New Negative Hillary Ad In South Carolina Hits Obama For Calling GOP "Party Of Ideas"

Comments (364)

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 11:39 AM:

If Bill Clinton has to trash his legacy to protect his legacy, so be it. If he has to put a dagger through the heart of hope to give Hillary hope, so be it.

Two for One
MoDo
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/opinion/23dowd.html?hp

John McCutchen wrote on January 23, 2008 11:41 AM:

Those who think that the millions of Obama supporters and the tens of thousands of Obama grassroots activists would support the Clintons if they are the nominees, would do well to stop attempting thought

Mike wrote on January 23, 2008 11:41 AM:

So after lying about what he said for a week, they finally go ahead and use his actual words, but still pretend he said what they wrongly accused him of previously. Did they think no one would notice?

nisleib wrote on January 23, 2008 11:41 AM:

Great, another misleading bs attack by the Clintons.

I must say, the Clintons have done the impossible: they've made Baghdad Bob seem credible in comparison.

The Clintons; because lieing is way of life.

Anon wrote on January 23, 2008 11:42 AM:

I know there will be a great deal of keyboard gnashing by the Obamites, but Obama's statement is fair game. He was sucking up to some right wing editorial writers and trimmed his language.

I don't think Obama is any closet Republican, but his habit of adopting right talking points or concilliating to them is problematic.

Jeremy wrote on January 23, 2008 11:43 AM:

Fear and lies. Hillary seems to think that Rove had some pretty good ideas.

katie wrote on January 23, 2008 11:43 AM:

John-
You are an idiot. I know plenty of Obama supporters who haven't gone off the deep end who will happily support Hillary in the general.

Though its fun watching you speak for millions of people.

Maybe its time to take a step back and take a deep breath sometimes.

Also in the future, speak for yourself.

Anon wrote on January 23, 2008 11:44 AM:

Oh, and can we please agree to ignore Maureen Dowd? I am sure you won't be linking to her next 'Obambi' hit.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 23, 2008 11:44 AM:

I guess we will see how well this works for her. I had thought that this approach would backfire in NV (where Reagan is well-thought-of) but I was wrong. Perhaps it will also work for her in SC, or perhaps Obama has had enough time by now to set the record straight, such that this will just come across to the voters as insulting and desperate. Hard to know until the votes are counted.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 11:45 AM:

But for Mr. Clinton, more is at stake in 2008 than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's political future. Mr. Obama is also a threat to Mr. Clinton's presidential legacy and to the Clinton machine's lording over the national Democratic Party.

Take back our Party Democrats. It doesn't belong to the Clintons

Stirling McLaughlin wrote on January 23, 2008 11:45 AM:

We need a new word. Clintonboating? SwiftClintoning? Help me out here.

katie wrote on January 23, 2008 11:46 AM:

True..the party belongs to the people, who unfortunately for Obama supporters have seen through his whole act and are voting for Hillary.

Go Dem's in 2008!

Mike wrote on January 23, 2008 11:47 AM:

Anon,

It's a lie to say Obama was speaking to "right wing editorial writers". That board endorsed Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000. What right wing board would have done that?

John McCutchen wrote on January 23, 2008 11:47 AM:

Katie...I am sure you know plenty of Obama supporters.

I can only speak for the ones I've been working with here in NoCali actively 20-25 hours a week for 6 months

Glad you find me so amusing. You'll be hearing a lot more

rssrai wrote on January 23, 2008 11:48 AM:

After Obama praised Reagan to a repug newspaper to get repug votes, I was done with Obama. Also, Obama's ad asking repugs to caucus for him in Nevada against Hillary to me was so undemocratic that the only word that comes to mind is TRAITOR.

John McCutchen wrote on January 23, 2008 11:48 AM:

and Katie knows "plenty of Obama supporters"

Probably calls them fools and dupes to their faces eh Katie

What a crock

John McCutchen wrote on January 23, 2008 11:49 AM:

Why some of Katie's best friends are Obama supporters.

Still laughing are you

Dan wrote on January 23, 2008 11:49 AM:

No one is really covering down-the-ballot news anymore, but for those of you who are interested in the House, here's some good news for Democrats who got a very competitive candidate in FL-21, a Miami-area district that will now be a top battle.

LJ wrote on January 23, 2008 11:50 AM:

The Hillary ad implies... that Obama said he favored specific GOP ideas, which he didn't really do...

So are Clinton supporters proud of these distortions from the Clinton slime machine?

katie wrote on January 23, 2008 11:50 AM:

Well im sure the people campaigning for him are a little more biased than the regular people of the democratic party, who are a little less dictatorial in their style.

I think its a fatal flaw, and shows the sheer audacity of both Obama and his supporters to assume that they know/ or can tell people how to vote in the general.

Luckily, I wont have to hear much after Feb 5th.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 23, 2008 11:50 AM:

I know plenty of Obama supporters who haven't gone off the deep end who will happily support Hillary in the general.

Do you really? Good, glad to hear it. Could you please think of them next time you feel tempted to post a tirade against the childish, cult-like behavior of all Obama supporters? Would you say to the faces of all of the Obama supporters in your acquaintance "I think the Obama supporters need a time-out, and maybe a nap..or a bottle..or their diapers changed" as you said to us on Jan 19 at 17h31?

Dan wrote on January 23, 2008 11:51 AM:

First, clearly Obama's original statement was a gaffe and it would have been better had he not made it.

Second, GOD she's vicious with this. She knows full well she's misrepresenting his statement. There's a little part of me that says, "At least she'd be this rough with Republicans too," but that part is far outweighed by the disgust I feel.

John McCutchen wrote on January 23, 2008 11:51 AM:

After Obama praised Reagan to a repug newspaper to get repug votes

And we wonder how Bush managed to tell 435 lies to lead us into war, and Hillary embraced every one.

The Clintons will tell any lie, any time.

But it does them no good unless there are naifs who'll believe them.

THAT IS A LIE

NCSteve wrote on January 23, 2008 11:52 AM:

Damn, MoDo is actually pissed.

I have a love/hate thing about Dowd, kind of like with Brittany Spears gossip before it got too sad to bear. I hate myself for reading it, but I can't seem to stop myself.

Usually, reading one of her columns is like using chopsticks to try to pluck a few pearls of wisdom out of a bubbling, oozy pot of hot green poison. But today she actually seems too pissed about the way the Clintons are running to engage in her usual "oh-so-jaded-and-entertained-by-it-all" toxic banter. Actual passion. I'm kind of taken aback.

John P. wrote on January 23, 2008 11:53 AM:

The Clinton attacks are brilliant tactical maneuvers. Not because they paint Obama as a closet Republican, but because Obama has to spend so much of his media coverage refuting these charges rather than staying with his message of "hope" and "change."

The Clinton camp realized at some point that they couldn't raise the tenor of their campaign to Obama's. So they found a way to bring him down into the mud where, apparently, all politicians belong.

katie wrote on January 23, 2008 11:53 AM:

Do you know all the Obama supporters in America?

Do you think that the rest of America runs around in cliques and only associates with people who agree on which candidate they are supporting in the primary?

You need a life.

We actually have civilized conversations about it, unfortunately when it comes to Hillary, online Obama supporters lost the ability to be civil right after he lost NH.

Angry Vet wrote on January 23, 2008 11:53 AM:

DAMN IT! STOP PUTTING ME IN A BOX ALREADY!

JM- Speak for yourself, not al Obama supporters. I'd plug my nose and vote for HRC in GE no matter who the Repug nominee (or Bloomberg) was. Unless she did something completely outrageous (along with any possible candidate for the GE).

Katie- Your lumping me in a box doesn't help my opinion of your candidate.

Greg D- Yeah, this ad is disgusting. It might be considered "fair game" as another pointed out above (and everything is really fair game in politics), but that doesn't mean I can't be disgusted.

But will it work?

Would African-Americans (BO's key support in SC) cross the line for HRC upon hearing this? Or, could it backfire like (presumed) in NV, sending white Dems over to Obama. Presumably, they are going to be a rather conservative lot, right?

See Politico's coverage of Rep. Spratt's non-endorsement "policy:"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/8049.html

Michael A wrote on January 23, 2008 11:53 AM:

How about clintonism or clintonian or how about trailer trashing?

John McCutchen wrote on January 23, 2008 11:53 AM:

NCSteve...Don't be too hard on yourself. After all, we both read MoDo and Greg Sargent

hadenough wrote on January 23, 2008 11:54 AM:

obama stepped in it. He was pandering to a conservative ed board and said what he thought they wanted to hear. Now he gets to walk around with reagan stuck on his shoe.

stlounick wrote on January 23, 2008 11:54 AM:

Negative ads are effective. That has been proven over and over and over. Hillary and Bill are perhaps going to entice a 527 Democratic group into making negative ads on things like cattle futures and Bill's on-camera lies to the public. The Clintons are banking on the other two candidates not indulging in this sort of thing.

The Clintons are going to give the new Truth Squad a lot of work. Let's hope we can have a serious of ads from this squad called maybe "Setting it Straight" that are short, pithy and humorous refuting these sorts of things.

I would like folks laughing at the Clintons. That strikes me as the best approach.

CT Voter wrote on January 23, 2008 11:55 AM:

Most Democrats I know are excited about Obama, but also say "I'll hold my nose and vote for Hillary if she's the nominee".

So yeah, katie, people will vote for Hillary. They won't be excited about it, they won't campaign for her, they won't do much except vote. And many people will just stay home. But hey, people will vote for her, the same way they voted for John Kerry...

Heckuva campaign, Bill and Hill!

Is Bill going to be Veep, btw?

Kristi wrote on January 23, 2008 11:56 AM:

The way the Clinton's act reminds me of BushCo when they didn't actually say Iraq was part of 9/11, just mention them in close enough proximity that anyone not very informed comes away with an incorrect assumption of happened.

Divide, polarize, and use the southern strategy.

On Stephanie Miller, someone who caucused in Nevada called in to say that the Clinton group started chanting "Osama, Obama" at them during the Caucus. He said he thought there was going to be a riot.

The Clinton's will have a divided Democratic Party if they manage to win the nomination. They are using Republican-Rovian tactics against fellow Democrats.

