Obama Attacks Hillary As Calculating And Divisive
While you were mourning the Edwards' departure...
After a morning dominated by the John Edwards news, the Dem primary jolted back into action today when Obama unleashed a lacerating attack on Hillary at an event in Denver:
"Democrats will win in November and build a majority in Congress not by nominating a candidate who will unite the other party against us, but by choosing one who can unite this country around a movement for change," Obama said..."It is time for new leadership that understands the way to win a debate with John McCain or any Republican who is nominated is not by nominating someone who agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq or who agreed with him in voting to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran, who agrees with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don't like, who actually differed with him by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions when the politics of the moment changed," Obama said.
"We need to offer the American people a clear contrast on national security, and when I am the nominee of the Democratic Party, that is exactly what I will do," he said.
Hillary spokesperson Phil Singer swiftly hit back, emailing over the following response:
Today’s speech was a greatest hits collection of all of the attacks Senator Obama has advanced against Senator Clinton throughout the campaign.Senator Obama doesn’t sound like he’s ready to practice the new politics he so often talks about. In fact, Senator Obama’s remarks suggest that his talk about bringing the country together is just that -- talk.
Obama's broadside suggests that he was moving quickly to gain the upper-hand as the race abruptly shifts into a genuine two-person contest. A more extensive rebuttal from the Hillary campaign is here.
Comments (204)
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 30, 2008 5:43 PM:Good for Obama; he should have started with this approach a week ago. We have only a very little time left to close the gap in many states, so there is no choice but to point out Clinton's weaknesses. If he were not doing this I would have to question if he really had what it takes to win. I am glad to see that he has acted to lay those worries to rest.
abby wrote on January 30, 2008 5:46 PM:Wow..talk about distorting the facts...thats ok TPM dont give those wildly inaccurate statements the usual Clinton treatment. I'm sure he didn't mean to lie, and will come back later and tell us what he REALLY meant to say.
marcus wrote on January 30, 2008 5:46 PM:Haha, I LOVE the Clinton campaign's responses to every truthful Obama attack, "What happened to the politics of hope?", haha, EVERY time. Love it.
This is good that Obama is drawing the distinctions here, but I'm ESPECIALLY happy someone is mentioning goddamn electability for a change. Obama hit on the point here that Hillary is NOT electable against McCain. I wish he would have pointed out the equally important fact that Hillary on the ticket will hurt Democrats running in moderate or conservative districts all over the country, if Hillary is on the ballot Democrats are going to suffer from the federal level all the way down to the local.
Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 5:46 PM:I'm not an Obama fan, but I'm glad to see the debate shift back to the issues.
Calling someone calculating and divisive is an issue? What's the issue?
COwoman wrote on January 30, 2008 5:49 PM:Listen, I just got back from the DU Magnus Arena rally for Senator Barack Obama!! It was AMAZING!!
There were beautiful faces going for blocks and blocks. I won't need the gym today! I didn't get in but I stood on the field in front and listened to his speech. It was so cold out today, but oh my gosh, what a speech. He came to talk to us right before he went into the Arena. I don't know if the other gym they had for overflow got to see him, but he was there for us outside.
It was so amazing to see all of the people there. Young people yes, but also people from across the spectrum. There were short people and tall people, dark people and light people, old people and the infirm. One lady was very elderly and was taken by ambulance for breathing problems from all the walking she had to do to get parking and walk to the event.
I talked to a gay couple that had driven up from Colorado Springs to hear the Senator speak.
He spoke with substance on health care and reaching across the aisle to make it happen. He spoke of the economy and how he will help the people that are victimized by the banking industry with credit and housing foreclosures. He spoke of expanding AmeriCore to 250,000 so that those that want to go to college can be given $4000.00 dollars every year toward tuition or books. He spoke about our need to pull together as a nation to tackle the technology it will take to make us energy independent. This technology would be sold throughout the world giving us jobs for now and far into the future. He spoke very eloquently about our future as a nation, and deciding RIGHT NOW what we want that future to look like. It will take a nation pulling together like never before to tackle the global warming that threatens us. It will take a nation working together to GET HEALTHCARE PASSED.
NOW IS THE TIME TO STAND UP AND REALIZE THAT WHEN WE ARE UNITED WE HAVE UNLIMITED POTENTIAL. We can look back to the past or we can move toward the future.
IT IS TIME TO STAND UP. IT IS TIME TO LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD.
YES. WE. CAN.
'We have only a very little time left to close the gap in many states, so there is no choice but to point out Clinton's weaknesses.'
PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF!
ROFL!
What happened to Kumbaya?
'who agreed with him in voting to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran, who agrees with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don't like'
Would Obama supporters please address S.970?
S.970?
Anyone?
Miguel Herrera wrote on January 30, 2008 5:53 PM:Good for him. She is calculating and divisive. Not to mention unethical, ingenuous, shrill, opportunistic, polarizing and narcissistic. I hope he continues to knock her for what she really is. It will only help him put them away once and for all.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 30, 2008 5:53 PM:What's the issue?
Electability and coat-tails for the down-ticket races.
CT Voter wrote on January 30, 2008 5:54 PM:She is calculating. What politician isn't? If she weren't, she'd be attacked as being naive...which should sound familiar to Obama.
AS for divisive? That depends. I'd say that she's quite the uniter, in one sense: she provides the Repubican party with a sense of unity and purpose.
And that's not just talk, either. It's reality. Hillary Clinton respresents the candidate who provides the Republican party's best chance of winning the White House this year.
So calculating? Yes, but all politicians are. Divisive? Maybe.
Keith wrote on January 30, 2008 5:54 PM:All that was missing from Singer's response was "whatever happened to the politics of hope".
And the "fact checking" at Fact Hub is pretty laughable.
jay wrote on January 30, 2008 5:55 PM:abby-
what facts did he distort and where is the lie?
Clinton did vote with McCain for the Iraq War - Fact
Clinton did vote for the Kyle/Lieberman amendment on Iran - Fact
Clinton agrees with the current Republican policy of not talking directly to our adversaries in the world - Fact
Clinton did argue for some exceptions to torture back in October of 2006 - Fact
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/6050.html
That Obama, he's so very, very inspiring!
So, did Obama happen to mention what he's going to do to persuade insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies to buy into "health care"? Did he say how he's going to fight the oil companies for energy independence? I guess he'll just smile at them and ask them nicely and they'll roll over for him.
And spare me the "Hillary sucks" rants -- I'm voting for Edwards on Tuesday, whether he's dropped out or not, whether he endorses someone or not.
I was at this speech (hoping it would help me decide who to vote for), and honestly, "attack" seems like a pretty strong word for it. At any rate, it didn't seem like a strong attack at the time, more like a moderate criticism. And it was a pretty small element of the speech, which beyond the Colorado-specific elements (and who knew that Rod Smith was an Obama supporter) seemed like it was probably his standard message-of-change-speech.
There were, btw, well over 10,000 people there; it was pretty amazing. The arena has a 9,000 capacity, but beyond the overflow gyms and the outdoor lacrosse field (which is where I ended up) there were clearly thousands more. And with the incredibly long lines not moving for hours, who knows how many people who got in line and then left (as people around me did). I'd not be surprised if 20,000 people showed up, at least.
Pretty good speech, but unfortunately not enough to make me decide one way or the other.
Oaktown wrote on January 30, 2008 5:56 PM:Hillary keeps calling Obama's points misleading, but her refutation on the merits is pretty weak. She wasn't a supporter of Nafta? She didn't vote to authorize the Iraq war? She didn't vote for the bankruptcy bill? For the most part, her supposed defense of her record is . . . wait for it . . . a counterattack on Obama's.
There's no legitimacy to any argument that ACCURATE criticisms of another politician's record are off limits. I think what's needed here is an aggressive fact check from objective observers. Who is right on these points? Respectfully, scrutiny of Clinton's responses on the merits will reveal who's not wearing any clothes.
DR1 wrote on January 30, 2008 5:57 PM:From the HRC rebuttal:
"Hillary met with retired generals, talked with experienced military officers, and read reports commissioned by the Defense Intelligence Agency. She concluded that 'torture cannot be part of American policy, period.'"
She couldn't have figured that one out on her own?
Common Sense wrote on January 30, 2008 5:57 PM:Anna:
Same questions apply to the Clintons as well.
Boring Commenter wrote on January 30, 2008 5:59 PM:That's a bloody awful headline. He didn't use the word calculating, or divisive. Calculating is particular is pretty damned loaded when pointed at a woman, and I'd be disappointed if he did say it. Stop with the pot-stirring.
What say you Fact Hub? wrote on January 30, 2008 6:00 PM:But in a pair of interviews with the New York Daily News last October, Clinton outlined the same narrow exception that Russert described, and which had also been floated by former President Bill Clinton in an interview last year with National Public Radio.
"If we're going to be preparing for the kind of improbable but possible eventuality, then it has to be done within the rule of law," Clinton said at the time, in a telephone interview with this reporter, expanding on comments to the Daily News Editorial Board that there should be "lawful authority" for torture in some cases.
She said then that the "ticking time bomb" scenario would be a narrow exception to her opposition to torture.
"In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the president, and the president must be held accountable," she said.
"That very, very narrow exception within very, very limited circumstances is better than blasting a big hole in our entire law."
Common Sense,
Once, just once, I wish that an Obama supporter would defend him without referring to Hillary.
You are asking me -- an Edwards supporter -- to choose Obama. Telling me he's the same as Hillary is not a good reason.
Honestly, someone among Obama supporters, put down the Kool-Aid and give me some evidence that your guy is a liberal who has something to offer other than the fact that he talks pretty and he isn't a Clinton.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 30, 2008 6:03 PM:What happened to Kumbaya?
You tell me. The idea that Obama wanted to sit down with the Republicans and sing Kumbaya was your meme, not mine. I never premised my support for Obama's candidacy on the "Kumbaya" meme in the first place, so it is nothing to me if he fails to live up to it.
ChrisNBama wrote on January 30, 2008 6:04 PM:Anna,
No offense, but if you are unable to come to a decision for yourself about Obama's liberal bona fides, no one else will be able to either.
Vote for Edwards. Sheesh.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 30, 2008 6:06 PM:Honestly, someone among Obama supporters... give me some evidence that your guy is a liberal who has something to offer other than the fact that he talks pretty and he isn't a Clinton.
Well, what more do you want? He has a whole mess of position statements on his website; if you look at them you will see that he is a liberal democrat, just like Sen Edwards and Sen Clinton. There is not much substantive difference among the three. His principle advantage (as I see it) is his lack of support for the Iraq war and his better chances in the general election season than Sen Clinton.
Tithonia wrote on January 30, 2008 6:07 PM:Anna, will you vote for Obama if Edwards endorses him?
Anna wrote on January 30, 2008 6:07 PM:ChrisNBama,
That's it? That's your defense of his liberalism? You can't even fake it? Like saying something like "he's almost adopted Edwards' health care plan," or "he occasionally says something about poverty," or "he voted for Condoleeza Rice for Secretary of State because she wasn't the biggest war criminal in the Bush Administration"? All you've got to persuade an Edwards supporter to vote for Obama is "come to a decision for yourself"?
Really, Obama-bots -- stiffen up. Your guy has done quite a job of alienating the base -- angry liberals like me. And talk like this ain't helping.
Amen Greg D. Kumbaya will never get you into the White House.
Besides, Obama is only stating facts that raise questions about Hillary's character and ability to lead.
He is not going to win the nomination unless he does so.
Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 6:08 PM:does anyone fundamentally disagree with Obama that in order to beat McCain, its probably not smart to nominate someone who agrees with him on the major issues?
CT Voter wrote on January 30, 2008 6:09 PM:Rod Smith is an Obama supporter?
So is Amani Toomer, for what it's worth...
(for all who don't care about football, my apologies for the sports references, and, GO GIANTS!)
Giants:Patriots::Obama:Clinton
LJ wrote on January 30, 2008 6:09 PM:Here's more on the Denver event.
The Denver Post managed to find a more positive headline for the very same speech:
Obama pledges "strong and right" leadership at DU
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_8119048
Anna wrote on January 30, 2008 6:10 PM:Greg,
He came to his health care plan **after** Edwards did, and it's not as good. He doesn't really address poverty in the same way that Edwards did. And the amount of money he's taken from Wall Street doesn't make him credible on getting money out of politics.
And all his rhetoric about reaching across the aisle means he's willing to make compromises with the right-wing.
And as for his opposition to the war, someone please tell me why he voted for Condoleeza Rice for Secretary of State his first week in office. If I could get this out of my head, I might actually support him.
Anna:
My bad. Based on your post, I got the impression that you despise him and his supporters and that you were posing rhetorical questions. Responses (such as they are) are below:
1. Negotiate publicly.
2. Here's his plan for set America onto the path of energy independence: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/#set-america-on-path-to
Anna,
I'm not going to defend him to you period. You either can see from his debates, position papers, speeches, etc. Or you don't. I'm not going to be able to make you see it.
I understand that you are hurting that your candidate dropped out. That is always very painful, but taking it out on others isn't going to make you feel any better.
Anna wrote on January 30, 2008 6:11 PM:Tithonia,
Frankly, Obama will be lucky if I vote for him in the general election. And no, I won't vote for him if Edwards endorses him.
Angel wrote on January 30, 2008 6:11 PM:Anna, watch the debate on Thursday night. Listen to the candidates' answers and then decide based on their position on the issues. And I'm talking about the meat in the answers, not the kool-aid stuff.
Joyce wrote on January 30, 2008 6:12 PM:OK, now telling the truth is negative campaigning. Hillary, please retire, we don't need you or your man.
Anonymous,
"does anyone fundamentally disagree with Obama that in order to beat McCain, its probably not smart to nominate someone who agrees with him on the major issues?"
Not me.
Where did he say "divisive"?
Where did he say "calculating"?
willyjsimmons wrote on January 30, 2008 6:12 PM:'His principle advantage (as I see it) is his lack of support for the Iraq war and his better chances in the general election season than Sen Clinton.'
If that's your sole basis for your support in Obama, fine.
1.) He's funded the war the entire time.
2.) You have provided no concrete evidence to suggest Clinton would do worse than Obama in the GE nationally.
Peace.
I think I just saw Hillarys head bounce off the matt a few times -
1,2,3,4, and counting.
You know what this means - Bills a gonna climb through the ropes and "defend" her with his race baiting or whatever the hell it is he does nowadays.
Way to go Obama,
your talking substance,
keep it up
Greg Sargent spin for his favorite candidate, being sure he echos all of the Hillary campaigns. No one in all the bloggers I read or mainstream press characterized Obama's comments about Hillary as an "attack" except her campaign and Greg Sargent. The original AP story said:
"Democratic White House candidate Barack Obama on Wednesday said rival Hillary Rodham Clinton is too polarizing to win the presidency and she has taken positions shared by President Bush and Republican candidate John McCain for political expediency.
Obama depicted Clinton as a calculating, poll-tested divisive figure who will only inspire greater partisan divisions as she sides with Republicans on issues like trade, the role of lobbyists in politics and national security. At the same time, he elevated McCain, fresh off victory in Florida's crucial primary, as the likely Republican nominee."
This seems a very honest, direct, straightforward assessment of Hillary. Obama is speaking his mind, and sharing a perspective shared a large, growing numbers of Americans. I'm sure Hillary doesn't like to hear it, but then the Clintons don't have a very close relatiohship with the TRUTH.
Keith wrote on January 30, 2008 6:15 PM:Anna:
No one on these threads are going to convince you of anything. If you are interested in getting yourself comfortable with Senator Obama and his positions, then the information is available and at your finger tips.
'Amen Greg D. Kumbaya will never get you into the White House.'
Cognitive Dissonance Abounds.
Kumbya Kool-Aid wrote on January 30, 2008 6:16 PM:The guy is the world's biggest phony....
Cookie wrote on January 30, 2008 6:16 PM:Anna, sounds like you're a Hillary supporter based on the health care issue and the fact that she's better with the unions and the blue collar workers. Don't drink the kool-aid, just research all the issues and decide for yourself who you agree with on the issues most important to you.
Kumbya Kool-Aid wrote on January 30, 2008 6:17 PM:"One lady was very elderly and was taken by ambulance for breathing problems from all the walking she had to do to get parking and walk to the event."
You sure it wasn't from the hot air being spewed by Hussein?
ChrisNBama wrote on January 30, 2008 6:18 PM:I'm frankly skeptical of people at this late hour that comment, "pretty good speech, but it didn't decide me one way or the other".
It sort of reminds me of those cheesy interviews a day prior to the NH primary, where Joe Taxpayer muses to the reporter after seeing all the candidates in person that they are still undecided. What the hell. I'm surprised such people can decide what clothes to wear in the morning.
Publius wrote on January 30, 2008 6:19 PM:OK that does it . . . I have endured innumerable offensive blog posts and comments in this campaign with hardly a peep, but CT voter just crossed the line (and per the Big Lebowski, THIS LINE YOU DO NOT CROSS). The analogy is not between the NY Giants and Obama; it's obviously, and as everyone in the world but CT Voter knows, between TOM BRADY and Obama. Charming and mannerly but also tough and persistent; questioned for his experience by vindicated by delivering in the clutch; smart and competent; emphasis on the collective over his own ego; and good-looking without being vain. I find the truth of the analogy self-evident.
Cognitive Dissonance Abounds
I agree. Like getting worked up over the fact that one candidate voted exactly the same way another candidate did, but this sameness in voting is what makes them so completely different, or something.
Hard to follow at times. "I demand to know why candidate X voted this way" when candidate Y voted the same way....WTF are we even talking about?
Anna wrote on January 30, 2008 6:21 PM:Cookie,
If you read above, you'll see that I'm an Edwards supporter. I dislike Hillary and Obama equally. Both roughly the same policy positions -- lead there by Edwards. But both triangulators.
Could an Obama supporter please tell me why he voted for Condoleeza Rice for Secretary of State, when his fellow senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin, did not? (Don't mention Hillary in your answer because she didn't have anything to do with his vote.)
Calculating? Devisive? Exactly what I was thinking when I wrote this: What she did in FLORIDA last night was a perfect example of who she is.
The more I see of Hillary Clinton, the more she reminds me of George Bush. Yesterday she staged a political rally after the polls closed in an election that didn't count so she could declare victory just like someone else I know? Can you say "Mission Accomplished?"
I think the voters of South Carolina should be insulted that on Saturday she left their state, with their delegates that will be counted, before the poles even closed. But for Florida she has a grand celebration? I guess it was too warm down there for her to wear a flight suit.
Think about it... She was in such a hurry to get to Tennessee so she could focus on Super Tuesday and the "Millions of voters who could finally have their voices heard." It was so urgent that she couldn't stay an extra few hours to thank the supporters that went out to vote for her. But now, less than 3 days later, she finds time to make a special trip to Florida AFTER they have voted. Her need for a photo op hopefully will backfire, because I can't take another 4 years of fairy tales.
casey,
Calling someone calculating and divisive in the way she postures, panders, parses, prevaricates ON ISSUES is accurate and honest.
CT Voter wrote on January 30, 2008 6:23 PM:Publius
And I'm crossing it again!
GIANTS:PATRIOTS::OBAMA:CLINTON
GIANTS:PATRIOTS::OBAMA:CLINTON
GIANTS:PATRIOTS::OBAMA:CLINTON
GIANTS:PATRIOTS::OBAMA:CLINTON
The team of destiny versus the what the heck are they doing team?
But look what happened when January rolled around....everything changed.
Although I do like the Brady:Obama analogy too...
Mark wrote on January 30, 2008 6:25 PM:"You sure it wasn't from the hot air being spewed by Hussein?"
*Douchebag Alert*
ChrisNBama wrote on January 30, 2008 6:25 PM:All I can say is that I'm glad that Obama went on the offensive. Let Hillary play defense up to February 5th. Yeah, let's get it on!
geoff wrote on January 30, 2008 6:28 PM:I take issue with the headline of this article, as some other folks have.
Obama is highlighting legitimate differences, and is making the case that he is the best candidate to unite the nation.
I don't see how you get divisive and calculating in the headling unless you start reading into his comments, which is a pretty slippery slope that could end up resulting in editorial irrelevancy in the future.
Publius wrote on January 30, 2008 6:28 PM:CT Voter,
My injunctions are apparently ineffective.
Thank you for acknowledging the aptness of the Brady analogy, and I too will seek to find common ground by agreeing that there is an apt team v. team analogy to be drawn for Clinton-Obama. It is:
Yankees-Red Sox 2004
Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 6:29 PM:Oaktown said "There's no legitimacy to any argument that ACCURATE criticisms of another politician's record are off limits."
Exactly, Oaktown. It's just if you criticize Hillary in any way, Greg Sargent and her campaign charge that she has been ATTACKED, so she can go into victim mode and suffer as a poor little woman up against evil men. Great strategy if you want to lead the nation and the world.
CT Voter wrote on January 30, 2008 6:34 PM:Publius
Ok, truce. Because this: Yankees-Red Sox 2004
is certainly a more enjoyable analogy...
Although I probably shouldn't say that out loud, given where I live in CT...
For those of you wondering about the candidates leftists bonafides, check out vote-smart for endorsements, ratings, voting history etc. What candidates say on the stump or put on their website is a good start, but digging deeper is crucial.
http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2006.
Life Committee 0 percent in 2005-2006.
2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the American Public Health Association 100 percent in 2006.
2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Citizens for Tax Justice 100 percent in 2005-2006.
2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State 100 percent in 2006.
2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 93 percent in 2006.
2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 100 percent in 2006.
2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Children's Defense Fund 100 percent in 2006.
2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 93 percent in 2006.
2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees 100 percent in 2006.
2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Organization for Women 91 percent in 2005-2006.
I LOVE the Clinton campaign's responses to every truthful Obama attack, "What happened to the politics of hope?"
Well, the 'politics of hope' do have to battle their way past the 'politics of self-serving cynicism,' I suppose.
acf wrote on January 30, 2008 6:36 PM:Every time Obama attacks, or tacitly allows associates to attack, Hillary Clinton, he shows voters that, for all his talk of being a better person, he is just another politician, using the same old tactics of attack and division.
not anna wrote on January 30, 2008 6:38 PM:Why is this all about Anna? In all honesty she sounds like she just has a visceral dislike for Obama despite his actual positions be damned and really just enjoys a mis-perceved sense of importance. I think the telling comment from her was when she stated:
"Really, Obama-bots -- stiffen up. Your guy has done quite a job of alienating the base -- angry liberals like me. And talk like this ain't helping."
as if Obama supporters don't support the base also. Grow up Anna. Your guy Edwards did not find his "liberal voice" until after he left the Senate. As much I really like him and would have been happy to have his as my president he really did not distinguish himself as a liberal when he had the chance to vote that way.
Jeremy wrote on January 30, 2008 6:39 PM:I wish that we could differentiate attacks from "attacks". Everything here seems above the belt, yet still the response seems to be to call foul. It's like playground basketball where someone's hacking you on every play then calls a foul when you cleanly stuff them.
(1) Obama was right about Iraq and Hillary was wrong. Judgment does matter. She needs to explain how her "experience" informs her judgment.
(2) K-L rubber stamped Bush intelligence on Iran without a committee hearing and before the NIE came out. Furthermore, it left it open to interpretation whether it constituted an authorization. The legislation Obama supported did neither of those things.
(3) Hillary vehemently defended the neocon preconditions based approach to diplomacy. Obama will reverse it and is not afraid of losing a propaganda battle.
(4) Hillary did indeed haver on torture and she should answer for it.
These points are legitimate differences between the candidates. While Hillary has been engaging in smear and fear and the Clintons have been teaming up on all sorts of lies, from the fliers in NH that lied about Obama's votes on choice to the lies about his comments on Reagan, they call foul on legitimate issues. Give me a break.
Jeremy wrote on January 30, 2008 6:42 PM:From way upthread:
Would Obama supporters please address S.970?
Unlike K-L S. 970 didn't leave it up to Bush and Cheney's interpretation whether it is an authorization. It explicitly was not. Unlike K-L S. 970 didn't rubber stamp a bunch of Bush intellignece without hearings and without an NIE. They were significantly difference, though it takes judgment to recognize the significance so we don't expect Hillary's hard core supporters to think it's important.
Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 6:43 PM:DRI quoted this from her Rebuttal:
"Hillary met with retired generals, talked with experienced military officers, and read reports commissioned by the Defense Intelligence Agency. She concluded that 'torture cannot be part of American policy, period.'"
So rather than respond courageously as a leader based on sense of America and its fundamental values, Hillary assembled focus groups to test her various responses to assure there was not some case for torture that she should permit by parsing.
She just doesn't change.
Anne wrote on January 30, 2008 6:43 PM:Anna - You're an Edwards supporter who's flipping for HRC? On what basis? I'm asking this in all seriousness; HRC's pro-corporate stances hardly square w/ Edwards' rhetoric. What issue-based commonalities do you see between these two candidates?
As for Obama's ability to persuade insurance/big pharma to "buy into" health care: how did HRC do with that? As far as track records go, she isn't exactly covered in glory on this issue.
It's interesting: in the same post that you ask for supporting evidence of Obama's liberal standing without comparisons/criticisms of HRC, you make the very same criticisms you decry. Until the nominee has been determined, comparisons and criticisms are the way this process works. If Edwards, Clinton or Obama supporters can't handle that, it speaks poorly of the confidence they have in their candidate.
And say what you will - if you were (or are) backing Edwards, your judgment on who's capable of winning is flawed at best. Particularly if you're boasting about your grand plan to throw your vote away on the guy who just dropped out of the race, a stategy almost Guiliani-esque in its foolishness. Good luck with that. Let us know how it goes.
acf wrote on January 30, 2008 6:43 PM:Every time Obama attacks, or tacitly allows associates to attack, Hillary Clinton, he shows voters that, for all his talk of being a better person, he is just another politician, using the same old tactics of attack and division.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 30, 2008 6:44 PM:Obama...is just another politician
I will let you in on a secret, ACF. We Obama folks do not mention it much because we have a thousand other things that we would rather talk about, but few of us are under the illusion that Obama is not a politician. I know that it is a commonplace notion among the non-Obama folks to imagine that we have all "drunk the Kool-Aid" and think that Obama "walks on water," but for the most part we realize that he is not the second coming. We are o.k. with that. Few of us will bolt when that much is proven beyond any doubt - a doubt which few of us harbored in the first place.
We would, however, rather have Obama as our president, and if that end can be accomplished by pointing out Sen Clinton's drawbacks (honestly and forthrightly, of course), we really will not be that especially disillusioned in the process. In other words, if you thought that it was necessary to belabor the obvious in order to alert us to the reality of the situation, I can assure you that your end has already been accomplished.
Jack wrote on January 30, 2008 6:46 PM:"Every time Obama attacks, or tacitly allows associates to attack, Hillary Clinton, he shows voters that, for all his talk of being a better person, he is just another politician, using the same old tactics of attack and division."
The following is being shamelessly regurgitated.
BluePuppy wrote on January 30, 2008 6:47 PM:Beautiful Maya Angelou endorsement of Hillary......
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/#22916635
A true poet and one of my heroes.
What is the objection that some of my fellow Obama supporters have to styling this an "attack"? It is an attack. A fair, above-board attack, but an attack nonetheless. How is it wrong to use this word to describe the pitch being made?
CT Voter wrote on January 30, 2008 6:48 PM:Greg DeL:
O.M.G.!!!
Obama doesn't walk on water? O.M.G.!!!
O.M.G.!! What are we braindead spineless Obamabots to do now that the cat's out of the bag????
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 30, 2008 6:49 PM:Dear BluePuppy,
I have long enjoyed Ms Angelou's work as well, but I did not see anything by her at the link you gave. Are you sure that is the right URL?
Anna wrote on January 30, 2008 6:50 PM:Anna -- an honest question.
You do realize that of the three final Dem. hopefuls, Edwards had the least progressive voting record when he was in the Senate, right?
I liked Edwards' campaign, liked his rhetoric, liked it all. I went with Obama, but I'd have been happy enough had Edwards gotten the nomination.
But this idea that Edwards is far more progressive than the other two just doesn't hold water -- not on voting record, anyway.
Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 6:50 PM:CT VOTER said "So calculating? Yes, but all politicians are."
The difference is that Hillary is nothing but calculating. She voted for the war in Iraq because she thought it would make her a stronger presidential canidate. Now that is cold, dishonest calculation. Forget the lives lost and ruined, two trillion dollars wasted, the damage to the Constituion, internatioal law, and America's standing in the world. What is best for Hillary, that's all that needs to be considered.
Josh wrote on January 30, 2008 6:53 PM:Sorry, question for Anna was from me...
"She voted for the war in Iraq because she thought it would make her a stronger presidential canidate"
Is that why John Edwards and John Kerry both voted for authorization? No, like Hillary, they believed it was important to force Saddam to allow UN inspectors into teh country. Enough with the revisionist, rearview look at the past.
Could an Obama supporter please tell me why he voted for Condoleeza Rice for Secretary of State, when his fellow senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin, did not?
Obama was asked about this, and he was quoted as saying "I understand the frustrations [of those] who have been here the past four years. My attitude was it was important to look forward and give her the benefit of the doubt."
Now, you can quibble with that assessment. I suspect you'd say that those people don't derserve the benefit of the doubt, and about important things, I'd agree. This wasn't an important thing though.
The reality is that not voting for her would have been purely symbolic. Do you think there's any chance that even if there were enough votes to block her (there weren't), that Bush would have offered anybody better?
I would say he wouldn't have, so by voting symbolically, Obama may have made you feel better, but he would have been adding to the fractured partisanship that prevents us from getting more important work done.
acf wrote on January 30, 2008 6:54 PM:Not belaboring it at all. The general perception of Obama through the media is that he is above this kind of politicking. I don't agree. I do not prefer him at this point. However, I want a Democratic president elected in 2008, and should he be the nominee, I will be supporting him, fully, unlike many I have heard who, if their candidate fails to get the nomination, avow not to support who does.
LS wrote on January 30, 2008 6:55 PM:Enough with St. Obama, he is human. He is charming and charismatic, charisma doesn't get my vote. Great speeches don't win my vote either. Saying your are the positive candidate and than attacking your opponent although good politics doesn't either.
Crucifying Hillary for showing up in Florida after the vote was complete and saying nothing about Obama's cable ads doesn't either.
Hillary takes hits because she is female, strong and assertive. Most men have a hard time with that combination in a woman. You guys just beat on her cause shes female, smart and assertive.
Jeremy wrote on January 30, 2008 6:55 PM:I'm continuously amazed at Hillary's supporters attempts to use the fact that Obama is a persuasive speaker against him. The fact that he "talks pretty" is indeed a great asset. Many people find Hillary uninspiring. When it comes to getting things done, it helps to persuade people. This is still a democracy, more or less.
BluePuppy wrote on January 30, 2008 6:56 PM:Greg DeLassus...sorry, can't find the link...it's msnbc.com videos (there's a bunch of good clips. Your man in Denver today, Dr. Angelou, and Tweety giving analysis).
BluePuppy wrote on January 30, 2008 6:58 PM:"Crucifying Hillary for showing up in Florida after the vote was complete and saying nothing about Obama's cable ads doesn't either."
You're righ, LS. There's a REASON Edwards dropped out the day after Florida. Because he bombed there.
calculating+divisive+!!!HILMENTUM™!!!!
Jeremy wrote on January 30, 2008 7:03 PM:LS. Please stop the divisive identity politics. Hillary is being attacked because she has a track record of poor judgment and she's running for president. No presidential candidate in history has ignored an opponents track record of poor judgment. It's simply insane to suggest that this is about gender. Seriously insane.
Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 7:04 PM:Hillary Clinton voted to give George Bush the authority to start a needless war based on lies. She demonstrated horrible judgment, enabling the worst president in history to create the biggest, most costly foreign policy disaster in American history. She had access to classified intelligence that told many of her colleagues the war was unjustified, but she chose not to read it.
Obama recognized Bush's lies and courageously and vocally opposed the war.
Hillary can calculate, posture and pander all she wants. Her vote is recorded for all of history, and it shows she does not have the quality of judgment to lead the nation and the world.
What is it about strong, independent Hillary, that makes her believe evil men who lie to her. Hmmm, Bill and Bush. What will she see when you looks in to Putins eyes?
ChrisNBama wrote on January 30, 2008 7:06 PM:Well, I really really like Obama's strategy going into Super Tuesday.
Now that McCain is the heir apparent, electibility will be the prime focus. The meat of it is that Obama can pull the independents to the democratic column that Hillary can not.
This is what I've been saying for ages. Thank God he's running on it!
tyo wrote on January 30, 2008 7:06 PM:Obama was pretty mild in his attack. She is divisive, polarizing, corrupt and a total wooden woman. I could never vote for Billary. Latest unfavorable rating was 52% and that is only the starting point.
Her so-called loving husband has become a low down racebaiter. The more I see them the less I like both of them.
Duane wrote on January 30, 2008 7:06 PM:Hillary takes hits because she is female, strong and assertive. Most men have a hard time with that combination in a woman. You guys just beat on her cause shes female, smart and assertive.
Do you really think you can ride the "victim of misogyny" thing all the way to the White House?
Tithonia wrote on January 30, 2008 7:06 PM:I'm female, strong and assertive, too. And I like lots of strong and assertive women, and hopefully I have taught my daughters to be strong assertive women. And though I'll vote for Hillary in the general if she becomes the nominee, I'll admit to a visceral dislike of her.
Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 7:07 PM:LS said "Hillary takes hits because she is female, strong and assertive."
She doesn't seem very strong and assertive when she cries victim and send Bill out to attack her rivals for her. Why do women champion Hillary when she is Mrs. Bill Clinton. Period.
bigforkgirl wrote on January 30, 2008 7:07 PM:Wise supporters never "fall in love" with a candidate. All candidates, all office holders will disappoint you. However, some will disappoint you many fewer times than others. Obama has disappointed me many fewer times than Clinton.
roo_P wrote on January 30, 2008 7:08 PM:Greg DeLassus asked:
What is the objection that some of my fellow Obama supporters have to styling this an "attack"? It is an attack. A fair, above-board attack, but an attack nonetheless. How is it wrong to use this word to describe the pitch being made?
To which I respond by pointing out the comment just a bit later by LS:
Saying your are the positive candidate and than attacking your opponent although good politics doesn't either.
That is why. Words mean different things to different people. Broadly, "attack" has a connotation of "unfair" to a large swath of the population. So, being that "unfair" is not a correct characterisation in this case, a better-chosen word would convey the nature of the rebuke more accurately.
tyo wrote on January 30, 2008 7:11 PM:Cry me another river- Billary.
Modern feminist - first woman blah blah
Dont notice other there
Her husband was guilty in a 850,000 dollar sexual harassment suit.
Almost laughable
Could an Obama supporter please tell me why he voted for Condoleeza Rice for Secretary of State, when his fellow senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin, did not?
I'm guessing he did it so he wouldn't be accused of mysogyny by the Hillbots.
Jeremy wrote on January 30, 2008 7:12 PM:BluePuppy wrote on January 30, 2008 6:53 PM:"She voted for the war in Iraq because she thought it would make her a stronger presidential canidate"
Is that why John Edwards and John Kerry both voted for authorization? No, like Hillary, they believed it was important to force Saddam to allow UN inspectors into teh country. Enough with the revisionist, rearview look at the past.
How'd that argument fly in 2004?
The fact of the matter is that everyone knew Bush was rushing to war. Senators that had an opportunity to put the brakes on (e.g., push for Levin 02) and didn't had poor judgment. I spent the 04 campaign season, knowing that Kerry was better than Bush obviously, making the argument that the blame lies entirely with Bush and no one else. The American people have made up their minds on this though and they aren't entirely unreasonable. Bush was giving every indication in the world that the policy was fixed. The fact that they had to force him to go to the UN at all should have been enough to support the judgment that it was going to be a mere formality. Hillary to this day defends her vote against Levin 02, which would have required final authorization following the inspectors reports to the UN, in completely right wing terms. She says it would have given the UN veto power over a US president. No Hillary, it would have given Congress that power, a power that the constitution gives to Congress. Congress should have had the final say on the basis of the inspectors report and the NIE (not that Hillary could have been bothered to read. . .). That's the way our system is supposed to work. Instead, Hillary supported blank check authorization. She needs to explain how her experience informed that judgment.
kozmik wrote on January 30, 2008 7:13 PM:Hillary is really a piece of work. She smears Obama on really lousy character attacks, becasue she knows she can't win on issues, and then smears his character further when he talks about issues.
What's her problem besides her own record? Does she deny she voted for the Iraq war resolution, PATRIOT twice, and so on...
Akonitum wrote on January 30, 2008 7:15 PM:Greg Sargent, poor title. Again.
storm wrote on January 30, 2008 7:17 PM:has anyone seen the entire speech?
i've seen just part, and read a few quotes. And i've seen several articles titled 'divisive and calculating', but i didn't get 'divisive, calculating' from the quotes or speech. what did i miss?
I clicked through to her rebuttal page. They don't really answer the charges.
1) Iraq: The fact that Obama has voted the same as she has to fund the troops (if that's even true) is completely different from voting to authorize war.
2) K-L & Iran: Obama "co-sponsored a similar bill in April" -- except, of course, it differed in that it EXPLICITLY prevented the President from using K-L as an excuse for war. So, really, he was trying to clean up her mess.
3) Diplomacy: She says that he's misrepping her position -- THEN, she goes on and agrees that it's her position.
4) Having to spend weeks interviewing generals to come to the conclusion that "torture" is...you know...bad, is a terrible rebuttal.
W.r.t Condoleeza Rice -- which "anna" has brought up a few times -- the Jake Tapper blog post over at ABC News indicates that unless Obama saw that a cabinet member would be well outside of the mainstream, he would approve of that cabinet member.
This makes sense to me -- you have advice & consent, and every nominee should be vetted to make sure they can do the job. But you don't withhold your vote for a cabinet nominee (the President's chosen employees) unless they are unfit. I think Rice was qualified for her positions. I don't think she's great (or has a great boss), but that's not enough to kill her nomination. I'm trying to remember. What was the knock on her for SoS? Wasn't she part of the anti-Cheney contingent during the build up to the Iraq war? That contingent (within the white house) lost, of course.
On the other hand, he indicated he would have voted AGAINST Ashcroft for AG because he found "certain aspects in John Ashcroft’s record to be divisive or offensive." I don't know if that makes you think he's a hypocrite or happy that he opposed the anti-AG Ashcroft.
Duane wrote on January 30, 2008 7:19 PM:Is that why John Edwards and John Kerry both voted for authorization? No, like Hillary, they believed it was important to force Saddam to allow UN inspectors into teh country. Enough with the revisionist, rearview look at the past.
We tried nuance in 2004 and failed. I'm up for putting forth a candidate who is on record as opposed to this "stupid" war, who had the judgment to oppose it when it mattered, and to speak up forcefully instead of going along with the rush to war.
anonymous_coward wrote on January 30, 2008 7:26 PM:I just thought this headline was a bit misleading, (a bit like the ABC "Obama vents fury on cute defenseless reporter" fiasco last week) :P
CNN has this headline that I thought was fairer/even-handed
"Obama hints at a McCain nomination while jabbing Clinton"
Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 7:28 PM:Mrs. Bill Clinton promotes herself as the most qualified person to lead the nation and the world. But her standard defense when someone points out decisions and behaviors that call her leadership capacity into question is:
"... but but but, someone else is just as bad as I am."
Convinces me.
Gnopple wrote on January 30, 2008 7:33 PM:Is that why John Edwards and John Kerry both voted for authorization? No, like Hillary, they believed it was important to force Saddam to allow UN inspectors into teh country. Enough with the revisionist, rearview look at the past.
Nah...this was debunked recently by the NYT. She had some choices about why/how to authorize the war. She chose the presidents:
WASHINGTON — Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton have repeatedly invoked the name of Senator Chuck Hagel, a longtime critic of the Iraq war, as they defend Mrs. Clinton’s 2002 vote to authorize the war.Matthew wrote on January 30, 2008 7:35 PM:In interviews and at a recent campaign event, they have said that Mr. Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, helped draft the resolution, which they said was proof that the measure was more about urging Saddam Hussein to comply with weapons inspections, instead of authorizing combat.
Mrs. Clinton repeated the claim Sunday during an interview on “Meet the Press,” saying “Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution, said it was not a vote for war.”
“It was a vote to use the threat of force against Saddam Hussein, who never did anything without being made to do so,” Mrs. Clinton said.
But the talking point appears to misconstrue the facts.
In October 2002, Mr. Hagel had in fact been working with Senators Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, and Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, on drafting a resolution that would have authorized the war.
But while those negotiations were under way, to the disappointment of some Congressional Democrats, the Bush administration circumvented their effort and reached a separate agreement with Representative Richard A. Gephardt, Democrat of Missouri, then the House minority leader.
That agreement resulted in a bill, sponsored in the Senate by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, now an independent, which was slightly less restrictive than the proposal that Mr. Hagel had been helping to develop.
In the original proposal Mr. Hagel had backed, force was authorized only to secure the destruction of Iraq’s unconventional weapons, not to enforce “all relevant” United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, which was the language in the version that ultimately passed.
It was the White House proposal, not Mr. Hagel’s, that Mrs. Clinton supported, explaining in an Oct. 10, 2002, speech on the Senate floor that it was time to tell Saddam Hussein that “this is your last chance — disarm or be disarmed.”
Okay, so Obama wants to attack and sharpen the debate. Let's see if he and his supporters are equally willing to let the chips fall where they may and stop whinning. Obama isn't a nice guy, he talks without action (okay, he did give monies from Rezko fast, though, oh, yes, there is still more...), has not been able to hold his own in the campaign and debates, has present votes to yet explain, wants to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens (soft on national security and supporting terrorists is likely only the beginning of the line he'll face). Unfortunately, the only reason Obama is still in the race is that so many people have bought into the Republican propaganda about the Clintons.
I think that tomorrow's debate will offer some clarity, then the votes on Tuesday will help further. I'm sure he'll still be in the race but he stands to lose most or nearly all of the primaries. And for those hanging onto every new poll that says otherwise, go for it. Yes, maybe every poll will say is is even, maybe ahead, but, once the votes are in, I doubt it.
Gregor wrote on January 30, 2008 7:37 PM:Obama needs to repeat this line of attack tomorrow night, at the Kodiak. He needs to recite her negative numbers at least twice in the debate and refuse to back down from the problem of Hillary in the general election.
She NEVER expected to find herself on stage before Super Tuesday with a major challenger. The image of just the two of them on stage will be striking. Mrs. Inevitability, in deed. Obama is now at minimum, therefore, her equal in this race He needs to land a knockout blow.
I sense in Obama a reluctance to steal the fire, and run with it. Now is not the time for such hesitation.
Go man, go.
john mccutchen wrote on January 30, 2008 7:39 PM:Though she no doubt hopes for mass amnesia, millions of antiwar democrats have not forgotten the Clintons' four years of unstinting support for Bush's War.
Neither has John McCain. Indeed McCain's victory is great news for all antiwar democrats. Hillary can no longer run from the truth or hide from her record
Jonathan Chait wrote in the LAT last weekend that he had crossed the Rubicon to unalterable opposition to the Clintons a few weeks back
Well I crossed over in October 2001...
Hillary CLinton is a leader of the War Wing of the Democratic Party.
Don't believe another of the Clintons' lies
As her record indicates, Senator Clinton's position on Iraq differs very little from that of President Bush. For her to receive the nomination for president would in effect be an endorsement by the Democratic Party of the Iraq war.
For the Record
Hillary Clinton and the War in Iraq
http://www.antiwar.com/zunes/?articleid=12052
Josh wrote on January 30, 2008 7:40 PM:So, Matthew, your line of analysis is that Hillary will win because... Hillary will win, apparently.
Matthew wrote on January 30, 2008 7:40 PM:Obama, "a major challenger"?! No, an MSM creation and a yearning by a bunch of young folks. He's a lightweight who has been seriously outclassed throughout the campaign. If it wasn't for MSM opposition to Clinton, Obama would have been out by now. Wishing him to be something he's not is only setting you all up for serious disappointment.
frankly0 wrote on January 30, 2008 7:44 PM:So, did Obama happen to mention what he's going to do to persuade insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies to buy into "health care"? Did he say how he's going to fight the oil companies for energy independence? I guess he'll just smile at them and ask them nicely and they'll roll over for him.
I think his plan is to gather them all in an auditorium and start a rousing chorus of "Fired up! Ready to go!", followed by a round of the equally ingenious and penetrating "Yes, we can!"
As usual, children of all ages, from 1 to 100, are invited, and are expected to help lead the chants as well as to report failures of enthusiasm to the authorities.
KoolAid will be served.
Mark Rich wrote on January 30, 2008 7:45 PM:Please restore the Clinton Monarchy--I need to get back into the country for some good hot dogs.
Matthew wrote on January 30, 2008 7:45 PM:Hi Josh, Hillary will win because she is the only serious candidate left, was the only one from day one. She will go toe-to-toe with any Republican and win. She will drag the fight into the gutter if necessary and won't whine like so many other candidate supporters are making a habit of. She's not going to win the 'nice person' award, but as a candidate, I want someone who will win. Finally, she is not Kerry, Gore, or Leiberman. Okay, Leiberman turned traitor to the party and now openly sticks it in the eye of the Democrats by campaigning with McCain. Obama gets Kerry's support--wow, I'm impressed. And, for the online commentators so worried about dynasties and wanting change, Obama contrary to your ideals, gets the Kennedy clan's support. Again, wow, so much for not wanting dynasties but wanting change.
Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 7:47 PM:Don't worry frankly0--we tune out Hillary to the extent you tune out Obama.
Gregor wrote on January 30, 2008 7:48 PM:Though she no doubt hopes for mass amnesia, millions of antiwar democrats have not forgotten the Clintons' four years of unstinting support for Bush's War.
Hillary has learned much at the knee of George Bush. She would have seen how easily the Bush Team was able to arouse and foment a mass hallucination that Iraq was behind 911. That would have been a key takeaway from Hillary. She learned you can obfuscate even the baldest facts, before the American people.
Mitt Romney was obviously watching as well.
Indy wrote on January 30, 2008 7:53 PM:Jeremy, Duane and Gnopple are all correct.
Heck, back in 2002, I was a high school Republican with complete faith in Bush, and even I knew he was going to war no matter what.
Anyone who voted for the authorization and later tried to pass it off as "just authorizing the UN inspectors to do their jobs" was just covering their political ass.
frankly0 wrote on January 30, 2008 7:53 PM:Don't worry frankly0--we tune out Hillary to the extent you tune out Obama.
Can we ignore the blather that comes out of Obama's mouth?
Yes we can!
Can we stop pretending that the man has anything interesting to say?
Yes we can!
Can we realize that an empty suit is not a very likely agent of real change?
Yes we can!
Can we acknowledge that the man has the most overrated reputation in modern American politics?
Yes we can!
Yes we can!
Yes we can!
brad wrote on January 30, 2008 7:53 PM:Could you have come up with a more distorted headline? Maybe you can sub Obama's headshot with the bat-faced boy or something.
Come on...
Josh wrote on January 30, 2008 7:55 PM:Matthew, have you considered signing up for a logic course?
Anna Nemos wrote on January 30, 2008 7:55 PM:Obama is a sexist piggie. And so is his wife. Talk about playing identity politics!
Look at the three questions the Sen. needs to answer:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/marin/766215,CST-EDT-carol30.article
We dare not drink in the cult mania around Obama. Not yet. Let him sit down and be vetted by the media like the big kids.
brad wrote on January 30, 2008 8:01 PM:Christ on a cracker Anna.
You do not want to get into a "scandal contest" between your candidate and Obama. Trust me on this.
As far as he and his wife being "sexist piggies"? Again, you are tone deaf. If you are going to compare the sexual politics of the house of Clinton to the house of Obama, you are going to lose that one as well. Just ask Monica Lewinski, Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers, etc. etc. etc.
Josh wrote on January 30, 2008 8:03 PM:Dear HRC Astro-Turf Coordinator:
Smarter monkeys, please.
Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 8:06 PM:"So, did Obama happen to mention what he's going to do to persuade insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies to buy into "health care"? Did he say how he's going to fight the oil companies for energy independence? I guess he'll just smile at them and ask them nicely and they'll roll over for him."
What, no one wants to answer this one, for real? Okay, then I will.
Obama will get health care passed by pressing down hard on Republicans whose states are trending Democratic- and who might have gone to him in the General Election.
The entire Democratic Party wants health care reform passed, so almost all of them are going to be on board. That leaves Republicans left to pick up any slack in getting reform passed. So Obama's going to remind them that, hey, their states are looking blue these days, and they don't they want to be seen as unsupportive of something a majority of their citizens elected him to fix, do they?
The GOP has been a problem this year because Harry Reid is a wimp. Republicans in purple states are vulnerable to pressure if it's applied. At the end of the day, do you think they want to support their party more, or keep their seats in Congress? I bet you it's not the first one. The Republicans still have some cover as long as Bush is president. If we get a Democrat in the White House, especially one who wins a big chunk of the electorate like Obama has the chance to do, they'll be easier to break.
It might surprise you just how tactical and calculating Obama can be. He knows the best time to hit an opponent is when they're already hurt. He just looks good doing it.
All that talk about 'building a new majority' isn't just kumbaya- it's about putting TEETH onto the Democratic Party's goals of reforming government and changing the course of policy in the United States. It's easier to argue in favor of your policies if you came into office with broad voter support.
THAT'S why Obama is a good strategic choice, and not just the choice that most stirs the spirit. Clinton's looking at this election as just another chance to win office. Obama thinks this is a chance for a paradigm shift.
Indy wrote on January 30, 2008 8:07 PM:Oh, that big long post about Obama and policy changes is mine, I just forgot to put my name on it.
Gnopple wrote on January 30, 2008 8:11 PM:Jeremy, Duane and Gnopple are all correct.
That's the smartest thing that's been written in the comments in weeks!
swarty wrote on January 30, 2008 8:12 PM:I think the war vote is instructive.
In the fall of 2002, it was obvious to ANYONE who knows anything about politics that Hillary intended to run for President at some point in the future - 2008 if Bush won and 2012 if the deomcrat won. That cannot be in dispute. I can't get into her head but she did have the option of voting go the Levin alternative which would have forced Bush to come back to Congress to authorize force after the inspectors were in, but she didn't. She made the decision to support the resolution. I will leave it for historians to decide on her motives, but the obvious fact she would be running for Pres. has to figure into her calculus. It certainly figured in Edwards & Kerry.
As for Obama, you can theorize all you want about what he would have done had he been a US Senator, but all we have to go on is his full throated opposition to the war in real time in 2002.
She can spin his position all she wants, but all we have is what we know. She voted for the war, he was opposed.
Mary wrote on January 30, 2008 8:24 PM:Methinks the huge Clinton victory in Florida made little Obama PANIC, and his "unity" schtick , after Uncle Teddy advised him, got thrown out the window.
Not so impressive anymore, now that Kumbaya didn't work.
Obama is NO DIFFERENT than any other politician. NOT AT ALL.
Same ole same ole.
Unity shmunity, eh?
Mary wrote on January 30, 2008 8:26 PM:Obama in 2004, as a United States Senator:
"My position on the war is really not any different than George Bush's."
Nuff said.
huge victory? wrote on January 30, 2008 8:27 PM:Hillary had a huge victory in florida? Who knew....besides people who follow the past?
Elizabeth wrote on January 30, 2008 8:28 PM:Okay, folks - it really is getting to be serious time, and there are a lot of people just now taking serious looks at the two remaining candidates -- some who haven't been as politically obsessed as most posting here, some who have lost their candidate (notably Edwards but possibly some Republicans also). Some of these people are going to be asking legitimate but - perhaps to us - elementary or naive-sounding questions. And it may not be fair but some may make a decision on who to vote based on the information they can gain from these boards and, at least in part, on the behavior of a candidate's supporters.
There are a lot of good, factual reasons to support Sen. Obama and, I'm sorry to say, some good, factual reasons NOT to support Sen. Clinton. To me, the most important difference is how they have conducted themselves during this campaign. I believe that the best gauge of how someone will behave as President is how they are behaving as a candidate. And I can give chapter and verse on what I see are their differences in that area. It doesn't require idolizing Sen. Obama or name-calling of Sen. Clinton to support my choice: the facts are right there and are, I believe, very persuasive without any embellishment from me.
For others, it may be positions on different issues that are the deciding point or behavior in the past in different areas. So when someone asks a question, no matter what their motivation may be, I would like to think that Obama supporters could respond with relevant facts and good reasoning. He (Sen. Obama) really is a very impressive person and a good candidate and it's quite easy, even a pleasure, to defend why we are supporting him. (But no, he really doesn't walk on water .. sorry ... and being an excellent orator is certainly a bonus but not a reason to choose him over someone else.)
Super Tuesday isn't going to decide it formally (no way to get enough votes for either of them)... but it could decide things for all practical purposes IF Sen. Clinton was given a set-back equal to that she received in SC. So, at least for the few days between now and next Tuesday, I think it would be a good idea if all of us who would like to see that outcome tried to be good ambassadors for his candidacy, both on boards like this and with our family and friends and co-workers. Please keep in mind that what you say ... and how you say it .. could gain or lose a vote for the candidate you are supporting.
I'm sorry if this comes across as "preachy". It's just so very important. This country - heck, this world! - is in pretty dire straits, and I feel deeply, as deeply as it's possible to feel, that leader we choose to try and clear up the mess GWB is leaving is going to to be critical - that he, or she, will affect us, and future generations, profoundly. We really need to make the right choice and to be ready to explain our choice to others.
What's the old saw? Argue the facts; and if the facts aren't on your side, argue the law; and if neither is on your side, then pound the table! I don't think Sen. Obama's supporters need to do anything but patiently and accurately set out the facts. No table-pounding needed (even if it's fun sometimes).
Mary wrote on January 30, 2008 8:28 PM:27% of the African American vote deserted Obama and voted for Clinton.
I'm sure that means they're RACISTS, right?
ROFLMAO
Genghis wrote on January 30, 2008 8:37 PM:Notice the timing, just before the biggest debate of the season. It's a preemptive strike. Obama expects Clinton to come out swinging; this line will be his rebuttal. (And if she doesn't come out swinging, he may even to try to provoke her.) This strategy worked in SC. Clinton's negative attacks detracted from her "likability", whereas Obama was perceived as defending himself against Clinton mudslinging.
If I were Clinton, I would try to stick to the issues tomorrow, which is where she's at her best.
Matthew wrote on January 30, 2008 8:42 PM:Elizabeth, Obama won't win and we should hope for the future of the party and the country that he does not win. He's a lightweight, has no real experience--sure he's worked and all but community service work in Chicago and 20-year personal friendship and patronage with a jail slumlord doesn't qualify him. He's got a $300K discount on a home thanks to Rezko that he's got to explain beyond "it was a boneheaded decision". He's got present votes to explain and needs to remember he's in the Demcratic party before dissing Democrats and Clinton for Reagan and Republicans. He needs to explain how issuing driver's licenses to illegals is good for the country's security and respects our nation's laws. He needs to come up with concrete plans and programs instead of warm fuzzy ideas. Obama hasn't held up in debates, he's shown himself to be rude at many times, even to dump on an entire state. And claiming he's not a COO type person and is disorganized. Wow, just what we need for a president. He played the race card, or, more correctly, he let his campaign and Oprah play it. Proved he is Black enough for Black voters but making himself the Black canddiate alienates the rest of us--Whites and other minorities.
Okay, the alternative? Clinton. Sure, any criticism of her and Bill's past is very much OLD NEWS. It's more propaganda at this point then anything. Saying 1,000 times that she is not electable won't make it true. She's ready to be president from day one. She's also ready to campaign and win. She's no lightweight in any respect. And contrary to Obama, I think every stone has been turned over to vet her, unlike Obama who is still dropping surprises.
michael Valentine wrote on January 30, 2008 8:46 PM:Hillary's vote to send the troops to Iraq was calculated to show her as strong, it only showed her as manipulative and shallow.
Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 8:47 PM:Check out this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXAQ3BHTbjs
find out more about Rezko and Clinton.
swarty wrote on January 30, 2008 8:48 PM:Mary,
I refer you to my original argument. Clinton voted to authorize the Iraq War. Obama, while not in the Senate at the time, was clearly in opposition to the war. That vote is clearly the most important one in a chain of votes. To Hillary's credit, she is coming around to the right position. But she has never, nor will she ever, apologize for that horrible vote. And that bothers me a great deal.
Once the troops are in the field (Obama came into the Senate in Jan. 2005) only a nincompoop would cut off all funds for them.
And as for Florida last night, a poster mentioned that Obama got nervous about it, I think the earlier commenter had it just right - it looked like Bush in the Flight Suit. It provided exactly zero momentum.
And to take note of Elizabeth's idea of civility, I will say this: if Hillary is the nominee of our party, I will vote for her. I will not give her a nickel of my money, I will not lift one finger for her and will not encourage my friends and family to vote for her. But she will have my vote. I can't vote for Joe Lieberman's BFF under any circumstances.
Obama's right. Whether it's her fault or not, Hillary is an incredibly divisive force in American politics. Her supporters are aligned against Obama and Edwards in a way that we haven't seen in previous races. She has not only divided the country, she has divided the Democratic Party. Hillary is a wedge issue unto herself.
moomin wrote on January 30, 2008 8:54 PM:"27% of the African American vote deserted Obama and voted for Clinton."
Some readers may find it surprising that black people are, in fact, capable of emotions and higher-order thought independent of their primal instincts. Scientists suggest that they may be genetically very closely related to white humans but more study of these proud beasts is required.
Tuck in your sheet, Mary.
Josh wrote on January 30, 2008 8:55 PM:Matthew, you're like performance art.
A meaningless string of inane talking points with no coherent ideas behind them.
swarty wrote on January 30, 2008 8:55 PM:I will now let you read a quote from Lincoln Chafee's book. He says it far far better than I could (but he does echo my sentiments -hat tip Orange Satan):
----------------
Chafee remains contemptuous of Democrats who helped Bush to gin up this unnecessary invasion.
That includes New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, whom Chafee says put her presidential ambitions above standing up to Mr. Bush and the rush to war in Iraq.
“I find it surprising now, in 2008, how many Democrats are running for president after shirking their constitutional duty to check and balance this president,” writes Chafee...
“They argue that the president duped them into war, but getting duped does not exactly recommend their leadership. Helping a rogue president start an unnecessary war should be a career-ending lapse of judgment.”
-------------------
If you want to know why I support Senator Obama, the last sentence from Chafee goes a long long way describing my position.
Here's the link:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/30/191653/018
Mark F, thanks for the Republican propaganda. That Obama is now trying to leverage it speaks ill of him. What happened to the Democrats. Everyone has wimped out--Gore, Kerry, and now Obama and his supporters want Mr. Nice Guy. We need someone who will stand by their ideas, defend the party and themselves, and will stop playing nice. That is, unless you want another defeat snatched from victory. Remember, Bill is the only 2-term successful Democrat since FDR. I look forward to seeing Hillary add to this.
Josh wrote on January 30, 2008 8:59 PM:Josh, labeling things inane and suggesting they are meaningless and not coherent does not make them any less true. Maybe this comforts you personally, but how about setting the Kool-Aid aside for the moment and look at things point-by-point? Or, maybe that'd require some independent thing...
roo_P wrote on January 30, 2008 9:00 PM:Mary,
His overall sentiment seems to be now that the war has started, the United States should do the best job it can to steer Iraq toward stability. This position is not the same thing as condoning the invasion after the fact.
I am sure you will agree with their conclusion when you read the entire article Tribune referenced.
Josh wrote on January 30, 2008 9:02 PM:Mark F, thanks for the Republican propaganda. That Obama is now trying to leverage it speaks ill of him. What happened to the Democrats. Everyone has wimped out--Gore, Kerry, and now Obama and his supporters want Mr. Nice Guy. We need someone who will stand by their ideas, defend the party and themselves, and will stop playing nice. That is, unless you want another defeat snatched from victory. Remember, Bill is the only 2-term successful Democrat since FDR. I look forward to seeing Hillary add to this.
Are you retarded? Seriously?
It's GOP propaganda to criticize a Democrat for voting to invade Iraq?
In one breath you want a tough Democrat who'll do anything to win, and in the same sentence you decrying the apparently Republican tactic of pointing out that on the the single greatest foreign policy decision of my lifetime, the Senator from New York was horribly wrong?
Do better or shut the hell up.
Mark F wrote on January 30, 2008 9:02 PM:PS: Greg, you have exceeded all of my personal expectations. You are truly becoming a "real" reporter--willing to set aside your personal biases in favor of the simple truth. You appear to be learning to become a skeptic, a realist, and a clear-headed, unbiased investigative reporter. I am mightily impressed.
MrJJ wrote on January 30, 2008 9:06 PM:If Hillary cant or wont control Bills attacks on the campaign trail; how in the heck will she control him in the White House. I mean which parent in their right mind would allow their daughter to intern in a Clinton White House? Maybe she'll ban blue dresses or something.
Wait I pose that question to the members of NOW.
swarty wrote on January 30, 2008 9:12 PM:Matthew -
George W. Bush is not George H.W. Bush
Hillary is not Bill.
To assume that their presidencies will be the same thing is the apex of naivete.
Hillary would certainly be more personally disciplined than Bill, but as Joe Strummer said, the future is unwritten.
Mark F wrote on January 30, 2008 9:13 PM:"Josh"
Please add a following initial to your handle, OK? Josh Marshall is the MAN. He is one of the most talented investigative reporters in a generation. You should make it clear that you are not him (not that there ever could be any confusion). Your illiteracy completely nullifies your argument.
swarty wrote on January 30, 2008 9:15 PM:Sorry,
I meant to say it is the angel on the Christmas tree of naivete.
My illiteracy?
Angry_American wrote on January 30, 2008 9:23 PM:With Rudy G dropping out, and Mitt the Mormon being impotent and decisive, the republicans have found theirmessiah. John Mccain. (No mention of the vitrues of Ron Paul, whatsoever, ad this s verydisturbing to "real conservatives".
At the same time, Hllary has become the divider of the Democratic Party, and many on the Left are most nervous of another Deomcrat Lite, as in Joe Lieberman of the "Independent Democratic party of Connecticut". As I speak with my friends who follow this stuff very closely, many Edwards supports will not align with HRC.
So now we have it: The Obama supporters versus the Clinton supporters. So much for the "unification" of the Democratic Party.
Against all of this backdrop comes John McCain, "Go Johnny Go". Mccain will rally the moderates inthe republican Party so much more effective than Clinton will bring the supporters of Obama and other Democratic Progressives into their ideological fold.
In short, a Hillary Clinton nomnation for President gives John McCain (and the republican Party) a fantastic opportunity to score big and secure the ownership of the White House and both houses of Congress.
yes, that WILL happen!
Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 9:27 PM:Check out this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXAQ3BHTbjs
Find more about our savior!
colonpowwow wrote on January 30, 2008 9:31 PM:My favorite is Fightin' Barry putting the dig on Hillary for her vote on Kyl-Lieberman (which was NOT a vote giving Bush "the benefit of the doubt on Iran" -ask anti-war Dems Carl Levin and Dick Durbin who also voted for it) -
While he voted "not present" on the issue after supporting nearly identical language in an amendment a few weeks earliar.
This is an honest, principled stand by a person eschewing old school politics?
Okay. Got it.
Duane wrote on January 30, 2008 9:35 PM:Obama's right. Whether it's her fault or not, Hillary is an incredibly divisive force in American politics. Her supporters are aligned against Obama and Edwards in a way that we haven't seen in previous races. She has not only divided the country, she has divided the Democratic Party. Hillary is a wedge issue unto herself.
Imagine if the Clintons fought the Republicans like they do our own Democrats.
We wouldn't be in Iraq today.
Imagine that.
Bruce wrote on January 30, 2008 9:35 PM:"...unleashed a lacerating attack..."? Greg, I do not see how Obama's comments were unfair or derogatory in any way. I would feel the same way if it was Clinton speaking.
Obama was speaking to the issue of electability, and how some of the strongest potential Democratic contrasts with McCain would be negated if Clinton were the Dem nominee.
I would save the phrase "lacerating attacks" and similarly value-laden descriptions for negative personal attacks that are far removed from policy or electability issues.
swarty wrote on January 30, 2008 9:35 PM:I see your slumlord and raise you one idiotic and senseless war. A war that Senator Clinton voted for.
As a Democrat, this is the principal reason why I am not supporting Senator Clinton.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyC7loMop58
swarty wrote on January 30, 2008 9:35 PM:
"I see your slumlord and raise you one idiotic and senseless war. A war that Senator Clinton voted for.
"As a Democrat, this is the principal reason why I am not supporting Senator Clinton."
And the principal reason why you, as a Democrat, couldn't support the Iraq War Authorizing Kerry/Edwards ticket in 2004?
Check out this link: http://prorev.com/2008/01/so-you-want-to-talk-about-obamas-pals.html
Find more about our anti-savior!
Chris wrote on January 30, 2008 9:49 PM:The conservatives who visit TPM and read through the comments section have got to be eccstatic. They look at us bash each other until we are black & blue and they can just see another red electoral map come November.
Say what you will about the Republicans, but they know when to stop bashing each other over the trivial stuff. Watch how fast they coaless around McCain.
Edwards needs to endorse quickly. The longer he does not, the longer the Clinton Obama struggle continues, then the more likely we have a brokered convention and then we are done for November.
What a tragedy that will be given the field of Democratic candidates we started with.
Mark F wrote on January 30, 2008 9:53 PM:
I am SO HAPPY that Obama has finally taken the gloves off. And I am equally happy that the Clinton campaign has so easily taken the bait. Obama was clearly testing his attack points in the upcoming debate when he made this speech. The Clintons have given away their intentions. Good for Obama.
Set 'em up and knock 'em down, Senator Obama. Let's defeat dynastic rule once and for all.
Joe Citizen wrote on January 30, 2008 9:54 PM:Bill couldn't keep from poking his phallis into an intern's mouth -- what makes you think he will have the discipline NOT to meddle with the Presidency, should HRC be elected? Can you imagine the wife-husband bickering? What President needs that?? If you are married, think about your own marriage! Couples argue about how to load the dishwasher, for crying out loud ("Well, honey, I know a thing or two about Musharraf and back in the day blah blah blah")
Seriously, what is it about the Clintons that they want a third term in the White House? Do they have such little faith in the USA that they think that anyone else who was President would blow it? I mean, Billary was OK as President, but can't someone else have a turn?
Even if they did have all the answers, can't they supply the answers as advisors or as good supporters, good citizens like anyone else?
HRC is an excellent senator, with command of fact and policy (not so much at judgment, which is paramount as an executive) and if she truly loved her country, she would serve it as senator of one of the most important of the states and support the spirit of the 22nd Amendment (Presidents, or acting Presidents, shall be limited to 2 terms).
Duane wrote on January 30, 2008 9:56 PM:And the principal reason why you, as a Democrat, couldn't support the Iraq War Authorizing Kerry/Edwards ticket in 2004?
How did that work out for us? We lost by about 3 million votes if I recall. I posit that it is entirely possible that anti-stupid-debacle voters cost us that election.
How do you propose we get them onboard this time? Dazzle them with shiny inevitability? Convince them they are misogynists and call upon them to redeem themselves by voting for a warmonger that doesn't need balls to launch an illegal war?
colonpowwow wrote on January 30, 2008 9:56 PM:Chris:
Oh yeah, I'll bet it's just kumbaya over there at RedState between the Huckabee supporters, the Romney supporters, and the McCain backers.
LOL
Call me colonpollyanna.
It's a primary battle for Jah's sake. Nobody is shocked when the two candidates and their supporters duke it out. That's what it's always like here in the USA. My electoral map predicts a Democratic thumping of whichever rightwing warmonger surfaces on the other side - and that ESPECIALLY includes the real John McCain.
Bupalos wrote on January 30, 2008 9:58 PM:>>>>So, did Obama happen to mention what he's going to do to persuade insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies to buy into "health care"?>>>>
I like it better when the Obama detractors come up with something of substance in their "substance" concerns, 'cause the man ain't perfect and I like to think.
But come on. How are we going to get the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies to buy into a massive increase in customers subsidized by government grants? Yeah, that should be tough. Of course, if we make it mandatory and fine people if they don't buy their private insurance, they would like that even better than Obama's plan, but I think what he's got on tap is fine by them too.
Next "substance" concern please.
Mark F wrote on January 30, 2008 9:58 PM:"My illiteracy?"
Yeah, Josh. Please read your post again and spell/grammar check it. You come across as a subliterate Republican nitwit. Speeling counts, dood.
colonpowwow wrote on January 30, 2008 10:04 PM:Duane:
Please read the post I was referring to r-e-a-l s-l-o-w and even you will see that I was making a specific point to the poster about his reason for not - as a Democrat - supporting Hillary because of one vote he disagrees with. BTW - I disagree with that vote too.
My point is, this sure wasn't that big an issue in 2004 as it is with the ABH crowd this time.
Sort of like the adulterous behavior of a certain somebody wasn't in any of the Obama supporters' minds when they gleefully accepted his (Ted Kennedy's) endorsement as coming from a sage and wise leader of Democrats. Heck, no one died because of Bill's adulterous antics.
Clinton Bush VI wrote on January 30, 2008 10:06 PM:I'm Ready to be Elected from DAY ONE!!! I'm strong against John McCain because he can't say I didn't vote for the war!! I DID!! Take that you Republican Fuckwads!!! Are you with me people?!!!
Mark F wrote on January 30, 2008 10:10 PM:Kids, kids, KIDS! Please! Hillary is the most hated, divisive politician in a generation. Deal with it. Billary can't possibly win, and if she does, the Republicans will fight with her endlessly. Not only that, but Billary's candidacy could possibly violate the 22nd Amendment.
Hillary can't possibly win. If she does, she will be impeached within three years.
swarty wrote on January 30, 2008 10:10 PM:Dear colonpowwow,
I will try and answer your question as best I can.
When the choice was between the architect of the Iraq war (and worst president in my lifetime) and two of its enablers, it was clearly a lesser of two evils approach.
As I said in an earlier post, if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, I will vote for her as she is preferable to any current Republican running. She is right on many issues that are important to me. Again, the lesser of evils is the vote getter.
But at this moment in history, I still have a choice, and that is why I am siding with Senator Obama.
I don't believe ANY politician is pure as the driven snow, Obama included. If elected, he will make decisions that I will certainly disagree with. But Hillary blew the most important vote of her entire 35 years of service in the Fall of 2002 and that cannot be spun.
Bupalos wrote on January 30, 2008 10:12 PM:Do any of the substance concern folks want to raise an actual concern of substance?
You guys treat being inspirational like it's some kind of a disease. Note to democratic world: Being boring doesn't necessarily mean you're smart and have better policy. It just means whatever policy you do have is less likely to be implemented.
Let's quit treating this asset like it is suspect. No wonder we haven't had an effective leader since FDR. Oh sorry, he was too inspirational. He must have had bad policy. Withdrawn.
Duane wrote on January 30, 2008 10:19 PM:My point is, this sure wasn't that big an issue in 2004
I don't agree with your premise that it wasn't just as important to the millions of folks that supported anti-stupid-debacle candidates in 2004.
Even if you are correct, running two candidates who supported the Iraq War proved to be a pretty fooling thing in 2004. Why do we have to make the same mistake again? Even more so when a stunning majority of Americans are opposed to the war, think it was stupid, want us out. Why not give them something to vote for?
Sort of like the adulterous behavior of a certain somebody wasn't in any of the Obama supporters' minds when they gleefully accepted his (Ted Kennedy's) endorsement as coming from a sage and wise leader of Democrats. Heck, no one died because of Bill's adulterous antics.
What kind of Democrat smears Ted Kennedy with Chappaquiddick. Seriously - who are you folks? You have well and truly disgusted me.
Mark F wrote on January 30, 2008 10:22 PM:Bupalos:
Right on and 'nuff said. Inspiring people is the job of a president. Hillary is the Vanna White of the Democratic Party. Obama is its salvation.
anniesmiles wrote on January 30, 2008 10:25 PM:It might behold you to think carefully about who you vote for. I encourage you to research Senator Obama before you cast your vote. For someone who says he was right from day one...he has the judgment..seems very flimsy to me for someone who asks someone who is under Federal Indictment to help him with the purchase of property. I also wonder how...right...someone is who is the only one to vote present..on a bill that he wrote..and passed the Illinois Senate. No one else voted present. I wonder about someone who "pushes the wrong button"...on controversial issues. Is that a cover up...or just unable to make a decision. It seems everytime Rezko comes out in the papers...Senator Obama winds up giving money to charity. It seems strange to me...that he is the chairman of the sub committed on Foriegn Policy in Europe..and hasnt called a single meeting. He states something..and than when he is challenged...he says you didnt understand what i said. He says he is for change. I wonder if the Senate Republicans are going to hold hands with him and sing kumbaya. I doubt that very much. He reports that someone has to give him his papers two seconds before he needs them. He says he should be elected president because the kids would see themselves as different. Different all right. Paying taxes for things they never bought. I think Senator Obama is a poor choice for this office. His credentials do no match the job description. He lacks esperience. The scary one...is his belief that it is alright to bomb Pakistan. Do your research. We already elected one President who was likable...see where that got you. This time i want some experience and knowledge in the White House. Senator Clinton has thea knowledge..and will not need on the job training. Do some research. Do not expect to get your information from the pundits and television. They are there to make money. Hillary even scares them. They know they will have to pay more money...and the middle class and poor will have to pay less. Who would trust them to give unbiased opinions.
swarty wrote on January 30, 2008 10:28 PM:Did everyone leave to go play on the Massachusetts poll thread??
Goodnight all. Play nice.
Chris wrote on January 30, 2008 10:28 PM:Colonpowpow:
I'm sure the Republicans over at RedState "duke it out" just as much. But what a waste when we generate 5 or 6 thousand comments on whether or not Obama snubbed Clinton at the SOTU. What will RedState look like in a month after Hannity, Rush, and all have bought a ticket on the McCain bandwagon?
Finally, please at least consider what effect a brokered convention might have on your projected electoral map. Those conventions, historically, have not been pretty and the nominee has rarely gone on to win the general.
I really hope you are right.
It's the Surname, Stupid! wrote on January 30, 2008 10:34 PM:Well, HRC may want to complain about the "divisive" tag (although, she, herself, acknowledged being a polarizing force), but exactly who is stunned by the news she is "calculating".
The Clintons (remember Bill? He dropped out of the race after SC, I think), are both extremely calculating individuals: triangulation, HRC's run for the Senate from *NY*, etc. etc.
We don't even have to get into issues of how she voted in the Senate.
So who exactly is this charge a surprise to?
As to HRC's claim that Obama is not running a positive campaign, I'd say he's pretty positive that HRC is calculating. ;-)
His comments, however, are well timed for tomorrow's debate. HRC has been particularly bad about holding her temper during debates (talking over individuals, etc). I'm betting that Obama, by hitting her with this now, is waiting for her to come back with another "slumlord" comment.... and which point, Obama will be able to open fire with God knows what.
In front of a national audience.
That's where the Clintons have trouble: Let's be honest, when you come in contact with 100,000s of people, if not millions, there will be unsavory characters. So, for example, Tony Rezko simply goes with the turf. And the same for Norman Hsu.
No candidate is pure and clean. Period.
But the Clinton's list seems to go on and on and on. And as the *Clintons* know themselves: after a while any single issue loses it's luster (hence the WJC creedo of "Deny, deny, deny"). Unless HRC can blow Rezko up bigger, that charge will lose it's sting from overexposure.
I don't think the Clintons have any more issues to draw from else we would have heard it already.
On the other hand, Obama, presumably, has a number to cherry pick from -- each creating it's own headline day after day.
Thursday's debate is Obamas best chance to get in front of everyone showing his contrast to HRC. And he already has her defensive.
Pretty interesting move. And well-timed as far as it goes.
Oh come on, Duane,
Clinton-hater after Clinton-hater here has called the Lewinsky "smear" on Bill Clinton as if that somehow tars Senator Clinton as a candidate.
So I ask you, sir. What kind of Democrat smears Bill Clinton?
Ted Kennedy's adulterous, debauched personal behavior is as much a part of Democratic lore as is Bill Clinton's. Don't be such a virgin about it all. If you're okay accepting one of these men as a sage leader of the Democratic Party in spite of it, you should be just as okay with the other being represented as a sage leader - in spite of a personal flaw that we all recognize. That's my point.
Dear Anna,
How can any of us here defend Obama's "liberalism" more eloquently than having a Ted Kennedy endorsement... the very face of "liberalism" for the past 50 years?
AnnieSmiles, how did you figure it all out? Was it the lousy masks we were wearing or the clearly fake American accents? I bet it was Barry's middle name. We were all like, dude, "Hussein" is a dead give away, how about Hubert? and he was like No way, dudes, Hussein is funny as hell! (Then he'd do like this dead on impression of Saddam Hussein shooting his gun in the air and we would just all fall out laughing.)
So now you know we Muslims were trying to wrest the Presidency away from you imperial swine so we could launch a non-nuclear attack on our Muslim brethren in Pakistan. Of course, such a thing is not possible without the deep pockets of local real estate developers and we'd have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you meddling seniors!!!
Elizabeth wrote on January 30, 2008 10:45 PM:Response to Matthew at 8:42
I was watching the Republican debate - boring! - so spent a little time on your comments, whatever your intention or willingness to listen. My responses in parentheses.
>>>He's a lightweight, has no real experience
(opinion)
>>>sure he's worked and all but community service work in Chicago (Actually, that work was harder and more ‘real-life’ than anything that Sen. Clinton has done - at any time. You can read about it in “Dreams From My Father” And after law school, she went to a large high-priced law firm of questionable reputation (she has since distanced herself). Obama had many offers of such jobs but turned them down, choosing instead a small but very respected civil rights firm in Chicago, gaining more invaluable experience. In both jobs, his battles were very much uphill and the goals were what many people would have