wing's wet dream game.

Please fail to do it ever again.

colonpowwow wrote on December 4, 2007 8:53 AM:

Commrade Adlof:

Let's see, Americans have been most comfortable choosing their President from the idealogical center for, oh, hundreds of years now, and you have a big problem with that.

How about voting for someone with a 95% plus liberal voting record on progressive issues who knows how to get the mushy middle on board the train changing direction from right to left?

Obama or Clinton not pure enough for you? Please name your winning candidate who eschews corporate capitalism and will beat the Republican nominee.

savvy wrote on December 4, 2007 9:49 AM:

Regarding:

Anyway, what about the things that are actually going to get traction with voters re Obama:

1. Obama's plan does not leave 15 million uncovered. Hillary grabbed that number out of thin air and it has been discredited. As usual she says whatever she needs to for political gain without regard for the truth. Robert Blendon, director of the Harvard Program on Public Opinion and Health and Social Policy, estimates Obama’s plan would end up covering 5 percent to 10 percent fewer individuals than Clinton’s. But that’s assuming that it’s possible for Clinton to require everyone to purchase insurance. Blendon suspects that it isn’t. “At the end of the day,it’s not going to be everybody. We have no idea what the actual falloff would be.”

More importantly what we know is that people want affordable healthcare. Massachusetts is finding that out, despite having a mandate folks are buying the insurance. Hillary's plan is nothing but windfall profits for the insurers. Whereas, Obama's plan makes healtcare afforable and forces private insurance to compete with the national plan. Lower costs is what American wants not mandates.

2. Using Republican nonsensical scare tactics to describe the Social Security situation and advocating raising payroll taxes on the middle class as the "solution" to this "crisis?"

Wow, so you spout the same nonsense without regard for the facts just like Hillary, eh? According to Citizens for Tax Justice payroll taxes on the top 6% of wage earners is not the middle class. All Americans know that their is a shortfall coming for Social Security based on the baby boomers, that point is indisputable. How to make to fund solvent for another 30 years at least is all that is in contention and that is a crisis that has a solution. Payroll tax increases is a reasonable answer. Hillary as usual offers no answers and no solutions she skirts the issue by claiming she will send it to a committee...geez...her judgment is so poor even she is hesitant to rely on it when massive complex problems due to the critical thinking skills essential to the process, that she sorely lacks.

3. Not speaking out on, showing up to vote on, or mentioning in the later debate about the KL amendment, then attacking Hillary on it days later?

Perhaps, you did not notice but 'your girl Hillary' follows what Obama does these days when it comes to casting votes. Hillary waits to see how he will do before she moves. Of course, that is for political gain as usual. So, you're right Obama didnot say one word so as to not give Hillary a head's up and to note what she does when left to her own politically calculating devices. As usual she exercised poor judgment. Obama has no obligation to give Hillary clues as to how he plans to vote just so she can blur the distinctions between them. Obama has every right to draw contrasts between his judgment and Hillarys on all issues. He did not attack Hillary, he simply delineated why her judgment was wrong as usual.

4. Ducking controversial issues for political reasons by voting "Present" especially on issues important to protecting women's rights?

Oh, please not this canard. Read and become informed:

IL Planned Parenthood President Said Anyone Who Thinks A Present Vote Is A “Duck” Doesn’t Understand How the Process Works. “There is a presumption, if one is not familiar with the mechanics of the General Assembly, that a present vote is a “duck.” Pam Sutherland, the CEO and President of Illinois Planned Parenthood said of [this former political opponent Blair] Hull argument: “I think it’s not well-based…I think it’s somebody who doesn’t understand how the legislative process works.” [Chicago Daily Herald, 3/10/04]

Director of the IL Council Against Handgun Violence Said Criticizing Present Votes Indicates “You Don’t Have A Great Understanding Of The Process.” “‘Criticizing Obama on the basis of ‘present’ votes indicates you don’t have a great understanding of the process,’ said Thom Mannard, director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.” [Chicago Tribune, Zorn, 3/9/04]

The “Dirt” On Attacks on Obama’s Present Votes Is “All Over The Hands of Those Pointing The Finger.” “This column has the dirt on the issue of state Sen. Barack Obama’s “present” votes on tough issues in the Illinois Legislature–votes that at least two of his opponents in the March 16 Democratic U.S. Senate primary say mark him as a coward… There’s dirt here all right. It’s all over the hands of those pointing the finger.” [Chicago Tribune, Zorn, 3/9/04

"We at Planned Parenthood view those as leadership votes," Pam Sutherland, the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, told ABC News. "We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on 'partial birth' and 'born alive'. They put these bills out all the time . . . because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats."

Speaking to ABC News as Obama was preparing to join Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and the wife of Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., in addressing Planned Parenthood’s national conference in Washington, D.C., Sutherland said Obama approached her in the late 1990s and worked with her and others in crafting the strategy of voting "present." She remembers meeting with Obama outside of the Illinois Senate chambers on the Democratic side of the aisle. She and Obama finished their conversation in his office.

