Hillary Plans To Draw Sharper "Contrast" With Obama In Days Ahead
In the wake of her humbling loss to Obama in Iowa yesterday, Hillary is planning to start drawing sharper "contrasts" between herself and the Illinois Senator in the days leading up to next week's New Hampshire primary -- and little by little, details are leaking out about Camp Hillary's evolving strategy.
Here's a quick rundown on what we're learning:
* Hillary aides are reportedly studying whether they can hit Obama on gun control, an issue where Obama has taken a hard line that might turn off some New Hampshire voters.
* Hillary, who isn't known for frequent Q and As with reporters, made herself extensively available to them in New Hampshire today, and quickly made it clear that she would now get serious about "drawing contrasts" with her "leading opponents." This was apparently part of a concerted effort on the Hillary camp's part to prevent Obama from coasting off his Iowa victory.
* Bill Clinton will spend the next five days campaigning for Hillary in New Hampshire, though he had reportedly not planned to.
* In another effort to signal that Camp Hillary would be playing rougher in the days ahead, Hillary also said this today:
"Of all the people running for president, I’ve been the most vetted, the most investigated, and my goodness, the most innocent it turns out."
The one thing that no reporter seems to be able to nail down yet is whether Hillary's "contrast drawing" will include negative ads. The Clinton camp won't rule out their use, but no one's been able to confirm precisely what changes in ad strategy are in the cards.
Comments (191)
Keith wrote on January 4, 2008 1:15 PM:I thought they were drawing contrasts all during December? So she wasn't serious when they were dropping the "drugs" and "Muslim" crap? Or the voting present?
Every where they've turned, they've turned up nothing.
john mccutchen wrote on January 4, 2008 1:16 PM:Going to bring change in November
I have 35 years experience as Bill's Wife
End of story
"Hillary aides are reportedly studying whether they can hit Obama on gun control, an issue where Obama has taken a hard line that might turn off some New Hampshire voters."
Can we now offically dispense with the bullshit that Obama is the "right winger" using "Republican talking points" in this primary?
Commence Echo Chamber in 5, 4, 3, 2...
Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 1:17 PM:she uses language like a Decepticon.
if your crazy opponents (Republicans) accuse you of a thousand million things over the course of 15 years, will you be innocent of most of these charges? yes.
but does that make you INNOCENT? absolutely not. certainly she hasn't been in this campaign, running the most negative in either party (except for, arguably, Romney).
hello_world wrote on January 4, 2008 1:18 PM:Hillary aides are reportedly studying whether they can hit Obama on gun control...So much for the criticism that Obama is using right-wing talking points. Steve wrote on January 4, 2008 1:19 PM:
I very much hope that she draws contrasts -- very sharp ones -- in the days ahead. She needs to. Obama lacks gravitas, experience, judgment and strength. He has no real record to pick apart, and no specific positions to challenge. It's all a halcyon haze of good ideas and buzz phrases. I love hearing him speak -- very inspiring. And I'm sure he's a great, smart guy. But he's no president, and if Clinton doesn't sharpen the attack and put the nomination away, we'll have a losing nominee on our hands. We can't afford that.
john mccutchen wrote on January 4, 2008 1:19 PM:Keith..Greg is turning goose eggs himself.
Maybe he'll cut and paste a Hillary Attack Mailer from Concord or some place
By the way Greg
Where's the Victory Speech?
OOOOO lookeee
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqoFwZUp5vcGreg DeLassus wrote on January 4, 2008 1:21 PM:
"Most innocent"? What the heck is that supposed to mean? I am hard pressed to see that any of them any more or less innocent than any other. She is the most "innocent" in the same sense that she is the most "American," which is to say that she is in a three-way tie for first place on that score.
Jeremy wrote on January 4, 2008 1:22 PM:We need leadership that can recognize what mistakes have been made and make corrections. Not being negative enough was not Hillary's problem. She doesn't even have good judgment in hindsight.
Steve wrote on January 4, 2008 1:23 PM:OK, Obama supporters ... pop quiz: What is Obama's position on gun control? You don't know, do you? Neither do I. We do not know this man. He sounds great, and I like that. But we don't know him. Time for mainstream media to snap out of its trance and do some digging, before we're saddled with a nominee who will be completely defined by the Republicans and barely break 150 electoral votes in a general election.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 4, 2008 1:23 PM:Maybe the gun control issue will hurt him in NH. Hard to say, to my mind. I would not be surprised if for every independant that she turns away from Obama over that issue she turns a democrat away from herself at the same time.
jhv wrote on January 4, 2008 1:26 PM:seriously though....what does she mean by "most innocent"
I don't get it.
whowouldjesusbomb? wrote on January 4, 2008 1:26 PM:Yeah, prepare for the full glory of the Clinton political slime machine in NH. I'm sure the negative attacks will come, it is her nature.
And gun control? Hillary is going to beat Obama by borrowing policy attacks directly out of the Republican playbook? Were the nasty underhanded personal attacks not enough? Yeah, great Hillary, be that candidate of "change", show us how Republican-lite you really are.
And my goodness it turns out many people didn't like what they found out about you which is why 50% of the country dislikes you and will never vote for you. That isn't being vetted, that is trying to run for president with an axe sticking out of your back, you won't get far in a general election with the GOP ready to seal the deal. I'm sorry but the best thing for this country and this party is for Democrats to steer clear of Hillary, she is damaged goods and obviously the voters are ready for some REAL change.
And yes, I agree that Obama has endured a ton of muckraking, mostly from Hillary's campaign, and nothing has stuck, so he looks pretty clean to me, and he actually has low unfavorability ratings, as opposed to Hillary.
Sorry Hill, you aren't inevitable, you aren't the most electable, you don't have that much "experience", you definitely don't represent change, and the people ready to see past the hype now. Bye bye.
dee-moyne wrote on January 4, 2008 1:27 PM:My advice to Hillary in NH is to not try to draw a sharper contrast to Obama like you did in Iowa. I gotta believe this Iowa debate moment was one of the key moments of the Iowa campaign where people here just said, "No way". It really crystalized here some of the things people already didn't like about her. Check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhPxSm9Es0w
willyjsimmons wrote on January 4, 2008 1:29 PM:@john mccutchen
Uh...look to your left dude.
Right under 'Latest Videos'
Stop running on here accusing Greg of 'teh bias' every time he doesn't post something to your specifications.
(although Greg is plenty sloppy, I won't say it's deliberate)
DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 1:30 PM:Coming soon to a theater near you:
Fun Part Two: This Time Its Personal.
Myers wrote on January 4, 2008 1:30 PM:I say bring Billy Shaheen back to the campaign and let him rip!!! (He's currently gagged and bound in a back storage closet at HRC's NH campaign HQ.)
carrenderb wrote on January 4, 2008 1:30 PM:Sen. Obama's positions on gun control:
http://www.issues2000.org/celeb/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
Google + 20 seconds = whatever you need
willyjsimmons wrote on January 4, 2008 1:31 PM:Or look right.
LOL
Military right!
Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 1:31 PM:http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 1:32 PM:http://illinoisissues.uis.edu/features/2004sept/guns.html
Jeremy wrote on January 4, 2008 1:33 PM:Steve. Yes, I do know. When he went to the IL legislature he came from being a community organizer on the South side of Chicago. As such, he had seen how the proliferation of guns could effect communities and was a strong proponent of gun control. Since then, he's listened to the representatives of folks downstate and his views have moderated somewhat. Here's more information:
http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
Obama's got a track record of listening to people and finding pragmatic solutions on these kinds of "wedge" issues. Look at what he did on the death penalty in IL, for example. He will look for solutions that meet the needs of law enforcement in their efforts to protect communities while respecting the rights of gun owners.
If all Hillary has left is to divisively harp on these kinds of issues her campaign is in worse shape than we thought. Doesn't she have anything positive.
Sue wrote on January 4, 2008 1:33 PM:Steve
Simply put,
Americans want Obama.
You say he is not presidential material.
Well if he can beat Hillary at this whole getting elected thing then what does that say for her.
He is beating her at her own game really. She has so much "experience" with
elections (20 years worth), then why is she not beating him.
Do you not see an analogy between his obvious decision making as a campaigner
to his tactics and imagination as president.
Hillary is in the process of proving just the opposite, that she does not have the foresight and imagination to be president.
I am sick of having engineer robots sitting in the white house.
Time for a smart poet.
And that person is Obama.
What is Obama's position on gun control? You don't know, do you? Neither do I. We do not know this man. He sounds great, and I like that. But we don't know him. Time for mainstream media to snap out of its trance and do some digging, before we're saddled with a nominee who will be completely defined by the Republicans and barely break 150 electoral votes in a general election.
Give me a break. The digging has been done and I know the answer to this pop quiz because I read it in the Weekly Standard (hardly an obscure source).
[Obama] taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago and is thus familiar with the arguments regarding the right to bear arms. He acknowledges "a tradition of gun ownership in this country that can be respected," and says that his academic studies convinced him gun ownership "is an individual right and not just the right of a militia... Like all rights, though, they are constrained by the needs and the rights of the community."
By way of specific constraints in deference to the needs of the community which he has supported, he has voted to restrict ownership of certain assault weapons and to limit people to one handgun purchase per month. Too radical for the NRA, to be sure, but hardly so restrictive that it would torpedo his chances in the general election.
Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 1:35 PM:GUNS
REALITY: OBAMA HAS CONSISTENTLY SUPPORTED COMMON SENSE GUN CONTROL, AS WELL AS THE RIGHTS OF LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNERS
Obama Supported A Package Of Legislation That Would Limit Handgun Sales To One A Month. ''The package closes the Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card loopholes which resulted in the shooting out in Melrose Park. We're eliminating 17 specific assault weapons. There is no reason why anybody should need an assault weapon to protect themselves or their family,' Obama said. 'We're limiting handgun sales to one a month. 'We're calling for handgun registration. It's very hard right now to track whether or not a felon has turned in his weapons or if he has a FOID card because we don't know how many weapons he has purchased.'" [Chicago Defender, 2/20/01]
Obama Voted To Prohibit Multiple Sales Of Handguns Within A 30-Day Period. In 2003, Obama voted to create the offense of unlawful acquisition of handguns, prohibiting the multiple sales of handguns within a 30-day period. In 2000, Obama was co-sponsor of bill prohibiting the transfer of more than one handgun within a 30-day period. The bill exempted federally licensed firearm dealers who purchase handguns in the regular course of business, military, law enforcement officials and certain hunters. [93rd GA, HB 2579, 5/16/03, 3R L; 23-36-0; 91st GA; SB 1614; 2000]
Obama Disagreed With The NRA That "People Should Be Unimpeded And Unregulated On Gun Ownership;" In Favor Of Handgun Registration And Licensing Requirements. Obama said, "I know that the NRA believes people should be unimpeded and unregulated on gun ownership. I disagree. I do not object to the lawful use and ownership of firearms, but I do think it is entirely it appropriate for the state to monitor it. Too many of these guns end up in the hands of criminals even though they were originally purchased by people who did not have a felony. I'll continue to be in favor of handgun law registration requirements and licensing requirements for training." [Chicago Defender, 7/5/01]
Obama: America Has A "Tradition Of Gun Ownership In This Country That Can Be Respected." The Weekly Standard reported, "When a student asks Obama for his views on the Second Amendment, he reminds his audience that he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago and is thus familiar with the arguments regarding the right to bear arms. He acknowledges 'a tradition of gun ownership in this country that can be respected,' and says that his academic studies convinced him gun ownership 'is an individual right and not just the right of a militia.' But he was not finished. 'Like all rights, though, they are constrained by the needs and the rights of the community.' Obama then spoke of 34 students who were killed on the streets of Chicago and called for sensible gun control to prevent senseless death. He speaks of the importance of parental involvement in education before listing the many ways in which he would expand the role of the federal government in the schools." [Weekly Standard, 12/17/07]
DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 1:35 PM:By the way, if you ever want to quickly look up a person's positions on a particular issue, I suggest starting with "On the Issues", a website which allows you to search by name and issue.
So, here is their summary of Obama on gun control:
http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
The one thing I would note is that they cite a 1998 questionnaire which was apparently filled out by a staffer, not Obama, so that may be of limited value.
willyjsimmons wrote on January 4, 2008 1:37 PM:The one thing that does stick out negatively in that link re:gun control
Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
That doesn't sound so hot?
Retroactive dismissal of pending cases?
Huh???
Having no idea how many cases are currently in the system against gun manufacturers, this would be a good question to follow up on.
DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 1:37 PM:I note many of us had the same idea at once.
Keith wrote on January 4, 2008 1:37 PM:http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm
I'm not sure what CONTRAST she hopes to draw, but it seems to me that she's going to come up empty yet again. [Most, if not all, of the anon posts with links to his stance on gun issues were mine]
Michael A wrote on January 4, 2008 1:43 PM:clinton people, I read the speech when she landed in NH and she never ceases to amaze me. I really wasn't planning on launching the day after, but it's pathetic. She said as follows:
At a rally in a freezing cold airport hanger, the New York senator urged supporters to cut through all the "static in the air" to learn what they could about her candidacy and that of Obama and John Edwards, who also edged her in Iowa.
"I want to know from all of you ... what do you want to know about us?" she said. "Who will be the best president based not on a leap of faith but on the kind of changes we've already produced."
Ok, for the ten millionth time, WHAT are the changes "we've" produced? WHAT, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT. Anything, pretty please.
She did the same thing in her victory/concession speech last night. Among other distortions and triangulations she said that she would stop every child left behind. Well, let me see, she's been in the senate for how long? She voted for it? Couldn't she have put a hold on it or organized a filabuster or something? Oh, now she sees the light. Talk about pandering politics, pathetic.
Bottom line, just one thing that she and mr. bill "changed" for the better. NAFTA, Welfare reform, don't ask don't tell, don't count by the way.
DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 1:43 PM:Keith,
Of course, attacking Obama for positions Clinton herself has stated in the past is practically their trademark at this point.
Keith wrote on January 4, 2008 1:46 PM:DTM:
I was actually thinking as I wrote that last post, she doesn't care about the substance, just getting the allegation out there (veracity is a luxury at this point).
Funny thing, she's STILL not giving anyone a reason to vote FOR her.
c wrote on January 4, 2008 1:47 PM:most innocent?
Google her plus cattle futures. I'm not saying that disqualifies her (her name was surely being used to move money to Bill), but on the up and up it was not.
Mary wrote on January 4, 2008 1:47 PM:All of you have got blinders on
come on
use some imagination.
It is not about a single issue.
I am an Obama supporter because in a way
he plays like a republican - except for the good. He knows how to make people hope - do you think "catching him" on a single issue can change that. The repuplicans are - were - succesfull with the fear card and imagination when the democrats argued single issues ad nauseum.
Well what is wrong with Hope - it's human imagination and optimisum. If that is no longer something people can aspire to use to make the concrete things in their lives better then what have we got left.
Apparently Hillary and Edwards learned nothing during Iowas Caucus. They are once again going into the ATTACK MODE and STEALING OBama's Slogan of REAL CHANGE. It was their personal attacks that made them LOSE last night.
From Hillary and Edward's speeches last night you would have thought they had just taken on the Republican Party nominee - instead of one of their OWN. Claiming DEMOCRATS had won last night. Ignoring the FACT that they both lost by 8-9 pts to Barack Obama.
Coonsey's View
www.freewebs.com/coonsey/
Hey willy, sorry your candidate didn't do so hot yesterday. How's the gravel campaign going anyway?
anon wrote on January 4, 2008 1:50 PM:This whole "I'm the most vetted" argument is extremely dangerous for her to make.
I mean, at some point someone's going to note that Bill Clinton could have made the "vetted" argument in '96 (and probably did).
After a campaign and 4 years in office, who could be more "vetted" than the sitting President? Whose skeletons did we already know? Who'd suffered more attacks from the right-wing noise machine and was "still standing"?
Really, after he'd survived Flowers & Jones, what could the Republicans possibly do to Bill Clinton in his second term that might derail his agenda and open the door for a Republican to beat his Vice-President by promising to restore honor and integrity to the White House?
This is a very desperate gamble.
dajafi wrote on January 4, 2008 1:52 PM:Now the fun part, um, continues?
I agree that if she's basing her hopes on tying Obama to a position on gun control he held 12 years ago, when he represented a quite different constituency, she's in pretty dire straits indeed.
One of the more overlooked good things Howard Dean did for the Democrats was that enabled heterodoxy on gun issues. Dean's formulation--that it makes little sense for rural Vermont to be governed by the same gun laws as central Brooklyn--seems like the kind of common-sense approach that should win over anyone but the most fanatical NRA devotee, who's pretty unlikely to vote Dem anyway.
willyjsimmons wrote on January 4, 2008 1:52 PM:'He knows how to make people hope'
Price check for a 'man on a white horse'...
damn scanners hardly work anymore.
DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 1:56 PM:Michael A,
To be fair, Clinton does have a standard list of accomplishments: basically, she has worked on some important children's issues and programs, and recently on some veterans' programs. Of course, she tends not to talk about things like her failed health care initiative in the first Clinton Administration, her efforts on flag burning, or her role in measures like the Patriot Act or the Iraq AUMF.
Anyway, even just focusing on the positive, the problem, as usual, is that it turns out Obama has an equally (and arguably far more) impressive list of accomplishments. Of course, that is despite Obama having less time in the Senate, and indeed less time on Earth. Most importantly perhaps, it is despite Obama largely having to make his own way in public life and politics.
But as Keith and I have just been discussing, accuracy is not really a constraint at this point for the Clinton campaign. They are just looking for something, anything, that will work, and the clock is ticking.
DonnaG wrote on January 4, 2008 1:57 PM:Ok, bring on the contrasts, I say.
Consider the Obama achievement in his first US Senate year, early 2006 when the Senate was still under republican majority..... in writing and passing and getting signed into law, with Coburn, the sunshine bill that puts all government disbursements in the public realm via the internet. Please contrast just that one bill, Hillary, with anything you consider 'major' which you got passed in your longer time in the Senate.
Mark Penn just spouted something to the effect that the Hillary campaign will contrast 'leadership for change with just talking about change'. Geez, this is too easy. Which candidate actually demonstrated leadership in building a grass roots movement to change the ground game in Iowa yesterday.....and which candidate merely 'talked about change'?
willyjsimmons wrote on January 4, 2008 1:58 PM:'How's the gravel campaign going anyway?'
Still runnin baby!
GO GRAVEL!
Now how about Kucinich...too soon for me to ask?
LMAO!
Quitter.
Aimey Mays wrote on January 4, 2008 2:00 PM:This is fascinating! In Iowa, Richardson the weasel worked behind scene with Obama to defeat Clinton. Unless there is a pact between him and Obama that he would be chosen as a cabinet member of some sort, he nows has incentive to see Obama defeated. Edwards is now staking out as the alternative to Obama for change. If Hillary loses, Obama becomes inevitable and they will be dead men walking. Hence, they should be expected to go after Obama, the presumed front-runner now. We shall see tomorrow!
DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 2:04 PM:By the way, don't you think at this point the Clinton campaign would have learned to stop telling everybody what they are about to do, and just go ahead do it? Every time they do this preannouncement of their strategy, it just prepares everyone to frame what subsequently happens as a tactic and not something real.
In other words, their original idea may have been to win on the theory that only they knew how to do this politics thing effectively, so maybe at one point it made sense to pull back the curtain for the press like this. But that time, if it ever existed, is definitely over. Instead, now they need this stuff to actually work. And that is because they are no longer getting credit just for the effort.
Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 2:04 PM:What do you expect from a desperate and beaten campaign?
Keith wrote on January 4, 2008 2:08 PM:And just for the record, Clinton just lost her first truly contested election. Handily.
jimijazz wrote on January 4, 2008 2:10 PM:Hillary using gun control as an issue? Sounds like right-wing talking points to me. And while we're at it what is her stance on gun control? To this day, Hillary has not made her position clear. Just like the the rest of the issues she tries to straddle. This vaguely reminds me of 2004 when Bush tried that issue with John Kerry. Again, she is using the Bush playbook to the letter.