It wont be forgotten.

John McCutchen wrote on January 23, 2008 11:56 AM:

Yea Katie I know all the Obama supporters in America ..on a first name basis

Except for the "plenty of Obama supporters" you know who'd just love to elect Mrs. Bill

Mike wrote on January 23, 2008 11:57 AM:

Hey Greg,

Could you write something on this lie being spread about the Reno Gazette-Journal being a Republican or right-wing board?

I've seen it said by many Clinton supporters here in multiple threads on this topic. They seem to be citing the recent Krugman editorial where he states "I think he was trying to curry favor with a conservative editorial board, which did in fact endorse him." Of course, he provides no evidence. The facts are that this same board endorsed Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000. I don't know of any conservative editorial boards that did that.

John McCutchen wrote on January 23, 2008 11:58 AM:

You need a life.
We actually have civilized conversations about it, unfortunately when it comes to Hillary, online Obama supporters lost the ability to be civil right after he lost NH.

Looks like Katie's no longer "amused"

Don't go away mad

frankly0 wrote on January 23, 2008 11:58 AM:

Kinda funny how bent out of shape so many people get when actual politics starts up.

It's of course rather delicious that all the ad has to do is show Obama speaking in his own words to do the damage. Let Obama try to get in front of a blackboard with some tensor calculus and explain to the American voter how he was merely depicting objectively movements in the American political scene.

Great politician, that Obama. Just don't let him talk without a script.

katie wrote on January 23, 2008 11:58 AM:

I think its sad to discount all of the loyal Hillary supporters who are also giving their time and energy to a candidate THEY believe in. In particular women. My grandmother and mother are both very galvanized by a Hillary campaign.

Just because you don't agree with them, doesn't mean you should go around pretending that there aren't a ton of people who would be thrilled to have her as the democratic candidate.

I mean she is getting the votes, and leading in the overwhelming majority of Feb 5th polls, and also in FL.

You may not agree with it, but some people actually like (gasp!) Hillary.

wwjb wrote on January 23, 2008 11:59 AM:

Wow, could the Clintons try any harder to take his words out of context and try to deliberately misinform the public to boost their agenda? This is pretty disgusting, especially when pretty much all reasonable observers have agreed that this is obviously NOT what Obama was saying, and that the Clintons are purposefully lying to the voters about this. It just pisses me off, and this is why I can't stand the Clintons anymore, and this is why I will never cast a vote in support of Hillary, ever.

Not to mention this is coming from the same Hillary who is on record as saying that Reagan (and Papa Bush) are on her list of favorite presidents:

"But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks."

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674

Yes, it also demonstrates what kind of lying hypocrites the Clintons are.

Oh, and then there is always this coming from Bill and Hillary:

"Hillary and I will always remember President Ronald Reagan for the way he personified the indomitable optimism of the American people, and for keeping America at the forefront of the fight for freedom for people everywhere...

We will always remember his tremendous capacity to inspire and comfort us in times of tragedy..."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/05/reagan.health/index.html

Wow, that's interesting. So when the Clintons praise Reagan's policies and optimism, and name them as one of their favorite presidents, it is okay, but when Obama makes an entirely correct historical observation about Reagan's impact on political history in the United States, which in no way praises Reagan's policies, he is viciously and repeatedly attacked by the Clintons (not to mention their lapdog Krugman, and even Edwards). What a sad and pathetic time for the Democratic party. I'm disgusted to be in any way associated with the Clintons.

Bupalos wrote on January 23, 2008 12:01 PM:

Greg, seriously dude. Work harder. The problem isn't that she is implying "that Obama said he favored specific GOP ideas, which he didn't really do." The problem is that she and you imply he stated he favored ANY of those ideas, which he didn't do. In fact, he was quite dismissive, saying they were "played out."

You are making it sound like Obama favored the ideas in general, but that she's wrong in extending that to specific ones.

Greg, can you answer this: Are you planning on voting for Clinton or Obama.

Maybe instead of encouraging to work harder, I should encourage you to take it easy, since I'm not entirely sure just what your job description is.

stemper wrote on January 23, 2008 12:02 PM:

Don't have a good Clinton version of the swiftboating verb yet, but the question reminded of John Oliver's statement on a recent Daily Show:

"In order to keep his wife from being publicly humiliated, Bill Clinton sticks the cigar of truth into the vagina of false rumors."

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=148078&title=bill-supports-hillary

Keith wrote on January 23, 2008 12:02 PM:

I'm sure the Clinton supporters are proud.

What will be interesting is if the media call her out on this, or if like TPM, them soft-pedal it in the sense that suggest that there may be a kernel of truth to what Clinton is saying (e.g., "though he did say that the GOP's ideas ran counter to "conventional wisdom.").

Remember, this is a direct indication of how she will govern.

Coonsey wrote on January 23, 2008 12:03 PM:

So....where are the FACTS printed at? You tell only half the truth here. Obma did not say those IDEAS were GOOD ones. If you are going to report something, please report the whole story.

Coonsey's View
www.freewebs.com/coonsey/

M Miller wrote on January 23, 2008 12:03 PM:

Rove'ing Clinton swiftboating. Repeating the same lies. I don't care who gets pissed about this but its the same thing as the NSDAP did in Germany to support their war and the same thing Rove and the Republicans did/do to support their war.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over"

I had a hard time time coming to terms that I may have to vote for Clinton in the general just a year ago but now I've decided not to vote at all in the general. All I'm going to do is help take out the Republican trash that's our governor here.

This disingenuous trashing of Obama went too far and Obama isn't even the Democratic candidate I support.

BluePuppy wrote on January 23, 2008 12:06 PM:

Brilliant. Use his own pandering, right-wing talking points against him.

td wrote on January 23, 2008 12:06 PM:

Every time Clinton (either one) bashes another democrat, I'm sending $5 to the opposing candidate along with an email to Clinton's campaign explaining why. I was going to start out with $25, but I figured I'd run up against the limit pretty quick.

John McCutchen wrote on January 23, 2008 12:07 PM:

New York Observer Endorses Obama

His relationship to truth and plain speaking and public transparency is the first step toward reviving democracy in the United States of America.
Barack Obama of Illinois is the future. New York’s Democrats should embrace him.

PLUS..CNN reports that my best friend's brother-in-law former IN congressman/911 Commissioner TIM ROEMER just endorsed Obama

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/sarahramey/CG5CS

frankly0 wrote on January 23, 2008 12:07 PM:

Remember, this is a direct indication of how she will govern.

You mean, effectively?

stlounick wrote on January 23, 2008 12:07 PM:

Lighten up, folks. As someone else wrote, this is politics. Now Obama has to respond quickly and with humor--perhaps quoting from the still to be released Brokaw books.

Obama can do humor with devastating accuracy. Let's see more of that response--pithy, brief and humorous in dealing with the mud and ending with a brief and uplifting message.

That will skewer the message quite nicely.

ChrisNBama wrote on January 23, 2008 12:09 PM:

This ad is very effective. It ties Obama to Reagan, which is like putting a millstone around the neck of any democratic candidate.

Now, after saying what I just said, does one interpret my comment as approval,on my part, of the ad? If you do, then you probably misinterpreted Obama's initial Reagan comments as well. The fact is, I don't approve of the ad: It's out of context, and a mischaracterization of what Obama actually said. I find it particularly brazen considering that Obama spent a fair amount of time sparring with Clinton in the SC debate on what he was saying during that interview.

Alas, it isn't surprising. The Clinton's are losing SC, and this is a "Hail Mary".

katie wrote on January 23, 2008 12:10 PM:

Yes..nothing says effective president like a good sense of humor. Phew..I'm glad we got all those tough standards out of the way.

Are you sure you don't wanna vote for Huckabee? I hear he's HILARIOUS.

NCSteve wrote on January 23, 2008 12:10 PM:

BluePuppy, I just have to ask.

Has Bill or Hill ever done anything in this campaign, or since she started running in 2006, that you thought was a bad idea, ill-advised, ethically questionable, less than admirable, or in any way tactically or strategically suboptimal?

Don't you understand that its my side that's supposed to have the monopoly on cultish behavior in this race?

grover_rover wrote on January 23, 2008 12:10 PM:

Dan, I don't agree that the original Obama comment was a gaffe. If you listen to the entire thing his reasoning is completely sound. It is an academic argument, conceptual, intelligent, definitely NOT what the American public and the media is used to (which is disappointing). He was completely spot on with his argument, and it drove home his larger point which is that he, not the Clintons, are the best agent of change.

Now, having said that, he did make ONE mistake, and that was not laying out his argument in the dumbed down, simplistic, black/white, spoon-fed, soundbite package that is the trademark of Bush-style politics. He gave the American public way too much credit for their ability to understand complex (okay, not even complex, it was a fairly basic, simple to understand argument) conceptual arguments.

He also erred by giving Clintons and their supporters too much credit for being above distorting his words and launching a lying smear campaign against him for the comments. Unfortunately no matter how many times he explains what he really said, and no matter how many times he calls the Clintons out on their lies, we are dealing with "simple-minded dumbed down politics" vs rationality, and as we saw in 2004, that rarely wins with the American public. Sadly enough, I also gave the Democratic electorate too much credit, because I thought they would at least be above being a) so ignorant and b) for the Clintons and their supporters, so low that they would lie and distort his words to serve their politics agenda.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 23, 2008 12:12 PM:

So yeah, katie, people will vote for Hillary. They won't be excited about it, they won't campaign for her, they won't do much except vote. And many people will just stay home. But hey, people will vote for her, the same way they voted for John Kerry...

Precisely. I started this campaign thinking that there was no way in heaven or on earth that Clinton could win the general election (negatives too high, she is red-meat for the Republican base, etc). As I watched her on the campaign trail, I became successively more and more impressed, such that a lot of my misgivings began to dissolve.

Then a few weeks ago her people started playing the "can't-you-see-he's-black!" meme. The result has been to turn black voters strongly against her and strongly towards Obama.

In MI, where she was running essentially unopposed, more than 7 out of 10 black voters turned out to vote for "uncommitted" against her. This is not good news. MI is a swing state that went for Kerry last time. Black voters in Detroit are a critical democratic voting group in MI, and if we are to keep that state (which loves McCain and Romney both) in the democratic column in Nov, we will need to count on a big turnout in Detroit. Can we count on such a turnout? I would not count on it.

The same dynamic played out in NV and we are now watching it in SC. Multiply that same phenomenon around the rest of the country in swing states like Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania and you could easily see a scenario wherein Clinton is steamrolled by the Republican, not because Democrats vote for McCain, but simply because they do not turn out.

Boar D Laze wrote on January 23, 2008 12:12 PM:

Just to get the personal "bias" stuff out of the way. I prefer Edwards over Clinton or Obama. I'll enthusiastically support whichever of the three is the eventual nominee. I have more reservations over Clinton than Obama, but Obama's are deeper.

That having been said, no matter what he meant by what he said about Reagan and the GOP and ideas -- he shouldn't have said it. At best, they were dumb remarks.

It's the nature of American political campaigns that your opponent uses your gaffes against you. It is not dirty politics to make them seem a bit worse than they actually were. It is simply politics.

Although none of the Democratic candidates is perfect -- they are all pretty good. Their policy proposals are basically similar. Once modified by the legislative process would probably end a lot more similar -- if not identical. Before screaming about the perfidy of the Clintons or Obama's thin skin, try to remember that the choice in the coming general election will be between some Democratic candidate with a handle on reality and some GOP candidate who deals solely in fantasy.

Try and keep a sense of prespective and get with the program. Umnokay?

Michael A wrote on January 23, 2008 12:13 PM:

Ah, here comes the clinton calvary. They finally found a post that they can sink their teeth into. I really find it amusing that clinton people always claim that obama posters are so "mean" or "nasty." Look at these posts from clinton people in virtual succession no less. I guess they got the e-mail from campaign HQ to jump on this thread. Too funny.

roo_P wrote on January 23, 2008 12:14 PM:

Greg,

Your italics are wrong. It should be "that Obama said he favored specific GOP ideas, ..."

I really have nothing else to say at this point but that I am incredibly, incredibly disappointed.

Clinton does not learn from past mistakes. She refuses to acknowledge and examine her own and her side's problems to improve herself. She prefers to live in a cartoon world where good is good and evil is evil, where she battles the villains and their legions of minions in sinister costumes and the only improvement that is needed is adding more turrets to the fortifications or cleverly using the villain's captured superweapon against him and where nothing changes until next week's episode where another evil plan has to be thwarted.

The trait the world's truly best leaders have shared is the capability to understand that one's imperfections and shortcomings are not things to ignore or hide from.

Hillary Clinton is Ready from Day One because, to her, it is just next week's episode.

katie wrote on January 23, 2008 12:15 PM:

Grover- You should never give the electorate credit for anything..the electorate gave us Bush for two terms.

This is the fundamental flaw of the Obama campaign. He's running like someone's history professor, but teaching to a class of 4 years olds. It sucks, but its the reality of the situation.

Which is why he'd get demolished by republicans in the general. I'm sure they were thrilled to hear that Obama called them the party of ideas.

Who needs the democrats!! Even the other party agrees that we're better!

Sure it made sense if you listened to the full 15 minutes, but it doesn't happen anymore.

Obama isn't a very good politician...and its better we realize it now.

It would be GREAT if his vision worked, but it doesn't work in the context of the political climate, and current media craziness.

John McCutchen wrote on January 23, 2008 12:16 PM:

Those Clintons' supporters around here who endlessly spew about Obama's right wing appeal - they are right! Tim Roemer isn't exactly a model of the far left

But then neither is the New York Observer widely read among the Limbaugh crowd. Further left than that, the SF Bay Guardian, probably the most left wing newspaper in the country, certainly second to none

That's what Obama's about.

The Clintons divided the country and now they're attempting the same thing to the Democratic Party

Peter wrote on January 23, 2008 12:17 PM:

Halperin's The Page has a point-by-point dissection of Clintons' lies on Obama's statements on Reagan.
http://thepage.time.com/response-and-backup-from-obama-campaign/

John McCutchen wrote on January 23, 2008 12:18 PM:

Obama isn't a very good politician...and its better we realize it now.

Oh I think that bit of tripe tells us everything we need to know about Katie

Keith wrote on January 23, 2008 12:19 PM:

Frankly0:

If this is what you call effective, then sure. Effective as the current Bush Administration.

Integrity matters. When you don't conduct yourself with integrity when it matters least, you certainly won't do so when it matters most.

Matthew wrote on January 23, 2008 12:19 PM:

Simply brilliant. This is the best type of 'negative' add out there. I'm not sure I'd call it negative as it is really pointing out obvious or preceived policy differences.

Obama is going to have a really hard time getting out of this. Much better ad than his blantant lie about his single-payer healthcare statement. And the more he complains and responds, the longer these stay in the forefront of everyone's mind. As someone who remembers the disaster of Reagan and subsequent Republican ideas, I think there is some very long and deep traction to this ad.

I truly look forward to more of these each time he opens his mouth and says something stupid. And, yes, two can play at this, just the Republican's will in the fall. I'm sure Hillary is quite adept at handling herself and won't find herself embarrassed by comments she makes.

chinshihtang wrote on January 23, 2008 12:19 PM:

Someone was asking for a phrase for the Clinton style of Swiftboating.

...How about Whitewater Rafting?

stlounick wrote on January 23, 2008 12:20 PM:

katie, stop with the elitism. That belongs with the Republicans and not with the Democrats. Unless....

Angry Vet wrote on January 23, 2008 12:20 PM:

Sadly, this IS an effective ad.

However, it is also a willful distortion of the truth.

So, from this episode, we can denote that HRC will willfully distort the truth in order to be effective.

Sounds to me rather paternalistic, in a way. "I may not tell the truth, but I'll do what's good for you."

Oh well, these are probably just too many logical leaps for the kind of discourse being held here nowadays.

John McCutchen wrote on January 23, 2008 12:20 PM:

Of course today these Hill hucksters carp about Obama's right wing cred then the same people will turn around tomorrow and complain that we are all left wing naderite killjoys

How very Clintonian of them

Bupalos wrote on January 23, 2008 12:21 PM:

Katie, more power to you, if you are genuinely enthused by Hillary. I do know three very fervent supporters. I don't know any that don't share Hillary's gender, and who don't speak most passionately on that issue.

One has allowed that passion to turn into a correspondingly passionate distrust of Obama on lines that I find shockingly racial. She actually said she doesn't trust him because she "read something on his website" that suggested to her that he "favored deadbeat fathers" which made her think he was "much an agent of the black agenda." This woman is a liberal clergy person.

Just check the record and you will see that this is absolutely 100% upside down. Barack challenged his own community in sponsoring a bill that cracked down on evaders of child support. In the resulting controversy, people take their racial prejudice, see his skin color, and absolutely turn the facts on their head to fit their assumptions about black men. It's completely demoralizing to me, and I won't be a party to it in any form.

Just don't let your enthusiasm go there, and Hillary won't pay too high a price in November if she is the nominee. But the more I feel that your side is tossing a historic chance for our party out the window on hard gender and soft racial grounds, the more I think that there are more important principles at stake than simply putting a nominal (D) in the white house. The Clintons are running as the Clintons. It's a restoration. It's not a great leap forward for women in my mind or the minds of the majority. Add to that the fact that most western nations have had a female head (and often a hawk, I might add), while none have had a black, and I think you may want to reevaluate your statement that putting Hillary back in the white house represents a great social change. It's an incremental change for the U.S. It's a total yawner for the world.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 12:22 PM:

News for the Obama Network here....Your man didn't do so well today on the Today Show this morning. Looked kinda tired looked kinda flipfloppy on an issue of single payer. The press maybe finally doing their jobs. That is all.You can go back to singing songs about Obama.

Orwell's Intuition wrote on January 23, 2008 12:22 PM:

Why doesn't the HRC campaign run an ad explaining what the real problem with Obama is? And that is, no one is ever really sure exactly what he's saying because he's so nuanced and ambiguous with his comments. The fact is, he brought up Reagan in a favorable light and failed to mention how disastrous Reagan was. Harp all you want about whether the Clintons distorted his words. They sure aren't distorting what's written between the lies of his praise. Obama brought this on himself.

DonnaG wrote on January 23, 2008 12:23 PM:

I do notice that the Hillary apologists/dissemblers stick to the lies, just like Hillary is doing. Not one of the usual lie-repeating ones on this thread acknowledges that the editorial board is not a 'conservative board' who also endorsed Kerry and Gore.

For a slogan, I offer:
Swiftboating Upgraded by HillHell
The Devil Loves Lying

Orwell's Intuition wrote on January 23, 2008 12:24 PM:

I meant to write "between the lines."

Jackin Atlanta wrote on January 23, 2008 12:24 PM:

Katie, I am a life-long Democrat, who before Barack stepped in the race, supported Hillary. If he had lost a fair fight, I would have supported Hillary. But not, I like many Republicans, am unable to believe that anything credible comes out the mouths of Bill or Hillary. Just so that you know, this morning I called my congressman, John Lewis, and informed him that if he continues to support Hillary, and her antics, I was leaving this party, and taking as many disgruntled Democrats, who dispise the racial leverging launched by the Clintons to force Obama in the category of the "black president." This liberal white tactic does not work with younger African Americans, just look at the polls. Bill and Hillary have created some injuries that the media haven't reported. Go to your local black barbershop or beauty salon, you will here that many Blacks are ready to leave the plantation, and head to the Independant party.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 12:24 PM:

so i dont see any Obama ads.

I see one hitpiece on obama and two more hillary ads below.

hmmmm....

curious

Long Time Democrat wrote on January 23, 2008 12:25 PM:

I saw that video by Obama. I have an honest question for the Obama supporters here. What do you think Obama implied when he said that the Republican party was a party of ideas over the last 15 years in the sense of being against conventional wisdom?

Please give me your interpretation.

At a minimum isn't he saying that the Democratic party was not a party of ideas? Did he really have to say that? Do you agree with him on this?

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 23, 2008 12:25 PM:

I mean she is getting the votes, and leading in the overwhelming majority of Feb 5th polls, and also in FL.

