Election Central | Talking Points Memo | Obama Camp Uses Disputed Gerth Account Of Clintons' 20-Year-Plan To Fault Hillary

Obama Camp Uses Disputed Gerth Account Of Clintons' 20-Year-Plan To Fault Hillary

By Greg Sargent - November 19, 2007, 10:55AM

Barack Obama has unveiled a new line of criticism against Hillary: In speeches he's started to point to the allegation made in Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta's Hillary book that the Clintons secretly formulated a 20-year-plan to deliver the presidency first to Bill, and then to Hillary.

"I'm not in this race to fulfill some long-held plan or because it was owed to me," Obama said the other day.

Asked if that were a reference to the Gerth allegation, an Obama spokesperson left virtually no doubt that it was, telling Newsday: "Barack Obama has not been mapping out his run for president from Washington for the last 20 years like some of his opponents."

But the source that Gerth and Van Natta cited with supposed first-hand knowledge of this plan -- historian Taylor Branch -- has since vehemently denied that any such pact existed. "The story is preposterous," Branch told The Washington Post, adding: "I never heard either Clinton talk about a 'plan' for them both to become president."

It's hard to see how the use of Gerth's allegations could possibly play well among Dem activists. Many of them dislike Gerth for his role in "breaking" the Whitewater story and see Gerth's book as an anti-Hillary hatchet job.

Comments (189)

Daniel wrote on November 19, 2007 10:59 AM:

Democrats crush Republicans in a new general election poll from Missouri, as they win all 12 general election match-ups! And for once there won't be any distracting talk of electability as all candidates run about equally well.

someparisian wrote on November 19, 2007 11:01 AM:

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

DonnaG wrote on November 19, 2007 11:15 AM:

Oh, I see, Greg. If one wants to discredit Obama's statement about Hillary's long term planning for a run for president, one must tie it up into the Gerth account which has already been addressed and challenged. That way the statement Obama is making can be diverted into nitpicking and away from how, in fact, Clinton has been planning for years to run.

Here is food for thought: Did Hillary Clinton move to NY and run for the Senate in order to prepare for a run for the Presidency? Did Hillary straddle fences in her Senate career in a way to prepare for a future presidential run? Did Hillary's Senate campaign raise outsized sums with an eye to accumulating extra millions to transfer as seed money for a presidential run?

AJ wrote on November 19, 2007 11:15 AM:

The Audacity of Swift Boats

Chairman Mo wrote on November 19, 2007 11:18 AM:

Is there a vaccine for Clinton Derangement Syndrome? Please make it stop.

Greg wrote on November 19, 2007 11:20 AM:

Donna, are you serious? Please -- the Obama camp confirmed that the Gerth allegation is what he was referring to.

Joe wrote on November 19, 2007 11:23 AM:

The real substance, it seems to me, of Obama's remark is that there is something fundamentally wrong with a democracy that now defaults to the oligarchic practice of electing via family relationship: two Clintons, two Bushes ... Obviously a genuinely democratic process fielding qualified candidates from a richly talented populace would make these candidates unfathomable, instead of the choice of conventional wisdom.

EriktheRed wrote on November 19, 2007 11:29 AM:

It's so sad to see what running for a high office will bring some people to say and/or do. I thought he was better than this.

Lucky wrote on November 19, 2007 11:29 AM:

Joe,

Perhaps if Obama or any other candidate were running a compelling campaign people would not be defaulting to Clinton. No one is forcing Obama to run a crappy campaign.

Greg wrote on November 19, 2007 11:31 AM:

I guess I would point back to the Obama spokesman's comment:

"Barack Obama has not been mapping out his run for president from Washington for the last 20 years like some of his opponents."

that doesn't appear to leave any doubt about what the Obams campaign is alluding to, does it?

Xeno wrote on November 19, 2007 11:32 AM:

Taken with their weekend meltdown over the Novak smear, this is proof that Obama and his advisors are rank amateurs. Callow enough to fall for a weak ploy by a repug hack, and stupid enough to appropriate and parrot ridiculous slander from discredited pseudo-journalists. It's almost as if these childish fools want to lose.

David wrote on November 19, 2007 11:33 AM:

I agree with Donna more than Greg here. I don't think Gerth and Van Natta are the only ones to see Hillary's ascent to frontrunner for the nomination as a well-planned (and well-executed) operation.

Greg, when you say "the Obama camp confirmed" that it was the Gerth/Van Natta allegation, are you using a different source than the one you link to? There's no confirmation that I can see in the Newsday article. Certainly it makes sense to think he's using it, but I would be hesitant about using the word "confirmed".

dajafi wrote on November 19, 2007 11:34 AM:

Can someone, anyone, offer an explanation as to why Senator Clinton is running for president other than that 1) she's a Clinton and 2) she's a she, and that there seems to be some fusion of those two facts that "entitles" her to the office?

With just about every other candidate in both parties, from those I'm most strongly for (Obama, Dodd) to the one guy I detest and fear so much I'd even vote for Hillary to stop him (Giuliani), I get why they're in the race. For her, though, it just seems to be that sense of "it's my turn; I earned this" that I last remember from George H.W. Bush in 1988.

In the absence of any larger rationale for her candidacy, Sen. Clinton has run a tactics-based campaign focused on message discipline (if you shook Phil Singer or Howard Wolfson awake at 4am from a dead sleep, is there any doubt their first words would be "strength and experience"?) and the very conscious fuzzing and blurring of what she's for and what she'd do in office.

Progressives deserve better, and we should demand better.

ron wrote on November 19, 2007 11:35 AM:

so its better to just fall into the job like puppet president george bush?

am i crazy to actually think its a good thing to PLAN to be president and prepare for that moment?

linda wrote on November 19, 2007 11:36 AM:

damn. what a friggin disappointment he's turned out to be. play right into the village's yammering idiots ... you just know tweety's drooling over this and will devote the coming week to the 'scorched earth tactics' of the scary vagina monster's decades' long plan to rule the universe...

god, this is so depressing.

Greg_Sargent_Strikes_Again wrote on November 19, 2007 11:37 AM:

Has there ever been this biased of a reporter on Talking Points Memo? I've read this blog for more than three years, and it pains me to say this, but Greg Sargent is biased in his reporting towards Hillary, and against Edwards or Obama.

So did Obama name names, Greg? We have seven other Democratic candidates and a similar number of Republicans who are running for president. Obama's statement could even be taken as saying ambition is not enough for someone to want to be president. That someone could be anyone either running now, or yet to run in the future.

But Greg Sargent, being his pro-Hillary self draws a conclusion he's already decided in his mind, to further his own pro-Hillary talking points.

Xeno wrote on November 19, 2007 11:38 AM:

Taken with their weekend meltdown over the Novak smear, this is proof positive that Obama and his operatives are rank amateurs. Callow enough to fall for a simple ploy from a repug hack, and stupid enough to appropriate and parrot slander peddled by discredited pseudo-journalists. It's almost as if they want Clinton to beat the crap out of them.

wvng wrote on November 19, 2007 11:42 AM:

I'm having a difficult time imagining why it would be a bad thing for someone with political talent to plan to run for President in 20 years, or ten years, or five years. With all due respect to Obama, I remember that after the last debate - where he said running for President wasn't a life long ambition, some fact checkers found that he had in fact been talking about it many years ago. And I don't know what would be wrong with that.

Both Obama and Hillary are exceptionally talented people, and both of them would restore competence and democratic governance to the White House.

However, Obama is repeatedly showing that he is not ready for primetime in the primary campaign, and would probably be ground to dust in a general election against the RW machine.

Pandora wrote on November 19, 2007 11:42 AM:

Looks like Obama camp is so desparate that they are hanging out with Novak and Gerth..

If Obama cannot handle Hillary how can he take on republicans. What a cry baby.

Arbusto went Bust wrote on November 19, 2007 11:43 AM:

Yep, "confirmed" is a spin too far. There's plenty of history--stuff that has nothing to do with the Gerth book-- suggesting a calculated set of moves in the direction of the presidency. And that's fine. But let's not credulously say, "Oh, I don't know...NY State probably just seemed like a really great spot to run for the Senate..."

DonnaG wrote on November 19, 2007 11:44 AM:

dajafi said:
"In the absence of any larger rationale for her candidacy, Sen. Clinton has run a tactics-based campaign focused on message discipline (if you shook Phil Singer or Howard Wolfson awake at 4am from a dead sleep, is there any doubt their first words would be "strength and experience"?) and the very conscious fuzzing and blurring of what she's for and what she'd do in office."

dajafi, I laughed out loud. Great creative imagery about the 4am scene!

Nash wrote on November 19, 2007 11:44 AM:

Bigger question - who cares even if it were true? So let's say Hillary Clinton had a long term plan to become president - why is that a bad thing? It assumes the reason for running is corrupt. Does nobody believe in honest motives for public service anymore?
I'm not a Hillary Clinton supporter, but I'm fed up with the other Democratic candidates making their case against her candidacy by resorting to "character" issues that have no meaning. Tell us how you would get this country out of the terrible shape it is in now. Explain how your approach is better than Clinton's approach.
Sad to say, the Democratic strategists seem determined to play by the Repub rules.

Aaron M wrote on November 19, 2007 11:44 AM:

The way the Newsday story reads, it's really NOT that clear what the Obama spokesman was responding to specifically.

If they were simply asked if they believed that the Clinton's had a pact, that first Bill would run (and win) the Presidency, and then Hillary.....well, many people tend to believe that independent of the Gerth allegation. (And in any case, why does that sound so crazy. Hillary is clearly very intelligent and capable, perhaps even more so than her husband, whose only advantage when they first married was that he was more personable, and of course, a man.)

It's seems clear that the Obama and Clinton campaigns do not like or trust each other, and that Obama and or his senior staff may really believe that there was some type of pact, which again, does not seem that unbelievable (and in some ways, not a big deal).

But to make the accusation that Obama is taking this line of attack directly from a disputed claim made in a discredited (in Dem circles) book, seems a bit inflammatory and not that clear from this one Newsday story, and certainly not worthy of the top story on the TPM main site.

Steve wrote on November 19, 2007 11:45 AM:

Greg. Please.

If not twenty, do you have the slightest doubt that they've been planning a Hillary run run for president for at least ten years? Can any rational person harbor a reasonable shadow of doubt on that point? Was the likelihood she would run not painfully obvious to everyone in the country--and widely noted--from the date that Hillary announced her Senate campaign?

Given that, is twenty years really such a stretch that you (and I note it is you, not Obama's campaign) must specifically link the allegation to that particular source? There have been reports of Hillary's interest in a term for herself since Bill's first term, at the very least.

Pandora wrote on November 19, 2007 11:45 AM:

Obama,

What happened to "Audacity of Hope" A different kind of politics. This is the second smear on Hillary initiated from Obama camp this week.

OxyCon wrote on November 19, 2007 11:48 AM:

Does Obama know that in order to win the Democratic Primary, he must appeal to Democrats?
Seems as though he's campaigning for the wrong party nomination.
He's not scoring points, he's losing them.

NCSteve wrote on November 19, 2007 11:49 AM:

Pandora, in what way, exactly, is it a "smear" to suggest that Hillary's been planning on running for the last twenty years?

dajafi wrote on November 19, 2007 11:50 AM:

What I see in this comment thread is of a piece with the Hillary supporters everywhere: they swoon over the campaign's supposed tactical superiority, and (this hasn't happened yet, but I promise it's coming) deflect any and all criticism with the smug (and admittedly, accurate) assertion that she's winning.

FWIW, I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with wanting power. Yes, it corrupts, and I'm pretty certain it's corrupted Hillary Clinton--the young attorney of 35 years ago presumably would loo k somewhat askance at the lobbyist-cultivating, warmonger-enabling Establishment pol par excellence of 2007. But even a corrupted wielder of power can do great things. (FDR immediately comes to mind.)

I just have no idea, despite all this time she's been planning her ascent, why she wants the power. Maybe, given the near-certainty that her election would ensure another four years of miserable zero-sum partisan gridlock, she doesn't want it for anything beyond the fact of having it.

Joe wrote on November 19, 2007 11:50 AM:

People need to face up to the fact that Hillary wouldn't even have been a viable senate candidate if she weren't Bill's wife. In a healthy system, her moving to New York just be elected would have been rejected as a cynical carpetbagging maneuver. Obama is right to point to this, however obliquely. That doesn't mean one should vote for him either--but does raise the question whether American voters are willing to recognize their lapse into supporting a decadent and corrupt hand-me-down presidency.

Pandora wrote on November 19, 2007 11:50 AM:

Steve,

Whats wrong with someone planning to become president for 20 years or even since they were young. Last I checked this is America and we have Democratic elections. Anyone can plan on becoming anything and work towards it. If people of America elect her and she becomes the next president then more power to her. Isn't that the American way?

SCM wrote on November 19, 2007 11:50 AM:

20 year plan?!?

So, people really think in 1988 Hillary was planning to run for President in 2008...

really?

Greg_Sargent_Strikes_Again wrote on November 19, 2007 11:51 AM:

But Greg Sargent, being his pro-Hillary self draws a conclusion he's already decided in his mind, to further his own pro-Hillary talking points.

John Smith wrote on November 19, 2007 11:51 AM:

I am so sick of your breathless and trivial attacks on the Obama campaign. By focusing on these meaningless trivalities you ignore the large shitpile of her actual policies (most especially the war, and her corporate free-trade policies). You have become a pimp for her, perhaps unwillinging, perhaps willingly. You're no different than CNN, you keep ignoring POLICY. Take a look at what she's doing, hiding behind this poor female victim schtick. You just follow the Media Matters line always, ready with a defense of her for gender and by doing so cloud her actual and real and terrifying policy positions.
Why does Josh Marsall giving endless patronizing and idiotic advice to the Obama campaign and revising it continously like a pompous jackass. Just shut up. The reason he's not ahead has nothing to do with him, it's the collusion of the media, the Washington politcal establishment, a touch of racism, and even elements of the so-called "liberal" blogosphere, which for some unbeknown reason seems to have willfully forgotten the triangulating years of Clintonism, including such hits as NAFTA, "welfare reform," bombing a Sudanese pharamaceutical plant, and bombing Iraq for about 10 years.

DR wrote on November 19, 2007 11:51 AM:

dajafi asks

"Can someone, anyone, offer an explanation as to why Senator Clinton is running for president other than that 1) she's a Clinton and 2) she's a she, and that there seems to be some fusion of those two facts that "entitles" her to the office?"

I don't remember anybody saying she was "entitled" to the office. She is running for it just like all the other candidates.

What "entitles" Dodd, Edwards, Obama, etc. to the office?

Nothing, they all have a right to run.

brewmn wrote on November 19, 2007 11:51 AM:

"Taken with their weekend meltdown over the Novak smear, this is proof positive that Obama and his operatives are rank amateurs. Callow enough to fall for a simple ploy from a repug hack, and stupid enough to appropriate and parrot slander peddled by discredited pseudo-journalists..."

According to the current Atlantic Monthly, the Clinton campaign has regularly been feeding anti-Obama information to Matt Drudge. So maybe Obama is justified in believing the Novak allegations.

Not that you're going to see anything that reflects poorly on Clinton on this site. Apparently, it's only playing politics if Obama or Edwards do it.

Why does any progressive support a moderate Republican like Hillary, anyway? I don't see any pro-Hillaryites talking up her policies, which seem to be warmed-over versions of proposals Edwards has already put out. Instead, they all focus on her non-elected and hard to pinpoint "experience," and her supposed ability to win the general election.

The ability to win is not to be discounted, but it's really an argument to suport her next November, not in the primaries, when you actually can influence the policies and politics of your party.

Arbusto went Bust wrote on November 19, 2007 11:52 AM:

OK, but what happened to disgust with the Iraq War--ALL of it, from the votes supporting the invasion to the miserable, deadly follow-through--as the sine non qua of a true, oppositional democratic nominee? Isn't it a bit odd that, for a party that prides itself on its foresight and ethics in this regard, we're all ready to nominate a candidate who supported it the entire way?

evan wrote on November 19, 2007 11:52 AM:

I hear a dog whistle. The interesting question is who are the dogs? Disaffected but HRC-hating republicans?

Even if it's not a Gerth reference (which it clearly is), it's a bizarre tack to take.

Greg wrote on November 19, 2007 11:53 AM:

all of you screaming bias should ask yourselves why we have published multiple posts defending both edwards and obama from bogus media smears against them, and why we've published multiple posts criticizing Hillary on torture.

also, you should ask yourselves why it is that obama's people, who I'm in touch with, have yet to dispute that he is making a reference to the gerth charge.

this "bias" charge is just pathetic. stop it. it's bullshit.

DTM wrote on November 19, 2007 11:53 AM:

20 years just takes you back to the period a few years before Bill Clinton was first elected. There is nothing particularly magical or unique about that number.

In fact, people should look at the Washington Post link Greg provided, rather than relying on Greg's spin. I am not vouching for Gerth and Van Natta, but they were not directly relying on Branch as a source (who, by the way, the Post described as a "close Clinton friend", a detail Greg strangely omitted).

Anyway, given Gerth and Van Natta's account, it would now be more like a 30 year plan. The "plan" was supposedly referred to in a letter from Hillary to Bill that Marla Crider claimed to have seen while she was dating him, and all that supposedly happened while Bill was running for Congress in 1974. So it would actually be a mistake to claim that account implies that the Clintons only had a twenty-year-old plan at this point (it was less of a mistake when this story was first published back in 2000).

Again, though, I wouldn't vouch for any of that, although I also do not think it is at all implausible that Hillary thought about becoming President after Bill at some point before she became a Senator.

mike in PR wrote on November 19, 2007 11:53 AM:

See, Barack, it pays to plan ahead.

NYMARJ wrote on November 19, 2007 11:53 AM:

Yep - a lot of "hope" to tear down. Not a long held plan because he is not from the generation of the 60's (yes that is me) - he has only has his plan to run for the presidency for a shorter time. This is getting depressing for someone who really cares what happens in the upcoming election and doesn't want to feel angry against any of our candidates - but it is getting harder and harder

Michael Lafferty wrote on November 19, 2007 11:55 AM:

So much for a 'new kind of politics.'

Listen, I am no fan of Senator Clinton, and—frankly—the thought of her occupying the White House makes me almost sick to my stomach. But, this sort of statement from the Obama campaign does suggest that Senator Obama is not behaving in a manner consistent with that 'new kind of politics' he ostensibly wants to practice.

That's a problem. We all have pretty much formed strong opinions about Senator Clinton, and many of them are not flattering. I hadn't yet drawn the conclusion that Senator Obama is a hypocrite, though this action suggests that he may well be.

There are many ways to have said something to this effect: "I believe that Senator Clinton has long sought the office, and good for her. I simply believe that I am better prepared and positioned to deliver what this nation needs. I believe that those who may reject her candidacy—for whatever reason—are far less likely to do so with mine. Her constituents believe that she has done a fine job as Senator from New York, and I believe that she should and will continue to do so."

Note to the Obama campaign: you are welcome to use that explanation without attribution, but I believe that Senator Edwards, in so many words, has already beaten you to the punch on other occasions.

discodave wrote on November 19, 2007 11:55 AM:

I agree with Joe way above. Its just undemocratic on its face to have a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-(Jeb)Bush presidential succession? We tell our children that "anyone can be president." Obviously that's just bullshit. If that's Obama's beef than he should just say so and not make pussy-foot allusions to it.

dajafi wrote on November 19, 2007 11:55 AM:

DR writes:

"I don't remember anybody saying she was "entitled" to the office. She is running for it just like all the other candidates.

What "entitles" Dodd, Edwards, Obama, etc. to the office?"

Thanks for responding to (I won't say "answering") my question... but you miss my point.

I get why Dodd is running: he wants to right the wrongs he believes (correctly IMO) have been done to the Constitution. I get why Edwards is running: economic justice for those who have been left behind in the emerging knowledge economy. I get why Obama is running: to move the country past the miserable zero-sum partisan politics of the Bush/Clinton/Bush years and re-engage with the global community.

Why is Hillary Clinton running? The two answers I perceive are to restore the Clinton administration and to be the first woman president. But neither of those suggests what she wants to do with her power--which I think is the key question in evaluating candidates.

Greg_Sargent_Strikes_Again wrote on November 19, 2007 11:55 AM:

But Greg Sargent, being his pro-Hillary self draws a conclusion he's already decided in his mind, to further his own pro-Hillary talking points.

Hatch wrote on November 19, 2007 11:56 AM:

This is kind of a silly thing to get all up-in-arms about. It's similar the ridiculously overblown wonky diatribes about the language of Social Security policy. I don't fully understand why the Obama campaign is bringing this up, but I also don't understand why Greg and others think it's such a big deal. Both Obama and Clinton are ambitious politicians, and they've both aspired to run for President for quite some time. Who really cares? Why is it scandalous to say that either one of them has been planning this, or at least considering it, for well over a decade? The only difference is that Clinton has been am entrenched Washington insider since 1992 and Obama is a new player. I assume that's the distinction that Obama's spokesperson intended to draw by saying that Hillary has planned her run "from Washington."

Arbusto went Bust wrote on November 19, 2007 11:58 AM:

Greg, you honestly can't see that a reader might take your piece--the one entitled "Obama Camp Uses Disputed Gerth Account Of Clintons' 20-Year-Plan To Fault Hillary"--as demonstrating a smidgen of pro-Hillary bias? Are you being serious?

Pandora wrote on November 19, 2007 11:59 AM:

Brewmn,

Hillary is no less progressive than Obama or Edwards. I look at the voting records and ADA (leading progressive organization) ratings given to all candidates. Since 2001 to 2006 ADA gave hillary a 95% or higher rating on progressive issues. Edwards who got a rating of 70% in 2002. I judge people from what they have done and not what they promise to do...

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011142.php

DonnaG wrote on November 19, 2007 11:59 AM:

Greg, if your logic leap to 'confirmed' in this matter is correct, then why did the Obama spokesperson use the plural 'opponents'? Didn't the Gerth writing refer only to one person?

The reason I am reluctant about your take on this has to do with EC often using posts about Obama to usher in more stuff about Clinton, i.e., that even when Obama is delineating/distinguishing his own candidancy, what is unique about Obama is not given full treatment as much as it is used as a seque to discuss Clinton.........

In this instance, I would have liked a discussion about what Obama means by his statement regarding his running now, and how that ties into his recent points about 'the urgency of now'.

DTM wrote on November 19, 2007 12:00 PM:

By the way, I'm willing to give Greg the benefit of the doubt, to the extent he may not be aware of how he is being manipulated into presenting these stories in a certain way.

That said, it would be nice if Greg were willing and able to think a bit more critically about how he is presenting these stories, so that he would be less subject to manipulation.

frankly0 wrote on November 19, 2007 12:00 PM:

Greg,

I wouldn't take the bias charge seriously.

You are a referee being worked over by rabid fans who know, just know that their favorite team is being given the shaft.

And if even the instant replay shows that the call against them was right, well, can't that be faked up too? It's a conspiracy, after all, and everyone's in on it!

What I find kind of amazing is that, when push comes to shove, this is what the "politics of hope" comes down to.

Pretty desperate and pathetic, Obama.

jimBOB wrote on November 19, 2007 12:00 PM:

I didn't start this as a Hillary fan, but I must admit most of my Obama warm fuzzies are gone. We had, in order, a gay-bashing Obama warmup speaker, Obama's appropriation of the bogus Social Security scare tactics, Obama amplifying a bogus Novak smear, and now Obama amplifying an old Jeff Gerth smear.

The guy's political instincts are crap. I think we're dodging a bullet by not nominating him.

Greg_Sargent_Strikes_Again wrote on November 19, 2007 12:02 PM:

But Greg Sargent, being his pro-Hillary self draws a conclusion he's already decided in his mind, to further his own pro-Hillary talking points.

bg wrote on November 19, 2007 12:03 PM:

A 20 year plan is all wrong. Start with '92 and you get 16. You think Hillary's carpet bagging run for the NY senate on the heels of Bubba's presidency was some kind of altruistic gesture of public service? And for the love of god, will the Clinton supporters stfu with the "what happened to the politics of hope" line already? A little creativity--or at least some indication of a free thinking intelligence-- would be appreciated.

wigwam wrote on November 19, 2007 12:03 PM:

Greg, I read this blog all of the time. I know people have been bashing you for a pro-Clinton bias. I've never believed it. But this is absolutely poor jounalism right here. Trying to say that Obama has "left virtually no doubt" that he is specifically citing is Gerth is absolutely untrue. Many I talk to believe that Hillary has been positioning for the Whitehouse for quite a long time. I think there is definitely evidence cited by numerous people above that suggest this.

I'm rather dissapointed, really. Poor show.

David B wrote on November 19, 2007 12:07 PM:

Greg,

I don't think you are biased. I think you are reading into Obama's spokesperson's statement too much.

Donna G makes an excellent point:
"in fact, Clinton has been planning for years to run.

It is a valid criticism and doesn't necessarily allude to Gerth's argument. I think you are reaching here.

cassie wrote on November 19, 2007 12:07 PM:

once again the Democrats don't get it. The Republicans are already destroying all three of the top Democratic candidates and the obsessive coverage in the media is helping them as usual. Rove and Novak got twofers just in the last couple of days and Blitzer is announcing that the Clinton's could release all the papers with a simple phone call - the Welch boys are alive and well!
Please continue, oh! mighty pundits, to ignore the republican misfits (would both Mitt and Rudy revert to the warm and fuzzy liberals they used to be or remain true to the new found ability to say and do anything to get a conservative vote?) and just as Timmy wants us to do, wait until after the primaries to even talk about Guilliani.
Continue with the character attacks and meaningless drivel. Don't bother to speak of the real opposition who is just waiting to swiftboat any and all of you. Hand them the ammunition. Hand them election - after all, it wouldn't be the first time that the Village chose our candidates and president for us! I don't understand why we help them along. Keep clapping. It's worked so well for the democrats.

luther in indiana wrote on November 19, 2007 12:07 PM:

The clintons really laid the groundwork for the destruction of the middle class in favor of the investment class. Why do we need more nafta, cafta, world bank, and the rest of the oligarchical power structure that hillary so well represents from her seat in new york.

After a combined 20 years of anti worker trade policies from Bush/clinton/bush, why is everyone so hot for another clinton? Is it because she raised huge sums of money early in her senate career to scare of legitimate competition?

If we run hillary, or obama, we lose. The south is gone. In fact, unless we can run someone who can win in the mountain states, then it will be another republican 4 years.

JohnW1141 wrote on November 19, 2007 12:07 PM:

I originally liked Obama, but the more I see him being "handled" and the more he attacks Hillary he seems like just some old time politician, not what I originally saw; a 'take the high road' guy.

Lily wrote on November 19, 2007 12:08 PM:

To me, it seems OK, and even expected, that someone running for president has planned to do so for perhaps his or her whole life. *shrug*

Non issue.

Josh wrote on November 19, 2007 12:13 PM:

I think her Iraqi vote is proof enough that Hillary has always believed the ends justify the means and that the end has been the White House for a long time.

My question is why does she want it so bad, particularly as she seems to not believe in anything other then her ambition?

What comes after that?

DTM wrote on November 19, 2007 12:13 PM:

Oh, and Joe Biden was elected to the Senate in 1971 and first ran for the presidential nomination back in 1987. So obviously the description "mapping out his run for president from Washington for the last 20 years" fits Biden as well. That in turn explains why Obama's spokeswoman would use the plural.

Of course, big picture-wise, this really is just standard "Washington outsider" rhetoric. Indeed, it is a more or less standard counter to the assertion that because a candidate has not been in Washington for the last umpteen years, he does not have enough "experience" yet to be President (which would be standard Washington insider rhetoric).

So, attempts by Greg and others to make this somehow nefarious notwithstanding, this sort of back-and-forth is not exactly outside the pale.

paDem wrote on November 19, 2007 12:15 PM:

Greg,

How many times as Biden run for president? Kucinich?

How about Dodd and Richardson? Perhaps they've been planning to be president for a long time, too?

Virtually any of the candidates could be said to have been planning/hoping to run for a long time. The fact that this particular story plays into the Clintonian Lust for Power mythology (which doesn't mean it's not true, btw), is seductive.

But now you've set it up for Howard et al to bash Obama over it.

Perhaps it would have been a good idea to not fall into the Clinton's spin cycle on this one.

FlipYrWhig wrote on November 19, 2007 12:16 PM:

Maybe next Obama can bring up Vince Foster or the Mena airport. All your favorite anti-Clinton hits!

NCSteve wrote on November 19, 2007 12:16 PM:

And, once again, I am left to marvel at the recent influx of brand new commenters, all spouting the official HRC campaign line, including the official HRC campaign buzzwords, and all linking to the same websites.

An entirely spontaneous burst of support for the Inevitable Nominee, I'm sure.

sheerahkahn wrote on November 19, 2007 12:17 PM:

What does it matter if Hillary has been planning this Presidential bid since she was in diapers, or since she was first lady and felt she could do a better job?
Why does it matter?
"Oooh, boogie boo! Hillary is coming after you!"
If you don't like Hillary (which I'm one of them) then state clearly why you don't think she should be president.
Damn, she's done more than enough in my opinion to disqualify herself...one of which was voting for the Kyl/Lieberman bill.
Since she didn't learn her lesson the first time with the Iraq bill it is obvious she is not Presidential material.

But to make her run for President all conspiratorial...Please people, she has a bad enough martyr's complex already, why give her more material to work with!

brewmn wrote on November 19, 2007 12:19 PM:

Pandora:

Maybe you are too young, but I remember Clinton I. The Big Dog never missed a chance to sell out working peoples' interests in favor of those of multinational corporations, and never failed to throw poor people, ethnic minorities and gays under the bus if it would help him politically.

Senators, except in very rare cases, don't set the agenda, they affirm or deny it. I would expect her to vote consistent with Democratic principles. I would also expect someone who is running for President to have shown some leadership on issues that will benefit the poopr and working classes. This, to my knowledge, she has never done.

Hillary seems to be running on the implicit argument that her presidency will be an extension of Bill's. Nothing in her campaign suggests she has any intention of fighting on behalf of poor and working class people; in fact, none of her financial support comes from those groups. So, I expect she will run as Clinton II, and our politics will continue to work against working peoples' interests.

Apparently, based on the support Hillary has among progressives, people on my side of the political argument have very short memories. I don't hate Hillary; I just think she is a lousy option if your primary concern is the economic well being of the poorer people in America.

Oeye812 wrote on November 19, 2007 12:20 PM:

STOP PLANNING!!! STOP IT NOW!

GOVERN JUST LIKE GEORGE BUSH!

NO PLANNING!!!!!!!

NH Dem wrote on November 19, 2007 12:21 PM:

20 years? I doubt it.

12 or 14 years? Um, yeah, obviously. Probably 16, since she started on Bill's POTUS campaign in earnest in 1991, and saw how it was done and how well she was generally received (yes, she was) and almost certainly thought then, "Wow, is this all it takes? I can do this without breaking a sweat."

Brian wrote on November 19, 2007 12:21 PM:

Why do I get the feeling that Obama isn't going to have the guts to attack Republicans?

Oh, right, because he sounds like one, and he hasn't done it yet.

Planning to be president isn't a bad thing, unless you're Hillary Clinton. It is an irrelevant issue. But what's confusing about it, and disappointing to me, is that Obama's parroting of GOP talking points re-affirms a fear of Hillary and a willingness to play by the Republican strategery of smearing attacks.

The people I'm reading who are attacking Greg here sound like Freepers. It's a matter of weeks before Obama starts talking about Vince Foster.

Anthony wrote on November 19, 2007 12:21 PM:

"Here is food for thought: Did Hillary Clinton move to NY and run for the Senate in order to prepare for a run for the Presidency? Did Hillary straddle fences in her Senate career in a way to prepare for a future presidential run? Did Hillary's Senate campaign raise outsized sums with an eye to accumulating extra millions to transfer as seed money for a presidential run?"

This argument just doesn't make sense. These are the kinds of things anyone who is serious about being the President does - only the naive can hold them up later as criticism. Until we change the whole process, take the money out of it, and go back to citizen and not professional politicians, what the hell are candidates supposed to do? How can you fault someone for wanting to be President, planning it, and then trying to execute that plan? Do you think becoming President of the United States happens by chance? Maybe - if you are part of the village and the idiot son of one of the most connected families on the globe - yeah, it can happen. But when you are a democrat from Arkansas it just won't stand. So she has done all she can to prepare for this moment.
Food for thought - you have bought into the crap, and you're trying to make us gorge on it too. No thanks -

Greg_Sargent_Strikes_Again wrote on November 19, 2007 12:22 PM:

But Greg Sargent, being his pro-Hillary self draws a conclusion he's already decided in his mind, to further his own pro-Hillary talking points.

Harlan Samuels wrote on November 19, 2007 12:24 PM:

Greg, you seem a mite sensitive about the bias charge. Generally, that would indicate that someone's hit a nerve.

I don't know where you do or don't stand on the presidential race, but it certainly seems from your posts that you favor Hillary. That doesn't mean that you haven't been critical of her at times, or that you haven't said positive things about Edwards and Obama at times -- but to claim that either of those things shows no sign of bias is like employing the Broderish "a pox on both their houses" type of journalism that you so regularly (and rightfully) deplore.

The truth is, you cut Hillary way more slack than the other candidates. You're more likely to give her the benefit of the doubt. You're quicker to judge her actions in the best available light, and Edwards' and Obama's in the worst. And you've become so enamored of "gotcha" journalism that you've long since lost the ability to differentiate between big deals and trivial crap. (Hint: This falls into the latter bucket).

Anonymous wrote on November 19, 2007 12:25 PM:

No more dynasties. Obama does well to highlight Clintons' overriding political ambitions.

DemAC wrote on November 19, 2007 12:26 PM:

And for the love of god, will the Clinton supporters stfu with the "what happened to the politics of hope" line already?

Nothing ever tastes worse than having to eat one’s own words, over and over again, now does it? But as Obama now is actively against planning and foresight he probably didn’t see this coming. :-)

hadenough wrote on November 19, 2007 12:28 PM:

"Greg_Sargent_Strikes_Again wrote on November 19, 2007 12:22 PM:

So did Obama name names, Greg?"

Hey good point. obama could have been trashing the k-man. Yeah... good point.

Captain-Sky wrote on November 19, 2007 12:29 PM:

This Is Just Obama's Way Of Trying To Get Away From That Terrible Debate Response That He Waffled With Thursday Night,He's Arrogant And Now His Pride Has Been Hurt Because Mr Obama Wants Everbody To Believe That He's The Man His 95 Pound Ass Need To Be Getting On His Own Sorry Ass People For Turning Out Such Terrible Campaign,You Can't Continue To Blame Senator Clinton For Miscues.UnSubstaniated,Information From A Ring Wing With No Proff At All,That Say's Something About Mr Obama And His Supporters,He And His Supporters Are Willing To Believe Robert Novak's Account Of Something That As Yet Do Not Exist Until He Releases His Source,And It's My Guess Their Are None.This Also Goes To Show How Stupid Obama & His Supporters Are,Obama Has Never Been A Viable Candidate For President,His Glue Is Coming Unfolded,And He's Taking All You Idiots With His Arrogant Ass.

Aaron M wrote on November 19, 2007 12:33 PM:

I think that Hatch gets it exactly right.....I also don't really get this line of attack from the Obama campaign, but I also do not believe that it is a very big deal. Obama and his campaign clearly believe that they are in this race to change how politics are conducted in Washington- through increasing transparency in government, placing a check on the influence of corporate lobbyists, and breaking out of the conventional wisdom of the Beltway establishment, which led many Democrats to vote for a misguided and ultimately disastrous war.

On each of those counts, Obama clearly believes that Hillary represents the status quo, which is why he has stated repeatedly that he is running to be that agent of real change.

Making the accusation that the Clinton's have been planning this for 20 years simply implies that while Obama is in the race for a specific reason (to bring change to the White House and to Washington), Hillary is in the race because she believes that it is her turn, and she has planned on this run for years (which again, is not really that surprising).

In this sense, pointing out that Hillary always planned on running sometime after her husband, is not inconsistent with Obama's argument that she is more interested in simply BECOMING President, than in bringing the change that the Obama campaign would argue is so desperately needed for both the Democratic Party and our country.

The fact that this "Clinton pact" claim was made in an anti-Clinton book, seems a little bit besides the point; and again, I think it's unfortunate that Greg (or whoever determines these things) made the decision to frame the (top) TPM headline and story in such a way that accuses the Obama campaign as sinking to adopt a specific anti-Clinton Right-wing attack.

(And just to be clear, I don't see this as Greg being biased; I just see it as silly and a bit misleading.)

brewmn wrote on November 19, 2007 12:34 PM:

"This Is Just Obama's Way Of Trying To Get Away From That Terrible Debate Response That He Waffled With Thursday Night,He's Arrogant And Now His Pride Has Been Hurt Because Mr Obama Wants Everbody To Believe That He's The Man His 95 Pound Ass Need To Be Getting On His Own Sorry Ass People For Turning Out Such Terrible Campaign..."

Hillary, is that you?

Derek wrote on November 19, 2007 12:36 PM:

Quote:

Asked if that were a reference to the Gerth allegation, an Obama spokesperson left virtually no doubt that it was, telling Newsday: "Barack Obama has not been mapping out his run for president from Washington for the last 20 years like some of his opponents."

Wtf kind of journalism is this Greg? Where is this statement that leaves no doubt they are referencing Gerth?

Jesus...

Greg_Sargent_Strikes_Again wrote on November 19, 2007 12:38 PM:

But Greg Sargent, being his pro-Hillary self draws a conclusion he's already decided in his mind, to further his own pro-Hillary talking points.

Heretic wrote on November 19, 2007 12:38 PM:

Wow. I have always found the Obama zealot/Hillary-haters in this forum nothing short of pathetic, but this one takes the cake. Sad to say, but I think we are seeing proof positive that this country has entered its final decline. Not only is there no civility and common ground between right and left, but clearly little between left and center, nor within the left. The complete hysteria and lack of rationality espoused by the hillary-haters reminds me of none other than our dear wingnuts on the other side. Its enough to make a person who has never voted republican in a state and national election before just vote for Giuliani, expatriate myself, and watch all you lunatics kills each other on CNN.

bg wrote on November 19, 2007 12:43 PM:

To DemAc:

Actually, nothing tastes worse than seeing members of your preferred party robotically dish out the "talking points" that I had thought was an ironic appellation for this blog. It really does kill the politics of hope.

NJ Lawyer wrote on November 19, 2007 12:45 PM:

Between this and the Social Security canard that Obama is a passing off, I am starting to become sickened by him.

DemAC wrote on November 19, 2007 12:45 PM:

Wtf kind of journalism is this Greg? Where is this statement that leaves no doubt they are referencing Gerth?

No, maybe the reference was to… uhm… to… Kucinich? Or Dodd! Why not Dodd… he’s surely been mapping for decades in the Senate.

Geez. Come on. Obama is getting a little desperate and desperate people will say desperate things. Get over it. When he’s lost the primaries and Clinton is our nominee we’ll all be best buddies again. :-)

thegolux wrote on November 19, 2007 12:51 PM:

As a longtime reader of this site and an Obama supporter- I find the coverage biased and dissapointing. I do not need a site that parrots back my own view- but I would like some balance. Does anyone have a suggestion of other sites that might give me a more balanced view of what is actually going on? It seems clear that there was a momentum switch about 2 weeks ago that even this site picked up on. Now, according to this site- it has evaporated- did it? Anywhere else I could look?

-thegolux

Derek wrote on November 19, 2007 12:54 PM:

Not good enough DemAC. They did NOT say the statement is correct. They did NOT say "yah just look at this Gerth book".

They did not make any statements to "leave no doubt" and this tripe got passed along to EC.

This whole story is tied up to the Gerth book while the vast majority of people dont even know about the book or author BUT DO feel that HRC has been prepping for this campaing for a long long time.

Tying these two things together serves no purpose but to get in some jabs at the Obama campaign:

"It's hard to see how the use of Gerth's allegations could possibly play well among Dem activists. Many of them dislike Gerth for his role in "breaking" the Whitewater story and see Gerth's book as an anti-Hillary hatchet job."

Speaking of hatchet jobs...

mamiller wrote on November 19, 2007 12:55 PM:

And the ability to carry out long term strategies effectively is a bad quality for a president because...why exactly?
Are you all suggesting that the ability to accomplish things in a political arena is a bad quality for our next president? Do we prefer to elect someone who had all the good will and good press in the world, a huge war chest who's advisors have him attacking a colleague rather than articulating a vision?

Captain-Sky wrote on November 19, 2007 12:58 PM:

Some Of You Obama Supporters Has A Serious Mental Problem,I'am Going To Be Frank Because It's Obvious That These Obama Supporters Are Stuck On Stupid,And Theirs No Turning Them Back.I Hope None Of You Are Over The Age Of 17 Because If This Country Had To Depend On People Like You We Would Be In Serious Trouble,But Anyway I Think These So Called Obama Fans Or Reputhug Plants They Can't Really Be Democrats,If Anyone Ever Noticed That Every Time That Their's A Smear Campaign Going On You See The Same Ones In This Blog And The Others.It's Beginning To Show That Obama's No Better Than His Supporters,With This Childish Prank He Disgust's Me With His So-Called Audacity Of Hope,All He Does Is Tell One Lie After Another,That's Just How Bad He Wants To Get To The White House,But Guess What Even If Senator Clinton Does Not Get The Nomination I Can Gurantee You It Won't Be Michele & Barack Obama That Occupies The White House It's Not Going To Happen Folks.

modmom wrote on November 19, 2007 1:01 PM:

Look at the roles the DLC played in exposing what occurred in the last 2 elections:

The failure of the DLC to acknowledge Gore's win in 2000 (in fact they blame his "loss" on breaking with the DLC and becoming a populist-i'll post a link below) and their active role in keeping Kerry from challenging Ohio in 2004(thanks to Clinton ally James Carville (also posted below) was calculated as to allow a HRC run in '08. If either would have taken the office they won, then HRC and her corporate cronies would not have had a chance in 2008. Also look how they try to undermine Howard Dean. Anyway, here are some links:

FIRST..GORE BROKE WITH THE DLC TO BECOME A POPULIST:

Published on Sunday, August 20. 2000 in the Boston Globe
Thank You, Al Gore
by Robert Kuttner
A funny thing happened to Al Gore on the way to his surprisingly effective acceptance speech. He became a liberal.

The speech was as liberal as anything FDR or LBJ or Jesse Jackson or one of the Kennedys might have delivered. It was built around a commitment to fight for ordinary people, against large and powerful interests. This, of course, is precisely what made it effective.

The emotional heart of the speech, Gore's honoring of four ordinary American lives, did not just salute the struggles of workaday families, the way Ronald Reagan often did. It identified who was dishonoring their struggles - corporations. He singled out heartless HMOs who pressure a family to sacrifice a child; drug companies that force a pensioner to choose between food and medicine; corporate polluters; corporations that pay workers inadequate wages.

And he identified the solution: strong, reliable public Social Security; better Medicare; welfare reform that rewards work rather than punishing the needy; higher minimum wages; and more investment in public - not voucher - schools, so that working families don't have to send kids to crumbling classrooms.

What is the evil? Corporate power. What is the remedy? Effective government.

-snip
http://www.commondreams.org/views/082000-105.htm

SECOND, AFTER GORE'S WIN THEY BLAME HIS 'LOSS' ON BREAKING WITH THE DLC:

Strange Theory on Why Gore Lost

The so-called Democratic Leadership Council has decided that Al Gore should have acted more like a Republican in order to win the 2000 presidential electoral college vote in addition to his nationwide popular vote victory. This strange finding has drawn some attention, including coverage by the Associated Press and the Environmental News Service -- we have a few excerpts from their reports for you here.
Al Gore, the self-styled environmental candidate in the 2000 Presidential election, lost his bid for the White House because he campaigned on an outdated "populist" platform that was too liberal for most Americans, according to a new report drafted by the Democratic Leadership Council.

The 40-page report, titled "Why Gore Lost, And How Democrats Can Come Back," concludes that the Democratic Party must move towards the political right -- towards the Republicans -- if it wants to regain control of Congress in 2002 and the White House in 2004.

Al From, the DLC's founder and CEO, opened a freewheeling discussion forum by arguing that Democrat Al Gore made a huge tactical mistake by continually emphasizing that he would "fight for the people and not the powerful" as the nation's first president of the 21st Century.

-snip

http://www.progress.org/goredlc2.htm

AND FINALLY, CLINTON ALLY JAMES CARVILLE'S ROLE IN THE QUICK KERRY CONCESSION:

Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)

By M.J. Rosenberg | bio

On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

-snip

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

-snip

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

RESEARCH THIS FOR YOURSELVES, BEFORE YOU CAST A VOTE FOR ANY DLC CANDIDATE!

DemAC wrote on November 19, 2007 1:03 PM:

They did NOT say the statement is correct. They did NOT say "yah just look at this Gerth book".

Well, imagine that.

Now, what kind of 20 year plan do you, Derek, think was referenced?

kjoe wrote on November 19, 2007 1:07 PM:

Does Tipper Gore have an article in Vogue coming out soon? If she talks too much about what Bill and hillary did leading up to the 2000 election which had the effect of giving us 8 years of George Bush-----------will we be able to lump her in with the rest of the vast right-wing conspiracy against Hillary?

Anonymous wrote on November 19, 2007 1:08 PM:

Obama should have had a longer term plan himself--he's way too green.

A.Scott wrote on November 19, 2007 1:09 PM:

Wow , passionate discourse or what?

I don't know if Greg is working for Hillary or anyone else, I do know he's proven to me over the years he's happy to fight for progressive issues , and other than Benen is likely the sharpest tounge in the TMPiverse. I haven't seen much from Greg to suggest he's either biased or in the employ of Manchurians...regardless

Without campaign loyalty and interested only in who becomes President as it relates to the survival of the biggest meanest most armed and dangerous nation on earth , Besides China, I can say from a nearly objective point of view that Obama has abdicated his spark and genuine-ness to his advisory pool , who seem even less savvy then John Kerry's. They are reflexive in place of wise , spastic instead of considered and tepid in place of the freshness and faux boldness Obama offered when he first emerged .

No mudslinging of Hillary's or anyone else will change the fact that Obama has never really taken a risky position on any of the important issues we face, has played safe all along, and now appears to have squandered the few things about him that make him a true contender in the too-superficial world of TV politics.
And it's not Barak who is the problem, it's an inexperienced and insecure first timer relying too heavily on his advisers who thus far keep fumbling a lot of easy runs.
More Obama , less response. And for god sake don't even think of quoting Gerth.If they did , I'm saying ...easy there folks ...all friends here...

DTM wrote on November 19, 2007 1:12 PM:

Again, it is quite literally true that Joe Biden has been running for the Presidency from Washington for 20 years now. Biden, notably, has been one of the candidates suggesting that Obama's lack of time in Washington equates to a relative lack of experience, going so far as to tell Newsweek he thought Obama was "not ready" to be President.

So, again, I don't get why people are assuming this is only about Clinton.

Matt Ahrens wrote on November 19, 2007 1:14 PM:

If Hillary hasn't been plotting to be president for the past 20 years why doesn't she just come out and deny it? I think everyone who has been involved in Democratic social circles has assumed this to be true. Why is it seen as such a negative for Hillary? Does it ruin the image she is trying to evoke? What image is that exactly? What has she accomplished since her failed Hillarycare program in the 90s? Sure, she put her name on legislation but she hasn't taken on one controversial progressive issue. She is not the right person to be president. We need real change; she ain't it.

Derek wrote on November 19, 2007 1:22 PM:

Well, imagine that.
Now, what kind of 20 year plan do you, Derek, think was referenced?

Does it matter? Look at the headline:

Obama Camp Uses Disputed Gerth Account Of Clintons' 20-Year-Plan To Fault Hillary

When a Dem who dislikes Gerth reads this headline it's damning. To somebody who doesn't know Gerth they will automatically take it in a bad light because of how the entire thing is worded. The problem is there isn't any verification from the Obama campaign that they are using Gerth's book in any way.

I'm not arguing whether HRC did or did not have a plan. That isn't the point. The point is tying a much disliked author to sometime Obama said and saying there is "virtually no doubt" they are refrencing him.

Greg_Sargent_Strikes_Again wrote on November 19, 2007 1:25 PM:

But Greg Sargent, being his pro-Hillary self draws a conclusion he's already decided in his mind, to further his own pro-Hillary talking points.

Passing Shot wrote on November 19, 2007 1:26 PM:

has ANYONE from the Obama campaign actually referred to the Gerth/Van Natta assertions BY NAME? If not, this story is bogus.

dcshungu wrote on November 19, 2007 1:27 PM:

Steve wrote on November 19, 2007 11:45 AM:
Greg. Please.

If not twenty, do you have the slightest doubt that they've been planning a Hillary run run for president for at least ten years?

This is "Politics of Despair." What is the big fucking deal if Hillary had been planning to run for POTUS from the moment she exited the womb? Is Obama so short of ideas on how to defeat Clinton that he is now accusing her of...of... of what exactly? I do not see how this advances Obama's case at all. He's wasting time. Thanksgiving is upon us, meaning that people would soon turn their attention to more mundane preoccupation such as Xmas shopping, etc, and Hillary would head into the first primaries and caucuses still looking very strong and with a name-recognition to boot for bloated and lazy holidayers to vote for without having to think!

BTW: I must observe if that Obama's point with new line of "attack" is to somehow show that the Clinton's are power hungry or corrupt, he ought to look long and hard at himself in a mirror. This is a guy, who just ~3 years ago was a nobody who was propelled to the limelight by his electrifying speech at the 2004 Dem convention. Now, with less a full US Senate term under his belt, here he is running for the highest political office of the land. If you do not see this as blind ambition, I am not sure what you'd call it. They are all ambitious and Obama ought the clamp it and return to talking about the "Politics of Hope."

Greg wrote on November 19, 2007 1:29 PM:

I'm frankly surprised at the unwillingness of some commenters to read what the Newsday story says.

The reporter directly asked the campaign whether this was a reference to the "pact." The campaign responded with a non-answer, and even added an unprompted allusion to the "20 year" idea.

How much clearer does that have to be?

And as it is, if the Obama campaign wants to deny outright that this was a reference to the Gerth charge, I'll be the first to post it. I'm just reporting what the Newsday story said here.

DemAC wrote on November 19, 2007 1:29 PM:

Why is it seen as such a negative for Hillary?

As has already been mentioned above by a number of people it’s probably not a negative at all to plan ahead. And obviously anyone successfully campaigning for President must have great foresight and a strong force driving them.

The only remarkable things are that Obama supposedly, then, believes planning ahead is a negative and that he props up his stump speech with references to Gerth.

(BTW: Both Novak and Gerth over a few days. Maybe Obama should have a little chat with his staff about whom to trust and not…?)

JenJen wrote on November 19, 2007 1:31 PM:

Wow, is this just a generational thing, or what? I'm truly shocked that the Clinton smear of Obama, spoonfed to Novak, is "good for Clinton, bad for Obama." Good God, you all sound like a bunch of damned Republicans in this thread, as do bloggers almost across the board on this issue.

On "Morning Joe" today, Tweety, who seemed to have not yet heard of the Novak column, admitted that the Clinton camp is full of "busy buzzing bees" that are pushing every negative Obama or Edwards story that's out there right now. It's really disheartening when I find Tweety to be more realistic than the people who are actually on our side.

I'm with Obama, and it's nice to see that a Dem has the guts to stand up to the Clintons. Also nice to see there's at least one progressive left who isn't taking political advice from Bob Shrum.

And commenter kjoe... nice point about Tipper Gore, and yes, anyone who dare challenge a Clinton must be wearing magic VWRC underwear.

This is going to be an even uglier primary than '04. Good times. :-(

andrea benini wrote on November 19, 2007 1:33 PM:

POOR OBAMA. HE CANT WIN SO HE'S DESPERATE

onceler wrote on November 19, 2007 1:34 PM:

this is mad annoying, Obama just keeps pushing me further and further away. he started off as my favorite, but between this and Donnie McLurkin, I now see him as having the same main problem as Hillary - willingness to sell out the Democratic wing of the Democratic party in order to appeal to right wingers. sad. Obama shouldn't be taking talking points from Novack, Gerth, or anyone as unreliable and discredited as these people. a real shame.

green13 wrote on November 19, 2007 1:37 PM:

Refer to the White House tape of January 2000, when Bill Clinton and Hillary stood in the basement of the White House spending every last second they could. Bill Clinton continued to talk until he was told he would be forceably removed and motions were made to do so. As Bill Clinton left he sid, "I will be back...". Those words were easily remembered as a famous WWII general used them. But you go get the tape - if you can.

anonymous wrote on November 19, 2007 1:39 PM:

Like the "planted question" issue, a non-issue.

What exactly is wrong with American citizens wanting to be president someday in order to achieve the power to change the nation and the world in ways they believe to be good and planning for that?

Isn't that why Obama is running?

Or is he saying that he's sacrificing himself just so Americans can take advantage of his self-proclaimed greatness?

And just because Obama apparently hasn't committed his life to planning for and achieving such goals, but simply decided on the spur of the moment to pursue the presidency, why should the Clintons avoid doing so?

Aren't long-range thinkers and planners exactly what this country needs, instead of another arrogant and petulant self-centered egoist who suddenly decides it would be neat to be president - people who have planned and prepared for the job their entire lives, instead of someone who just decided to give it a shot without any such planning and preparation?

The Hillary-Haters will do anything to create an issue and ranting on about how evil it is to simply desire and want to pursue the presidency of the United States shows how pathetic they truly are.

Remember when we told our kids that growing up to be president would be an admirable goal?

Now, apparently, it is not only simply seen as undesirable, but we must actively promote the job as only fit for someone's last desperate goal.

Shaker o Salt wrote on November 19, 2007 1:39 PM:

So she's "planned" to run for President? Tell me why this is a bad thing? The other candidates didn't plan to run, they just got sucked in on a spur of the moment thing? Sheesh, people, use your brains.

Personally, I too have been disappointed in both Edward's and Obama's campaigns. I expected more from both of them.

And really, Hillary IS a politician as are the other candidates. I'm still undecided, but it seems to me that Hillary has both the brains and the brawn to be president. She's one smart cookie. I believe Obama has been both outsmarted and outmaneuvered.

Novakula strikes again! And Barack Obama fell for it. Sad.

William wrote on November 19, 2007 1:40 PM:

My first impression of Obama's strategy is that he and the campaign believe this will only offend Dems who are already core Clinton supporters and will ultimately resonate with younger voters and newcomers to the process --even Independents in NH. It also demonstrates how difficult it is for the candidates to set themselves apart from Clinton on policy. We will see if it pays off.

DTM wrote on November 19, 2007 1:41 PM:

If people want to understand how and why Obama is using this line, I suggest checking out his Jefferson Jackson speech:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/C5Q2

Again, in context the purpose seems pretty clear: he is basically responding to those who suggest he needs to spend more time in Washington in order to become ready to run for the Presidency. But read the speech and see for yourself (the line in question appears about 3/4 of the way into the speech).

anonymous wrote on November 19, 2007 1:42 PM:

dajafi, if you can say that about Clinton, then I can easily say the following about Obama:

"I'm black and it's our turn to have a black man serve as the president."

Pretty much wraps it up in a nutshell.

LJ wrote on November 19, 2007 1:42 PM:

Greg Sargent wrote in a comment:

this "bias" charge is just pathetic. stop it. it's bullshit.

Greg:

I encourage you to investigate this and approach it as you would a post for your Horses's Mouth blog. Go investigate your own posts and see what you find. Seriously.

Total up the number of posts you've personally written on each of the eight candidates running for the Dem nomination and give us the numbers. If you are as objective as you claim there should be rougly as many Joe Biden posts as Hillary Clinton posts. Roughly as many Bill Richardson posts as ones about Obama. If you post 25x as often on Hillary as you do on Chris Dodd, wouldn't you call that "bias?"

In addition, you could rate each post as positive, negative, or neutral toward the candidate, trying to see it from the campaign's point of view instead of your own.

Lastly, as someone who follows the election this closely, you surely must like some of the canidates better than others. Why not reveal those opinions to us instead of pretending to be 100% neutral? Markos Moulitsas Zúniga of Daily Kos did that in an interview with Josh over at TPM (he liked Dodd & Obama best, but was also disappointed in Obama as I recall). Knowing Kos' biases doesn't invalidate his posts, but I sure appreciate the candor.

Derek wrote on November 19, 2007 1:44 PM:

And as it is, if the Obama campaign wants to deny outright that this was a reference to the Gerth charge, I'll be the first to post it. I'm just reporting what the Newsday story said here.

Well then congrats on pushing the talking points. You can already see the effect your "repeating" has had among the commenters here.

"I'm not in this race to fulfill some long-held plan or because it was owed to me"

now equals

"As Jeff Gerth said, the Clintons have been planning this for 20 years."

Just because somebody else runs a bullshit story that doesn't mean it bears repeating. ESPECIALLY when the entire story is "verified" by a staffer using the phrase "20 years".

anonymous wrote on November 19, 2007 1:45 PM:

We know why he's using the line: he's desperate and arrogant.

DTM wrote on November 19, 2007 1:49 PM:

Greg,

By your own description Newsday tried but failed to get someone from the Obama camp to support their preconceived storyline (that this line in Obama's speeches is a reference solely to the Gerth/Van Natta account). And yet here you turned around and reported the story as if Obama did in fact confirm Newsday's preconceived storyline.

Again, I don't think that proves you are biased. I just think it proves you are easily manipulated by people who set out to frame things in a certain way.

PatrickB1 wrote on November 19, 2007 1:50 PM:

Much ado about nothing.

Caveat. I am not a Clinton supporter.

Obama is still 20 pts behind in national polls, and needs to come up with issues to close the gap.

But this is so LAME!!!!!

Next time some high school whiz kid thinks, "I want to be President some day," we can retroactive disqualify 30 years later, for all the "plotting" he did over those 30 years to become a qualified candidate.

Hillary is ahead in the polls because of a lot of reasons. Name recognition is clearly in her favor. But she also has a record in the Senate that is longer than Obama's. And while Obama was busy with local Illinois politics, Hillary was intimately involved, behind the scenes, in much of the Clinton administration, for 8 years. Prior to that, she was his confident as Governer of Arkansas.

She has turned all that to her advantage, first winning the Senate in NY, and now becoming highly successful in running a first-rate national campaign. There is no conspiracy here. Hillary is winning in the polls, because people prefer her to the other candidates. They plan to vote for her. You know this ain't rocket science here. And because she is ahead in the polls, she is getting more money, though Obama is keeping up pretty well there. You wanna blame someone for this, blame the American people.

So now Obama has some real dirt. Hillary has been planning this for 20 years.

Detour from reality. Isn't it just so obvious to everyone that back in 1987, Hillary just knew that Bill would win in '92 and '96, but that his tryst, coupled with the vast right wing conspiracy, coupled with a hostile media (part of that conspiracy), coupled with Florida vote counting shenanigans, coupled with a conservative Supreme Court, would prevent Al Gore from winning in 2000, thus setting the stage for the right wing trashing of the government that has opened this opportunity for her?

Of course she must have been so confident, way back in 87, that the path to success was as a New York senator. It's all part of the grand plan, that now, thank the lord, has been exposed.

Back to reality. If this is what Obama wants to campaign on, he's getting desperate.

What many liked about Obama was his unwillingness to get in the mud, to keep above the fray. Sooner or later we all knew he was going to have to get tough. But on this issue? Hillary wanted to be President 20 years ago????

Here's my first recommendation to to the Obama campaign. Let them go out to all the high schools in the country and tell all the students that if any one of them wants to be President some day, then they had better not want to be President some day, cause 30 years from now, it will be a disqualifier.

-Patrick

Anonymous wrote on November 19, 2007 1:52 PM:

The implication with this and other similar previous attacks on Clinton (and I'm no supporter of her particularly) is that she's unfit to be president because she's (1) planned for it, that is she seeks it, and (2) calculated her political positions to get elected.

Yes, God forbid that Democrats select a candidate who is capable of winning and who has prepared for carrying out the duties of the presidency by obtaining experience and political connections.

Much better to support a candidate who appeals primarily to a core of extremist liberal ideologues who can't tolerate any deviation from their arrogant set of idealistic "values" and who will, like Bush loyalists, attempt to destroy anybody within the party who does not march to their extremist drumbeat.

pjsauter wrote on November 19, 2007 1:55 PM:

In a healthy system, her moving to New York just be elected would have been rejected as a cynical carpetbagging maneuver.

That charge was certainly leveled during her first Senate campaign. It didn't stick though. She won a lot of people over in New York State, including staunchly Republican areas Upstate.

I guess you'd just dismiss the will of New York State voters in two rather lopsided victories - not to mention their election of Bobby Kennedy (another "carpetbagger" NY Senator).

Clinton isn't my first choice (or second, or third, or even fourth) for the nomination. Neither is Obama, frankly. He just seems like the same-old, same-old, cut from the same cloth as Hillary Clinton. Pandering, calculating, and, it seems, increasingly desperate.

Anonymous wrote on November 19, 2007 1:57 PM:

CORRECTION REQUIRED

Greg, the WaPo article that you posted references several other sources for the allegation. Why did you fail to mention them? If you think they lack credibility, that's fine, but you really simply must say so.

It's also apparently he-said, she-said between Taylor Branch, who now denies that he said it, and the people who say they heard him say it. Don't you suppose he might have reasons not to acknowledge it publicly?

DTM wrote on November 19, 2007 1:57 PM:

And for those who don't want to bother, here is the line in context:

"We can make this election not about fear, but about the future. And that won’t just be a Democratic victory; that will be an American victory.

And that is a victory America needs right now.

I am not in this race to fulfill some long-held ambitions or because I believe it’s somehow owed to me. I never expected to be here, I always knew this journey was improbable. I’ve never been on a journey that wasn’t.

I am running in this race because of what Dr. King called 'the fierce urgency of now.' Because I believe that there’s such a thing as being too late. And that hour is almost upon us.

. . .

I’m in this race for the same reason that I fought for jobs for the jobless and hope for the hopeless on the streets of Chicago; for the same reason I fought for justice and equality as a civil rights lawyer; for the same reason that I fought for Illinois families for over a decade.

Because I will never forget that the only reason that I’m standing here today is because somebody, somewhere stood up for me when it was risky. Stood up when it was hard. Stood up when it wasn’t popular. And because that somebody stood up, a few more stood up. And then a few thousand stood up. And then a few million stood up. And standing up, with courage and clear purpose, they somehow managed to change the world.

That’s why I’m running, Iowa – to give our children and grandchildren the same chances somebody gave me.

That’s why I’m running, Democrats – to keep the American Dream alive for those who still hunger for opportunity, who still thirst for equality.

That’s why I’m asking you to stand with me, that’s why I’m asking you to caucus for me, that’s why I am asking you to stop settling for what the cynics say we have to accept. In this election – in this moment – let us reach for what we know is possible. A nation healed. A world repaired. An America that believes again. Thank you very much everybody."

Again, this is about Obama countering the argument of the Washington insiders among the candidates (not limited to Clinton) that he is not yet ready to be President, and positioning himself as the right change agent for a historic moment in time.

dasein wrote on November 19, 2007 1:58 PM:

i've been reading this blog for 3 years, so i've become pretty familiar with the voices that introduce stories here. i've noticed a HRC slant on this site since the campaign began. this particular piece tries really hard to make a mountain out of a mole hill. i suggest TPM stick to policy debates, rather than this hyperbolic finger-pointing. if i wanted this sort of crap i'd be watching Blitzer on CNN right now.

Anonymous wrote on November 19, 2007 2:00 PM:

Well...

Generally speaking, I'm inclined to vote for Obama. However, I'd like to see more reasons to vote *for* him as opposed to voting *against* his opponents. If this nonsense continues, I may yet decide to stay home.

Wrt Novak/Obama/Clinton flap: there are much classier responses to Novak's crap, and there are much classier responses to Obama's silly response to Novak. Not a moment to be proud of for either campaign.

esmense wrote on November 19, 2007 2:03 PM:

Jeezus what is wrong with this party! Why do we see Democratic candidates, campaign after campaign, using BS Republican talking points against other Democrats!?!

And why do we see rank and file Democrats cheering them on?

Anonymous wrote on November 19, 2007 2:03 PM:

I guess that explains the Monroe father and son presidencies: corruption and political intrigue without any concern for America at all, just their own political achievement.

Had nothing to do with families sharing common goals and beliefs about what their careers should be dedicated to or with the belief that serving their country as an elected official is an admirable goal.

And all those sons of lawyers and daughters of doctors who emulate their parents and become lawyers and doctors - obviously they are corrupt too, because ever since they were little kids they planned to follow in their parents footsteps.

You folks just don't know how truly pathetic you read.

-------------------

In a healthy system (as conceived by Obama supporters), only arrogant, self-absorbed, and petulent non-Washington outsiders with a chip on their shoulder can be president.

Sounds like Obama is much more like Bush 43 than Clinton is.

Robin wrote on November 19, 2007 2:04 PM:

According to the following interview Taylor Branch was not the only source for information on the 20 year project. It seems Leon Panetta and one other person also gave recounts of the 20 year plan.

Watch this interview of the "Her Way" authors on The Charlie Rose Show.

http://www.charlierose.com/search?q=van+natta&searchFilter=van+natta&searchType=guest&searchTopic=-1&searchFromMonth=07&searchFromDay=06&searchFromYear=07&searchToMonth=MM&searchToDay=DD&searchToYear=YY

romath wrote on November 19, 2007 2:05 PM:

Jeff Gerth was an active member of the Newsreel collective in SF in the 1960s. Liberal/radical New Left reporting was their thing, some of which was very decent. Unfortunately, some New Lefties hit the wall after awhile and became Establishment types in mentality, if not income and lifestyle. Gerth's trajectory and misdeeds appear to be on a par with those of David Horowitz, who back then had similar politics while helping create Ramparts magazine.

John wrote on November 19, 2007 2:08 PM:

I read this blog frequently, and I can see how someone could see the reporting and commentary here as exhibiting an HRC bias. I think it's probably true, but it's debatable.

But it is UTTERLY INCONTESTABLE that TPM is biased in favor of three Democratic candidates: HRC, Obama, and Edwards. (Kucinich, in particular, gets ignored or dissed repeatedly.)

This bias is just as troubling as an exclusive HRC bias.

DTM wrote on November 19, 2007 2:09 PM:

Anonymous,

That is part of my point. Read in context, this line in Obama's speech actually IS part of an argument for why you should vote for him.

The current confusion is being caused by Newsday, and now Greg, who are taking this line out of its actual context and trying to make it into a very specific attack on one particular candidate based on a particular source, even though none of that reframing of the line is actually supported by the available evidence.

Unfortunately, the press does this all the time (makes up stories), and apparently Greg is easily manipulated.

timnlisa1 wrote on November 19, 2007 2:10 PM:

Ok, I think everyone should take a step back and look at the big picture. I can't stand the fact that Hillary is probably going to win the nomination when I think Obama kicks her butt on substance, integrity and his ability to get things done.

But I accept the fact that Obama probably won't be able to take her down. As Josh pointed out a couple weeks ago this is mainly because of his effort to run a different kind of campaign. It failed because you can't expect to gain popularity without controlling the news cycle for your side as best you can. I have also accepted the fact that with Clinton as the general election dem, she is as strong as anyone against the GOPer's that are running. But the fact of the matter is this:

1) She will bring out the anti-Clinton folks to vote for GOPer's unlike anybody else and this will limit the number of seats that dems pick up in congress and state and local elections. I don't see how you could think anything otherwise.

2) Clinton as president will run a fairly moderate, DLC type administration and yet she will be as polarizing as ever (not really her fault but the structure is already set up to guarantee this). Because of this, very little will get accomplished for another 4-8 years.

3) Everyone here will continue to blame the GOP for obstructing and polarizing the whole process, but in the end because Hillary is so polarizing and will not be able to get very much accomplished, in the coming few elections the dems will lose significant seats and the GOP will gain back a significant amount of power even though the majority of Americans back Dems on just about every single issue out there. You can blame the GOP for this, but in the end, Hillary makes it much easier for them to accomplish because of all the hatred out there.

I really hope that I am wrong on all 3 counts, but I don't think so. I really think that Obama or Edwards or Dodd would have much fewer of these issues and get a lot more accomplished and guarantee the Dems longer term control of government to turn the direction of this country around. I just hope that those that are writing such vitriol against Obama and extolling the virtues of Clinton will realize they have no one to blame but themselves in 8 years when this country will be primed for another Bush or Giuliani to take control and send our country over the edge once and for all.

anonymous wrote on November 19, 2007 2:11 PM:

No, this is Obama arrogantly preening and calculating what will appeal most to starry-eyed liberal activists who are desperate for a candidate that will, like Dean and Nader before, pander to their self-absorbed idealistic vision that ignores political reality.

Obama is a politician.

He's merely chosen, as many before, to promote his political aspirations by pretending he really isn't a politician, by capitalizing on pretty words without substance, and through self-promotion.

While those with clearer vision can see in his campaign (albeit ineptly run) the very same things that have been seen from similar candidates in the past - losing candidates, btw, but nevertheless, still politician candidates.

DTM wrote on November 19, 2007 2:12 PM:

John,

Absolutely right. Indeed, it seems pretty obvious that even to the extent Obama was obliquely criticizing some of his opponents, he was criticizing Joe Biden as much as anyone. But poor Joe cannot even get a mention as a target of another candidate's criticisms.

DTM wrote on November 19, 2007 2:22 PM:

anonymous,

Of course, another "starry-eyed" candidate that should be on your list is candidate Bill Clinton of the 1992 election. In contrast, the Democrat's recent "competence" candidates have been Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry.

Of course Democrats just don't have a large sample size of recent Presidential winners. But if you look back at, say, Ronald Reagan, you once again get to a pretty "starry-eyed" candidate.

So here is a thought: while it is true that Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were in fact skilled politicians, maybe they also had a pretty good idea about exactly what sort of politics leads to victory. In that sense, maybe the "political reality" is that ability to communicate an "idealistic vision" actually matters in politics.

anonymous wrote on November 19, 2007 2:29 PM:

According to the following interview Taylor Branch was not the only source for information on the 20 year project. It seems Leon Panetta and one other person also gave recounts of the 20 year plan.

WHO CARES!

Good grief!

Its WRONG to have a plan to educate yourself, develop expertise, develop political connections and alliances, gain experience, and map out political strategies for becoming president of the US?!

Gee, wouldv'e been nice if someone had put that much planning into responding to 9/11 and dealing with a recalcitrant Saddam.

Heck, it's be nice if Obama would even put 20 DAYS into planning his campaign, instead of ad hocking his way to ignominious defeat.

ARG in Chicago wrote on November 19, 2007 2:29 PM:

.
.
.
Wow!

More than a hundred posts. Way more.

All the self-described "progressives" argue over Tweedle Dum vs. Tweedle Dee.

The only true progressive in the race is Dennis Kucinich. Please re-direct just a tiny bit of the energy you're spending here to reading what Dennis has to say.

-- ARG

DemAC wrote on November 19, 2007 2:35 PM:

timnlisa1,
I do understand what you mean but I honestly don’t think you have to be all that worried. Her Senate tenure in New York has been much about overcoming such structures and obstacles as you refer to. And she has overcome! Hillary Clinton is hugely popular in urban and in rural New York, among men and women and among Dems and Reps. When people get to experience her political work the negative superficial attitudes tend to dissolve and be replaced with respect and approval. Also, well, bear in mind that Hillary was never the DLC standard bearer.

Hillary Clinton has enormous name recognition. But the attitudes towards her are often superficial and “old”. When the voters get to know her and when they experience her as the party nominee and as President a pretty decent majority of voters will rally ‘round her. No Dem Congress seats lost, no Repub victory with Hillary Clinton at the top of the ticket.

noexpert wrote on November 19, 2007 2:40 PM:

So obama is contrasting Clinton's long held plans to run for president (10-20 years) with his more recent decision. Is this the most interesting or important thing he has said in recent days. In speeches I've seen Obama has explained that he decided to run now because he believes his less divisive style of leadership is what is most needed to make progress on challenges facing the country. Other people may think Clinton's experiences make her the better choice for president. How about keep the focus on the big picture rather than pseudo attacks. BTW how do tpm reporters choose which stories to feature? My suspicion is that campaign memos are the source at times.

Jan wrote on November 19, 2007 2:42 PM:

These days, I'm really starting to wish Obama had spent a few more moments planning to run for President than he did.

--------

Re: "two Clintons, two Bushes ... Obviously a genuinely democratic process fielding qualified candidates from a richly talented populace would make these candidates unfathomable..."

Why is that?
Some of you "Democrats" must forget that Bill Clinton left office with a 60% approval rating and that 70% of the nation thought America was going in the right direction.

No true of HW Bush.
Not true of W Bush.

But a ton of us are figuring that the latest Clinton will run the country even better than the last Clinton.

We have more votes than the Rightwing Slime Machine Clinton Haters plus the idiotic "Democratic" Clinton Haters.

Are you thinking that you are advocating for ***DEMOCRACY*** when you come on a web site and try to discourage people from voting for a certain candidate, because of his or her LAST NAME?
Whew.

anonymous wrote on November 19, 2007 2:43 PM:

DTM: Of course, another "starry-eyed" candidate that should be on your list is candidate Bill Clinton of the 1992 election.

This is a joke, right?

Obama supporters (and Nader and Dean et al) have fallen all over themselves on various liberal blogs ranting about how Clinton was GOP-lite (like his running mate and 2000 presidential candidate Al Gore), a charge they are currently leveling at Hillary.

You must be touched if you think Bill Clinton was speaking the same language as Dean did in 2004 and Obama is today.

Bill was a policy wonk who attacked his opponents in the same fashion as Hillary and whose use of political calculation was the same, hardly surprising IF they had a 20 year plan or even if they didn't - they are "soul mates," right?

But there is no way either Bill or Hillary could have ever been called "starry-eyed."

They are the most practical politicians you will ever see.

They may have ideals, and likely do, but they are perfectly aware that this doesn't fly with the American public.

You can't change the public by who you nominate, but you must first change the public to get to the point where you can so nominate.

That's what the Obama supporters fail to see (along with the warts of their own candidate).

They think everything will be gravy if they can just get their idealistic candidate nominated ("if only Howard Dean has been the nominee they cry, instead of Kerry").

LOL.

jongold wrote on November 19, 2007 2:48 PM:

There is no stop to the endless tearing down going on between advocates for different Dem candidates. On one hand there is nothing wrong that HRC has wanted to be President for a long time. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong for Obama to say he hasn't cared to be President till recently. My god, you people are getting lost in the tactical minutiae of this nominating process. I support Obama because, if he is elected, the country as a whole, red and blue, can unite in a way that we won't do under a Clinton administration. I loved her husband's presidency but I want to move beyond the ridiculous partisan bickering of the last decade so we can deal with global warming and the real war on terrorism. Anyone who is more worried about Obama because of this comment than they are about the political calculation behind Clinton's 2002 war authorization vote needs their head examined. Get real. If we keep fighting amongst ourselves Giuliani or Romney will have a field day.

loki wrote on November 19, 2007 2:48 PM:

Who in here actually thinks Obama hasn't had "long held ambitions" to be president?

And which candidate thinks the Presidency is owed them?

That is what someone should ask Obama.

Michael wrote on November 19, 2007 2:56 PM:

loke,

1. Not sure.

2. Easy, clinton II. What a dumb question.

loki wrote on November 19, 2007 2:59 PM:

Well, I'd like to hear Obama actually answer that, but since you're being so candid...why exactly do you think that Clinton thinks she's owed the presidency?

slb wrote on November 19, 2007 3:02 PM:

People need to face up to the fact that Hillary wouldn't even have been a viable senate candidate if she weren't Bill's wife.

And if that is true, wouldn't it have been a shame? Because the people of New York seem to be quite happy with the way she has represented them in the Senate, even people who started out not wanting her as a candidate.

But it's it's rather silly to imply she would never have gotten anywhere in politics if she had not been Bill Clinton's wife, because who knows what Hillary Clinton might have done had she not put her own ambitions and career on hold to help further her husband's? Maybe she wouldn't have been a Senator from New York, but she might well have been a Senator from Illinois.

I don't understand why people have such a problem recognizing that she is just as politically talented as her husband, and also every bit as bright. Maybe she's not Joan of Arc, but she's a far cry from Cruella DeVille.

DTM wrote on November 19, 2007 3:05 PM:

anonymous,

Many people forget that Bill Clinton very consciously changed his political approach after the 1994 midterm elections. It was only then that he brought in Dick Morris and recast himself as a centrist.

The Bill Clinton of 1992 was a different sort of candidate. In fact, here is Bill Clinton's acceptance speech from the 1992 convention:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/speeches/clinton.html

This speech was famously entitled, "I Still Believe In A Place Called Hope." It doesn't get much more starry-eyed than that.

All that said, I don't disagree with the proposition that Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan before him, were very "practical politicians". The problem with your view is that in practice, idealism DOES sell with the American people, and so by pitching their idealistic visions, Reagan and Clinton were in fact being smart politicians.

slb wrote on November 19, 2007 3:06 PM:

The reason [Obama's] not ahead has nothing to do with him, it's the collusion of the media, the Washington politcal establishment, a touch of racism, and even elements of the so-called "liberal" blogosphere...

So now who's doing the victim schtick, hmmm?

DTM wrote on November 19, 2007 3:11 PM:

slb,

I think it is fair to say we just don't know what Hillary Rodham would have accomplished in her career if she had not decided to move to Arkansas and marry Bill Clinton, and indeed we don't even know if she would become an elected official at all. But that point cuts both ways: she has never had her political skills tested in the same way as, say, Bill Clinton himself, or for that matter any of the other candidates in this primary. In that sense, she is actually much more of an unknown quantity in politics than is typically suggested.

loki wrote on November 19, 2007 3:13 PM:

The humorous thing about all of this is the mere fact that the difference between Clinton and Obama is negligible.

To listen to Obama's comment about not having "long-held ambitions" for the WH is too, too comical. "I never expected to be here." Funny stuff.

"Politics of hope." Heh-heh-heh!

paul_lukasiak wrote on November 19, 2007 3:23 PM:

I've been reading TPM longer than that, and I'm an Edwards supporter, and I've detected no pro-Hillary/ anti Obama/Edwards bias from Greg at all.

Has Greg posted more stuff in defense of Hillary? Given the fact that she is the subject of constant irrational attacks from the right wing, I would hope so.

But the simple fact is that Obama had everything going for him....the media loved him, and practically ignored all the other candidates besides Hillary. But like other media-enabled candidacies, Obama never lived up to people's expectations...and he started dropping in the polls. That isn't Greg's fault.

Unfortunately, Obama apparently bought the media hype about him, and feels entitled to the nomination... because once it became obvious that he wasn't making the sale to most Democrats, he's begun lashing out in desperation like a spoiled child.

Obama had a bright future ahead of him, and in the grand scheme of things, all he had to do was give a respectable showing against the Hillary juggernaut to be considered a highly credible candidate -- if not the favorite -- in 2012 and beyond.

If Obama really has that much of a problem with Clinton, the smart thing for him to do would be to quit and throw his support to Edwards, because Hillary was at the bottom of my list until two days ago....but Obama has taken her place there.

And I doubt that I'm the only one who feels this way.

Pandora wrote on November 19, 2007 3:25 PM:

Only way to solve this argument is to waterboard Novak and get the truth out of him...

Anonymous wrote on November 19, 2007 3:35 PM:

I support Obama because, if he is elected, the country as a whole, red and blue, can unite in a way that we won't do under a Clinton administration.

Yeah, Republicans will abandon their partisanship immediately upon Obama's election.

LOL.

If we keep fighting amongst ourselves Giuliani or Romney will have a field day.

Which is exactly what Obama and his supporters are doing - casting negative aspersions against Clinton, simply because she's Clinton, that will only serve to undermine her interests in a general election, while doing nothing substantial to boost Obama's chances of capturing the party's nomination.

Anyone who is more worried about Obama because of this comment than they are about the political calculation behind Clinton's 2002 war authorization vote needs their head examined.

And anyone who writes something like this is crying alligator tears when saying Dems need to stop fighting amongst themselves.

----------------

DTM: The problem with your view is that in practice, idealism DOES sell with the American people . . .

I guess that's why a substantial number of Americans believe torture is okay in general and an even greater number believe its okay in limited circumstances and why Americans re-elected Bush in 2004.

And as for "acceptance" speeches, bring me something from the primary campaign trail or the general election, the daily talking points, not an address to the party faithful after a nomination already won and before the general election has begun.

You may be right, but that is not the example to prove it.

DTM wrote on November 19, 2007 4:04 PM:

Anonymous,

First, I find it odd you would claim a convention acceptance speech is "an address to the party faithful after a nomination already won and before the general election has begun." The general election campaigns actually begin at least as soon as the party nominees are settled (usually well before the conventions), and of course the conventions are about as widely watched as any single political events. Hence both parties usually hope their nominee will get a substantial bump out of the conventions.

But ask and you shall receive: as part of the rebranding launched with his acceptance speech, Clinton's campaign also produced a video called "The Man From Hope", which received a lot of positive press, and in turn that was used to make infomercials for the general election campaign. See here:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CEFD61638F937A1575BC0A964958260

Second, it is true that while idealism sells with the American people, so does fear, which goes a long way toward answering your questions about torture and the 2004 election. That said, I am confused about why you would think the 2004 election somehow disproves the idealism thesis: Kerry was not exactly known for his ability to communicate an idealistic vision.

Indeed, Kerry was one of the long line of Democratic candidates whose central argument was his resume and his claim to competence. Again, it is that long line of nominees who is on an extended losing streak, and it is only Bill Clinton (the self-styled "Man from Hope") who broke that pattern.

Aaron M wrote on November 19, 2007 4:06 PM:

A couple of points in response to some of the above comments, particularly those that have been critical of the Obama campaign:

First, all this talk about who is up and who is down, and who is desperate and whose campaign is in trouble.....most of it is driven by nothing more than media speculation (including TPM EC and even Josh M, who I admire greatly). Going back to the debate in Philly, it was kind of obvious that Clinton didn't REALLY stumble that badly, but that was "the story" the media latched onto; subsequently, she didn't REALLY make (or need to make) a big "COMEBACK" last Thursday. Over the past two weeks the polls in Iowa and elsewhere have not really changed all that much and it's not even clear how many people in Iowa or New Hampshire are watching these debates. (There did seem to be some tightening in the NH polls, but this might have been due to the Republican attack ads against Hillary, rather than anything that happened in the debates.)

Did Clinton do well in the last debate? Yes. She always does well in these things- that's her strength; just as Obama's strength becomes evident when he gives speeches at big events, such as the JJ Dinner.

What IS probably true is that Clinton's success in the debates does make SOME difference, because while they may not be watched by that many people, the traditional media places great significance on them- and report their impressions widely. (This despite the fact that they are more often than not rather ridiculous and lacking in any real substance, thanks to the likes of CNN/Blitzer and MSNBC/Russert.)

I think it's also important to remember that while Clinton gets complimented for running a great/tight campaign, it is because she is the front runner (as a result of her name, her celebrity, and her familiarity among rank and file Democrats) that her campaign has the advantage of only having to NOT make mistakes, remain vague and non-committal on controversial issues, and belittle those who trail her.

For those who are quick to criticize Obama's campaign- referring to it as "inept" or to the candidate as "inexperienced" or green; it was always going to be difficult for Obama to catch Clinton, who again is so well known and generally liked/respected among Democrats. Obama's strategy has always been to do well (or well enough) in Iowa so that he would have some boost or momentum going into NH, SC, Nevada and later CA.

And as of right now at least, he is neck and neck with Clinton in Iowa (along with Edwards, who similarly will remain competitive if he does well in Iowa).

It's also not surprising that Clinton has a national lead (or a lead in States where Obama has done/spent less to introduce himself); democrats in these States KNOW Clinton and are familiar with her.

And btw, this is also why George W. Bush was so difficult to beat in the Republican primary in 2000- because of the advantage he had in regards to his name recognition and his (subsequent) ability to raise tons of money.

As a supporter of Obama, I'm not saying any of this to complain; it's just the way it is. And Obama's strategy will work or it won't.

But all of these comments stating that Obama had this great advantage earlier this year and had a chance to win the nomination, but then blew it.....it's not only silly, it is (I believe) premature.

Michael wrote on November 19, 2007 4:14 PM:

Excellent observations DTM. The dems that keep getting smacked are the one's with long resumes and experience. The egg head types. Look back at the wreckage. Who won, clinton I, the man from hope, with the sales pitch and spin.

The same analysis could be applied to the king and the B actor. The B actor didn't sell himself as experienced, he sold an image as did the king, the cowboy. Bush I kind of cuts against the argument, but it could be said that he was riding on the B actor's coat tails and dukakis was a really, really bad nominee. I think you may be onto something.

Aaron M wrote on November 19, 2007 4:30 PM:

And just one last thing (and I apologize for the lengths of my posts), I would like to add that while I do prefer Obama over Clinton (and Edwards) as the Democratic candidate, I most certainly do NOT hate or even dislike Clinton. I have great respect for her intellect and believe she would make a capable President.

However, I genuinely feel that this country is in great need of a new direction- away from the traditional (and cynical) politics of triangulation and the disproportionate corporate influence on our federal policy-making. Also, (and this is a big reason) for all of her experience Clinton voted wrong on the most important decision of her career in 2002, and continued to be wrong by supporting the war in Iraq in 2003, 2004, and 2005. She is also way too close to (and has accepted way too much money from) entrenched special interests (for my taste), and has shown an unacceptable willingness to change her positions based on their popularity, rather than on the merits of the policy.

And while people may argue that all politicians do this, it was this type of approach to politics that (I assume) led to her initial (and ongoing) support of a predictably (see Obama’s 2002 speech in Chicago) distracting and disastrous war, as well as her more recent decision to support the Kyle-Lieberman amendment.

These decisions were made out of a fear of appearing weak; and it has been this type of fear of Republican attacks, this willingness to accept and go along with the Republican narrative (pro-war equals toughness equals strong national security credentials) that has so harmed not only the Democratic Party, but more significantly our country.

In any case, despite what people may perceive to be Obama's missteps so far in this campaign, his positions on key issues (from the war in Iraq, to his approach to Iran, to immigration)- and more importantly his reasons for taking those positions- have been consistent (and more often than not, right).

DTM wrote on November 19, 2007 4:33 PM:

Michael,

One could do worse than to keep in mind that politics is literally a popularity contest.

What I find interesting is that many Democrats are simultaneously both too cynical and not cynical enough. The too-cynical side of them is always looking for the candidate who knows how to play the game the best (meaning the parts of politics independent of merit and policy). But the not-cynical-enough side of them overlooks the fact that people want to believe that they are voting for a sincere and generally optimistic person.

So the ideal candidate is someone who knows how to play the game, but doesn't come across to voters as playing the game even when they are. In contrast, if it is obvious you are playing the game, then you really aren't playing it well, no matter what the talking heads say. That of course was the common political genius of Reagan and Clinton--they were very skillful politicians, but people still saw them as basically sincere and optimistic people.

anonymous wrote on November 19, 2007 4:46 PM:

DTM: Again, it is that long line of nominees who is on an extended losing streak, and it is only Bill Clinton (the self-styled "Man from Hope") who broke that pattern.

John Kerry's acceptance speech exerpts:

"We're the optimists. For us, this is a country of the future. We're the can-do people."

"We are here tonight because we love our country. We're proud of what America is and what it can become."

"Tonight, I am home, home where my public life began and those who made it possible live; home where our nation's history was written in blood, idealism and hope; home where my parents showed me the values of family, faith and country."

"But what I learned [in Berlin] has stayed with me for a lifetime. I saw how different life was on different sides of the same city. I saw the fear in the eyes of people who were not free. I saw the gratitude of people toward the United States for all that we had done. I felt goosebumps as I got off a military train and heard the Army band strike up 'Stars and Stripes Forever.'"

"The journey isn't complete; the march isn't over; the promise isn't perfected. Tonight, we're setting out again. And together, we're going to write the next great chapter of America's story."

"There is nothing more pessimistic than saying that America can't do better. We can do better, and we will. We're the optimists. For us, this is a country of the future. We're the can-do people."

Yep, not a shred of idealism in John Kerry or his words.

slb wrote on November 19, 2007 4:52 PM:

I guess that explains the Monroe father and son presidencies: corruption and political intrigue without any concern for America at all, just their own political achievement.

Pssst. It was Adams father and son presidencies: John and John Quincy. James Monroe's only son died in infancy.

Michael wrote on November 19, 2007 4:58 PM:

annon, you miss the point. Kerry couldn't make the sale. He always sounded really wooden and elitist. You can put words in speeches, but you have to make the pitch and close the deal. Clinton I, b actor and the king made the pitch and closed the deal, kerry didn't.

abdiel wrote on November 19, 2007 5:05 PM:

Here we go again!

Obama and his handlers are so desperate to try to make him so un-Hillary that they resort to tactics so Republican it's getting embarrassing.

I don't support Clinton because I mistrust the big machine that is selling her. I don't support Obama because I won't trust a rank amateur to be President -- and don't give me the line "Washington inexperience is good" -- there's a difference between experience and capability.

All I get from Obama's desperate tactics is that he's realizing the difference between national politics and politics in Illinois. If his bumblings are so ridiculous now, just imagine what they would be like if he actually became President and he'd have to deal, not just with American national politics, but also world politics. If he is so hungry to defame a Presidential opponent in his own party, what do you think he'll do to Intl political opponents.

To give you an idea -- just look at the man appointed as President for the last seven years.

Kucinich is the real alternative for the Democrats -- don't be fooled by the imitations.

slb wrote on November 19, 2007 5:07 PM:

...she has never had her political skills tested in the same way as, say, Bill Clinton himself, or for that matter any of the other candidates in this primary.

Uhhh -- you're kidding, right?

Michael wrote on November 19, 2007 5:19 PM:

Nope he or she wasn't. She got a senate seat handed to her on a silver platter in gd New York. Any dem breathing and that can speak in complete sentences should win in New York. Tested my a**.

Anonymous wrote on November 19, 2007 5:52 PM:

No, you miss the point.

It's not about who is offering idealism - they all do - it's about how effective they are at telling the public what the public wants to hear, how the public wants to hear it.

And that is what Clinton is doing and Obama is failing at because Obama thinks if he just preaches idealism and is (I can't use articulate, of course) eloquent (this will probably be verboten next) about it, that seals the deal.

The vast majority of Americans pay attention to nuances, even though they don't recognize them as such, and that is why Hillary is winning the polling battle.

This BS about name recognition is just that: with Oprah on your side and the left wing roudies shrilly pronouncing Obama as the next coming of Jesus, Obama has gotten more than sufficient press and name recognition to put a dent in Clinton if his message was ringing true with the voting public, but he can't even overtake (at the moment) in Iowa a moribund Edwards (whom I support) campaign.

Clinton knows, like her husband, what the public wants to hear and Obama doesn't - Obama merely knows what the far left want to hear and that isn't going to win the general election and most Dems know it.

Of course, Hillary might not win either, but she has loads more chance than Obama who will get eaten up by Guiliani and the GOP machine.

anonymous wrote on November 19, 2007 5:58 PM:

Any dem breathing and that can speak in complete sentences should win in New York.

Hmmmmmm.

Guiliani.

D'Amato.

Javits.

Rockefeller.

Ives.

Keating.

Imagine all those mute Democrats that must've run in New York for the preceding Republicans to win!!!!

D. Smith wrote on November 19, 2007 6:08 PM:

"I'm not in this race to fulfill some long-held plan or because it was owed to me," Obama said the other day.

"Barack Obama has not been mapping out his run for president from Washington for the last 20 years like some of his opponents."

People, it's Hillary who leads Obama in the polls, not Joe Biden. Of course these comments are directed towards Hillary. Do you imagine that Obama is trying to catch Hillary by sucking enough support away from Biden and Dodd?

Barack Obama's candidacy is suspect from my standpoint because he's not the first who intends to change Washington. The most recent Democrat to try this was Jimmy Carter, and he was a failure; an honorable failure, but still a failure. Further-more, when I think politics I think Julius Ceasar, Anthony and Cleopatra. Does Obama have any chance at undoing the long historical legacy of political intrigue, calculations, triangulations, etc.?

CT Goaty wrote on November 19, 2007 6:09 PM:

Of course we should prefer candidates who just run for President on a whim, not ones who actually plan!

It seems to me that lack of planning is the root of our biggest problems right now.

Think this can't do anything but hurt Obama. That's too bad, but as has been suggested above, if the point is a Stop Hillary effort, then Obama should withdraw and support Edwards.

(Up to now, I would have preferred Edwards withdraw and support Obama.)

Richardson, Kucinich, Biden and Dodd are all just splitting the anti-Hillary vote and ensuring she gets the nomination.

Quentin Allen wrote on November 19, 2007 6:31 PM:

Obama's desperation is showing. If you can't use the facts, resort to lies. It's sad. The nation needs leadership, not bleedership. The issues of extreme peril to our nation require our best minds who understand the gravity of our times. Hilliary is obviously the one who should be President.

DTM wrote on November 19, 2007 6:40 PM:

anonymous and Anonymous,

It is true that Clinton is leading in (almost all) of the primary polls, but of course that does not prove she is particularly good at conveying sincerity, optimism, and an idealistic vision. Indeed, obviously all of Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry actually won enough primaries to become the nominee, but they still were not particularly good at projecting a winning image.

It is interesting to ask, though, why the Democrats in particular have lately (meaning starting in about 1984) been so bad about choosing good nominees, with the exception of Bill Clinton. I have my theories about why they keep repeating basically the same mistake, but it is certainly a complicated subject.

slb,

Indeed, Senator Clinton has very little electoral experience. She has never been in an election against a better known and better financed candidate, never faced a serious primary challenge, and never faced a serious general election challenge. Most significant to me is that in her brief career, she has never lost an election of any sort.

That may sound like an odd thing to complain about, but most politicians who started from the bottom will say that they learned some very important things from their failed efforts. And indeed the best politicians of my time both failed on more than one occasion: Bill Clinton failed in his first effort to get elected to the House, and he also lost his re-election bid for Governor in 1980. Reagan failed to get the Republican nominations in both 1968 and 1976.

So, I would indeed suggest that not only is Senator Clinton light on electoral experience, but even during her brief time in politics she has remained relatively untested by any sort of serious adversity.

Desider wrote on November 19, 2007 6:59 PM:

I think Hillary's running because she wants to be President and thinks she can do a good job.

So far she seems like the most eager and most professional at going about it.

I'm not sure exactly why having the last name "Clinton" should preclude her from being President. Perhaps anyone born on an odd Tuesday with Saturn ascendant? Like if she earns it, she gets to keep it. Would it bother anyone if George Clinton were on the ticket? Baddest mothership around - and he knows how to change a diaper as well.

MikeB wrote on November 19, 2007 7:16 PM:

Wait a minute. Doesn't Obama claim in his book that he wanted to be US President way back when he was in kindergarden?

votenic wrote on November 19, 2007 7:45 PM:

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.

Steverino wrote on November 19, 2007 8:07 PM:

Call it the Original Sin of the US Presidency. You can't get to the White House without a little mud or blood on your hands, or both.

Oso wrote on November 19, 2007 8:09 PM:

Joe 11:23
"The real substance, it seems to me, of Obama's remark is that there is something fundamentally wrong with a democracy that now defaults to the oligarchic practice of electing via family relationship: two Clintons, two Bushes ... Obviously a genuinely democratic process fielding qualified candidates from a richly talented populace would make these candidates unfathomable, instead of the choice of conventional wisdom."

Unfortunately, if the out-sized, over-the-top sniping doesn't stop we won't be able to get qualified people to run for dog catcher. It's OK to disagree, it's OK to disagree and protest. It's not OK to slander those in public service.

If we don't quit this immature sniping our choices will continue to be less than satisfactory. If we can't act like adults (this includes all the media) we deserve the gvmt we get.

CalD wrote on November 19, 2007 8:36 PM:

Wow. You know I was just predicting the other day that the way things were going, we'd probably hear some otherwise sensible Democrat cite a Matt Drudge smear attempt against Clinton before this race was over. Guess I just wasn't thinking big enough. This is definitely going to get ugly.

jumblyaya wrote on November 19, 2007 9:06 PM:

It is ludicrous to equate Bush/bush with Clinton/Clinton and call them both oligarchy. Bush Sr. was son of a Senator but had real experience before winning the presidency (though certainly with sleazy tactics). Bush Jr. is a pathetic silver spoon, born-on-third base weenie with no redeeming qualities.

Senator Clinton certainly benefitted from her marriage, but she and President Clinton are both true examples of the American dream and came from the middle class and less and have proved they deserve what they have earned.

If I hear this oligarchy argument one more time I will puke!

AP wrote on November 19, 2007 9:46 PM:

Wish OBAMA would go away...he was supposed to be different - guess that only lasts so long - getting sick of losing in polls - beginning to believe his own rhetoric and hype. Barack Obama is horrible and falling right into play with the Republicans. If he is the nominee, he won't be able to handle the right wing...just won't be able to hack it. Anyone catch the news footage of Barack (the Rock-Star) gang up on the 65 year old lady. She admitted to being a republican - not going to vote for him or any other dem. He pretty much yelled at her - disrespectful bastard. She was an old lady. Just because he got frustrated because HE or any of the other dems cannot answer the questions on undocumented workers in this country. Oh how I despise Barack Obama. He is a complete idiot and joke. Anyone, seriously, considering this self-proclaimed GOD as a president is foolish. Big news today - his wife is co-hosting the View - that also a joke - maybe they could go on Oprah and have an TV fundraiser...that would be great...yuck, yuck, yuck - Barack Obama Sucks!!!!

Jane wrote on November 19, 2007 10:01 PM:

Anyone in America can become President -- um, unless of course she is a successful politician and the wife of a past successful President . Then it's a sin?

On the topic of entitlement: precisely ,what is it about Obama's 3(three) years of national experience that qualifies him to be President?

On the topic of Hillary's energizing effect on the Republicans: they couldn't even recruit a decent candidate against her in New York.

jongold wrote on November 19, 2007 11:05 PM:

AP wrote on November 19, 2007 9:46 PM:
"Wish OBAMA would go away...he was supposed to be different - guess that only lasts so long - getting sick of losing in polls - beginning to believe his own rhetoric and hype. Barack Obama is horrible and falling right into play with the Republicans. If he is the nominee, he won't be able to handle the right wing...just won't be able to hack it. Anyone catch the news footage of Barack (the Rock-Star) gang up on the 65 year old lady. She admitted to being a republican - not going to vote for him or any other dem. He pretty much yelled at her - disrespectful bastard. She was an old lady. Just because he got frustrated because HE or any of the other dems cannot answer the questions on undocumented workers in this country. Oh how I despise Barack Obama. He is a complete idiot and joke. Anyone, seriously, considering this self-proclaimed GOD as a president is foolish. Big news today - his wife is co-hosting the View - that also a joke - maybe they could go on Oprah and have an TV fundraiser...that would be great...yuck, yuck, yuck - Barack Obama Sucks!!!!"

Why are you such a hater. You sound like an irrational Repub talking about HRC. I like HRC but support Obama because he can (a) unite the country better than the others: (b) is not nearly as hated is by Repubs who have a deep-seated aversion to Clinton; (c) believe he is slightly more liberal than Clinton; (d) in every instance I've seen on C-Span he's been courteous and does not tell questioners just what he thinks they want to hear; (e) will present an image to the rest of the world, particularly the moderate part of the Muslim world that contrasts sharply with Bush. Just because I support Obama doesn't mean I hate the others. If you see an Obama speech he claims he has faults and says he has to stay grounded: your claim he thinks he's Jesus is false. I'm frankly concerned about anyone's sanity who spouts off like that.

If you remember 1860 election Lincoln had less experience than Obama and ran against 2 heavyweights Seward and Chase. His lack of experience didn't stop him from being a great President. Kennedy got us though the October missile crisis despite his youth.

john wrote on November 19, 2007 11:34 PM:

One of our more crippling founding myths is the idea that our greatest politicians were called to service, drafted because of some urgent need, despite overwhelming personal reluctance, to right a nation mired in crisis, unmoored from its virtuous past. These men, or so the story goes, had dropped their plowshares and found themselves then carried on the shoulders of a desperate public to serve our country like modern day Cincinnatuses. Ambition played no role in their ascendence. They were compelled by some deep-seeded sense of civic virtue, almost passive observers to their own election. These are our heroic civic republicans. Our Jeffersons, Madisons, and Washingtons. And to this day we still find ourselves repulsed when we get a whiff of any scent that even reminds us of ambition. This is the most pernicious form of American exceptionalism–a timeless piece of American apocrypha.

Fortunately, ambition, and all its attendant pettiness, is what is required to reach the White House. Washington had it. Lincoln had it. FDR had it. And it is outsized ambition that drives presidents to concern themselves with historical legacy. It is this concern that moves them to transcend the everyday and take political risks for reasons that are both disarmingly selfless and hugely selfish; it is this concern that creates truly great leaders, that compels them to take extraodinary risks in times of extreme crisis.

Greatness and Ambition are comorbid conditions. You cannot wish for one and not expect the other.

Paul wrote on November 20, 2007 12:01 AM:

It is time to sop this country from being an aristocracy and turn it back into a meritocracy. No one has worked harder, sudied harder, and prayed harder, than Obama. This is a change election and we need a new name on the ballot. People born after 1959 have the right to see a national ballot without a Clinton or Bush on it.

CalD wrote on November 20, 2007 1:32 AM:

I really don't think that excuses using discredited dregs of the Arkansas project and republican talking points in place of ideas of his own to draw distinctions with Clinton. What's he do for an encore? Announce Ken Starr as his running mate?

JoAnne wrote on November 20, 2007 1:37 AM:

I take issue with the headline of your blog. I wish I still had the Gerth/VanNatta book on my shelf so that I could quote directly but I don't, having passed it on.
But over the last year or so I have been reading and researching to try to join the Hillery band wagon but I can't.

This book was one of the most detailed and documented books I have seen. 40 pages of foot notes by two Pulitsat Prise winning investigative reporters.

Read the book or last month's Vanity Fair or this month's Atlantic Monthly.

The well documented evidence is piling up. She is, as defined by all that research, most concerned about her political stature and legacy. I won't vote for her, I hope you don't either.

Larry from Purdue wrote on November 20, 2007 1:41 AM:

Smart strategy for Barack. He's got a great reputation across Iowa and he's hammering into Hillary's higher-than-average negatives there.

JDS wrote on November 20, 2007 1:45 AM:

Is there really anyone who does not believe that the Clintons have had a very,very long term plan for her to be President, regardless of what was written by journalists?? It seems laughable for anyone to argue differently.
More important,what is most puzzling is do any Clinton supporters actually LIKE her?? Or do they just want a woman or a Clinton in office?
What the Democrats must realize is that liking Hillary is not a natural reaction to her, and it will be risky to put her up for the general election. Moreover,how can she tout her experience as her strenghth when she is NOT the most experienced of the field. If her people think experience is as important as they say, then they should be supporting Biden or Dodd.There is NO reason to support Hillary based on talent or aptitude to lead.

RickD wrote on November 20, 2007 4:49 AM:

When I was 8 years old, I wanted to be the President of the USA some day.

Now it seems I'm disqualified!

There are probably a million college students who have some kind of plan for political success. And some of them will succeed.

I'm not seeing what the offense is here. Hillary Clinton is guilty of...having long-term goals? Well sign me up! It's high time _somebody_ in politics had long-term goals, instead of twisting in response to every poll that comes down the pike!

JDS: I'm not a bona fide Clinton supporter, but what I like about her as a candidate is that she's smart and she fights back when her reputation is personally attacked.

Off Colfax wrote on November 20, 2007 6:15 AM:

Re: Greg_Sargent_Strikes_Again's comments every two hours.

Dude. We get the hint. STFU.

And seeing as how this is an organization that is staffed to the hilt with progressives, I'd say yes. There are plenty of examples of biased reporting over the last 6 or so years. They do their best to not let their biases show, but they are only human and can therefore err on occasion.

It is merely that, in this instance, your own bias is in disagreement with Greg's.

Again. STFU.

DemAC wrote on November 20, 2007 7:45 AM:

timnlisa1 wrote: I really hope that I am wrong on all 3 counts, but I don't think so

Don’t you worry. Senator Clinton confronts the polarizing issue and she does it magnificently.

Perplexed wrote on November 20, 2007 12:39 PM:

I am really surprized to see the level of anger going on here. I don't expect this from a "smart" site like TPM and I am really put off.

TPM is pro-Hillary...fine. That's pretty obvious and it's great that you do have some energy on that side. But Hillary supporters need to understand that in a lot of ways, she is a polarizing candidate. Simply the fact of being related to someone who already was president and did some controversial things makes that pretty much true. But you guys are going out of your way to make that even more true and you really need to stop it. This is starting to look like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Incessantly bashing a more grassroots campaign as "inept" looks a lot like bullying to me. You are the big dogs and you seem to have small dog syndrome.

This article is a ridiculous attempt to make Obama drawing a standard kind of political distinction into some kind of a conspiracy theorist. All he is saying is the age old line that his positions have not been calculated for political gain. And when you look at the Iraq and Iran votes, you have to agree he at least is onto a valid line of discussion with regards to HRC.

My advice to the HRC/DLC wing is to back off. Most of us Obamanians are genuinely just enthused about his candidacy and have started with little ill will towards HRC or DLC. We just question whether Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton is such a good idea and such a good message to send to our young and to the world. It feels like an old fight we don't want to continue. OK? Nothing personal.

And look at it pragmatically. Despite running a DLC compromise platform that has Hillary calling eliminating the 100G SoSec cap a "trillion dollar tax increase on the middle class," you are pulling very few independents. Think about that. This isn't insane or "Hillary derangement syndrome" (which we might note was flat cribbed from the Rushwing's Bush formulation) or fear of vaginamonsters. It's pragmatic and progressive. Accept that and move on and we will be able to make up later if and when you win. Ratchet up the machine every time a little piece of Hillary armor gets dinged, and we're going to get scorched earth.

To alot of us, Obama is a great symbol, a great story, and a great hope. And if you browbeat that with your "superior organization" and rub our faces in it, we really are going to be irrationally angry.

McCain and Romney are not THAT bad. Seriously, I think McCain has issued at least as strong and much more clear anti-torture messages as Hillary, and Romney seems so weak-willed I think the dem congress could rule.

No Dynasties wrote on November 21, 2007 11:02 AM:

In a polity of over 300 million, we've had enough of them.
http://www.nodynasties.com

Diana wrote on January 24, 2008 7:56 PM:

Obama sounds more like a republican everyday. His campaign is grasping at straws now. As a voter I prefer a candidate that can focus on the issues and how electing THEM would change MY life... this whiney and angry one minute, and the hurt little victim then next, makes me glad I reconsidered my support for him. To think he was actually my first choice before I realized his character and that of the people that run his campaign. He's sooo republican, can't run on their own ideas, has to run on attacks and blowing up minor statements by other candidates into giant grievances. What a disappointment he is. Who's he going to next for Clinton material? Lucianne Goldberg? Kenneth Starr? Reagan's astrologer?

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

Obama Camp Uses Disputed Gerth Account Of Clintons' 20-Year-Plan To Fault Hillary

Comments (189)

Post a comment

All Times ET

Tomorrow - Friday, January 30, 2009