Mary wrote on January 4, 2008 2:10 PM:willyjsimmons
let me guess
your a software programmer
who got all A's and B's in school,
and you are a good speller.
So therefore your views are some how relevant.
Me
I want to date a handsome smart poet who
aspires to the presidency
Not a bucnh of geeky engineers who do math to figure out who they like and aspire to have a wit
Ava wrote on January 4, 2008 2:15 PM:The most pathetic thing about Hillary’s loss in IA was that she has completely abandoned all pretense of winning this thing on her own. She actually said that she didn’t’ do well in IA because her husband didn’t run there when he was trying to take the white house. So you’re telling me that she’s raised $100 million and has supposedly the best political minds that money and arm twisting can buy and she could not figure out on her own how to compete effectively in IA? Pathetic. Obama figured it out and he didn’t have her 35 years of connections (that her husband built) to rely on, and he also didn’t campaign there for 4 years like Edwards. I have lost all respect for Hillary.
anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 2:15 PM:And how exactly does any of the above translate to "getting mean?"
Apparently TPM has jumped on the Obama bandwagon and is now using the same tactics as his other supporters: deliberately and falsely mischaracterizing Clinton's campaign tactics.
Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 2:15 PM:Was only a matter of time.
Memo to Hillary: Your husband ain't no saint and neither are you.
Bob C wrote on January 4, 2008 2:17 PM:What I want to know is when is the wench finally going to come out of the closet? Everyone knows Bill is fucking anything with two feet. When is Hillary's lover going to finally make an appearance on the campaign trail?
Margaret McLasky wrote on January 4, 2008 2:20 PM:People are just going to hate her more. They are running such a silly campaign. One the lessons from Iowa is that people have had it with this sort of Washington as usual stuff. I, for one, will never vote for Hillary.
Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 2:20 PM:Let's Call It "Hope" Gary Hart HuffPo http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/CCqvModTexAnon (aka, anonymous) wrote on January 4, 2008 2:20 PM:
Anonymous: "she uses language like a Decepticon."
This is the bowl calling the basin white!
"if your crazy opponents (Republicans) accuse you of a thousand million things over the course of 15 years, will you be innocent of most of these charges? yes."
Then you admit she's spoken the truth.
You have a problem with the truth apparently.
Not surprising from a Hillary Hater.
"but does that make you INNOCENT? absolutely not."
Doesn't make her guilty either.
"certainly she hasn't been in this campaign, running the most negative in either party (except for, arguably, Romney)."
As viley dishonest an opinion as you've ever spewed forth.
anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 2:22 PM:Anonymous: "Memo to Hillary: Your husband ain't no saint and neither are you."
Memo to Anonymous: Hillary has never claimed to be a saint, you lying weasel.
DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 2:23 PM:Keith,
Indeed. And regardless of the quality of the advice she may be getting (or giving to herself), I have yet to see any indication that as a candidate, she has the sort of political talent she would need to play in this league.
Dee Illuminati wrote on January 4, 2008 2:26 PM:Only Hillary seemed to 'get it.' She said she needed the Ron Paul swing votes. She might be down, but she damn sure ain't dumb, capable of elementary math.
The thing that I found interesting was the marginalization of 10% of the voting public by the media in respect to Ron Paul. Now before I get accused of being a schill let me explain, the demographics of this 10% is young activists whom are internet savy and whom are first time participamts in the process, the are at the craddle of the craddle to grave marketing cycle and similar in respects to the demographics of their activist parents of the 60's.
If your looking for the 'buzz' demographics or the 'trend' demographics, or the marketinhg that can't be marketed, the movers and shakers of these movements, well I think that they are that 10%, they will of oourse someday be interested in 401K's and careers and families.
Hillary said she wanted the young people and they evidently didn't want her.
But what I found interesting was how the MSM was rejecting in masse this marketing demographic. I mean it was as if the account execs at Fox thought: hmmm lets see, these 10% of viewers don't matter and we don't want their business anyway.
Well Hillary does, and that speaks more to her intellect than the TV execs at the major networks.
Hut the story not covered was the 'indpependents' that TPM failed to allow to participate, no Ron Paul poll here, no forum, 10 percent that don't exist. Tomorrows voters today, the swing vote in any analysis.
It is a blunder and a spectacle to see how not how Ron Paul was marginalized, and quite possibly with air-time might be so, but instead the 10% of voters by the media.
That folks is todays untold story and a scoop from Dee Illuminati that TPM missed, how 10% of a market was ignored, in what will be a tight race of change and the strongest demographic of change, ignored.
I'll be subconciously that these 10% resent Fox years from now and become CNN viewers if CNN doesn't overtly marginalize their participation, or their message.
Only Hillary seemed to 'get it.'
kefa? kefa? we're all waiting...
Michael A wrote on January 4, 2008 2:31 PM:DTM, I am not arguing with your point and agree whole heartedly, she has accomplished some things, things very similar to obama and in fact edwards. The problem I have is the way she makes this glowing conclusion about the "changes" that she and presumably bill clinton accomplished for the betterment of the country as a whole. Relive the clinton years etc. However, there is no beef to that glowing claim. That's my point and has been my point. I just find it annoying and I am sick and tired of politics as usual.
Incidentally DTM, what a historic night for the country. Wow, if obama is able to double the turnout of dems and dem voters, including independents and republicans, in the general election, we are talking a historic landslide. Young people, for the first time in my life time, were active and motivated and got involved in the process. WOW. People just need to participate for us to get our country back. It was an incredible sight.
ModTexAnon wrote on January 4, 2008 2:31 PM:Anonymous: "What do you expect from a . . . beaten campaign?"
Anonymous is off into la-la land again, I see.
Sorta like the poster who claimed that Obama will win 49-50 states in the general election if he gets the nomination regardless who is the GOP nominee.
That kind of delusion can only come from liberal extremists who imagine themselves to be progressives but who are actually prisoners of their own personality cult.
Worship ye at the House of Obama . . .
Genghis wrote on January 4, 2008 2:35 PM:Hey Mary. You really know how to emasculate a guy.
Don't fret, willyjsimmons, from one cerebral sophomore programmer to another, you're too good for her.
DTM: "Indeed. And regardless of the quality of the advice she may be getting (or giving to herself), I have yet to see any indication that as a candidate, she has the sort of political talent she would need to play in this league."
Well, I'm sure Obama has gotten great foreign policy and campaigning advice from his friend, the "President of Canada."
Maybe he will consult with the "Imams of Mexico" next, eh?
Or the "Chief of the Tribe of Russia?"
Lis wrote on January 4, 2008 2:36 PM:This is in response to Steve's pop quiz regarding Barack's positions on gun control. If someone already responded to you, my apologies:
http://learfield.typepad.com/radioiowa/2007/04/clinton_edwards.html
Bupalos wrote on January 4, 2008 2:36 PM:My guess is that she doesn't go substantially more negative. I think this thing about "drawing contrasts" is Rovian cover for the fact that she is going to try and basically dopplegang Obama.
Once they have stolen his persona, they will up the noise on the "the nation isn't ready for a black president" meme.
Ready for Change? Most innocent? Good grief.
Genghis wrote on January 4, 2008 2:37 PM:Oh sh-t. I wrote sophomore programmer. Guess I need to go back to school.
eric wrote on January 4, 2008 2:37 PM:After watching Obama last night, I am now convinced that, god forbid, Edwards is forced out of this thing, I am going to support Hillary.
Obama is way to scary with all of this cult of personality crap.
Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 2:37 PM:What a bitch! This will be fun to see her overtly morph into what we've all suspected all along. She is going to come off as a bitter, desperate, scorned woman.
Steve wrote on January 4, 2008 2:38 PM:So, re the gun control position ... when Obama has a position that becomes more nuanced, he's listening to his Downstate constituents and "evolving," but when Hillary does it, she's a cold and calculating shrew who will do anything to get elected? Do I have that right?
MSmitty wrote on January 4, 2008 2:39 PM:Hey Steve - you are right. Hillary is cold and calculating. Just look at her votes on Iraq and Iran.
Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 2:40 PM:"Steve" wrote:
"I very much hope that she draws contrasts -- very sharp ones -- in the days ahead. She needs to. Obama lacks gravitas, experience, judgment and strength. He has no real record to pick apart, and no specific positions to challenge. It's all a halcyon haze of good ideas and buzz phrases. I love hearing him speak -- very inspiring. And I'm sure he's a great, smart guy. But he's no president, and if Clinton doesn't sharpen the attack and put the nomination away, we'll have a losing nominee on our hands. We can't afford that."
P R E C I S E L Y ! ! !
I'm off to NH this weekend to lend a hand.
and BTW, Hillary and Edwards TIED in Iowa last night. Edwards 29.75% / Clinton 29.47% a .28% difference "behind" someone isn't finishing third.
Is it just me, or does Hillary's new strategy have an air of desperation to it?
edshea wrote on January 4, 2008 2:43 PM:perhaps a few negative ads thrown at obama could give us an idea about how he will handle the republican slime machine...because it's coming, kids...it's a dormant beast that makes you hillary haters look about as mean as mother theresa...and when, after they take out obama easy as one-two-three, and we watch as st john mccain is inaugurated a year from now, your bete noir won't look too bad...sigh
Mooser wrote on January 4, 2008 2:44 PM:Me
I want to date a handsome smart poet who
aspires to the presidency
Mary, have I got a guy for you!
mcc wrote on January 4, 2008 2:45 PM:Only Hillary seemed to 'get it.' She said she needed the Ron Paul swing votes
Wait, what? When did she say this?
How on earth do Ron Paul supporters qualify as "swing votes" in a Democratic presidential primary?
The thing that I found interesting was the marginalization of 10% of the voting public by the media in respect to Ron Paul
Wait, wait, back up. You mean the 10%, of the one-third of the Iowa voting public who caucused for the Republicans?
