Obama Criticizes "Triangulation" -- Did He Go After Bill?

Comments (56)

Daniel wrote on October 15, 2007 6:06 PM:

This is also rather ironic, given Obama's triangulation over Iran -- the Guard is involved in terrorism... just not in Iraq!

Larry Geater wrote on October 15, 2007 6:07 PM:

I hope that those who vote in the Democratic Primary are not stupid enough to fall for the spinn coming out of Sen Clintons campeign. Sen Obama right or wrong should be judged on the truthfullness of his statements not on the way the war room twists them.

Keith wrote on October 15, 2007 6:10 PM:

This is long overdue. He doesn't mention any names, but HRC felt the need to respond. Curious....

Keith wrote on October 15, 2007 6:13 PM:

Daniel:

Have you gotten ANY traction with this ridiculous claim? Do you even know what the word triangulation means?

rg wrote on October 15, 2007 6:13 PM:

The Clinton camp reaction to this is completely idiotic. At this point if Obama says he'd like a cup of coffee they would call it an abandonment of hope, and an attack on Bill, Hillary and Chelsea!

Jeremy wrote on October 15, 2007 6:13 PM:

Does Hillary have a robo-responder for this or what? How about instead of pretending that there's no difference between legitimate and illegitimate criticism, she explains to us just how all of her valuable experience has informed the most important judgments she's made. I mean, there's a big difference between swiftboating and saying "I have a better track-record than my opponent", and to dismiss anything Obama says in his favor as "attack politics" is beginning to border on the absurd.

bob wrote on October 15, 2007 6:14 PM:

Decrying attack politics is a dumb, wimpy thing that is basic M.O. for Dem operatives. The thing is, it never works when used against the GOP, and there is no reason to think that it will work when used against a fellow Dem.

I think the Dem blogosphere has a basic agreement that when the GOP calls the Dems unpatriotic, the Dems should not respond by saying that the GOP is mean. I believe Greg has actually done his fair share of arguing against it.

If whenever Obama points out their differences or criticizes Clinton, the Clinton camp's response is basically "unlike his campaign slogan, Obama is really a Big Meanie," they are pursuing a dumb, dumb, dumb strategy that is not going to work.

Unfortunately, since they want to run a general election front-runner strategy, it seems like they think this is the only option possible.

horizonr wrote on October 15, 2007 6:14 PM:

We are finally seeing just how very thin Hillary Clinton's skin is.

rg wrote on October 15, 2007 6:14 PM:

The Clinton camp reaction to this is completely idiotic. At this point if Obama says he'd like a cup of coffee they would call it an abandonment of hope, and an attack on Bill, Hillary and Chelsea!

bob wrote on October 15, 2007 6:17 PM:

It was always too-clever-by-half for the Clinton campaign to decide that the entire response to Obama was going to be, in every single instance:

"He's abandoned the politics of hope!"

The other thing is that even if the media play her game and report is as Obama criticizes Clinton, Clinton says he has abandoned politics of hope, his criticisms still get aired, and in response, all she has is this vapid, sophomoric catch-phrase.

elrapierwit wrote on October 15, 2007 6:17 PM:

The term 'triangulation' is associated with the CLINTONS...not just Bill...Hillary has perfected the art of triangulation as a politician.

Her trying to hide behind Bill by accusing Obama of attacking Bill, is really pathetic.

She is the candidate and she triangulates.

Nice try Hillary, if you want to be 'the girl' you can't run and hide behind Daddy.

Absolutely shallow and pathetic, how Hillary campaign hides behind Bill.

I thought Hillary was supposed to such a great fighter, now she needs Bill to defend her.

Puhleeeze....

gqmartinez wrote on October 15, 2007 6:17 PM:

I'm confused. Isn't Obama's entire campaign based on ending partisanship by bringing different sides together? Isn't that exactly what "triangulation" (a poll-tested and focus group tested word no doubt) aimed to do?