"He came to me and said: 'My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women,'" said Sutherland in recounting her conversation with Obama. "A 'present' vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted."

"What it did," she continued, "was give cover to moderate Democrats who wanted to vote with us but were afraid to do so" because of how their votes would be used against them electorally. "A 'present' vote would protect them. Your senator voted 'present.'

Obama made sure those bills got as few votes as possible for passage," said Sullivan.

Obama not only has principles and convictions he also has political strategies to get things done effectively. Unlike Hillary who only equivocates and has been a complete failure when she has been in charge of driving a policy. Hillary lacks leadership. Obama takes the initiate to lead and lead effectively with a great strategy on women's issues. Not Hillary, she can't make any such claim.

5. Addressing his "wimping out" problem by instituting a "Hillary's saying things about me" web site?

Obama is exposing Hillary for the world to see just how polarizing and divisive she is. How she would rather shoot the messenger than address substantive policy issues. Why should Obama have to engage her silliness when he is about the business of uniting citizens to rise up and bring change to our system of government that is out of kilter due to folks engaging in the politics of personal destruction instead of handling the nations problems and coming up with solutions and policies that allows all Americans to have a better and happier life.

Obama is right to lead rather than get embroiled with a women who knows how to do nothing but brawl because she mistakes fighting for strength and doesn't know that the loudness person in the room is usually the weakness.

Obama has too much integrity and strength of character to get down in the mudd with Hillary. When she gets tired of flailing and having a hissy fit maybe just maybe she will act like this is a race for the Presidency of the UNITED States of America and not a game of 'gotcha'

Leadership is what America needs.

colonpowwow wrote on December 4, 2007 10:07 AM:

savvy:

Nice attempt to "answer" the facts by parsing, dicing and using selected quotes. Maybe Obama is more of a political animal than he appears to be on the surface if his campaign can provide you with such well-thought-out dodges. Spoken like a true politician - whick of course, he is. Nothing wrong with that, but it's really not much of a "change" now, is it?

So let's just see how this plays out now that Hillary is challenging him, and which set of talking points gets more traction with voters - Hillary's pointing out that he has a long history of ducking controversial issues by voting "present" or by not voting, or your convoluted "explanations" straight from the "Hillary is saying things about me.com" web site.

Michael A wrote on December 4, 2007 10:17 AM:

Her speech was utter clintonian bs and I generally take what she says in the spirit it is given, with a grain of salt and that it is generally false, but shaded to not be blatantly false.

In addition, I don't know if it was in this speech or another recent one, but she had the gall to say that obama was running for president since he joined the senate. I almost fell out of my chair laughing my a** off. Uh, that would be clinton II, not obama. She is such a joker, when she loses the nomination, maybe she should do stand up.

colonpowwow wrote on December 4, 2007 10:39 AM:

Uh, Mich A.

When did Clinton ever deny that she had an eye on becoming President someday? She was touted as a frontrunner all through the late 90s.

Nothing wrong with being a politician and planning your career. But which one of the two has made this an issue by posturing as the reluctant warrior stepping forward after much soul-searching, in order to save us from the cynical politics-as-usual?

colonpowwow wrote on December 4, 2007 10:53 AM:

I'm sorry facts are such sticky things, but taking out the spin from both sides - the fact is that Obama often voted "Present" (maybe) as a political strategy on controversial issues.

I'm sure Obama, being a good progressive and a fine fellow, has many spokespeople in Planned Parenthood, etc. who can help him parse his way through his serial, politically-expedient non-committedness.

But I think most voters and those who pay attention to political processes are sophisticated enough to easily understand the practical, personal, political reasons for voting Present instead of Yes or No on controversial political issues. It's called "straddling" or even (gasp!) "triangulating."

Bush was a master of this "strategery" when he was Governor in Texas (See his history on the "Medical Bill of Rights).

colonpowwow wrote on December 4, 2007 10:55 AM:

I'm sorry. I meant to say "Patient's Bill of Rights."

Michael A wrote on December 4, 2007 11:03 AM:

Colonpowwow, so, since the first day in the senate she was running for president, right. Then what's her problem with obama allegedly, and I emphasize allegedly, doing the same. I don't get that one. Also, I don't believe that obama had his sights set on the presidency since his first day in the senate. I think he saw an opportunity leading up to this election and ran with it. What's wrong with that?

Clinton II on the other hand was given an opportunity with a senate seat handed to her on a silver platter and did nothing with it. The reason why is she was running for the presidency from the first day she was given that senate seat. To me, it's apples and oranges. In addition, its kind of pathetic to call obama out on something that she knows is false and to do oppo research on his kindergarden papers. Give me a break and you want someone like that as president????

DTM wrote on December 4, 2007 11:48 AM:

colonpowwow,

Here is the pure politics of all this. Your talking points against Obama will not hold up if people approach them skeptically. So for them to work, you need to have people accept them uncritically.

And that is why Kindergate was such bad, bad politics. By throwing that in the mix with everything else, the Clinton campaign trashed its credibility and invited further examination of their motives and tactics. And that they could not afford.

colonpowwow wrote on December 4, 2007 12:20 PM:

DTM:

Worse than that, they made themselves look ridiculous. That's the real killer in politics and I'm genuinely surprised and pissed that they got into saying something so stupid. They really shot themselves in the foot there.