I'm not sure you're in any position to be talking about math. 236,000 democrats caucused this year and 124,000 republicans; if we assume delegate proportion proportional to voter turnout (not true, but maybe it can let us ballpark things) then that gives us 88,688 voters for Obama, 69,549 voters for Clinton, and 12,400 voters for Ron Paul. Even if every single Ron Paul voter had instead gone to the Democratic caucus, registered at the door, and voted for Clinton-- and I cannot imagine any possible scenario under which this would have happened-- Obama still would have beaten her by a larger margin than Edwards passed her by last night.
I'll be subconciously that these 10% resent Fox years from now
A lot of people resent Fox News. A lot of Ron Paul fans probably resented Fox News before this primary started. It's never seemed to bother Fox News before.
Pope Innocent XXXIIV wrote on January 4, 2008 2:46 PM:Blood on my hands, BUT I am INNOCENT!
Genghis wrote on January 4, 2008 2:49 PM:I'd stay away from her Mooser, she's dangerous. Did you see the way she eviscerated poor willyjsimmons? The guy's going to be in therapy for years.
Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 2:50 PM:Obama handled the muslim, cocaine and kindergarten shit just fine thank you.
I hope he brings up the distractions of having a husband with a sexual addiction that can rear its ugly head wherever (no pun intended), Marc Rich, Sandy Burglar, and Web Hubbell. But he won't. Because he's a class guy fighting a nasty, desperate and classless organization.
Oh man -- even one of our progressive candidates has signed on to the "individual right" theory of the 2d Amendment! How dismal. Ten years ago gun companies were paying law firms to advance the argument & liberal lawyers who did such work would be ashamed to admit it in public.
Sad.
Though I assume our other candidates aren't any better....
mcc wrote on January 4, 2008 2:52 PM:drawing contrasts
I'm really, really curious what this means. And I am wondering exactly how much of this it is possible to do in the four days before New Hampshire, or the couple of weeks before Nevada. If you've been campaigning one way for months and months and months, and you suddenly start saying different things after losing one primary, don't you think that voters are going to notice this?
I guess this depends on whether "drawing contrasts" means actually changing message to contrast more with Obama, or or whether it just means going negative. I'm not sure either strategy really helps Clinton though. On the one hand the Obama campaign has been fairly skillful at exploiting any attempts by Clinton to go negative. On the other hand if "contrasts" means shifts in policy emphasis, one has to wonder which will catch more attention, the contrasts between post-Iowa Clinton and Obama, or the contrasts between post-Iowa Clinton and pre-Iowa Clinton.
Should be interesting to watch at least I guess..?
Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 2:53 PM:Who is Belinda Stronach anyway and what does she have to do with Bill Clinton?
nogo war wrote on January 4, 2008 2:54 PM:The Clinton machine is in place. Anyone who thinks "it's over",; enjoy the fact Obama has 3 more delegates to Denver than Clinton or Edwards.
hmmm..speaking of Edwards.
Right where he wants to be. He is finally being mentioned. How critical it is that he is second even if by only 7 delegates.
Let the shout out between Clinton and Obama begin. Meanwhile back at the mill..Edwards
will continue to be the Obama is right (pun intended) however who will use the bully pulpit ...and yes it's about time we had a progressive bully other than Russ and Dodd.
Does anyone think that if Obama is the magic bring'em together guy he could have gone on the Senate floor, given a great speech and made a difference in 2007?
Clinton is going with the "Bring'em on" philosophy...and we know where that leads.
I truly believe none of the three Democratic candidates or Republican candidates will arrive at the Conventions with more than 50%.
It is going to be very ugly in Mpls and Denver..
..and I believe that is a good thing.
I'm surprised the "goldwater girl" hasn't blamed her dismal showing in Iowa to the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 4, 2008 2:55 PM:In Iowa, Richardson... worked behind scene with Obama to defeat Clinton... [H]e now has incentive to see Obama defeated. Edwards is now staking out as the alternative to Obama for change. If Hillary loses, Obama becomes inevitable and they will be dead men walking. Hence, they should be expected to go after Obama, the presumed front-runner now. We shall see tomorrow!
Indeed, a good point that. Non-Clinton candidates had a good reason to throw all their negatives at Clinton until yesterday. Now Obama is the guy to beat, and it remains to be seen how this new reality will change the dynamics of the race. I have every confidence that Obama has the skill to adapt to the new circumstances, but it will be interesting to see the precise shape that those adaptations take.
Bart wrote on January 4, 2008 2:56 PM:Sunday, June 4, 2006 1:41 p.m. EDT
Canadian Politician Denies Clinton Affair
Reprint Information
Book on Katie Couric Makes Waves
White House: We're Not Subject to FOIA
FBI Seeks 2 Mysterious Men on Ferry
Publisher: Conservatives Do Read As Much As Liberals
Romney Shrugs Off Mormon History Film
Billionaire Belinda Stronach insists there is nothing true about the rumors she and former President Clinton are having an affair, adding that it's all a Republican plot.
The ultra-wealthy member of Canada's parliament, who switched from the Conservative to the Liberal party, told the Montreal Gazette that the rumors upset her and she doesn't know whether to laugh or cry about the global hullabaloo over her alleged role as Cinton's latest squeeze.
Echoing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's famous allegation of a "vast right-wing conspiracy," Stronach told the Gazette she suspects the rumors have been spread by Republicans.
But it wasn't Republicans who reported last year that she was spotted all over New York with Clinton last year - it was the media.
New York Daily News columnist Ben Widdicombe told ExtraTV.com: "She's blonde, she's ambitious and she's in politics, but she's not Bill Clinton's wife. It's Belinda Stronach, his friend from Canada who's been visiting Bill in New York this week.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 4, 2008 3:01 PM:and when, after they take out obama easy as one-two-three, and we watch as st john mccain is inaugurated a year from now, your bete noir won't look too bad...sigh
Dear Mr Shea,
Isn't the attempt to keep doing the same thing over and over again in the hopes that this time it will yield a different result a species of insanity? Your candidate has already tried the press-the-fear-button approach. She endlessly repeated the idea that Obama was "risky" or "a roll of the dice" or "untested." Obama countered her messages of fear with messages of hope. The comparative merits of these two approaches were entirely evident last night. If you wish to keep trying the obviously weaker approach your are perfectly welcome to do so, but I really have to wonder what you hope to achieve by it.
tra wrote on January 4, 2008 3:04 PM:wes2@2:52--
The "individual rights" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is clearly more historically accurate. Look at Lawrence Tribe's discussion in his most recent edition of his Constitutional Law text. Otherwise, as a constitutional law professor and Democratic candidate, I'm sure Obama wouldn't endorse it.
Genghis
It's just you,
go finish your cup o'noodles
and bag o'cheetoos
Comeback Queen?
Clinton has not lost the race for the Democratic nomination. But she will never again be viewed as inevitable.Obama targets Hillary in N.H.
The Politico
Death by Inevitability
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=43702196-3048-5C12-0018502B9745D1DB
wes2 wrote on January 4, 2008 3:14 PM:tra: sorry, not impressed by Tribe and other ConLaw profs (Levinson et al) playing at being historians. Historians of the period have quite a different interpretation.
Also, word to the wise, use of the word "clearly" tends to incite suspicion when used around lawyers.
Michael A wrote on January 4, 2008 3:15 PM:I don't agree with your "individual rights" analysis or that it is "clearly more historically accurate." It was made up in a supreme court decision, I believe in the 50's or so. Nonetheless, I will give you that for the sake of argument in a historical perspective there is an "individual right" to keep and bear arms. That being said, I am all for everyone being able to keep and bear flintlock muskets and flintlock pistols, since that is the historical perspective.
Machine guns, semi-automatics, bolt action rifles, revolvers, rocket launchers, grenade launchers, etc. are off limits based on your "historical interpretation" only flintlocks are permissible. We have to be "strict constructionists," right?
john mccutchen wrote on January 4, 2008 3:16 PM:This is exactly the message drilled into volunteers at Camp Obama I attended last August and to our new precinct captains..."
Tell your stories, nobody wants to hear laundry lists of policy and we don't want you to see their eyes glaze as you do"
Simon, ThePolitico.com:
Clinton’s speeches were laundry lists of issues designed to win over voters.
In one speech she gave in Ames a few days before the caucus, she spoke about global warming, health care, Northern Ireland, the Medicare “doughnut hole,” student loans, job training, “the plight of American translators in Iraq,” diabetes, dairy farming, country-of-origin labeling, food production standards, the high cost of land and manure disposal. And that is just a partial list.
Obama’s speeches were much more simple, much more emotional and much more direct.
“They said this day would never come,” he said Thursday night.
“They said our sights were set too high. You have done what the cynics said we could not do. You have done what the state of New Hampshire can do in five days.”
don wrote on January 4, 2008 3:18 PM:sleazy fucking arrogant bitch.
time to pull out monica'a cum stained blue dress.
Hey Marc Rich, you out there?
TruthSeeker wrote on January 4, 2008 3:28 PM:If Clinton wants to draw "sharper contrast" with Obama, that's fine. But why does it have to be a negative contrast? If she's such a "great leader," shouldn't she be able to show why she would be good for the country, instead of why someone else is bad? Too me, the fact that she always goes negative when challenged suggests that the positive aspects of her candidacy (and public persona?) are severely lacking. She's indeed using fear against Obama's call to hope.
Also, "innocent"? I don't get that either... It seems dubious though, and desperate. And, gun control as a Democratic issue?? She can go there, but only as long as she finally acknowledges publicly that she's taking her strategy directly from the Republican playbook.
Michael A wrote on January 4, 2008 3:29 PM:Come on don, that is totally uncalled for and disgusting. Go play at redstate.com. Pathetic.
Elizabeth wrote on January 4, 2008 3:31 PM:willyjsimmons wrote:
>>>>Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
That doesn't sound so hot? Retroactive dismissal of pending cases? Huh???
Just a small point -- Requiring or allowing dismissal of such actions wouldn't really be necessary. It's redundant.
