Camp Hillary Hits Back At Obama's Closing Argument

Comments (71)

john mccutchen wrote on December 27, 2007 1:13 PM:

WE WANT THE VIDEO
WE WANT THE VIDEO

Not more whine, slime and Clinton DoubleTalk from Hill's Shills!!!

Obama in Carroll
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o7e88lc5k4

JenJen wrote on December 27, 2007 1:14 PM:

A new beginning?? Hardly.

And yes, there are certainly big stakes in this election... and the one we're going to have in November of 2008. I want to send the most electable Democrat possible... and it's not Hillary, and it's never going to be Hillary.

Keith wrote on December 27, 2007 1:18 PM:

His speech was THAT powerful. Wow.

john mccutchen wrote on December 27, 2007 1:20 PM:

The Page's Mark Halperin called this speech a "tour de force" and the "best written speech of the campaign."

The resident Hill Shills are scrambling now

dcshungu wrote on December 27, 2007 1:21 PM:

Good news all around for Hillary!

December 27, 2007

POLL: AP-Yahoo National Panel Survey

A new AP-Yahoo panel survey (story, results) of 1,523 registered voters nationwide (conducted 12/14 through 12/20 by Knowledge Networks) finds:

* Among 847 registered Democrats, Sen. Hillary Clinton leads Sen. Barack Obama (47% to 25%) in a national primary; former Sen. John Edwards trails at 13%.

* Among 655 registered Republicans, former Gov. Mike Huckabee runs at 22% and former Mayor Rudy Giuliani at 21% in a national primary; Sen. John McCain trails at 14%, former Gov. Mitt Romney at 13%, former Sen. Fred Thompson at 11%.

Also from Gallup:

December 27, 2007
Clinton Excels Among Seniors, Low-Income Democrats
Also leads Obama among most other Democratic subgroups

Just like the Intrade Prediction Markets suggest, the Big Mo is now squarely on Clinton's side. I like her chances, and I suspect that the next wave of early states polls would confirm this...

NCSteve wrote on December 27, 2007 1:23 PM:

So, having made a thinly veiled plea for civility in my last post, I still have to say it's high time she got a real human being to fire off these responses rather than just using her Automated Retort Generator software.

Anonymous wrote on December 27, 2007 1:24 PM:

Not feeling so "inevitable" any more RU DC!

Keith wrote on December 27, 2007 1:25 PM:

Greg:

Just curious, did any of the other campaigns react to Clinton's speech/memo or Edwards' memo? Seems ODD that Clinton would choose to make a comment on Obama's speech and I don't recall seeing any posted yesterday (but maybe they flew under the radar).

john mccutchen wrote on December 27, 2007 1:27 PM:

The heat is on Keith....Greg and Eric have taken off the gloves

It's showtime!

Kefa wrote on December 27, 2007 1:28 PM:

In October, 2006, Halperin appeared on several conservative talk shows to claim that "Old Media" organizations like ABC News favor Democrats. He told conservative commentator Sean Hannity that the last two weeks before the November 2006 midterm elections provided ABC News with "a chance... to prove to conservatives that we understand their grievances."

That Mark Halperin....A Republican who loves your guy. In bed with your guy makes you feel good. Fine with me. Sleep with fleas.

john mccutchen wrote on December 27, 2007 1:29 PM:

Time to take back Bushville and put an end to the Bush-Clinton Hackocracy

JenJen wrote on December 27, 2007 1:31 PM:

The Obama speech was so damned good, I can't help but wonder if it wasn't written by Ted Sorenson himself.

Or maybe even Aaron Sorkin. ;-)

OBAMA '08!

john mccutchen wrote on December 27, 2007 1:32 PM:

Note well the same old slime from Kefa folks

Ad hominem on top of ad hominem and not a word about the speech itself.

How tiresome
How predictable

Mrs. Bill ..SOS

john mccutchen wrote on December 27, 2007 1:33 PM:

Greg, Eric

WE WANT THE VIDEO

Kefa does too!

Jake wrote on December 27, 2007 1:33 PM:

Speaking about Day 1. What will Bill be doing on Day 1?

Anonymous wrote on December 27, 2007 1:35 PM:

Jake...

Didn't you hear? He and his new BEST FOB Poppy will be off on a World Tour to inspect the wreckage that Hillary and George have left us

freaktown wrote on December 27, 2007 1:38 PM:

First of all, there were no "political attacks". Unless you broaden the definition of "attacks" to mean pointing out the differences between candidates. He didn't mention her name once. He didn't mention edwards, or biden, or richardson. Maybe hillary thinks it was an "attack" because she desperate for sympathy and hopes that by labelling something an "attack" she'll get some.

Obama was making his case for why he is best suited to be President. The same way hillary did. The same way Edwards did.

Secondly, the idea that Hillary CLinton, who's been part of the establishment for 20 years is going to offer "change" and a "new beginning" is absurd.

And anyone who falls for that is seriously gullible.

Michael A wrote on December 27, 2007 1:39 PM:

It does seem kind of odd to make a response, it kind of gives more attention to the speech. Another shot in the foot by the great clinton II campaign. They must be very worried. Can you imagine the keystone cops of a campaign if she gets the nomination? It will be laughable and frightening at the same time.

It really is sad when a candidate gives a speech like this and all the other side's supporters do is try to slime him. I am looking forward to a new day in america when all this garbage is behind us.

john mccutchen wrote on December 27, 2007 1:39 PM:

Mark Halperin "Tour de Force" , The Page, Time Magazine

Obama: "Defining Moment in Our History http://thepage.time.com/2007/12/27/obamas-new-stump-speech/ http://thepage.time.com/2007/12/27/obamas-new-stump-speech/

colonpowwow wrote on December 27, 2007 1:40 PM:

"Inevitability" was the mantra and subtle dig at the Clinton campaign from both the right wingnuts as well as the loony leftist-behinds who helped to elect Bush in 2000 because Al Gore wasn't pure enough for them.

We Clinton supporters see her as strong, not inevitable, and I certainly like her chances just as much today as I did in October, although Obama has certainly made more of a race of it today.

Anonymous wrote on December 27, 2007 1:40 PM:

Live by inevitability

Die by inevitability

Michael A wrote on December 27, 2007 1:46 PM:

Oh, come on colonpowwow, you, dc and I can't remember the other person were crowing about her inevitablility until recently. DC kept posting and arguing poll after poll claiming that she was inevitable. Penn coined it over a year ago, it was the campaign strategy since day one and it was a clinton II talking point until recently. Don't try to rewrite history. That's so clintonian. Now that she may take a hit in iowa, which would tarnish the inevitability mantra, you people are claiming that you weren't pushing inevitability. How absurd.

Kefa wrote on December 27, 2007 1:47 PM:

john mccutchen ....be sure to use my name in 7 days when your boy comes in 2nd or 3rd to my girl. :)

JenJen wrote on December 27, 2007 1:48 PM:

Michael A wrote: It really is sad when a candidate gives a speech like this and all the other side's supporters do is try to slime him. I am looking forward to a new day in america when all this garbage is behind us.

Me too, Michael, me too. And you and I both know that if Clinton is nominated we can expect an entire year of this kind of garbage from the right wing. They've been dress-rehearsing a run against her for a solid four years now. It's going to be predictable, and if she manages to squeak out a victory over whatever loser candidate they nominate, we can expect four more years of guaranteed division, hostility and gridlock.

Not a Naive Democrat wrote on December 27, 2007 1:49 PM:

There is no doubt Obama delivers great speeches.
There is plenty of doubt as to his ability to deliver on them.

DemAC wrote on December 27, 2007 1:50 PM:

dcshungu wrote: Just like the Intrade Prediction Markets suggest, the Big Mo is now squarely on Clinton's side. I like her chances, and I suspect that the next wave of early states polls would confirm this...

From your Blackberry (is it?) to God’s inbox! :-) Michael A wrote on December 27, 2007 1:52 PM:

Absolutely jenjen, we will be stuck in the same never ending spiral downward if she by blind luck gets elected. The republicans will block her every step of the way and we will have just more gridlock and more of the same. I am so sick and tired of the same old, same old. Let's turn the page.

NCSteve wrote on December 27, 2007 1:53 PM:

Colon, please.

"Inevitability" was the theme of that 200+ page campaign memo that Mark Penn circulated to the press and to her supporters back in July. Here's the presser on it, just to refresh your recollection.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=2340

Hillary made a tactical decision to declare herself inevitable to try to get a self-fulfilling prophecy snowball rolling. If it had worked, she'd have been hailed as a genius for daring to take the risk of having no room to maneuver if it didn't work. She took that risk it knowingly and it didn't work.

Trying to blame her own political misjudgment on "wingnuts" and "looney leftbehindists" is a reflexive response of Hillary's supporters on the same level of accusing anyone who criticizes her of repeating Rush Limbaugh talking points. Nonetheless, indulging in revisionist history is both self-defeating and unbecoming in a world with an Internet.

john mccutchen wrote on December 27, 2007 1:53 PM:

Kefa of the Clinton Borg

Don't believe em. Don't stay home because Mrs. Bill is inevitable

Vote Different Kefa

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1576885516071483846&q=vote+different&total=999&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 Keith wrote on December 27, 2007 1:55 PM:

There is plenty of doubt as to his ability to deliver on them.

Seems the only doubt is in the minds of his detractors.

mark wrote on December 27, 2007 1:56 PM:

Not a Naive Democrat wrote on December 27, 2007 1:49 PM:
There is no doubt Obama delivers great speeches.
There is plenty of doubt as to his ability to deliver on them.

After the last 20 years, it's a leap of faith I'm willing to make!

GOBAMA!!!!

Keith wrote on December 27, 2007 1:56 PM:

Colonpowwow:

Thanks for reminding me (us), that whatever Clinton's perceived shortcomings are, they are in fact someone else's fault.

Kefa wrote on December 27, 2007 1:57 PM:

JenJen .....do you think if sweet sweet BHO is the one....the right will play nicey nice. Get real.

Kefa wrote on December 27, 2007 2:03 PM:

See heres the difference.....If HRC is not the one I for one WIN back whomever runs against the Right. Will the backers of BHO/JE back HRC if she wins against the Right???? Will they let the Right win again just to have their way???? That's the question most will not answer.

Not a Naive Democrat wrote on December 27, 2007 2:03 PM:

it's a leap of faith I'm willing to make!

Good luck to you then! I'll be staying with the Dodds and the Bidens and the Clintons where it's safer and smarter! Mark, NY wrote on December 27, 2007 2:04 PM:

"Now is not the time for political attacks, it's time to pick a president who can give us a new beginning in a time of war and a troubled economy. There are big stakes in this election -- Iowans are going to pick the candidate best able to make the change ... "

Sounds like an Obama endorsement.

Keith wrote on December 27, 2007 2:04 PM:

Kefa:

Obama isn't playing nicey nice now--hence Clinton's unprecedent decision to comment on his speech.

What makes you think he's play nicey nice in the general?

DemAC wrote on December 27, 2007 2:04 PM:

JenJen and Michael A,
You Obama supporters, so true, so gentle, so brave in the face of adversity. *gentle sob*

If only you’d have your candidate nominated, nay, delivered from the caucuses the Rethugs surely would play nice and hand him his coronation on a silver platter. And what a fine candidate you have, completely untouched by politics, experience or worldliness. *more gentle sobbing*

Oh the cruel cruel fate that your Messiah might lose to such unworthy competition. You poor poor souls that will have to bear this horrible fate of his and yet endure. Bless your courageous spirits. *A little tear in the corner of my eye*

Hank Essay wrote on December 27, 2007 2:06 PM:

Whether you are an Obama fan/doubter or Hillary fan/doubter, can we all agree that anything Mark Halperin says should be IGNORED??? The man has been one of the most destructive forces in Beltway journalism over the last decade...He needs to be ridiculed and ignored rather than referenced.

That is all.

colonpowwow wrote on December 27, 2007 2:17 PM:

Hey, calm down everyone. Just because your hopes for ABH are about to go down in flames, don't get all unglued here.

I said that I, and most, if not all, of the other regular Clinton supporters on TPM-EC, didn't use the word "inevitability" to describe her initial strong showing, that it was used by her opponents here as a sarcastic dig. (Miss Inevitablity, Her Inevitableness, the inevitablity train is slowing, etc.).

Although I, like you and everybody else, certainly noted (and still note) her strong national polling, everybody knows how volatile primary elections can be, and certainly with the excellent group of Democratic candidates (along with Clinton missteps) - nothing is certain.

Sure, I goaded other supporters with good news, just like they goaded me with good news about their preferred candidate and over Hillary's campaign missteps.

However, as crunch time now approaches, all inevitablity aside, I think she's going to take the nomination more soundly than you think. I felt the same way in October when all you had was parsing poll data - and Obama's much stronger now, IMHO.

Have a nice election ;-) - and I'll happily and wholeheartedly support whomever my fellow Democrats choose (even if it's not Clinton and I have to lick my wounds a little first).

You?

freaktown wrote on December 27, 2007 2:19 PM:

hey kefa, maybe you should read the speech. he addresses several of your concerns.

DemAC wrote on December 27, 2007 2:19 PM:

NCSteve wrote: Hillary made a tactical decision to declare herself inevitable to try to get a self-fulfilling prophecy snowball rolling. If it had worked, she'd have been hailed as a genius for daring to take the risk of having no room to maneuver if it didn't work. She took that risk it knowingly and it didn't work.

If she comes out on top in Iowa and New Hampshire I’d say it worked pretty fine. Will you then declare Hillary Clinton a genius? John wrote on December 27, 2007 2:24 PM:

DemAC: "A little tear in the corner of my eye"

Wow, somebody's scared! The vitriol is really flowing with you. Delicious.

Obama will just keep on gliding past as the spoiled child continues to throw a tantrum in the corner because everyone didn't turn out for her Super Sweet Coronation like she had planned.

Watching Camp Hill fumble around now that they've FINALLY realized the "inevitability" campaign isn't quite the way to win shows us that they had no plan B. It's like W in Iraq. No plan to win the peace. Obama is something that's not in the Penn/Rove playbook and they're helpless. So much for "electability."

And what happened to the "Likeability Tour"? Or "Turn up the heat"? Or the "conversation"? Are we still in "the fun part," Hillary? Man, I just can't keep track anymore.

Hahahahahaha!

Peggy McGilligan wrote on December 27, 2007 2:26 PM:

Your girl's on the ropes, as usual; take that: http://theseedsof9-11.com

JenJEn wrote on December 27, 2007 2:27 PM:

Dear Kefa and DemAC,

Keep it up, especially your patronizing "sobs" and racist, Muslim-bashing "BHO" acronyms.

You're steeling my resolve, and maknig it even more clear to me that I'll never bring myself to vote for your candidate.

DemAC wrote on December 27, 2007 2:35 PM:

You're steeling my resolve, and maknig it even more clear to me that I'll never bring myself to vote for your candidate.

Oh your brave little spirit; you’re such an inspiration to us all. CalD wrote on December 27, 2007 2:36 PM:

john mccutchen,

My all-time favorite Mark Halperin quote (via Glenn Greenwald) would have to be:

"Let me say one thing we say in the book about Karl Rove, who I respect and enjoy...I enjoy his company. If you look at the allegations of Karl Rove that have been propagated in Texas and in Washington by the media, the liberal media, and by Democrats, and you look at the allegations, there’s...except for the useful indiscretions to which Karl has admitted, there is no evidence for the allegations against him.

"And the ability of the press to paint him as this evil guy, and say that accounts for his success, is fundamental and outrageous. Maybe he did the things he’s accused of, but to have this guy’s image portrayed and defined by things that are accusations that are unproven, we say in the book is really outrageous."

More on Mark.

Oh, and speaking of "shills".

Not for nothin' but Obamapologists might want to consider choosing your authorities a little more carefully.

JenJen wrote on December 27, 2007 2:39 PM:

John... "No plan to win the peace; Penn/Rove playbook."

Good stuff! :-)

Kefa wrote on December 27, 2007 2:40 PM:

JenJEn....now I'm a racist because I use BHO...lol wow what a leap.

So what am I for using HRC and JE???

SO if BHO loses you will vote for who???

bvd wrote on December 27, 2007 2:42 PM:

“Now is not the time for political attacks..."

No, LAST week was the time for political attacks. And the week before that. And the week before that.

If Senator Obama can't follow the political attack schedule proscribed by Senator Clinton he clearly isn't experienced enough to be president.

JenJen wrote on December 27, 2007 2:52 PM:

Kefa,

Well, if you want to be consistent, maybe you should refer to John Edwards as "JRE." He has a middle name, too, you know.

But, you know, I'm just not that susceptible to Rovian techniques. Introducing Obama's middle name into the conversation, no matter how cleverly you do it, is an attempt to smear him (although only idiots would see it as a smear, it's still an attempt).

It's kinda like that Shaheen/Penn "cocaine drug dealer" thing. Or Bob Kerrey's "madrassa" thing. Uh-huh. Purely innocent. "But we were just pointing it out, and stuff!"

As an aside, I don't think Hillary uses "Rodham" anymore. Did you not get copied on the memo?

DemAC wrote on December 27, 2007 2:57 PM:

JenJen wrote: As an aside, I don't think Hillary uses "Rodham" anymore. Did you not get copied on the memo?

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. Kefa wrote on December 27, 2007 2:57 PM:

JenJen....as much as one can be believed on-line..I give my word I am not a racist. I will use JRE.

If you knew me you would know I am not a racially motivated person but I know the bad guys are, thats all.

JenJen wrote on December 27, 2007 3:01 PM:

DemAC,

Could be, but I'm still not finding "Rodham" on her official campaign website. Would you please post a link, as clearly, I must be missing it?

Kefa wrote on December 27, 2007 3:02 PM:

drug situation will be used and he will be dragged thru the coals by the right and it's better for it to be brought out now then in Nov of 08 vs Hucker or whomever.

JR wrote on December 27, 2007 3:05 PM:

Can HRC's skin get any thinner? If anyone dares state anything, in any way, critical of her campaign, she screams: "He hit me! He hit me!" I thought hers was the only skin tough enough to sustain GOP attacks - can she not handle those from her own party?

Methinks the candidate protests too much... Could be due to her hollow "experience" argument? Or is she actually now actively campaigning for Joe Biden?

Keith wrote on December 27, 2007 3:05 PM:

Kefa:

So because the worst elements of the right traffic in gutter politics, it's okay for us to do it too? That's the same logic that underscores torture our adversaries.

Seriously, if fear is all you've got, you don't have much at all.

Michael A wrote on December 27, 2007 3:06 PM:

Hey kefa, while Mr. bill was toking the wacky weed, with or without clinton II, was he dealing also? I mean you know the republicans will say that, right?

bvd wrote on December 27, 2007 3:17 PM:

Yes, it will all be dragged out by the Repugs. But drug use as a teenager is not likely to be all that big an issue these days, especially since it was freely and openly acknowledged by Obama years ago.

But every scandal involving the Clintons - all 3,476 of 'em - will be dragged out all over again. And again. And again. Until everyone has a relapse of "Clinton Fatigue" before Labor Day. And then a lot of folks will decide they remember this sitcom from the 90s and absolutely can't stomache it again.

And that's not even taking into account the possible return of "bimbo eruptions." Just one will sink that ship for good.

Chuck Norris of the Left wrote on December 27, 2007 3:17 PM:

If all you petty haters end up giving us a President Guilliani or Romney because you can't "bring myself to vote for your candidate," I will personally get a plane ticket, fly over there and kick your asses. Right before I move to Canada.
Not sure how, but make no mistake, I WILL kick your ass. JenJen, Kefa, DemAC I'm talkin' to you.

DemAC wrote on December 27, 2007 3:24 PM:

Chuck Norris of the Left wrote: I WILL kick your ass. JenJen, Kefa, DemAC I'm talkin' to you.

I take exception to being mentioned in this particular context. When did I ever say or wrote anything to the effect that I would not support the Democratic nominee, be it who it may??? JenJen wrote on December 27, 2007 3:25 PM:

Dear Chuck Norris of the Left,

Hey, simmer down there, now, tough guy! It might be the other thread, but I've said time and time again in these forums that I won't support Clinton... in my state's primary. I'm in Ohio. It's gonna be awhile.

Of course I will pull the lever for the eventual Democratic nominee. Good grief, acuse me of being like a Naderite, and you're the one who's gonna get the ass-kickin'. :-)

Michael A wrote on December 27, 2007 3:36 PM:

Agreed bvd, I'm not looking forward to the return to peyton place at the white house again. It'll be like ground hog day or daytime tv. Ugh, no thanks.

DTM wrote on December 27, 2007 3:46 PM:

Now is not the time for political attacks? Does that mean the "fun part" is officially over?

Heretic wrote on December 27, 2007 3:51 PM:

If Obama doesn't win in IA, he is probably toast. And unless he wins real big, it looks a Hillary nomination is still pretty likely. Its always more interesting to see what actually happens than listen to the pundits'predictions, and so I wait with bated breath. I was gonna say that I am so glad there are only a few more days left to read all this drivel on this site from those who would worship at "His" knee. But, then I realized if "He" wins, the gloating will ensue, and if "He" loses, the whining and recriminations will begin.

Michael A wrote on December 27, 2007 3:52 PM:

If she says so, I guess the its officially over for her challengers, not her though DTM. I mean, what she says goes and everything she says is absolutely truthful. If you believe that I have a bridge in brooklyn to sell you.

Anon840 wrote on December 27, 2007 3:54 PM:

Re:NCSteve

Exactly. It seems like Clinton's campaign especially has these standard letters it prepares in advance that always criticize the other candidates for "attacks," even if the other person didn't really attack anyone.

colonpowwow wrote on December 27, 2007 5:00 PM:

Michael A. and bvd:

3,475 of the 3,476 so-called "scandals" of the Clinton era were manufactured out of whole cloth by Newt Gingrich and his followers who felt that they were screwed out of the Presidency that was rightfully "theirs" by Perot, and they were determined to throw scandal-spaghetti against the wall until something stuck. Glad you want them to "win" now by buying into this.

Also, in the only scandal that "counted," Hillary comes out well by standing by her goof . . . uh . . . I mean . . . man, and working through tough personal times together. If anything, people feel sorry for her having to endure that.

Every administration is touched by "scandal." Even the saintly Jimmy Carter had Bert Lance and lust in his heart.

john mccutchen wrote on December 27, 2007 6:08 PM:

By Popular Demand! The Full Video of the Greatest Speech of 2008 Campaign http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPtg-gvgWhE

JenJen wrote on December 27, 2007 8:26 PM:

colonpowwow: With all due respect, I believe everyone on this comments thread recognizes that the whole of the 90's Clintons smears were bunk. Crapola. No "there" there.

We get it. We really do.

Thing is, they don't. And they'll return to that script, pre-written for them, the moment they can. That's what we're talking about.

We're not endorsing those smears. We're trying to innoculate ourselves against them, by choosing a non-Clinton, out of hope, and spirit, and a sense of "moving on."

DemAC wrote on December 27, 2007 11:33 PM:

JenJen,
You do realize that a vast majority of the American voters also “recognizes that the whole of the 90's Clintons smears were bunk. Crapola. No ‘there’ there,” don’t you? We are already inoculated. The work is done. If the Rethugs go after Hillary Clinton with this old shit it will create the voter backlash of the century against the GOP.

Have no fear. With Hillary Clinton it’s a win/win situation for us and a lose/lose situation for the Rethugs.

Post a comment

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