NEWS FLASH: Democrats shoot selves in foot again!

The Republicans are loving it.

Oh, the K/L amendment that Obama couldn't be bothered to stick around and vote againstl? That one?

Obama's continued attempts to tie Clinton to the current Whitehouse illustrate his snide brand of dishonesty -- Votes talk louder than words:

Progressivepunch.com also has a measure of how often a Senator votes with the majority of Senators deemed more progressive in the Senate when a measure is narrowly won or lost -- that is, when it was more likely that the vote could make a difference.
1. Clinton cast her vote with the majority of the more progressive Senators 87.28 percent of the time when the margin was narrow.
Obama cast his vote with the majority of the more progressive Senators 76.97 percent of the time when the margin was narrow.
Joe Lieberman cast his vote with the majority of the more progressive Senators 76.14 of the time when the margin was narrow.

These numbers will vary slightly as more relevant votes are factored in.

Matthew Yglesias:

To me, the most troubling thing about Hillary Clinton is that her read of the politics is to always err on the side of hawkishness. And of course if she (a) votes for Iraq, (b) watches Iraq turn into an unpopular disaster, (c) declines to apologize for her actions, (d) wins the Democratic nomination, and (e) wins the presidency then that's only going to re-enforce that interpretation of politics. After all, if unapologetic support for a hugely unpopular foreign policy disaster doesn't even doom you in a Democratic Party primary, then why shouldn't you always err on the side of hawkishness?

At least she didn't claim he was schooled in a madrassa.

I feel like the Village will say "Great zinger Hil!" and Iowans will frown in disapproval.

Also the Obama camp's rejoinder is the only part of the whole exchange that makes sense to me.

Clinton is endanger of putting too much weight on a weak argument. If you argue and argue that your opponent is unqualified and you fail to convince the voters, aren't they going to conclude that because you lost the argument there is no reason to vote for you?

Clinton constantly uses GOP talking points: listen to her trillion dollar middle class tax increase. Except only 6% make over $100k, not the middle class.

Obama is a desperate lying sack of shit. His campaign is based on crap and he's the only democrat, including Kucinich, that I will not vote for at all.

LOL John.

Well on the bright side, those Republicans are still wishing they had a candidate that won't require them to wear a brown paper bag on their heads when going to the polls (if they even go).

I'm with Obama on this one. Clinton is just another tired DC insider whose policy will be more of the same. And the same...ain't working and I'm not so sure it ever really did. I for one sure hope we can stop the Bush-Clinton dynasty and get some fresh blood and ideas into the White House.

EDWARDS CAMPAIGN: THE DEFINITION OF MUDSLINGING

Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Today, John Edwards for President communications director Chris Kofinis released the following statement on the definition of mudslinging:

“mudslinging |mÉ™d sli ng i ng | (also mud-slinging) noun informal: the use of insults and accusations, esp. unjust ones, with the aim of damaging the reputation of an opponent. As in: Hillary Clinton said about Barack Obama, ‘Now voters will judge whether living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next president will face.’

“Now we know what Senator Clinton meant when she talked about ‘throwing mud’ in the last debate. Like so many other things, when it comes to mud, Hillary Clinton says one thing and throws another.”

It's experience, stupid!
Bush-Lite/Mrs. Bush '08

LOL!

A rebuttal that takes a whole paragraph compared to the initial attack's one liner is not a great rebuttal. Witness the Kerry campaign.

This round goes to Hillary on my scorecard.

Ralph,

Way to keep things classy! Let me know how you find a way to vote for all the Dems except Kucinich and Obama. I'm sure that little trick could come in handy in the general election... "I'm voting for everyone except Giuliani and LaRouche!"

Add . . .

Critical of Experienced Politicians.

Yet another Bush campaign specialty (goes hand in hand with the "outsider" argument).

TheraP: She's wrong in her presumptions.

You assume she actually holds those presumptions as opposed to believing the public may, which would make it a good attack.

Political attacks don't have to be rational to be effective.

Which is why Hillary is the better campaigner than Obama and why she's been leading - she plays to the electorate as a whole.

Obama plays to his base and the radical left.

Just like Bush does with the radical right.

Yet another likeness Obama and Bush share.

We don't need no stinkin' liberalized Bush-lite.

'The fact remains that Hillary Clinton voted with the Republicans and against the majority of Democrats in Congress in supporting Bush's blank check for war in Iraq.'

Erm...

The senate vote was 29-21 on the dem side.

Now...

if progressives want to do a purity test against dem candidates based on their AUMF vote(which wouldn't bother me in a 'purity' context), then let us organize to remove all dems who voted for the thing.

Otherwise?

As far as the Iraq war goes, Edwards, Obama, and Clinton will maintain a residual force in the country. To get hung up on the AUMF vote (tainted by criminal wrongdoing on behalf of the Bush administration), misses the larger point of what to do NOW.

NONE of the candidates have really dug in their heels besides Kucinich. And even his efforts fall short.

He's no Ernie Chambers. Who is being forced out due to term limits here (NE) because of his infamy of being a master of the floor rules, and stopping any and all legislation that he doesn't like.

Or at least making it tedious for republicans (and right leaning dems) to do so.

The ONLY reason term limits were put to vote were to put Ernie out.

My 2 cents.

anonymous, how about owning up to an identity? Your working awfully hard to spin this one for Mrs. C. Are you getting paid by the word, or do you get a better chunk for the creative smears (cause, man, there are some humdingers in there! You can't just give that stuff away!)

5:04 -

Hilary is a better campaigner because she uses irrational attacks?? What is with all the retards on the board today?

She plays to the electorate as a whole? Oh, including the 50% that have a crystallized negative view of her? Are there any facts that back up these statements or did you just mean to entertain us?

And sense when was using irrational scare tactics LESS like Bush?

anonymous,

Every relevant poll I have seen suggests the exact opposite of what you claim, meaning Obama generally draws relatively more support than Clinton from independents and Republicans.

"Which is why Hillary is the better campaigner than Obama and why she's been leading - she plays to the electorate as a whole."

Errr.... how are those Ohio and Florida numbers looking for Clinton? Last time I checked she was the only candidate on either side with higher negatives than positives in the two most important states. Popquiz: How many national presidential candidates have been selected by a state with a negative to positive ration above 1? Hint: It's a number between -1 and 1.

But maybe that will change now that she got her Rovian "trillion dollar tax increase on the middle class" meme out there.

Sigh. I guess we can tell the early primaries and caucuses are getting closer by the increasing number of Democratic nitwits intent on tearing down anyone other than their chosen champion.
It is obvious to any rational, objective observer that any of the top 3 candidates (and maybe Biden and Dodd, too) would make fine presidents. I'm sorry if one is "too liberal" for Jack and another "too conservative" for Jane, but get a grip. Griping about whether a candidate does or doesn't meet our own personal ideological perfection test is the same foolish thinking that caused us to get hammered throughout the 1980s. What we are really arguing over is who would make the "best" president. It is idiotic for supporters of any of the Democrats to so viciously attack the other candidates.
I have a preferred candidate, but will happily vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is. Remember, a half loaf is ALWAYS better than no loaf. Eyes on the ball, people, eyes on the ball.

I will just keep reminding other Democrats of this until I am blue in the face: Hillary does not have a problem in epxlaining her vote on Iraq or her position on Iran. I am completely comfortable with the fact that she voted on Iraq with all the information in front of her; just as the vast majority of the public thought going into Iraq was right at the time, based on the intelligence as it was presented, so did Hillary and most Senators. We now know otherwise, and her view has changed as a result. I went through the same transformation of opinion as I learned more about Iraq -- and so did most of the public. As far as Iran is concerned, if that vote was such a huge deal, Obama would surely have shown up to vote on it.

Anon:

*yawn* Try as you might, the only person you are spinning is yourself.

Up is still up. And authorizing the use of military force against Iraq is still authorizing war.

It would be nice if Clinton and Obama would rise above crap like this. Of course, living overseas gives you a more informed sense of how others live--is this something to be mocked because you can play into the fears and xenophobia of the unwashed? And Clinton voted for use of force--is that enough to disqualify her candidacy or render every other foreign-policy pronouncement defective? I say we send Barack and Hillary to their rooms until they can treat each other with respect and dignity.

Keith: And authorizing the use of military force against Iraq is still authorizing war.

Bigger 'yawn' back at ya.

Authorizing several different actions, including military action, for a president who already believed himself authorized to invade Iraq isn't substantively or procedurally authorizing anything and Clinton's vote against that resolution would neither have prevented its passage or kept Bush from invading.

Only in your dishonest fantasy world is it otherwise.

And btw, voting for military action as a last resort option is not "voting for war," which wa the original Hillary Hater meme, not voting to authorize war as you are now claiming.

You can lie about this all day, but in the end it will still be as big a lie as Bush's claims about WMDs in Iraq.

Yet another similarity between Obama and his supporters and Bush: they lie repeatedly in order to influence the public.

Keith: Florida delegates won't count toward the nomination. Thanks for playing.

The meme proffered was that Hillary didn't appeal to conservatives and independents as much as Obama, not whether she was going to win delegates on that basis from a particular state.

Thanks, though, for playing dishonestly and confirming my low opinion of your integrity.

Obama walks the walk (as does Kucinich). Both men could've converted their early life success into considerable dollars and comfort, both opted not to.

Doesn't mean what the others did was bad or wrong, but the courage of both men is admirable, and rare.

Anon:

I quoted the title of the resolution. How's that a lie? And authorizing President Bush to use military force is, according to the War Powers Act (which this resolution refers to) is an EXPLICIT congressional authorization for war.

I've read the 2002 AUMF. It's pretty clear what the resolution was about. So clear that Senator Levin proposed an amendment that required President Bush to return to Congress to get Congressional Authorization before attacking Iraq. Any guess how Senator Clinton voted on said resolution?

Anon:

My bad. But to your point:

She doesn't appeal to independents and Republicans as much as Obama does. Citing polls about Clinton's lead over Obama doesn't answer that question (it only shows her support amongst Democrats and leaners versus Obama's support with the same group). Maybe if you pointed to a matchup poll (Clinton/Obama v. Republican) showing her pulling more Republicans and Independents than Obama in a comparable poll, you might have a point. But you didn't and you don't.

Sorry, you just are making any sense. Where the hell is Dcshungu? At least he's intelligent enough to spin this stuff correctly.

Frankly0:

I'd suggest clicking through the original article, Obama spelled out just how his experiences abroad influence his foreign policy judgment. Not sure how it will affect your scoring, but wanted to make sure you had the actual information.

anonymous,

Keith already covered the basic problem with using primary polls to address the issue we are discussing. I'll just point out that undoubtedly there are indeed moderates and conservative Democrats in Florida, as there are in every state. And in fact if you have a primary poll with such cross-tabs available, that would be pretty interesting to see. But of course the problem is that just because Clinton has an overall lead among Florida Democrats does not mean she has the same lead in every subgroup among Florida Democrats. To put the same point another war, obviously conservative or moderate Florida Democrats are not a random sample of all Florida Democrats. Hence, you can't use a poll about the larger group to draw an inference about the non-random subgroups.

By the way, I could show you a recent poll from NH in which they did distinguish between Democrats and Independents, since Independents can vote in the NH primaries. Before I do that, however, let me ask if you think such a poll would be relevant to the issue we are discussing, and what you would expect it to show.

For what it's worth, Obama also discusses his experience travelling to Kenya to visit family, his international relations studies, and his work on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He is NOT just basing his experience on his childhood.

What foreign policy experience is Hillary countering with? Did she accompany and work for Madeleine Albright?

anonymous wrote on November 20, 2007 4:56 PM:

Hillary did not vote for war no matter how many times this lie is told.

Bullshit. SHe voted to give Bush the authority to use military force and launch the war. No spin on earth will change that FACT.

You are flat-out lying.

Frankly0:

I just thought you hadn't seen the original piece. If you disregard the full context, I'm not sure I know what else can be said. My opinion, he said what he needed to say, and her comment, when viewed against his original comment, makes her seem, well trite. Again, just my opinion.

Anon: He didn't skip the vote; he missed the vote (Check Congressional Record; rescheduled and voted on in 30 minutes). He talked about it the day of the vote (check TPM's archives; the vote was September 26th).

What I appreciate about Obama and his statements about missing the Kyl-Lieberman vote is the fact that he says missing it was a mistake. Not a word about the fact that it was unexpectedly brought up for a vote within an hour, and he couldn't possibly get back to DC for it. Just, it was a mistake, and though his vote wouldn't change the outcome, he clearly and emphatically opposed it before it was brought to a vote.

"Advantage Hillary?" I don't think so. After not reading the NIE and voting for the AUMF against Iran, she still voted for Kyl-Lieberman.

"AUMF against IRAQ," I mean.

What again is Hillary saying her foreign policy experience is?

Lestat, It's hard to take stupidity like yours seriously, but since you offer up your "argument", try this: If you vote money for the police department, does that mean you are voting for the police to beat up some black teenager?
Clinton did NOT vote for war. Anyone who says otherwise is lying: on the basis of law, on the basis of facts, and on the basis of Hillary's statements from the time.

Anonymous wrote on November 20, 2007 6:32 PM:

Lestat, It's hard to take stupidity like yours seriously, but since you offer up your "argument", try this: If you vote money for the police department, does that mean you are voting for the police to beat up some black teenager?

She voted for specifically authorizing the police to beat up that black teenager to use your lame analogy. She VOTED FOR THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ!

But nice to see the your cowardice in hiding behind an anon screen name is only surpassed by the intellectual dishonesty in your feeble attempts at saying that up is down, black is white, and voting to authorize a war is not voting to authorize a war.

Wouldn't the parallel be something like voting for "An Authorization for the Police to Beat Up That Black Teenager"? When they went ahead and did it, you could argue that wasn't your intent, but it would be an equally strained argument.

Anyway, the real problem of course is that Senator Clinton's ex post facto explanation is inconsistent with her statements at the time, and most importantly her vote against the Levin Amendment (Senator Levin, by the way, voted against the main bill).

Remember - The policy of Regime Change in Iraq STARTED under Clinton in 1998! Hillary is More Of The Same!

The reason I voted for Nader in 2000 is because the Democrats didn't offer a candidate like Obama.

I dare you: do it again, Dems, let's have ANOTHER 8 years of Republican misrule - because you can't resist the BIG MONEY donors, and the wishy-washy DLC-style candidates that attract them. Like Clinton.

Or - do something different for once: Offer voters a REAL choice. Nominate Obama. Reject Clinton. Reject Bush-Lite.

Obama has it right here. I'll vote for Hillary if she gets nominated but I won't be happy about it.

anon,

your response never addressed your proposterous statement that Hilary is a smarter/better politician because she employed an attack against Obama that was "not rational"

I have must less of a problem with Hilary than I do with Hilary supporters that have such a jaded view of the electorate. They are often the same people insisting to us that America "just isn't ready" for a black president.

Argue that Hilary is right on policy, or would make a better leader -- if your argument is that she can best manipulate the public or that you don't trust the public to make a decision based on relevant qualifications, that says a lot about your personal convictions in supporting Hilary.

Anyone is better than Bush, Rudy or Mitt, but we should focus on the whys... I challenge Hillary supporters to cease their jaded attacks

Note again, in thread after thread, how the HillBots point to her tactical shrewdness and leads in meaningless national polls.

Note how they avoid substantive positions on real issues, like Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation herself, at all costs.

To any undecided Democrats out there: please, please, please think about what your vote will mean for our country, and for the world.

Reject dynastic politics. Reject tiny speech and feeble dreams for more of same. Reject endless war for political purposes. Reject Beltway Sensibility.

And piss off the pundit class by rejecting InevitaBillary.

This is a non-starter for HRC on multiple fronts. Slagging Obama for a lack of foreign policy experience cuts both ways, no? What are her credentials, exactly, such that they unequivocally beat Obama's?

*crickets*

Senator Clinton hasn't always been an examplar on her foreign travels. Remember the kiss she gave to Suha Arafat. When called on it, she tried to explain it away by saying a "kiss is customary in the Middle East." A hand shake is perfectly adequate, since a kiss among relative strangers implies that the meeting was successful.

I think this spat between the two of them has run its course.

I'd like echo several comments that have lauded the Obama campaign's response to Hillary's attack. By throwing her own foreign policy record back at her and not even addressing the particulars of the attack itself, I think it rather effectively belittles Hillary, without being shrill or strident. One message I took from the response was, "Hillary's attack on me isn't even worth defending against. It's just stupid."

I'm not suggesting that Obama is better than Hillary, just that his campaign effectively responded in a way that conveys strength and clarity of message. If Obama is, indeed, beginning to surge in Iowa, his campaign team deserves much of the credit.

loki,

Right, the Obama campaign is suggesting that her votes on the Iraq resolution and Kyl-Lieberman were in part motivated by political posturing, which raises a credibility issue insofar as she is currently crafting alternative (and in their view implausible) explanations.

Again, though, I would suggest that while people may or may not agree with that argument, it is going to be hard to convince people that such an argument is "dirty" politics.

The Cheney/Rumsfeld line makes me wonder if someone in the Obama camp isn't listening Cenk Uygur to The Young Turks http://www.theyoungturks.com/ on Air America Radio - or reading his column on Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/what-obama-must-do_b_73436.html

I'm getting tired of the meme that "the Republicans are going to pick this up and use it against us."

Surely we know by now that the Republicans are going for maximum slime whatever we say? Take that meme to its logical extension, and all we'd be doing is singing kumbaya. I don't think that's good for the party, and the American people don't want to see it.

Conflict free is content free. We can deal with the Republican slime when the time comes.

"I believe experience counts, but it's not everything. Values, judgment and the record that I have...should count for something. .....Insanity is just doing the same old thing over and over again and expecting a different result. We have got to have the courage to change. Experience is important, yes. I've gotten alot of good experience in dealing with ordinary people......We need a new approach. The same old experience is not relevant and you can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience. Mine is rooted in the real lives of real people and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change."

Bill Clinton sometime during 1992 campaign.

http://www.onemillionstrong.us/showDiary.do?diaryId=245

weak response from Obama that shows just how lame a campaigner he'd be in the general election.

No one (at least no one who isn't already a Hillahater) is going to buy comparisons to Bush and Cheney. And we know about her vote on Iraq. And on Iran. Does anyone NOT know about those votes?

The difference between Hillary and Obama is that Hillary's campaign probably has a book full of zingers to unleash on Obama -- and he's got nuttin' to respond with.

The difference between Hillary and Obama is that Hillary's campaign probably has a book full of zingers to unleash on Obama.

That's wagering an awful lot on one big hypothetical "probably," Lukasiak. I'd ask you to elaborate, but seeing as you had the opportunity and, well, seemingly refused to, I'm not sure what inference we're supposed to draw from your "probably" short of: Lukasiak "probably" has no idea what s/he is talking about.

If you think this next election will be won or lost on zingers, than you're "probably" unwise to back HRC over genuine progressives such as Edwards, Obama, et al.

Probably.

Desider:

"Hee hee hee," [sic] if your candidate of choice (and don't pretend for a minute we can't see through you) has her own "experience abroad" limited to: "I slept in the White House for 8 years," then I fail to see how your objection amounts to anything of substance. If you're trying to persuade folks like me (Edwards-Obama-Onthefencers) to cast my primary vote for HRC, you're failing.

Sorry for the multiple posts, folks. I'm out.

What's I've taken away from this discussion so far is that Anonymous is a Clinton operative (no, no, really I support John Edwards--that's why I conveniently leave him out of the discussion instead of, you know, supporting him...) and that Clinton believes we're all morons. "But hey, how's that book-length rebuttal playing with a public that has the attention span of a gnat?"

Now, perhaps I've been duped by some clever reverse psychology ruse, but I think Anonymous has convinced me to move from sitting on the fence to supporting not-Hillary. I like Edwards and I think he has (or supports) some excellent ideas, but he does not strike me as President of the United States of America at this time. I like him quite a bit in the VP role and would certainly consider him for POTUS at a later date, but for now I'd like to have him on board without him being in charge.

That leaves me with Obama. I'll happily contribute cash and time, just tell me where to sign.

That's right DTM...only Clinton (and maybe a few others?) does "dirty" politics. Never Obama. Good, clean, pure Obama. Above it all.

Sometimes I enjoy reading the comments which are far more insightful with such inciting thoughts like:

Ralph [who] wrote...
"Obama is a desperate lying sack of shit. His campaign is based on crap and he's the only democrat, including Kucinich, that I will not vote for at all."

...and...
loki [who]
"Obama needs to talk about "change" and "hope" in more concrete terms."

Ralphie...it appears your community of worldviews is showing the despiration with its sewage of prejudices and ignorances. Kucinich for one expresses more the Democratic Party soul in words and actions than the entire establishment outside of Edwards & Obama. But alas not to worry for the marketplace of funding will muzzle any effect he has on the final slate.

Obama on the other hand is genuine, his populist fund raising should really get under your crawl where they made their goal this month already getting close to a half a million donors, that is donors not donations and still raising more money than Hillary. He continues to open forward field offices now fully staffed in SC, NV, & CO.

Loki; as an Obama supporter and volunteer I too would like to see him now make the third turn in creating slogans as to concrete changes but if you read the voluminous stuff it is there. Ultimately it will come down to this: Crossing the aisle and bringing into his administration key persons who are GOP partisans like Lincoln & FDR did. Changing the manner and way the President uses power, those are more nuance and style than concrete policy initiatives. Ultimately it will be to remove the idea that one is personally advantaged by power.

As for it all....Hillary's attempt to undercurrent what she or her campaign sees as a weakness, living as a child abroad in a non traditional nuclear American family feeds right into the Iowa poll of 55% wanting substantive change. It illuminates her upbringing as an off spring of a privaleged professional class family in affluent Chicago suburb...living in the Arkansas and then DC White House as the embodiment of privalege and entitlement.

When viewed another way every time she or her campaign is challenged it reacts like an entitled rich spoiled persona, how dare, and then lashes out. She laughs at the prospect that a million working class manufacturing jobs were lost.

As for Edwards he would make a great AG or VP prosecuting the neo cons or prosecuting the corporate political system.

loki,

Lately you have been spending a lot of time attributing to me things I never said (for example, where did I say Clinton was playing "dirty" politics?).

I am not sure why you are doing that, and it might just be a mistake. If it is just a mistake, my suggestion is just to stop trying to speak for me entirely, and just speak for yourself. That should take care of the problem.

I can't believe I read almost all these responses. You collectively sound like a bunch of kids electing a class president, and arguing endlessly about whether Batman could beat up Spiderman because he's got...(I'm referring to the endless fascination with polling results) The candidates would be better off without supporters like you, because you are only encouraging the worst in the candidates and in each other.
The only thing that should matter is what the candidates have accomplished, and can accomplish, in public life and the platform they've committed themselves to.
TPM is slowly transforming into a site for political cheerleading.