That said - I think they're right to continue (at this point) to hammer on Obama's duplicity and lack of leadership as shown by his "present" votes, and his wimpy position on KL.

colonpowwow wrote on December 4, 2007 12:31 PM:

Mich A.:

If you'd turn aside the Hillary-hate blinders for a sec and slow down and read a little better, you'd see that I agree with you.

Nothing wrong with wanting or planning to be President - whenever.

My point is that one of them has always been honest about this ambition and the other is posing as a noble reluctant warrior, while showing himself to be just as ambitious along with being four years less patient.

DTM wrote on December 4, 2007 12:33 PM:

colonpowwow,

I agree they basically have no choice but to keep trying to drive up Obama's negatives on ethics and honesty to match Clinton's own.

But some problems in politics just can't be fixed no matter what tactics you use. We shall see if this is one of those situations.

dcshungu wrote on December 4, 2007 12:37 PM:

The latest out of delegates-rich California: No Change. Hillary is still the one to beat.

December 04, 2007

POLL: SurveyUSA California Primary

A new SurveyUSA automated survey of likely primary voters in California (conducted 11/30 through 12/2) finds:

* Among 505 Republicans asked to choose among five candidates, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani leads Sen. John McCain (32% to 18%) in a statewide primary; former Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Gov. Mitt Romney trail at 14%, former Sen. Fred Thompson at 13%.

* Among 735 Democrats asked to choose among three candidates, Sen. Hillary Clinton leads Sen. Barack Obama (50% to 24%) in a statewide primary; former Sen. John Edwards trails at 16%.

Michael A wrote on December 4, 2007 12:47 PM:

dc, you can stop with the cali and ny polls. Any dem breathing will win both, so bfd.

Michael A wrote on December 4, 2007 12:58 PM:

colonpowwow, so we're back to the hillary-hater bs. Read my post, no we don't agree. I think it's garbage that she is attacking obama for allegedly trying to run for president since the first day he was in the senate. She knows that's false, but she is trying to project herself on him.

I do agree there is nothing wrong with planning on being president. However, I do have problems with clinton II's tactics and lack of effort. You have read my posts and know my position on this one. In fact, the most crass example of running for president as opposed to doing what's moral and right for the country was her vote on the iraq war, which you try to ignore.

Also, by the way, isn't that Iran NIE a hoot. That helps out clinton II's judgment on iran, doesn't it? I bet she wishes she could take back that political vote on the iran resolution now, don't you?

dcshungu wrote on December 4, 2007 1:04 PM:

Michael A wrote on December 4, 2007 12:47 PM:

dc, you can stop with the cali and ny polls. Any dem breathing will win both, so bfd.

LOL. He yet again missed the point. Any Dem might win CA and NY in the GE, but we now have something called the Democratic primaries in which Dems are going against each other in these delegates-rich states with a total prize of more than 700 delegates, awarded as a proportion of % of votes earned. If Obama loses big in CA, NJ, NY, TX, PA, as it looks like he might, how does he win the nomination?

That is the relevance of those polls, victories in IA or NH notwithstanding.

DTM wrote on December 4, 2007 1:04 PM:

Some fun facts:

In a January 16, 2004, California Field Poll (taken just before Iowa), Dean topped the field at 25%. Meanwhile, John Kerry had 7% and John Edwards had 3%.

When Californians voted on March 2, 2004 (about six weeks later), Kerry got 64%, Edwards got 20%, and Dean got 4%. In fact, Dennis Kucinich ended up with more votes than Dean.

dc shungu wrote on December 4, 2007 1:30 PM:

HRC ain't Dean...not by a long shot as your data show...Hillary won't get fewer votes than Kucinich anywhere. QED.

votenic wrote on December 4, 2007 1:36 PM:

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.

DTM wrote on December 4, 2007 1:55 PM:

dcshungu,

We shall see.

Michael A wrote on December 4, 2007 2:41 PM:

Ditto, DTM. Oh, so I get it dc, your point was that she is ahead right now, before a single vote is cast or add is run??? I see your name and cali or NY mentioned and I assume that you are raving how she will win the state vs. some republican. Sorry, I misread your post. They say the same all the time, so I started skimming. By the way, do you know what name recognition means? Probably not.

Jim Martin wrote on December 5, 2007 6:09 PM:

Michael A wrote on December 4, 2007 12:58 PM:

colonpowwow, so we're back to the hillary-hater bs.

Michael, you can't blame them for using the only thing they've got.

Hillary haters blah blah blah Sanctimonious attacks on Hillary blah blah blah Hillary haters blah blah blah Dragging the leader through the gutter blah blah blah Anti-Hillary hacks, whose water are you carrying? blah blah blah Hillary haters blah blah blah...

It all gets so tiresome.

We've seen this movie before. We've read the playbook. The GOP, and sadly, the DLC, have used it for years. And it's being used here too.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL: