Hillary Backer Bayh: Assassination Reminds Us That If We Don't Pick Hillary, GOP Could Paint Dems As Weak
Looks like Obama adviser David Axelrod isn't the only key player talking about the effect the Bhutto assassination will have on the Dem primary.
Here's Hillary supporter Evan Bayh, saying that the killing is a reminder that the Republicans will use such occasions to paint Dems as weak, which is why we need to nominate Hillary:
“When there are unfortunate calamities like this, the Republicans [will say], ‘See. See what we told you? We have to have someone who’s strong to defend America at a time of concern.’ Well, Senator Clinton is strong,” he said. “And she’s experienced. And she’s tough enough to defend this country and do it in a way that’s true to our values, the civil liberties we cherish, and that’s one of the reasons why I’m supporting her.”...“The job of the next president is not to be entertainer in chief. The job of the next president is to move our country forward to make the substantive changes that will matter in our daily lives, and to protect us in an uncertain and dangerous world. And that’s why in a field of very good candidates, I believe Senator Clinton has the right combination of experience and strength to accomplish all of those things.”
Comments (110)
DTM wrote on December 27, 2007 4:18 PM:Except this "strong and experienced" candidate attacked Obama for saying he would go after Al Qaeda in Pakistan is he had actionable intelligence and Musharraf would not act on it.
So who exactly is giving the Republicans more fodder on national security issues?
Oh, and I am sure the Republicans would never accuse anyone who voted for the Iraq Resolution before becoming a critic of the war of being a politically-motivated flip-flopper.
Tom wrote on December 27, 2007 4:20 PM:Hillary herself this morning sounded the same theme. "It certainly raises the stakes high for what we expect from our next president. I know from a lifetime of working to make change". Certainly hypocritical for her campaign to accuse Obama's of playing politics.
Note that the only one not playing this game is Edwards.
yesterday gone wrote on December 27, 2007 4:24 PM:this is the same neocon wing of the democratic party who accuse fellow dems of being "weak" for not supporting senseless, unwarranted war in iraq.
to support war simply because you are afraid of what republicans will call you, shows weakness - not strength.
Little Chicken wrote on December 27, 2007 4:27 PM:And I thought all the cowards who would send our children to war were called Republicans... The more they sound the "strong on defense" theme, the more L know that we should never let Clinton back into DC, not even to go vote in the Senate.
Time for people who have the guts to make hard decisions. No more chicken hawks in the White House.
biff diggerence wrote on December 27, 2007 4:28 PM:I don't accept Candidate Pitches from Hoosiers.
Too small a gene pool in Indiana.
Keith wrote on December 27, 2007 4:30 PM:Can you smell that fear? Brewed fresh this morning.... You know you are scared . . . vote Clinton . . . or else!
Remember 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11. Live in fear, win elections by keeping people in fear, same old, same old. Did they raise the threat level yet?
Oops, I thought this was the mr. 9/11 campaign's comments. They sound the same, so its easy to be mistaken. My bad.
hoosier wrote on December 27, 2007 4:33 PM:Our pool is clean and unpolluted. And yours?
Zoyd Wheeler wrote on December 27, 2007 4:34 PM:Weakness is not standing up to the Bush administration and calling them on their lies and anti-democratic behaviors. Weakness is supporting a war against on an innocent country, just because we are already in it. What crap, electioneering...
I expect Hillary more than any other Democratic candidate would be the first if elected to call for national unity and "moving on". Instead of prosecuting those who have committed treason against America, failed to uphold the constitution, committed crimes against humanity. On the contrary, I can see her pardoning Bush administration officials, and even capitalizing on the fascistic groundwork they have put in place.
Little Chicken wrote on December 27, 2007 4:27 PM:
And I thought all the cowards who would send our children to war were called Republicans... The more they sound the "strong on defense" theme, the more L know that we should never let Clinton back into DC, not even to go vote in the Senate.
--- Just curious, how are you going to stop Mrs. Clinton from even voting in the Senate? You are going to pile a bunch of chicken shit in front of her or you will pull an assassination attempt like the one on Bhutto? I don't think a chicken little like you have the "courage" to do that!
goethean wrote on December 27, 2007 4:37 PM:Well, Senator Clinton is strong,” he said. “And she’s experienced. And she’s tough enough to defend this country and do it in a way that’s true to our values, the civil liberties we cherish, and that’s one of the reasons why I’m supporting her.”...
...and this is based on...what, exactly?
LJ wrote on December 27, 2007 4:38 PM:If Hillary has a pet parrot, odds are it sounds like this:
Squawk! Strength and Experience! Squawk! Strength and Experience! Squawk!
Michael A wrote on December 27, 2007 4:40 PM:goethean, hot air and that's about it. No basis in reality, just empty rhetoric with a dash of fear thrown in. Gotta love those republicans, I mean clinton II people.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© wrote on December 27, 2007 4:40 PM:Come now, my fellow Democrats. Do we want a candidate who will repeat republican talking points with regards to killing social security? (Obama)
How about the neocons favorite Democrat (Hillary)
What's that spell?
John Edwards, that's who!
~
The merits of the candidates aside, it's incredible to me that leading Democrats would argue that we should select our nominee based on a fear of Republican talking points. This is supposed to show strength? It shows incredible weakness.
Unfortunately, people like Bayh not only believe that this is how we should select nominees, but this is how we should decide whether to vote for (or in his case, sponsor) wars.
>Come now, my fellow Democrats. Do we want a candidate who will repeat republican talking points with regards to killing social security? (Obama)
I don't get it. He supports making the Social Security payroll tax less regressive by increasing the cutoff. How is that "killing social security"? It's a progressive policy suggestion.
You know the obsession with "frames" and talking points has gone too far when a genuinely progressive policy idea is vehemently rejected because the urgency with which it's delivered reminds people of something a Republican once said.
If you start with an irrational premise, your conclusion is likely to be nonsense. I suggest the GOP itself is much more open to criticism on this account than any Dem candidate because of the role they played in the assassination. I've read a suggestion on another blog, which I find reasonably credible that it was the GOP that created the conditions that resulted in Bhutto's assassination; that they pushed her into entering the Pakistani fray prematurely to jump-start the democracy movement in Pakistan even though she did not have a large following and despite lingering charges of corruption(recall how well the whole democracy push has gone in Iraq) and that her death was an inevitable result of the Bush Admin gaming of the situation. This forced the hand of Musharraf to double efforts to reassert his strongman role and has set back democracy efforts probably another decade at least. The GOP by and large has blundered badly in virtually every foreign policy endeavor of import. None of this is a pitch for Hillary, who plays at being the most hawkish of Democrats. I don't trust that she would show much better judgement than the GOP.
Anonymous wrote on December 27, 2007 4:46 PM:I don't think you can blame Hillary for everything for what her every supporters says. This is just silly.
Keith wrote on December 27, 2007 4:46 PM:RS:
Not only that, but Edwards is proposing essentially the same thing (lifting the cap). It's much ado about nothing if you ask me.
roo_P wrote on December 27, 2007 4:48 PM:Greg,
Come on now. Bayh started this whole thing this morning. He is the reason reporters asked Axelrod why he thought Hillary killed Bhutto.
Aimey Mays wrote on December 27, 2007 4:49 PM:RS wrote on December 27, 2007 4:40 PM:
The merits of the candidates aside, it's incredible to me that leading Democrats would argue that we should select our nominee based on a fear of Republican talking points. This is supposed to show strength? It shows incredible weakness.
--- You are exactly right. We should be nominating someone who has the best strenghth and experience to lead this country in a time of turmoil. We should put up the best person who is tested and who can do the job in day one. Why should we worry that the other side may not like our candidate and may be motivated to come out in drives to vote against him or her?
yesterday gone wrote on December 27, 2007 4:50 PM:ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© wrote on December 27, 2007 4:40 PM:
Come now, my fellow Democrats. Do we want a candidate who will repeat republican talking points with regards to killing social security? (Obama)
obama has recanted that point.
obama: I absolutely agree that Social Security is not in crisis," he said during the most recent Democratic debate.
what's worse? a slip of the tongue or a voting record that's hostile to working people?
roo_P wrote on December 27, 2007 4:51 PM:I have to say, though, that I reject Bayh's premise here.
Bayh and Clinton, apparently, spend their entire days trembling worrying about what the Republicans will say about them. That is not an effective way of making policy.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© wrote on December 27, 2007 4:51 PM:P.S. Does the remember personal info tag work for anyone else? I have to type everything in again, each time I post...whether I've checked that box or not.
Michael A wrote on December 27, 2007 4:52 PM:Anon, you actually think bayh said anything and I mean anything about this without first clearing it with the campaign? If you do, I have a bridge to sell you. Of course, all this garbage is crafted by the campaign and spewed. When it backfires, the spewer resigns and praises clinton II on the way out the door.
Its politics as usual 90's style. Gotta love that 90's stuff. What were some of the cool cultural quirks of the 90's? I forget, but I'm sure clinton II people will remind me. I can't wait to relive those days. Life was so uncomplicated and rosy. Not.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© wrote on December 27, 2007 4:57 PM:what's worse? a slip of the tongue or a voting record that's hostile to working people?
Whose record are you referring to? I'll support the Democratic nominee in 2008, whoever he or she is. But I'd like to see Edwards be that nominee, and the corporate media's focus on haircuts (or otherwise ignoring him), just adds to my enthusiasm.
~
Everyone seems to be missing the shot Bayh took at the media. That "entertainer in chief" crack was not aimed at the other candidates, but at the adolescent fools that drive our political debate - for example, Chris Matthews.
jeanba wrote on December 27, 2007 5:01 PM:This is so sickening that people are trying to use Bhutto's death for their political gain, did you know that she was a mother? She has children, family members who are moaning with the rest of the world for her tragic death? Now we have Taylor Marsh posting Hillary's picture with Bhutto on Huffingtonpost. How sick are you people? Can't you wait tomorrow after the family moans?
yesterday gone wrote on December 27, 2007 5:03 PM:RS wrote on December 27, 2007 4:45 PM:
I don't get it. He [obama] supports making the Social Security payroll tax less regressive by increasing the cutoff. How is that "killing social security"? It's a progressive policy suggestion.
exactly. it's hillary's faux panic against obama proposal of lifting the cap, calling it a trillion dollar tax hike, who is fear-mongering about taxes just like republicans do.
you dont see krugman protesting hillary's fear-mongering about taxes.
Keith wrote on December 27, 2007 5:07 PM:Aimey Mays:
Maybe you missed the NY Times article yesterday while you were hiding under your bed, but they burst the experience bubble.
yesterday gone wrote on December 27, 2007 5:10 PM:Whose record are you referring to? I'll support the Democratic nominee in 2008, whoever he or she is. But I'd like to see Edwards be that nominee, and the corporate media's focus on haircuts (or otherwise ignoring him), just adds to my enthusiasm.
it's edwards who has voted against working people, denying them relief for medical bankruptcies. he also voted against small family farmers. and he has voted to protect big pharma from vaccine lawsuits.
edwards talks a good game but his senate record doesn't reflect his rhetoric. plus, he's unable to explain his past conservative record and how he has arrived to his current positions now. you don't just switch from one side of the spectrum to the other without explanation.
dajafi wrote on December 27, 2007 5:15 PM:LJ wrote on December 27, 2007 4:38 PM:
If Hillary has a pet parrot, odds are it sounds like this:
Squawk! Strength and Experience! Squawk! Strength and Experience! Squawk!
My version of this: take any Clinton spokesperson's remarks, substitute "brains"--half-spoken, half-moaned--for "strength and experience," and... whammo! You've got yourself a zombie movie.
They go for the low-information voter, dimwits who only think in soundbites. There are two problems with this, however: one, when you dumb down the discourse, you perpetuate the reality of a dangerously uninformed public that's open to all kinds of official mischief, and two, the Republicans generally are better at this anyway.
Take the high road. Vote Obama.
DTM wrote on December 27, 2007 5:15 PM:jeanba,
Yes, on one level Bhutto's murder is a personal tragedy. But on another level, it is also an event of geopolitical significance.
And of course the family won't stop mourning tomorrow, or the next day, or the day after that. In other words, there will be no good time to discuss the geopolitical ramifications of this event, so waiting for such a good time to come around makes little sense.
dem wrote on December 27, 2007 5:23 PM:Hillarious. A while back when Obama said he would go after Pakistan with military force if Mushy didn't step up, Hillary scoffed at the idea. Well, looks like he was right on the foreign policy all along. It appears all her "experience" means absolutely nothing. Iraq has diverted the attention from Afghanistan and Pakistan and look where it is getting us.
john mccutchen wrote on December 27, 2007 5:25 PM:We need to nominate Brunehilde because Mrs. Bill hasn't taken the nuclear option off the table.
LOok out Waziristan...here comes Mama Warbucks
john mccutchen wrote on December 27, 2007 5:27 PM:Bayh for VP
Bored and Boreder
Old Fat Hellvis wrote on December 27, 2007 5:28 PM:Look folks, Hillary wears a Democratic badge but carries a Republican playbook. She wants to be "strong on defense." She takes her money and her orders from the corporations. She started out as Republican and never changed. If you look at ANY respectable analysis of comprehensive policy positions, you will find that she is far to the right of any other Democrat in the field. She never was one of us and when the going gets tough she makes that very clear.
For a realignment election, we need someone that people will follow with enthusiasm. That ain't Republican lite (assuming she is lite). I keep waiting for Edwards to light the fuse, he clearly has the best policy positions, but somebody turned off his amplifier. He's got a week to turn it back on. Obama may not be the candidate I most align with, but I can imagine a victory like we haven't seen in 80 years.
Larry Geater wrote on December 27, 2007 5:29 PM:Sen Clinton is the kind of fool who will do something that hurts both herself and the nation because she is afraid of looking less than tough. Tough is the oposite of brave. It takes courage to do what is right and she shows her lack of courage every time it comes down to it from ther vote for the authorization of the use of military force in Iraq right up till today.
Michael A wrote on December 27, 2007 5:33 PM:Ugh, DTM, you are right as usual. Have you ever been wrong? At first blush, I thought it was in poor taste to do what the campaigns were doing, but once again you are correct and it is extraordinarily significant and should be commented on.
Chris Brown wrote on December 27, 2007 5:38 PM:“When there are unfortunate calamities like this, the Republicans [will say], ‘See. See what we told you? We have to have someone who’s strong to defend America at a time of concern.’ Well, Senator Clinton is strong,” he said."
This Bayh comment is directly from the DLC playbook. Rather than taking republicans to task for asserting dems are weak on defense and security, through citing historical facts, allow the rebubs meme to permeate conventional wisdom and try to appear tougher than the repubs.
Thus Clinton's votes to authorized the Irag invasion and occupation, for the Kyl Lieberman measure, her vote against joining the International Criminal Court, and ad infinitum.
Other than President Clinton's election, attributable to his personal warmth and ability to connect personally with voters, what elections have been won using the DLC strategy?
DTM wrote on December 27, 2007 5:40 PM:Michael A,
I am wrong all the time (just ask my wife).
But in this case, I was instantly reminded of the capture of Saddam Hussein in December of 2003, which was one of those external events of such significance that it had an impact on the primaries in 2004. So I knew the campaigns had no choice but to react to Bhutto's assassination, since it is an event of a similar scale. And again I think that is rightly so, because this is the sort of unexpected event that all Presidents will end up having to deal with, and so how the candidates fit this event into their general worldview is important information for voters to have.
Michael A wrote on December 27, 2007 5:46 PM:Excellent point DTM. By the way, do you find it odd that there is a flood of "edwards supporters" on this site in the last week and a half or so? There has been almost none since august, maybe some periodic comments, but recently its been a virtual flood. And of course, virtually all of the comments have been attacking obama. Isn't that kind of odd?
Shelf Life wrote on December 27, 2007 5:50 PM:"Entertainer in Chief"?
Am I the only person who reads this as borderlne racist?
Didn't I just hear the Brunehilde Campaign whine about Axelrod?
What are they trying to do? Set a record for Clintonian Doubletalk?
ShelfLife,
Yeah, you probably are.
john mccutchen wrote on December 27, 2007 6:05 PM:By Popular Demand! The Full Video of the Greatest Speech of 2008 Campaign http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPtg-gvgWhEifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© wrote on December 27, 2007 6:06 PM:
it's edwards who has voted against working people, denying them relief for medical bankruptcies. he also voted against small family farmers. and he has voted to protect big pharma from vaccine lawsuits.
edwards talks a good game but his senate record doesn't reflect his rhetoric.
Those same things also apply to Obama, minus the talking a good game. Obama sounds like Dave Broder to me, and that's not a good thing.
~
Strangely enough the same thing was said on Hardball by the panel lead by Matthews/Simon/Mitchell/Buchannan it was strange to hear. They say this now helps HRC and John McC. Strange.
Michael A wrote on December 27, 2007 6:11 PM:ifthewhatever, if obama sounds like broder to you, you must be tone deaf.
When did obama vote against working people, deny them bankruptcy relief, vote against family farmers and vote to protect big pharma? That's a new one. I can see it applying to clinton II, because I am sure her votes are the same as edwards on those issues, but obama? That's absurd.
CalD wrote on December 27, 2007 6:12 PM:I have been saying over and over for months than any Democrat who fails to convincingly position themselves as a credible custodian of the national security will not be elected president. That just doesn't take a genius to figure out. Right now I believe there are precisely two Democrats running who clear that perceptual bar, only one of whom currently enjoys top tier primary candidate status.
Obama was doing OK for a while -- actually straying into sounding a little too bloodthirsty at one point (threatening to invade Pakistan, not good). But in terms of military/foreign policy, he's since swung out far enough to the left in pursuit of single-issue anti-war voters and trying to distinguish himself from Clinton, that it would be pretty tough for him to make his way back. Republicans would obviously be doing everything in their power to make sure he never made it.
Edwards, I don't know. Maybe. He's as thin on military/foreign policy as Obama is in real life but he's done a better job resisting the urge to pander in that case -- perhaps just because the option was less open to him, apology or no apology -- and he's also got that scrappiness thing going on this year.
Joe Biden certainly could. But it's obviously not looking like his year otherwise. Richardson and Dodd have both courted the single-issue anti-war vote more aggressively, albeit less successfully than Obama and do I really need to mention Denny Kucinich in this context?
Clinton however, along with Biden, has been consistently willing to suffer the outrage of the single-issue anti-war faction on the Democratic Left to avoid being led into that trap. So while Evan Bayh didn't actually say it, I will. As of this moment, Clinton is really the only Democrat within striking distance of the nomination with sufficient, credible CinC mojo to be elected president.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 27, 2007 6:13 PM:Micheal A.,
Edwards supporters have been flaming inbred idiots who mouth-breath support for corporate conspiritor Clinton and Mr Chime-in-five-days-later Obama here at Election Central for at least eight months before it was migrated off TPM Cafe . . .
In short, good away newbie. Collapse back into the mindless revelry that spawned you and yours.
Hugs and kisses,
RLA
Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 27, 2007 6:13 PM:
Micheal A.,
Edwards supporters have been flaming inbred idiots who mouth-breath support for corporate conspiritor Clinton and Mr Chime-in-five-days-later Obama here at Election Central for at least eight months before it was migrated off TPM Cafe . . .
In short, good away newbie. Collapse back into the mindless revelry that spawned you and yours.
Hugs and kisses,
RLA
kozmik wrote on December 27, 2007 6:16 PM:
Why exactly would Hillary be "strong" again?
I doubt Hillary can even withstand locker room jokes featuring Lewinsky, let alone the scrutiny that her "experience" will get from Republicans.
Anonymous wrote on December 27, 2007 6:16 PM:Hillary said: " I know from a lifetime of working to make change." Thanks Hillary, and with all that work over decades please list all of the courageous change your efforts have accomplished.
One big hint: the answer is none.
Hillary has helped build the Washington corporate fueled, speacial interested status quo and would protect it if president: Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© wrote on December 27, 2007 6:20 PM:Could you please translate your post into some currently spoken language, Mr. Adlof?
And for the record, I've been here a long time.
Of course, thanks to the magic of keyboards and the innert00bz, you can't hear me breathing through my mouth.
~
Bayh's implication that HRC is the strong candidate who can best counter the thug party criticisms about Dem weakness are foolish on three counts:
1) Had the GOP been dealing directly with Pakistan in the first place which has been sheltering the real perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, Musharraf and the terrorists he uses to bolster his claim to authority would have been dealt with already. That is a criticism of GOP weakness, or rather lack of good judgement at the very least, so they have no leg to stand on calling any of the Dems weak
2) Calling Hillary the strong candidate implies that the other Dem candidates would not be able to deal with foreign threats successfully and rationally, which simply has no basis in fact and plays into the MSM CW that the Dems are the mommy party (except for the Clinton b**ch)
3) On all issues of security, all of the Dems should be speaking with one voice about the dangers of staying the course with the GOP rather than seeking a thorough change of the US approach to foreign policy. Bayh's criticism is playing into the hands of the Rove machine--which seems to indicate a level of desperation in the Clinton camp that is simply making the campaign ugly.
CalD said "I have been saying over and over for months ..."
Yep you have been saying the same things over and over and over and over for days, and weeks and months.
Give it a rest.
kozmik wrote on December 27, 2007 6:23 PM:Note that the only one not playing this game is Edwards.
That's becasue Edwards voted for the Iraq war, Patriot, has no noteworthy FP statements, and really does have no experience on the subject.
Obama's first B.A. was in Foreign Affairs from Columbia, and worked for BIC, a company which advised business on operating abroad, and has since been aquired by the Economist. Obama's FP judgment has been right on, time and time again.
CalD wrote on December 27, 2007 6:24 PM:Thunder,
I was just kind of assuming that is the currently-spoken language on planet Dementia.
RS wrote on December 27, 2007 6:33 PM:Aimey Mays wrote on December 27, 2007 4:49 PM:
RS wrote on December 27, 2007 4:40 PM:
The merits of the candidates aside, it's incredible to me that leading Democrats would argue that we should select our nominee based on a fear of Republican talking points. This is supposed to show strength? It shows incredible weakness.
--- You are exactly right. We should be nominating someone who has the best strenghth and experience to lead this country in a time of turmoil. We should put up the best person who is tested and who can do the job in day one. Why should we worry that the other side may not like our candidate and may be motivated to come out in drives to vote against him or her?
--------------------------------------
I certainly agree that speculative notions of "electability" should be low on the list of criteria by which we choose a nominee. But there's a difference between: (1)saying we shouldn't nominate someone because his *policy positions* are subject to the criticism of Republican *politicians* and (2) saying we shouldn't nominate someone because their very *personality* is offensive to independent and Republican *voters*. As progressives, we ought to be able to tell the difference between compromising on policy *substance* and adopting a conciliatory *style*.
Of course, your post, which reads eerily like a Clinton press release, suggests that you're more interested in electioneering propaganda than a frank discussion of policy substance.
RS wrote on December 27, 2007 6:43 PM:CalD wrote on December 27, 2007 6:12 PM:
I have been saying over and over for months than any Democrat who fails to convincingly position themselves as a credible custodian of the national security will not be elected president. That just doesn't take a genius to figure out. Right now I believe there are precisely two Democrats running who clear that perceptual bar, only one of whom currently enjoys top tier primary candidate status.
Obama was doing OK for a while -- actually straying into sounding a little too bloodthirsty at one point (threatening to invade Pakistan, not good). But in terms of military/foreign policy, he's since swung out far enough to the left in pursuit of single-issue anti-war voters and trying to distinguish himself from Clinton, that it would be pretty tough for him to make his way back. Republicans would obviously be doing everything in their power to make sure he never made it.
Edwards, I don't know. Maybe. He's as thin on military/foreign policy as Obama is in real life but he's done a better job resisting the urge to pander in that case -- perhaps just because the option was less open to him, apology or no apology -- and he's also got that scrappiness thing going on this year.
Joe Biden certainly could. But it's obviously not looking like his year otherwise. Richardson and Dodd have both courted the single-issue anti-war vote more aggressively, albeit less successfully than Obama and do I really need to mention Denny Kucinich in this context?
Clinton however, along with Biden, has been consistently willing to suffer the outrage of the single-issue anti-war faction on the Democratic Left to avoid being led into that trap. So while Evan Bayh didn't actually say it, I will. As of this moment, Clinton is really the only Democrat within striking distance of the nomination with sufficient, credible CinC mojo to be elected president.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All those words, CalD, but nary a comment on whose foreign policy views are actually the best for the country. Look, any monkey can achieve "credibillity" on any policy issue by asking Mark Penn where the 51st percentile of public opinion lies. But any leader worth a darn doesn't concede that American public opinion is static. A true leader chooses his views based on the merits and then works hard to persuade people that those views are in the best interests of the country.
And any voter worth a darn doesn't choose a candidate because the candidate is willing to compromise his or her beliefs on an issue as fundamental as sending off our brothers and sisters to go die for their country - so that they can be perceived as "credible."
onceler wrote on December 27, 2007 6:43 PM:there are so many things wrong with Bayh's statement there is scarcely room in the digital universe to address them all. his basic logic of 'republicans will make fun of us no matter what, therefore we have to select the candidate most like the republicans so that they won't make fun of us" - does that really even need to be shot down? its so bankrupt on arrival.
and Evan Bayh is, for all intents and purposes, a Republican anyways. even more than Clinton.
Obama showed foresight and knowledge about the instability in PK when no other candidate would have even attempted to bring the subject up. Hillary Clinton certainly wasn't, and her main criticisms of Obama re: this incident were - 1) "as candidate for Pres, one shouldn't always say what they think" (a real winner, that one!) and 2) Obama was "foolish" to rule out using Nukes in such a situation. Huh? This makes WHO think Clinton is the proper choice on an issue like this???
Again, Obama is simply there well ahead of everyone else.
CalD wrote on December 27, 2007 7:05 PM:RS wrote: ... saying we shouldn't nominate someone because their very *personality* is offensive to independent and Republican *voters*. As progressives, we ought to be able to tell the difference between compromising on policy *substance* and adopting a conciliatory *style*.
Actually RS, I was surprised to learn yesterday that according to a new Gallup poll, Hillary Clinton -- I presume you were talking about Mrs. Clinton -- is the third most admired woman in America among Republicans (also second among independents and first among Democrats). Of course my reaction on reading that was, what's wrong with these people? Don't they know how polarizing Mrs. Clinton is? Don't they listen to pundits or read Barack Obama's talking points? But whatever the case, apparently Mrs. Clinton isn't all that personally offensive to at least some Independents and Republicans.
Obama also made the top three for Democrats and independents, as did Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Sadly, none of them made the cut among Repub's, "conciliatory *style*", or want thereof notwithstanding.
Just goes to show it never pays to assume.
Michael A wrote on December 27, 2007 7:16 PM:And cald, a recent rassmussen poll has clinton II with a 54% unfavorability rating, which has been pretty consistent. That's more than 50% by the way and unless there's another third party candidate for her to win the nomination with less than 50% of the vote like clinton I, 4 more years of republican rule. Is that what you want?
Michael A wrote on December 27, 2007 7:19 PM:Oops, I meant general election, not nomination, before I get slammed.
CalD wrote on December 27, 2007 7:20 PM:RS wrote: "All those words, CalD, but nary a comment on whose foreign policy views are actually the best for the country. "
OMG, Words! Run! Hide! (LOL!)
But seriously, what's best for the country is obviously a Democratic president. So we'd damned well better be giving a little thought to electability. Having followed every twist and turn in pre-election polls in 2004, I consider it unlikely that every trick in Karl Rove's nasty little book would have been quite enough to finesse Ohio if Osama bin Laden had not presented Bush with the gift of a spanky new video of himself two days before the election.
roo_P wrote on December 27, 2007 7:30 PM:CalD,
A deft sidestep on that question, I must congratulate you. I would still like to hear your answer, though.
Ni Daye wrote on December 27, 2007 7:31 PM:Shelf Life wrote on December 27, 2007 5:50 PM:
"Entertainer in Chief"?
Am I the only person who reads this as borderlne racist?
Shelf Life -- Racists are the ones who see racism everywhere.
whore lover wrote on December 27, 2007 7:33 PM:Senator Bayh--corporate whore and another "successful" politician because of family ties and not his own efforts--supports fellow corporate whore and Senator for President.
What an amazing development eh? He wants one of his own kind to be elected so he and his kind can prosper. But guess what... his kind isn't our kind. His kind is a special breed that finds it's way to Washington and never goes back home because they become the slaves of the corporate interests that have nearly destroyed our country and weakened our middle class and communities.
What we need is to have someone with some common sense who isn't utterly beholden to every wealthy corporate special interest on earth! If you're for Clinton or Obama wake up! There's no difference between them and there will be absolutely no changes made if either is elected.
CalD wrote on December 27, 2007 7:34 PM:roo_P,
Well, I guess I in turn must congratulate you on a nice attempt at misdirection.
Ni Daye wrote on December 27, 2007 7:35 PM:I have a question. Why is Bhutto lionized? Is not she one of the corrupted politicians who were driven from office by the people?
Anonymous wrote on December 27, 2007 7:37 PM:Obama leads in Iowa Strategic Vision: Obama 30 Bill Clinton's Ho 29 Edwards 28Anonymous wrote on December 27, 2007 7:38 PM:
Hillary strong like bull! Evan Bayh
Say what?
Why is Bhutto lionized?
Because she was assassinated.
Heckuva job Mrs. Bill..Nuke Waziristan NOW
CalD wrote on December 27, 2007 7:46 PM:Ni Daye,
It's my understanding that there's credible evidence to support Bhutto's claims that she was driven from office on trumped up charges of corruption engineered by political rivals (sound familiar?). She also had to know that she was risking her life in returning to Pakistan but did it anyway. So that was pretty brave of her. That's about all I know. Go google it if you want to know more.
Ni Daye wrote on December 27, 2007 7:56 PM:CalD wrote on December 27, 2007 7:46 PM:
Ni Daye,
It's my understanding that there's credible evidence to support Bhutto's claims that she was driven from office on trumped up charges of corruption engineered by political rivals (sound familiar?). She also had to know that she was risking her life in returning to Pakistan but did it anyway. So that was pretty brave of her. That's about all I know. Go google it if you want to know more.
--- You may be right but I am not convinced that Bhutto is a saint. In terms of bravery, your argement actually makes Colin Powell a coward. His wife did not allow him to run beccause she was concerned that he might be assassinated. Sometimes, enormous power is worth your life for. Sorry, I am not trying to debase Bhutto's bravery.
yesterday gone wrote on December 27, 2007 8:00 PM:I have a question. Why is Bhutto lionized? Is not she one of the corrupted politicians who were driven from office by the people?
was she corrupt or labeled corrupt by political enemies?
CalD wrote on December 27, 2007 8:22 PM:Ni Daye: In Colin Powell's case -- that Ted Kennedy's too, for that matter -- I suppose there's a difference between being afraid for your own life and being unwilling to cause pain to someone you love.
You're obviously correct that people sometimes take crazy risks in pursuit of power. However people have also been known to risk death and make other great personal sacrifices for love of their country.
But as I said before, I could not say with any certainty which was the case for Bhutto. I am certainly no expert. I have only read that there was at least some credibility to her claims that the charges of corruption that drove her into exile were bogus and manufactured by political enemies.
RS wrote on December 27, 2007 8:34 PM:CalD wrote on December 27, 2007 7:05 PM:RS wrote: ... saying we shouldn't nominate someone because their very *personality* is offensive to independent and Republican *voters*. As progressives, we ought to be able to tell the difference between compromising on policy *substance* and adopting a conciliatory *style*.Actually RS, I was surprised to learn yesterday that according to a new Gallup poll, Hillary Clinton -- I presume you were talking about Mrs. Clinton -- is the third most admired woman in America among Republicans (also second among independents and first among Democrats). Of course my reaction on reading that was, what's wrong with these people? Don't they know how polarizing Mrs. Clinton is? Don't they listen to pundits or read Barack Obama's talking points? But whatever the case, apparently Mrs. Clinton isn't all that personally offensive to at least some Independents and Republicans.
Actually CalD, my point was theoretical, not empirical. I make no claims about whether Hillary is or isn't too polarizing to be "electable." My own view is that none of the three leading candidates is particularly unelectable, and that in any event, electability, as I noted earlier, should be pretty low on the list of criteria by which we choose a nominee.
That said, I have no idea how the fact that 18% of Americans identify Hillary as their most admired woman is at all relevant to whether more than 50% of Americans will choose her to be President over a male opponent.
if hillary had any legitimacy, her supporters wouldn't have to stoop to emotional blackmail.
RS wrote on December 27, 2007 8:43 PM:CalD wrote on December 27, 2007 7:20 PM:RS wrote: "All those words, CalD, but nary a comment on whose foreign policy views are actually the best for the country. "OMG, Words! Run! Hide! (LOL!)
Um, the point wasn't that words are scary, but that despite using lots of them, you didn't address the core issue of which foreign policy approach is actually good for the country.
But seriously, what's best for the country is obviously a Democratic president. So we'd damned well better be giving a little thought to electability. Having followed every twist and turn in pre-election polls in 2004, I consider it unlikely that every trick in Karl Rove's nasty little book would have been quite enough to finesse Ohio if Osama bin Laden had not presented Bush with the gift of a spanky new video of himself two days before the election.
Actually, what's best for the country is obviously good public policy. Nominating a candidate who is supposedly electable because the candidate embraces a flawed foreign policy strategy is self-defeating.
Unless, of course, you think the foreign policy approach in question isn't flawed - but then you should make your argument on the merits, not on the basis of electability.
Incidentally, you might want to share your theory of what constitutes credibility on foreign policy and security issues with all those Republicans who were booted from office last November.
amber wrote on December 27, 2007 8:51 PM:This is pure Clinton ugliness. The Clintons are ghoulish scumbags. Both Clintons like Bush and Cheney are Chickenhawks. Hillary will never be and doesn't deserve to president.
DemAC wrote on December 27, 2007 9:08 PM:Perhaps now it’s time for Obama to regurgitate his mindless bombing campaign against Pakistan. At least it would serve to divert attention from Axelrod’s pathetic remarks earlier today.
DemAC wrote on December 27, 2007 9:33 PM:Wow. For perhaps the first time camp Obama is actually being called on their rhetorical diarrhea. The Obama-Axelrod spin failure is creating a host of comments in mainstream media, further exposing how vulnerable Obama is on foreign policy.
Perhaps camp Obama’s clumsiness is a kind of change eventin itself?
yesterday gone wrote on December 27, 2007 9:45 PM:DemAC wrote on December 27, 2007 9:33 PM:
cnn, who planted favorable questions for hillary, isn't exactly dripping with credibility.
yesterday gone wrote on December 27, 2007 9:50 PM:DemAC wrote on December 27, 2007 9:33 PM:
and from your "change event" link:
andrea mitchell, aka mrs. greenspan, isn't exactly an objective source either. she has defended bush policy in the past.
CalD wrote on December 27, 2007 9:54 PM:RS: Heck yeah! Good policies are good -- by definition kinda. That must be why all Democratic candidates have them. It may also help explain why actual substantive differences in policy proposals between any of the Democratic candidates -- with the notable exception of Denny Kucinich, -- are so rare.
I mean sure, Obama's health care plan kind of sucks but it would still beat the heck out of having no national health care plan at all. And other than that, if start actually going through their stuff there's really not a nickel's worth of difference between them on policy. They're all pretty in agreement in general on what needs to be done.
So as I've said, what we really need to do is elect one of them. But of course to to do that, we do need to pick one with credible CinC mojo because no Democratic candidate who fails to convincingly present themselves as a credible custodian of the national security will be elected president. (And of course if one cannot get elected, then it really doesn't matter a tinker's damn what one's policy ideas are.)
DemAC wrote on December 27, 2007 10:14 PM:yesterday gone,
The idea that anyone – including you and me – are somehow “objective” is deeply flawed. “Objective commentary” exists only in the fairytales. My sole point was that w, for the first time, can discern a possible end to the special kid gloves treatment of Obama in the mainstream media. But perhaps the msm will be back on the same old track early in the morning.
My sole point was that w, for the first time, can discern a possible end to the special kid gloves treatment of Obama in the mainstream media.
nonsense. media held up hillary as "inevitable." while obama got tagged as "inexperienced" despite having held elective office for a longer term than either hillary or edwards.
yesterday gone wrote on December 27, 2007 10:21 PM:howard dean got tagged as "inexperienced" too last campaign season. even though he had more experience than edwards. that label seems to get slapped onto the candidate the democratic establishment fears the most.
DemAC wrote on December 27, 2007 10:26 PM:According to Marc Ambinder camp Obama is in damage control mode.
CalD wrote on December 27, 2007 10:38 PM:DemAC,
Oh, my. You're right. Looks like they're going to take a beating on this one. Serves Axelrod right though. He was trying to be just too cute by half.
RS wrote on December 27, 2007 11:16 PM:CalD wrote on December 27, 2007 9:54 PM: RS: Heck yeah! Good policies are good -- by definition kinda. That must be why all Democratic candidates have them. It may also help explain why actual substantive differences in policy proposals between any of the Democratic candidates -- with the notable exception of Denny Kucinich, -- are so rare.I mean sure, Obama's health care plan kind of sucks but it would still beat the heck out of having no national health care plan at all. And other than that, if start actually going through their stuff there's really not a nickel's worth of difference between them on policy. They're all pretty in agreement in general on what needs to be done.
So as I've said, what we really need to do is elect one of them. But of course to to do that, we do need to pick one with credible CinC mojo because no Democratic candidate who fails to convincingly present themselves as a credible custodian of the national security will be elected president. (And of course if one cannot get elected, then it really doesn't matter a tinker's damn what one's policy ideas are.)
Hm? So you simultaneously believe that (1) there is no substantive difference between Clinton, Obama, and Edwards on foreign policy and security, and (2) Clinton's positions on foreign policy and security give her much more credibility than Obama and Edwwards?
I agree that on domestic policy, the differences between the candidates are small, particularly as between Clinton and Obama. But with respect to foreign policy, I don't understand how you can argue both that there are no differences and that the differences are so significant as to render one much more electable than the others. Based on your casual swipes at Obama, I suspect this inconsistency can be explained by simple intellectual dishonesty in service of electioneering, but I'd be happy to see an otherwise coherent explanation of it.
Further to that last point, still waiting for your explanation of how an 18% performance in a survey of respondents' "most admired woman" renders Clinton electable.
After the Obama-Axelrod spin failure of today, Obama apparently has discovered that it would be a good idea to read an intelligence briefing now and then.
yesterday gone wrote on December 28, 2007 12:26 AM:After the Obama-Axelrod spin failure of today, Obama apparently has discovered that it would be a good idea to read an intelligence briefing now and then.
hillary says who needs an intelligence briefing when she has photo ops.
phil james wrote on December 28, 2007 12:27 AM:I believe that the tooth and nail melodrama that constitutes the Clinton-Obama conflict is the best thing that could happen to the country. When the nasty, acrid smoke clears, we might have someone of real substance as our nominee...John Edwards.
CalD wrote on December 28, 2007 12:33 AM:RS wrote: "Further to that last point, still waiting for your explanation of how an 18% performance in a survey of respondents' "most admired woman" renders Clinton electable."
Well generally speaking, RS, I don't feel I'm under any particular obligation to explain things I didn't actually say. And that would certainly qualify as something I did not say, by virtue of the fact that I did not in fact say it.
Since you were the one who did say it, perhaps you'd like to explain it yourself. Or, you could go on waiting I guess. Whatever blows your skirt up.
Now that you mention it though, Mrs. Clinton's 18% does kind of sound better than the 5% who chose Barack Obama in the same survey. And as I did say, the breadth of here apparent appeal across partisan groups was surprising, given the number of people who go around constantly harping on how personally "polarizing" she supposedly is.
yesterday gone wrote on December 28, 2007 12:35 AM:phil, do you believe in catching lightening in a bottle twice?
Dumbo wrote on December 28, 2007 3:19 AM:Have we all fallen into a time warp? Is it January 2004 again??
This is nearly identical to the statement that Evan Bayh made back in 2004, a week before the Iowa primary, behalf of the DLC, attacking Howard Dean. I have searched unsuccessfully for the quote, so I'll try to give a clumsy paraphrase from memory.
"If Howard Dean is elected, it will send the world a message that the Democratic Party is officially the party of weakness and surrender and we will never recover from it."
Something like that. It was pretty rough. At the time, I was a Clarkie, not a Dean, but I recall how offended I was by it.
These people need to be driven out of the Democratic Party. They are the weak ones. They have destroyed our country with their spineless acquiescence to the neocons.
ChristinaT wrote on December 28, 2007 4:08 AM:"Old Fat Hellvis wrote on December 27, 2007 5:28 PM:
Look folks, Hillary wears a Democratic badge but carries a Republican playbook."
------------------------------------------
I completely agree. If Hillary becomes our 2008 candidate, we are screwed regardless. If that happens, we will undoubtedly have a president with a solely corporate, money-making agenda.
I really do not know how Clinton and Obama expect to be elected while they are targeting each other. Next they are going to tell each other that they're not invited to the other's birthday party. Get over it, defend yourself when necessary, and focus on your campaign.
AlwaysTıp wrote on December 28, 2007 4:36 AM:Sorry folks. I am wrıtıng thıs from a a democratıc moslem country.
Thıs ıs terrorısm. Obama ıs usıng exactly the words that are beıng used by people here to characterıze what happened. It seems Hıllary ıs playıng thıs lıke Bush would. The lack of a creatıve response from her ıs depressıng.
Dumbo: Well if you find the actual quote, let us know and we can all tsk, tsk. I note that Wesley Clark endorsed Hillary Clinton this time around.
sy wrote on December 28, 2007 8:07 AM:Thank goodness Bayh's presidential aspirations lasted about as long as a fart in the wind.
SquarePeg wrote on December 28, 2007 8:31 AM:Thanks Phil James for saying what makes obvious and common sense that others are overlooking.
We currently have a Republican president who has been in office for more than 7 years. HE is responsible for what has happened in Pakistan. How does that translate into Democratic weakness if someone other than Hillary Clinton is elected?
Instead of going on and on ad nauseum about the differences between Barama, Clinton and Edwards shouldn't we be looking at the administration that is supposed to be protecting us now?!
This idea that voting for the Iraq War and refusing to apologize for it constitutes foreign policy experience is such ridiculous assertion and one we can certainly count on Republicans to make.
Michael A wrote on December 28, 2007 9:10 AM:Demac, I cannot believe that you said obama should read an intelligence briefing every once in a while????????? That is laughable. Clinton II was in the whitehouse for eight years and never read an intelligence briefing, not once!!!! She had no involvement at all in national security matters. She didn't want to get involved. She was too busy traveling the world on vacation.
Then, when she has the opportunity to read an NIE before agreeing to wage war against a sovereign country and killing and maiming hundreds and hundreds of thousands of innocent americans and iraqis, what does she do? She doesn't read the freaking NIE that said the basis for war was built on lies. WTF. And she has the experience to deal with international crisis? How did she get it? Mail order?
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 28, 2007 12:18 PM:I am wrıtıng thıs from a a democratıc moslem country.
Is the country from which you are writing too poor to afford dots over its "I"s? Not that it matters, of course, by why did your post have no dots over any of the "i"s?
?-/
Bupalos wrote on December 28, 2007 12:38 PM:There is no difference in my mind between preemtively tacking to avoid feared Republican flak and simply being a Republican ally. Apparently with people like Bayh, they don't even have to shout jump before we ask "how high?". This starts to look like a complex.
Let me get this straight. We need to elect Hillary so the Republicans can't call us weak, I guess because she voted for the war and anything else Bush asked for.
Anyone buying this line and this candidate, just please remember this moment of appeasement when they go nuclear on the hated "Hitlary" in the general.
Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton.....
whowouldjesusbomb? wrote on December 28, 2007 12:55 PM:sooo basically Hillary is saving the Republicans the trouble of fearmongering and doing it herself. Yeah, she is doing great things for the Democratic party...great things...
If she wins the nomination we are fucked.
ted wrote on January 31, 2008 9:05 AM:What exactly is Hillary's experience. The senate? Senators are only experienced at running their mouths.
The Whitehouse as First-Liar? She's experienced in defending that no-good former Fornicator-in-Chief and trashing enemies.
Great experience Mr. Bayh. Personally, I'll just have to pass on the opportunity of voting for this bruja!