Anonymous wrote on October 15, 2007 6:19 PM:

It's unfortunate that Senator Obama is abandoning the politics of hope in making false attacks on fellow Democrats -- click!

whirrr...

It's unfortunate that Senator Obama is abandoning the politics of hope in making false attacks on fellow Democrats -- click!

whirr...

elrapierwit wrote on October 15, 2007 6:22 PM:

lol lol lol...Hillary supporters are confused about triangulation?

lol lol...now we know why they support her...they do not even understand how she triangulates on everything"

healthcare, torture, foreign policy, and even lobbyists being American.

hahahaha, you bet you're confused.

vicissitude wrote on October 15, 2007 6:27 PM:

Is Edwards criticizing Bill Clinton also?

Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz told CNN, "the truth is the only candidate who can win and change America is one who will not triangulate or compromise their way to fake change, but one who will fight the entrenched interests and lobbyists everyday and win - that candidate is John Edwards

Taylor Harsh wrote on October 15, 2007 6:29 PM:

Hillary's Strategy

Triangulation (politics)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Triangulation is the act of a candidate presenting his or her ideology as being "above" and "between" the left and right sides of the political spectrum. It involves adopting for oneself some of the ideas of one's political opponent. The logic behind it is that it not only takes good ideas away from your opponent, but that it insulates you from attacks on that particular issue. It is a tactic commonly used in third way politics.

1. Origins during the Clinton years-
The term was first used by President of the United States Bill Clinton's chief political advisor Dick Morris as a way to describe his strategy for getting Clinton reelected in the 1996 presidential election. Morris advocated a set of policies that were different from the traditional policies of the Democratic Party. The idea Clinton used behind some of these policies was to be "more Republican than the Republicans." These policies included welfare reform, tax cuts for the middle class and balanced budgets. One of the most widely cited capstones of Clinton's triangulation strategy was when, in his 1996 State of the Union Address, Clinton declared that the "Era of Big Government is over."

2. Use after Bill Clinton-
Triangulation was emulated during the 2000 presidential election in the Bush campaign's use of the term "compassionate conservative". The subsequent Bush campaign, however, returned to the 80's tradition of focusing on appealing to more partisan voters using so-called wedge issues.

Other leading politicians who have successfully used the method include Tony Blair with "New Labour" in the United Kingdom and Fredrik Reinfeldt with "The New Moderates" in Sweden.

Hillary Clinton used triangulation politics in her 2008 presidential primary run to arrive at the conclusion that deauthorizing the Iraq war, rather than cutting off funding, is the best method to mollify her original vote to authorize war while essentially failing to compel any change to the war policy

Is this what we want America?

Keep up the good word Obama!!

Obama/Edwars 08

ARG in Chicago wrote on October 15, 2007 6:32 PM:

To me this criticism by Obama does not ring true.

Yes, Hillary triangulates. That's why I don't like Hillary.

But, in my view, Obama is learning from the masters, and is a great big triangulator himself. So his criticism of Hillary is disingenuous.

To me, they both seem cut from the same cloth. I like Obama better than Hillary, but I don't like triangulating politicians, period.

Been there and tried that with Kerry (whom I supported in the '04 primaries).

That's why I'm planning to vote for Dennis Kucinich in 2008, who is the antithesis of a triangulator -- a man who actually says what he really believes. (And he's so articulate, too!)

-- ARG

sagacious wrote on October 15, 2007 6:32 PM:

Maybe Obama was referring to
THE CLINTONS

aren't they a team

isn't this the Bill and Hill show?

Hillary is not campaigning on her own, she claims to represent all that Bill is.

She is his surrogate.

They both triangulate...what difference does it make which one Obama was referring to?

If Hill is nominated with get Bill too!!!

Liberal Larry wrote on October 15, 2007 6:33 PM:

It is amusing seeing two Ivy League elitists calling each other out on each other's triangulations.

IWW wrote on October 15, 2007 6:34 PM:

Darn! Don't tell me I missed the Bill Clinton canonization ceremony! Or is it being dipped in the waters of the Ganges that makes one a sacred political cow, able to amble about freely and exempted from any criticism, even of the justifiable sort. Cow patties ahead!

daylily wrote on October 15, 2007 6:36 PM:

OMG, sagacious, if they BOTH triangulate ... that leaves us with a Star of David, doesn't it? Obama is clearly using a Muslim "dog-whistle." Alert the media!

joejoejoe wrote on October 15, 2007 6:39 PM:

Did NAFTA do good things or bad things to the US manufacturing base?

Is extraordinary rendition consistent with American values?

What infrastructure improvements were made in America, in peacetime, from 1993-2001?

What was accomplished that endures from the Clinton presidency?
- - -
If Hillary Clinton is going to run based on the experience of having a "front row seat" to history, she has to answer for what went on in the play.

sagacious wrote on October 15, 2007 6:48 PM:

wtf is muslim 'dog-whistle' is this a slur or what?

John McCutchen wrote on October 15, 2007 7:04 PM:

Oh heavens Did he go after Bill?

Try breathing in a paper bag when your panic attacks overwhelm you Sargent!

party-of-one wrote on October 15, 2007 7:10 PM:

What is with the Hillary campaign and the "attack" paranoia? This sure doesn't sound the campaign of a confident frontrunner. Why even respond to Obama? Could it be his comments are hitting to close to the truth? Whenever Hillary feels like she's losing ground, it time to bring Bill back into the middle of things. What happened to run as an individual on her own merits?

Hillary's own polling must tell her Obama's message is resonating. But she doesn't understanding debating on substance, so her campaign must manipulate quotes and ufacture something to attack, attack attack. After she invokes Bill and his presidency to cover her shortcomings as a candidate, it's time to play the victim. Poor Hillary, those mean ol' men treat her so bad (Bill included).

tonyroma wrote on October 15, 2007 7:27 PM:

Actually I think the worst thing about this incident is the fact that the AP printed the story just like the Clinton Camp wanted, distorting the obvious target of Obama's words!

I tend to agree with party of one above. Obama has allowed Hillary to define his campaign as one unwilling to discuss specific policy issues, and then when Obama does contrast himself against Hillary, they scream that "he's desperate because he's behind in the polls," or "Obama's abandoned the 'politics of hope'" as though drawing real distinctions is somehow a negative campaign tactic. It isn't. Its called politics, and Hillary better prepare to be tested from here on out not just from the Republicans, but by the Democrats as well.

Reality is that the Clintons were behind the Democrats loss of power in the 90s due to their personal foibles, along with continuous attacks from the right. The Party does not need to make the same mistake again.

hadenough wrote on October 15, 2007 7:37 PM:

obama's 'young supporters' will have no idea what obama is talking about. Unless there was a crowd full of childhood political prodigies they would have no idea what crap obama is trying to push and that he is dragging up smears the "liberal media" tried to use against The Big Dog through the 90s.

It was sad when obama’s karl rove style dirty tricks shop dug up the most vile and disgusting ratwing lies and emailed them to the press. Now it’s just gotten to be stupid. What could axelrod be thinking. Isn’t a distant second bad enough. Is axelrod shooting for distant third place.

NCSteve wrote on October 15, 2007 8:15 PM:

Gee, hadenough, once again with the sage advice for Obama's campaign. What with his base consistinging entirely of 12 year olds, I'm sure they'll give it all the consideration its due.

Btw, one would think someone somewhere (before me, I mean) would have noticed that the phrase "that's not what we need right now" is a) clearly meant to indicate he's referring to Hillary and, b)implies that triangulation may have been necessary back when Bill was running and the Republicans were dominate rather than collapsing.

suszie wrote on October 15, 2007 8:16 PM:

Now, the endorsement of Mr Sorensen, who worked for Mr Kennedy for 11 years and wrote the 1961 inaugural speech in which he spoke of a torch having been "passed to a new generation", has made the linkage explicit and given it official sanction.

More pointedly, the Democratic veteran expressed what few senior party figures are prepared to do publicly — the conviction that Mrs Clinton will lose a general election and in practice is not much different from President George W Bush.

When asked about her similarities to Bill Clinton, Mr Sorensen said that her election would be "a continuation of the Clinton-Bush 20 years" and business as usual in Washington.

“She has the same tendency to triangulate, as he called it, she has the same ability to equivocate, to vacillate, to imitate what the Republicans are doing and saying.”

He vehemently rejected the contention, driven home relentlessly by the Clinton campaign, that Mr Obama lacks the experience to be president.

"He has great judgment, which he has demonstrated in his position against the Iraq war even before it started.

"Judgment is the single most important criterion for selecting a president. At the time of the [1962] Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy's powers of judgment were tested as no president has ever been tested. Fortunately for all of us, he really came up with the right answers. He was 45. Obama's 46 so he's an old geezer."

RalphB wrote on October 15, 2007 8:36 PM:

Obama is a triangulator of the first order, or a coward depending on how you define not taking tough votes and waiting until the reviews are in before stating your position.

Can any of you name me one tough stand that Obama has taken against the grain of his own self interest. If not, shut up!

Hal wrote on October 15, 2007 8:45 PM:

Triangulation is like strangulation: before you realize it- it is too late.

Kudos to Obama for moving straight through the Bermuda triangle of politics: Clintonism- many have been stranded in their web, never to be heard of again. Obama is the one who can best navigate us back to shore.

Brian wrote on October 15, 2007 9:11 PM:

"Judgment is the single most important criterion for selecting a president. At the time of the [1962] Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy's powers of judgment were tested as no president has ever been tested. Fortunately for all of us, he really came up with the right answers. He was 45. Obama's 46 so he's an old geezer."
____________________________

Could Obama make some use of JFK comparisons? Just a thought.

Jeremy wrote on October 15, 2007 9:12 PM:

RalphB. You are 100% wrong.

DTM wrote on October 15, 2007 9:21 PM:

Triangulation as conceived by Dick Morris is not a bipartisan, consensus-building strategy. Rather, it is actually a partisan strategy, where you defeat the other party by taking away their favorite issues.

kjoe wrote on October 15, 2007 9:23 PM:

I believe it is high time Obama started criticizing Bill. He was a mediocre president at best, unable to advance the country beyond what a moderate republican could have done.

He continued a disturbing presidential practice of LBJ at Tonkind Bay---exaggerating what was going on to get the authority he wanted to unleash military power.

He had a black convict with 33 percent of his brain matter missing executed while he was on cbs with Hillary explaining about Gennifer Flowers.

I wish the press would quit acting like Bill walked on water---as Hillary could remind you but won't---he skated on thin ice.

ARG in Chicago wrote on October 15, 2007 10:02 PM:

Jeremy, the article you cite documents speeches Obama has made on the campaign trail. Tough talk -- that's nice. But actions speak louder than words. I voted for Obama four years ago, and I have to say I've been disappointed in his performance in the Senate. When has he taken a serious stand on a VOTE?? When, for example, has he bucked the leadership or the DLC? When has he stood on principle, public opinion be damned? Did he stand with Russ Fiengold for censure? Did I miss some case where he really took a stand -- and I don't mean casting a vote in the minority after waiting until the last minute, when the issue was already decided.

Nope, I'm not buying Obama as the iconoclast. But that *is* what we need now. Hence, I'm supporting Dennis Kucinich.

-- ARG

pacc wrote on October 15, 2007 10:19 PM:

The Clinton campaign remains focused and their repetition of O-Bomb-A (once again) abandoning his (phony) "politics of hope" is a winning strategy. Take that away and what have you got...? Experience...? HaHaHaHa. No.

What you've got is a sort of a wet noodle kind of attack dog (who appears to be henpecked by a trash-talking big mouth wife - oh yeah, America loves that - another HaHaHaHa) and not a whole lot of anything else.

Bottom line:

Clinton's national numbers are pushing over the 50 per cent mark. In NH, SC and NV, she's tracking for a landslide.

In IA, the trend shows momentum on her side, as she has overtaken Edwards and her lead continues to grow.

And then there's the national primary on the 5th (don't tell me that b.s. that those national numbers don't count) where she will wrap the whole thing up.

This is why "Stinky" is going heavy negative. It's called desperation. He jumped the gun by getting in the 2007 race, his old convention speech going right to his baloney head, and he blew it. HaHaHaHa.

Bye-bye Barry. So glad to see you go.

Coonsey wrote on October 15, 2007 10:43 PM:

Let me get this straight. Because Hillary's POLL numbers are high, that gives her EXPERIENCE enough to be President?

She was a First Lady in the White House folks - not a foreign leader or President. She MAY have slept in the same Bed as Bill - somehow I doubt it after what he supposedly did to their marriage.

Her experience as Senator is no different then that of Obama's.

The ONLY reason Hillary polls numbers are higher is because of people recognizing her NAME and BILL. It's NOTHING to do with HER.

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

Charlie wrote on October 15, 2007 10:45 PM:

My dictionary defines "triangulation" in terms of surveying, navigation and geometry. Would someone please tell me what it means in politics?

pacc wrote on October 15, 2007 10:52 PM:

Hey COONsey...

The point is not that Clinton's poll numbers give her the experience to be President. The point is that her poll numbers are causing the other candidates - O-Bomb-A especially - to freak out.

... and it's a little late to still be hiding behind the name recognition excuse.

VictorLaszlo wrote on October 15, 2007 10:56 PM:

It's unfortunate that Hillary has abandoned the politics of not starting stupid wars.

DTM wrote on October 15, 2007 11:07 PM:

At this stage, national polls are basically indictative of who people think is likely to win. They are not, however, strongly predictive of who will actually win, even going into Iowa. For example, going into the Iowa caucus, Kerry was polling nationally about the same as Edwards is now.

Brian wrote on October 15, 2007 11:40 PM:

As a sidenote to the clever nameplay, I was at the speech today in Madison and Senator Obama specifically mentioned his recent disagreement with Senator Clinton over extending diplomatic relations to non-friendly governments. He referred to her as "Senator Clinton," yet the AP piece that everyone is using claims he never referred to her by name. Strange.

Lookingforhome wrote on October 15, 2007 11:54 PM:

Obama set himself up for this, and he deserves to be called out on it. Everyone, EVERYONE going into this campaign devised a strategy - including the shining star from purity land. He made a choice to claim that through sheer will and his powers as a persuader, and a uniter, he could rise above "politics as usual."

Then came his plateau in the polls, which was really likely. Now he and his surrogates have looked at the calendar, realized that hope alone doesn't seem to be moving enough voters, so it's time to snipe at any little thing they can get their hands on. OH MY GOD, whattya know, when push comes to shove politicians have to go on the attack. How horrible for our system. Probably good to learn this early.

What bites is that even as he's clearly now engaged in the same old divisive politics, Obama and his supporters are still struggling to hold on to some mantle of purity. Face it, you want him to win, he wants to win and if his numbers (or the gap with HRC) doesn't move substantially he'll go more negative with each passing week...because he HAS to.

But if he's not offering a 'different type of politics' then how much better is he on the substance?? Hmmm...'ya think he's prepared for that challenge? He's spent an awful lot of time and money pushing the 'better guy than everyone else' story. Does he have enough left in the tank to switch gears? Or must he? Perhaps he can keep the purity facade while attacking...what would you call such a cunning attempt to play both sides...claim to do one thing while you're actively doing the opposite...? There must be a word for that!

Anonymous wrote on October 16, 2007 12:02 AM:

Triangulation is either taking both sides of an issue or attacking both sides of an issue therefore giving all sides the impression that you are on their side.

jmc wrote on October 16, 2007 12:03 AM:

Dear Greg -

Why does one have to report on the reply given by the Hillary campaign?

I mean - there are people hired to say the same things over and over again, regardless of the merit of whatever Obama originally said.

Why does this need equal time with Obama's statement? Just report what Obama, Hillary, Edwards, Biden, anybody is saying without quoting Axelrod and Singer's insipid, uninformative spin.

thanks,

readers.

cambMike wrote on October 16, 2007 12:05 AM:

Look boys and girls. Obama and Clinton are both great people, and either would make a far better President than either Bush or ANY of the Repub candidates. I know that it's great fun to tear our best candidates apart, but if you actually want a Democrat in the White House in 2009, it would be more helpful if you'd save your venom for our Republican foes.

Liberal Larry wrote on October 16, 2007 12:10 AM:

Bush-Lite is a republican!

FreakyBeaky wrote on October 16, 2007 12:53 AM:

She's not triangulating. Remember HRC is a work-within-the-system church-going middle-American former teenage Goldwater girl centrist, and all will make sense. (Note that I do not consider the above description an inherently negative one. That's not where I'm coming from, but no one coming from where I am will ever be President).

For Obama to attack "triangulation" is a veiled attack on the one guy it is most associated with, Bill Clinton - and the candidate he is most assoicated with, HRC. Now Bill did triangulate, 'specially after getting his ass handed to him in '94. That's one thing. But attacking him, or HRC through him, is a loser. It sounds like attacking our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity, whether that is the intent or not. Not a good move, IMO, but we'll see.

Ruth wrote on October 16, 2007 1:13 AM:

I like Hillary Clinton because she's a strong woman like me, but that doesn't mean I'm voting for her. I worked on an assembly line during the war with many strong women and have seen many presidents come and go. As much as I want to see a woman in the white house, she is not the one.

Ted Sorensen who was Jack Kennedy's adviser hit the nail on the head. Once a generation we need someone different. My generation had Jack Kennedy. This generation has Barack Obama. I think the media underestimates how much after 20 years of Bush, Clinton, Bush we can actually benefit as a people by being inspired again. If that inspiration even leads to a few big changes in our country, we can be proud that we did better than the last 30 years of voters.

colonpowwow wrote on October 16, 2007 7:11 AM:

Oh my sweet Jah, Hillary triangulates!?!

I can just hear the votes peeling away as millions of confirmed Hillary voters and uncommitted voters leaning to her screech to a grinding halt saying, "Lawd have mercy, I had no idea that she's a triangulator too. I'm going to take a second look at Senator Obama."

This is another desperate appeal to gather the fringe (see this board for many examples) that's still dripping from Edwards, Kucinich et al to his stagnant (at best) candidacy.

That said, Obama in 2016!

DonnaG wrote on October 16, 2007 9:23 AM:

What defines triangulation? Thanks, Taylor Harsh.
" It involves adopting for oneself some of the ideas of one's political opponent. The logic behind it is that it not only takes good ideas away from your opponent, but that it insulates you from attacks on that particular issue. It is a tactic commonly used in third way politics."

Does Hillary herself triangulate, and if so, what does that mean in terms of outcomes in the biggest of issues, like hawking war and offering health coverage?

Once the definition is available, it is a matter of looking at the facts to see if Hillary does triangulate. I have noticed through the months since January that Hillary repeatedly copies the gaining-traction words and ideas of her primary opponents. I just thought of that as 'Hillary is a follower', but I can now see that could indicate a political strategy of 'triangulation'.

Barack represents hope and change, so suddenly those words become part of Hillary's rhetoric [though she is also running to somehow resurrect the past].

John Edwards is running a populist campaign, highlighting the plight of the have-nots, so Hilllary begins to stress her mid-western middle-class roots [while simultaneously obeying the guidance of a campaign strategist involved in union busting, and all the while receiving the financial support of out-sourcing corporations].

The most egregious example of triangulation may be her AUMF and Kyl-Lieberman stances. Represent continued hawkishness for the fearful, while simultaneously representing a future pull-out from war policies for those anxious to stop the bleeding of lives and treasure.

Whether Barack's introduction of 'triangulation' is potent in terms of votes, or whether Hillary is, in fact, engaging in triangulation, it is significant to me that someone in the public eye has the boldness to lay out this concept to help citizens understand the ways of Washington and politics.

The most immediate thought I had when I grasped the concept [thanks again, Taylor] was how directly it seemed to apply to the democratic leadership and majorities in Washington. The most maddening foot-dragging and/or compromising has taken place since the '06 elections. Nothing bold or clear from the democrats, but a lot of subtle and not so subtle abetting of the republican agenda on the war and on the matter of domestic spying.......always explained in terms of the inability to go against a powerful White House machine and its capitol allies. Even the issues that are brought up for votes seem to be the very ones which will 'prove' the power of that republican blockade, and the need to sweep those republicans away electorally. The assumption we are supposed to draw from this cowardice and collusion is, of course, that the dems cannot really do anything without controlling the Congress AND the White House.

While matters continue to simmer and boil over domestically and internationally, while soldiers continue to die or suffer serious injury, all that may be secondary to a triangulation strategy of beltway democrats. Just act to increase frustration and pressure to bring about only one conclusion: a sweep of democrats into power is all that can save the country.

john mccutchen wrote on October 16, 2007 9:44 AM:

Stop Her Before She Triangulates Again

Foreign Affairs Article:Brunehilde the Bold Would Use Violence Against Iran http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/hillaryclinton/story/0,,2191830,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

NCSteve wrote on October 16, 2007 9:56 AM:

Does Hillary triangulate? Puh-leeze. Her entire Senate career is one vast exercise in triangulation, i.e. an attempt to counter her prior image as being scarily (to the right) leftist by voting their way on a number of issues.

What else do you call coming out in favor of the flag burning amendment? The result of a deep-seated moral conviction or cynically agreeing to mess with the First Amendment in order to show the knuckle-draggers that she's not that bad?

Voting to authorize the Iraq War? Deep seated conviction based on her thorough study of the available intelligence that Saddam represented an immenent danger to the United States, or cynically agreeing to be complicit in an illegal and immoral war so she could prove to the Right that she's a rough, tough two-fisted CIC type?

Although I've got to say, ducking behind her husband in response to a comment clearly directed to her (the only one running against Obama) isn't in keeping with the strength and toughness her campaign touts at every opportunity.

Matt wrote on October 16, 2007 10:05 AM:

Ironic that HRC responds to a charge of triagulation with... TRIANGULATION! perhaps not the usual sort but bringing the third party, Bill, into this fight is a way to make it two against one.

and that is the strategy, make any attack on Hillary an attack on Bill. How unfeminist!

FreakyBeaky wrote on October 17, 2007 12:47 AM:

"What else do you call coming out in favor of the flag burning amendment?"

Easy. Work-within-the-system church-going middle-American former teenage Goldwater girl centrist really thinks burning the flag is beyond the pale.

(I think she's wrong - I guess me and Hill are different that way).

"Voting to authorize the Iraq War?:"

Easy. Work-within-the-system church-going middle-American former teenage Goldwater girl centrist thinks Congress ought to defer to the President on national security matters.

(She's wrong. Hate the vote - hate it - but I don't think she'd have invaded Iraq if she'd been President).

"and that is the strategy, make any attack on Hillary an attack on Bill."

Nope. Adopt any attack on Bill as an *automatically discredited* attack on Hillary.

(And what is Obama doing attacking Bill anyway? He's not running.)

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)