Bill Clinton Rips Obama In Charlie Rose Interview
Bill Clinton is definitely taking the gloves off against Barack Obama. In an interview with Charlie Rose, taped last night, Bill said the following:
• That "it's not close" in terms of how much better prepared Hillary is to be president;
• That picking Obama would be a "risk";
• Likened nominating Obama to picking "a gifted television commentator";
• Criticized Obama for beginning his presidential campaign after only one year in the Senate;
• Called Obama a mere "symbol for change," adding that "symbol is not as important as substance";
Bill also sought to downplay expectations for Hillary in Iowa, saying that "It's a miracle she even has a chance."
The bottom line: The next three weeks ought to be really fun.
Late Update: Check out this truly brutal excerpt:
Late Late Update: The whole thing is available here.
Comments (319)
SJW wrote on December 15, 2007 1:13 PM:I hope that Obama (and, just as importantly, his campaign staff) doesn't take the "bait." He should let the nasty comments slide (but use them to his advantage), saying something like, "I don't see how this elevates political discourse or helps his wife's campaign. And such statements are precisely why we need change in Washington ..."
Michael wrote on December 15, 2007 1:21 PM:As could be expected, the Clinton's put their own self-interests ahead of those of the party and the country. It's more worthwhile to hurt Obama's GE electability in the service of denying him the nomination than it is to try to win the nomination on the merits in the first. That's nice.
I used to like Bill. Now I can't wait till he's out of politics. If Obama is the GE, of course there will be GOP ads with Bill saying he's not ready and what not. Awesome. Thanks Bill! Really doing the party a great service there!
Josh wrote on December 15, 2007 1:21 PM:Desperate much?
savvy wrote on December 15, 2007 1:22 PM:I agree SJW
I am also glad that Rose has a very limited viewing market. Most of the masses never even heard of Rose. I suppose WJC's remarks will be put into a soundbite replayed on Hardball,CNN and Fox though.
Now, we know what Bill has been saying to the status quo politicians endorsing Hillary.
This makes me wonder how much of a fair game it is for hits to now start about Bill's tawdry and licentious behavior.
That should be a real American concern to have to be dragged through all that lasciviousness again.
I expect Larry Flynn to expose Clintons philandering sense leaving the WH, following this Rose interview.
Things are going to get nasty.
Afterall, Obama may be the political opponent, but he did not raise 75M because Hillary is so well liked. Lots of people unassociated with Obama's campaign will use this as incentive to come out and knock the Clintons.
Geffen told us a long time ago that not only are the Clintons extraordinary liars but they also do it with exceptional ease.
Seems like this Rose interview fits what Geffen said.
DRinOH wrote on December 15, 2007 1:23 PM:Well put SJW, I echo those sentiments.
People keep saying it's a sign of weakness to not respond to attacks, but the circumstances right now are a little unusual. Hillary is tanking and every time she (or a surrogate, authorized or not) attacks, it is perceived not as contrasting or explaining, but as dirty politics and negativity. Clearly this stuff has backfired on her at about a 95% clip, so rather than entangling himself in this "debate," he should just let the media, already looking for any chance to punch Hillary, do his bidding for him.
Also, is it just me, or has Bill's involvement in this campaign severely diminished his post-presidency reputation. We had a good run with Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton, through all their humanitarian efforts. But now it seems like, as people turn on Hillary, they are starting to turn on Bill a little bit too. Maybe not the people who aren't watching closely, but at least the "insiders" and politicos here in the blogosphere seem to be. Again, that might be just me though...
Peter wrote on December 15, 2007 1:24 PM:Bill says Hilary is the real change candidate. 4 more years of a Clinton Presidency. How does that sound or look like a change?
This fits into Obamas message of change because like it or not Bill really is the top class of partisan politics. His comments help no one but Republicans.
When will someone ask precisely how it is that Hillary is "more qualified" than Obama? What experience did she gain while First Lady that somehow makes her so much better prepared?
Andrew Sullivan notes that WJC was nervously wringing his hands and red-faced during parts of the interview discussing problems Hillary has had. Shall be interesting to see if that makes it onto TV.
John McCutchen wrote on December 15, 2007 1:25 PM:For a different take..
The Atlantic
Towards the end of the interview, Rose indicated that Clinton's staff was asking producers in his show's control room to get them to have Rose end the interview. And Clinton said: "Somebody will parse this interview..." to take his quotes out of context. "It is stupid... I think we are fortunate in having people..I think the relevant question from me is, who will be the best president who has a proven record of making change in the lives of other people." They may parse his body language. Toward the end of the interview, his hands began to shake and his face reddened as he discussed the political thicket his wife finds herself in.
Doggie Alzheimer's Big Dog Rambles on Charlie Rose
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/bill_clinton_well_he_just_puts_1.php
The more Mrs Bill's Ball and Chain rambles, the happier her opponents will be
John McCutchen wrote on December 15, 2007 1:30 PM:Days since Senator Clinton promised she was not interested in attacking Democrats:35bvd wrote on December 15, 2007 1:35 PM:Days that Senator Clinton has spent attacking Democrats since making that promise:31
Said it before and I'll it again: if Hillary gets the nom the Repugs will make sure that the general public has a relapse of "Clinton Fatigue" long before the autumn. And good ol' Bill is proving my point. Why on earth would anyone want to live through this nonsense again?
I'll vote for her if she gets the nom but I'm praying she doesn't.
LJ wrote on December 15, 2007 1:41 PM:Wouldn't it be awesome if Joe Biden somehow charged to the front and won the Iowa caucuses? Or Chris Dodd? I'd love to hear the Clinton's stutter and stammer as they explain how Hillary's scant 7 years in the Senate stack up against Biden's 34 years in Congress and Dodd's 32 years.
This experience argument from Hillary is such a house of cards. She has the experience of voting in favor of the Iraq War. She has the experience of wiping her ass with the bill of rights when she voted in favor of the Patriot Act. She has the experience of voting for federal control of schools in the form of No Child Left Behind.
Steve LaBonne wrote on December 15, 2007 1:43 PM:Remind me again, how many years did Bill Clinton serve in national office before running for President?
breakspear wrote on December 15, 2007 1:45 PM:just.remember.folks.hating.and/or.not.liking.the.Clintons.is.one.thing.but.having.the.Republicans.retain.the.WH.is.not.an.option...they.dont.deserve.to.have.any.leadership.positions.for.years.to.come.for.foisting.GWB.onto.this.country...the.GOP.needs.to.pay.for.W.and.in.spades...
NYFM wrote on December 15, 2007 1:53 PM:Well I happen to agree with Bill, and I also hope somehow Biden or Dodd comes out of Iowa with major mojo. Obama will be very easy pickings for the rightwing attack machine. Indeed, it's not even close.
Ni Daye wrote on December 15, 2007 1:53 PM:Steve LaBonne -
FYi, Clinton was governor of AR for 10 years, a founder of DLC, and the head of NGA.
JFK was a two-term senator like Mrs. Clinton.
One cannot dream change. You have to work for change.
lampwick wrote on December 15, 2007 1:55 PM:Lipstick on a pig, Bill.
Katie wrote on December 15, 2007 1:56 PM:It is far past time for these two to politely go back to their respective careers.He is beginning to look a lot like a used car salesman and she is looking just like what she is. I am sick to death of both of them and how they are out for nothing but themselves at the expense of everyone and everything else.
Keith wrote on December 15, 2007 1:57 PM:http://www.rjmatson.com/frames_N.htm
robert ethan wrote on December 15, 2007 1:59 PM:The perception that somehow "Hillary is tanking" is not supported by the polls. If you follow the history of the Rasmussen tracking polls, the numbers now ARE ALMOST IDENTICAL to when they first started to poll about 18 months ago. There have been blips up and down over that time, but substantially, ALL CANDIDATES HAVE CLOSE TO THE SAME SUPPORT THEY DID STARTING OUT.
I realize polls are not necessarily good indicators of an ultimate outcome, but they are the best we have at the moment.
All the blather in the media about the Clinton campaign "faltering" and Obama "surging" seems more an effort to create a horse race, and perk up consumer interest in the process.
Keith wrote on December 15, 2007 2:00 PM:Obama will be very easy pickings for the rightwing attack machine.
I think recent events should disspell this notion once and for all. He's handling the likes of the Clinton with grace and aplomb. But hey, keep underestimating him, it's your right.
Mike timmons wrote on December 15, 2007 2:01 PM:What was Bill's big resume like when he took office? Gov. of a s-hole state? What is Hillary's big resume? Voting yes on a war of choice, helping Bill decimate the social safety net, and being a freshman Senator? Let us not forget, Hillary got the Democratic Party affiliation effed into her, she was a Republican until Bill.
Once a Goldwater Girl, always a Goldwater Girl. Just look at her voting record, Republican thru and thru
Ni Daye wrote on December 15, 2007 2:01 PM:There may be a lot of upside in Obama but can we really take this risk at this time? He said he could change the course of this country by getting people togehter? Just by talking a good talk? Has he ever shown that?
clinton, on the other hand, has worked across the aisle at many occassions to bring about meaningful changes. She works with Sam Brownback, she works with Hagel. heck, she even works with Newt Gingrich on health information reform.
I know you hate Clinton because she may turn out to be a moderate like her husband.
You extreminists will be losers at any society!
Will wrote on December 15, 2007 2:02 PM:If Bill wants to support his wife for President over the other guy, it doesn't matter to me. He is, in fact, the only Democrat elected to office in 28 years.
Obama's main strength is representing change, and the fact that he is a Washington outsider. Yet, of any of the Republicans he runs against - Huckabee, Romney, or Giuliani - who is the Washington insider? Obama is!
Call me pessimistic, but I don't see Hillary or Obama winning the general election, and I'm not in love with Hillary by any means. I just think she has the better chance to win of the two.
We shall see...
Keith wrote on December 15, 2007 2:02 PM:Robert Ethan:
Have you looked at the trends on pollster for Iowa and New Hampshire? Not a pretty picture for HRC.
http://www.pollster.com/08-IA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
http://www.pollster.com/08-NH-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
bg wrote on December 15, 2007 2:03 PM:I'm in Obama's camp precisely because of his experience. In his adult life he has worked as a civil rights attorney, professor of constitutional law, community organizer, state senator, and now United States Senator. It is a clear record of a life lived in the public interest, and compares very favorably to the biography of not only Clinton, but John Edwards, a multi-million dollar trial lawyer who would have you believe that he's William Jennings Bryan. I would challenge the pundits to flesh out the question of experience, rather than let it hang mutely as some ill-defined qualification for the presidency. Does it mean that one has been "vetted"? Does it mean that one was built up a network of politically advantageous relationships? Is it about statecraft? Biography? The question as posed in the media is being too broadly framed, and should be addressed with respect for its complexity.
F.Igwealor wrote on December 15, 2007 2:04 PM:Bill’s attack on Obama is a sign of bigger desperation from the Clinton campaign. It will not have any effect on Obama surge. Moreover, Bill’s support for Edwards to win Iowa is also a sign of how devious the Clintons are; knowing fully well that Edwards lacks enough money to mount a serious challenge on Hillary, an Edwards’ win invariably, according to Bill is a Hillary win.
Hillary Clinton Campaign is a sinking ship
The most recent early states and national polls show that Hillary's campaign, which until her Philly debate fumble was a poll-dominant inevitability, is currently sinking lower every day. And there seem to be that no effort being make to stop the decline was working. Below are several of the efforts to save Hillary's campaign that has failed:
* CNN's rigged debate and after debate spin
* Her campaign's rush to play the gender card
* Bill complaining of his wife being pilled on
* Arm-twisting of the NY Gov to help her on immigration
* Bill's daily show in Iowa
* Her accusation of the opponents for mud-slinging
* Novak's scandal rumor
Below are Hillary's campaign new efforts that will not save it from crashing to the ground:
* Her current mud-slinging on Obama
* Racking up thousand and one endorsements
* Even the endorsement of NH's Gov's wife, Dr. Susan Lynch
* Going to church on Sunday
* Aggressively attacking Obama
* New emphasis on her (actually John Edward's) healthcare
* Getting all the Senators, Congressmen, and other members of the democratic establishment to endorse her
With all due respect to the theory of inevitability, which was built on polls, Hillary's current consistent slide in the polls and her current lack-luster performance in match-up against top 5 Republican nomination candidates is the final straw that broke the Carmel's back.
Now, Bill is out and telling us to expect Hillary to loose Iowa, NH, and SC and still win the nomination. I thought that Bill’s admission means that Evita is dead, but good old Bill would want to keep people in the dark as to the status of the race.
Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign is crumbling faster than Dean's and do not expect that downside momentum to stop.
If Hillary loose Iowa and NH to Obama, she is out of this race.
Barack Obama seems like a brilliant and eloquent man, but I'm appalled at the level of discourse and intellect displayed by his supporters in these comments.
It seems true of every other blog I've looked at as well. With all due respect to the man himself, he has the ugliest, lowest common denominator, following of all the candidates by a good margin. Maybe it's the Oprah factor.
Anonymous wrote on December 15, 2007 2:07 PM:Or maybe it's a response to the vitrol and insulting comments like yours from HRC supporters.
Ni Daye wrote on December 15, 2007 2:09 PM:For you Obama girls who love to compare Obamer to JFK, let's compare their experience. Obama may have enough experience to serve as JFK's butler:
John Fitzgerald Kennedy (May 29, 1917–November 22, 1963), was the thirty-fifth President of the United States, serving from 1961 until his assassination in 1963.
After Kennedy's leadership as commander of the USS PT-109 during World War II in the South Pacific, his aspirations turned political. Kennedy represented the state of Massachusetts in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1947 to 1953 as a Democrat, and in the U.S. Senate from 1953 until 1961. Kennedy defeated former Vice President and Republican candidate Richard Nixon in the 1960 U.S. presidential election, one of the closest in American history. To date, he is the only practicing Roman Catholic to be elected President and the only President to have won a Pulitzer Prize.[1] His administration witnessed the Bay of Pigs Invasion, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the building of the Berlin Wall, the Space Race, the American Civil Rights Movement and early events of the Vietnam War.
Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas. Lee Harvey Oswald was charged with the crime, but was murdered two days later by Jack Ruby before he could be put on trial. The Warren Commission concluded that Oswald had acted alone in killing the president; however, the House Select Committee on Assassinations declared in 1979 that there may have been a conspiracy. The entire subject remains controversial, with multiple theories about the assassination still being debated. The event proved to be a poignant moment in U.S. history due to its impact on the nation and the ensuing political fallout. Many regard President Kennedy as an icon of American hopes and aspirations; he continues to rank highly in public opinion ratings of former U.S. presidents.[2]
I knew Hillary's campaign was gonna do some counterproductive things when numbers went south, but thought Bill would be smart enough to avoid it. He was a great president, but let's face it: his personal integrity and judgement are a tenth of Obama's. This is just more proof.
I mean seriously...how do any of the 5 bullet points listed in the article above do anything other than hurt his wife's chances against Obama? How does likening Obama to "a gifted television commentator" help HRC's campaign?
Michael A wrote on December 15, 2007 2:12 PM:Absolutely anon, I had to read bobby's post twice. I thought he was referring to clinton II people. They are bar none the worst. It's just insults and spin, no discourse. I guess that's what the talking points are, just hurl insults. I can't wait until the clintons are out to pasture. Its time to turn the page.
Avoid Abble Aphteral wrote on December 15, 2007 2:15 PM:It is the Democratic Party, not the DLC or the Bill 'n Hill show.
Anon wrote on December 15, 2007 2:15 PM:The Clintons have passed their prime. Now they are starting to embarrass themselves. Wait. They started doing that some time ago.
Clinton fatigue already.
BlueDog wrote on December 15, 2007 2:16 PM:it's just insults and spin
Actually, that's been Obama's campaign for the last 6 weeks. His people HATE Hillary. It's a campaign driven out of mis-guided hate. They don't even know who Obama is. President Clinton is right, Obama is a risk. The Republicans would destroy him. It's going to be Hillary, so all haters should watch your language and get ready for Denver. We need to be a united party in November.
Finally the truth is told. Obama is a neophyte that the Republicans would eat for dinner.
Biden, Dodd, Richards, Edwards and Clinton have all proven to be agents of Change. Obama has proven nothing. He has accomplished nothing in the Senate...when he actually shows up to vote.
Moreover, his state senate record is equally spotty...voting present. Great job taking a stand Barak.
robert ethan wrote on December 15, 2007 2:17 PM:Keith wrote on December 15, 2007 2:02 PM:
Robert Ethan:
Have you looked at the trends on pollster for Iowa and New Hampshire? Not a pretty picture for HRC.
http://www.pollster.com/08-IA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
http://www.pollster.com/08-NH-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
Well, if I'm following all those squiggly lines correctly, Keith, it seems to me that Hillary's national support has been constant throughout the process, and so has her Iowa support. Obama appears to have risen in Iowa at the expense of Edwards. Tacky graphs aside, how is it "not a pretty picture" for HRC?
IIRC, Howard Dean was in the EXACT POSITION THAT OBAMA IS NOW, four years ago in regard to Iowa. Running on the same mantra, depending on the same demographic, and utilizing the same methods.
Anonymous wrote on December 15, 2007 2:17 PM:I don't have anything bad to say about any of these people . . . well except Obama.
Thanks Bill.
Mike timmons wrote on December 15, 2007 2:18 PM:How about if we compare Obama to Hillary?
Hillary is a one term Senator who has not passed any substatiative legislation. Obama is a one term Senator who has passed substatiative legislation.
Obama did it on his own. Hillary got elected in NY due to her husband having been President. Obama is self made. Is Hillary?
Which one knew the war with Iraq was folly? Who has always voted against it?
It wasn't the one who married her way into the White House.
Hillary will not win the White House, the only question is whether the Democratic Party will self immolate itself again.
BlueDog wrote on December 15, 2007 2:21 PM:Mike timmons.............you're pathetic. Do a little research before you make a post.
Keith wrote on December 15, 2007 2:22 PM:Robert Ethan:
Sorry, Dean reference doesn't apply here. Dean was the prohibitive front runner for MONTHS coming into December. Obama is just now claiming that mantle, if the polls are to be believed. If anyone fits that mantle, then it would be the quasi-incumbent HRC who's been the front runner since late this summer.
And the Laugh on Thursday reminded me of the Scream.....
mg wrote on December 15, 2007 2:23 PM:Marc Ambinder and ABCNews' Chalian saw things quite differently from this rather interesting take here at TPM. I won't reprint what is already posted upstream but in summary they viewed it as the sad ramblings of a past his prime politician trying to fight off the new guy.
Times are changing and alot of us are ready to turn the page. "Can't we all just get along?"--it is still the Democratic party and not the Clintoncratic party.
Anonymous wrote on December 15, 2007 2:24 PM:In Iowa, Hillary was at 31% in November. Now she is at 24. Obama was at 22 in Nov. Now, he is at 34.
Using real math, that would mean that Obama is now leading, as opposed to in Nov. when he was trailing.
Looks like you must have gone to the GW Bush school of fuzzy math, Ethan. Team Clinton is sinking like a blue dress in Whitewater.
Ni Daye wrote on December 15, 2007 2:25 PM:Anonymous wrote on December 15, 2007 2:17 PM:
Finally the truth is told. Obama is a neophyte that the Republicans would eat for dinner.
Biden, Dodd, Richards, Edwards and Clinton have all proven to be agents of Change. Obama has proven nothing. He has accomplished nothing in the Senate...when he actually shows up to vote.
---- Anonymous, you are right! And that's the reason I think Hillary's support in Iowa is under-reported although it may be my wishful thinking.
a). How many young hot-heads will make their way back to Iowa for caucusing.
b). Whoever chooss Dodd, Biden, and Richardson, he or she chooses experience. do you believe their supporters will switch from people who have a lot of experience to someone with no experience but a good functioning mouth?
c). I believe eventually a lot of experienced people will be offended by Obama's touting of his inexperience and so called born superb judgement. I believe Ted kennedy will soon endorse clinton. He will tell Obama: Senator O, I know you a little bit for the days you show up for work, I know President kennedy very well. Sir, you are no jack kennedy!
Thanks Blue Dog . . . I'll see your misguided hate and raise you with a campaign with no direction and supporters who's only rationale for supporting their candidate is fear.
This is just example #9,221 of the politics of fear as practiced by Clinton during this primary.
Michael A wrote on December 15, 2007 2:27 PM:There you go again bluedog. It's all just hate, hate, hate, hate. When in doubt throw out the hate card. Nobody raises a valid point obout clinton II they just hate her right. You clinton II lovers just crack me up. The bottom line is all dem sheep should just get in line and praise the queen. Just wait for the coronation.
The problem is that she will get slaughtered in the general election. She's spinning out of control over stupid misteps that were her own doing. The republicans will make mincemeat out of her.
If the republicans nominate the huckster, she doesn't have a chance. The other ones, it would have to be blind luck that she wins, but in the long run democracy and america loses. If she's the nominee, I am willing to bet the dems don't even hold the senate and lose seats in the house. Is that what the dems want? More stagnation. Anybody but clinton II in 08.
DRinOH,
The point about our ex-Presidents losing their moral capital is a very important one to me, because senior statesmen have tended to put a sunnier face on America to the world lately.
Jimmy Carter has tremendous gravitas on the world stage still, but he's 83. What if HRC is the nominee (and the Dems remain likely to win)? If Bill circles the wagons with Hillary right now, and Hillary can't afford to associate herself with George W. Bush, and H.W. aligns himself with his son, what are we left with?
Carter, who is a saint but whose health can't be expected to take him through another decade.
Both Bushes, who will be drawn down together by the legacy of the younger.
Bill Clinton, who can probably keep his Global Initiative up but might be stretched too thin due to a bitter campaign with his wife (if HRC goes into the general election).
Rather than a roster of 4 ex-Presidents who, whatever their shortcomings, can still command moral authority and big-time capital in a tragedy, we're left with two dynastic camps simmering at each other.
We have Carter as long as he holds out, and Gore should he decide to remain out of politics, but is it enough?
Bear in mind that favorable opinion of the USA in Indonesia hovered around 70% at the end of Clinton's term for our unconditional backing despite atrocities against East Timor. Islamic solidarity dropped that opinion to 15% by the time of the tsunami, in the world's largest Muslim country (smack between allies India, Australia, and Singapore). We *had* to do some damage control in Indonesia, and the tsunami was our opening. If such a scenario happens again, would we be able to capitalize on an opening if our bench hates each other openly and on the record?
donna L. wrote on December 15, 2007 2:27 PM:In the Charlie Rose interview, Bill repeats the lie that he did not run in 1988 because he felt he was too inexperienced. Here two accounts that dispute his claim:
From a review of Carl Bernstein's book "A Woman in Charge"
http://www.augustfalling.com/index.php?s=holed
Bill Clinton, Candidate
Bill Clinton always had his eye on the Presidency. It was where he could do the most good. He considered running in 1988, but decided against it. One issue was the amount of time it would take away from his family life–both he and Hillary were determined to be good parents. The real reason, though, was that at that time, his problems with women would have sunk his campaign.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/10/obama-clinton-e.html
Obama, Clinton, Experience
01 Oct 2007 09:50 am
Bob Reich counters the Clintons on the experience question:
While I can understand Bill Clinton's eagerness to undermine his wife's most significant primary opponent, he is not, I believe, completely ingenuous. I happened to talk with him in 1988 before he decided not to run, and also in 1991 before he decided to run the following year. His calculation at both times was decidedly rational and entirely political, based on whether he could win.
The longer this slimefest drags on, the more I lose respect for Bill Clinton.
I have a 2-word answer for the Clintons and all those attacking Obama's lack of experience: Abraham Lincoln.
Prior to 1860, Lincoln served 8 years in the Illinois legislature. His only national political experience consisted of a single term in the House of Representative - a seat he lost because he opposed Polk's War in Mexico. He later lost 2 U.S. Senate races but became a national figure due to the wisdom and brilliance of his speeches.
Sound familiar?
mydd's devasting take on Obama wrote on December 15, 2007 2:31 PM:Preacher Barack Obama
by Jerome Armstrong, Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 09:12:12 PM EST
Talking smack:
"I take the Clinton campaign's word that they didn't know what this guy was doing and I understand all that," Obama said, "but the one thing I will say is I told my staff that if I catch you guys doing any kind of stuff like this you're fired. Period."
"And I think what we need to do -- and I told this to senator Clinton yesterday -- is that we need to send a strong message to all of our surrogates and all of our staffs, that we don't play that," he said. "I know my staff has gotten that message because it's one that I delivered several months ago and I haven't seen that come out of their mouths."
Yes, that's why Barack Obama fired those staffers of his that came up with the racial slur Punjab-D to describe Clinton; and that's why Obama's fired the staffer that sidled up to Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic, to ask "when reporters would begin to look into Bill Clinton's post presidential sex life." That's probably Robert Gibbs, one of the sleaziest of the sleazy, that works as Obama's Communications Director.
Right.
This drug stuff was a timid issue that the Obama campaign over reacted too, making it a bigger story than it needed to be. And now Obama is starting to sound petty and thin-skinned. What's Obama gonna do in the general election when he confronts a real propoganda takedown machine? Is he gonna lecture them while they rip him to pieces?
Update [2007-12-14 22:4:38 by Jerome Armstrong]: This whole drug thing is annoying and stupid. Shaheen was a jerk for making that statement. I wish the Obama campaign would have just ignored it. I tried to not blog at all about it, then nearly did so because of that stupid Hardball episode this am, and managed to avoid it, but then came across this ridiculous spin by Obama-- long past when it should have been dead.
That said, I do think there might be something there about this having traction among the black community moving toward Obama-- and that might be why they are milking it politically. But if so, it's a short-term gain when compared with the longterm result of Republicans having an easier time re-opening the issue-- with a much harsher attack.
Bostonian wrote on December 15, 2007 2:32 PM:just watched the whole video and that may have been Bill's worst ever case for hillary as president i've ever seen. it almost made me wonder if Bill doesn't actually want hillary to be president for some reason or if he's just lost his touch. hillary's campaign might want to keep him quiet and try to win on their own (or at the very least force him to go all positive.)
Mike timmons wrote on December 15, 2007 2:33 PM:I guess I should tell you HRC lovers that, no, I will not support her in the general since I will not put my mark next to someone who voted yes for the war in Iraq, and has not apologized for it, and continues to defend her vote.
I will not vote for a Iraq war supporter in November. I put my country before my party.
How about you Bluedog? Constitution before Party? Who voted for the Patriot Act?
It wasn't Obama.
robert ethan wrote on December 15, 2007 2:34 PM:Keith wrote on December 15, 2007 2:22 PM:
Robert Ethan:
Sorry, Dean reference doesn't apply here. Dean was the prohibitive front runner for MONTHS coming into December. Obama is just now claiming that mantle, if the polls are to be believed. If anyone fits that mantle, then it would be the quasi-incumbent HRC who's been the front runner since late this summer.
And the Laugh on Thursday reminded me of the Scream.....
I'm talking about Iowa. At EXACTLY THIS POINT 4 YEARS AGO Dean was "surging into the lead" in Iowa. By about the same margin that the Research 2000 poll gives Obama. He had all the accolytes on the ground preaching "change", "hope", "anti-establishment", etc.
Also you cannot compare Hillary's national lead to Dean's, because H C has had that level of support SINCE BEFORE HOWARD DEAN DECLARED HIS CANDIDACY 6 years ago. Dean was the anti-establishment "fresh face" who came out of relative obscurity and pushed his way up the charts on the basis of "momentum".
Barack Obama is Howard Dean four years on.
Anonymous wrote on December 15, 2007 2:34 PM:Jerome Armstrong has no credibility.
c wrote on December 15, 2007 2:35 PM:I think it's sweet that he's so invested in her success, and if that's the toughest argument he can make against Obama I'm not all that worried!
RWn wrote on December 15, 2007 2:35 PM:Inevitability has led to scorched earth politique....Read this Clintonites....I know you are monitoring and infusing your efforts here and everywhere....
Lincoln didn't have the experience you are talking about....Neither did Ted Roosevelt or his cousin Franklin....
Oh my they might be considered the greatest ever....but let us ignore that and focus in on the obvious....Clinton's campaign is inevitably messed up tactically and strategically and the country an't buying what you are selling.
Obama is going away...and I hope he and Edwards form the dream team and bring down the entire corporate cabal you are not supporting
"Barack Obama is Howard Dean four years on"
And how did supporting "the electable candidate" work out for the Democratic Party in 2004?
Maybe we should have nominated Dean, ethan.
Bush could not have bashed Dean as flip flopping on the war, and maybe Dean would not have listened to Donna Brazille and those other perennial "Democratic insiders". Maybe we would have won.
Anonymous @ 2:17 posted:
He has accomplished nothing in the Senate...
Oh, that is completely disingenuous, and you know it.
How about the Federal Funding Accountability Act of 2006? That counts as 'nothing'? (source: dailykos diary by 'barath')
How about the The Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission Act (S. 2259)? Is that 'nothing'?
How about the Attacking Viral Influenza Across Nations Act (S. 969) which deals with Bird Flu, and was introduced in early 2005, well *before* the US panic began in 2006.
How about the Sheltering All Veterans Everywhere Act (SAVE Act) (S. 1180), to help homeless Veterans?
I'm not saying that you should support Barack. I'm sure you have your reasons for supporting another candidate. However, be honest with yourself, and be honest with everyone else, and don't make these stupid, easily disputed claims.
(Source for bills was democratic underground)
Keith wrote on December 15, 2007 2:42 PM:Robert Ethan:
Google. It's a wonderful thing:
http://www.kcci.com/politics/2440457/detail.html
I wasn't comparing national polls, because they aren't relevant at this point. The closer we get to February 5th, they'll be operative. But right now, I'm looking at the polls were the most people are engaged and seeing the candidates. Where that's happening, the trends don't favor your candidate. That may change, but at this point in the game, the trends don't favor her.
Jeremy wrote on December 15, 2007 2:46 PM:Good news for Obama:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/15/54158/397/946/422120
Let's see if there's any coverage of the fruits Obama's hard work to make DC more open and accountable, especially in light of Clinton's insinuation that Obama is not a hard worker.
opulent wrote on December 15, 2007 2:50 PM:I watched the Rose interview and came away convinced that Obama is the best candidate to win the nomination and who will win election to the WH in a landslide.
One thing I quickly noted was that despite Rose asking Bill several times to tell us Hilliarys substance, Bill couldn't and/or failed to do so. Think about that. He claimed that a person needs vision and substance. We know Hillary lacks vision so her why wasn't Bill prepared to delineate and roll over his tongue bullet point by bullet point precisely what Hillary has done? Because there is nothing there and he knows it.
What Bill revealed to me given that he is the consumate politician is that he is in awe of Obama. While I did not hear the 'gifted TVcommenatator' I was struck and heard instead how Bill said that Obama has STAGGERING political skills and he has massive political ability.
THAT's the important piece.
Why?
Because it is those skills which have catapaulted Obama to the national stage and which enable him to run toe to toe with the Clintons and most importantly it is those very skills which will allow Obama to govern this country, transcend partisiaship, broker treaties and resolutions with foreign leaders and actually produce outcomes domestically and internationally as he restores Americas greatness. It is those skills that enabled Obama to some of the most controversial legislation ever on ethics, healthreform and the death penalty in the Illinois legislature despite their being a GOP majority. Just as he was elected to the Harvard Law Review by his peers becasue they recognized his ability to support and represent their views. Obama is an exceptionally gifted politician with empathy and compassion for Americans and the great traditions of this country. He will be one of our greatest Presidents, because of his ability to not only meld consensus, but to lead with judgment and moral clarity.
Obama has a lifetime of demonstrated substance. He has worked hard in the community and not simply forgotten the common man because his education would allow him to amass corporate wealth.
Bill Clinton and Hillary are quacking in their boots. Neither of them have seen nor been up against this type of raw political talent, with a true dedication and committment to public service with such a principled approach. Obama has convictions and the Hillary has none.
The take home message from this Rose interview is that Obama can and will lead America because he knows how to, whereas Hillary only knows how to fight and she is fighting hard.
That was the most important thing Bill said. He said that Hillary is more predicatable and Obama less so, he meant it as a slur against Obama but the true is that no one wants all that we can predict Hillary will bring. Bill's right, she is more predicatable so much so that we know we do not want more of her divisiveness, equivocating and triangulating that produces nothing and paralyzes the government. Obama is less predicatable in that he brings a new vision and massive political skills to actually change politics as we know it and lead America back to her global standing abroad and as well as at home.
That is a good thing Bill.
The problem with Hillary is we need leadership for change and she doesn't have it. Nor does she have a track record of substance/outcomes...cause Bill could not list a single one, nary one.
Thank you Bill for shinning the light on Obama and his greatness and telling us that Hillary has no substance.
GMA wrote on December 15, 2007 2:50 PM:So that I'm clear on who I favor, I'm a baby-boomer independent who wants change in how our corrupt government currently works. I see Obama as that agent. Lacking the beltway experience here is a good thing, contrary to what slick-Willy has to say about it. Like LJ wrote:
I'd love to hear the Clinton's stutter and stammer as they explain how Hillary's scant 7 years in the Senate stack up against Biden's 34 years in Congress and Dodd's 32 years.
I also believe it's time for the (political) 'boomers'--yes, that includes you, Hillary--to make way for the next generation (Obama) to change the current dynamic. Again, that lack of experience of how things now work, goes well here. The present set of boomers (in both parties), shaped by the sixties and seventies, seem locked into certain mindsets with regard to our present problems (Iraq, Iran, the flattening of the global economy, the huge/growing deficit, politics of fear, etc.). The next gen has got to be given a chance to turnaround what the earlier (my) gen has gotten us into.
Bringing back the '90's, with Hillary as president, is not going to make that change. If H. does get the nomination, I'd hold my nose and would vote for her. But, that would be more to give the Democrats the chance at leadership since the Republicans have managed to so thoroughly screwed things up (so g*damn much) and trashed what this country has stood for.
As well, we've botched the response to the jihadist terror campaign. Yes, 9/11 happened. But, we reacted so ignorantly. Instead of keeping and making new allies in this fight, thus starving the fundamentalist movement of new recruits, we now make and gather more global enemies. And, we are running out of money to pay for those poor tactics. Obama was right from the start of this--contrary to Hillary. Where was her so-called experience? She's been on the wrong side of the votes? Explain that one, Bill.
John McCutchen wrote on December 15, 2007 2:50 PM:Bill Clinton just made the best argument against his wife's candidacy possible
He's washed up
Time for BillHill to go
When a serial adulterer gives his wife a glowing job recommendation, you take it with a big grain of salt.
robert ethan wrote on December 15, 2007 2:52 PM:Anonymous wrote on December 15, 2007 2:24 PM:
In Iowa, Hillary was at 31% in November. Now she is at 24. Obama was at 22 in Nov. Now, he is at 34.
Using real math, that would mean that Obama is now leading, as opposed to in Nov. when he was trailing.
Looks like you must have gone to the GW Bush school of fuzzy math, Ethan. Team Clinton is sinking like a blue dress in Whitewater.
You don't read very well. Maybe that is why you're reluctant to disclose your name. Slowly now, after me..."Hillary Clinton has roughly the same level of support in the latest polls, both nationally, and in Iowa, as SHE STARTED OUT WITH when the first polls were taken. THERE HAVE BEEN BLIPS ALONG THE WAY. The same is true, more or less FOR ALL OF THE CANDIDATES. Even Al Bleeping Gore.
Don't believe it check Rasmussen Reports who are the most diligent and frequent pollsters at work on the campaign, and have records going back for over a year on their site.
John McCutchen wrote on December 15, 2007 2:56 PM:It's a sad sight. I worked hard for this guy, but now he's pathetic. The more time he spends like this, the more we are reminded not only of how far Bill Clinton has fallen over the past decade, more importantly, we democrats are called to realize that his wife's race has never been about her but always about Bill
Anonymous wrote on December 15, 2007 2:57 PM:robert ethan wrote on December 15, 2007 2:52 PM:
You don't read very well. Maybe that is why you're reluctant to disclose your name. Slowly now, after me..."Hillary Clinton has roughly the same level of support in the latest polls, both nationally, and in Iowa, as SHE STARTED OUT WITH when the first polls were taken. THERE HAVE BEEN BLIPS ALONG THE WAY. The same is true, more or less FOR ALL OF THE CANDIDATES. Even Al Bleeping Gore.
Wait, so over a year, she hasn't been able to convince a greater percentage of people to support her?
robert ethan wrote on December 15, 2007 2:58 PM:Keith wrote on December 15, 2007 2:42 PM:
Robert Ethan:
Google. It's a wonderful thing:
http://www.kcci.com/politics/2440457/detail.html
I wasn't comparing national polls, because they aren't relevant at this point. The closer we get to February 5th, they'll be operative. But right now, I'm looking at the polls were the most people are engaged and seeing the candidates. Where that's happening, the trends don't favor your candidate. That may change, but at this point in the game, the trends don't favor her.
Too lazy to go check, but I'm willing to bet that Obama had close to 25% in Iowa in August of this year. There has never been much of a gap between Obama, Clinton, and Edwards in Iowa. They have all been in the low 20s there for months as I recall. It isn't like H C ever had a huge lead in the state as she does nationally.
Peggy McGilligan wrote on December 15, 2007 2:59 PM:Seasons Greetings to all: "Toward the end of the interview, his hands began to shake and his face reddened as he discussed the political thicket his wife finds herself in." -The Atlantic
A large percentage of people don't vote, I was one. But that doesn't mean they're brain dead; I believe many find politics distasteful and choose not to participate. I think we're seeing people who had to sit by and watch, as did we all, a series of abuses from Travel-Gate to stealing the White House furniture - register their distain. People have long memories, and the Clintons have been on the attack for too long. They've tested a nation's patience. Now, the Clintons are asking for your vote. As the Clintons are eating bananas (bananas are binding, hence the expression) Iowans help restore my faith in humankind. I had no idea watching Hillary tank would be so enjoyable. But then, it's been long overdue: http://theseedsof9-11.com
BeAngryAtTheSun wrote on December 15, 2007 3:00 PM:Some of these posts are getting far too long.
On the subject of HRC's national poll numbers remaining static, I could line my birdcage with a national poll and get better use out of it. There is no national primary. The dynamics of each statewide campaign will shift the discourse over and over during January.
Feb.5 may depend on a national media narrative, but that is in flux depending on how the candidates show in the early states.
What if, for instance, HRC's numbers in Michigan (where the ballot is just her and Dodd) tank in the meantime? If Dodd beats HRC 2-1 in Michigan, he has made a statement for himself and the anti-HRC group has plenty to run on for Super Tuesday.
BlueDog wrote on December 15, 2007 3:00 PM:"Team Clinton is sinking like a blue dress in Whitewater."
"When a serial adulterer gives his wife a glowing job recommendation, you take it with a big grain of salt."
"There you go again bluedog. It's all just hate, hate, hate, hate. When in doubt throw out the hate card."
I am not allowed to point out the HATE?
I guess that means what your defintion of "roughly" is. But then it depends on what your definition of "is" is. If you start out with a 40, and are now in the low 20's, roughly speaking, you are behind, if someone else is in the 30's.
I don't know why you give your name, because then everyone would just know you are an idiot, and move on to the next post after reading it was your post.
RaymondA wrote on December 15, 2007 3:02 PM:Someone above said that, while Obama himself is a decent human being, his supporters who comment on his behalf are foul. Excuse me, but how many Obama volunteers have engaged in any conduct near as vile as the Hillary workers in Iowa spreading the Muslim rumors? How many Obama campaign chairs have done what Mr. Shaheen did?
I hesitate to blame the candidate for his or her supporters, but if I were a Hillary person I would not touch the question of the relative ethics and decency of her supporters, as compared with the ethics and decency of Obama supporters. It will just open (yet another) easily refutable argument for Hillary.
BeAngryAtTheSun wrote on December 15, 2007 3:03 PM:These comment sections were better a year ago when people only talked when they had something to add. I look forward to TPM in mid-2009.
Anonymous wrote on December 15, 2007 3:04 PM:The best part is you are a HRC supporter who put "blue dress" and "White water" in your post.
Better brush up on your Talking points, ethan.
blackstar wrote on December 15, 2007 3:06 PM:Someone above said that, while Obama himself is a decent human being, his supporters who comment on his behalf are foul. Excuse me, but how many Obama volunteers have engaged in any conduct near as vile as the Hillary workers in Iowa spreading the Muslim rumors? How many Obama campaign chairs have done what Mr. Shaheen did?
---------
probably as many as you hear touted on the news in the same way as your 2 examples. that being next to none.
Paulie wrote on December 15, 2007 3:07 PM:NYFM wrote- "Well I happen to agree with Bill...Obama will be very easy pickings for the rightwing attack machine."
And Hillary won't be? Are you serious?
Trust me, no one can mobilize the right wing better than a clinton nomination.
Let's get real here, whoever is nominated by the dems will be barraged by the right so let's not pretend that Obama would fare worse than the others.
I think Bill Clinton makes an excellent case why Obama is not prepared to be president! Let me be clear! If he is our nominee I will support him for president because I am a Democrat. But as an American I don't think he is the best person to be the President of our country at this time. In another 4 or 8 years he may be better prepared. In fact (being in Illinois) I wish that he would run as Illinois Governor to gain more executive experience or at least finish one term in the Senate. Presidency is too important a job to have on-the-job training! Even though I tend to think Hillary is best prepared, I would take any of the other candidates over Obama. Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Richardson are all infinitely better prepared because I have greater trust in their judgment. I like Obama and I think he has great potential. But, he is too risky now and I say that as an American. When George Bush ran for president his people made the arguement that as long as he surrounds himself with the right advisors he will be ok. As we now clearly know, this is not true. A president needs wisdom and experience and good judgment to make the right decisions. That also involves having made a few bad decisions.
The other thing I want to note is that I have noticed that in this and other blogs that Obama's supporters uniformly seem to be childish and mean-spirited in their comments about Hillary. There is a lot of name-calling and venom directed at the Clintons and their supporters. The language they use and their venom seems to be on par with what one finds in rightwing websites. I wonder why this is? They completely seem to miss the point of the legitimate criticisms directed at Obama's lack of exprience. Think of asking a first-year teacher to be the school principal, asking a summer intern to run a company, a Medical intern to perform a major surgery, or a legal assistant to go before the Supreme court however talented each of these individuals are. If a saw a kid at the helm of your airplane the next time you fly, you would be legitimately concerned and you wouldn't let one of your kids drive even if he had an extremely high IQ. Thus, Obama's intellect and talent is no substitute for experience.
I will say again if Obama happens to be our nominee I will respect that decision and vote for him but I think we can do better!
I also did not think Bill was being mean to Obama. He had a lot of positive things to say and was trying hard to be fair. I think he is making legitimate points that we should think about carefully as Democrats and Americans! Candidates come and candidates go but the country is more important.
Keith wrote on December 15, 2007 3:09 PM:Robert Ethan:
You HRC supporters can be a gas. First, you make the argument that Obama is this cycle's Dean because he's surging in December like Dean did. I point out that Dean surge began back in August of that year. And you respond by changing the subject. Hilarious! And to answer your question, I do know what Obama's numbers were in August 2007--it was lower than Edwards and Clinton. Check out pollster.com--they do a good job of collecting all of the polls (makes it easy for us lazy folks).
Can we agree that your Dean analogy falls flat? Or do you want to continue arguing against the facts?
DonnaG wrote on December 15, 2007 3:10 PM:The real fear of Obama or Edwards or Kucinich is in the chambers of the corporate/governmental revolving door/lobbying status quo, with whom the Clintons made their compact by compromising their original ideals and triangulating themselves to gain seats at the power/wealth table.
Anyone else wonder why the Clintons suddenly are worth up to fifty million dollars, and why they refuse to come clean about their income tax records, the donors to the Clinton Presidential Library, the donors to the Clinton Global Initiative, and Hillary's Senate earmark requests, not to mention the Clinton White House records?
The absolutely appalling collusion among insiders from both parties is right in front of our eyes, if only we stop to examine just why our so-called Democratic party 'leaders' in Congress keep on rolling over to the agenda of the other party. The reality is that both parties' 'leaders' are serving the same agenda of entrenched powers behind the scenes.
It is a false choice to pick a machine Democrat over a machine Republican. Only a true grass roots effort will unseat these colluders and change the politics-as-usual dynamics that continue to destroy the future for all but the elites.
This is like a rigged game of keep-away..... the common folk up against the self-enriched colluders who get to play on stilts made of insider connections, designed and rigged to make sure the people themselves never again get to touch the ball.
And yes to someone who asked up-thread, Bill Clinton's aura is diminishing.
RS wrote on December 15, 2007 3:10 PM:Can one of the Clinton supporters please tell me what meaningful change Hillary has effected in her life?
I commend her efforts on health care, but it was an unmitigated disaster that was a signfiicant factor in the Republican Revolution of '94 and set back the cause of universal health care for 15 years.
In her 7 years in the Senate, she does not seem to have spearheaded any meaningful legislation either, though she has no doubt been a good servant for the people of New York by bringing home the pork.
The Clintons keep making these broad, abstract arguments about Hillary's record, but no one is calling them on the specifics. I think Obama's record as a legislator, both in Illinois and in his short term in the US Senate, compare favorably.
robert ethan wrote on December 15, 2007 3:11 PM:Well, it seems you can't "move onto the next post" very well, Anyol'mouse.
You're being totally selective about the polls you pick for one thing. Research 2000 had Obama up by 9 points in Iowa at the same time as the Rasmussen Three Day Tracking poll had Clinton up by 3 points. Who ya wanna beleive?
Secondly, you are picking H C highest poll numbers and comparing those to the (debunked) Research 2000 poll. Even if you accept the R2k numbers, her level of support is in the range it has been over THE PAST YEAR OR SO in Iowa.
Anonymous wrote on December 15, 2007 3:13 PM:There is a lot of name-calling and venom directed at the Clintons and their supporters. The language they use and their venom seems to be on par with what one finds in rightwing websites.
This is so true.....keep up the posting, you're right
ROBERT ETHAN, are you paying attention?
The people who read and contribute to this forum are not stupid so stop treating them that way.
Clintons behavior is highly indicative of the fact that her campaign is sliding downwards and no rovian spin can change that. She sees it and deduces that the best tactic is to attack. It will not work. Just like in sports, it's not who has been hot all season, it's who's hottest when it counts!!!
There are 8 major Democratic candidates who have yet to receive any votes. If you knuckleheads want to concentrate on these 2, that's your privilege. Just as long as you realize you're being manipulated by corporate media. The media polls lie. Since their staffing cuts, the media can't handle more than a couple of candidates, so they put up some polls that allow them to stop covering most of them.
Not surprisingly the ones they do cover are the most corporation-friendly, and in this case, I think, most vulnerable to Republicans.
What Big Willie is doing is hammering home the chosen meme for the Clinton campaign. HILLARY = SAFE.
That leaves her primary opponent (which looks like Obama at this point)stuck in the option of being the contrast to safe. Obama or Edwards would like that contrast to be "new" or "adventurous", or "exciting", or "charismatic".
But at the same time the Bills (Clinton and Sheehan) and Hill are planting the seeds of doubt about B O. When you get down to it the opposite of "safe" is not "exciting" or "adventurous" it is SORRY. OBAMA = SORRY.
Politics is really not all that complicated.
Anonymous wrote on December 15, 2007 3:20 PM:there is no inherent meanness in calling a person from someone's campaign who is being disingenuous just that. nor is there any childishness in pointing out that a candidate who told voters "i'm not going to attack fellow Democrats" has spent most of the time since doing just that.
if calling a spade a spade is a "Republican tactic", then call me Ron Paul.
mamiller wrote on December 15, 2007 3:20 PM:Does any else see this as possibly a little passive-aggressive behavior of a man interested in sabotaging his wife?
He has yet to do anything helpful to her, and this is beyond the pale, since the argument is baseless if you subtract out the (non-)experience as first lady.
Remember when Senator Dole started appearing in Viagra adds about the time Libby was ramping up for a Presidential run? I don't think he had her best interests in mind then either...
Keith wrote on December 15, 2007 3:22 PM:What Big Willie is doing is called Fear Mongering. It's page 3 in the Republican playbook.
Anonymous wrote on December 15, 2007 3:27 PM:Since it is now painfully obvious that we're being asked to give Bill a third term, shouldn't we get to see who's been giving money to his foundation and library?
APS wrote on December 15, 2007 3:27 PM:I for one have fond memories of Clinton years in terms of my own life. The economy was good, gas prices were low, and the country was at peace. Clintons fought against Republican obstructionism, rightwing attacks and mean-spiritedness and achieved a lot of good for common people. Republicans are not going to stop attacking if Obama became president. Politics is not going to stop! The right-wing media is not going to stop and start playing nice because Obama is president. People have to be realistisc. Stakes are high and the other side will bring everything they have to the fight! Obama may look good because he hasn't been through any of those fights! But, he will have to face those fights and I am worried that he is to green to face and win those fights! It is a genuine concern and in no way meant to belittle him or his supporters!
Av Oidab Leaphteral wrote on December 15, 2007 3:28 PM:When I was 8 or 9 I once brought up the subject "when I was young." Hillary should keep this in mind. Her experience amounts to screwing up the last real chance at health care reform, not a record to be proud of.
Jeremy wrote on December 15, 2007 3:34 PM:APS, if your argument is about competency at fighting you'll have to account for the fact that Clinton has kept on the incompetent joke and liability Mark Penn out of loyalty. You know, it was because of the influence of union-busting lobbyists like Penn that the Clintons had their falling out with Robert Reich, a decent man and good liberal if ever there was one.
RaymondA wrote on December 15, 2007 3:35 PM:Obama and Experience:
Abe Lincoln had a single 2-year term in the House. That was the sum total of his federal "experience."
Oh, and he served in the Illinois legislature for the same number of years as Obama.
Yes, I can hear the Bentsen imitators: "He's no Abe Lincoln." But for those of us under age 50, has anyone come close to having Lincoln's rhetorical and leadership skills, except Obama?
In any event, while Obama may not be Lincoln, to compare Obama to a "TV commentator," as Bill did, is just plain insulting. Obama paid his dues by working in the Illinois legislature and tackling the meaty controversial issues that arose in that body. Why is state legislative work qualititavely less important as "experience" then being in the US Congress anyways? That august body has recently dedicated its time to: 1) intervening in a state-court case involving a family's tragedy (Schiavo) and 2) voting on whether to censure MoveOn then Rush Limbaugh. Sorry, but I don't see a huge prestige gap.
Before his time in the legislature, Obama accomplished everything in his life by dint of his own efforts -- he's a classic self-made American. He had no inheritance, no trust fund, no nothing.
Hillary, with a huge leg up from her husband's machine started her own elective political career near the top with a US Senate run from a state where she had never lived. That's not classic dues paying. She's done well as a Senator, but has NOT taken on the hard issues, except when she waded into the Iraq war authorization vote and took the wrong side.
The real truth here is that Bill Clinton is on fire with envy of Obama. Obama has all the raw political talent and brain power Bill has, but Obama, unlike Bill, overcame his personal demons early in his life, grew comfortable with who he was, and did not "act out" with reckless self-destructive behavior, as Bill did throughout the 1980's and then into his tenure as President. Bill looks at Obama and thinks, "If I could have controlled my impulses, my insecurities, and my appetites, I could have been considered a great leader rather than a pretty good President marred by a second-rate scandal." That's why he can't control himself in his effort to stop Obama.
I am old enought to remember many primary fights! Objectively, this has been a pretty clean and civil primary campaign so far. If Obama supporters think what Bill Clinton said is uncivil or mean then may be they are not ready for the general election. Compared to what Clinton, Gore, and Kerry had to face this is nothing! These are legitimate points of contention. In contrast, Obama supporters here are engaging in personal attacks against Clintons on par with the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannities of the worls! This is what so discouraging and sad. That progressive blogs sound like rightwing talk radio!
Desider wrote on December 15, 2007 3:45 PM:Robert Ethan adds some nice life to the comments. Yes, the press has a lot at stake in making this an interesting horse race. Yes, if you look at the national polling graph at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/36/DPM2008_12_12.png
it looks like Obama really really needs to hope that if he wins in Iowa and New Hampshire it will have some catastrophic effect on all those blue states.
That said, I think Bill's interview and just his style is pretty dead and boring by now. I'm glad he's doing good at charity work, but I don't much see him at the UN anymore. Okay, one interview, maybe he's not that bad off. Regarding shaking and turning red, it's possible he's not that young anymore and his health is deteriorating. Anyway, he thinks his wife is more qualified, not exactly news.
Geek, Esq. wrote on December 15, 2007 3:45 PM:Kobe Bryant's wife got a gigantic diamond ring. Hillary gets Bill doing interviews on Charlie Rose.
Cinderella Ferret wrote on December 15, 2007 3:48 PM:Its about judgment. Judgment. Judgment. After 15 years of Clinton/Bush "judgment", or the lack thereof, (although admittedly judgment on entirely different matters) I do not believe HRC's experience out weighs her poor judgment on the Patriot Act and Iraq. Period. This country requires a President whose sound judgment we can trust to lead us back to a sane foreign and domestic policy. HRC is not that person.
Give me Barack Obama's good judgment over HRC's "experience' any day.
Matt Ahrens wrote on December 15, 2007 3:48 PM:Three points about Bill Clinton campaigning for Hillary and being her hit-man:
First, as much as many people like Bill Clinton, the more he campaigns for Hillary the more people realize they don't want to go back to the 1990s. Even people who loved the Clintons then don't want to return to the constant bitterness between them and their haters. The divisiveness in America needs to end.
Second, Bill Clinton attacking Obama makes Hillary look weak. It is as if he has to do the fighting for her. What happens if the U.S. gets attacked? Does Bill take control? Think about it, the more he talks about policy and politics and power, the weaker she looks by comparison.
Third, Bill's campaigning for Hillary is hurting his own presidential legacy. Like I wrote above, it is becoming more of a reminder about what they hated about the Clinton years than what they loved about them. AND, it is making everyone realize that there was no lasting impact to the way he governed. His leadership is at least partially responsible for the backlash of the Bush years. Without Monica, Gore probably wins the 2000 election (and probably without Lieberman as his running mate.) With her (and other things) he opened the door for a right wing victory that brought war, diplomatic crisis, economic crisis, debt, Katrina, waterboarding, wiretapping, etc. That is all now a part of Clinton's legacy because he wasn't politically strong enough to get his successor elected (like Reagan did with the first President Bush.) I wonder if he would have done more for Gore or Kerry if Hillary wasn't looking to run this year.
Bottom line, Bill helped Hillary get positioned and financed but he hurts her in these final couple of weeks before the actual voting starts. So, please keep it up Bill. I look forward to you advising Barack too!
If experience was such a big help to Bill Clinton in 1992, how did he manage to lose Congress to the republicans within two years?
BlueDog wrote on December 15, 2007 3:52 PM:"personal attacks against Clintons on par with the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannities"
So true. They can't debate health care because Obama's plan is weak, they can't discuss foreign policy because he has none....so, they attack Hillary. They call her names, they bring up right wing talking points, they embarrass themselves with their hatred. Once the election is over, we need to purge the party of the Nader/Kucinich/Driver's Licenses for Illegal Aliens wing of the party. The ultra-left has done a good job of sinking many Democratic presidential candidates because they are not ideologically pure, but not this time. This time their candidate is a blank slate, a smart lawyer who can't be held accountable for his votes, because, well, he wasn't in office to vote. A smart guy who no one really knows anything about, an unknown who has never faced the Republican attack machine. Someone who offers Hope, but not policies, someone who caters to the ultra-left with no chance of winning the general. This time, though, Hillary is going to trounce Obama on February 5 and take her case to the people, she will win Ohio, Florida, and Arkansas and take the presidency. She will end the war in Iraq, she will protect American workers from unfair trade and the insourcing/outsourcing of jobs, and she will pass real, universal health care.
Elijah Trotsky wrote on December 15, 2007 3:54 PM:How naive Senator Obama is to think that anyone will "change the tone" in Washington.......no one is going to give uo their interests without a fight...Senator Obama better be willing to fight the fights of the 90's the fights of FDR, JFK........if he thinks changing the tone is going to affect the pharmeceutical companies, oil, automotivve then he's delusional at best. Frederick Douglas said something to the effect that "power concedes nothing"....
Desider wrote on December 15, 2007 3:54 PM:Regarding Ethan's comments on Iowa, if you look at the polls at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_2008
you might see a Hillary dip in Iowa of about 2% over 4 months of polling from the various polls, not quite the tanking that people seem to be describing. We'll see the effects of the increased efforts of her campaign over the next few weeks, but as has been stated before, this wasn't quite the state they'd been most focused on. That doesn't take anything away from Obama's improved position, but it's still about the nationals, which means even if he wins, he has to turn it into other states, easier said than done.
Bill Clinton doesn't really deserve the hatred I feel for him right now; but for him to talk about Hillary and Obama like he's some sort of objective observer of the situation is the height of chutzpah, and galling.
If he wants to be photographed hugging her in public, that's great; but if he's going to come out like some Big Blue Attack Dog and try to sell us his wife and tell us why Obama is so naive... it's a gargantuan sell-out, the destruction of his political legacy and a stain on his soul. He ought to be ashamed. He ought to stay out of this.
Chris wrote on December 15, 2007 3:59 PM:Sorry, but the reaction by alot of folks here and on other sites who support Obama presents just more evidence of how "not ready for prime time" Obama is. What Clinton has to say is fair and tough, and is child's play compared to what Obama will get if he's the nominee. However, all of the Obama supporters, and his campaign staffers, are outraged and taken aback by what big meanies Bill and HRC are being to their favorite college professor. Legit observation about Obama's relative lack of experience is seen as "hardball" and "nasty". Yikes. I have visions of Obama curled up in a fetal position in tears once the real fight with the Repubs starts
Jeremy wrote on December 15, 2007 4:00 PM:Blue Dog. Obama is happy to debate Hillary on health care, though she didn't exactly raise the level of discourse:
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-is-hrc-stooping-so-low.html
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/democrats-should-stop-battling-over.html
Hillary is DOA in Iowa, and once her aura of inevitability is busted, it will be the beginning of the end for her campaign. All of Big bad Billy's horse's and all of his men, will not be able to put Queen Hillary's campaign back together again.
If she does not take Iowa, she is toast.
Michael A wrote on December 15, 2007 4:01 PM:Bluepuppy, I say we purge the party of the bush-lite republicans like you and the clintons. Your post is so full of bs. The 90's legacy of the clintons is nowhere near as rosy as you people claim. One of the reasons why is they are more republican then democrat. Nafta, don't ask don't tell, government privatization to line the pockets of political allies, get rid of welfare to screw the poor, refuse to negotiate with a dem congress on healthcare reform????? and on and on. I don't understand why people call them dems or why they have all this dem support, they should be running in the republican primary.
I am so sick of the ultra-left in the democratic party republican talking point spewed by clinton II lovers. I guess 70 percent of the country is ultra left, because 70 percent of the country want us out of iraq yesterday. She wants to keep us there forever. I guess she plans on getting campaign contributions from the companies raping iraq now, just like she's getting caaaaasssh from insurance and big pharma to keep lining their pockets with her healthcare "plan." Might as well call it what it is, corporate welfare. Pathetic.
Anonymous wrote on December 15, 2007 4:04 PM:Bill Clinton is a former Democratic president of the United States. If he wants to campaign for his wife and say things to support her that he knows are not true, it's his choice. He is trading the potential to become a senior statesman for the self-serving post of political hack. His right, his choice.
But when he attacks other candidates in an effort to get his unqualified wife elected president of the United States, he has gone too far. Bill could easily campaign talking only about Hillary's virtues, if he wanted too. The fact is of course that her virtues are too few and they will never get her elected. So, Bill becomes part of the mean attack machine. He is now persuing his on self interest and nepotistic agenda at the expense of the Democratic party and the nation.
Bill may owe Hillary a lot, the nation owes her nothing. She is not qaulifed to lead the nation and the world, simply because she's "married" to Bill, and has been a good political wife, and a do-nothing Senator who's only notable accomplishment was voting for the War in Iraq and giving Bush cover for an attack on Iran.
If Bill loves his country, he should put his ego and greed in check, and shut up.
Jeremy wrote on December 15, 2007 4:06 PM:Chris. Please take a deep breath and you'll realize how ridiculous you sound. Hillary and her surrogates have been saying ad nauseum that Obama "has no experience". Obama and his supporters have answered that argument pointing out that Obama does have experience and that unlike Hillary his experience leads to good judgment and concrete legislative achievements like more open and accountable government spending. Nothing in Bill Clinton's rant spoke to that argument. The people of Iowa and NH have had a good long look at Obama's superior track record and they aren't fooled. If the Clintons and Mark Penn cannot effectively respond to a supposed "amateur" then they are undermining their own argument that they alone can take on the veeeery scerrrrry winguts. This fear-based campaign tactic will not work.
APS wrote on December 15, 2007 4:08 PM:I find it amusing that Obama supporters are up in arms because Bill supports Hillary! What do you expect, that he will remain neutral or endorse Obama even? Well! don't you expect Michelle Obama to support her husband vocally and visibly? Isn't that what she has been doing? Giving speeches and campaigning for her husband and against his opponents? Isn't that what Elizabeth Edwards has been doing? Don't they criticize their spouses' opponents by name? This is hardly surprising! Bill Clinton didn't personally attack Obama. He just said he doesn't think he has the exprience to be president and that in his view his wife is the best candidate. When Bush Jr. ran, was it any surprise that his father campaigned fro him or strongly supported him? This is normal politics. Why is any of this surprising?
Why do you have to "hate" Bill Clinton for this?
Folks, we Obama supporters are not faulting Bill for bringing up the experience issue. We are faulting for his doing it in that uniquely Clintonian way of lying or exaggerating. He says Obama began running one year after being elected. Wrong. 2 years. But more importantly, Bill talks as if Obama never had a public life before his Senate run -- as if he had been a TV news commentator like Keith Olbermann or something. That falsely reads out of his biography eight years taking the lead in the Illinois Senate on issues much tougher and meatier than those Hillary chose to tackle in the US Senate -- with one exception. Hillary took a clear stand on the Iraq war, calling it "the most difficult decision" in her career. She happened to be wrong. Worse, she later pretended the vote was just a vote for diplomacy. But if that's what it was, it was not the "most difficult decision" in her career, it was the easiest.
steve wrote on December 15, 2007 4:12 PM:#1. Since when is a profound acquaintance with Beltway life a guaranteee of doing the right thing?
#2. The two dem frontrunners at each other's throats, either of whom would be a first in the White House, either one a hard sell in itself. The Repubs have things just where thet want 'em.
#3. Nixon used break-ins and wiretaps to prepare the electoral landscape for his victory. So does the present ruling GOP. We're all running behind their sh-t wagon.
It's all beyond my puny influence.
Mike timmons wrote on December 15, 2007 4:13 PM:Michael A...You are absolutely correct.
These sell out, Red dog Republicans who think they are democrats are the reason we might lose the general election. Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater Republican and a Nixon supporter. Then she met Bill, and saw a way to political power. Ouila, she became a Democrat.
If we could just find a way to purge these Bush enablers and Constitution haters out of our party, we could empower the majority of Americans who think of the Democratic Party as just "Republican light".
robert ethan wrote on December 15, 2007 4:15 PM:
Thanks for the kind words Desider. I went to the link you provided and backtracked a bit.
Exactly one year ago today, December 16, 2006, an Iowa poll showed Hillary Clinton with 16% support and Barack Obama with 13%. If you accept the latest Rasmussen Tracking poll rather than the Research 2000 poll taken recently in Iowa, the margin between the two contestants is EXACTLY THE SAME 1 YEAR LATER. Clinton +3.
If you're bound to still with the Research 2000 poll, several other polls taken in Iowa ALMOST a year ago, showed Obama with leads similar to the 9 points that R2k gives him.
Nationally the picture is very similar. According to the polld, the race thus far has been anything but volatile. Both Clinton and Obama are within a couple of % points, support wise, of where they were A FULL CALENDAR YEAR ago.
Jeremy wrote on December 15, 2007 4:15 PM:APS. Stop treating people like they are invisible. Referring generally to "Obama supporters" without saying which person or comment in the thread you are responding to amounts to simply spewing untargeted negativity into the conversation.
Miggsathon wrote on December 15, 2007 4:20 PM:This constitutes taking the gloves off? If so, our political climate must be pretty civil. He complimented Obama as often as he criticized him, and made the utterly reasonable claim that who one picks for president will depend on the questions one asks. He put forward what he thought the right questions were. We can agree or disagree. But this transcript isn't remotely "brutal."
Jim J wrote on December 15, 2007 4:22 PM:What a bunch of thin-skinned maroons. Clinton was totally even-handed in this interview, praising Obama fulsomely throughout. What did you expect him to do, endorse Obama over his own wife?
If Obama does end up getting the nomination, I sure hope he isn't as much of a candy ass as his supporters seem to be.
APS wrote on December 15, 2007 4:23 PM:1 year or two years, who cares? The point is that Obama started running for president pretty much as soon as he won the senate seat here in Illinois (I voted for him). Everyone here knew this. This was widely discussed in the media the possibility that he might run.
I can framkly tell you that I did not hear about Obama until he started running for the Senate seat. There were not a lot of major accomplishments here in the Illinois senate that our local newspaper thought worthy to print. So, let us not exaggerate this "he had accomplished great things in the Illinois senate" point. Of course, being in the Illinois senate is not the same as being in the U.S. senate. What "tougher and meatier" issues the Illinois Senate dealt with in the last 10 years? Can anyone tell me? What stands did Obama take in those "tougher and meatier" debates? We in Illinois don't remember any such thing. I lived in Hyde Park for a year in early 2000 and I cannot tell you either. He was not that widely known. Again, I happen to like Obama a lot. I voted for him when he ran for the Senate. But, all this talk about his great experience, amazing accomplishments, etc. is a bit much. He is smart, talented, and has some modest accomplishments. At this point that is all there is. I for one do not consider him a messiah who is going to dramatically change how politics is done in our country. I want to choose candidates based on a realistic appraisal of their record and accomplishments! Not based on a fairy tale! People are doing him a great disservice by puffing him up in this manner.
Lonny wrote on December 15, 2007 4:23 PM:I think the real question is: What's important to Bill Clinton? If Hillary gets the nomination and is elected, then that act alone would be enough to overshadow Bill. Or does he think that electing her would enhance his legacy? If Bill doesn't want Hillary to get it, then he'll just work hard enough to make it seem like he's supporting her but won't actually sabotage her chances.
I've notice Al Gore hasn't weighed in yet. I'm pretty sure he's not running. He may wait until after Iowa and New Hampshire to give his endorsement. The safe endorsement would be Edwards, the predictable endorsement would be Hillary. It wouldn't really help either one of them. Obama would get the biggest boost from an Al Gore endorsement.
I will not be voting for Hillary if she gets the nomination. I will be voting against any Republican if any other Democratic nominee gets it except Obama. I would genuinely vote for Obama.
DRinOH wrote on December 15, 2007 4:26 PM:Robert Ethan - your overexpanding the context of the original statement "Hillary is tanking in the polls." The obvious meaning is that she was once inevitable and now she's at least tied, more likely behind. When someone says a candidate is "tanking" that's a reference to current trends, not a relation to where they stood over a year ago, and if you look at the tracking graphs near the top of this page from Pollster you'll see that while Edwards has gone up a little in the last couple months, and Obama has gone up a lot, Hillary has indeed headed south.
Again, we're looking at current trends, not a year-long arch. There's simply no denying that for about a month and a half, Hillary has gone down. Might that change? Sure. But as of now, she's tanking.
Chris wrote on December 15, 2007 4:29 PM:Sorry Jeremy, didn't mean to ruffle the feathers Dear, but your reaction is just further to my main point. I don't have an axe to grind with Obama, but compared to other candidates he is relatively inexperienced, and was lucky enough not to be in office for the original Iraq vote, and has been conspicously MIA for subsequent votes that he has taken HRC to task for actually making. Hillary has her faults, but the point that Bill was making is that Obama just isn't ready yet, and the whining that I hear from his campaign and supporters on the web every time that someone says something mean about him is telling.
Mike timmons wrote on December 15, 2007 4:31 PM:Listen Ethan you really need to inhale less.
Clinton was at 16% BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION!!! Obama was at 13%.
Today, IOWA QUAD CITY TIMES....IN...IOWA!!!
"A new Quad-City Times/Lee Enterprises poll of likely Democratic caucus-goers shows U.S. Sen. Barack Obama extending his lead in Iowa to nine points with less than three weeks to go before the state’s leadoff presidential caucuses.
The poll of 500 likely Democratic caucus voters conducted by Research 2000 had Obama of Illinois leading with support from 33 percent of those surveyed.
U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York and former U.S. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, who have both held the lead in Iowa polls at various times this year, are tied for second place with 24 percent.
HELLOOOO....ETHAN...FUZZY MATH ETHAN...YOUR CANDIDATE...IS TOAST!!!!
CalD wrote on December 15, 2007 4:32 PM:APS,
I find that amusing too. I also don't see what's so "brutal" about that interview clip posted above -- other than Rose's incessant attempts to paraphrase President Clinton's observations and opinions in more brutal terms. It's more like Rose was trying to get him to take the gloves off and Clinton wouldn't bite. I actually thought Clinton showed a lot of restraint in not going off on Rose after the third or fourth time he tried it. He's been known to take an interviewer to the wood shed for those kinds of antics.
Anonymous wrote on December 15, 2007 4:33 PM:BeAngryAtTheSun said "Some of these posts are getting far too long."
Simple solution. Duh? Don't read the long ones. Rocket science?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/14/AR2007121402124_pf.html
The great man has taken a $10,000,000 gift from the Saudi Royal Family towards building his library. So much for expecting much action on alternative energy development from a Clinton II administration. Anyone asked Al Gore for his opinion on this?
JoeCHI wrote on December 15, 2007 4:34 PM:Good for Bill. It needed to be said.
Bill has every right to stand up for his wife, as well as his record. Further, Hillary is entitled to her husband's support, much like Obama and Edwards are entitled to their spouses' support.
Obama and Edwards, including their spouses, have been blasting the Clinton's for months. The Clinton's should be afforded the same opportunity.
Either all of it's OK, or none of it's OK.
Mike timmons wrote on December 15, 2007 4:36 PM:And HRC supporters, I look forward to having you people advise us Obama supporters in the future.
Everyone in politics has skeletons in their closet? have you heard of Rezko?
"Federal prosecutors allege that an Obama supporter named Antoin "Tony" Rezko has participated in several illegal activities, including a scheme with Chaib to get a loan through false pretenses and use the money to buy a pizza business.
Chaib was executive director of the Illinois Finance Authority at the time.
Rezko, in addition to being a political supporter, bought a piece of property next to Obama's Chicago home and then sold Obama a section, giving the senator a larger yard.
Obama has described the transaction as a "boneheaded" mistake because of the way it looked. But he says it was legal and that he paid a more-than-fair price for the land."
Does this mean that Obama is "corrupt?" I don't think anymore than stories about Clintons by the mainstream media imply they are corrupt? So, let us get off this Clintons are corrupt but Obama is a saint theme. That is simply using rightwing talking points.
The only reason George W Bush became President was because he was the son of a President.
And the only reason Hillary has any chance of becoming President is because she is the wife of a President.
The Bush & Clinton dynasties have taken nepotism way, way, way too far.
bridoc wrote on December 15, 2007 4:40 PM:Can someone please tell Bill that he can't have a third term? Give me a break, I'm tired of this, coattails much?
Oh, and apparently Obama's pre-Senate record means nothing. I guess his legislative experience in Illinois doesn't matter, or teaching constitutional law for over ten years? How about his grassroots community work in Chicago or his legal experience? Give me a break, Hillary can't match that, she would be nowhere without riding Bill's coattails and she has LESS legislative experience than Obama, not more. If they want to argue their relative strengths and weaknesses they ought to at least be honest about what the record shows.
Urg, I can't wait until this primary crap is over.
Chris wrote on December 15, 2007 4:44 PM:Donna, with all due respect to Gore, who cares what he has to say at this point? I'm glad for his Nobel, but roll back six years and the guy ran one of the most inept campaigns in modern history. Smart guy, but an aweful candidate. The fact that Bush even got close enough to have it come down to Florida is shameful.
His cause is a righteous one, but the latter day canonization of the guy by the American Left is getting nauseating. 10% of you voted for Nader in 2000 because you just couldn't see the difference between Gore and Bush at the time, remember?. If you watch the clip of what Clinton is saying, he's actually quite reserved in what he has to say about Obama. It's a reasonable question to be asking, and the fact that the Obama crowd is so offended by Clinton's "Attack!!!" on Obama is speaking volumes.
Anonymous wrote on December 15, 2007 4:46 PM:APS spins "Why do you have to "hate" Bill Clinton for this?"
Four points in response:
1. Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama are not former U.S. presidents picking sides in a Democratic presidential primary.
2. Edwards and Obama are qualified to be president on their own merits, Hillary's only qualification is being Bill's wife = nepotism.
3. Supporting Hillary as her spouse (even if estranged) does not require attacking other Democratic candidates. Bill attacks because he is very hard pressed to defend Hillary's shallow record, experience and judgment as a leader.
4. Why do supports of the Clintons keep portraying them as "victims." Poor poor Hillary and Bill, anyone who disagrees is the enemy and hates them. Very appealing quality for leadership: always being victimized.
Jeremy wrote on December 15, 2007 4:47 PM:Chris. With all due respect, I can be tolerant of ignorance, but willful ignorance is quite another thing. Glacly, your repetition of an uninformed talking point gets very little traction with voters that have had the time to examine the candidates' track records. Early on, before voters learned more about what Obama has achieved (which is significantly more and more significant than Hillary's accomplishments as a Senator) voters were reasonably skeptical. Note however, that the more voters learn the more they like Obama. The reason is his track record of good judgment and achievement. So your political potshots about missed votes while campaigning (the type of Rovian shit we last saw aimed at Kerry and Edwards) just doesn't matter. The fact is that on issues from death penalty reform, to ethics, to CAFE standards, to health care, to criminal justice, to actually making a difference for veterans (here Obama's record is particularly strong and grossly ignored), and on and on Obama has delivered in ways that Hillary has not. This isn't about whose turn it is or who is entitled. It's about who has earned it. Obama has a track record of fighting for and delivering change and no amount of willful ignorance on behalf of your girl will make it go away.
pacc wrote on December 15, 2007 4:52 PM:Excellent to hear Bill Clinton calling a spade a spade.
O-Bomb-A is truly a crap shoot; he cynically plays black America against other Democratic constituencies; he's got a dirty history of doing political favors for money; his wife is a big mouth, ugly trash talking race baiter, and he would be a disaster on the national stage.
It needs to be said again and again and again.
We don't need O-Bomb-A's sort on the national ticket.
Concerned in Iowa wrote on December 15, 2007 4:52 PM:APS said "Everyone in politics has skeletons in their closet? have you heard of Rezko?"
Ever heard of mud wrestling? We know Hillary is and she loves it. Too bad the other candidates and the nation aren't going to play in the muck with Hillary and her supporters. I was shocked, shocked, shocked at Obama's kindergaren essays. Still laughing and hfully innoculated from Hillary's wild attempts at mud slinging.
I talk to a lot of people who are not strongly Republican or Democrat, and most of them agree with Bill that Obama is just too inexperienced. It's not that they all support Hillary, but they are deeply frightened by all the serious problems we face and don't think Obama is ready.
In addition, Obama is naive if he thinks he won't have to revisit the fights of the 90's. Gore and Kerry both did. What makes him think the right wing attack machine won't go after him? Remember, they don't need any real scandal to savage an opponent. They are perfectly willing pay people to make stuff up like they did to Kerry about his war record (or McCain in 2000 for that matter). The Clinton's are ready for this. Obama clearly is not.
robert ethan wrote on December 15, 2007 4:59 PM:DRinOH wrote on December 15, 2007 4:26 PM:
Robert Ethan - your overexpanding the context of the original statement "Hillary is tanking in the polls." The obvious meaning is that she was once inevitable and now she's at least tied, more likely behind. When someone says a candidate is "tanking" that's a reference to current trends, not a relation to where they stood over a year ago, and if you look at the tracking graphs near the top of this page from Pollster you'll see that while Edwards has gone up a little in the last couple months, and Obama has gone up a lot, Hillary has indeed headed south.
Again, we're looking at current trends, not a year-long arch. There's simply no denying that for about a month and a half, Hillary has gone down. Might that change? Sure. But as of now, she's tanking.
Once again, I think it depends which current poll you look at as much as anything. The Rasmussen Tracking Poll had Hillary at 29% in their last release, December 12, Obama at 26%. These guys track continuously, and use a much larger data base than the local newspaper polls everyone is trumpeting.
In their summary, it said that "H C leads with 29%, the same support as she had 2 weeks previously, and 2 POINTS HIGHER than polls taken a month ago.".
I don't put great faith in polls, it seems everyone chooses the poll that best suits their argument. Usually taken off their candidates site. Exit polls taken after the 2004 caucuses in Iowa showed that nearly 50% of the voters made up thier minds "within the last 3 days"! That fact makes ANY poll taken 3 weeks before the event a bit redundant.
A little dose of reality.......
I keep hearing from supporters of HRC that all they keep hearing is "Hate, Hate, Hate" in regards to Hillary, and that detractors to her nomination are somehow not credilble because their criticism of her is not based in, what they consider, substantive policy differences. Well, here is a little dose of reality for all of the Shillarys.....It doesn't matter.
If voters feel that the only reason not to vote for her is because they "hate" her, or if they are somehow "blinded" from her legislative brilliance because of that hate...guess what? The "unsubstantiated dislike" for her is the only thing that counts, because in the end, voters are STILL not voting for your DLC Candidate.
One element, (not the only one) of winning an election is that it IS a "popularity contest".
Those of us,(and we are legion) that will NEVER vote for Hillary need no other reason than that. Our reasons for dislike are varied and numerous. Some are qualified by real policy differences, and some are not.
Bottom line:
Hillary Clinton is poison for the Democratic Party, and the "divided house" aspect of the country as a whole.
The DLC destroyed the Democratic Party in the 90's, and is rearing it's ugly head once again now that a real progressive awakening is taking place in the USA.
The Clintons are out for themselves and their corrupt corporate friends only.
Not you, and not me.
They both say 'all options are on the table' re. Iran. Neither wants single-payer health care. Neither will cut the 'defense' budget, neither has ever mentioned the poor, or has done much to get us out of Iran. What are you wasting your time on these two for? No one's voted for either of them yet.
Anonymous wrote on December 15, 2007 5:04 PM:http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/15/obama_clinton_and_the_negative.html
Chris wrote on December 15, 2007 5:05 PM:Concerned, let's be real. Come Feb 5th, Obama's an afterthought, and good riddance. Even if Obama wins in Iowa and NH, come super Tuesday, he's done. The idea that the lonely nation will turn its eyes to Iowa and convert is preposterous. Also, this notion of being above it all and "not playing in the muck" is just too much. Just because Obama and Oprah have decided to push the "Hope" and "New Direction" meme to its limits, you can't just put your nose up in the air and refuse to engage with the mean boys and girls because you've decided that those are the new rules. Just wait until the Repubs sink their teeth into this guy. I worked on the Carter campaign. We were going to bring a new direction to Washington too. It lasted a week.
Mike timmons wrote on December 15, 2007 5:08 PM:So Ethan, now that Hillary is tied for 3rd in Iowa, you "don't put great faith in polls".
I knew I could school you. That one of the reasons I do not support Hillary. Just like you, there is no "there" there.
audit the polls wrote on December 15, 2007 5:12 PM:Maybe we SHOULD nominate a conservative like Obama or Clinton. We need a third party in this country, anyway.
vena wrote on December 15, 2007 5:18 PM:This is lame of Bill and very disappointing. It's obvious that he is saying everything she wishes she could say. He's not even running, but it sure sounds like he is. These attacks aren't even on Obama's policy, they're more or less about him. Likening Obama to "a gifted television commentator" sounds really childish, but people will listen to this stuff.
APS wrote on December 15, 2007 5:19 PM:I have to go to take one of my kids to a school play! May the best candidate win! I think it is Hillary! However, any of the Democrats are better than the Republican field! What unites is a lot more than what separates us! Who said that?
At the end of the day, they are all politicians! They are not saints and they are not messiahs. The only ones who care ultimately about us are our family, friends and neighbors! I hope for less anger and more listening to each other! Peace and prosperity to all of you and wish you all happy holidays!
robert ethan wrote on December 15, 2007 5:24 PM:I never had "great faith in polls" you mealy mouthed dweeb, timmons. That is the whole point I've been trying to make.
It is you guys who are climaxing about Obama's "surge" and Hillary's "tanking" based on a couple low budget outlier polls in one forgotten corner of the nation.
Look at the big picture, look at the long term polling, look at the historical precedents. If you bet your house on the polls from this time 4 years ago, you'd be living in a cardboard shelter make up of used Howard Dean signs.
Apologies if that hit too close to "home". :)
pacc wrote on December 15, 2007 5:29 PM:A preview of what will happen to O-Bomb-A if he's on the natonal ticket:
“… I thought Hillary Clinton had it locked solid, but it looks like it’s opening up a bit. I must admit I find it a little surprising that a guy who has virtually no experience of an executive nature, leadership nature, never run anything, no experience of any significance in the private economy. As a state legislator he was not doing a lot of heavy lifting. In the United States Senate he hasn’t been the champion of a major piece of legislation, and some how because he can talk well why we think he can be president. I have to shake my head, because I think it takes more to be president than just being able to talk well. I think you have to show that you have a record of demonstrated success in leadership in a number of ways. And uh, I gotta tell, if we’re going to select our nominee on the Democratic side based on the number of celebrities they know, like Oprah, it’s a pretty frightening course.” - Mitt Romney
O-Bomb-A is a loser big time for the Democrats. And Democratic voters - nationwide - understand that. Just look at all the polls.
DonnaG wrote on December 15, 2007 5:30 PM:APS, at 4:23pm,
You said, "I want to choose candidates based on a realistic appraisal of their record and accomplishments! Not based on a fairy tale!"
Oh, good. I agree. Now will you kindly give your realistic appraisal of Hillary's record and accomplishments.......and do so without the usual generalizing vague statements [championed, worked for, etc] that we've gotten pretty tired of, which vagueness actually only work for folks who believe in fairy tales? Thanks.
The reason I am asking is that I am have been trying for months to find some meat to fill the sandwich of generality wonderment bread being offered about Hillary's 'experience and accomplishments'. Hint: you might start by listing her successfully sponsored-into-law bills in her only elected office of U.S. Senator. Good luck.
Joe Lisboa wrote on December 15, 2007 5:33 PM:I worked on the Carter campaign. We were going to bring a new direction to Washington too. It lasted a week.
Nice work there.
On point: What of the Obama campaign's ability to turn HRC & co's missteps into momentum *and* cash? It's not that O can't "play with the mean boys and girls," it's that he's succeeding in capitalizing on the rest of the nation's fatigue w/r/t all things Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton in a way that the lazy pundit class couldn't fathom was a possibility all but a year ago.
DC will do that to you.
Mike timmons wrote on December 15, 2007 5:36 PM:No Clintonethan, your original post was this
"The perception that somehow "Hillary is tanking" is not supported by the polls. If you follow the history of the Rasmussen tracking polls, the numbers now ARE ALMOST IDENTICAL to when they first started to poll about 18 months ago. There have been blips up and down over that time, but substantially, ALL CANDIDATES HAVE CLOSE TO THE SAME SUPPORT THEY DID STARTING OUT."
The fact is Hillary is toast, as evidenced by the fact that she IS TIED FOR THIRD IN IOWA! The numbers are not the same. Obama is on the rise, and Hillary is sinking faster than Bill Clintons statement that he "never had sex with that woman".
Get over it, your candidate will never recover, and your fuzzy math is worse than GW Bush doing a budget.
Yeah, a guy who wears a diaper and believes Jesus was Satan's brother is going to beat Obama. More Clinton fear mongering.
Captain-Sky wrote on December 15, 2007 5:43 PM:First Off I Stopped Responding To Comments From Blogs That Are One Sided Like Your's Mr Kleefeld,I Mean You Know The Ones That Has 50 Obama Bashers,For Every One Bash For Hilliary,And It's Just To Change The Negative Conversation To Another Negative Topic,If Mr Obama Is So Unstoppable Why Is It His Attributes Are The Only One Mentioned In Your Blogs,Just Negative Hilliary Bashing,I Believe You And Most Of Your Idiotic Responders Are Kin To Karl Rove,And Scooter Libby,And Jack Abraham,And Tony Snow.These Fronts For Democratic Bashing On These Blogs Are So Obvious That It's Almost Hilarious,Only One Being Bashed HRC,Now Let Me Ask Is That A Fair Debate,If Not Then Why Is It One Sided,Why Can't You Allow HRC Supporters To At Least Have 2 Remarks On Your 945 Bloggersfere.I'am Not Going To Attempt To Respond To your So-Called Bloggers Who Are Either 2nd Graders Are Their Parents Raised Some Modern Day Morons,Their Responses Get's Worse,& Worse Everyday,See You See Mr Obama Draws Thousands Of Crowds Since He Told Them Lies At The Democratic Convention,Back In 2004,But How Many Exactly Has Culminated Into Actual Votes,How Many Votes Has The American Saviour Gotten From His Oprah Account,I Would Say Not Enough To To Put Him Over 30%,Which He Has Seen Only Once In Almost Over A Year,I Got News For You Iowans,New Hampshire,And South Carolina Obama Supporters,Those Three States Won't Elect The Next President,You See We Have 47 Other States That Are Not Fooled By Mr Obama's Underhanded Attempts To Pursuede HRC Supporters That She's Caltulating,Polarizing,Scripted,And Not Trustworthy.You See In The 47 Other States Mr Obama Ceases To Exist Why Because They Are Aware Of The Small Contributions He Has And Have Offered Since He Defeated Alan Keyes,And By The Way Who In The Hell Is Alan Keyes Anyway.Stop These Bias Blog Post Because They Are Not Working,Mr Obama Will Never Be A President Of The US And You Can Bet Your Pony On That,And I Am A Black Man,Unlike Mr Obama He's More Of Whimp,Slimmy At That,Cunning,Coniving,Arrogant,Self-Centered,Oh I Forgot He's Inspiring,And Charismatic,He Moves The Crowds,He Touches My Panties,And My Draws.Cheap Rhetoric Nothing More.
Anonymous wrote on December 15, 2007 5:46 PM:And if you analyze Romney's statement it shows the inherent racism of someone who was raised to believe in the Mormon faith:
"John Taylor, the third prophet of the Latter Day Saints also explained how the blacks survived the flood - "After the flood, we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God."
So,yeah, Mitt Romney would be my preferred opponent against Barack Obama.
Because Barack doesn't have to explain what a President Mitt would believe, I would do that for him.
Tara wrote on December 15, 2007 5:48 PM:Thank you Bill. Thank you Hillary.
The best post I read all day was:
"Why bother? Hillary is gonna win anyway."
At the end of the day, that is what it is.
vena wrote on December 15, 2007 5:50 PM:How can anything someone says be taken seriously if they are immature enough to refer to someone as "O-Bomb-a?"
robert ethan wrote on December 15, 2007 5:51 PM:Mike timmons wrote on December 15, 2007 5:36 PM:
The fact is Hillary is toast, as evidenced by the fact that she IS TIED FOR THIRD IN IOWA! The numbers are not the same. Obama is on the rise, and Hillary is sinking faster than Bill Clintons statement that he "never had sex with that woman".
You may have been too young at the time to remember this, Mike, but a Pew poll taken mid December, 2003, in Iowa showed the following -
Howard Dean - 29%
Dick Gephardt - 21%
John Kerry - 18%.
But, I have to admit KERRY WAS ALONE IN THIRD PLACE so maybe it isn't a perfect analogy.
blackstar wrote on December 15, 2007 6:01 PM:"Here's a quote," said Obama. "The same old experience is irrelevant. You can have the right kind of experience or the wrong kind of experience. And mine is rooted in the real lives of real people and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change. And that was Bill Clinton in 1992."
"The notion that there is a particular kind of experience that he has had, or his wife has had, that is more relevant, I would disagree," he continued. "I believe I have the experience that the country needs right now. I think that's why we're doing relatively well in this race."
i'd say that pretty much answers this interview.
Well, I am glad you have finally decided to join reality and agree that HRC is in third place in Iowa, after having been the clear front runner.
Therefore, you must agree that she is not where she was in the polls a year ago, and your previous posts are mistaken.
I accept your apologies for your getting personal with me. Sometimes it takes a while to accept the truth, especially when you have an emotional attachment to a fantasy.
CalD wrote on December 15, 2007 6:07 PM:So apparently it's not just me. It's been my impression for some time that of the three top-tier candidates, Obama has been running the most relentlessly negative campaign by far all along, mostly without really getting called on it by either the MSM or the blogosphere. Looks to me like I was right. I just read on the Des Moines Register site that the Clinton camp had launched a new web site called Attack Timeline chronicling attacks on Senator Clinton by Senators Obama and Edwards over the past year.
It's a pretty cool site. Interactive, very nicely designed. The timeline goes back to February and in terms of quantifying attacks, I count 57 separate incidents for Obama vs. 40 for Edwards. That would put Obama ahead of Edwards on mud-slinging by almost 50%, which I actually found unsurprising even given Edwards' recent experimentations with the politics of outrage.
frankly0 wrote on December 15, 2007 6:19 PM:Personally, I find it hard to have a lot of respect for most Obama supporters.
The basic reason is simple: the man has made it plain as day that he is willing to subvert progressive politics and policies in order to promote his own political ambitions.
I don't know how else to understand his approach to SS, or his attack on mandates in health care. I don't see how an honest person can look at those approaches and not see how the man just doesn't give a damn about what kind of larger political fallout his political attacks on his opponents bring about.
Really, between Hillary's negative politics, which only damages a political opponent, and Obama's, which damages basic policies we supposedly all care about, it's got to be Obama's politics that are far more reprehensible.
You just have to be in a personality cult not to see what Obama has done here. I just don't see how supposedly progressive people can justify even to themselves Obama's stances.
If it were Lieberman who had done what Obama did, every last Democrat in the blogosphere would be on his case. Since it's Obama, somehow it's not just OK, it's wonderful, like everything else he has done.
What can I say? I just don't respect that.
anonymous wrote on December 15, 2007 6:22 PM:The biggest impression I'm left with after watching that clip is that Charlie Rose is really annoying. If he hadn't goaded BC relentlessly and re-phrased everything that came out of his mouth, news sites and blogs like TPM and others wouldn't be able to have their "Gloves off" headlines. But then I guess that's Rose's job. What's disappointing is that TPM decided to go with the simplest view--the same neatly packaged idea that every other one else went for. That Clinton was attacking Obama. I'm an Obama supporter, but I usually enjoy TPM because it has a little more insight and complexity than most blogs. Not in this case, I guess.
Steve wrote on December 15, 2007 6:22 PM:I find it a little strange how for some (not all) Obama supporters, anyone who dares criticize their candidate must be tossed from the ranks of the Democratic good guys:
Hillary Clinton, who (like Obama and the rest of the candidates) are generally very popular among Democrats nationally.
Paul Krugman, who has championed liberal causes for the last decade, but who wrote a few columns criticizing Obama's health care plan and is suddenly persona non grata.
Bill Clinton, who is almost certainly the most popular Democrat alive today, and the only decent president in the last 28 years. People here actually bring up the Republican-manufactured scandals of the 1990s and talk about that like it's some sort of dark age.
Heck, I remember that when John Lewis endorsed Hillary Clinton, someone on here said that he had lost the moral courage he had when he crossed that bridge in Selma.
Let's supposed that despite Clinton's inevitable downward spiral to doom and ignominy somehow she wins the nomination, and Obama then endorses her. Will you support her then?
Jeremy wrote on December 15, 2007 6:23 PM:CalD. That is a cleverly designed site, but it has zero credibility for anyone interested in making an objective judgment and it reinforces the image of Clinton as whiny and entitled. Opposing campaigns will discuss their differences with the front runner. Here is an example of one of the "attacks" listed by that site:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/12/wobama12.xml
Clinton is crazy if she thinks that pointing to a candidates track record and assessing the judgments they've made is unfair campaigning.
robert ethan wrote on December 15, 2007 6:25 PM:LOL, Anomoly r us. A year ago, Hillary was in second place with 16% to John Edward's 30% in Iowa. Depending on which poll you choose today, she is either in first place, second place, or third place in Iowa. In each of the cases, she has substantially higher support now than she did a year ago.
MonaL wrote on December 15, 2007 6:32 PM:Hmmm, who to support?
Andrew Sullivan's pick - Obama?
(Andy was a Bush apologist/Clinton hater long before he loved him some Barry)
or
Larry Johnson's pick - HRC
"Obama Talks the Talk, But Where’s the Walk?"
"Sen. Clinton has stuck her neck out "
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/dec/13/obama_talks_the_talk_but_where_s_the_walk
I've been saying this all along. I'm intimately familiar with the style and substance of Hil's campaign organization; I put in two cycles with Clinton-Gore.
These hubris filled sense of entitlement laden arrogant S.O.B.s are in a panic now that their true expertise has been tested in Iowa. The biggest danger we face in the Obama Campaign is Hilary's Campaign, who will do anything to enhance their candidate's status ---which includes completely sabotaging Obama if he gets the nomination in order to enhance their candidates chances in 2012. These guys think of themselves as winners, and to them , if they lose the nomination, it's just another battle in the "war" they will wage until their candidate is the nominee.
If Hillary loses Iowa, they will prove to me what I've long maintained: that they are staffed with people whose only political skill is to take an overwhelming margin and reduce it to a close race/possible loss.
That's what they excel at, and their intentional dwelling inside a "beltway bubble" because they really, really don't want to deal with the "little people" will ultimately prove fatal to Hillary's chances, whether Iowa, or the General Election.
This is one Democrat who wants to WIN in '08, not sit by while a historic opportunity is bungled away by an insider campaign's belief that the party message has to be watered down to appeal to the centrist voters, and other surefire loser DLC talking points which gave us George W Bush for two terms.
This campaign should be about Hope for the future, not a rerun of the long-gone past.
Jor wrote on December 15, 2007 6:34 PM:People who say Obama isn't ready must have never heard of that one term congressman who became the nation's best president -- Abraham Lincoln. Obama has enough experience -- its just not the same as last generation's.
CalD wrote on December 15, 2007 6:34 PM:Jeremy,
You probably should have tried to cherry-pick a different article to try and make your point (unless that was the best you could do). I think most objective observers would characterize the report you linked to as an attack on Clinton by Obama -- including the author of the article apparently, who began the very first sentence saying, "Senator Barack Obama yesterday launched his toughest attack yet on his rival Hillary Clinton..." Duh.
Dan Leahy wrote on December 15, 2007 6:37 PM:Truly brutal excerpt?? The MSM brought down Edwards early. They've been trashing Hillary non-stop ever since. If they succeed in stopping her, what they do to Obama will make Bill Clinton's comments sound like a Valentine. Those on this blog who think that was an attack have very short memories, and will be unpleasantly surprised when the media start to unload on Obama.
Jeremy wrote on December 15, 2007 6:37 PM:Steve. Krugman is as fallible as the rest of us. He seems to have singled out Obama for meme policing and frame copping. When Edwards talked about single payer in exactly the same terms as Romney, relating the potential of such a system to the performance of the government in Katrina, Krugman was silent. Why? Krugman supports Edwards as he has made very clear to audiences on his book tour. So, some of us looked to additional credible liberal sources and found room for disagreement. See, for example, Reich's articles on mandates on his blog. Our problem with Krugman wasn't his right to weigh in on the health plans but rather the overheated way in which he did so, suggesting there was no room for reasonable people to disagree on the immediate need for mandates and speaking of Obama in terms of "treason" to the cause of health care reform. Krugman is still a credible voice but so is Reich, and I just think it's important to give Krugmen credit for making his preference clear despite the NYT's no endorsement policy. He's given enough winks and nods that we can read him as a candidate partisan and put his singling out of Obama in the proper context.
NCSteve wrote on December 15, 2007 6:42 PM:Could some of you Hillaroids please answer a simple question? Just what in the hell is it that you think the Republicans are going to be able to do to Obama that Hillary can't? Seriously, you piss and you moan and you quake in your little boots about how the Republicans will "eat him for dinner," and yet, there he is, bearing up under the full onslaught of Hillary's oppo machine. If there was any dirt to be dug, dontcha kinda think she would have found it? She can't be, both, the meanest, roughest, toughest, candidate who ever ran for office and, at the same time, not be competent to take down this guy who you all seem to think is such a lamb to the slaughter.
Give me a frakkin break, people. If your candidate's propaganda requires you to believe two utterly inconsistent things at the same time, then either your candidate is counting upon his/her followers' having a totalitarian mindset or else you're following a politically incompetent candidate. Or both.
Finally, how in the hell anyone on pacc's side of an argument can possibly accuse Obama's supporters of being "the lowest common denominator" is quite beyond me. You whine and cry about how anyone who does not prostrate themselves before her Strength and Experience is an Arkansas Project Hillary Hater while tacitly enabling the one regular commenter who invariably spews the foulest, most vicious, small-minded, bigoted cant to be found here. If any Hillary supporter has ever said, "whoa, that's out of line," to him/her/it, it wasn't on a thread I've seen. Police your own twisted hatemongers and then, maybe, just maybe, you'll have the moral authority to tut-tut those of us who dare dispute Hillary's entitlement to the throne.
Jeremy wrote on December 15, 2007 6:47 PM:CalD. You continue to insist on blurring the distinction between legitimate criticism of a candidates track record and petty campaigning attacks. The former can indeed be referred to as a type of "attack" but there's a clear distinction that the "abandoning the politics of hope" crowd refuses to acknowledge. That failure underlies the fundamental inability of the Clinton camp to manage the narrative. They got the first shot in on experience but they've been unable to respond to the demand that they demonstrate how Hillary's experience informs her judgment because they view that demand as an "attack". Obama has been able to answer the substantive charges made by the Clinton campaign by citing his superior track record and at the same time make the cheap shots look as silly as they are. The Clinton camp needs to learn how to refute criticism and mock the cheap stuff. That they have tried to mock legitimate points has engendered a perception that Hillary feels entitled to the presidency. However, "because its my turn" is no comparison with "for the fierce urgency of now" as a reason for running for president.
CalD wrote on December 15, 2007 7:06 PM:Jeremy,
Don't you get dizzy from all that spinning? (Never mind. I think I know the answer.) I'll just reiterate that most objective observers would characterize the report you linked to as an attack on Clinton by Obama -- including the author of the article who began the very first sentence saying, "Senator Barack Obama yesterday launched his toughest attack yet on his rival Hillary Clinton..."
Legitimate criticism would have begun and ended at I disagree and I would have done that differently. Obama however, took it a step further and turned it into a negative attack on character. Duh.
robert ethan wrote on December 15, 2007 7:11 PM:For all those pimping the latest Iowa polls to underline the "tanking" of the Clinton campaign, and the "surge" of Obama here is a little item from 192 days ago.
Poll: Obama, Clinton now virtually tied
Updated 192d ago | Comments362 |
TODAY
WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama are essentially tied for the Democratic presidential nomination, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, the first time that the New York senator hasn't clearly led the field.
The Illinois senator bests Clinton by a single percentage point, 30%-29%, if the contest includes former vice president Al Gore.
CalD. With all due respect I believe it was an "attack", since you insist on the framing of the report, on Senator Clinton's judgment not her character. Indeed, his emphasis was on his own good judgment: "I feel good about the fact that my judgment was we shouldn't be proceeding and I think that speaks hopefully to the kind of judgment I'll be bringing to the office of president."
You are making my point for me. Rather than directly respond to the criticism, you want to turn it into some kind of cheap shot. This is why your candidate is losing. She hasn't been capable of maturely answering her opponents' arguments.
As for your "dizzy from all that spinning" line. It's condescending and not the least bit clever. Grow up.
Karl Rove wrote on December 15, 2007 7:21 PM:Excellent! My work here is done.
Mark Penn wrote on December 15, 2007 7:23 PM:Hi Karl. Love your work. You wouldn't happen to be seeking employment? There's always unions to bust and mercenaries images to polish, ya know!
Chris wrote on December 15, 2007 7:27 PM:NC Steve, I can't say I'm exactly quaking in my little boots over Obama since beyond Iowa, possibly NH and possibly SC, he's done. All the Obama campers have dug into the early states and seem too think they have it nailed because of Iowa. Please. Please begin to explain to us how Feb 5th works out for your man in any way. Oh that's right, the entire Democratic voting blocks of the Feb 5th states see his showing in Iowa and are so impressed that en masse they migrate to his new vision. Cool.
It's gonna be All HRC, regardless of the miraculous turnaround that would need to happen in FLA, NY, CA, NV and more if Obama even has a prayer. So enjoy Iowa and NH while you have them.
To your point, Bill got on Charlie Rose last night and made one substantive point about experience and the Obama supporters have their knickers so twisted over it, it's embarrassing. All this feigned outrage about gutter politics and mean-spiritedness because Clinton took a soft swipe on Charlie Rose? You're kidding right?
As soon as the Repubs go hard-line with the "Osama" and lack of any true experience outside of the classroom and being a state level Senator and he'll start to crack. He's a great speaker alone on a stage with nobody in his face, but in more than one instatnce during the debates, he tried to get "tough" and looked out of sorts. For example, actually stammering over the whole driver's license controversy a week after Hillary had already stepped in it.
I'll vote for him if he turns out to be the nominee, but he's just a softee, sorry to say.
loki wrote on December 15, 2007 7:32 PM:NCSteve...
You are right... I always thought pacc was no better than that creature Michael A. for Obama.
Insanely irrational.
Though recently you've not done much better. You regurgitate the typical Obama supporters talking points uncritically. Name calling. Insults. Just look at the post of yours above.
And by the way pacc is one person. Except for Keith almost all Obama supporters in here are beyond the pale. Comes from having an irrational "belief" in the Chosen One I'd say.
Liam wrote on December 15, 2007 7:34 PM:Why is it that the candidate with the least experience, according to the Clintons, is the one who has had no problems keeping his Senior campaign staff under control, but Mrs. Most Experienced One, Clinton has to keep throwing members of her campaign overboard for being out of control, and engaging in smear spamming, etc.
If Hillary can not manage and lead her campaign staff, and has to keep getting rid of them, will she not be just as incompetent as the Nation's chief Executive.
She is not up to the job.
loki wrote on December 15, 2007 7:34 PM:I just came from watching the clip mentioned at the top. I now realize Eric has a solid sense of irony. Good on ya!
Liam wrote on December 15, 2007 7:45 PM:Bill said that ever since he has known Hillary, she has been the best at identifying a problem and figuring out what to do about it.
Can you say Hillary's Health Care fiasco, Boys and Girls!
CalD wrote on December 15, 2007 7:54 PM:Jeremy,
I will reiterate once again that you contended that the Attack Timeline web site lists material that doesn't properly qualify as attacks by Obama on Clinton. In "support" of your contention, you linked to an article whose very first sentence begins with the words, "Senator Barack Obama yesterday launched his toughest attack yet on his rival Hillary Clinton..."
I'm just pointing that out (for the third time now). And note that I did say an I thought most objective observers -- for example, the reporter who wrote the article -- would characterize the example you chose as an attack on Senator Clinton by Barack Obama. The same might not be true of course of someone who had a dog in that fight.
CalD wrote on December 15, 2007 8:09 PM:Here's an item. John Edwards doesn't seem to think Barack Obama is up to the challenge.
Edwards refrained from mentioning his competitors by name in a short speech he gave to about 150 people at a steakhouse here. But then an undecided voter stood and asked Edwards to give one reason why Iowans should back him instead of Obama in the Jan. 3 caucuses."Well, I'll give you two reasons," Edwards said. "One is substantive, and one is political."
AdvertisementAs president, Edwards said, he would be more successful in fighting the powerful corporations and interests that he says control America's health care system and other important areas.
Obama, he said, would take a more conciliatory approach. "He talks about bringing drug companies, insurance companies, oil companies ... to the table and working with them and negotiating and compromising," Edwards said. "I just think that'll never work. If that would work, it would have worked years ago. If that worked, we'd have universal health care. We don't."
Edwards said he respects Obama and the rest of the Democratic field.
"You know, we've got a lot of good and talented candidates, we've got a lot of smart candidates, and we've got a lot of people with good ideas," he said. "But we need somebody who's ready for this battle."
On the political side, the former North Carolina senator said, he is more likely to win the general election because he can appeal to voters in states that have gone Republican in the past.
Edwards cited a recent CNN poll that shows him as the only Democrat who tops every leading Republican in hypothetical, head-to-head matchups.
"If you want to win, you're looking at the guy who can go everywhere in America with a real message of fighting for change ... and can compete in every single place in this country," he said.
Last week we saw Obama "dropping oppo" on Edwards. Now Edwards takes a swing at Obama. Hmmm.
JWilson wrote on December 15, 2007 8:17 PM:Wow, this video clip qualifies as "brutal?" This site is so outrageously anti-Clinton that people have lost their minds.
Bill was quite polite and genuine about the difference between a symbol of change and an agent of change. He praised Obama's political ability, but contrasted that with political ability plus substantive programs to implement a vision of change.
You people need to learn how to pick your battles.
phidda wrote on December 15, 2007 8:21 PM:Won't it be awkward for the big dog at the convention nominating Obama?
Stand by your (wo)man.
RanStevens wrote on December 15, 2007 8:27 PM:Ni Daye:
I have to disagree with your comparison of Obama to JFK. While everything you said was true, most of it occurred after he was elected president, so it is irrelevant to a discussion of how much experience someone has BEFORE being elected.
Experience only goes so far, I'm curious how her experience as a Wal-Mart board member, first lady of both Arkansas and the US, junior senator, and prominent lawyer makes her more qualified than someone who was a community organizer, constitutional law professor, state senator, and junior senator? Both have impressive resumes, and boiling an election down to "who has more experience?" degrades the whole process.
pacc wrote on December 15, 2007 8:41 PM:Far be it from me to be defending Mitt Romney. But you Obamevangelists are such whack jobs, some things bear noting...
Anonymous wrote on December 15, 2007 5:46 PM:And if you analyze Romney's statement it shows the inherent racism of someone who was raised to believe in the Mormon faith:
Here, again, is Romney's statement:
“… I thought Hillary Clinton had it locked solid, but it looks like it’s opening up a bit. I must admit I find it a little surprising that a guy who has virtually no experience of an executive nature, leadership nature, never run anything, no experience of any significance in the private economy. As a state legislator he was not doing a lot of heavy lifting. In the United States Senate he hasn’t been the champion of a major piece of legislation, and some how because he can talk well why we think he can be president. I have to shake my head, because I think it takes more to be president than just being able to talk well. I think you have to show that you have a record of demonstrated success in leadership in a number of ways. And uh, I gotta tell, if we’re going to select our nominee on the Democratic side based on the number of celebrities they know, like Oprah, it’s a pretty frightening course.” - Mitt Romney
AND THAT'S RACISM?
We could throw a bottle of ink on the wall and you would call it racist.
O-Bomb-A is a loser and will be gone sooner than you think.
Keith wrote on December 15, 2007 8:42 PM:Boston Globe endorses Obama for POTUS
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/15/for_the_democrats_barack_obama/
Ni Daye wrote on December 15, 2007 8:45 PM:RanStevens ---
there is a big difference between Obama's experience and Hillary's. Ok, first of all, JFK was a house member, then a two-term Senator, before that he was a miliatry leader. All these happened before his election. tell me Obama has this kind of experience?
In terms of Hilary, she was a student President at Wellsley, is this better than a mere Harvard Law review editor? She was a majority house cousil in Nixon impeachment. She worked to improve Arkansas education system as a first lady in AR. She observed as a first lady how good presidential decisions were made that won respect both in the U.S. and the world. She was a two-term Senator from New York, winning overwhelmingly Republican upstate New York. She worked across aisles with multiple Republican senators and won their respect. She even worked with Newt to reform healthcare information services.
Can you say the same thing about Obama?
Hype-Jersey wrote on December 15, 2007 8:47 PM:Oh Pulleaze. This is supposed to be taking the gloves off? What the hell? You've got to be kidding! What do people expect Bill to say? How much more tame could he actually be and not be accused of being "luke warm" about his own wife's campaign?
But this hit piece on Clinton reads like something you'd hear on Hardball. I expect anti-clinton hyperbole from Matthews. Didn't really expect to get it here though. really disappointing coming from my favorite site.
Keith wrote on December 15, 2007 8:50 PM:Ni Daye:
Student body president at Wellsley is not even in the same league as being the first black editor of Harvard Law Review. Even Hillary would tell you that.
And can you provide a list of bills where she is co-sponsor with a Republican (named Co-sponsor (i.e., they refer to the bill as Clinton-X)) that has passed and become a law?
BlueDog wrote on December 15, 2007 9:03 PM:Hillary won Des Moine Registers endorsement!!!!!!!!! Go Madam President!!!!!!!!!!!! Change America: more oppurtunity, health care for all, peace & respect--America is back!!!!
kozmik wrote on December 15, 2007 9:07 PM:What has Hillary actually done? Not a lot.
Bill isn't campaigning for Hillary, he's campaigning for his own 3rd term in the WH.
Ni Daye wrote on December 15, 2007 9:10 PM:Keith wrote on December 15, 2007 8:50 PM: --
You have the gall to belittle Weslley, one of the best liberal arts school in the nation. As an elected student president, you think it is a lesser leadership role than an editor for a law school journal? count me as unconvinced!
kozmik wrote on December 15, 2007 9:07 PM:
What has Hillary actually done? Not a lot.
---
yea, what about a top-100 lawyer of the country? Has Obama ever smelled that?
I saw the Des Moine Registers endorsement! At least someone is not following media narrative. this is not a big deal but a relief. Imagine how the obama people would have behaved if it went the other way!
Keith wrote on December 15, 2007 9:17 PM:Ni Daye:
Then you are a damn fool.
Having been to college AND law school, I can assure you there is FAR more prestige (especially in political circles) of being editor of the Harvard Law Review than being student body president.
You have some good news to celebrate: The Register endorsed Clinton (so much needed good news in her camp).
kozmik wrote on December 15, 2007 9:20 PM:Hillary only joined Rose AFTER Bill became Governor of Arkansas, the state Rose was based in. Sorry, but it's impossible to disregard the fact that a connected law firm would love to have the Governor's wife on staff. Throughout her career, she's always been granted positions in direct correlation with Bill's career. She's always been in his shadow.
It's like GW Bush got every job he ever had on his father's coat tails.
Again, Bill isn't campaigning for Hillary the individual, he's campaigning for his wife, to get himself back in the WH.
Keith wrote on December 15, 2007 9:17 PM:
Ni Daye:
Then you are a damn fool.
---
I don't know how you made into a law school but you intelligence is questionable. Smart people don't question other people's IQ. They agree to disagree.
RanStevens wrote on December 15, 2007 9:34 PM:Ni Daye-
As someone who was a senator in student government, transferred to another college and was a representative in that student government, and is currently in law school, I can say that the editor of the law review is FAR BETTER. Welsley may be the best liberal arts college, but Harvard is the best law school.
JKF was underrated in his experience, granted. But so is Obama, community organizer, lawyer, con law professor, state senator, voting rights lawyer, on and on. Besides, I think what people who make that comparison are suggesting is that experience can only get you so far.
I think that boiling down the question to who has the most experience is a poor way to judge a person. The presidency isn't a "lifetime achievement award," otherwise Biden would be leading in the polls. Its about which candidate shares your values, which should be a complicated question that requires some thought. Its not a talking point, its a decision.
kozmik wrote on December 15, 2007 9:35 PM:Also, this idea Hillary is more qualified on FP is a bad joke, and striaght out of Rovian politics of attacking your opponents strength and repeating lies enough until they stick. Swiftboating 101, only it's not working this time.
Obama had his first degree in International relations from Columbia and his first career was in a FP intelligence and advisory company. Being multi-ethnic and from a diverse background, he seems to be draw to common human issues. So he studied Foreign Relations at a top co-ed school Columbia. He studied Law and was the first black editor of the Harvard law Review because he could intellectually grapple with a wide range of issues. He's never limited himself by ethnic or gender stereotypes.
Hillary by comparison went to Wellesley focusing in women's studies, and almost all her academic and professional work has been women's issues and family oriented. Wellesley is not a top co-ed school like Columbia or Harvard, it's a top women's school and it's notable alumni are pretty thin compared with top co-ed schools. Hillary's Yale Law education was again focused on women's issues as opposed to broader humanistic issues.
Which is great and a necessary field for specialization, but it's still just a specialization, not broad enough to be Presidential material.
And the notion she has more FP experience, is a bad joke. She has zero FP experience except to fluff her resume in the last few years. The only reason she even has any backers poltically, or anybody even knows who she is, is because she's married to Bill Clinton, and beltway power brokers consider her a known quantity.
blackstar wrote on December 15, 2007 9:41 PM:the Harvard Law Review is the most prestigious law review and among the most prestigious legal publications of any kind in the country.
there is absolutely no comparison between being its editor and being class president at a liberal arts college, no matter how highly thought of.
kozmik wrote on December 15, 2007 9:43 PM:Obama has way more experience than Hillary.
It's so Rovian for Hillary to claim she has more experience. What experience? What has she ever done that wasn't on Bill's coat tails? Every job she's ever had, from Rose to WALMART, has been as the wife of Bill Clinton the Attorney General, Bill Clinton the Governor, and Bill Clinton the President.
All she ever did politically was act as Bill's point person on the 90's Health Care Reform, which was a disaster because the Clinton's didn't listen to cautionary advice and didn't know what they were doing. She ran as Senator as the former First lady because Bill was still popular in NY.
Would anyone even know her name if not for Bill Clinton? Sorry, but the last thing we need is another legacy admission to the WH.
BluePuppy wrote on December 15, 2007 9:43 PM:Obama has 0 foreign policy experience. I smeall whiff of sexism in the suggestion that Hillary does not. The letter below puts that notion to rest.
As diplomats and former Ambassadors who represented the United States to the rest of the world, we were personal witnesses to the important role Hillary Clinton played as First Lady in promoting American interests and values abroad. During those eight years, in travels to over 80 countries, Hillary Clinton was America’s human face to people around the globe who looked to America as a beacon of inspiration, hope, and opportunity.
As First Lady, Hillary was a highly effective and passionate advocate on behalf of human rights around the world. She met with the mothers and grandmothers of the disappeared in Argentina in 1997, survivors of the Rwandan genocide, and mothers of children kidnapped in Uganda. She advocated on behalf of women’s rights around the globe. Perhaps most famously, in her historic speech at the UN Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995, she declared that "women’s rights are human rights," inspiring actions in every corner of the globe to raise the status of women. Building on her overseas work, Hillary spearheaded U.S. efforts to combat human trafficking, and led the Vital Voices Democracy Initiative to support emerging women leaders who were advancing social, economic, and political progress in their respective countries.
Senator Clinton was also one of America’s most visible advocates for those struggling to gain the tools of opportunity. She put a spotlight on U.S. development programs that were bringing solutions to global challenges. She recognized the potential of microfinance in creating self-sufficiency for the world’s poor, and she led efforts in the United States to fund microcredit programs in developing countries.
As First Lady she worked for reconciliation in the aftermath of wars and she led humanitarian efforts for Bosnia and on behalf of Kosovar refugees. She developed programs to aid the victims of war, including mine awareness in the Balkans, where land mines left over from the fighting were claiming the lives of innocent children, and she enlisted all sectors of society to aid in assisting the victims of the conflict. She supported the role of women in Northern Ireland in building the peace and creating a better life for their families.
Senator Clinton helped pave the way for important diplomatic initiatives. Her 1995 trip to India, for example, helped foster good relations between the world’s two largest democracies. She also played a leading role in supporting people in the new democracies from the former USSR to South America. She championed the important role of civil society and supported nascent nongovernmental organizations.
As former ambassadors and diplomats we believe the United States faces unprecedented challenges. We need a President who will be ready to face them head on, beginning on Day 1. Senator Clinton’s diplomatic accomplishments as First Lady and her achievements in the Senate, including her service on the Senate Armed Services Committee, make her uniquely qualified to lead our nation at this time of great challenge. She is the candidate with the strength and experience to restore America’s standing in the world and to return the United States to a position of global leadership.
* Christopher Ashby - Ambassador to Uruguay (1997-2001)
* Harriet C. Babbitt - Ambassador to Organization of American States (1993-1997)
* Elizabeth Frawley Bagley - Ambassador to Portugal (1994-1997)
* James Blanchard - Ambassador to Canada (1993-1996)
* Amy L. Bondurant - Ambassador to OECD (1997-2001)
* Edward P. Brynn - Ambassador to Ghana (1995-1998)
* Robin Chandler Duke - Ambassador to Norway (2000-2001)
* Stuart E. Eizenstat - Ambassador to European Union (1993-1996)
* Thomas Foley - Ambassador to Japan (1997-2001)
* Edward E. Gabriel - Ambassador to Morocco (1997-2001)
* Marc C. Ginsberg - Ambassador to Morocco (1994-1998)
* Gabriel Guerra-Mondragon - Ambassador to Chile (1994-1998)
* Anthony S. Harrington - Ambassador to Brazil (1999-2001)
* Richard Holbrooke - Ambassador to Germany (1993-94), Ambassador to UN (1999-01)
* Swanee G. Hunt - Ambassador to Austria (1993-1997)
* Karl F. Inderfurth - Rep. for Special Political Affairs to the UN (1993-97)
* James R. Jones - Ambassador to Mexico (1993-1997)
* John Kornblum - Ambassador to Germany (1997-2001)
* Philip Lader - Ambassador to United Kingdom (1997-2001)
* Luis Lauredo - Ambassador to Organization of American States (2000-2001)
* Tom McDonald - Ambassador to Zimbabwe (1997-2001)
* Gerald McGowen - Ambassador to Portugal (1998-2001)
* Charles T. Manatt - Ambassador to Dominican Republic (1999-2001)
* Walter F. Mondale - Ambassador to Japan (1993-1997)
* Richard L. Morningstar - Ambassador to the European Union (1999-2001)
* Peter F. Romero - Ambassador to Ecuador (1993-1996)
* James C. Rosapepe - Ambassador to Romania (1998-2001)
* Cynthia P. Schneider - Ambassador to Netherlands (1998-2001)
* Derek Shearer - Ambassador to Finland (1994-1998)
* Wendy R. Sherman - Ambassador at Large (1997-01)
* Terry Shumaker - Ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago (1997 to 2001)
* Daniel Spiegel - Ambassador UN in Geneva (1993-1997)
* Joseph Wilson - Ambassador to Gabon (1992-1995)
RanStevens wrote on December 15, 2007 9:34 PM:
--- Student President and Law Review Editor, which one is an elected position? What do you think of democracy?
Hillary as a young woman confronted a powerful Senator as a commencement speaker, has Mr. Obama ever done that? Yea, you can tell me about this opportunistic speach at an anti-war rally. I have done this before myself.
kozmik wrote on December 15, 2007 9:47 PM:"The Harvard Law Review is the most prestigious law review and among the most prestigious legal publications of any kind in the country."
One of the most prestigious in the world.
Literally, when democracies are forming around the world, their top people tend to be educated at Harvard Law and still read its publications in forming their opinions.
Keith wrote on December 15, 2007 9:49 PM:I didn't question your intelligence, I said you were a fool for believing that being student body president was a bigger deal than being editor of the Harvard Law Review. I'll stand by my statement.
kozmik wrote on December 15, 2007 9:54 PM:Baloney.
A lot of fluff jobs and appointments that the First Lady always gets to basically act as a secretary to the President. When we have a first woman president, her husband, the First Gentleman or whatever he's called, will also get a lot of fluff appointments, but nobody is going to later claim he's Presidential material on that fluff.
In Hillary's case, if elected she'll just be GW Bush to Clinton as Cheney. She may want to run the show, just like GW does, but she doesn't have the experience or capability to actually be the smartest person in the room and will always be a puppet by those around her and feeding her cherry picked opinions, just like Bush.
You know, it's too bad Obama isn't a woman so we could finally put this to rest and have a competent woman as President. But Billary isn't it.
kozmik wrote on December 15, 2007 9:59 PM:"Hillary as a young woman confronted a powerful Senator as a commencement speaker"
So what? So did a lot of counter culture types pride themselves on "confronting power." But aside from rhetoric and confrontation, that's all most of them ever accomplished.
Wellesley was known for that, so it's not as though she was out on a limb or a profile in courage. In fact, it was expected of her there. It secured her career in that niche and that she'd always get a job as the token establishment feminist in corporate America. Bill's status elevated her tokenism a few orders of magnitude of course. Born to pander.
RanStevens wrote on December 15, 2007 10:00 PM:I might be wrong to point this out, but judging from the timeline, it seems like all those ambassadors were nominated by Bill Clinton.
Just for fun, I'm going to throw Dodd out there, as someone who we should be talking about. Anyway want to back me up? I've got money ;)
RanStevens wrote on December 15, 2007 10:16 PM:Ni Daye -
If I remember correctly, both are elected, although the Law Journal draws from a smaller crowd (faculty, members of the journal).
I'll take the bait, lets assume that the law review election wasn't a real election, or something to that effect. But that a pandora's box for the Clinton's argument. Do we judge only elected experience? Does that mean that everything Clinton and Obama did before being elected doesn't matter? Does that mean that Clinton's time as first lady was useless, because she wasn't elected to the post?
Taking it from a different angle, so what if his experience wasn't elected? I was in student government in two different schools, and the administration ignored us. In both schools. Obama was so damn smart that he broke the race barrier for one of the most respected law journals in the US. THAT'S the kind of experience I'd want.
DTM wrote on December 15, 2007 10:31 PM:I'm late to this party so I will just say I somewhat feel sorry for Bill Clinton. Obviously he has to support Hillary, but under the circumstances that means he has to argue against the new (and arguably improved) version of himself from 2008. Charlie Rose exposed that fundamental conflict, and the results weren't pretty.
anyon wrote on December 15, 2007 10:35 PM:The Des Moines Register Endorses Clinton and McCain
RaymondA wrote on December 15, 2007 10:59 PM:The Boston Globe endorsed Obama. Stirring editorial. So far no TPM mention. More evidence of TPM bias. Sigh.
Now, with regard to the commenter who invokes the fact that "Hillary as a young woman confronted a powerful Senator as a commencement speaker." Go back on read her speech. It's a incoherent and full of then-trendy jargon-- proof she's always been a go with the flow person. And the "powerful Senator" she confronted was at that time the first -- and only -- African American senator since reconstruction. He was the liberal Republican Ed Brooke, very pro-civil rights, progressive on issues of poverty; and to the left of where Hillary has been for the past decade or more. Some worthy person for her to disrespect! She has a problem showing respect, as we saw the other day when she was laughing as Obama was trying to answer and then going beyond laughter to needling him.
Well this dis-respectee took the needle and poked it right through her gut, which is what I bet Brooke wishes he had done.
Folks, Hillary is awful. She's a bundle of arrogance and self-righteousness whose principal virtue is that she was th victim of many unfair and over-the-top attacks. But as I've written before, although she is running on her supposed superior ability to withstand Repub attacks, the truth is many of those attacks have stuck to her among independents; she's only convinced Democrats of her strengths. Republicans and, more importantly, the independents we are going to need to win just don't like her.
Ni Daye wrote on December 15, 2007 11:13 PM:RaymondA wrote on December 15, 2007 10:59 PM:
--- yea, if only you could do as well were you forced to change your drafted speech in the last minute!
Joe wrote on December 15, 2007 11:34 PM:Don't like Clinton? Must vote for Obama. Appears to be the general trend here. So limiting.
The comparisons to Abe btw are a bit much. Lincoln was a major player in the days of the creation of the Republican Party. A young party in which a rising star had a step up. He was a top legal player from a key swing state of the day. He nearly won against the top national Dem. of the day (after debates that only made him more nationally known), the one deemed by many the clear candidate in 1860 (before events split the party).
IOW, he won the nomination for various reasons ... the fact he had little experience as a politician (he did serve in the Ill. legislator for a few terms too; "safe" candidates with little political experience were often a serious choice in those days too) would very well have damned him without the other key draws to him as a candidate.
What national leader did Obama almost beat? Where is his years (Lincoln started being a player in the R. party in the mid-1850s, having a credible shot at a senate seat even before running against Dougals) of experience as an important player in the party as a whole? Heck, he had a good speech at the convention in '04, but where is his Cooper Union? His "House Divided?"
Obama might very well be a great candidate. I'm not convinced yet. But, comparing him to Lincoln on the experience matter w/o context is a bit silly.
I'm watching SNL. Damn, Justin Timberlake is good, so good that he is certainly not for Britney. I wish I had his fake female voice. The man may turn out to be another Sean Penn.
newKnow wrote on December 16, 2007 1:10 AM:Dear Mr. President,
That interview is not coming off well. A specific attack on Obama and telling the voters to look at EVERYONE else EXCEPT Obama appears waaaay too political.
When you ran for President both times, you had less experience than both of your opponents.
If I were Obama, my response would be: Lincoln, Roosevelt, Washington, . . .
My favorite response to Bill's critique so far....From this blog called THE REACTION http://the-reaction.blogspot.com/2007/12/bill-clinton-on-charlie-rose-its.html
Here are excerpts:
[Clinton] also hit back at the charge that experienced politicians had helped get us into the Iraq war, saying that this was "like saying that because 100 percent of the malpractice cases are committed by doctors, the next time I need surgery I'll get a chef or a plumber to do it."
No, Bill, all malpractice cases may be committed by doctors, but some doctors have never committed malpractice. There are plenty of politicians who did not commit Iraq malpractice and I would turn to one of them, long before I turn to Hillary, whose experience did nothing to shape her judgment, except insofar as to read the political tea leaves which told her, wrongly, that she needed to be on the hawk side with respect to Iraq.
...Bill raises one more point worthy of mention. Again, from E&P...
"I guess I'm old fashioned," [Clinton] said, in wanting a president who had actually done things for people. He said some people could "risk" taking someone who had served just a year in the Senate if they chose. When Rose said that all this seemed to add up to Clinton hinting that people would be "rolling the dice" if they picked Obama, the former president replied: "It's less predictable, isn't it?"
Yes, an Obama presidency would be "less predictable," but that's exactly what I'm looking for. We can "predict" that Hillary's presidency would be more hawkish, more poll-driven, more cautious, less audacious, more polarizing, and, well, more of the same.
kozmik wrote on December 16, 2007 4:06 AM:"The Boston Globe endorsed Obama. Stirring editorial. So far no TPM mention. More evidence of TPM bias. Sigh."
TPMC was for the Iraq war, which Josh has apologized for. But Josh is still a fan of predictive markets and such. As much as I respect JM, he has a tendency to go with the establishment flow even against better judgment, and regret it later.
I think JM is on the fence or maybe even favoring Obama, but afraid to say so, hedging bets and all.
kozmik wrote on December 16, 2007 4:14 AM:"Don't like Clinton? Must vote for Obama. Appears to be the general trend here."
Not at all. Obama is great, and the best candidate. Period.
But he's especially good when you really look closely at Hillary, and see just what a sham her candidacy and "experience" is. That, and her already high negatives, make her rather vulnerable. People worried about electability really ought to look at all the problems she has.
You think Republicans aren't going to remind everyone of Lewinsky and make Hillary the butt of a million jokes? Example: Hillary says her time in the WH shows how astute she is, yet, she was being cheated on by Bill much of that time. Now Bill is campaigning for her, saying how sharp she is, so he can get back in the WH again. People think that won't damage her in middle America with swing voters? Get real.
Or that Republicans won't mention the fact her "experience" is all on Bill's coat tails? That throughout her professional life, Bill gets elected to a new office, and soon after she gets offered a job by people seeking favor with his office. Or that it won't resonate? It will, because it's true.
Hillary is a weak candidate. If it wasn't for Bill, nobody would even know who she is.
kozmik wrote on December 16, 2007 4:16 AM:Ni Daye "I'm watching SNL."
Who cares? This is a political forum. Not your MySpace page, and that you consider Hillary your friend doesn't amount to a lot either.
Grant wrote on December 16, 2007 4:48 AM:It takes a President to finally start telling some hard truths. So far this primary camping has amounted to stupid media worship of Obama – a man not ready to lead. Now perhaps we can start having a real Democratic primary.
Grant wrote on December 16, 2007 5:14 AM:BlueDog wrote on December 15, 2007 3:00 PM: I am not allowed to point out the HATE?No, as a Clinton supporter you’re not, it’s a complete double standard at work. While any so called critique of Clinton, no matter how derogatory, is viewed as enlightened, inspirational, and ultimately good for the party; any critique of Obama is a sign of low morale and desperation.
The intellectual dishonesty of many Obama supporters online is often appalling. No slur against Hillary Clinton (but for some reason seldom against Edwards) is to mean or to sexist. No hateful dismissal of her supporters is to base.
It’s really kind of sad but I actually find it kind of funny; the proponents of “Hope” and “Change” tumble over themselves in the gutter to spew out hate and arrogance.
When Hillary is our nominee we shall see if these hate mongers will return to the fold or if they will stay true to their anti Democratic beliefs and work against our party.
For any voters who might actually care about the online conversation, to choose between Obama, a totally inexperienced guy with an online following that are often as nasty as h*ll, and Hillary Clinton will be a no brainer.
patchwork wrote on December 16, 2007 6:48 AM:Blue dog said:
"As First Lady, Hillary was a highly effective and passionate advocate on behalf of human rights around the world. She met with the mothers and grandmothers of the disappeared in Argentina in 1997, survivors of the Rwandan genocide, and mothers of children kidnapped in Uganda"
Wow she sure has turned on a dime. She voted to bomb Iraq---the killing of hundreds of thousands of women, children, old men, old women and the obliteration of entire families sure bodes well for her vast experience and her degree in women and family studies.
She failed to read the NIE, tried to spin it, but only after it looked as if the war was not going too well--before that she pushed for it for a couple of years. More families, women and children died. I will also mention the families of the American troops who were killed. Children without their father or mother--parents heartsick and wailing over the loss of their young son--
and she refuses to apologize for that vote. I have the feeling that should Bush's war gone well, she would still be supporting the devastation of families and the millions of those who had to leave their family homes and trek to Syria or live in tents in a safe area.
degree in women's studies and family indeed. Guess all that studying has been forgotten, or did she think , like Condi and her foreign polisy specialty, rack up a bunch of degrees, travel all over making speeches about families and women's rights, then turn around and give a boob, who most of us knew was lying, the right to slaughter them by the hundreds of thousands.
DemAC wrote on December 16, 2007 6:57 AM:
There is actually nothing, nothing, the Rethugs can say or do to raise Hillary Clinton’s negatives anymore. They have a host of spent bullets and that’s all they have. Much like the horseshit that is repeated ad nauseam on the comment sections of this blog (see above for lots of examples). Besides, from a Democratic perspective, a Rethug onslaught against Hillary Clinton would be like a free dinner and breakfast too. The voters would produce a very comforting backlash against any Rethug attacks.
Obama however… On President Clinton’s point that Obama poses a risk, this piece from Taylor Marsh is very interesting.
patchwork wrote on December 16, 2007 7:14 AM:I might be naieve. Is that the way it works? Vote for invasion and war and all the slaughter of human life it entails, just so your Republican friends will have nothing to throw at you when you run? Same for Kyl Lieberman? and the Patriot Act?
kozmik wrote on December 16, 2007 7:16 AM:It's not "sexist" to point out Hillary's spouse Bill is more powerful and that most of her career, including her election to office in NY, and much of her private career, has all been in large part to her marriage.
When we do have the first woman President, her husband will probably be someone a lot like Hillary. A good and smart man who is a great confidant and help to his powerful wife, but that's it.
It's absurd to think Hillary is Presidential material because she was in the WH with Bill, elected to NY because of Bill, and appointed to various positions in large part due to Bill.
My wife and I are best friends too. We both comfort and advise each other too. But we also have our own careers, and neither of us would know how to do the other's job. If I tried to do her job I'd be lost and inevitably would rely on her to tell me what to do all the time, and vs versa.
Bill isn't just campaigning for Hillary, he's also campaigning to get himself and his family back in the WH again.
Which would be better than GW Bush, but not as good as Obama.
The main thing that was good about the Clinton years was the economy, which he had really little to do with. He was responsible for NAFTA. They did botch HC reform and fail to listen to good advice that said the Clintons would fail because they were doing it wrong, which proved to be right.
Do we really need NAFTA again? Failed HC reform again? Pandering to corporate interests again? People need to take off the rose tinted glasses and remember what the Clintons actually were, and it wasn't that great.
Dave wrote on December 16, 2007 7:22 AM:This is very disappointing to see. Both in Bill's comments and in the squabbling amongst the supporters.
First of all, we cannot lose this election. Everyone needs to remind themselves what the Republicans have done to this country. Think about it. Then reflect that it could get a lot worse.
Losing is not an option. An Obama supporter said he would stay home in the general election because HRC voted for the Iraq war.
Are you insane? Have you heard what Giuliani and the Republicans are saying? You're gonna give them another shot because you're angry about a bad vote?
We MUST stop the Republicans from retaiting the WH. Focus people!
I think Obama is a stronger general election candidate the Clinton. Edwards, if he's viable would get my vote. But I think HRC is the weakest in the general, because of Clinton fatigue, the money generation on the Republican side, and the fact is I don't think it's healthy to have these celebrity/name-recognition dynasties.
If she wins the nomination I'll work hard to elect her.
But I'd prefer Obama or Edwards, or even Biden (who's actually acquitted himself well during this campaign, even though I disagree with some of his policies).
Bottom line though, this election is life and death (think climate change). We have to win.
"There is actually nothing, nothing, the Rethugs can say or do to raise Hillary Clinton’s negatives anymore."
Are you kidding or just nuts? As terribel as her negative are, it'll be pretty easy to make them worse becasue she is vulnerable on way too many issues from policies to character.
Hillary has repeatedly polled low and weak against Republicans, and has the highest negatives of any Dem candidate. That includs Edwards who was on the 2004 ticket and has been viciously attacked on the national stage by Republicans in a Presidential campaign.
When Hillary campaigned in NY it was also a safe state for her where they love Bill. If she had the courage to run in Wisconsin or Ohio or such then I'd say she was "vetted."
Vetted nationally or anywhere outside NY? Please.
Hillary started on the huge advantage of Bill's popularity but is a terrible campaigner and politician. If she was even on par with Obama regarding judgment, policy stances, and electability, then she should be way ahead of him with all the advantages she has.
In reality, already in Iowa she's gone from #1, on name recognition and Bill's reputation, consistently down as voters there get to know her.
Her announcement to run was done cuddling pillows on the sofa to soften her image, and was just awful. Her cackling and obnoxious behavior in debates has been awful. Her repeated attacks on rivals have backfired. Her votes in the Senate on everything from PATRIOT to paving the way for an Iran war, have all been awful.
kozmik wrote on December 16, 2007 7:44 AM:"First of all, we cannot lose this election. Everyone needs to remind themselves what the Republicans have done to this country."
Which is exactly why we have to pick the best candidate. Which is Obama, not Hillary. Like i said, I'll vote for her as a last resort if she gets the nomination. But she's a weak candidate and will be a mediocre President at best. And while that may still be a lot better than Bush, it's still far short of what the country actually needs to make people's lives any better in four years.
Her personal credentials are very scarce, and while the left may be reluctant to point out that being the first lady isn't job experience to be president, the moderates and right will not be so reluctant.
She has way too much dirty laundry. It's going to be hard for her and Bill to claim what great experience she has in the WH, and how much Bill respects her, without some obvious and unpleasant contradictions to that narrative.
She's not been vetted in a national election or even a moderate state.
She has huge negatives already which means she'll turn out the Republican vote like nobody else, and that's with her not even being attacked in a national election yet, on bill's coat tails and nepotism, which is certainly coming.
And just recently, yet another example of how awful her campaign has been, mentioning Obama's teenage drug use. Which he's been honest about while Bill and Hillary lied about theirs and became a national joke for it? It boggles the mind.
Anonymous wrote on December 16, 2007 7:58 AM:Chris said: " Sorry, but the reaction by alot of folks here and on other sites who support Obama presents just more evidence of how 'not ready for prime time' Obama is."
Count me as an undecided Independent, leaning Dem. But I really can't stop laughing at the Hillary crowd and their postings. Now it's not just Hillary who is a constant victim, it's her supporters too? I read alot of blogs and comment sections. The overzealous and often mean-spirited Hillary followers share characteristics I don't see with any other candidate Dem. or Rep.: they are arrogant with no basis for it, vicious, spinners to the point of real dishonesty, quick to take offense and characterize any opposing opinion as based on "hate" "an attack" "a lie" and then to dismiss legitimate commenters as "idiots" "fools" "morons." I won't make a decision on who to vote for based on the behavior on the comment boards. Hillary should feel releaved about that.
pacc said "Excellent to hear Bill Clinton calling a spade a spade."
Did pacc intentially use a racial epithet in refering to Obama?
This is truly shocking, and a new low for Elecion Central and the Hillary crowd.
random wrote on December 16, 2007 8:04 AM:pacc is lapsing into unvarnished racial hate speech. Does Election Central tolerate that? Most boards delete such comments and ban the posters. I guess exceptions are made for Hillary Lovers on EC.
Concerned In Iowa wrote on December 16, 2007 8:12 AM:I have posted many times arguing that the lable "Hillary haters" is not justified. I still believe that opposing Hillary does not mean "hating" Hillary. But I must admit, the number of true Hillary haters is growing very fast. I am amazed at very reasonable people I have heard in the last two weeks blast Hillary and her dirty politics. Now Bill is jumping in and fanning the flames.
It may not be realy "hate", but large and growing numbers of people are sick and tired of the Clintons. They will never vote for Hillary and just want the Bill and Hill show to pack up and go away.
I think the "Hillary Hater" mime so frequently used on this site and others is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.
DemAC wrote on December 16, 2007 8:21 AM:kozmik wrote: Are you kidding or just nuts? As terribel as her negative are, it'll be pretty easy to make them worse becasue she is vulnerable on way too many issues from policies to character.Feel free to delude yourself. There is nothing negative anybody can say about Hillary Clinton that hasn’t been said before ad nauseam. There will always be the nuts, left and right, who just passionately hate her. This hate mongering does not play well with the mainstream voters however. She is as well known and as tested as they come.
Of course she has higher negatives than does, for example, Obama. He is virtually unknown to many voters, especially outside the early primary states. If they were to get to know him by presentation of the Big Red Slime Machine, I can assure you his negatives would spike, and anybody’s guess is good as to where it would end.
Hillary Clinton is battle tested and wise and as good a candidate as they come. She has taken on the Big Red Slime Machine and come out on top. Battle scarred? Sure. But she knows how to beat them.
DemAC wrote on December 16, 2007 8:25 AM:Sorry, that non-working link above should be this.
Al Fisher wrote on December 16, 2007 8:51 AM:An awful lot of trash-talking going on from both Obama and HRC supporters. What concerns me about Obama is what concerns most Democrats right now with our Congress. His strength is his ability to compromise. Same quality we find in Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. I am fed up with negotiating everything away.
BTW, I am really surprised that so many of you have become such rabid anti WJC phobes. Boy I miss having someone of his skill and intellect in the white house. Have you guys been drinking from a Republican breast or what? Stop fantasizing and re-writing history and go back and look at what the man really accomplished, even in the face of an incredibly vitriolic attempt to destroy him mounted by the right wing of the Repug party. Get a grip.
For myself, in the GE I'll vote for any Democrat as all of you should too. But based on wisdom, experience and programs my order of preference in the primary is Biden, Edwards, HRC and Obama. I hope post primaries that we put forth a ticket that contains two of the above and of all of them the only one I would definitely assign to the VP role is Obama. If he was VP for eight years he might be ready to be President.
Someone posting as "Al Fisher" said:
"[Obama's] strength is his ability to compromise. Same quality we find in Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi."
That statement could not be farther from the truth. Obama's strength is an ability to bridge divides by persuading and convincing rival partities to join together. Obama has the capacity to inspire people to share his vision and work to achieve it. While compromise may be one method, his skills and talents are far greater than compromise.
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi do not "compromise", the capitulate. Huge difference. They are spinless and the nation suffers because of their lack of courage, principle and capacity to stand up unflinging to Bush's horrible abuse of power, the Constitution and internatinal law.
random wrote on December 16, 2007 9:40 AM:Al Fisher, Hillary and Bill,their dishonesty and their attack machine are making it very difficult for principled voters to support her if she is nominated. For me, if Hillary is the nominee and I can't stomach the Republican nominee either, I will hope and pray that Bloomberg taps his billions and runs as a successful third party candidate. He would draw equally from Republicans and Democrats, and attrack many independents sick of the lack of difference in the two major parties -- a lack that will be particularly accute if Hillary is nomiated.
Simon wrote on December 16, 2007 9:47 AM:I wouldn't characterize that clip as a negative "attack" or anything like that. Listen, Bill Clinton is uniquely qualified to discuss who is or is not qualified to be President, and to the extent that he was a pretty good one, I think he has every right to espouse his views in such a way. I think he was being generally honest in his assessment. When Rose asked him if Joe Biden was prepared to be President he said "absolutely", without hesitation. So clearly he isn't afraid to name other candidates that he deems to be qualified. Obama IS inexperienced, he hasn't made very many (or any) executive decisions, and I consider it a perfectly fair criticism to say he lacks experience. So that TPM (and others) are hyping the Rose interview as some sort of attack I think is disingenuous. This "attack" has the virtue of being true.
Chino Blanco wrote on December 16, 2007 9:51 AM:"She has taken on the Big Red Slime Machine and come out on top."
In which parallel universe?
Al, if you "miss having someone of [Bill's] skill and intellect in the white house", is your suggestion that Hillary is the remedy? Please. This two-for-the-price-of-one argument is insulting, ultimately sexist, and not particularly convincing when Bill disses me, a Democratic voter, by suggesting that I should give a toss what his Republican friends think. Their nominee is Romney, and I can't wait to watch Obama neutralize him.
Margaret wrote on December 16, 2007 9:52 AM:Obama attacks Edwards!
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/15/519281.aspx
btw - Obama is still lying about his health care plan, claiming it covers everyone.
Anonymous wrote on December 16, 2007 9:59 AM:DemAC said: " There is nothing negative anybody can say about Hillary Clinton that hasn’t been said before ad nauseam."
True. But most of the questions about Hillary's past have never been answered: her questionable legal and fiancial dealings, her role in intemidating the women involved in Bill's affairs, why her healthcare task force in the early 1990s worked behind closed doors with participants and findings never revealed, what she knew about Monica and when, has Hillary ever used illegal drugs?, what she knew about quid pro quo pardons that led to contributions to her Senate campaign and block voting in New York, did Hillary personally review the full classified intelligence estimate on Iraq before voting for the war?, did Bill advise her not to vote that way?, who advised her on the Iraq vote and will they have a roll in her administration, isn't Marc Penn's professional relationship with Blackwater and companies manafacturing dangerous toys in China and HUGE conflict of interest?, what she knew about dirty campaign money, what she knew about efforts to trash her opponents with rumors.
Sure, all of this has been said, but never answered. And it will be said many more times and much higher volume with much greater distraction from real issues, if she is nominated. We just don't need the Clintons and their baggage back. I hope voters will realize this and spare the nation this needlesss distraction and trauma.
Sure, its all been said
Chino Blanco wrote on December 16, 2007 10:06 AM:Margaret,
I read your link. I disagree with the way you've characterized the gist of the link. Is my disagreement with your characterization an attack?
Simon said: "Listen, Bill Clinton is uniquely qualified to discuss who is or is not qualified to be President..."
And if he were objective and honest it would be interesting to hear him. Former presidents, however, have never taken a position on candidates in their party's primary. Bill is taking a position because he has a vested interest in the outcome. He wants his unqualified wife elected. And that fact disqualifies him as an objective observer.
Believe Bill Clinton if you wish Simon. His track record on the truth is very poor.
Anonymous wrote on December 16, 2007 10:36 AM:DemAC posted above: "H[Obama]is virtually unknown to many voters, especially outside the early primary states."
Exactly! You are finally seeing the light, DemAC.
And Mrs. Bill Clinton is well known. Thus her early ascendency in the national polls. BUT, as specific state primaries draw near and voters forcus and look hard at ALL of the candidates as clear pattern has emerged: Hillary loses support and Obama gains it : first IA,then NH, SC, now NV and even CA. When voters take a look at Hillary not as Mrs. Bill Clinton, but as a candidate for president, they are saying no thanks.
Steven Van Haren wrote on December 16, 2007 10:47 AM:Which is more harmful to the party:
1. Raising questions about Obama's experience?
2. or fostering the mythology of the intractable and virulent Clintonian Politik?
Bill Clinton is certainly not an objective opinion, but he is more than qualified to provide comment, indeed he is required to as Hillary's running mate. If he sat on the sidelines quietly (just go with me here) we would all be talking about Bill, the lying puppet master, working from the shadows.
There's no way around either conversation: Clintonian Politik or Obama Experience. I think it's strange to find so much consensus among strategic Dem thinkers regarding the damage this does comment does. I encourage everyone to look at the big picture.
Desider wrote on December 16, 2007 10:48 AM:Congratulations, Kozmik, you swallowed the bait hook, line and sinker:
"[Obama's] first career was in a FP intelligence and advisory company."
Check out Dan Armstrong's memories of that at http://www.analyzethis.net/blog/2005/07/09/barack-obama-embellishes-his-resume/
where he notes the job was basically copyediting.
People talk about Obama's title on the Harvard Law Review and teaching constitutional law, and ignore Hillary's position on the Yale Review of Law and Social Action, her various publications, her heading up several campus organizations, organizing a protest strike and working with black campus organizations for change, working on Mondale's labor committee and later the Watergate committee, attorney work for child advocacy in Berkeley, Yale and Cambridge, and teaching law 2 years in Arkansas.
People make a lot out of Obama's community outreach activity - lessee, one of his activities for stint getting out the vote - kind of like Hillary in '68 for McCarthy and Rockefeller, '72 for McGovern, '76 for Carter, and ever after for one of the Clintons along with others. People will bring up Obama's 4 years of community outreach, but ignore Hillary's child foundation she started in 1977 or her successful expansion of the legal services non-profit for indigents over 3 years or her free work for child advocacy or her work on the Rurral Health Advisory Committee or her work on preschool preparedness and literacy or work on the Children's Hospital Legal services or another on Children's Defense Fund. (Note on Rose Law Firm - she didn't live in Little Rock until Bill's election, so couldn't continue her Fayetteville work). Lesses, chaired an ABA committee for 3 years, chosen as 1 of top 100 most influential lawyers in 1988 & 1991. Aside from being First Lady of Arkansas. This gets us up to the first Clinton campaign in 1992. About the time Obama was getting out of law school (well, 1991, but he doesn't say what he did between 1991 and April 1992).
WaitingToSee wrote on December 16, 2007 10:55 AM:One thing is for certain: We are seeing in the Hillary campaign a forecast of what the Hillary White House will be and how it will function. As with Bush, in Hillaryland, loyalty is valued far more than competence. The campaign's use of spin and whispers is also reminiscent of Bush, and scary. Can't we have a discussion in this nation that is honest? Must we have a White House propoganda machine, again?
The "Hillary Hater" mime is just one example. There is an interesting post on Huffpo that takes it on as propoganda pure and simple. Worthy of a look
Ono4Hoopono posted on Huffpo:
"Regarding amplification of the inflammatory term, 'Hillary Haters' in this blog... 'Name Calling'as a propoganda techinque:
Name calling occurs often in politics and wartime scenarios, but very seldom in advertising. It is another of the seven main techniques designated by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis. It is the use of derogatory language or words that carry a negative connotation when describing an enemy. The propaganda attempts to arouse prejudice among the public by labeling the target something that the public dislikes. Often, name calling is employed using sarcasm and ridicule, and shows up often in political cartoons or writings. When examining name calling propaganda, we should attempt to separate our feelings about the name and our feelings about the actual idea or proposal." Quoted from:
http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/proptech.htm
His pomposity knows no bounds (Bill's not Charlie's - although arguements could be made either way...). G.W. Bush went into office with some of the most experienced politicians in history, Don Rumsfield and Dick Cheney come immediately to mind, and where did that experience get the world community? I hope you folks elect Mr. Obama. It's time for Hilary and Bill to fade into the background. Let's move beyond the wars and political battles of yesterday and deal with the wars and political battles of today... BTW, I'm a 54 year old "boomer".
Anonymous wrote on December 16, 2007 11:05 AM:Desider, why is it that everyone who talks about Hillary's career and experience never mentions her highly compensated service on the WalMart board of directors? Her campaign biography omits this SIGNIFICANT experience too.
Could it be because in her years the WalMart board Hillary helped to plan WalMarts growth into a major mega-billion dollar, international corporate giant. Growth that was aided substantially by lax immigration enforcement in the Clinton years, providing cheap labor to exploit for higher profits, and Clinton championed relaxation of trade restrictions on China, which has permitted WalMart to flood the US with cheap, inferior, uninspected and dangerous Chinese food and products, helping them earn their ill-gotten billions. And is there a link between Clinton public policy initiatives benefit WalMart and huge contribtuions to Bill and Hillary's campaigns and the murky "Clinton Foundation" by WalMart and the Walton family?
So talk about Hillary's experience, but talk about all of it, and have Hillary answer some questions.
CalD wrote on December 16, 2007 11:31 AM:Maybe no one mentions it because that was in the 1980's, long before Wal-Mart had emerged as the decivilizing force that it is regarded as now. Also perhaps because Clinton has a pretty good labor voting record in the Senate.
Tempest wrote on December 16, 2007 1:13 PM:If you think this is funny-wait till Bill is the First Husband!
Evil wrote on December 16, 2007 2:14 PM:
I'll just say it now because no one else is. You seriously underestimate America's racism if you think this country is going to vote for a black democrat president. We couldn't get a white war hero from Massachusetts elected anywhere south of the Potomac, because he was "a flip flopper." You think any state with maybe the exception of Florida is going to vote for a black man? Let alone a black man who people have already smeared as muslim?? Have you visited the rest of the country lately????
On the other hand, I think there are millions of people in the red states ready to vote for a woman president certainly, and I frankly think gender is a fantastic wedge to break households in the south, having lived there myself.
I wish it weren't true, but it is. You can debate all you want about "firsts" and "principles" and all the other times they said it couldn't be done and it was, but this is about WINNING. Obama simply does not have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the US. If he were a little less arrogant, he'd do some more work in the Senate before ruining the Democratic Party's chances.
Add to that the fact that he stands for nothing concrete. He's zero percent substance and 0.001 percent record. The rest is all patronizing talk, platitudes about change and folksy tent-revival speeches. I had my fill of that crap in the last 8 years. It seriously annoys me.
Eyzwidopn wrote on December 16, 2007 2:25 PM:
HRC's current mantra is that she is "vetted" and "tested." Funny how she adopted that argument after claiming ignorance over her staffer's raising the question of Obama's electability because of drug use as a teenager. Could it be that HRC needed that staffer to drive the story home so that HRC would be set-up to come hot on the heels of the controversy with her new mantra? As far as HRC being "vetted" and "tested," I guess that means the Republicans will just throw up their hands and say "Well, we can't touch her. Let's just concede the presidency to her." That's not naive, it's delusional. I'm hopeful that the common sense voters in this country will recognize that whoever the Democrat candidate will be, they will be subject to "swiftboating" and the "politics of personal destruction" by the right-wing and after Kerry's debacle in 2004, all Democrat candidates should and better be prepared for it. All HRC's being "vetted" means is that they will come after her even harder now that she feels so invulnerable to their attacks.
And another thing, didn't Obama have some ridiculously homophobic asshole raising money for him?
bvd wrote on December 16, 2007 2:44 PM:Saying a black man can't get elected because "they" won't vote for him is ridiculous. And rascist - not because you're "telling it like it is" but because you are literally saying you're using his race as a reason not to vote for him. You can rationalize it all you want, the end result is exactly the same as that person you decry who won't vote for him because he's black. Try a little introspection and think about what you're actually saying.
Furthermore, most of the people who will not vote for an African-American ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON. If you don't understand that then you REALLY don't get "the rest of the country."
As for Obama standing for nothing, 0% concrete - I mean, are you serious? Based on her votes in the Senate Hillary stands for... what? Invading Iraq? Or actually being dumb enough to believe Bush was going to use war as a last resort? Invading Iran? Or actually being dumb enough AGAIN to... I mean, who on earth are you talking about?
BTW: Kerry lost because he was a lousy candidate - his idea of appealing to folks was to get into that ridiculous spandex biking suit and ride his 20-speed around with a great big grin. Gore lost because he too was a lousy candidate (yes, FLA was stolen but it shouldn't have ever been that close and he should have won his home state aa well as others). He's been great since but during the election? Feh!
I voted for both of them and I'll vote for the Dem no matter who it is. But I'm praying it ain't Hillary because I think she is the longest shot - and not because she's a woman but because so many people have disliked her so thoroughly since 1992.
Maggie05 wrote on December 16, 2007 3:03 PM:I think he did a good job. I think he really believes in her ability and competence, although I have not decided to vote for her.
I also think what he says about Obama carries some legitimacy. the mantra of 'can't we all just get along' is nice and nurturing but unrealistic.
The next president, hopefully a Democrat, will be the toughest job ever for anyone who has held the office. I don't think he is ready.
Liam wrote on December 16, 2007 3:08 PM:If Hillary becomes President, and Bill is going to be as involved, as much as he is now in the campaign; then who the hell would want to accept the Vice President position.
With Bill dominating the inside track, the VP would be shut out of any really input.
Evil wrote on December 16, 2007 3:25 PM:Yes, I am a total racist. Sieg Heil. (when actually is Obama going to play the racist card, btw?)
I won't vote for any candidate who is unelectable, whether that unelectability is from racism or a bad platform or stupidity or just plain fringe-freakism. I want the Democrats to WIN. That is all that matters to me in this election. The country is far too messed up right now for another Republican.
Vote for Obama if you like. Don't expect him to be elected simply because you like him and you think race doesn't influence your vote. Obama is neither the strongest nor the most electable candidate. Electability comes from all sorts of places, chosen and unchosen (like race). That's life. It sucks.
Some people have their religion or their race or their gender become a political heel for them in life. Other's create their own problems, either through drug use or political scandal or sex scandals or saying stupid stuff.
Obama is black and he has admitted using drugs. The fact that he is an intelligent, accomplished politician matters ZILCH to most of this country. They stopped at black and drug use. Obama can keep getting elected in the Senate till the end of time and do a lot of good there. Why should we ignore his weaknesses simply because we disagree with racism?
And yes, being a woman is also a heel to Hillary. There are many men and women who simply will not vote for a woman in the South. But there are a lot of households divided, with men voting republican and women leaning democrat. These women voted for Bush in the last election because they were scared and Kerry made a shitty case for himself. These women are MUCH MORE likely to vote democrat for a woman (southern, Arkansan) candidate like Hillary because she can tap so much of the resentment that these women harbor over being left behind (frankly) while the rest of the country's women advanced. That's a great outlet.
Moreover, Hillary is a stronger candidate. She knows her shit, she answers questions the right way, and she knows how to take the offensive. She *is* proven. All her bad news is out. Anytime people attack her, people feel sorry for her. She can overcome her negatives.
John Y wrote on December 16, 2007 3:30 PM:First of all, I finally see what all the Clinton-haters saw back in the day: raw, selfish ambition; principles and the party be damned. For a former president to come out and trash-talk a candidate from his party that could very easily wind up the nominee like this is inexcusable. How many soundbites did he give to the GOP next year in this one interview? Clinton has proven that he and Her Highness are out for one thing and one thing only: themselves.
Second, Hillary's pitiful blunders over the last month put the lie to any "electability" argument. If she's flailing around this desperately against Obama, I shudder to think of the errors she will make in a general election.
The flip side of this is that Obama has played her like a violin. A natural political talent -- Bill Clinton without the baggage and triangulation -- Obama has shown he knows how to campaign and can react nimbly to whatever the opposition throws out and use it to his advantage. Plus, he can "go negative" without seeming to go negative. When Hillary goes negative, it's cartoonishly heavy-handed and ultimately damaging to her.
It seems Obama is the one who pwns the electability argument. And outside of "electability," why do we want Hillary again?
DTM wrote on December 16, 2007 3:33 PM:I'll just note again there is absolutely no evidence that Obama's race is a significant factor, and indeed a great deal of evidence to the contrary. For example, Obama is a relatively popular Democrat, not a relatively unpopular Democrat, among conservative white people.
I'll also just note that it is increasingly obvious that Hillary Clinton is not in fact a skillful politician. This really should not be a surprise, because this is the first serious political test she has ever had.
Evil wrote on December 16, 2007 3:51 PM:Sorry dude, race is a factor. So is religion. Read a "People's History of the US."
"I'll just note again there is absolutely no evidence that Obama's race is a significant factor, and indeed a great deal of evidence to the contrary."
DTM wrote on December 16, 2007 4:06 PM:Evil,
The question at hand is not whether race is a political factor in America in some purely abstract sense. Rather, the question at hand is whether race is a significant enough factor with respect specifically to Obama that such effects overwhelm the other reasons why Obama appeals to a broad range of people, including many conservatives, moderates, Republicans, and independents. That question cannot be answered in the abstract.
And again, the available evidence all suggests that whatever effects Obama's race may be having in the public's perception of him, those effects simply are not significant enough to overcome his other positive attributes. Indeed, given the available evidence, it is entirely possible his race is having a net positive effect, not a net negative effect. But I personally don't think it is possible to confirm such a hypothesis, again because there are too many other possible reasons he could have such broad appeal.
Anyway, the fact that whatever effect race is having in Obama's candidacy is too insignificant to notably narrow his appeal should be welcome news, even to people who prefer another candidate. So I am saddened whenever such people are unable to embrace this good news.
Desider wrote on December 16, 2007 4:13 PM:Anonymous,
First, people asked about Hillary experience and so I put it one-to-one with Obama's. I suppose you can compare Hillary's Wal-Mart experience with Michelle Obama's Wal-Mart supplier experience ($50K a year). Apparently Hillary pushed for more women and better environmental performance, with some improvement but not ideal. I don't know how anti-union Wal-Mart was in those years (ending in 1992), but between hiring illegals, poor/no insurance, and poor wages, it sure didn't end up well. I don't know how obvious these issues were in 1992. On the other hand, Wal-Mart revolutionized the world of logistics with its hub-and-spoke and just-in-time warehousing, especially for guys from back in the boonies.
Now, about trade with China - the reason the US economy hasn't tanked yet is because we skim most of the money off trade with China. $20 Barbie? 35 cents stays in China, the rest comes home to the US. How many millions of products do we get all the marketing money for? As someone noted, there are more World of Warfare players than middle aged family farmers. Similar to the manufacturing jobs. Do *YOU* want to go work in a steel mill? Thought not. Lower costs of goods from China improve our ability to compete in other ways (think Oracle, Cisco, Google, Pfizer). Cheap equipment to drive our service industry. More money left for marketing and profits. And saving $100 buying a cheap computer or toy is like earning an extra $150 if you consider taxes saved. But in all trade agreements, you still have to manage them. NAFTA has ballooned trade with Mexico in very good ways, but lots of environmental and worker issues have been neglected. Which isn't surprising, because we've neglected conditions in the US as well for the last 7 years.
Evil wrote on December 16, 2007 4:26 PM:I agree, he has a lot of positives on his side, and if this were a popular majority rules country, I would say his chances were a lot higher than they are.
I don't think the race issue has been polled with any reliability yet. No one knows who Obama is yet. Moreover, all the theoretical polling on "would you vote for a well qualified candidate who was (fill in blank)" relies upon people's belief that they themselves are not racist-- and the idea that "well qualified" is the same for all classes.
I think Obama's negatives have been vastly understated. He hasn't faced any serious press scrutiny nor the pressure of the real limelight. The Madrassa smears were an illustration that he doesn't have the ability to fight back quickly and convincingly enough. They worked.
Clinton's negatives are well known. And she will, undoubtedly, turn them to her benefit. She has in the past. Obama has me unconvinced.
bvd wrote on December 16, 2007 4:58 PM:I never said race isn't a factor, nor that there won't be people who simply won't vote for a black man. I said that most of the people who won't vote for a black candidate won't vote for Hillary anyway. The south ESPECIALLY is not going to vote for Hillary Clinton.
The REAL sad fact, Herr Evil, is that most people vote for a candidate based on personality and likability, not on whether their point-by-point policy statements add up (and face it, most policy statements go out the window anyway, once elected). And though you, and many on this board, clearly do not like Obama, there are far more people who find him likable - including moderates and conservatives - than find Hillary likable. That can certainly change in time but, I mean, let's be honest about something that is not debatable: Hillary Clinton has the highest negative numbers of ANY candidate running. A LOT of people dislike her, not just Repugs.
And, again (sorry), everyone is forgetting the phrase "Clinton Fatigue". By the time Bill left nearly everyone was ready to see him go, even if they thought he'd done a decent job. The scandals, attacks, lying and BS flying in BOTH directions had become tiresome. That feeling will all come rushing back to the public after a few months of HRC being the nominee (it was, rememebr, also one of the reasons Gore lost in 2000). Who wants to go back to that?
And I still think that voting against Obama because he's black is every bit as hideous coming from the left as from the right. Electability? considering the batting average of Democrats picking "more electable" candidates - Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry (and I voted for every one of them) - I'd say the black guy with no experience who took drugs as a teenager and is secretly a Muslim terrorist stands as good a chance as anyone you're going to claim is "more electable."
Evil,
As an aside, what is your evidence that the Madrassa smears worked? Those have been going around for about a year now, and so far they haven't seemed to have any effect, including as I noted among Republicans and independents.
More broadly, in that time Obama has become increasingly familiar to people in places like Iowa and NH, and in those states, he again has the most support among Republicans and independents. Of course, he is best known in Illinois, and there he is even more popular among Republicans and independents.
So, in fact the better known Obama is in a state, the more, not less, support he gets across the political spectrum. That would suggest your thesis (that Obama only has broad appeal because he isn't well known) is incorrect.
Of course, in the end it is impossible to prove beyond any theoretical shadow of a doubt that someone is "electable" until he or she actually gets elected (and that goes for everyone in the Democratic field, including Clinton). But it would be disgraceful if the Democrats decided not to give a black candidate that chance when all the available evidence suggests being black is not a problem for that particular candidate. Indeed, that would basically make being black a per se bar to being nominated by the Democrats, and that is horrific notion to promote.
vicissitudes wrote on December 16, 2007 5:35 PM:As much as I hate to say this,I predict Hillary will not lose Iowa. Tom Vilsack was bought and paid for and the reason was to deliver Iowa. The deals have been made and the arms have already been twisted. The polls may reflect what real Iowa voters think and they like Obama. The polls do not reflect the Iowa democrat party apparatus. I am just giving you the opinion of someone who is here, in Iowa. Just remember why Tom Vilsack got all that money.
Evil wrote on December 16, 2007 5:49 PM:First of all, it's Herr Evil PhD.
Given that Gore won and before that we had 8 nice years of Clinton, I'd say the party had a good track record of picking candidates.
And Kerry, like it or not, was the best candidate we had in 2004. Defeating a wartime president, even an inept one, has NEVER been done in the history of the country, and the country was extremely divided. Bush won because he tripped over the finish line (oh and those pesky poll lines in Ohio).
If Obama wasn't here, you'd be backing Kucinich. If Kucinich wasn't here, you'd be backing Nader. You just hate Clinton which is driving this entire thing. You know what? I hate her too. But she's the strongest candidate and she represents 90% of what I believe in. 6 months ago, I was hoping to God she would not win the nomination because of her negative numbers. But seeing how she has performed, I think she makes an excellent candidate, so she is getting my primary vote. She's a winner.
As for likability, you really over-estimate that. There is always something more than likability: fear, money, war, power, trust. Good candidates always make it more than they are likable. Fuck, I love Fred Thompson. I'd love to down bourbon with him. But I sure as hell won't vote for him. And the fact that Dennis Kucinich would probably annoy the hell out of me if we went for a lunch talk over veggie burgers isnt going to influence my vote.
Good candidates overcome their negatives with a real platform, a demonstration of ability and a record.
Obama doesnt have a record. He's been in the Senate how long? His positions are like reading abstract poetry. His message is basically "settle down now" which is, frankly, really intolerable after 8 years Bush-inspired infuriation. Bush trashes the country and what is Obama's answer? It's both the Republican and Democrat's fault, he says, and my hands are clean. I never voted for the war. I'm a newcomer. So Obama pisses on his own party to look like a boy scout, when in reality, had he been in the Senate in 2002, he would have been voting for the war just like every other scared democrat. And he'd be standing with the same indignation that he does today, except his platform would be different.
As for Obama's likability. Yes, he's likeable, if you overlook the dripping condescension off of his every word, the fake moderation and the chastisement of everyone who is not the great Obama.
Maybe he'll clone himself so he can have a party he agrees with.
audiophileguy wrote on December 16, 2007 5:56 PM:Whether or not one feels Obama is our best candidate, the past few weeks have demonstrated without question that Hillary is an opportunistic, deceitful, and harmful embarrassment to our party.
stlounick wrote on December 16, 2007 6:07 PM:I am an Obama supporter. If Obama were not in the race, I would be an Edwards supporter.
I would never support Kucinich and I never supported Nader in the political arena (I have donated money in the distant past to Nader's causes and let's all agree that we have safe automobiles and other consumer goods thanks to his efforts).
I am a card-carrying and dues-paying Democrat who opposes the DLC and these blind pols in WDS who are so completely disconnected from the American Democratic voter who puts them in office and who funds their campaigns. (Independents and even Republicans can vote Dem but seldom fund the campaigns.)
In case you missed it, Obama draws a lot of financial and volunteer support from us peons who vote and who support this party. That matters.
We have been invisible to the Clinton party leadership for years--in spite of Hillary's ad trying to blame that on Bush. These folks in the Senate voted us into a war that the Democratic base OPPOSED. I have marched, e-mailed and plain stood in street corners with signs in opposition to the Iraq mess. I still stand four-square to the neglected Afghanistan conflict.
Now, ignore me at your peril. I am the Democratic base. And I do not support the Clintons and the surrogates they have seeded throughout the party structure.
Anonymouse wrote on December 16, 2007 6:13 PM:Hmm... Seems to me that picking Hillary in the caucus/primary is like picking Evita Peron - I'm not exactly sure what makes her more qualified, unless you consider the First Lady an elected position.
On the other hand, I'd be much more interested in seeing someone in the White House who really understood the challenges facing poor and middle-income families.
Obama/Edwards '08?
rain39 wrote on December 16, 2007 6:20 PM:Why is it that I have a negative reaction when I see Bill out there campaigning for Hillary? I was a supporter of his, voted for him and never paid too much attention to the sex stuff about him.
Figured out that although pushing 70, I, too, want CHANGE, like the kids do. I don't want a majority of people have served in government before and are beholden to groups they have entrenched with for years. I want fresh eyes coming up with fresh ideas. I want laws tossed out that are not the American way while maintaining a strong defense.
When I see Hillary and Bill, it draws me to the olden days and my DNA screams. NO MORE DYNASTIES! It will take forever to dig ourselves out from this one!
Anonymouse wrote on December 16, 2007 6:21 PM:"Herr Evil Ph.D." - you're not the only over-educated one around here. Please don't presume that flogging your sheepskin will impress the rest of us.
And no, not all of us who like Obama's chances are automatic Kucinich supporters (or Nader, or Jerry Brown). Please stop assuming that someone who disagrees with your assessment of conventional wisdom is idealistic to the point of missing the real world.
I have yet to have anyone explain to me why Mrs. Clinton is actually more qualified, and I know from painful experience how much of a polarizing figure she is. Picking her to be the party's nominee would be the best gift we could possibly give the GOP - people who've never voted in their lives would turn out to vote for whatever cleric or congenital liar the GOP puts up.
She is a remarkably capable person, yes. She is also unelectable in a general election.
DTM wrote on December 16, 2007 6:32 PM:The problem is that even if likability is not the only factor in electoral politics, it is one of the extremely important factors. Indeed, this has been studied in some detail, and it turns out people can pick the likely winners of electoral contests just by looking at photos or short clips of the contenders.
The good news for the Democrats, however, is they have several credible candidates who do well by this measure. So unless there is some particular reason to insist on nominating Hillary Clinton, it would make sense to eliminate her and choose from among the several more likable candidates.
Evil wrote on December 16, 2007 6:33 PM:Please, don't play that tired DLC card. The DLC is dead. Lieberman is the perfect example.
The party is no longer run by Clinton. It's run by Dean and all the grassroots activists. The last election proved this. And that is a great thing, and something which I had a part in making happen along with you.
But I certainly haven't seen much change for all that work. Harry Reid is a pussy and Nancy Pelosi is a milktoast. Where the hell is the change? Why haven't they defunded the war? Why have they let nominations through? Seems like you should all be on the horn to Harry, Nancy and Howard Dean.
Seems like this revolution is not going to matter without a Democratic president. So let's win the election instead of being driven over hatred for Hillary and the past and a war that she (and Edwards, btw) voted for.
I can think of zero areas where Hillary differs from my views, and yet I can think of 99 areas where I don't know where Obama stands.
You speak of ambition. Har. The only way in which Hillary and Obama differ ambitionwise is in time. Obama hasn't had the camera focused on him long enough to show how much ambition and opportunism drive him. His platform language is vague enough that opportunism is stamped all over it. He'll blow wherever the wind takes him. For whatever your misgivings of Hillary, she has 8 years of demonstrating how they run a government.
I cant say the same of Obama. I have no idea who he will place in government or what issues he will actually take on. Obama is all about Obama, pure and simple. This is why his is a personality driven campaign-- he doesnt have any issues that are unique to him, and no virtues other than his lack of being in the Senate when all the shit went down.
You're making a lot of huge assumptions that are totally wrong. I've never supported Kucinich and have had nothing but contempt for anyone who voted for Nader - INCLUDING IN 1996. I was fed up with Bill Clinton then but still voted for his reelection because the thought of Dole scared the hell out of me. I've never supported a third party candidate for president. I've ALWAYS voted for the Dem, since my first vote in 1976. So if you're making these mindless assumptions about me just imagine how wrong you are about the rest of the country.
I'm not a Hillary hater - believe it or not - and voted for her for senator. And I'll vote for her if she gets the nomination. I don't like her much but I will vote for her. But I disagree that she's the best candidate (that's fair enough, isn't it?) and I reject outright the claim that she's "vetted and tested" and more electable than Obama. She's essentially the kid who got beat up and when the bullies walked away shouted, "I'm not afraid of you" and got beaten up all over again.
I don't agree that Kerry was the best candidate, I thought Edwards was (BTW Bill Clinton wasn't deemed the more electable candidate in 1992, war hero Bob Kerrey was. That's why Bill was the Comeback Kid). And regardless of Gore getting the popular vote he still should have won by a solid, unstealable margin. He didn't because he became a mealy-mouthed, non-committal candidate and because PEOPLE WERE FED UP WITH THE CLINTONS. They're not going to be any less fed up this time around. A few more Bill blatherings mixed with revived questions about their marriages & affairs and tons of people will bail for something/anything else.
Vote for Hillary in your primary and I'll vote for Obama in mine. But when the primaries are through we'd all better be voting for the Democrat because anyone who thinks there's no difference should be put on the next plane to Iraq and forced to explain that idiotic notion to the Iraqi people.
Anonymouse wrote on December 16, 2007 6:41 PM:Last I heard, Bill Clinton isn't running for president - which means Mrs. Clinton (unless she plans to choose him as a running mate, which is sure to inspire the GOP) can't use his record as her own.
Again, I don't see a record there. Just a lot of backpedaling on what role her husband would actually take in her administration. And you're being a bit ... "optimistic" if you think that wouldn't be painted on the sky if she were to be the party's candidate.
She is unelectable in a general election.
Anonymous wrote on December 16, 2007 6:47 PM:Bvd said "But when the primaries are through we'd all better be voting for the Democrat ..."
I will vote for ANY Democratic nominee except for Hillary Clinton. Not even a chance I would vote for her. It's less about politics and more about character. Hillary's mean-spirited, dishonest, divisive agree-with-me-or-you're-the-enemy campaign has alienated many people who typically would vote for the Democratic nominee.
Hillary's character, tatics and increasingly her politics, remind me of George Bush. Do we really want another dishonest president elected because of family ties and corporate dollars?
Evil wrote on December 16, 2007 6:50 PM:It's Dr. Evil. Get it. Humorless grassroots.
This fed up with the Clintons thing just boggles the mind. I'm fed up with politicians altogether. They are all self serving. This is why we have elections and primaries.
But to fool yourself into thinking Obama is not an opportunist is just plain silly, and frankly childish. I mean, don't you think it's just a little arrogant of Obama to run with basically no experience? I am frankly afraid of a man who thinks he can just become President one day without paving a path. We have one in office now.
There is definitely a difference in candidates, no doubt about that. And if I were voting for someone who really shared all my views instead of who had a chance at winning them, I'd maybe support Richardson.
But someone explain the allure of Obama to me. Is it just that he wasn't able to vote for the war??
Evil wrote on December 16, 2007 6:53 PM:I think the quote below illustrates people who should get the fuck out of the party. You vote for the nominee dickcheese. Solidarity is the one goddamn thing the Republicans have on us.
"I will vote for ANY Democratic nominee except for Hillary Clinton. Not even a chance I would vote for her. It's less about politics and more about character. Hillary's mean-spirited, dishonest, divisive agree-with-me-or-you're-the-enemy campaign has alienated many people who typically would vote for the Democratic nominee.
Hillary's character, tatics and increasingly her politics, remind me of George Bush. Do we really want another dishonest president elected because of family ties and corporate dollars? "
bvd wrote on December 16, 2007 7:01 PM:Anonymous - I don't want Hillary either but wasn't Bush/Cheney enough to make you see that there is a real difference? Gore would never have invaded Iraq, Bush did. If it's Rudy vs. Hillary and you don't vote for HRC you're actively supporting the rise of the rightwing madness.
Sorry, people's lives should come before your (or my) ideals of honor and character. Real people are dying because so many wanted to remain pure and wouldn't vote for Gore. I don't like Hillary but, hell, I held my nose and voted for every other Democrat I didn't like in the last 30 years, I'll vote for her as well if I have to.
EXCEPT that I think Obama might get the nomination and save me from holding my nose.
BVD (G.E.D.)
Evil - Calling people dickcheese and telling them to get the hell out of the party is also wrong and also devoid of any sense of solidarity. Maybe we should all get off our high horses.
And speaking of horses - every single politician has the aroma of horseshit about them. It's part of the deal. If you're looking for one who doesn't you're looking for a fantasy hero.
Anonymouse wrote on December 16, 2007 7:09 PM:I think the deeper (and more critical) point that Anonymous is making is that if we can't even get party members to support Hillary Clinton, how does that make her electable?
I guarantee you that a Clinton ticket would create strong unity on the Republican side. And no matter how we might wish it otherwise, Democrats alone (even with perfect unity) cannot win an election. We must pull support from independents and even the Republican party.
Mrs. Clinton is so clearly not a person capable of doing that.
DTM wrote on December 16, 2007 7:14 PM:Evil,
It is quite an exaggeration to say Obama has "basically no experience". Over a period of many years he worked his way up through the various levels of public life, starting as a community organizer, then he was a civil rights attorney, then an Illinois Senator, and finally now is a U.S. Senator. Along the way he also taught Constitutional Law at one of our top law schools.
Conversely, I don't think it is all that obvious why, say, a few more years as a U.S. Senator would make him remarkably better-prepared than he is now. It would be different if people were suggesting, say, that he should run for Governor of Illinois to get some high-level executive experience in addition to his legislative experience. But the only Democratic candidate who can make that particular argument on his own behalf is Bill Richardson.
blackstar wrote on December 16, 2007 7:18 PM:I don't want Hillary either but wasn't Bush/Cheney enough to make you see that there is a real difference?
--------
refusing to take firm stands in primary to retain pandering ability in general election: Check.
putting forth patently disingenuous and misleading information about opposition: Check.
wanting to authorize war with Iraq and Iran: Check.
going out of the way to obscure personal information related to White House decision-making: Check.
devious, amoral political strategist: Check.
i guess your only arguing that the difference between the 2 is just a matter of DEGREE, then?
Bill please go away in dignity, to the extent you have any left.
Remember getting a blow job by your intern and lying about it?
Remember the Pardon of Rich , you are so corrupt and deceitful.
Monica, the dress, the dress???
Bill, and Hillary is this what you want to endure?
Bush/Clinton in 08? wtf?
Power Hungry Clintons wrote on December 16, 2007 7:34 PM:The more I see this clips from this the more I am convinced that Hillary's internal numbers are tanking.
The sense of entitlement is terrible. I was a big fan of Pres. Clinton. Not anymore. I don't expect to run into him at any inaugural balls.
Grant wrote on December 16, 2007 7:51 PM:I don’t think I’ve ever read so many bullshittin’ nutty posts in one thread before. The online Obama collective must be a tad bit nervous now when the ground starts disappearing under their feet. No fun for that no-substance, no-experience, no-leadership Obama to be on the receiving end of President Clinton.
bvd wrote on December 16, 2007 8:12 PM:Blackstar - Yes I'm ONLY arguing the difference is a matter of degrees. Unfortunately the degrees we're talking about are 98.6 (the temperature of a living human being) versus room temperature (the temperature of a dead human being) in Iraq and, maybe soon, in Iran. I simply can't put my ideals before that reality.
I'm not going to make any arguments for Hillary. If she's nominated I'll vote for her assuming she'll be awful. But she can't be as awful as Rudy or one of the other loony-tune Repugs. I think she (and Edwards) voted to support Bush on Iraq for purely political reasons. That's despicable and cowardly. But I don't think it means she would have chosen to invade Iraq herself. That's a huge difference by itself.
I don't like her and I don't want her. But another 4-8 years of these creeps is unthinkable.
Best case scenario is she loses the nomination (to Obama, IMO). Worst case scenario is President Rudy. If that happens we're seriously fucked.
Grant - could you give some examples of where Mrs. Clinton (i.e., not her husband) has exhibited "substance, experience, and leadership"?
Mike timmons wrote on December 16, 2007 8:27 PM:Hillary was a Goldwater Girl, a Republican for Nixon in 1968, and only after meeting Bill did she become a democrat.
There is nothing in her voting record to suggest she is a liberal at all. She supported the war, and continues to defend her vote for the war in Iraq. She helped an administration weaken the social safety net. She voted for the Patriot Act....twice.
Look at her voting record. Her experience. There is not a dimes worth of difference between her and Arlen Spector, or most other Republican Senators.
Jim H wrote on December 16, 2007 9:45 PM:Why is attempting to draw a contrast between one candidate and another "negative campaigning"? Hey, vote for me, not for the other guy, and here's why.
@F.igWealor:
Your long list is a bunch of negative spin. Are you not smearing Senator Clinton? Oh, no, I forgot. The self-righteous Obama supporters can sound like Limbaugh when they're talking about the Clintons, but that's not negative!
As for her voting record, she styles herself a Northeastern centrist. The conservatives don't see her as "centrist," about anything.
http://usconservatives.about.com/od/profiles/p/clinton_votes.htm
You always point to one or two votes. On Kos, somebody doesn't like her because she's voted often against ethanol. So would a lot of people if they realized the full truth about corn ethanol.
Meanwhile, here's a somewhat less biased portrait of her record.
http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=55463
... a repeat, dedicated to BlueDog who seems to be more concerned about promoting-in another Administration w/ South-Mason/Dixon partisan roots.
The NORMALIZATION of a CANDIDATE
Hillary hails from privilege…. She intellectually understands the needs of disenfranchised, struggling Americans, but she has no natural bond with the soul of ordinary men (gender not implied) — she’s really never had to get her hands dirty day-to-day — never been on hard times with no way out. She can imagine it: but never been there.
Hillary’s elitist stripe was again recently demonstrated on the campaign trail when she stopped for lunch at a diner: hustled a photo-op off the old waitress — a working granny on hard times — got the press she needed, and waltzed off without leaving a tip… It’s good of her to stop down across the tracks once in awhile — slummin’ — can’t stay too long.
She’s a Wellesley woman. Wellesley is a first-class private college for intellectually predisposed women — a select brand who generally come from the fortunate family genre. You won’t find many WalMart cashiers and diner waitresses who were educated at Wellesley.
She really has no idea what it’s like in the trenches; desperate campaign handlers are pullin’ all the tricks to find image-magic touching the hearts and minds of salt-of-the-earth voters.
She’s trotted-out in various fashions — the same Dems tried with Lord Fauntleroy-Gore: different doos, casual costumes, and feel good down-home family snapshots inferring Middle America 'I’m okay, you’re okay.' Madison Ave. makeover artists dress her up, ‘n dress her down as class-occasions may require — revision upon revision, fooling no one but Hillary.
Gore lost the Presidency not because of the Supreme Court decision, but because American voters rejected the advertisement — he was not one of us; ordinary Americans don’t like being patronized by establishment politicians claiming to be in common: déjà vu.
Hillary got her political break by design — Party connections. NY Senator Pat Moynihan (D) stepped aside into retirement, Hillary stepped forward. It was a gimme — she didn’t come up thru the rank and file — it’s was done in a Party machine top-down, New York minute.
And when her credentials and/or first-class voting record are challenged by other candidates and/or the media, she huffs and pouts as if treated unfairly — ‘they’re pickin’ on me’ …. Then Valiant William Jefferson arrives to defend the Clinton honor — fighting her battles…. Zzzzzz.
Mob speculators promise, with Hillary we get a two-fer. But if Bill goes down with another heart attack, she might end up all alone to lead America. What then?!!
The Question: Is either HILLARY or BARAK qualified to lead the country at this time in history?
The Answer (Democrats): Nobody ever gave Barack Obama nothin’…. He is the American story, he worked for it — what you see is what you get. I have donated to his campaign. But alas, Bill Clinton is correct on the experience issue, with a twist: neither Obama nor Hillary are predisposed to military affairs - not good at this time in these troubled times… patriotism is not the question, but the ability and capacity to serve as CINC, is.
The Answer (GOParty): John McCain is the same today, as yesterday: a stubborn, tough, straight-up Veteran with conscience. McCain does not change with fashion — the wind; he knows his way around America, and Washington D.C. treachery…. He clothes himself — in pragmatism — and owns the experience to be President. Unlike all other candidates, as CINC, John would not be informed by pretense and/or inexperience. I've donated to John's campaign, also.
BlueDog: All kinda people are going to post at various levels of politik... If in your expert opinion, a poster is not informed, simply link 'em to resources you believe to be valid/truth. Otherwise, you could miss the opprotunity to make your point, and/or edify a TPM brother and/or sister.
Grant, you are right. Wow, Obama must be scared about Iowa. The longer Clinton stays on top, the hotter and fouler the bile from the Obamans' mouths.
She's been called anything from an opportunist, a DLC corporate whore, to a cruel tip-neglecting Wellesley bitch in this thread.
But if she can win Iowa, all this "she can't win America" and "her negatives are too big" crap goes straight out the window.
Anonymouse wrote on December 16, 2007 11:29 PM:Evil, at first I thought you were simply a cad, then a fool. Now I realize that you are an ass, as well.
There's plenty of bile being spewed by both sides, and a win in Iowa won't change the fact that Mrs. Clinton will galvanize the Republican party like nothing short of another 9-11.
Again, I ask - what exactly is her (not her husband's) record that sets her apart from the Democratic field in terms of leadership, courage, etc.
Richard wrote on December 17, 2007 12:38 AM:I just watched the entire hour-long interview. I think it's ridiculous to claim that Clinton "Rips" Obama.
He went out of his way to praise Obama, as well as all the Dem candidates.
What did you expect? That he would endorse Obama?
Your headline is misleading at best.
blackstar wrote on December 17, 2007 12:59 AM:if the Republican nominate Giuliani, the Democrats nominate Clinton, she loses the general election, and we then swear in President Giuliani, both Democrats and Republicans will deserve what they get.
luckily such a scenario won't effect me. what parties do they have in Canada again?
anonymouse wrote on December 17, 2007 2:09 AM:After 10.5 years in the military, I'd love to have Obama as my Commander in Chief.
He would make a fine leader.
amber wrote on December 17, 2007 2:38 AM:Today's NYT article about Bill's new attack dog role in Hillary's campaign highlights how the former first lady's campaign is more about him than her. He is in attack mode and thinks that his wife's campaign's vicious attacks on her opponents, mainly Obama, should go unanswered because she is his wife and he is the ex-president.
She put herself out there-and like the sure-to-be classic STFU moment during last weeks final Democratic debate when she tried to belittle Senator Obama with her cackling and "I'd like to hear that one" comment only to be smacked down by the quick witted Obama in the most-played video clip of the campaign-and must not be given a free ride by the press.
She's not Lady Bird Johnson or Rosalynn Carter, and it's not like she can expect to have that sort of quiet politeness that Bill Clinton thinks she should have. And while Bill Clinton has become deservedly accustomed to that same ex-presidential respect by Democrats, he can't expect it when he's behind the attacks that are coming. The Clinton gloves are definitely off as that cocaine business and Bill's Charlie Rose interview certainly showed.
I think the other presidential candidates, particularly Edwards and Obama, need to really take their gloves off and do some serious street brawling with the Clintons because they will be caught with their guards down if they don't keep striking quickly.
Plus, where's Al Gore? He can give the Clintons the sand in the face that they deserve (see this Vanity Fair article: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/11/clinton200711). Maybe he can gather up Steven Spielberg and all of the other Hollywood types that abandoned the Clintons for Obama and go out on the trail. They'd certainly overshadow Magic Johnson and Bill.
kozmik wrote on December 17, 2007 4:36 AM:A little reality check for "Evil" on the issue of "electability"
Hillary has had every advantage in the Dem primary. Name recognition, Bill, donors and everything else. It should have been a cake walk. But from her pillow cuddling sofa announcement, to the cackle, to the backfired smear attacks and attempts to define Obama early, to her lousy voting record on everything from PATRIOT to Iraq to Iran, to the serious questions even among Democrats about her actual experience, to remcalled history on NAFTA and failed HC reform, it's all been down hill for her.
And I and my wife actually were strongly supportive of her a couple years ago. But frankly, as a candidate, she stinks, and has been a huge dissapoinment. And the more I look at Hillary, The more I realize when you get past the hype, she's a really weak and vulnerable candidate a lot of the country seriously hates.
If she is so great, why is she at best tied with Obama in Iowa and NH? And in several of the newest polls she's actually losing! Despite having the inside track and all advantages. Because I'm not the only person who has noticed she's a lousy Presidential candidate and Obama is much stronger.
Electability? Strong candidate? Experienced? Merits? Not. Obama has all the momentum and had none of the advantages.
So when you consider Obama actually has the momentum, is more likable, and has better policies and judgment, it's foolish to put our hopes on Clinton. It's just people clinging to the Clinton name because of some vague association with Bill. But that's already falling apart and proving to be an illusion.
btw, Clinton's HC reform of the 90's was a disaster because they're too close to corporate interests and Bill took the wrong advice and refused good advice. Same as he did on NAFTA for all the same reasons. It's in the Clinton blood and the bedrock of thier "3rd way" politics which is basically corporate interests.
And now again now, it's the same thing. Again the same people are saying the new Clinton plan sticks and will fall apart for the same reasons.
Her current plan is another mix of crappy mandates and kowtowing to the insurance companies to continue gouging Americans. It's politcal disater waiting to happen and if she even gets it passed through Congress (which is unlikely as it's so poorly built a lot of Dems are likely to buck it and all Republicans) it'll likely be sunk soon after by public backlash or the next Republican Admin. Which will be the second time a Clinton dooms the country to gouging HC costs for another decade or more.
Obama's plan far more practical and politically doable by extending the mandate only for the poorest and children, and allowing anyone to buy into government run HC by choice, not mandating, which allows it to grow on merits and gradually cut out private insurers. Which is abig difference from Hillary's plan to force poor people to buy crappy HC insurance at huge rates they can't afford.
Obama's plan will eventually lead to universal care as people buy in, by choice. Eventually in the future there may be mandates, but only once it achieves popular critical mass so as to be politically viable.
kozmik wrote on December 17, 2007 5:11 AM:"The Answer (GOParty): John McCain is the same today, as yesterday: a stubborn, tough, straight-up Veteran with conscience. McCain does not change with fashion"
Except of course his new found love with "wacko" fundamentalists after they cut him a new one in 2000. And of course that he's been spit polishing Bush's shoes, after Bush also showed him who the real Republican base was in 2000.
Yeah, real "straight talk" McCain. He's already sold out. I feel sorry for him in a way. His party is overrun by kooks, and there is no way he could even hope to be a Presidential contender without selling out to them.
The Republicans simply can't run a good candidate because their party is a mess and they've let the crazies take over. For decades the Wall Street Republicans cultivated the gullible Southern Fundie kook vote, and thought they could control them. Now they've created a monster and even McCain is kissing ass at Bob Jones U.
Any candidate to get the nod in the Republican party will either be a wacko, or a wacko puppet.
Christ, look at Huckabee. Freed a rapist for political reasons, cause the victim was a distant Clinton cousin in Arkansas. Then the guy goes and rapes and kills two women. Great judgment, leadership, family values, and personal integrity there Huckster.
Gulianni has advisers even crazier than Cheney, wolfowitz and such, people who can't wait to go on a rampage against Iran and globally. Gulianni is himself something of a lunatic, corrupt, and tied to the mob. And he's twisting himself into a pretzel to pander to the fundie vote despite a career of supporting gay rights and abortion, just to make sure he's 100% phony.
Romney is a Mormon, a cult so kooky even Bible thumpers find them beyond the beyond. And he's trying to say basically "sure I'm a Mormon, but I still share most of the views of the Fundamentalists in the deep South, even though I'm from Utah and beleive in a prophet who read holy scripture from golden tablets in his hat and practiced polygamy in the 1850's, for which mormons were exiled from Christian society in the South." Which is really taking the crazy up a notch.
Grant wrote on December 17, 2007 5:16 AM:Amber,
Getting a little nervous, are we? You seem to think The Politics of Hope and Change apparently needs a little boost by vicious slash and burn attacks.
kozmik,
So what’s left of your argument for Obama when Clinton wins Iowa and NH? Besides, you don’t know jack shit about Clinton’s health care plan; trying to hide Obama’s right wing resistance to universal health care behind your own fantasies on Clinton’s plan. Cute and inexperienced – just like Obama.
Grant,
I think you've taking your talking points orders pretty well. You're certainly speaking in the Hillary camp tone enough to where you recognize the "vicious slash and burn attacks" that have become part of the desperation displayed by your boss's campaign.
Obama is winning without playing any dirty Clinton politics. That's why it's so funny to watch them continually stumble. Hillary Clinton will never be president.
After seeing how the selfish, megalomanic hurt Gore and subsequently the world, it would be enjoyable to watch Biden, Edwards or the Goracle himself. Okay, I know it's doubtful because they all have much more integrity and class than the Hillary Clinton camp is showing, but one can wish.
Frank Rich made another good case for Obama in yesterday's NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/opinion/16rich.html
In Friday night's interview with Charlie Rose, Bill Clinton said, "When is the last time we elected a president based on one year of service in the Senate before he started running?"
To that, I would answer: In 1860, when the country elected Abraham Lincoln, who had served just a single term in the House of Representatives.
I'm not saying that Obama is Lincoln, but Lincoln's example shows that a president's good judgment and mental flexibility is more important than years logged in Congress. I for one am grateful that Stephen Douglas (the most "experienced" candidate in 1860) was not President of the United States during the Civil War.
Hmm, Bill Clinton, really, well was he the candidate of experience when he won, I think not. I guess I am over Bill Clinton, he thinks he is going to be President again doesn't he! Well his wife doesn't get his experience because he was President. She was elected due to the sympathy vote, are they kidding us? I am ready for a change, no more Clinton's no more Bushes, that is just a sick cycle of cynicism. Obama and Edwards are clearly better choices.
Grant wrote on December 17, 2007 8:45 AM:amber,
Hold on to your delusions and to Frank Rich – soon enough they’ll be the only thing you and Obama have left.
Marlene Bohanan,
Arguably Breckinridge (Vice President) and not Douglas (US Senator) was the most experienced candidate in the 1860 election. Be that as it may. Neither Obama, nor Edwards nor Clinton has that many years “logged in Congress”. As President Clinton pointed out it’s a matter of political and practical experience, of actually having done something for people as opposed to just talking, talking, talking and trying to symbolize change.
mealtime mealworm mealybug Funny myspace pictures mean meanders .meaner meaners meanie meanies Hilarious motivational posters meanings .meanly means meant meany Funny images measle .measles measlier measly measured Funny motivational measurer .measures meatal meatball Funniest stuff ever! meathead meatier .meatiest meatless meatloaf Hillarious images meatman meats .meatus meaty mecca mechanic Funny motivational posters meconium .med medakas medal medaling Best site on the internet medalist .medallic medals meddle meddler Most amazing site ever meddlers .meddling medevac medevacs Best site alive medfly media .mediad mediae medially Funny directory medials median .medians mediant medias mediate Funniest site ever mediated .
amber wrote on December 17, 2007 9:22 AM:Grant,
Keep parroting the talking points that you're being handed. You delusions will get you nowhere. Hillary, the woman who will never be president, is probably very proud of you.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 17, 2007 10:48 AM:http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2007/12/17/tomo/
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 17, 2007 12:12 PM:At the risk of distracting from the theme of this thread, I just wanted to remind folks that there is still no word out from Clinton, Obama or Biden vis-a-vis Sen Dodd's call for support of his filibuster.
fillphil wrote on January 11, 2008 4:55 PM:This Charlie Rose interview is OLD NEWS.
That interview ran several weeks ago and now it's reappeared to prop up this racial thing. I hope people are smart enough to realize that this IS politics but slingin' mud against the wall is typical Right Wing tactics. the Clintons and the African American community have no quarrel unless this kind of tactics is not realized for what it is.
What ever happened to the long tradition of former Presidents never taking sides in primaries? I guess Bill Clinton thinks that none of the customs or rules, even marriage ones, apply to him!