In civil law (unlike criminal law) a case is decided on the law as it exists at the time of *decision*, not when the lawsuit was commenced. If, after a case is started but before it's decided, a statute is enacted saying gun companies can't be held liable, then the result would be a decision saying no liability -- even if the co. could have been held liable when the lawsuit was filed. (There's an exception for "vested" rights but don't believe that would apply here.)
Elizabeth wrote on January 4, 2008 3:31 PM:willyjsimmons wrote:
>>>>Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
That doesn't sound so hot? Retroactive dismissal of pending cases? Huh???
Just a small point -- Requiring or allowing dismissal of such actions wouldn't really be necessary. It's redundant.
In civil law (unlike criminal law) a case is decided on the law as it exists at the time of *decision*, not when the lawsuit was commenced. If, after a case is started but before it's decided, a statute is enacted saying gun companies can't be held liable, then the result would be a decision saying no liability -- even if the co. could have been held liable when the lawsuit was filed. (There's an exception for "vested" rights but don't believe that would apply here.)
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 4, 2008 3:31 PM:Ditto what Michael A just said.
willyjsimmons wrote on January 4, 2008 3:33 PM:let me guess your a software programmer who got all A's and B's in school, and you are a good speller.So therefore your views are some how relevant.
Me
I want to date a handsome smart poet who
aspires to the presidencyNot a bucnh of geeky engineers who do math to figure out who they like and aspire to have a wit
Ouch...
LOL
'Your mother'
Alan Snipes wrote on January 4, 2008 3:35 PM:First of all, I want to congratulate Barack Obama on last night's win. I am a supporter of Hillary Clinton's so I cannot allow some people to get away with sliming her.
In the first place, what are people refering to when you refer to the "Clinton Slime Machine"? The Clinton's don't steal elections, they don't lie about going to war, never used public office to get rich. Bill Clinton is just a tremendous politician and President. For those who blame her for the failure of the Health care initiative I have one question. What did you do to try to get Universal Healthcare passed? You sat on your lazy asses and allowed the Republicans to demonize the Clintons on this issue. So don't blamne her because the right out organized us.
Bill Clinton did not give us a Republican Congress. Our side sat on their butts and did not vote in the 1994 congressional elections.
For those Obama supporters who whine when Senator Clinton criticizes him but applaud him when he smears her I have one question. What are you going to do when the Republican attack machine tries to make him out to be a stereotypical black man?
If you think that they will not try to do this to him have not been paying attention to politics the last 25 years.
President CLINTON GAVE US BUDGET SURPLUSES, something no one else has ever been able to do. Also, real wages were rising during his second term.
So stop whining when Senator Clinton criticizes Senator Obama, like he can't take it. This is the big leagues. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
@Elizabeth
You didn't read the link...
cuz I did and read it wrong.
My apologies.
tra wrote on January 4, 2008 3:41 PM:Not to start a whole 2A thread, but:
Michael A:
Under your theory that the right only applies in historical context, the 4th Amendment can't keep the government from looking through our computers. Are you sure you want to go down that road?
wes2:
No offense, but as a lawyer myself, I find cautions about the use of the word "clearly" to be mostly the stuff of first-year writing seminars. Let me rephrase: Tribe and Obama both think 2A protects an individual right. Clearly, that interpretation is on the rise, and the collectivist-militia interpretation is on the wane.
anniek wrote on January 4, 2008 3:42 PM:I realized today that the thing about HRC is not some vague dislike many people profess about her. More like Obama is offering us some soul-to-soul inspiration, most desparately needed after 7 slogging Bu$hCo years.
Something along the lines of the poet thing Sue was talking about.
willyjsimmons wrote on January 4, 2008 3:50 PM:Obama's a damn poet now?
I had no idea what the hell that Mary broad was even talking about...
now I know.
'Poet'??
Okie dokie.
Jones wrote on January 4, 2008 3:50 PM:Rather than contrasts, what the Clinton team really needs is a time machine.
Michael A wrote on January 4, 2008 3:52 PM:Tra, I don't want to go down that road you do. You said "historical context," I didn't. The words of the amendment are pretty clear, I don't see how one comes to the conclusion based on the words that it means that people can own machine guns and the high powered weapons of today. If it was meant to allow what gun rights advocates contend, it would have said "arms and cannons." 18th century cannons didn't have as much firepower and killing power as today's semi-automatic and automatic weapons.
If you are a lawyer and are such a second amendment advocate, read the decision that started this nonsense. It was in the 50's and the "individual right" garbage was a throw away statement in an opinion upholding gun controls. I am taxing my memory, but this really doesn't interest me. I would get rid of guns yesterday as we live in an alleged civilized society, but I know it won't happen.
Michael A wrote on January 4, 2008 3:58 PM:willy, what are you going to do when gravel throws his support to obama? Are you going to go against the wishes of your candidate, or will you join the enemy, as far as gravel is concerned, the establishment, corporate candidate clinton? It seems like you have a dilemma.
Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 4:07 PM:Is Bill Clinton doing Belininda Stronach?
Elizabeth wrote on January 4, 2008 4:08 PM:@willyjsimmons
>>>You didn't read the link... cuz I did and read it wrong. My apologies
You're right - I was going too fast, also. So, hmmm.. maybe we should both apologize to everyone else?
Tim wrote on January 4, 2008 4:09 PM:>and BTW, Hillary and Edwards TIED in
>Iowa last night. Edwards 29.75% /
>Clinton 29.47% a .28% difference
>"behind" someone isn't finishing third.
Anonymous has a point. I mean, G. W. Bush was only .5% "behind" Al Gore and _he_ ended up winning.
name - # of delegates
Obama - 930
Edwards - 744
Clinton - 737
So, we'll just ignore the 7 delegates for Edwards and call it even.
Using Anonymous' thought process, it should be pointed out that Clinton was only "behind" Obama by 7.72% and thus, we should ignore the 193 "extra" delegates for Obama and call Iowa a tie between Clinton and everyone else.
Alternately, we could just say that Obama carried Iowa with Edwards and Clinton coming in second and third, respectively. That jives with the evidence, not the spin.
bvd wrote on January 4, 2008 4:15 PM:Alan - This is absurd.
"For those who blame her for the failure of the Health care initiative I have one question. What did you do to try to get Universal Healthcare passed?"
What did I do? I voted for Bill Clinton! Then he & Hillary screwed up so badly Health Care hasn't been dealt seriously with since. That was THEIR job. I made phone calls and talked it up all I could. But THEY blew it, not me.
"Bill Clinton did not give us a Republican Congress."
Nonsense - he was the leader of the Democratic Party and failed. In 1994-95 there was widespread talk that Clinton was finished. There was a "Draft Colin Powell" movement because WJC was fumblng so badly. He turned it around enough to get re-elected. But the damage was already done.
"Our side sat on their butts and did not vote in the 1994 congressional elections."
I have no control over anyone else's vote. I voted (my congressman then was Chuck Schumer) as did plenty of Dems. The party was damaged by corruption, arrogance and incompetence. Clinton was no help.
"For those Obama supporters who whine when Senator Clinton criticizes him but applaud him when he smears her I have one question. What are you going to do when the Republican attack machine tries to make him out to be a stereotypical black man?"
Hillary's guys already tried that - he handled it fine. Besides, it will be refreshing to not hear them bring up ALL the same Clinton crap again and again and again, guaranteed to turn off tons of voters and bring back the phrases "Clinton Fatigue" and "Bimbo Eruptions."
"If you think that they will not try to do this to him have not been paying attention to politics the last 25 years."
Oh Alan, I've paid close attention.
"President CLINTON GAVE US BUDGET SURPLUSES, something no one else has ever been able to do. Also, real wages were rising during his second term."
Right - he should get some credit. But he rode a wave of luck with the internet explosion. Face it, just as Rudy doesn't deserve all the credit for crime going down in NYC (it started before him and went down throughout the region) WJC doesn't deserve to be declared the Father of Prosperity. He did good things but, sorry, his timing was as fortuitous as his decisions. And don't forget who was running the Fed.
"So stop whining when Senator Clinton criticizes Senator Obama, like he can't take it. This is the big leagues. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
Fair enough. And please apply the same to yourselves in the Clinton camp. Because the whining has been non-stop about "Hillary Haters" when the fact is lots of don't hate her - we just don't want the Clintons back again.
Not a bucnh of geeky engineers who do math to figure out who they like and aspire to have a wit
Isn't occupational bigotry wonderful?
Genghis wrote on January 4, 2008 4:27 PM:go finish your cup o'noodles
and bag o'cheetoos
Huh?
Liam wrote on January 4, 2008 4:40 PM:The Supreme Court has decided to hear a case on Gun owner rights, so that is where it will be decided, and before the election. Hillary is just grasping at straws, and if she wants to start playing the part of Charles Heston, and promising: From her cold dead hands, she will pay a price in the loss of urban support. What next; she will move so far to the right that she will come out in favor of the death penalty for those who practice birth control. Sounds like, deep down inside, Hillary is still A Goldwater Girl.
You can take the girl out of the Republican Party, but you can't take the Republican out of of the Goldwater girl.
Tom wrote on January 4, 2008 4:40 PM:More attack politics from Hillary. What's new?
Edwards knows that the way to win isn't by attacking your opponent, but by presenting your superior ideas and allowing people to see how much better you are. That's what he did in his victory speech in Iowa and that's what he's going to do in New Hampshire.
freepatriot wrote on January 4, 2008 4:41 PM:yo, steve, where'd ya go ???
you just ask one stupid question, prove that you're a total idiot, and then leave ???
come on, dude
you got nine toes left, take another shot
the innertubes is a bitch, ain't it any more info on Obama that you're too lazy to look up yourself ???
me thinks stevie is a hillary campaign sock puppet
cept you usually don't see a sock puppet take it in the ass that bad
tra wrote on January 4, 2008 4:42 PM:Michael A:
"Individual right" doesn't equal "no control." I think you will find that most liberals who think that 2A protects an "individual right" nevertheless believe that right is subject to a significant degree of state control. (Myself included. I'd never argue that people have an absolute right to own machine guns. But FYI, "machine guns" are already so restricted as to be virtually banned.)