You may not agree with it, but some people actually like (gasp!) Hillary.

Sure, a worthy point that. There is a large context which we will do well to keep in mind.

Jessica wrote on January 23, 2008 12:26 PM:

This is so ridiculous. Hillary Clinton obviously doesn't want votes from anyone other than die-hard democrats. And I think she'll find that pool isn't large enough to elect her.

Obama a big mistake for U.S. wrote on January 23, 2008 12:26 PM:

Obamas constantly talking about color. With blacks, they should vote for him because he is black. Anything they don't like is racist against him. "
Obama's racial warriors and wife tried to suggest the attack on Obama's Iraq inaction was an attack on his entire campaign. Obama was weak when it comes to actually opposing the war. He keeps talking about what he did in 2002, and does not address what he has done since being elected to the U. S. Senate in 2004. Can anyone point me to a TV ad Obama ran in 2004, during his senate race, opposing the war? So far as I am aware, there is no such ad. Obama was in full weasel-mode in 2004 after he won the senate nomination comparing himself to George Bush, and said he kept quiet on Iraq to help Senator John Kerry. Well. Since taking the oath of office in 2005, Obama has been pretty quiet on Iraq, limiting himself to proposing pie-in-the-sky solutions that have no chance of passage, He has done nothing to "unite us." And so Bill Clinton was 100% correct when he called Obama's "opposition" to the war a complete fairy tale. I would go one step further and call it a fabrication. Obama has always been careful to be the African-American candidate of "white America, although a majority of voters are NOT going to nominate a candidate that seeks to racialize every campaign dispute. Obambi's record of actually fighting against Iraq policy is poor, and certainly nowhere near as strong as John McCain's criticism both of the old policy and support for the surge. Obama's one speech six years ago is an insufficient foundation for his flatulent rhetoric today. He hasn't done anything. Criticizing Obama for talking the talk but not walking the walk is fair comment.

Barack Obama is a member of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan. maybe for Wright and some others, Farrakhan "epitomized greatness." For Americans, Farrakhan epitomizes racism, particularly in the form of anti-Semitism. Over the years, he has compiled an awesome record of offensive statements, even denigrating the Holocaust by falsely attributing it to Jewish cooperation with Hitler -- "They helped him get the Third Reich on the road." His history is a rancid stew of lies.
Any praise of Farrakhan heightens the prestige of the leader of the Nation of Islam. His anti-Semitism and particularly his false insistence that Jews have played an inordinate role in victimizing African Americans.
Farrakhan's dream has vilified whites and singled out Jews to blame for crimes large and small, either committed by others as well or not at all. (A dominant role in the slave trade, for instance.) He has talked of Jewish conspiracies to set a media line for the whole nation. He has reviled Jews in a manner that brings Hitler to mind. And yet Wright heaped praise on Farrakhan. According to Trumpet, he applauded his "depth of analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation." He praised "his integrity and honesty." He called him "an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose." These are the words of a man who prayed with Obama just before the Illinois senator announced his run for the presidency. Will he pray with him just before his inaugural?
The New York Times recently reported on Obama's penchant while serving in the Illinois legislature for merely voting "present" when faced with some tough issues. Farrakhan, in a strictly political sense, may be a tough issue for him. This time, though, "present" will not do.

Common Sense wrote on January 23, 2008 12:27 PM:

Who needs the democrats!! Even the other party agrees that we're better!

Sure it made sense if you listened to the full 15 minutes, but it doesn't happen anymore.

In political parlance, what katie just did was commit a gaffe. She acknowledge that Clinton is distorting his comments. Now she'll argue furiously that Clinton was right to do so, or some other crap, but her plain admission her underscores a great deal of the frustration Obama supporters feel toward Clinton supporters. Glad to know that it's mostly just a partisan rouse and not a reflection of their reading comprehension skills.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 12:27 PM:

John McCutchen.....that and a nickle can't buy you a paper.

Long Time Democrat wrote on January 23, 2008 12:28 PM:

Angry Vet:

you said that this ad is a willful distortion of truth. Can you explain what the truth of Obama's remarks is? And why this is a willful distortion of truth?

I am not being snarky. I am genuinely trying to understand a benign interpretation of his comments.

downwithclinton wrote on January 23, 2008 12:29 PM:

Roll out the monica, travelgate, health care debacle, whitewater, etc...etc ads.
Time to send this bitch packin!

ChrisNBama wrote on January 23, 2008 12:29 PM:

Katie,

At least you are honest. You are strategically supporting Hillary because you think she can win since she's the better politician. Better apparently, because she can sink in the mud with the best of the republicans.

Moreover, you admit that Obama didn't say what the Clinton campaign is saying he said: kudo's!

That said, Hillary isn't THAT good of a politician. She doesn't inspire, she isn't charismatic, and she takes any politically expedient position. The last, I'm sure you see as a plus due to your reverence for politics as usual, but I see (and many people, I might add) as unprincipled.

Hillary is a cool operative. I have to admire her skill. When she's on the podium debating, I can see the machinations at play, and foresee precisely how she is going to frame her responses to questions and answers provided by her opponents. She's wonderful at staying on message and telegraphing her responses to female and latino voters. Even as she's debating in SC, she's aiming herself at California and Arizona. It is quite breathtaking, really. I have seen much, much better politicians, though. Bill comes to mind. Who else can successfully partition what the meaning of is is?

That said, I'm sick of politics as usual. I'm sick of the Karl Rove tactics. I'm sick of distortions, mischaracterizations, robo-calls, misleading mailers, appealing to bigotry (Barack Hussein Obama), creating racial tensions, etc., that have characterized the Hill/Bill Clinton campaign.

Barack may not be the politician that Hillary is, but I see it as strength not weakness, virtue not vice, and he has my support, right up to the convention when the delegate battle begins.

Bret wrote on January 23, 2008 12:29 PM:

Hillary has a lot of supporters also. Why are Obama supporters so hateful towards Hillary. I thought we were all in the same party. What if all of Hillary's supporters didn't vote for Obama? I mean that is childish to sit and act like a kid, because your guy didn't get the nomination. We have to come together as democrats to support whoever gets the nomination. We have more in common than not.

zach wrote on January 23, 2008 12:29 PM:

you know, there might be quite a few supporters of obama (particularly independents) who don't really mind democratic candidates talking about Reagan. Shoot, if I had been 20 instead of 2 in 1979, I might have voted for the gipper....

Additionally, as a fiercely independent voter, I am one who would have a hard time deciding who to vote for, if it turns out to be McCain vs the Clintons. These kinds of distortions are exactly why I can't stand Bush or Hillary.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 12:30 PM:

gruesome twosome... on the loose'um

tlefty wrote on January 23, 2008 12:31 PM:

Look, Obama has a had a clear strategy of getting Republicans to come to open primaries and caucuses to support him. There is nothing wrong with that. He ran an ad in predominantly Republican Northern Nevada targeting Republicans and letting them know they could switch their registration for a day to participate. Again, I have no problem with that. The issue I have with Obama is the way he did it. In the Reno Editorial Board Meeting, he basically said that people were ready for Reagan because they grew tired of the excesses of the 60's and 70's and the overgrowth of government that was stifling the entreprenurial spirit. I think this is a poor choice of words because it basically appropriates Right-wing talking points.

In October 1980, opinion polls showed that voters had negative opinions of both Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. They didn't like Jimmy Carter because of what was going on in Iran and the poor economy, but they didn't exactly trust Ronald Reagan with his voodoo economics. John Anderson was a legitimate third party option that year who did quite well for some time, but saw his standing crater after some poor debate performances with Ronald Reagan. Polls going into the last week of the election showed the race was close with President Carter holding a slight lead. After months of dodging, President Carter finally agreed to debate Ronald Reagan when both sides agreed John Anderson would not participate. I believe it was the most watched debate in history, and Ronald Reagan ended the debate with a simple question: Are you better off today than you were four years ago? It was a devastating question to say the least, but Jimmy Carter added to his woes when he said during the debate that he spoke to his daughter when it came to nuclear issues. He was widely ridiculed by late night comedians and media pundits for that comment, and by election day, Jimmy Carter's slight lead became a Reagan landslide.

So I believe Obama is wrong because the country wasn't necessarily ready for Reagan and tired of the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s. If that was the case, Reagan would have led by wide margins throughout the campaign. It was President Carter's poor debate performance days before the election that led to the landslide.

PeterB wrote on January 23, 2008 12:31 PM:

I will NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton. No f-ing way will I vote for these slimebags. I will vote for McCain before Clinton, mainly because the man has a shred of integrity even if his ideas are lousy.

KyleXY wrote on January 23, 2008 12:34 PM:

I wouldn't vote for Obama for dog-catcher the way he runs his sloppy campaign. Sucking up to the anti-gay bigots and coddling Ronald Reagan.

Obama is not ready for prime time. He was an angry mess at the debate (not an appealing look for him) and he's finally been exposed for what he is; a man with a good speech and no experience, no political skill to handle attacks, and a shady past peppered with "present" votes and slum lord clients/bundlers.

If he can't handle Bill, how will he handle the Republicans?

The man is a mess.

Martin X. wrote on January 23, 2008 12:34 PM:

What is particularly loathsome about this blatantly false characterization of Obama's statement is that what he said (the full quote) was actually true.

Republicans have been the party of ideas. Bad ideas, yes, but ideas nonetheless. They pumped money into their think tanks and dreamed up ways to change the tax code in favor of the wealthy, end welfare, "free" trade and privatize everything from schools to utilities to the armed services. These "ideas" were then ceaselessly flacked by Republican footsoldiers.

What did the Democrats do? Did they counter with their own radical ideas? No. They simply capitulated. In particular one Bill Clinton, who sold out the values of our party for eight years.

And now Obama is pandering to the right wing because the Clinton machine says so? When they presided over the freaking "Republican Revolution" themselves? It makes me sick. You Clinton lovers have a more twisted sense of reality than your candidates.

Bret wrote on January 23, 2008 12:35 PM:

Obama looked so bad in that debate the other night. He could not get his thoughts out. I felt bad for him, because everytime he talked it took forever to get to the point. Clinton and Edwards were far more prepared and knew what they were talking about. He just did not impress me at all. Everyone says he is such a great speaker, but I did not see it. He never gave any details on any question, he just keep saying we have to bring people together. I honestly think he needs more time in the senate to sharpen his skills. The republicans will have a field day with him, and he can't complaine saying they are picking on him or it's two against one. He needs to stand up like a man and fight back. Stop whinning so much.

wglad wrote on January 23, 2008 12:35 PM:

I think the continuing comments about so-called Democrats not voting for Hillary are pretty funny. Sound like desperation scare tactics as Feb 5 draws near. But that's okay. There are plenty of people who won't vote -- in addition to the 50% or so of the eligible voters who don't vote no matter who the candidates are. So maybe the people who hate Hillary will stay home and the people who hate John McCain will stay home, and the blacks who get depressed if Obama doesn't get the nomination stay home, and the religious nuts who get depressed if Huckabee doesn't get the nomination stay home, and the rest of us elect the President. Sign me up.

Brighid wrote on January 23, 2008 12:35 PM:

Obama deserves this. He has engaged in Republican framing on issues like Social Security, health care, and Reagan.

Barack Obama dismissed outright the first two-term Democratic President (who's popularity rating is still higher than 75%) since FDR, a Democrat whose two terms were clearly successful and during which Americans prospered economically.

By denigrating Bill Clinton, Obama lit a fuse, and he deserves the backlash from his own hubris and pandering to Republican narratives.

Republican Attack Machine wrote on January 23, 2008 12:35 PM:

Pretty Rovian.

Just wait, Billary supporters are going to start calling people up to tell them that Barack has a black baby.

CIndy wrote on January 23, 2008 12:35 PM:

Someone was asking for a phrase for the Clinton style of Swiftboating.

...How about Whitewater Rafting?

LOL

And, speaking for myself, this lifetime Democrat and Obama supporter will never vote for the Clintons. Their behavior over the last few weeks has ensured that.

Go McCain!

ScanDroid wrote on January 23, 2008 12:36 PM:

Effective ad. Using his own recorded words against him. Thats gotta hurt.

It goes to the issue that Obama has been whining about lately. That is..."those mean people keep lying about me". Their response is....here are his very words: Judge for yourself.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 12:36 PM:

katie wrote on January 23, 2008 12:15 PM: Grover- You should never give the electorate credit for anything..the electorate gave us Bush for two terms.

This is the fundamental flaw of the Obama campaign. He's running like someone's history professor, but teaching to a class of 4 years olds. It sucks, but its the reality of the situation.

Which is why he'd get demolished by republicans in the general. I'm sure they were thrilled to hear that Obama called them the party of ideas.

Who needs the democrats!! Even the other party agrees that we're better!

Sure it made sense if you listened to the full 15 minutes, but it doesn't happen anymore.

Obama isn't a very good politician...and its better we realize it now.

It would be GREAT if his vision worked, but it doesn't work in the context of the political climate, and current media craziness.

And there you have it in a nutshell. A Clinton supporter who has fully assimilated the boundless cynicism and contempt for the electorate that is at the Rovian heart of the Clinton '08 campaign.

Never mind whether anything has changed politically since 2004. Never mind that Bush lost in 2000 and only came close enough to steal it because a lot of the independents were sick and frikkin tired of the Clintons and the mendacity and the divisiveness,. Bush's presidency just goes to show that the people are just a bunch of stupid, mindless sheep and the Way to Win is to treat them as contemptously as the Republicans did before. And why not, it worked out great for them in 2006, didn't it?

Irishamerican wrote on January 23, 2008 12:37 PM:

A lot of people here seem to be missing the point.
The Clinton "Campaign" doesn't care if it is factual or misleading.
Truth has nothing to do with it.
They don't care if it gains them votes in freaking SC.
The point is just to attack.
Period.
The Idea is to keep poking him with a sharp stick.
The point is to force him to react.
This is just one lousy radio add in SC, a state where Barack leads by double digits.
They aren't trying to win SC.
They want to drag him down into the mud.
They want him to react.
They want to keep him on the defensive, while Billary just keeps smiling.
Any response from Obama will be portrayed in the stupid ass media as just more "bickering" between the two campaigns.
The media will not portray it as the Clintons lying.
The only solution for Obama is to make his message LOUDER.
He has to overtake the narrative.
By watching the morning news shows today, and looking at the papers nationwide, it appears that the media has decided to go all in with the Clinton Oppo team for a time.
It's on Obama to deal with it.

The narrative nationwide today is:
"Bill is in Obama's head".....
"Obama is frustrated"......
"Obama isn't honest, lookie over here at this Rezko guy"....
"Oh, and by the way, he's the 'Black' candidate"....
"Were not really sure, but SOME PEOPLE SAY Obama was RAISED a muslim".....

The Clintons are going all in with this RIGHT NOW because nationaly, he is not known very much. They want to plant doubt before he spends $50 million on his national campaign, and defines himself.

The Obama campaign is in a little bit of a fix because they can't afford the first Impression of him by the people in the Feb 5th to be Obama being defensive, and trying to hide connections with endicted azzwholes like Rezko.

I am a STAUNCH Obama supporter. But the Campaign is looking shaky and amatuerish right now. They are looking like they have been caught flat-footed.

The challenge is that now, because they have been so passive the last two months, is that first they have to defend these lies, and then go on offense.

Like I said, I love Barack Obama.
I want him to be my President.
But he is looking like a corrupt rookie right now because he didn't get out in front of this Rezko crap before the Clintons Dumped it nationaly.

patchwork wrote on January 23, 2008 12:37 PM:

The Clintons are destroying more of this country and it's prides and processes.

A good follow up to the methods of Bush which after seven years of secrecy and lies, the people are sick and tired of.

They are bullies, and they are despicable. this is what she and he are spending her millions of dollars on? Smears?

I will never vote for a Clinton, both of them, who are obviously running for next president.

Joseph Riedel wrote on January 23, 2008 12:39 PM:

I've campaign in South Carolina, Iowa, Virgina, Maryland, and Texas for Obama. Every supporter I know, or have talked to has unequivocally stated that they will not support HRC if she gets the nomination due to the methods her camp has used in this campaign. They are trashing a fellow Democrat as if he were the Republican nominee, trying not only to win the contest, but also to personally destroy Obama, which is incredibly off putting to many Dems. If she does in fact get the nomination, what we will see is a low turnout from Dems due to Obama supporters staying home. With half the country already firmly against HRC, coupled with Obama supporters who will not support HRC, you have a cakewalk if McCain is the nominee.

I would like to see an Obama/Bloomberg ticket. It won't happen, but it would be nice to see.

Keith wrote on January 23, 2008 12:40 PM:

Long Term Democrat:

I'll be happy to explain it to you, but here's the rub: what's the point? My guess is you are fairly well educated person, with average or above average reading comprehension skills who would be classified as a high information voter (that is, you are plugged into the back-and-forth that goes on in these threads). Given all of that, it seems perfectly reasonable that you in fact already KNOW what he meant from the context of his statements.

So unless something I said is untrue (e.g., you have below average reading skills or in fact a low information voter), you're inviting folks to engage in an exercise of futility: explain to you something you already know, but will, for partisan reasons, never acknowledge.

Ian Tepoot wrote on January 23, 2008 12:40 PM:

John,

I'm an Obama supporter, but I think your dismissal of Katie is a little unreasonable. And as Obama supporters, I think we should hold ourselves to a standard of conduct so as not to reflect poorly on our candidate.

Although I disagree with her conclusion, her points do merit consideration. He does give the American people a lot of credit. It's what makes me support him, it's his strength... and his weakness.

The question he needs to confront is how to maintain this strength without stepping into it.

Katie,

Regarding his quality as a politician specifically. I think he's shown himself to be quite strong. Think about it, he's battling not only the Clinton Machine, but the DNC machine itself, which always favors the establishment, not insurgent, candidate.

From very little national recognition, he's managed to pull virtually even and maybe even fight them to a stand-off. That doesn't scream "inept politically" to me.

tlefty wrote on January 23, 2008 12:40 PM:

Look, Obama has a had a clear strategy of getting Republicans to come to open primaries and caucuses to support him. There is nothing wrong with that. He ran an ad in predominantly Republican Northern Nevada targeting Republicans and letting them know they could switch their registration for a day to participate. Again, I have no problem with that. The issue I have with Obama is the way he did it. In the Reno Editorial Board Meeting, he basically said that people were ready for Reagan because they grew tired of the excesses of the 60's and 70's and the overgrowth of government that was stifling the entreprenurial spirit. I think this is a poor choice of words because it basically appropriates Right-wing talking points.

While that might attract Republicans to vote you for a day, it does not attract Republicans to the Democratic Party over the long term. The correct way to attract Republicans would have been to talk about accountability and balanced budgets, and how there was no transparency or accountability with our foreign policy because both the Iraqi Government and the Musharraf Dictatorship had been given a blank check to restore Democracy and fight Al-Qaeda. There is ample evidence that establishes that our tax dollars have been wasted in both Iraq and Pakistan, which bothers all Americans, not just Republicans.

However, when you start talking about overgrowth of government, stifling entreprenurial spirit, and the excesses of the 60's and 70's, you are not making an effective progressive case for Republicans to vote for a Democrat. You are making a case for your own personal gain at expense of the party because you are appropriating right-wing talking points.

mari wrote on January 23, 2008 12:40 PM:

I cannot believe anyone could claim that Obama is not a great politician (not in the negative connotation either). His ability to speak directly to people, to energize them, inspire them, fill them with hope that we can do better, that is something that NO other Democrats have been able to do, at least since JFK, RFK and MLK. He has more leader and potential in his little finger than the Clintons have between the two of them and their daughter combined. For this reason he is an amazing politician, just not the kind of conventional wisdom "politician" (think Nixon style slime politics) that the Clintons and the GOP represent perfectly.

It is like going to a boxing match, and in one corner you have an amazingly polished and able Olympic gold medalist boxer, and then in the other corner you have a street fighter, a brawler, someone who will fight dirty, cheat, do anything to win. The brawler (actually there are two of them, as it were, and they fight 2 against 1) fights with nails in their gloves. Oh, and it turns out that judges either don't care about the rules or don't pay attention to what is going on. Now you can't tell me the fair-fighting Olympian, who came from nothing and is fighting a competitive fight against not one, but two formidable and slimy opponents, who had EVERYTHING going for them at the beginning of the match, is NOT a great boxer. Just because he came in expecting a respectable and civil sporting event, and it turned into a street fight, doesn't mean he hasn't done an amazing job, it doesn't mean that, no matter the outcome, he didn't deserve to win and that he wasn't the best fighter in the ring, and it certainly doesn't mean that if he progresses to the next round against a single old wrinkly white man, he isn't going to be able to pound the shit out of him.

Anyway, that is how I like to think of this, although the analogy can obviously only go so far. My point is, he is an amazing politician, and has more talent and substance and integrity on his absolute worst day, than both of the Clintons combined have on their best days. He deserves to win, and if he doesn't win this round, it won't be because the better person (people) won.

Oh, and that old wrinkly white man is favored 51%-31% to destroy the two brawlers if they progress to the next match, so what goes around comes around. I just hope the judges wake the hell up before the first match is over.

WWNPHD wrote on January 23, 2008 12:42 PM:

A new low for the Clintons.

Heretic wrote on January 23, 2008 12:42 PM:

This ad definitely distorts Obama's words to a certain degree. Though my guess would be that he is perfectly comfortable with certain aspects of Reagan's agenda. Particularly, the introduction of religion and so-called family values into politics. I don't think Obama would have taken the direction Reagan did in this area, but I have no doubt that he believes the secular bent of the Democratic party is a problem and that Repugs have dominated the executive branch for so long because of their embrace of faith. This is what I can't stand about Obama. I don't care if his faith is genuine. (In fact, that almost scares more than if it was just self-serving.) Faith is for idiots and children. I don't ever want a president again who makes a fuss about his faith.

Angry Vet wrote on January 23, 2008 12:42 PM:

LTD-

Definitely, I'll take the bait.

It's a willful distortion of the facts because the ad leaves the impression that Obama believes that Republican ideas are good ones, even though it only states Obama said: "The republicans, over the last 10, 15 years, have been the party of ideas."

Actually, I think this statement by Obama is pretty much true. Is welfare reform a Democratic idea? NAFTA/free trade (as opposed to fair trade)? DOMA? Who's administration were these policies passed by, and from whom did the ideas come?

However, the tenor of the radio ad, by illustrating BO's comment including "Republican ideas," says the ideas were bad ones. Though, on paper, that looks like straight truth and almost not even an attack ad. However, when you listen to it, the close proximity of the two ideas (Obama said Republican Party of ideas; HRC says those were bad ideas) connotes in the viewer the incorrect distortion that Obama SUPPORTS those ideas.

As you can read from both his Senate record, his record in Illinois (check his website, too busy to link) and the actual interview (http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026) as long as you watch the ENTIRE THING, Obama actively opposes most Republican ideas.

Hence, the willful distortion. The ad leaves the impression on listeners that Obama supports Republican ideas, when he obviously doesn't.

Is that clear, LTD?

Dottie wrote on January 23, 2008 12:42 PM:

First, clearly Obama's original statement was a gaffe and it would have been better had he not made it.

Funny, I don't recall anyone giving HRC the same break on the MLK statement. I remember Obama supporter's jumping on the bandwangon to accuss her of putting down MLK. I guess for saint Obama turn about isn't fair play. I listened to this whole thing in full context and it disguted me. It showed your saint as just another politician willing to marginalize someone else just to score his own points. Bringing together parties doesnt matter a hill of beans it it is being down in an effort to distroy us. Many of you want to harp how the Clintons are polarizing but you often dont make freinds by challenging the coventional wisdom. You draw political fire. The reason why Obama has been on pedestal is because his idea change is nothing but rhetoric. If he had ever stook a real stand he would have the scars to show for it. My question to Obama is if he is really in this race for this country or is this really about himself and him wanting to be the first black president. You guys like to accuse the Clintons of EGO but i have observed politics alot of years and every politician has an ego but I have yet to see one as caught up in his press as OBAMA. For crying out loud we are talking about the US presidency. THis is more than the largest soap box. It is the highest eecutive office withvast responsibilty and we need someone who can do more than deliver a good speach.

roo_P wrote on January 23, 2008 12:43 PM:

Anon,

Obama is totally going down. What is he thinking using right-wing talking points like single-payer healthcare? He has that terrible conservative trait of intellect and nuance he cannot hide and he just keeps learning all this new stuff and changing how he does things because of it ! I mean seriously, who would want a leader like that?

He should just stick to liberal cornerstones like trade agreements, welfare reform, bankruptcy reform, abolishing process transparency, idiotic wars, never changing his opinion, wanting to live in the past, lying and mischaracterisation.

BluePuppy wrote on January 23, 2008 12:43 PM:

I think there were three strategically suboptimal mistakes Hillary has made. One was letting Obama get away with his political double speak when he got tripped up on driver's licenses for illegal aliens. She got hammered on that and he got a pass, but both were equally bad answers. Secondly, the Obama team played the race card and that badly hurt Hillary in South Carolina. I think that was dirty politics at its very worst. A truly shameful smear campaign against the Clintons. I suspect it cost Obama his chance to be VP, and his long-term prospects for a national political career. Think Gary Hart with senate seat. Lastly, I think she allowed him to attack her for months and months without responding. She only finally has escalated her rhetoric to match his . And she's rightly pointing out that he is highly political, capable of pandering to his audience of choice, is incapable of taking criticism or responsibility.

Bupalos wrote on January 23, 2008 12:43 PM:

>>>What do you think Obama implied when he said that the Republican party was a party of ideas over the last 15 years in the sense of being against conventional wisdom?

Please give me your interpretation.

At a minimum isn't he saying that the Democratic party was not a party of ideas? Did he really have to say that? Do you agree with him on this?>>>>

He implied that they kicked our asses up and down the aisle. He implied that Bill Clinton was steamrolled by the republicans congress, that when they tried to do healthcare they got crushed and the party fell apart, that he moved the party to the right on Republican bidding, that he did their welfare reform, their budget, their financial reform, their agenda-- and still caused Bush to win and the whole cycle to continue on crack for the last 8. And he is right to imply this.

What he means by the democrats not being the party of ideas is that they didn't stand up and offer anything to counter, they just limply went along. They still do. Our frontrunner can't define torture any better than Bush.

WAKE UP! The DLC is not a democratic idea.

wglad wrote on January 23, 2008 12:44 PM:

Gore lost because people were sick of Clinton? Sounds like a lame Freeper talking point to me. Gore lost because he disassociated himself from Clinton. My guess is Obama is like Gore and Kerry, a couple of guys who would rather be right than be President. Nothing wrong with that, if you like a conservative Supreme Court, the Iraq occupation, and want to hear Barbara Ann played at the inauguration.

Long Time Democrat wrote on January 23, 2008 12:45 PM:

Keith,

I am not that partisan to begin with! I will gladly vote for any of our Democratic candidates in November. Yes, I would consider myself a high information voter.

Please indulge me. Because, I did think he was needlessly pandering to that editorial board. In my view, he was sort of triangulating. What other interpretation is there? Is there any other interpretation than that he was praising the Republican party?

Since you are also a well educated and a high information voter, can you see that this is the only possible interpretation of what Obama said in that video, which in your own words you will "for partisan rasons, never acknowledge."

Joseph Riedel wrote on January 23, 2008 12:47 PM:

What's low about the ad is that HRC got caught on their distortion of his comments at the debate Monday, and she's still pushing this false information.

Angry Vet wrote on January 23, 2008 12:47 PM:

BP-

Huh? You cite errors of omission by HRC, but not actually any errors of commission. Pretty weak argument.

I'm also interested that you say Obama played the race card. What? When? Where? (and we are talking Obama, specifically)

jbentley wrote on January 23, 2008 12:47 PM:

This ad is so intellectually dishonest and is clearly designed to twist Obama's words to score cheap political points. The funny thing is, both Bill and Hillary have offered far more glowing of Reagan and the older Bush than anything Obama says in the quote at hand.

Finally, just one question for Hillary and her people. If Obama is such a dedicated Reaganite, why isn't he running as a Republican?

TedL wrote on January 23, 2008 12:48 PM:

Folks, the sole purpose of this ad is to pull a quote out of context and to deceive people who don't pay close attention to the race.

There is simply no credible argument that Obama prefers Republican ideas to Democratic ones, or even that that was what he was trying to say here. His point (which I'll admit was badly put), was that the GOP campaigned on big ideas (however wrong) while the Dems campaigned on lots of little issues.

And, Clinton supporters, I won't make any bold predictions about how voters will react. But to see this kind of smear tried against your candidate is infuriating - it's an "up is down" kind of argument - along the same lines as Hillary's smear that Obama does not support choice because he voted present.

I sincerely hope that this kind of BS will backfire.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 12:50 PM:

Clintons = Gladiators

They like to fight. Is this the America you want?

Gnopple wrote on January 23, 2008 12:50 PM:

Wow.

You know, Hillary did learn a lot from from her years as a target of the Republicans. Not just "how to fight back." Instead, she learned how to lie...she learned the fine art of telling a lie with a straight face until enough people believe it to become a truth.

I have already mentioned on this site that I cannot support her for President in the General Election. I repeat that today. I will volunteer for Old Man McCain's campaign if it comes down to a Hillary-McCain fight. At least the man would have an honest and transparent government.

roo_P wrote on January 23, 2008 12:52 PM:

katie,

I am glad you at least admit that Clinton is lying for the sake of political expediency. If that is what you think is needed to win and that only winning matters, that is perfectly acceptable to me. I disagree, but I respect you being truthful.

frankly0 wrote on January 23, 2008 12:52 PM:

One thing that's worth noting about the ad is that it never asserts that Obama claimed that the Republican ideas were actually good ideas. The claim that the ad is a "lie" is itself a lie.

The beauty of the ad is that it really relies only on the idea that Obama was, at best, neutral in his description of the ideas. It seizes on the inescapable fact that Obama did not, in that context, repudiate those ideas.

I think Democratic voters have every right to wonder what sort of President Obama might make if he's not, when he talks about the ideas of the Republican Party, vehement and consistent in his disapproval of them.

Bret wrote on January 23, 2008 12:52 PM:

Obama's people twisted Hillary's words on MLK. They knew they had to get black support away from Hillary. It worked, but he can't just win with black support. After SC he will be seen as only being able to win the black vote. Hispanicas will not vote for him. California, Texas, Colorado, Arizona, New York, Florida, Pennsyvania, etc. He can hang it up. He sold his soul for SC, but will lose much more. Why is it ok for them to interpret Hillary's words, but we can't interpret his. What is he praising the republicans for anyway? Bill was the most successful democratic pres in the last 70 yrs or so. Why couldn't he give Bill a compliment? He was trying to get republicans in Nevada to help him beat Hillary and it backfired. He was pandering in Nevada just like he pandered in SC. He is not an agent of hope, but a politician trying to win an election.

wglad wrote on January 23, 2008 12:53 PM:

The truth is, we'll never know what Obama meant by his remarks. It would have been easy to add something like "they were bad ideas," or "I don't agree with those ideas," or "those ideas were bad for America, particularly for black America," but he didn't. So we'll never know what he meant, and Clinton is just as free as we are to guess what he meant. The Republicans certainly will.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 23, 2008 12:53 PM:

Obama isn't a very good politician...and its better we realize it now.

Be serious, do. If Obama were half so-poor a politician as you claim he would not have the Clintons fighting for their political lives against him. It might be that he is less able a politician than Clinton, but there can be no doubt that he is a worthy adversary to her. He might be the Tennessee Williams to her Arthur Miller but "not a very good politician"?!? Hardly...

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 12:55 PM:

tlefty wrote: "he basically said that people were ready for Reagan because they grew tired of the excesses of the 60's and 70's and the overgrowth of government that was stifling the entreprenurial spirit. I think this is a poor choice of words because it basically appropriates Right-wing talking points."

It may be "right-wing talking points" but it's the truth! Are you old enough to remember LBJ's Model Cities Program? Or don't you have any idea what you're talking about?

martin X. wrote on January 23, 2008 12:56 PM:

According to the Clinton campaign Obama is a madrassa educated Islamic black cocaine dealer and now, even worse, a closet Republican.

Yeah, I want 8 years more of this kind of crap.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 12:57 PM:

lame ad. it's bitter and tired. not unlike the candidate herself.

Joe Lisboa wrote on January 23, 2008 12:59 PM:

ARRRRGGHHH!

When does the bullshit end, folks?

Keith wrote on January 23, 2008 12:59 PM:

Long Term Democrat:

Please indulge me. Because, I did think he was needlessly pandering to that editorial board. In my view, he was sort of triangulating. What other interpretation is there? Is there any other interpretation than that he was praising the Republican party?

Here's why I find you completely disingenuous: What words of praise are included above? None that I can see. Only if you are pre-disposed or otherwise have an interest to misread his words can you conclude that he was praising Republicans. Here's the full quote:

I think Kennedy, twenty years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times. I think we're in one of those times right now. Where people feel like things as they are going aren't working. We're bogged down in the same arguments that we've been having, and they're not useful. And, you know, the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out. I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you've heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they're being debated among the Presidential candidates and it's all tax cuts. Well, you know, we've done that, we tried it. That's not really going to solve our energy problems, for example.

Now, here's your chance to prove me wrong. Explain to me how he's PRAISING Republican ideas or the Republican party.

nate wrote on January 23, 2008 12:59 PM:

John is absolutely right. I will never vote for HRC, although I will support all Dems down the ticket.

Joyce wrote on January 23, 2008 12:59 PM:

The Clinton's began this attack when Hillary lost Iowa. Now, Bill and Hillary are using the very tactics they whinned about during their tenure in the White House.

It's interesting, and obvious, listening to these two because what is clear, these two are more Republican than the Republicans. The Clintons are demonstrating their true selves and people are paying attention, especially women.

anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 1:00 PM:

Hill & Bill--back to what they love to do best. Trashing Democrats!

Jan wrote on January 23, 2008 1:00 PM:

Personally, I hope every single Obama supporter who promises they will vote for a Republican if Hillary gets the nomination actually goes and friggin' votes for a Republican!

Who cares??!!??

Obama is running on the promise that he can bring us together. Obviously he can't. No wonder the rest of us don't take him or his supporters seriously.

Go vote Republican, Obamamanics.
Democrats don't need your candidate's failed "leadership" abilities to beat the Republicans in November.

Keith wrote on January 23, 2008 1:00 PM:

Frankly0:

Only because of selective editing on the parts of the Clintons. I've posted a more full account of what he said, which demonstrates that even your suggestion that he was "neutral" is false.

willyd wrote on January 23, 2008 1:01 PM:

It wasn't a gaffe, it was an intelligent observation, the fault here lies with Americans who are too stupid to understand what he is saying, too lazy to listen to the interview themselves, and so dishonest that they would distort his words and lie to the American public to eke out a "win".

Don't say it was a gaffe though, because he was completely right, and intelligent people had absolutely no problem understanding exactly what he was saying...the ignorance and disingenuousness of others is the problem here.

PeterB wrote on January 23, 2008 1:01 PM:

Its sad to say, but she is controlling the conversation just as her husband was able to do in his campaigns. Reality is hitting us and we can all go back to being cynical citizens of a pathetic country that can only vote for a choice between the lesser of two evils. This sucks!

Jay wrote on January 23, 2008 1:01 PM:

"Personally, I hope every single Obama supporter who promises they will vote for a Republican if Hillary gets the nomination actually goes and friggin' votes for a Republican! Who cares??!!??"

You will care, especially if we have a president Mitt Romney - numbnuts..

LOng Time Democrat wrote on January 23, 2008 1:01 PM:

Angry Vet,

Thanks for that explnation! I totally grant to you that Obama does not support the Republican ideas and that he is a progressive.

But, what he was doing there in that video was pandering and taking a cheap shot which he tends to do a lot in his "quest to attract the so called independent and Republican voters."

I think you are giving too much credit to Republicans and too little credit to Democratic ideas and initiatives passed in the 1990s.

Let me point out a few Democratic ideas that were passed during the Clinton years:

a) Americorps (national Service)
b) Family amd medical leave act
c) Assualt weapons ban (Brady bill).
d) Earned Income Tax Credit.
e) Federal budget surplus.
f) Direct student loan program
g) Violence against woman act
h) Economic empowerment zones
i) S-CHIP (State children's health insurance program)
j) Motor votor bill
k) More than 22 million new jobs by 2000
l) Increased federal funding for child care and early childhood programs
m) Increase in minimum wage
n) HOPE scholarships and Lifetime Learning tax credits

Does this mean we achieved everything we could have? I don't think so. But, we did do a lot and it made a real impact in the lives of real people.

We see now what happened in the last 7 years where we have gone back on all these issues.

Be a supporters of Obama but give some credit to those who fought the battles and achieved important things!

Wayne wrote on January 23, 2008 1:02 PM:

Sorry. Im an Obama supporter and I cannot support Clinton whether it be in a primary or general election.

The more this campaign goes on the more I despise the Clintons. I actually understand now what the GOP was talking about. The Clintons wont let things like truth and fact get in the way of their ambitions for power. THey lack honor and integrity.

Hillary better hope I just abstain from the general if she is the nominee. Right now Im planning on voting against her. THere is still hope. Obama has a 20 point lead in SC. Delegates, delegates delegates. Plus..he will win MS, AL, TN and other southern and midwestern states.

wes2 wrote on January 23, 2008 1:03 PM:

Help! We clearly need another form of catharsis for venting our frustration with the Clintons. I understand the sentiment, but all this posturing about not voting in the general is ludicrously short-sighted.

Maybe some of you don't care about the SC, but it's not just the SC. It's the entire federal judiciary and the federal regulatory apparatus. If you care AT ALL about Congress's ability to pass laws affecting the states, if you care about civil rights, if you care about environmental standards, you've GOT to vote Democratic. I will, no matter how disgusted I am by our nominee.

Is there something else we can do to demonstrate our annoyance at the Clinton's without putting ourselves in this rhetorical straightjacket? I like TD's suggestion of donating to other campaigns, and notifying Hillary.com everytime he or she does so, but I'm afraid I'd run out of money quite rapidly. Any causes we can support that will irritate them? Stories we can push? (Free Norman T-shirts? lawn signs?)

PS My vote is for "trailer-trashing".

roo_P wrote on January 23, 2008 1:04 PM:

Long Time Democrat,

What do you think Obama implied when he said that the Republican party was a party of ideas over the last 15 years in the sense of being against conventional wisdom? ... At a minimum isn't he saying that the Democratic party was not a party of ideas? Did he really have to say that? Do you agree with him on this?

Yes. And he was exactly right. And someone has to say it.

Reagan and the Republicans were able to press through their agenda (bad agenda) because the Democratic establishment had become intellectually lazy, elitist and top-down. At best, Clinton's presidency was a losing battle to avoid passing Republican legislation with most bills watered down but more realistically it was succumbing to the prevailing winds.

The "counter-ideas" of the Democrats were the DLC and the "era of big government being over," not exactly hallmark progressive thought.

Not acknowledging this is not learning from your mistakes. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.

JTinSoCal wrote on January 23, 2008 1:06 PM:

Bill Bradley's on MSNBC right now attacking the Clinton's for the ad. He calls it slime. Says the Clinton's gave us Newt Gingrich.

Robert Campbell wrote on January 23, 2008 1:06 PM:

The witch is back !

PeterB wrote on January 23, 2008 1:06 PM:

New Barack Ad:

Hillary will say anything to be elected

When she was afraid to be seen as unpatriotic, she voted for the war without reading the NIE. Then in 2006 she opposed the war when the political winds changed again.

She supported NAFTA and China free trade agreements through the nineties and up until last year, when surprise surprise it was not popular to be a free trade democrat anymore.

Flip-Flopping Fool!

Common Sense wrote on January 23, 2008 1:08 PM:

JTinSoCal:

That's exactly what Obama has to do: have high profile surrogates call the Clintons out on this crap.

Bret wrote on January 23, 2008 1:08 PM:

These Obama supporters are something else. They sound so much like republicans. Are you all even deomocrats? You would prefer decades more of war, economy in the gutter, no resolve to the illegal immigration problem, sky rocketing healthcare costs, more and more people not able to afford healthcare, more and more people with healthcare not covered for many procedures, people losing their homes to foreclosure, etc. You are very very hateful towards the Clintons. They only ran the most successfull democratic whitehouse since FDR. If you feel that much hate towards the Clintons go ahead and vote republican. We don't need or want your support. Hillary will be fine. She is a fighter, something Obama clearly is not. He whines about everything like a baby. No one is going to want to listen to his excuses if he becomes president. The Clintons have never been lied on, they have never been taken out of contex, never mischaracterized, etc. It comes with the territory, but you have to know how to overcome it. Whinning about it won't work.

JTinSoCal wrote on January 23, 2008 1:09 PM:

Bret,

So Hispanics aren't voting for Obama due to the MLK spin? gmafb

jarms wrote on January 23, 2008 1:10 PM:

I find it all so appalling like most of the other posts. The Clintons are disgusting and no I will never vote for HRC. They want Obama to sling dirt back and he has not done this yet. If he does, they reduce him in stature and he becomes one of them---and then they can compare themselves on level ground. That's why Bill says he "likes it when the they fight."

Why don't we start collecting Clunton trash for Obama and post it here, i.e. catalog it all:

1. Norman Hsu
2. Bill's recently disclosed $20 mm do-nothing job (he sold access and wnats to sell more if HRC is elected)
3. The NY Times pice two weeks ago about how fund-raising between his foundation and the campaign is conflated (around Terry McAulliffe)
4. Terry McAulliffe himself

I could go on but I'd like to make this a collaborative effort...if we get to 100 we'll get some off-site coverage.

Long Term Democrat wrote on January 23, 2008 1:11 PM:

Keith,

I will take up the challenge (and I won't accuse you of being disingenuous).

Let us take this sentence:

"I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."

When you say a political party is a party of ideas without suggesting that they were bad ideas and then you add the qualifier that they were challenging conventional wisdom what can that mean?

What does the construction "ideas challenging conventional wisdom" imply other than that the conventional wisdom was wrong and they were challenging conventional wisdom? What conventional wisdom Obama is referring to? Whose conventional wisdom is he referring to?
Republican or Democratic? It seems to me he is referring to Democratic conventional wisdom.

So is he praising Republicans challenginf Democratic conventional wisdom? Why didn't he clearly say that the Republican ideas were wrong?

Now, if I am wrong, can you tell me what the alternate interpretation of this construction is? As a fair observer and not as a partisan.

If Hilalry Clinton had said the same thing would you give her a pass like you are giving Obama?

freaktown wrote on January 23, 2008 1:11 PM:

"If he can't handle Bill, how will he handle the Republicans"

So Bill and Hillary's justification for flat out lying is that the Republicans will do it?

I think this whole, "the republicans will be worse on him" therefore hillary is doing him a favor by distorting his record and lying. You know, to toughen him up.

BS.

We expect it from republicans. WE dont expect fellow democrats to use rovian tactics against their own.

But if this is how hillary and bill wanna play it, fine.

Obama is a big boy. He can handle it. And hillary will just alienate more and more Obama supporters by resorting to these tactics, resulting in a divided party if she wins the nom. And all those voters she alienated will stay home or actually vote AGAINST her.

And when already half the country says they wont vote for her no matter what does she really want to alienate MORE voters?

frankly0 wrote on January 23, 2008 1:11 PM:

Keith,

The only "negative" think Obama says about the Republican ideas is that they are "played out", and that "we've done that, we've tried that".

Even unto itself that is, for a progressive, an absurdly misguided way to characterize Republican ideas. When your major criticism of an idea is that it is now "played out", the clear implication is that it was a good idea to pursue for the time.

But does any progressive think that refusing to raise the minimum wage or implementing a huge tax break for the rich or running up a huge debt were good ideas to pursue at the time? No: they were disasters then and they are disasters now.

And beyond that, Obama suggests that the ideas were "challenging conventional wisdom". Well, when is the last time you ever heard a politician describe an idea as "challenging conventional wisdom" without the very strong implication that that idea was important to pursue? Everyone knows that "conventional wisdom" is political speak (and corporate speak) for obsolete ideas that must be rejected.

How you can pretend that Obama was somehow indicating that the ideas were bad ideas to pursue at the time is beyond me.

BluePuppy wrote on January 23, 2008 1:11 PM:

We KNOW what Obama was saying. He was critizing Clinton to a right-wing newspaper. So what was happening 10 years ago? Clinton was trying to save his presidency from the Lewinsky scandal and he gave a state of union address:

"We have more than 14 million new jobs, the lowest unemployment in twenty-four years, the lowest core inflation in thirty years. Incomes are rising, and we have the highest home ownership in history. Crime has dropped for a record of five years in a row, and the welfare rolls are at their lowest level in twenty-seven years. Our leadership in the world is unrivaled. Ladies and gentlemen, the state of our union is strong."

Obama was wrong historically and politically to make that remark. Clinton had huge successes despite being attacked from all sides. The Republicans were not the party of ideas. Clinton's approval rating was 67% at this point and the Democrats won seats in an off-year election. Obama was wrong, pure and simple and he's paying for it now, and rightly so.

JTinSoCal wrote on January 23, 2008 1:13 PM:

Common,

Obama needs Kerry out there. Bill has said he'd campaign vigorously for Hillary, even if she wasn't his wife. I don't recall Bill doing much in 2004 for Kerry.

wwjb wrote on January 23, 2008 1:13 PM:

Once again, a reality check: Disgusted Democrats who refuse to vote for Hillary in the general election aren't the ones who will lose this election for us, it is the naive Hillary supporters who are going to send Hillary against McCain who are going to lose this election for us! Wake up, think about it, the last poll showed her getting stomped by him in the general by 51% to 31%!

It isn't going to be our fault when the Democratic candidate gets stomped, we were the ones who tried to bring an electable candidate into the general election, you idiots brought damaged goods against someone who is favored by all accounts to destroy her. Idiots..

Jack Frost wrote on January 23, 2008 1:14 PM:

I think this is the biggest double standard that Obama supporters have charged against Hillary so far in this campaign.
If Hillary had said that the Republicans were the "party of ideas" for the last 10- 15 years I think its pretty clear that they would jump on her for that like vampires to blood- Its dishonest and insulting to pretend now that oh-he-didnt-say-they-were-good-ideas is defensible.

DOUBLE STANDARD

twc wrote on January 23, 2008 1:15 PM:

Nice fake southern accent on the voice-over, Hillary.

BluePuppy wrote on January 23, 2008 1:17 PM:

"Obama needs Kerry out there"

Yeah, and McGovern, Carter, Modale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry can advise him how to win.

I'm sticking with Clinton.

JTinSoCal wrote on January 23, 2008 1:17 PM:

Bill Clinton did a great job balancing the budget, and getting the EITC, but business cycles are the largest factor in jobs. Bill didn't create the tech boom.. Lets be honest and not give him too much credit.

Tim wrote on January 23, 2008 1:17 PM:

I have not decided on who to support,
or at least had not up till now.

But the way the Clintons are acting is just turning me off - big time.

I just don't want to put up this anymore,
at the very least she won't be able to get anything done - at it's worst the whole country will turn against the Clintons because they are political monsters.

Daniel A. Greenbaum wrote on January 23, 2008 1:19 PM:

The Reno Paper what endorsed Obama is apparently
conservative. It did not hurt Obama with their
editorial board to talk of Reagan or "Republcan"
ideas. The claim that the "Republicans were the party
of ideas" was the mantra of Republicans going back to Reagan.
Obama was trying to be clever. Praising Reagan
and Republicans to an audience that would appreciate it
and then trying to slide away from it.

What is more puzzling is the effort by Obama supporters
to continually denounce the Clintons who what Obama says.
If you think that is viscious or dirty politicals you are going to
have a very long 2008.

Long Time Democrat wrote on January 23, 2008 1:19 PM:

One more thing I want to add. In all these blogs, I hear all the Obama supporters saying that they won't vote for Hillary if she is the nominee.

Two can play this game. There are more Hillary supporters in the Democratic party than Obama supporters now. If we all stayed home, if Obama is the nominee then he certainly will not win.

I will be careful with these kinds of threats!

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 23, 2008 1:19 PM:

Obama needs Kerry out there.

Actually, it is funny that you should say that, because I was thinking to myself this morning that it is funny that TPM has not made any mention of the campaigning that John Kerry is doing right now for Obama. I got a mass e-mail from John Kerry last night decrying the "swiftboating" (the precise word he used) of Sen Obama. In other words, the Obama campaign is running with exactly the idea you were suggesting. I am wondering how much attention this will get.

Laura wrote on January 23, 2008 1:19 PM:

Where is this radio spot being played? I'm just wondering if the Clintons' strategy is very strong here.

Sure, it's red meat for folks who have already decided to support HRC, but what about the genuinely undecided and independent voters? A quick listen to ALL of the Democratic candidates (in a debate or on radio ads) reveals pretty consistently progressive policy proposals, though the details may differ. I just don't think anybody will seriously believe ANY Democratic candidate *endorses* Republican policies.

Also: The tactic of taking a single phrase or two from your opponent and creating a distorted narrative around it is old hat...it ALWAYS makes me skeptical. This tactic may actually turn OFF some undecideds and independents -- it certainly turns my husband and me off.

I confess that I am a bit naive about the effectiveness of the "dark arts" of political spin and deception. I just find it INSULTING when politicians are manipulative and deceptive. But I believe that a LOT of people feel the same way about politics and are just dog tired of it. Ughh.

merryll wrote on January 23, 2008 1:20 PM:

Both Clinton and Obama have skeletons in the closet. Otherwise the Republicans wouldn't have donated to them so heavily.

Lisa wrote on January 23, 2008 1:20 PM:

I agree

The Clintons are turning into
political monsters.

It's turning me off as well.
And I was supporting Hillary,
but no more.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 23, 2008 1:20 PM:

The text of the John Kerry e-mail is online