I think you're wrong, though, that this started from a Supreme Court decision in the '50s. Most of the research on these issues has focused on the 17th and 18th century precedents for gun ownership rights, and individual liberties against the state in general. Like it or not, the Framers put 2A into the Bill of Rights for a reason. If we want to be intellectually consistent about protecting individual rights I think we have to recognize that.
waka waka wrote on January 4, 2008 4:54 PM:Get ready for more coked up madrassah students. Real classy, Hillary! "Drawing contrasts" worked so well for you before. All you do is further illustrate that the old-school slash-and-burn politics don't work on the man. So go ahead, take another shot!
And for all those Hillaryites out there repeating the canard that "Obama doesn't have any accomplishments," chew on this:
"People who complain that Barack Obama lacks experience must be unaware of his legislative achievements. One reason these accomplishments are unfamiliar is that the media have not devoted enough attention to Obama's bills and the effort required to pass them, ignoring impressive, hard evidence of his character and ability."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html
willyjsimmons wrote on January 4, 2008 4:55 PM:'willy, what are you going to do when gravel throws his support to obama?'
I'm irrelevant.
Who Gravel decides to endorse is fully up to him.
I'll still love him in the morning.
He's so poetic.
Michael A wrote on January 4, 2008 4:58 PM:TRA, the reason was for state militias, not so people can own machine guns. You are talking historical research and that goes back to "strict constructionism." If it is strict construction then stick with the historical context. It really annoys me on this strict construction bs. On guns, advocates twist it for their own benefit and when it cuts against what they want they twist it another way.
You have your belief on the second amendment and I have mine, which is based on the text and "historical research."
Bottom line, kids die all the time from guns in homes and it sickens me. There is no reason for it and there is no reason for gun ownership in the 21st century as far as I am concerned. People want to shoot defenseless animals, use a bow and arrow or flintlocks. At least give the animals a little chance. Why turn them into hamburger with a semi-automatic, disgusting.
CalD wrote on January 4, 2008 5:00 PM:Well I always kind of figured Clinton and whoever else made it out of Iowa would come out swinging when they got to New Hampshire. New Hampshire voters don't have the same history of punishing negative campaigning and it's effectively a two person race at that point, so the angles are easier to figure.
willyjsimmons wrote on January 4, 2008 5:00 PM:'One reason these accomplishments are unfamiliar is that the media have not devoted enough attention to Obama's bills'
Like S.970?
jhv wrote on January 4, 2008 5:06 PM:me again.
i must be stupid, but I still don't get the 'innocent' thing.
is she making another reference to the coke?
seriously, i'm perplexed.
BluePuppy wrote on January 4, 2008 5:12 PM:Obama had a well-deserved victory last night. He ran to the right of Hillary and spent 6 months tearing her down. Her attempts to draw a contrast with health care were mocked by the Obama-fest press. Those days are over. His inexperience and b.s. are going to be on display for all of New Hampshire to see. I've worked campaigns in N.H. Those people will not buy his phony, fuzzy line of nonsense. Plus the Obama voters--AKA as indepedents, Republicans, and professional Hillary-haters--will be voting for McCain and Ron Paul. He's a biography candidate and media creation; there's nothing there there. He actually doesn't exist. He's the illegimate love child of Tracy Chapman and Noam Chomsky. I can't wait for Mr. Hope to get the bad news on January 8. I'm fired up!
Michael A wrote on January 4, 2008 5:19 PM:Oh, comeon bluepuppy. Couldn't you be positive for once? Other than about clinton's looks or wardrobe. Don't you think its great for the party that dems and dem voters outnumbered republican voters by 2 to 1? Don't you think its great for the party that so many young people participated for the first time? Regardless of who won or lost, weren't the caucuses astounding?
NCSteve wrote on January 4, 2008 5:21 PM:Hmm, bright attorney with great grasp of policy issues. Tight corture of secretive long term advisers. Paranoid about the press. Self pitying attempts to garner sympathy for the mean things political enemies say about her. Has repeatedly demonstrated that her default response to any political setback is to go negative.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Hillary Milhous Clinton.
Obama's the Next FDR wrote on January 4, 2008 5:26 PM:All of this talk about Obama being "fuzzy," "vague on policy" and "unsubstantial" is pure Clintonian rhetoric. Obama has an articulate policy position for every position offered by the other candidates. Moreover, he has TONS of experience as a grassroots organizer and a politician in Illinois. Clinton's fabled experience turns out to be only her years spent as Bill's wife and some unproductive years in the senate.
Obama speaks in idealistic language, but he earned that right by backing it up with concrete plans for change and a history of working for change.
tra wrote on January 4, 2008 5:28 PM:Michael A.:
I respect your opinions as to whether, as a matter of abstract policy, citizens today should own guns. But "historical research" and "strict constructionism" are by no means the same thing. The legal question of whether or not the Second Amendment protects an individual right is not cleanly separable from the historical question of what the Framers meant by the words they chose, and what they meant to do by putting it into the Bill of Rights (which was then ratified by the people, through the states). No serious student of the Constitution would argue that its historical meaning is irrelevant.
lestatdelc wrote on January 4, 2008 5:31 PM:
"...and my goodness, the most innocent it turns out."
Huh?
What is she trying to imply?
That Obama is somehow less innocent?
Innocent of what?
WTF does this even mean? She is less innocent than who... her husband who was impeached for lying under oath?
Sounds to me she is inadvertanly drawing contrasts between herself and her spouse who she is sending out to be the cavalry in NH for 5 days after her showing in Iowa.
Michael A wrote on January 4, 2008 5:43 PM:tra, I am not. I know con law and I respectfully disagree with your opinion on what the original intent of the 2nd amendment was. You know what they say about opinions. Everyone has one.
Again, it's probably a waste of time, but I would suggest that you read that 50ish decision concerning the second amendment. I am pretty sure it was the first decision addressing the amendment, which is interesting in and of itself as it would be over 150 years after the amendment was written.
tra wrote on January 4, 2008 5:52 PM:
Michael A.:
IIR, US v. Miller in 1939 implied that the 2nd Amendment _wasn't_ an individual right, and the Supreme Court hasn't had much to say since then (until this term, of course).
Not a chance.
New Republic blog today:
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/01/04/trb-calls-the-democratic-race.aspx
Kevin Drum today (Washington Note):
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_01/012838.php
Hmmmm... Just did a text search on this post and neither Kefa nor dcshungu have chosen to comment. Interesting.
Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 6:05 PM:Washington Post today on Obama's impressive legislative record in Illinois:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html
Stick a fork in that cackle!
"zero" wrote on January 4, 2008 6:08 PM:If Hillary does dirt to Obama, all she will basically be doing is guaranteeing Edwards gets nominated. This presidential run is KILLING her political career because the more folks see of her, the less they like her. Hillary's only real political strength was the fact that she was "supposedly" so graceful and supportive when her husband's cover was "BLOWN" (pun intended), but most even know that was staged political bullshit.
I can't trust anybody that has devoted their life to being a political shill. Cats like Edwards and Obama have had successful lives outside of politics, the Clintons have not, they have been basically career politicians. Shit is like cats I grew up with that have never held down a job in their lives that was not politically connected in the city. That's an entire life of kissing ass and compromising to get ahead.
Bill had no problem being as liberal or conservative as he needed to be to get ahead (sometimes even to the point of contradiction) and I think Bill was Che Guivera compared to Hillary when it comes to having convictions and morals. Hillary reminds me of the type of chick in high school that would put her newborn in a woodchipper because she thought the baby would hurt her chances of being prom queen.
Michael A wrote on January 4, 2008 6:08 PM:I was off by 11 years. Darn, there goes all my credibility. It's been a long time since I even looked at it. Actually, it might have even been in con law. I had a great prof, wrote all kinds of books and I can't remember his name for the life of me. Its been so long. However, his opinion, which surprise surprise is similar to mine, was that the 2nd amendment did not provide for an individual "right" to possess guns, but was limited to ownership for the purposes of state militias.
That kind of dovetails with the fact, again I could be wrong, but that the 2nd amendment did not even come up for 150 years. If it was individual ownership that was protected or it concerned an individual's rights, you would think in that 150 years it would have come up at least one other time. In my opinion, which every one has one, that indicates that it was a state militia issue and not an individual rights issue.
Not So Clean wrote on January 4, 2008 6:11 PM:Associated Press: “40 Percent of the Money [Obama] Raised as a State Senator Came from PACs, Corporations and Unions, Including Organizations with a Financial Stake in Legislation He Was Sponsoring.” In December 2007, the Associated Press reported, “Barack Obama played poker and basketball with lobbyists when he was a state senator. He took their campaign donations and worked with them to write legislation … A look at Obama’s seven years in the Illinois Legislature reveals a complicated relationship with lobbyists - particularly for someone who now makes criticism of lobbyists a centerpiece of his presidential campaign.” The report also noted, “About 40 percent of the money he raised as a state senator came from PACs, corporations and unions, including organizations with a financial stake in legislation he was sponsoring.” [Associated Press, 12/1/07 (emphasis added)]
Obama Attended Weekly Poker Games with Lobbyists and Lawmakers in Springfield. In May 2007, the Chicago Tribune reported that while he was in the Illinois State Senate, “Nowhere was Obama’s ability to navigate Springfield’s subcultures on better display than at The Committee Meeting. That was the code name for Wednesday night poker games attended by about a dozen lawmakers and lobbyists.” [Chicago Tribune, 5/3/07]
Playing Poker for Money Is Illegal in Illinois. According to the Associated Press, “Under [Illinois] state law, it’s illegal to play poker for money, but the law is seldom enforced when low-stakes games are involved.” [Associated Press, 9/24/07]
Obama: “I Have a Bunch of Friends Who Were State Lobbyists ... I Played Poker with Them.” In August 2007, the Associated Press reported that Obama “acknowledged Thursday that he swims in ‘the same muddy water’ that corrupts Washington.” “I have a bunch of friends who were state lobbyists,” Obama said. “The fact of the matter is ... I played poker with them, so I don’t think that lobbyists are evil ... I just think they’ve got an agenda and you got to be clear about that, and not pretend that they don’t.” He added, “Why else are they getting hired and making all this money unless they’re actually getting something done?” [Associated Press, 8/16/07]
Poker Game Was Eventually Moved to Business Lobbyists’ Offices. In September 2007, the Associated Press reported, “Poker night also included a lobbyist for the Illinois Manufacturers’ Association, and the game eventually was moved to the association’s office.” [Associated Press, 9/24/07]
Lobbyists Attended State Senate Send-Off for Obama. In November 2004, the Chicago Defender reported, “Senate President Emil Jones hosted a farewell reception Monday night, which was attended by several hundred elected officials, staffers and lobbyists.” [Chicago Defender, 11/9/04]
OK, if Hillary wants to sharpen the contrast:
Obama has never made an over night killing on a tiny one time investment in the futures market. Hillary did.
Obama has never pardoned an international swindler, after his wife donated big money , like the Clintons did.
Obama has never had his two brothers take hundreds of thousand of dollars from drug criminals seeking presidential pardons, like Hillary has.
Obama has never shut every one out, and declared that he was going to fix health care, all by himself, and actually set health care reform back twenty years, like Hillary did.
Obama never voted to authorize George W. Bush to invade Iraq, without even first reading the Intel reports, like Hillary did.
There are just a few sharp contrasts that can be drawn, if Hillary wants to set that tone in New Hampshire. Two can play that game, so she better be ready to take heavy return fire.
Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 6:25 PM:D-E-S-P-E-R-A-T-I-O-N
Michael A wrote on January 4, 2008 6:26 PM:Thanks for the post annon. We also have the 4000 vote analysis to find one allegedly controversial vote. Plus interviewing his kindergarten teacher in indonesia.
Does anyone doubt in a million years that obama has been thoroughly tested and vetted by the vaunted clinton attack machine? I feel so confident about his backround that its frightening. That is at least one thing that we can thank the clintons for.
Now, where oh where is that article on clinton's legislative non-record or her sheep-like votes to go with the flow as opposed to lead. Where is that article analyzing her senate work? Where is that article analyzing all her foreign policy work as first lady? Where is that article analyzing all her "change" that she has worked for over 35 years?
She opens her mouth and says these things and I really want to puke. Same thing with the media being "hard" on her and not hard on obama. They repeated her baseless attack about his "lack of experience" so much that people actually believe it. Talk about a free pass from the media. The only things the corporate media harped on were some of her stupid blunders.
She wants her followers to be just like the sheep that she is in the senate. Just follow the fearless leader and don't ask any questions. If you do, you are unamerican and a hillary-hater.
Its about the future stupid wrote on January 4, 2008 6:31 PM:Sounds to me its about to go nuclear in NH. If Edwards does the old duck and cover, keep it clean and on message, hopefully hill will get another third place finish.
Not So Clean wrote on January 4, 2008 6:31 PM:Obama's ties to indicted Chicago businessman Antoin “Tony” Rezko
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/184540,122306obama.article
Michael A.:
I didn't intend the date as an attack on your credibility. I agree it's not material.
I think the issue didn't come up until the 20th century because there weren't any significant federal firearms laws before the National Firearms Act of 1934, and it wasn't (still isn't) clear whether the 2nd Amendment has been incorporated against state laws by the 14th Amendment.
Overall, I think it's widely considered an underdeveloped area of constitutional law, but I think this is the 20th century history:
1. Vague academic/ judicial consensus based on militia theory.
2. Right-wing effort to push individual rights theory.
3. Left-wing push-back in favor of militia theory.
4. Fragmentation of left-wing push-back as some left-wing scholars/ professors begin to agree with individual rights theory.
5. Courts begin to agree with individual rights theory; stay tuned.
I have no doubt that you had a great professor who supported the militia theory, and plenty still do. But I think the cutting-edge scholarship in this area is evolving and unsettled.
Elizabeth wrote on January 4, 2008 6:34 PM:"Of all the people running for president, I’ve been the most vetted, the most investigated, and my goodness, the most innocent it turns out."
When I first saw this quote, I immediately heard echoes of the Robert Novak "HRC camp knows something awful about Obama but are being too nice to reveal it" ridiculousness. --
Did it hit anyone else that way?
Well, at least there's one thing we can be sure of -- if Obama does become the nominee, he'll be the most vetted ever: He will have survived the Clinton microscope and I doubt there would be anything left for the Republicans to discover!
Michael A wrote on January 4, 2008 6:44 PM:Good post tra, I was just kidding on the credibility thing. I'm kind of "gun" shy after all the clinton supporter attacks.
I don't know about your last two points. The right wing has been pushing and pushing and pushing the individual rights argument and I am pretty sure it comes from twisting a passage out of the 39 case. With the current make up of the court, my guess is they will twist and warp the law again in favor of an individual right, which really doesn't make sense. I think they lost their copy of the constitution or burned it or something. By way of example, how the hamdan decision was not a 9-0 decision is a travesty and they claim to follow precedent and the law???? What a joke.
Anyway, it is what it is.
Not So Clean wrote on January 4, 2008 6:45 PM:
Favors For (and From) A Shady Chicago Businessman
Barack Obama has been friends with Antoin ("Tony") Rezko since at least 1990. Rezko offered him a job in the early 1990s (declined), and has raised at least $60,000 for Obama's campaigns. In return, Barack arranged an internship in 2005 for John Aramanda, the son of a Rezko business associate (Joseph Aramanda, who himself gave Barack $11,500.)
There's more. In June, 2005, Obama bought a house in Chicago for $1.65 million. The same day, Rezko bought the vacant lot next door for $625,00. Seven months later, Rezko sold Barack a slice (1/6th) of his lot so the Obamas could have a bigger yard. There's no evidence that Rezko bought the vacant land for any other reason than to do Obama a favor.
Here's the real problem: among other problems, Rezko is under indictment in a federal government corruption case for demanding kickbacks from companies wanting to do business with Illinois Governor Blagojevich, another politician that Rezko has befriended and donated to. (Rezko is also under indictment for shaking down a Hollywood producer for $1.5 million in campaign contributions for Blagojevich. The guy takes care of his friends.) In fact, Joseph Aramanda is an unindicted co-conspirator in one of the kickback cases.
Obama has admitted that the land deal was a mistake, and donated $11,500 given to him directly by Rezko to charity.
Why is it that everytime i hear Hill talk about being "vetted", i get this picture in the back of my head of Bill cruising by capitol hill in a shiny red convertible corvette scaning for interns.
P.S. i don't wanna be "vetted".
intent is as joke only nothing personal, thank you.
Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 6:46 PM:Does anyone know if Bill Clinton is still banging Belinda Stronach?
Michael A wrote on January 4, 2008 6:46 PM:Hey not so clean, how much did that mark rich pardon cost again? I forgot.
larry wrote on January 4, 2008 6:55 PM:I hope Obama is ready for the Slickwillie Boating he is about to get.
He should come back with a devastating counterpunch which does indeed draw out the "differences": the Clinton’s bad faith, their dishonesty and arrogance-- the cash for pardons—Marc Rich.
Compared to Little George, Clinton’s Presidency was stellar. But compared to a non deviant, Clinton was uninspired and mediocre at best. At worse, he set the tone for dishonesty and cynicism that in some respects enabled this current crowd to say and do whatever they want.... “because they can”. As Slick Willie said regarding why he had his intern give him a blow job… “because he could” .
The impeachment was bullshit, but the Clinton’s raced to the bottom… “I did not have sex with that women”… “depends to the definition of what the word “is” is, the right wing conspiracy… lying to a grand jury, having sex with a young intern under his employ… a cum stained dress as evidence, DNA tests. . Whitewater was a right wing witch hunt, but it also showed that she destroy documents and used her and his influence for corrupt purposes.
And did I mention MARC RICH and cash for Pardons? I can’t understand why so many are still so enamored.
Don’t we deserve a chance at something better?
Nah, larry don't you want to see the clinton soap opera in the white house again? It will be just so wonderful. We can all run around saying madam president and it will just be grand because the clintons will be president again. Forget about the facts about the first clinton presidency, nothing got done, all the scandals, all the garbage, just wallow in the glory of a clinton restoration. Doesn't that sound wonderful larry? Forget about our kids or our future, just wallow in the glory of the clinton restoration.
tra wrote on January 4, 2008 7:00 PM:Michael A.:
I agree, and expect the ideological inconsistencies to continue unabated.
David wrote on January 4, 2008 7:17 PM:QUOTE OF THE DAY
"This feels good. It's just like I imagined it when I was talking to my kindergarten teacher."
-- Sen. Barack Obama, quoted by the New York Observer, on his new status as Democratic frontrunner.
Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 7:22 PM:I'm voting for whoever the Democratic nominee is, whoever it is, I have no deep-seated resenment for any of the nominees and I hope the one who will fare best in the general is nominated, I am not psychic, I cannot tell you who that is but I do have to comment on this: "Obama is the next FDR" Um, do you even listen to him?
sheerahkahn wrote on January 4, 2008 7:23 PM:What Hillary really needs to do, is go back in time, get herself super drunk, and then when her past self is unable to go to vote for the Kyl/Lieberman bill, the future Hillary goes and votes "no." Thus salvaging her Presidential bid, and not chasing away all those people like me who said, "wtf? you voted for another damn Bush canard? Have you learned nothing in the past six years!"
roo_P wrote on January 4, 2008 7:37 PM:BluePuppy,
Explain again how this "right-wing love child of Noam Chomsky and Tracy Chapman" thing works, in particular in the context of a thread about Clinton criticising Obama of supporting gun regulation?
Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 7:46 PM:Steve:
I find your attitude hilarious. It's obvious to a child that Hillary is the Democrat most likely to lose the election. "Gravitas" is what assholes like Rumsfeld and Cheney wear on their sleeves.
The Presidency is not a difficult job, if a lackwit like Reagan can handle it without being hooted off the stage. The trick is getting the job. Obama is clearly more charismatic than Hillary, a far better speaker, at least as quick on his feet in a debate, and just as smart. His political instincts and approach are far better than Hillary's, else how explain her utter failure to dispatch his upstart candidacy?
Hillary's a loser. The rationale for her presidency is non-existent> "Experience?" It's worthless as a consruct. What will she do if the Repubs nominate McCain, withdraw in favor of his superior experience?
She blew it. She's a poor politician. The best she could ever have hoped for is a one-vte win in November. Thank God the Dems seem to be waking up in time.
Liam wrote on January 4, 2008 8:07 PM:I just saw a clip on PBS of Hillary speaking today in New Hampshire. What stuck out was how ego-centric, almost narcissistic, her speaking pattern is.
Hillary started every sentence with "I" or "My". The clip ran for about five minutes, and she gave the audience an undiluted meal of "I" and "My". It was very revealing.
She never talks about the people, what they want, and what they are looking for. It is all about "I" and "My" Hillary. Not a very attractive or desirable trait in a would be President.
Mike timmons wrote on January 4, 2008 8:23 PM:What a great day. Today, for the first time since November 2004, I feel the Democrats have a chance to win the White House.
Wake up! Hillary has no shot to win the White House. I have never voted Republican, and I have never voted for anyone who voted for this pyrrhic victory in Iraq.
I hope Hillary's day is done, because there is no way she can win the White House. Real Democrats can sniff a Republican, and Hillary wears eau du Milhous!
Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 8:58 PM:Republicans are on the prowl tonight!
Elizabeth wrote on January 4, 2008 9:13 PM:David --
Where in the New York Observer was this? I wanted to send it to someone and wanted to give a link. Or is it not online?
QUOTE OF THE DAY
"This feels good. It's just like I imagined it when I was talking to my kindergarten teacher."
-- Sen. Barack Obama, quoted by the New York Observer, on his new status as Democratic frontrunner.
Thanks!
Ni Daye wrote on January 4, 2008 9:25 PM:The big difference between Clinton and Obama is that one is willing to play dirty and routinely gets away with it. The other has no intention to play dirty but is routinely forced by media to punish the subordinates unnecessarilily. Guess who is who?
When Obama was trailing, he was cheered by the media to attack Clinton and he pleaded with the New York Times that he would start attacking Clinton more forcely. He attacks like dog, he attacks Kerry, Gore, Clinton administration, and progressive organizations. He had an anti-gay priest on his tour and refused to remove him no matter what. he has an immoral consultant trying to link Clinton to Bhutto's dealth and refuses to dounce him. Had it be the other way around, the minions of Obama would be barking like dogs for Clinton to dismiss A$$holerod! The man never accepts he makes any mistake and is getting with all kind of negative attacks against fellow democrats.
Hillary on the other hand, has to dismiss her national co-chair for making obvious but off-hand comments. Whenever she says anything, she is always attacked by the media dogs.
Hillary should stick to a slogan: Annoy the media, vote for change supported by experience rather empty rhetoric!
blackstar wrote on January 4, 2008 9:35 PM:yeah Ni Daye, you're right. Hillary's problems, including losing Iowa, are the fault of everybody but Hillary.
Michael A wrote on January 4, 2008 9:37 PM:Ni Daye, you want to hear empty rhetoric listen to a clinton speech. Try to fact check anything and there is nothing there. Every time she makes some glorious claim, there is no substance. Like her bosnia foreign policy experience that she learned from sinbad. I can't believe you clinton people. You can't truly be that blind.
K Eldridge wrote on January 4, 2008 9:37 PM:Last night was the greatest night of my life. I witnessed for the first time the American Dream that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in August of 1963. After hearing Barack Obama’s speech, I slipped away into the spare room of my home (a home I might lose due to an adjustable loan resetting at the end of this year) and wept. For once, the American Dream did not amount to anything material, a house, a car, or a bottomless savings account. I wept realizing that America for once saw a man; not a black man. Iowa chose Hope and endless possibility over pessimism, fear, and division. If I die today, I can say without a doubt, I have seen greatness in the people of this great nation. My confidence has been restored, and whether or not Obama becomes the presidential nominee for the democrats, I now believe in the American Dream. America, hope again and again. When you stop hoping you die.
blackstar wrote on January 4, 2008 9:35 PM:
--- Can you not address the substance of my post? Do you think the media favor Obama or Clinton?
Change, change, change, hope, hope, hope, unite, unite, unite, ... You can keep shouting your throats out. You think you can keep shouting and you will just realize your dreams.
Try to find a job without a good resume, without good working experience! No wonder the snake oil salesmen are making such a good living. No wonder your local used car dealers alway laugh their ways to the bank. There are so many gullible people liek you around. There are suckers born every minute in England. it is the same way here!
If you compare bush and obama closely, they are just the same people that tell people that they should trust their guts. they both think they have the best instincts that have nothing to do with experience.
kucinich for prez wrote on January 4, 2008 9:49 PM:They didn't reject Clinton, they just liked someone a little better.
kozmik wrote on January 4, 2008 9:56 PM:I guess Hillary wasn't content putting her foot in her mouth, and is now intent on shooting herself in the foot with a howitzer.
Keep on digging Hillary. Too late to go positive now. And negative attacks have worked soooo well for her thus far. :rolleyes:
Maybe now she'll really demonstrate how to turn out women voters for Obama.
New campaign slogans:
"Ready to Lead on Day One, Take Two."
"Hit Ground, May Start Running."
"Brand Hillary = Leadership and Experience TM (now under new leadership in lieu of recent experiences.)"
"More Changier"
jl obber wrote on January 4, 2008 10:01 PM:As a woman, I'm disappointed in Hilary ... I want to like her, but feel she is too deceptive/political & her position on Iraq has been weak. I'm certainly not going to vote for her just because she is a woman, which seems like something she depends on. It's too bad that the first solid woman president hopeful is so mainstream ... in her lack of q & a for reporters, she reminds me of Bush more than anything else - which is extremely scary. She's just way too conservative and I'm glad that Iowa gave her a sound rejection!!!! Go Obama and Edwards - now that would be a great ticket!!! I personally think Obama is the best candidate in the line-up ... the Clinton insinuations about his lack of experience is disgusting ... please, does 4 or so more years in the Senate and time as a "first lady" really give you anything above and beyond more exposure to dc and the political game? Is that something we really need in a president? I think that the ability to negotiate is something you are born with & probably don't learn ... Hillary has show that she is very weak there ... she either goes her own way (ex. her first experience with health care reform) or completely capitulates (ex. Iraq). Obama seems to have a personality where he could be strong, yet find areas of middle ground ... although I much prefer Edwards' position on Healthcare.
NCSteve wrote on January 4, 2008 10:24 PM:"More Changier"
Lol!
David wrote on January 4, 2008 10:34 PM:Elizabeth:
Re: QUOTE OF THE DAY
"This feels good. It's just like I imagined it when I was talking to my kindergarten teacher."
-- Sen. Barack Obama, quoted by the New York Observer, on his new status as Democratic frontrunner.
Here is the link:
http://www.observer.com/2008/obama-makes-clinton-campaign-joke
Cheers!
David wrote on January 4, 2008 10:35 PM:Sounds like he crushed it again at the NH Dem Party big dinner tonight:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/oh-bam-a-fires-it-up/#more-3666
Yes, Ni Daye, we get it. When your life has taken a few crappy turns, its much better to just sink down into the sty of dispair and cynicism and have a good wallow in some stagnant self-pity than to dare to hope. Boy, I, for one and all a-tingle with inspiration. I can't imagine why people wouldn't rather follow that message than this one:
For many months, we've been teased, even derided for talking about hope. But we always knew that hope is not blind optimism. It's not ignoring the enormity of the tasks ahead or the roadblocks that stand in our path.It's not sitting on the sidelines or shirking from a fight. Hope is that thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it and to work for it and to fight for it.
Ni Daye wrote on January 4, 2008 11:02 PM:
NCSteve wrote on January 4, 2008 10:36 PM:
Yes, Ni Daye, we get it.
"For many months, we've been teased, even derided for talking about hope. But we always knew that hope is not blind optimism. It's not ignoring the enormity of the tasks ahead or the roadblocks that stand in our path.
It's not sitting on the sidelines or shirking from a fight. Hope is that thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it and to work for it and to fight for it."
---
Is there any freaking substance in it? Can it be any emptier? Horse shit, is this man your philosophy or psycology teacher? man, you are not dealing with a preacher! You are dealing with a presidential candidate. if you want to be fooled, go right ahead! How pathetic!!!
You are more than a fool if you think one of the most liberal memeber of one of the most liberal legislature in the name is best positioned to unite the country. Wait until the GOP gets their chance. You think Obama Hussein's voting record, the votes on gun control, the vote of "present' on sex shop around school will not be exposed in teh general election?
Hey Ni Daye, get a hold of yourself. You're gonna have a a heart attack like Marc Penn.
You are watching a major generational transformation in politics happen right in front of your eyes with one of the most gifted politicians in decades. WIll that be thrown at him? Sure it will. Just like the venomous spew coming from your desperate mouth and that of the Clinton campaign these days. Hussein, cocaine, kindergarten? He can take it all and more. And you know what....he will respectfully, with humor and with effectiveness.
And he will draw in independents, Republicans, young and old because of the way he responds. America has had it with the politics of polarization that you obviously espouse. That's what got us into this mess in the first place.
Get on the train or get out of the way. We are leaving the station with or without you.
Ni Daye wrote on January 4, 2008 11:33 PM:David wrote on January 4, 2008 11:24 PM:
Hey Ni Daye, get a hold of yourself. You're gonna have a a heart attack like Marc Penn.
--- No question, Hussein Osama is a gifted politician. He can fool a lot of you but he can not fool more people for more time. People will start asking that you say you can unite people to achieve better things, how? do you have any experience, do you have any record to show for it? His very liberal records may not be a liability in the Dem primary, he sure as hell will be exposed for what he is if he gets to general election. Do you think the Repugnants will be so kind to your King Hussein?
DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 11:44 PM: