Hillary Says Obama Is Politicizing Bhutto Assassination

Comments (143)

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 28, 2007 3:45 PM:

Well, a very confident response, that. I guess we will see in a few days time whether or not such confidence is indeed warranted.

RS wrote on December 28, 2007 3:47 PM:

I don't understand this. I'm not sure that Obama's criticism is all that trenchant, but instability in Pakistan is clearly an American political issue of the highest order. Everyone and his mother is talking about the implications of the assassination for American foreign policy. Why shouldn't Presidential candidates? Is this part of the "you shouldn't always say what you think" approach to campaigning?

Michael A wrote on December 28, 2007 3:47 PM:

Ok, clinton II then why did you immediately say that you were the only dem with the alleged "experience" to lead and deal with these types of international situations? That's not politicizing the situation? Puhleez. How absurd.

What are the other candidates supposed to do? Say oh yeah clinton II you are the most experienced one and we need all that alleged experience in the white house, but gee voter vote for me for the hell of it. I cannot stand this double talking bull.

Of course I am sure wolf "lapdog" blitzer didn't call her on her politicizing of the event before all the other dems did and the fact that they had to respond. He is such an awesome reporter, not.

Bupalos wrote on December 28, 2007 3:48 PM:

If anyone has a single doubt about Clinton's hipocracy and two-faced nature, they need go no further than this:

"First, Wolf, I really regret that anybody would try to politicize this tragedy. I personally knew Benazir Bhutto. She was Prime Minister when I visited Pakistan on behalf of our government."

Donald from Hawaii wrote on December 28, 2007 3:49 PM:

I suppose St. Barack and The Obamalytes will deny the charge, and the mainstream media will give them a pass, even though David Axelrod's insinuation was caught on camera for all to see.

Of course, Sen. Evan Bayh, shilling for Mme. Clinton, decided within a couple hours after that snarky remark that two could play at that game, and responded in kind.

The candidates really need to do their own talking when events like these occur, and tell their surrogates to shut up.

yesterday gone wrote on December 28, 2007 3:50 PM:

if hillary was soo sympathetic to bhutto, why did she support the undemocratic musharraf?

yesterday gone wrote on December 28, 2007 3:56 PM:

hillary is now pledging to bring democracy to pakistan (and free pie too!) when before she was an advocate for musharraf for the sake of stability. something madeleine albrights and wes clark have both parroted.

Perry wrote on December 28, 2007 3:57 PM:

You're right, Hillary....whenever a tragedy happens, it's petty politics to try to ascertain the causes

Bupalos wrote on December 28, 2007 3:58 PM:

Of course it's politics and it should be politics. It isn't a "personal tragedy" any more than the other people killed in the attack, even if Clinton II personally knew the kleptocratic Bhuto when she "visited Pakistan on behalf of our government."

Clinton is trying to run as a pro-war presidential incumbent without directly saying it, and the idea that she benefits from the international chaos she helped enable to avoid the charge of "weakness" makes me sick. Bayh's come-back line about how we have to have someone who layed down for bush or else the Repubs will call us weak is absolutely sickening and absolutely points up what is worst about Clinton II. Barack may not be a saint, but you are kidding yourself if you think Clinton isn't about as bad as they come for the democrats.

John wrote on December 28, 2007 4:02 PM:

HRC was THE FIRST candidate to politicize this issue yesterday. This is getting ridiculous, and Iowans know better.

vena wrote on December 28, 2007 4:03 PM:

I think it's really crazy to NOT politicize this at the moment and the implications it has on our country. Clinton talks about moving forward, but in order to move forward, one has to recognize how we got into this current clusterfcck. The fact that Clinton won't acknowledge that is troubling.

Bupalos wrote on December 28, 2007 4:05 PM:

And just for the record I have finally made up my mind that I simply will not vote for Clinton in the general period end of story stop the merrygoround and sell the ponies. If she is the nominee I will vote green. She will set back this party 25 years and continue Bush's legacy of making a mockery of U.S. meritocracy.

Tom wrote on December 28, 2007 4:06 PM:

Wow, what a stunning example of blatant hypocrisy. She has been politicizing it since the news broke by talking about how it raised the stakes and only she has the experience needed in these times. Bayh and other Clinton supporters have continued that theme.

And of course, no one will call her on it. Certainly not Wolf. And no mention at all of Edwards who was the only one to avoid politicizing this.

noexpert wrote on December 28, 2007 4:07 PM:

Another idiotic story. While candidate reaction is all the reporters want to talk about somehow Obama is politicizing the assination. TPM has become the CNN of the blogs. Surely there are more newsworthy things being said by the campaigns today. Anyone have recommendations for blogs with better story selection and commentary? Politico at least includes some substance to this story:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7590.html

Tommy Ates, Austin, TX wrote on December 28, 2007 4:08 PM:

Donald from Hawaii,

You heard David Axelrod make the statement, but we did not hear the question. Obama told Wolf Blitzer was the question was re: Clinton surrogate Evan Bayh's assertion that the Bhutto assassination would benefit Clinton. Hillary is engagin in her regular hypocrisy, but the tape that you refer to - if fully shown, supports Axelrod and Obama.

keith wrote on December 28, 2007 4:09 PM:

This is pretty funny. Axelrod responds to a question from a reporter pushing the conventional wisdom view that Bhutto's death helped Clinton and by responding he is deemed to be politicizing her death. And after having it explained to him in plain English, Wolfie keeps pushing this nonsense. It's irresponsible.

Bupalos wrote on December 28, 2007 4:10 PM:

Clinton II is all over NPR now playing president about how we need an "independent, international" inquiry into how Bhuto died. How did she hoodwink NPR into that? This is a joke.

colonpowwow wrote on December 28, 2007 4:12 PM:

Of course it's a political issue as well as a national and personal tragedy, as other posters have stated, and Hillary was somewhat disingenuous - even in her initial response - good catch, Bupalos.

However, Axelrod set Obama up for this response by Clinton by his even more transparently trying to tie this into Clinton's past Senate votes for Jah's sake!

All politics at this stage of the game are a little disingenuous - it's hit back when hit, and Obama hit her directly, while Hillary's (Bayh's) initial political statement was more general in nature.

It's all about scoring debate points now and through Super Tuesday, and I think Clinton outpointed Obama on this one.

TB wrote on December 28, 2007 4:14 PM:

I agree with RS. If people want to characterize this as "politicizing" Bhutto's death, then so be it. But this is absolutely part of the debate about our national security policies and priorities. All the candidates are and should be talking about it.

I also find Clinton's answers odd and off-key in response to Blitzer's questions -- neither Blitzer nor the quotes he presents refer to Bhutto's death. At most it's a somewhat vague version of the argument
that Obama (and many others) has been making for months/years about how the decision to invade Iraq distracted and diverted resources from more serious problems, which has in turn led to greater instability in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That instability has existed for several years and the Bhutto killing is merely a symptom of it.

In any event, if that transcript is accurate, I can't imagine that it helps Hillary's case. To me it reads like Hillary is presented with a generic and oft repeated question -- whether her support of the Iraq war and Iran resolution have had a positive or negative effect on our security and world stability -- and she answers with a non-sequitor dodge about politicizing Bhutto's death.

CalD wrote on December 28, 2007 4:15 PM:

Early signs are that the Obama campaign isn't getting their usual pass on this one. It's pretty remarkable really. Two weeks ago I'm certain Axelrod's gaffe would have drawn a nod and a wink from the MSM at most as they rushed to pile on Clinton. But this week, they actually seem to be getting held to account for it to some extent. In fact, I even have to note a rather remarkable lack of the sort hyperventilating we would have expected a week or two ago over Bayh's remark.

The conventional wisdom is very much that this event plays to Clinton and Biden's strengths as candidates (also McCain and Mayor Mc9/11 on the dark side) so expect to hear that repeated over and over for the next several days. I'm not sure why Richardson doesn't seem to get included in that assessment. Maybe he's positioned himself just a little too dovishly on Iraq and national security/foreign policy issues.

Bupalos wrote on December 28, 2007 4:15 PM:

Could people stop for a minute and consider what Bayh just said? He just stated for the record that we have to elect Hilary because she lays down for the Republicans and keeps us from being called weak. And in fact that is precisely why she did lay down and vote for Iraq.

Is this really happening?

yesterday gone wrote on December 28, 2007 4:16 PM:

And of course, no one will call her on it. Certainly not Wolf. And no mention at all of Edwards who was the only one to avoid politicizing this.

whaaa? his campaign called musharraf just so edwards can say musharraf called him.

are you telling me that wasn't a cheap political stunt?

as if pretending to being on speaking terms with a dictator was a plus. a dictator whose inaction to secure bhutto's safety makes him culpable for her death.

Dave wrote on December 28, 2007 4:17 PM:

Clinton: First, Wolf, I really regret that anybody would try to politicize this tragedy. And now let me talk at length about Bhutto's assassination in a way that conveniently highlights my ongoing campaign narrative.

noexpert wrote on December 28, 2007 4:20 PM:

Why not at least debate stories with substance rather than whining.

In Chicago sun times online:
Obama: U.S. needs to come down hard on Musharraf

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/717203,obama122807.article

kefa wrote on December 28, 2007 4:20 PM:

yesterday gone..... HRC...game,set,and match.

ps...I like free pie.

Michael A wrote on December 28, 2007 4:22 PM:

Calid, why is it a gaffe? I really don't understand this. It makes no sense. Do you disagree with what axelrod actually said?

Greg wrote on December 28, 2007 4:23 PM:

You have to admit, this lady has gargantuan balls. Before bodies are cold she is running around talking about how important it is to have experience and "strength" and not do anything that upsets Republicans. Then she attacks someone else for responding, saying they are politicizing the attack.

I used to wonder how she slept at night. Now I don't know how she can walk.

yesterday gone wrote on December 28, 2007 4:23 PM:

david shuster noted hillary is no longer taking questions at her rallies. time again and again, hillary reveals how she hates to be held accountable.

colonpowwow wrote on December 28, 2007 4:25 PM:

Now, come on, Bupalos.

I just complimented you on an earlier post and now you come up with "[Bayh] just stated for the record that we have to elect Hilary because she lays down for the Republicans . . ."

Take a deep breath and maybe quit while you're ahead. That's a poor characterization of Bayh's statement of a political fact. Dems always (wrongly) get painted as "weak" on these issues lately. Hillary (like or not the reasons why - I didn't like her Iraq vote either), isn't as easily tarred by that brush.

Tom wrote on December 28, 2007 4:26 PM:

whaaa? his campaign called musharraf just so edwards can say musharraf called him.

are you telling me that wasn't a cheap political stunt?

What Edwards did was try to get informed about the situtation. That's not politicizing it.

Meanwhile, look at Clinton's remarks via the AP:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5imMJi2hvCZ-dANaRhVu2mDcdgG0wD8TQKF780
"That's the nature of the job and the world in which we live. It certainly raises the stakes high for what we expect from our next president," she says in a not-so-subtle critique of Obama.

Now, that's politicizing it.

yesterday gone wrote on December 28, 2007 4:28 PM:

kefa wrote on December 28, 2007 4:20 PM:

hillary has also offered as a bribe a $5 thousand dollar baby bond for every child and promised cheaper gas.

don't you just love her ethos? if fearmongering doesn't work, appeal to their greed and buy people's votes.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 28, 2007 4:28 PM:

Clinton: First, Wolf, I really regret that anybody would try to politicize this tragedy. And now let me talk at length about Bhutto's assassination in a way that conveniently highlights my ongoing campaign narrative.

Hah! Well said (and also very witty).

:-)

You have to admit, this lady has gargantuan balls... I used to wonder how she slept at night. Now I don't know how she can walk.

Indeed.

John wrote on December 28, 2007 4:29 PM:

"Yes, Wolf, it would be truly unfortunate for anyone to try to politicize this situation that I am the only one experienced enough to deal with."

Plus, Hillary might want to think twice before joining herself and Bhutto at the hip. Bhutto isn't exactly Mother Theresa:

"Clearly, political assassinations are a bad thing. Equally clearly, political assassinations in a place like Pakistan seem to herald instability, and instability in Pakistan is frightening. That said, I think it's worth being clear about something -- from the perspective of someone who's never spoken to Benazir Bhutto or any members of her inner circle, it seems like she was a really bad person and a terrible political leader. The main thing she did when in office was steal. A lot. Of money. From her extremely poor country. You have, basically, tens of millions of incredibly poor people in Pakistan. You have shitty infrastructure. You have a shitty school system. And you're the Prime Minister. What do you do about it? You steal an incredible sum of money, while helping your associates likewise steal an incredible sum of money.

I'm not aware of anything changing for the better in Pakistan when she was running things. And as far as her credentials as a democratic opposition leader, it's worth noting that she's not the democratically elected leader who was deposed in Musharraf's coup -- her rival Nawaz Sharif was. Her plan was to use her strong base of support in the US to cajole Musharraf into some kind of power-sharing agreement with her. And if she'd gotten a bigger share of the power, she would have used it to steal more money."

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/dont_cry_for_me_pakistan.php

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 28, 2007 4:31 PM:

Dems always (wrongly) get painted as "weak" on these issues lately. Hillary (like or not the reasons why - I didn't like her Iraq vote either), isn't as easily tarred by that brush.

Don't you believe it. Kerry and Edwards voted the same way that Hillary did, and did that stop Rove & al from smearing them as somehow mamsy-pamsy terrorist-coddlers? Not a bit. The idea that Sen Clinton will be immune to this democrats-are-weak meme is just wishful thinking.

!#@!423WHUT. wrote on December 28, 2007 4:32 PM:

Let's nominate Hillary Clinton of all people so the Republicans can't attack us in the general? Who actually believes this rubbish? Come on, they attacked John effing Kerry on his military service, a man who earned the Purple Heart. Anybody who heeds this latest argument by the Clinton camp is fucking deranged by this primary process, seriously.

Furthermore, who actually thinks any of these candidates aren't politicizing any issue? They're fucking politicians. Some are just a bit classier than others about it. Senator Clinton needs to shut Bayh up because he is and has been a douche for years.

Oh, gee, who am I? Just another Democrat who resents the hell out of being forced to vote for the most posturing "electable" asshole we can nominate every four years. And people wonder why Democrats on Capitol Hill are such feckless dweebs, when this is the logic we employ in primaries?

waka waka wrote on December 28, 2007 4:33 PM:

Bupalos said:
"Could people stop for a minute and consider what Bayh just said? He just stated for the record that we have to elect Hilary because she lays down for the Republicans and keeps us from being called weak. And in fact that is precisely why she did lay down and vote for Iraq."

Amen - and Hillary will get yet another pass.

Bayh's comment is the truly offensive one. Also, it's the one that started this whole thing! Axelrod was responding to his statement. Sigh

Bupalos wrote on December 28, 2007 4:33 PM:

Goldwater Girl Clinton sails to the nomination on the strength of the chaos she helped engender. Oh, but at least the Republitards won't call us "weak" since she did whatever they wanted.

Can't wait to reprise "Sandy Burglar" and the docs in the socks. Monica, we hardly knew ye. Marc Rich, your pardon is waiting. Yes, yes, let's move on by going back, since all Clinton's scandals are well known...I mean, everyone knows that well known brands don't sell. Let's nominate the most divisive candidate in either party for the last two decades! The one that 40% of independents and 16% of democrats say they will specifically vote AGAINST, regardless of opponent, just to keep her out.

Mr. 9iu11iani, your White House is waiting.

Jan wrote on December 28, 2007 4:33 PM:

Bupalos wrote on December 28, 2007 4:05 PM: "And just for the record I have finally made up my mind that I simply will not vote for Clinton in the general period end of story..."

And, Bupalos, as long as we're posting crap that no one gives a friggin' crap about...

Just for the record, I still strongly and proudly support Hillary Clinton, and am so sick of Democrats that I'm getting close to finally making up my mind that I probably won't vote for any other Democrat if Clinton doesn't get the nod.

Bupalos, do you care?
Because that's how much I care that you have finally made up your mind about who you are NOT going to vote for.

blaze wrote on December 28, 2007 4:35 PM:

Obama, mainly through surrogates, has been "politics as usual" since the beginning. His campaign has levied personal attacks at his opponents just as much as everyone else has attacked him.
How did Obama gain the media's "get out of jail free" card about this? He has been so pampered that I think he actually believes his innocence.

CalD wrote on December 28, 2007 4:35 PM:

You know horse race implications aside, Clinton also had some very worthwhile things to say in terms of hard foreign policy concerns. She was really quite good in fact. Not for nothin' but she really does know this stuff.

JOHN wrote on December 28, 2007 4:36 PM:

OBAMA NEEDS TO PACK UP AND TAKE HIS NASTY REMARKS BACK TO CHICAGO.HE IS A ROOKIE AND A LOSER.IOWANS ARE NOT STUPID OBAMA.

yesterday gone wrote on December 28, 2007 4:39 PM:

John wrote on December 28, 2007 4:29 PM:

i can't find the article right now but it talked about how pakistan has a tradition of political enemies using the courts to file bogus corruption charges against their opponents.

this notes she was later cleared of those charges:

But her administration was wrought with controversy. In August 1990, the president of Pakistan dismissed her on charges of corruption and ineffectiveness, charges of which she was later acquitted.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=94634

colonpowwow wrote on December 28, 2007 4:41 PM:

Bupalos:

Glad you've finally bought into the Gingrich narrative that brought down President Clinton's approval numbers down so drastically and caused us not to re-elect him. Better late than never, eh?

And to add to Jan's fine comments, I can only say, please don't let the saloon door hit you in the elephant on your way out of the party. The rest of us liberal progressive Dems will be inside toasting the election of the first woman President in the glorious history of our nation.

Jor wrote on December 28, 2007 4:42 PM:

Here is the link to Hillary refusing to take questions at rallies. Sort of reminds you of another president we all love and hold dear.

yesterday gone wrote on December 28, 2007 4:43 PM:

Jan wrote on December 28, 2007 4:33 PM:

Just for the record, I still strongly and proudly support Hillary Clinton, and am so sick of Democrats that I'm getting close to finally making up my mind that I probably won't vote for any other Democrat if Clinton doesn't get the nod.

that's understandable seeing how you're a republican.

waka waka wrote on December 28, 2007 4:47 PM:

blaze wrote: "His campaign has levied personal attacks at his opponents just as much as everyone else has attacked him."

Please tell me about these "personal" attacks, keeping in mind that criticizing Hillary's calculating decision to vote for the war in Iraq does not count as "personal."

A "personal" attack is something like, say, insinuating your opponent went to a "secular madrassah" or sold crack. Or going back to their kindergarten essays to "prove" they lied about their presidential ambitions.

While pointing out that Hillary has bad judgment in her policies may sting and be embarassing for the self-anointed queen of the Democrats, it does not count as "personal."

bm wrote on December 28, 2007 4:47 PM:

Hillary and Benazir
The tow most corrupt women politicians the world has ever seen.

Michael A wrote on December 28, 2007 4:48 PM:

colonpowwow, jan was a republican until this election. She voted against clinton I and is only a closet dem. My guess is that jan will revert to the dark side if clinton II doesn't get the nomination, soooo I don't know if I'd lump her in with the "liberal progressive dems." I would lump her more in line with the clinton II personality cult group.

I hate to say this on Bhutto and the corruption charge thing, because I really don't like to speak ill of the recently departed, but we should get the facts right. She was convicted in a swiss court on corruption charges and there some other pending corruption charges in other western country courts. Don't have all the details, but I read about the swiss case and the fact that there were other cases pending. Therefore, she probably was not lily white and there was probably validity to some of the corruption charges, but it kind of is a moot point at this point.

LJ wrote on December 28, 2007 4:51 PM:

Hillary Clinton politicizing Bhutto's death:

Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who have made experience a cornerstone of their campaigns, said the murder was proof of a need for a president who is ready to take command.

"I know from my lifetime of experience you have to be prepared for whatever might happen, and that's particularly true today," Clinton said in an Associated Press interview while campaigning in Iowa.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071228/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_pakistan;_ylt=AoY0pH3nao94N1CTli1o.4aM5QcF

waka waka wrote on December 28, 2007 4:51 PM:

I'd just like to point out how polarized this little corner of the progressive blogosphere has become just by talking about Hillary.

Do we really want to bring this kind of dischord into the general election where we'll need every bit of unity we can muster to beat the GOP slime machine?

Come on, people. The Clintons had their time. It's time to turn the page!

urbino wrote on December 28, 2007 4:54 PM:

How, exactly, does one "politicize" a political assassination?

The only reason anybody is even talking about the death of Benazir Bhutto is because she is a political figure, murdered for political reasons, with political consequences. What isn't political about this?

bupalos wrote on December 28, 2007 4:55 PM:

"Take a deep breath and maybe quit while you're ahead. That's a poor characterization of Bayh's statement of a political fact. "

The ONLY reason Hillary would be considered "strong" by Republicans is that she always votes hawkish. And she votes that way because DLC polling shows that democrats are vulnerable to that attack, as you say. That, in my book, is laying down for the enemy. But if the last 5 years have proved anything, it's that mindless hawkishness isn't strength or anything like it.

And that is what Bayh is alluding to. He is saying that her vote for the war and her pro-military stances will be a political asset in the general and innoculate her against Republican attacks. Of course, that was always the DLC plan, but it is flat delusion at this point, because Republicans aren't going to give up their favorite line of attack about how they kick ass no matter what you do. And people who listen to the argument about who kicks ass more will always pick them.

It will just move Republicans farther to the right and they will define torture as the real test of "strength." Of course, she is already trying to outflank them there too, by refusing to make a clear statement on that. This whole DLC playbook is about trying to outflank them to the right until they end up floating out east of Savannah.

To my mind, this whole flanking operation is her real weakness in every way, and "St. Barack" is right to point this out. Republicans are losers this year because Bush was a monumental screw up. We've got a chance for realignment here, and yet we're going to blow the opportunity by nominating a polarizing figure that doesn't even stand up for our values. It's got me steaming.

Anonymous wrote on December 28, 2007 5:04 PM:

Put a fork in Obama.
He's crashing and burning at the most critical time.

Bupalos wrote on December 28, 2007 5:05 PM:

"Glad you've finally bought into the Gingrich narrative that brought down President Clinton's approval numbers down so drastically and caused us not to re-elect him. Better late than never, eh?"

Gosh, it seems to me like everything I mentioned there happened in of after term II. Would you care to defend Monica, Berger, and Rich? I hope so, because you're going to get your chance when your "liberal democrat" dreams of a centrist DLC war supporter candidate come true.

Bush-Clinton-Cinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton

That's meritocracy in the USA. What are you laughing at?

yesterday gone wrote on December 28, 2007 5:05 PM:

Michael A wrote on December 28, 2007 4:48 PM:

I hate to say this on Bhutto and the corruption charge thing,

i'll have to look into the swiss thing. whatever her imperfections may have been, you can't tell me greed was the reason why bhutto willingly put her life on the line, despite knowing how lax security was that was being provided for her.

Anonymous wrote on December 28, 2007 5:06 PM:

The rest of us liberal progressive Dems will be inside toasting the election of the first woman President in the glorious history of our nation.

And what next? What happens down ticket? I have a feeling neither 2008 nor 2010 will be kind to the Democratic majorities with Senator Clinton on the ballot.

To be fair, I have a similar problem with Obama fans, this apparent idea that voting somebody history-making into the presidency solves and accomplishes everything on the spot, issues like Iraq and healthcare and global warming which are hardly even tangentially related. I'm not at all convinced either of them can win, which leaves me stuck with Edwards, if we're going by the three candidates most likely to win the nomination as it stands. But, seriously, what else is there about Clinton, in particular, that drums up such support for her?

I ask because I cannot fathom it. I am Democrat and a young woman and have grown to really dislike her; in part, this is not fair, because I loathe what her husband's impulsive idiocy did to help Dubya in 2000 (the man who got elected by promising to keep his dick in his pants, as near as I can tell). But if she'd done one damned thing of note in the senate I'd find it a whole lot easier to defend her on the merits; as it is, her most important vote was the Iraq vote, which I submit to you she flubbed for the same looking-ahead-to-2002/2004/2008 reasons a whole lot of other losers did.

I'm being honest here. I'll vote for her because I'm a Democrat, but what about voters who aren't moved by such partisan considerations? I'm more concerned about the party's longterm prospects than any particular candidate's short-term gains, and if the latter comes at the cost of the former, I'm wary, to say the least.

waka waka wrote on December 28, 2007 5:06 PM:

"To my mind, this whole flanking operation is her real weakness in every way, and "St. Barack" is right to point this out. Republicans are losers this year because Bush was a monumental screw up. We've got a chance for realignment here, and yet we're going to blow the opportunity by nominating a polarizing figure that doesn't even stand up for our values. It's got me steaming."

Amen, AMEN! Scream it from the rooftops!

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 28, 2007 5:07 PM:

Put a fork in Obama. He's crashing and burning at the most critical time.

Strong words, those, but I notice that you are not confident enough in your assertion to attach your own screen name to them. What's the matter, afraid of the egg that will stick to your face when you are proven wrong in a few days time?

DonnaG wrote on December 28, 2007 5:12 PM:

Dissonance is believing in Hillary's foreign policy judgments after AUMF [btw, our dead now total 3,400], and after Kyl-Lieberman.

Dissonance is Hillary claiming someone else is politicizing Bhutto's death after her surrogate Bayh used that death to fearmonger [ala Bush's use of 9/11] about electing Hillary.

CalD wrote on December 28, 2007 5:12 PM:

Michael A wrote: "colonpowwow, jan was a republican until this election. She voted against clinton I and is only a closet dem. My guess is that jan will revert to the dark side if clinton II doesn't get the nomination..."

And of course, Building Bridges® with independents and even (gasp!) moderate Republicans is something only Obama can do. Hillary Clinton can't possibly reach people like Jan because she's much to polarizing. Only Obama can. Haven't you been listening to Obama's his talking points, colonpowwow?

Oh, wait. Never mind.

yesterday gone wrote on December 28, 2007 5:13 PM:

Bupalos wrote on December 28, 2007 5:05 PM:

Gosh, it seems to me like everything I mentioned there happened in of after term II. Would you care to defend Monica, Berger, and Rich? I hope so, because you're going to get your chance when your "liberal democrat" dreams of a centrist DLC war supporter candidate come true.

what was the name of the business associate bill clinton had to stop seeing for the sake of the campaign? in order to avoid the taint of corruption. it was reported a few months ago. name started with an "r." rennick, redkin, something like that.

Bush-Clinton-Cinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton

otherwise known as an oligarchy.

anon wrote on December 28, 2007 5:14 PM:

I think it's a major problem that in our national discourse nobody can admit it's a very bad thing we let Osama bin Laden get away.

The guy's a freaking folk hero in screwed-up parts of Pakistan. He's inspired terrorist copycats worldwide.

Bhutto represents pro-Western secular government in her nuclear-armed nation, and she got blown up by a suicide bomber.

I think it's a valid point that maybe we should have been capturing Osama bin Laden instead of running off to invade a secular mideast dictatorship and letting bin Laden build a new base of radical islamic operations in northern Pakistan. Perhaps then, secular pro-Western Pakistani politicians wouldn't be getting blown up by suicide bombers.

Clinton scares the hell out of me, because she really doesn't seem to think it's a problem we failed to catch bin Laden and let him set up a base of operations in Pakistan. Obama appears to understand that this is a very big problem, and a very big threat to America's security.

It's not a question of who's tougher or who's more willing to go it alone. They're both willing to go it alone. It's just that Clinton thinks we should go it alone when it comes to invading Iraq to secure its nonexistent weapons of mass destruction (or, any time Republicans say so), and Obama thinks we go it alone when we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and someone wants to try and stop us from taking him out.

I really don't understand what's happened to our foreign policy, but it seems more and more that Hillary Clinton isn't the person who can fix it. She really seems more interested in winning arguments that preserve the status quo, than actually fixing our foreign policy blunders and making our nation secure.

Bupalos wrote on December 28, 2007 5:22 PM:

"I can only say, please don't let the saloon door hit you in the elephant on your way out of the party. The rest of us liberal progressive Dems..."

Bwahhhhaahhahah. So now the DLC is the epitome of liberalism, and voting for green rather than DLC is less liberal. OK. Tell you what DLC-Hillary fans, you guys just keep on marching to the right, voting for wars, and railing against those "trillion dollar tax hikes on the middle class." We'll welcome you back when you figure out that there isn't any more room to the right of Savannah and your choice is to be trampled by the elephant that lives there or jump in the sea.

Or thoughtfull "liberal" that you are, would you care to comment on Hillary's "trillion dollar tax increase" comment? Or war vote? Or Iranian guard vote?

brewmn wrote on December 28, 2007 5:25 PM:

"I don’t think politics should be playing a role in how our country responds, both on the personal level to the tragedy of this assassination."

Good thing you're not in the White House, Hillary. We'd probably respond by bombing Uzbekhistan.

colonpowwow wrote on December 28, 2007 5:30 PM:

Re the "dynasty, oligarchy" bullshit.

I take it you are against President Obama's kid running for president in 2024.

It's a good thing there's no Roosevelt or Adams in this race.

Keith wrote on December 28, 2007 5:31 PM:

Huh. So I guess Wolf forgot his conversation with Obama last night:

BLITZER: Your chief political strategist, David Axelrod, causing some commotion out there today with his comments about Hillary Clinton, blaming her, at least some are interpreting it this way -- blaming her in part for a series of events that resulted in Benazir Bhutto assassination today. Let me read to you what he said. (CROSS TALK)

OBAMA: I don't need to hear what you read because I was -- I over heard it when he said it. This is one of those situations where Washington is putting a spin on it.

BLITZER: Tell us what he meant.

OBAMA: He was asked -- he was asked very specifically about the argument that the Clinton folks were making that somehow this was going to change the dynamic of politics in Iowa. First of all, that shouldn't have been the question. The question should be, how is this going to impact the safety and security of the United States, not how is it going to affect a political campaign in Iowa.

His response was simply to say that if we are going to talk politics, then the question has to be, who has exercised the kind of judgment that would be more likely to lead to better outcomes in the Middle East and better outcomes in Pakistan. His argument was simply that Iraq has fanned anti-American sentiment and it took our eye off the ball, to the extent that there are those who are claiming now that their experience somehow makes them superior to deal with these issues.

I think it's important for the Americans people to look at the judgments they made in the past. And the experienced hands in Washington have not made particularly good judgments when it comes to dealing with these problems. That's part of the reason we're in this circumstance.

He in no way was suggesting that Hillary Clinton was somehow directly to blame for this situation. That is the kind of, I think, gloss that sometimes emerges out of the heat of campaigns that doesn't make much sense. And I think you're probably aware of that, Wolf.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0712/27/lkl.01.html

roo_P wrote on December 28, 2007 5:36 PM:

bupalos:

Could people stop for a minute and consider what Bayh just said? He just stated for the record that we have to elect Hilary because she lays down for the Republicans and keeps us from being called weak. And in fact that is precisely why she did lay down and vote for Iraq.

Yep, I remarked on this yesterday. It is absurd. Clinton's foreign policy is apparently based on whether it allows the Republicans to say she is "weak" or not.

colonpowwow wrote on December 28, 2007 5:36 PM:

Bupalos:

You want a real laugh? The ADA has rated Hillary Clinton at 95%+ on her lifetime Senate voting record on liberal progressive issues (same as Obama's and way ahead of "progressiver-than-thou" Edwards's 78% rating).

Tee hee hee.

DTM wrote on December 28, 2007 5:43 PM:

Of course, the idea that the assassination of a political leader can be dealt with on a purely personal level with no politics involved is truly absurd.

Dave wrote on December 28, 2007 5:45 PM:

I take it you are against President Obama's kid running for president in 2024.

Of course! They'd be 25 and 23, making a run for President blatantly unconstitutional. : )

roo_P wrote on December 28, 2007 5:51 PM:

CalD,

You assert that Clinton has made several policy statements (which I certainly do not dispute, she has made some), but how do you respond to this criticism that she has been much less specific on foreign policy than Obama has? (The link has all kinds of further links and data.)

colonpowwow wrote on December 28, 2007 5:52 PM:

Dave:

Good thing. As we all know, all of the nation's children are counting on Barack Obama to bring to reality their American dreams. I'd hate for his kids to be the only ones left behind ;-)

john mccutchen wrote on December 28, 2007 6:22 PM:

Hillary Clinton - Change Agent

Co-sponsor Greatest Strategic Disaster in US History 2002-2006

No do overs

yesterday gone wrote on December 28, 2007 7:11 PM:

roo_P wrote on December 28, 2007 5:51 PM:
CalD,
You assert that Clinton has made several policy statements (which I certainly do not dispute, she has made some), but how do you respond to this criticism that she has been much less specific on foreign policy than Obama has? (The link has all kinds of further links and data.)

nice one, thanks.

yesterday gone wrote on December 28, 2007 7:15 PM:

colonpowwow wrote on December 28, 2007 5:30 PM:
Re the "dynasty, oligarchy" bullshit.

the truth burns, huh?

CalD wrote on December 28, 2007 7:25 PM:

roo_P,

I was talking about things Clinton said in this interview specifically, the one on CNN with Wolf Blitzer, i.e., the topic of this particular discussion thread. Ring any bells?

What the hell are you talking about?

DemAC wrote on December 28, 2007 7:28 PM:

In response to Axelrod’s trying to pin Bhutto’s murder on Clinton said General Wesley Clark: “This is a time for leadership, not politics. Senator Obama’s campaign seems to believe that Senator Clinton’s actions led to the tragic events in Pakistan. This is an incredible and insulting charge. It politicizes a tragic event of enormous strategic consequence to the United States and the world, and it has no place in this campaign.”

BTW: Has anyone in camp Obama alerted Axelrod that al Qaeda or some similar group appear to be prime suspects in Bhutto’s murder; and that Clinton thus is off the hook?

just askin wrote on December 28, 2007 7:33 PM:

CalD -- do you plan answering yesterday's follow-up?

CalD wrote on December 28, 2007 7:35 PM:

roo_P,

I assume you're aware that Susan Rice (the author of the Huffington Post article you linked to) is a surrogate for the Barack Obama campaign. What would you expect her to say? Obama sucks? Duh.

Lillian wrote on December 28, 2007 7:36 PM:

You can't at once argue that you're the master of a broken system in Washington and then offer yourself as the person to change it - Barack Obama

roo_P wrote on December 28, 2007 7:44 PM:

CalD,

Sorry, I had misread your original post as a general statement rather than something for this particular exchange (which I can unfortunately not watch at this time.)

However, I would be interested an an actual rebuttal of the article rather than an attack on the messenger if you can supply one.

Art wrote on December 28, 2007 7:47 PM:

When Hilary Clinton was first asked at a campaign stop to share her thoughts about the assassination, it took her about two minutes to get to the part about what a tragedy it was. First, she told her audience about her trip to Pakistan as First Lady with Chelsea and her keeping in touch with her for years afterwards. This was obviously thought out and apparently intended to show her foreign policy experience. If that isn't political I don't know what is.

CalD wrote on December 28, 2007 8:25 PM:

roo_P,

The wonderful thing about America is that it's a free country where everyone is entitled to their opinions. Susan Rice, who has openly endorsed Barack Obama and has appeared as surrogate for the Obama campaign (isn't Google wonderful?) is eminently entitled to hers, as are the hundreds of her colleagues who support Hillary Clinton and those who support other candidates as well. But again, given Ms. Rice's close affiliation with the Obama campaign however, I submit (at the risk of being accused of "attacking the messenger") that she might not be the most objective possible choice available for your appeal to authority.

yesterday gone wrote on December 28, 2007 8:35 PM:

shorter cald: i got nothin'.

Dave wrote on December 28, 2007 8:42 PM:

But again, given Ms. Rice's close affiliation with the Obama campaign however, I submit (at the risk of being accused of "attacking the messenger") that she might not be the most objective possible choice available for your appeal to authority.

CalD --

Susan Rice didn't form her foreign policy views based upon her endorsement of Obama; Susan Rice endorsed Obama because of her foreign policy views.

CalD wrote on December 28, 2007 8:57 PM:

Dave,

As I said in the two sentences immediately before the one you quoted from my previous comment:

"The wonderful thing about America is that it's a free country where everyone is entitled to their opinions. Susan Rice, who has openly endorsed Barack Obama and has appeared as surrogate for the Obama campaign (isn't Google wonderful?) is eminently entitled to hers, as are the hundreds of her colleagues who support Hillary Clinton and those who support other candidates as well."

Did you start at the end and read backwards or something?

Michael A wrote on December 28, 2007 9:00 PM:

Demac, your posts are completely false and frankly absurd. Do you have a quote from axelrod that he is accusing clinton of being responsible for the murder? No of course not. I don't know what you are trying to accomplish. Are you that desperate?

Anonymous wrote on December 28, 2007 9:04 PM:

I so hope Hillary loses in IOWA to anyone, so I (we?) DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN TO HER ANYMORE! She is the worst pandering, eq1vocating, spinning, misleading, misrepresenting, exagerating, obfuscating, LIAR I have ever heard in my life. ENOUGH of it already!!!!!! We know the Clintons and no one in their right might who cares about this nation would want that pair back in the White House and the tabloid headlines. People get real. Hillary for President? What a joke!!!!!!!

HolyRomanUmpire wrote on December 28, 2007 9:15 PM:

Introduction to Clinton logic - Part 95

A = Your supporter making a political statement
B = Another campaign responding to a direct question about A
C = Insidious politicizing by the other campaign.

If A and B then C

Introduction to Clinton logic - Part 96

F1(x) = you doing x
F2(x) = another campaign doing x
Y = making a political statement

F1(Y) != F2(Y)

Follow these simple rules and you can never be wrong!

roo_P wrote on December 28, 2007 9:29 PM:

CalD said:

The wonderful thing about America is that it's a free country where everyone is entitled to their opinions. Susan Rice, who has openly endorsed Barack Obama and has appeared as surrogate for the Obama campaign (isn't Google wonderful?) is eminently entitled to hers, as are the hundreds of her colleagues who support Hillary Clinton and those who support other candidates as well. But again, given Ms. Rice's close affiliation with the Obama campaign however, I submit (at the risk of being accused of "attacking the messenger") that she might not be the most objective possible choice available for your appeal to authority.

An Appeal to Authority requires that the assertion is only backed by the appeal. Saying, for example, that "Obama is the best because Susan Rice likes him" or "Edwards is best because Paul Krugman likes him" or "Clinton is best because Joe Wilson likes him" are all Appeals to Authority.

Conversely, arguing that "X is not true because Y said it" is an ad Hominem.

In this case Ms. Rice is presenting proof for her case in the form of documentation and other data, available through the links. The only way to refute her argument, for those parts that the data apply, is to refute the data. Some parts it is not necessary for you to address, such as the jab about Clinton first calling Obama "naive" only to later take the same position Obama earned the slur for (although factually this is correct, motivations aside.)

And please do not get me wrong, I am sincerely asking if you are able to find anything that would refute her argument because I am interested in that aspect of the campaign and I think it is important especially in the light of the experience argument she makes.

And you may absolutely disagree with her analysis, I would just like to hear some specifics. She is a fairly prominent foreign policy expert (and worked in the Clinton admin) but it does not mean she is infallible--and claiming otherwise would be an Appeal.

LongTom wrote on December 28, 2007 9:29 PM:

The image of Hillary being shocked...SHOCKED!...that a rival might call her decisions into question upon Benazir's assassination is just too much to bear.

I've always liked Hillary, but her candidacy is pure ego. Her experience is actually quite minimal. When her president/husband started their co-presidency by giving her the health care portfolio, she pooched the project so badly that she basically had to lie low for the next 6 1/2 years.

She's obviously policy-competent and politically inept. She's not campaigning on any principle that justifies her candidacy or that justifies the Democratic Party following her over an electoral cliff. She's basically a parrot sitting on Clinton's shoulder claiming to be six feet tall.

Whatever their faults (and they pale in comparison to Hillary's) Edwards and Obama are at least self-made and vaulted into their current position based on their own charisma, ability, and effort. Hillary is in her hopefully deteriorating position because of the reflected charisma and connections and appeal of her husband. We just had a president who got there because of family connections. Why are Democrats even considering this person? She's the least experienced candidate claiming experience as her trump card, the least popular candidate pushing herself forward as "inevitable," the most establishment-oriented candidate psoing as an agent of "change." (Anybody remember Bush's transformation from "the CEO president" to "the reformer with results" after reformer-McCain smoked him in NH in 2000? How different from that is Hillary's bogus "Change...with experience" gambit?)

If Hillary really cared about rescuing the White House from right wing misrule, she'd withdraw and take her 48% unfavorable rating with her.

waka waka wrote on December 28, 2007 10:13 PM:

Longtom said: "If Hillary really cared about rescuing the White House from right wing misrule, she'd withdraw and take her 48% unfavorable rating with her."

Amen on that point. This whole thing is about her and her ambitions.

Also, all those people falsely accusing Obama of politicizing Bhutto's death - upon learning of the assassination, Hillary immediately released a picture of herself, Chelsea and Bhutto from a meeting in the 1990s! Talk about crass. Jeebus!

Michael A wrote on December 28, 2007 10:22 PM:

I heard her royal highness on npr when I was driving home on the stump talking about how wonderful she is and how america needs her to deal with situations like the bhutto assasination. She was politicizing way, way over the gd top and she has the unmitigated audacity to claim that axelrod's statement was politicizing? It was absolutely rovian what she was saying. It was disgusting and she has the gall to say what she said on cnn?????? I can't wait until she goes down in flames. I do not want to hear her lies and garbage for the next four years. Anybody but clinton II in 08, PLEASE!!!!!!

DonnaG wrote on December 28, 2007 10:41 PM:

Hillary clinging to that 'day one' mantra is so vacuous, like a woman who thinks marriage is just putting the details together for all the right images for a ceremonial wedding day. Specifics for after that 'day one' are vague, dissembling or non-existent.

larry wrote on December 28, 2007 10:47 PM:

hillary, and her current hatchet men, bahy and clark are full of shit.

outrageous hypocrites.

CalD wrote on December 28, 2007 10:50 PM:

Oh, give it up, roo_P. You are making an Appeal to Authority anytime you assert that:

1. Person A is an expert in their field.
2. Person A takes position P about something within their field of expertise.
3. Position P is therefore a fact.

Don't take my word for it. Go look it up. I should be noted that not all appeals to authority are fallacious, however. A fallacious appeal to authority occurs when, for example: Person A is a not a credible expert in their field, or there is significant disagreement among other credible experts in the same field regarding Position P, or Person A's objectivity regarding Position P may not be above question, there is any other reason to question Position P's credibility.

In this case it cannot be credibly argued that there is no significant disagreement among other experts in the field with regard to the positions of the authority you cited, nor is her objectivity in this case is completely above question, by reason of her close association with the Barack Obama campaign. Your appeal to authority is therefore fallacious unless you are prepared to prove that most other experts in the field agree with your expert.

Furthermore, raising legitimate questions regarding the credibility of someone being presented as an authority does not in fact constitute an ad hominem attack (you can look that up too). It's something you should always do before taking anyone's word for anything. It is also something you should certainly have done yourself before claiming that their opinion alone makes your own case.

Jwilson wrote on December 28, 2007 10:57 PM:

So, when is Axelrod going to be fired? If I recall correctly, there was an loud demand by the Obama-ites that Hillary not only criticize Shaheen, but fire him, for his cocaine comments.

Why the double standard? How does this fit into a "New Kind Of Politics?"

Weasels.

Michael A wrote on December 28, 2007 11:09 PM:

jwilson, he didn't accuse clinton II of dealing the wacky weed. Mr. bill admitted that he toked some. Did clinton II do it with him? Is she still smoking some of that weed? Did she deal weed also? Well if she and bill smoked some together, you know the republicans will say that they were dealing to? Are they still dealing to their minions?

Opps, I didn't mean to say all that. That was in no way condoned by the Stephen Colbert for President Campaign.

By the way, what exactly was wrong with what axelrod said? This is really absurd and the ultimate spin. Does any true dem disagree that iraq was a horrible diversion from the true threat the afghanistan/pakistan area where al qaeda is regrouping? I don't think so, so what's the freaking problem?

maxstar212 wrote on December 28, 2007 11:47 PM:

Certainly Obama knows an awful lot about muslim military dictatorships. His stepdad was in the military in indonesia when they were killing 500,000 liberals. what is going on in pakistan would not be all that shocking for someone who grew up in Jakarta at the time. And military man who lived in a nice area jakarta probably had family ties to other, more senior men in the military. Obama does have some relevant experience here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_of_Sukarno

roo_P wrote on December 29, 2007 1:03 AM:

CalD,

You are confusing the issue, whether intentionally or not. You describe Appeal to Authority just as I did. Its central premise is that the argument is not backed up by any proof, just the real or false weight of the Authority in question. However, that does not actually describe the situation in any way.

Rice says that Obama has laid out more specific plans for foreign policy than Clinton has. As proof, she links to M Obama specifics and to N Clinton specifics. M > N, therefore the assertion is correct.

The only way to refute this is to demonstrate that either:

1. The Obama number is incorrect and why this is so;
2. The Clinton number is incorrect and why this is so.

And that either due to 1. or 2., N >= M instead of M > N. It really is not very complicated. I would like to think that this is an honest misunderstanding on your part.

Hopefully you will be able to present some counterproof tomorrow.

roo_P wrote on December 29, 2007 1:11 AM:

CalD,

Furthermore, you have in exactly so many words indicated that the reason you are refusing to in any way respond to the post is because Rice is an "Obama surrogate." This is the exact definition of an ad Hominem attack.

Even if Rice actually was making an argument that requires extrapolation (which is not the case as I explained above), it would STILL be an ad Hominem to reject it out of hand because of the source of the argument. You would be absolutely free to treat it with scepticism, though, but you should actually properly rebut it instead if you felt that the reasoning was incorrect. IF she was making such an argument, that is.

CalD wrote on December 29, 2007 1:17 AM:

maxstar212:

Gosh you're right! I'm sure that like many other 6-year-old foreign children who arrived in the country for the first time in 1967, young Barack Obama probably had a keen grasp of even the most subtle details of events taking place around him at the time. :-b

CalD wrote on December 29, 2007 1:30 AM:

roo_P,

I'll take that as your admission that you are not in fact prepared to demonstrate that most other experts in the field endorse Ms. Rice's assertions regarding Hillary Clinton's foreign policy positions.

Thanks for the laughs!

roo_P wrote on December 29, 2007 2:00 AM:

CalD,

I never made such claims. I have repeatedly stated that the claim, such as it is, is that Obama has given far more foreign policy specifics than Clinton has. This is proven in the post from the dataset used. There is no analysis nor opinion required because the positions themselves are not in question here, but the availability of those positions beyond "I lived in Indonesia" or "I will not be Bush" or whatever. In my opinion, we cannot discuss positions if those positions are not known to a certain degree of specificity.

I asked if anyone would be able to correct Ms. Rice on that issue: it is easily factually done if she is incorrect and it would allow us to have a better feel of Clinton's positions. You have repeatedly attempted to confuse the issue to avoid answering because, I can only assume, that you consider this to be an "attack" that must be defended against rather than a dialogue that you can engage in to educate others (and occasionally oneself. )

Anecdotally, I would draw a parallel here of respective styles of engagement.

Your response is disappointing. Hopefully someone else will be able to supply an answer.

roo_P wrote on December 29, 2007 2:05 AM:

It seems I was cut off. The ending was thus:

This is an important time where you may be able to affect people's "second choices" and I do not think the course that you [CalD] chose is a particularly convincing one. It certainly is not to me and what little it may matter to you, this is how I personally process the candidates to find the preferred one if any as well as any good or acceptable alternatives. I can only assume that there are others in the same situation.

CalD wrote on December 29, 2007 2:28 AM:

roo_P,

You seem to be laboring under some misconception that I give a damn what you think or what you do. I don't you're not my responsibility.

CalD wrote on December 29, 2007 2:30 AM:

correction:

roo_P,

You seem to be laboring under some misconception that I give a damn what you think or what you do. I don't. You're not my responsibility.

Anonymous wrote on December 29, 2007 7:00 AM:

CalD, why do you always start insulting people who get the best of you. If you want to debate politics, debate. If you want to sling mud, go to work for Hillary full time. Oops. You've already got that job.

Anonymous wrote on December 29, 2007 7:39 AM:

Obama is right, Clinton killed Bhutto, very clear isn't it?

random wrote on December 29, 2007 8:01 AM:

Hillary is such a hypocrite. Bhutto's death was tragic. She was a politician who was assainated. Parkistan was already a topic Obama had addressed in the campaign on the issue of getting tough on terrorism, and Hillary criticized that too.

Hillary continues to show really poor judgment on international issues. She is as trigger happy as Bush.

Obama shows wisdom and insight. Time has proven him right, every time he and Hillary have differed on foreign affairs.

Nathan wrote on December 29, 2007 8:12 AM:

random,

Good God, do you even bother checking out Obama's voting record and policies on Iraq? They're the same as Clinton's!

And what's so wise and insightful about threatening to attack Pakistan if Musharraf failed to act against terrorists? Violating national sovereignty of any country only results in destabilizing it. Not to mention Obama said he would move our troops to Pakistan.

Fine, hate Clinton (I don't care for her either), but Clinton being bad doesn't automatically make Obama good--especially considering his votes and policies.

Concerned in Iowa wrote on December 29, 2007 8:14 AM:

Hillary would rather attack Obama than take questions from voters. This is the candidate who said "Let's have a conversation." She keeps saying 35 years of experience, but she will not explain that, or release records. Where is Hillary's substance?

Nathan wrote on December 29, 2007 8:18 AM:

Michael A,

What's wrong with Axelrod's statement beside how outrageous it is to blame only one person for the murder of Bhutto is that it's immature to blame al-Qaeda or "terrorists" for her assassination considering the political history. The military and intelligence agencies are the likely culprits who, at best, used Islamist radicals to carry it out.

And according to Axelrod's rationale, Obama is also to blame for Bhutto's death since his voting record and policies on Iraq are SAME AS CLINTON'S.

Also read Obama's own Pakistan rhetoric to realize how truly foolish he is. His August comments were grossly irresponsible for dealing with a powder keg (Violation of Pakistan's national sovereignty if Musharraf fails to act and deploying our troops to wage war against extremists in Pakistan).
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php

random wrote on December 29, 2007 8:20 AM:

Nathan,

Spin spin spin. Hillary voted to give the most incompetent president in American history the authority to start a needless war based on lies. That fact disqualifies her. She enabled the greatest foreign policy disaster ever.

My post was about Hillary being a hypocrite. But since you brought up Obama's record. Obama did not say attack Parkistan, he said attack the terrorist strongholds in Pakistan. This is exactly what Turkey is doing with the Kurdish terrorists. I don't hear Hillary screaming about Turkey invading Iraq?

Opposing Hillary does not mean "hating" her. That is a Clinton campaign mime. Why do you Hillary Lovers always portray her as a victim? Not the profile that makes people want her to lead the nation and the world.

Nathan wrote on December 29, 2007 8:23 AM:

Art wrote: "If that isn't political I don't know what is."

You have got to be kidding me. I guess the only way Clinton could avoid being "political" (which Obama is the only candidate apparently immune from it) is for her to have said something, like, "It's sad she died. Shame." Axelrod blasts Hillary as being a murder: he's right (Oh, and don't mention Obama's voting record or his Pakistan saber rattling). Clinton says something like I met Bhutto and she was a wonderful person: EVIL!!!!

You Obama people are out of your minds. I can't stand either Hillary--or Obama.

Anonymous wrote on December 29, 2007 8:23 AM:

Nathan is brought to you by Hillary for President.

Anonymous wrote on December 29, 2007 8:32 AM:

Nathan,

Actually if you were discussing and not spinning for Hillary, you would note that Hillary said "When I was in Pakistan representing the United States". She was using Bhutto's death to enhance her resume as a Candidate.

This is when it would be helpful to have Hillary's White House records. What exactly did she do on that trip to Pakistan? Did she have security clearence and State and Defense Department briefings and debriefings? Did she have diplomatic status? Did she have high level policy discussions as the emissary of the president?

Or did she have tea, visit a school and a museum and go shopping.

Anonymous wrote on December 29, 2007 9:42 AM:

OK, Ms. Shrill Calculation. What a bitch!

Marilyn Gray wrote on December 29, 2007 9:43 AM:

Don't witches cackle also?

Jwilson wrote on December 29, 2007 10:44 AM:

Michael A,

I know that the desire to win an argument is compelling. I'm a lawyer, and I hate admitting facts that are inconvenient. However, you lose credibility when you deny the obvious.

Axelrod's comments expressly linked Bhutto's death to Hillary's IWR vote. That is just wrong, and Obama would have more credibility in my view if he admitted that the comments were not consistent with his "New Kind of Politics." For you to deny it as well just robs you of your credibility. In the heat of a campaign, strategists and advisers will cross the line. It's expected and unsurprising. It is the candidate's job to disavow those kinds of actions. HRC did with Shaheen, but Obama did the opposite with Axelrod. I was glad to see HRC fire Shaheen, and I'm very disappointed at Obama's reaction. I'm a Democrat, and I expect more from our side of the aisle.

Michael A wrote on December 29, 2007 11:26 AM:

jwilson, I am not denying any facts, you are manipulating facts. Nowhere does axelrod expressly, and that's the word you use, link Bhutto's death to clinton II giving the king a free pass to invade and occupy a sovereign muslim country.

His points were as follows:

1. The iraq war and the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent iraqis has increased anti-american sentiment in the region.

2. By invading iraq, we reduced our military and political engagement in afghanistan and pakistan, which allowed the taliban and al-qaeda to reorganize.

3. We have not committed the necessary military and political assets to take on and defeat the terrorists in the afghanistan/pakistan area which has allowed them to increase their strength and launch attacks.

Are any of these statements false? No. Did he ever say it was clinton II's vote? No.

So, what's the problem? Incidentally, by making false allegations or twisting the truth, that hurts credibility, not sticking to facts. These are the facts.

The region is highly unstable and the terrorists have been able to regroup and launch attacks, like the attack on bhutto, because we didn't finish the job in afghanistan and we pissed off a billion muslims by invading a muslim country based on lies. That doesn't make sense? It makes sense to me.

Now, what exactly are the other candidates supposed to do when clinton II immediately tried to play up that she has this alleged, non-existent experience to deal with international crisis? They're supposed to say oh, yeah, you're right you have the experience. They should just roll over? That's absurd.

By the way her experience is a joke. She didn't read one intelligence briefing while in the white house and she went on photo ops. That's her experienc? How did she get any by osmosis? And the one chance she has to read an intelligence briefing, prior to the iraq war, she didn't bother, even though it said that the king's case for war was based on lies.

Again, the rest of the candidates are supposed to go gee, your majesty, you are wonderful and experienced, even though you gave the king a blank check to invade a country that has made the entire muslim world more unstable? Come on, I don't see a problem and his statement is entirely accurate.

Based on your posts, I am sure that you could care less about obama's credibility. You are obviously for clinton II all the way. Did axelrod accuse clinton II of dealing drugs or smoking pot, or that the republicans will use that? Of course not, this whole alleged dispute is absurd and manufactured for political purposes by clinton II. My guess is that it will backfire, because once again the iraq war and her contribution is front and center in the media.

Michael A wrote on December 29, 2007 11:39 AM:

Nathan, you are wrong on a couple of points, of course.

1. It was likely terrorists due to the suicide bombing aspect. Generally people doing a hit for a government don't blow themselves up, they are generally religious fanatics. Now is it 100% that the government wasn't involved? Of course not. Is it a leap to say it was a terrorist attack? Of course not, due to the suicide aspect.

2. Axelrod was not blaming clinton II. This victim bs is just absurd. Anybody but clinton II in 08. He was saying that the instability in the region and the ability of the terrorists to regroup due to our incompetent foreign policy may have been a contributing factor. He did not say that clinton II was responsible. That is ridiculous.

3. You repeatedly say that obama's voting record is the same as clinton II's. That is false. Why lie? Obama didn't give the king a blank check to invade, clinton II did. Obama was against the war from the beginning. Where have you been?

yesterday gone wrote on December 29, 2007 12:49 PM:

noexpert wrote on December 28, 2007 4:20 PM:
Why not at least debate stories with substance rather than whining.
In Chicago sun times online:
Obama: U.S. needs to come down hard on Musharraf
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/717203,obama122807.article

obama stands up for democracy while the rest defend a compromised dictator. thanks noexpert, i had overlooked this.

CalD wrote on December 29, 2007 1:31 PM:

Anonymous @ 7:00 AM:

Yeah, you know I have to admit, I really do have just a teeny bit of a problem sometimes being sufficiently sensitive, nurturing and inclusive with loudmouth, sanctimonious, know-nothing assholes who are educated beyond their intelligence, intellectually dishonest, way too in love with pretzel logic that they regard as their own cleverness, and who apparently woke up yesterday morning thinking they just invented progressive political activism. I should work on that. You're right.

Anonymous wrote on December 29, 2007 2:50 PM:

WITCH or BITCH

Carolyn Grace wrote on December 29, 2007 2:52 PM:

Who brought out the photos of her visit to Pakistan back in the 90's? It was the Clinton campaign that started this and then there's Edwards with his phone call to Pakistan. Both trying to one up the other. They are the culprits, not Obama.

Kathy Goldman wrote on December 29, 2007 2:53 PM:

Anyone see the new Quad Cities poll? The last 2 Iowa polls show Hilary in third place. She is dropping faster than you can say "witch" in both Iowa and NH. Stick a fork in her and Good Riddance!

Bob wrote on December 29, 2007 2:56 PM:

She's also dropping like a dead body in South Carolina. My sense is that the more people see her the more they realize how much they can't imagine her as President.

Carolyn Sasser wrote on December 29, 2007 3:02 PM:

Great to see Dodd finally bash that witch as well. It is about time people saw her true colors.

kozmik wrote on December 29, 2007 3:13 PM:

Obama "politicized" Bhutto's death? Hello? Everything about Bhutto's death is political.

Obama's criticism of existing policies, and Hillary's role in them, is completely fair. We have been neglecting Afghanistan and Pakistan while the Taliban and AQ are resurgent. We have bolstered Musharraf, a dictator who has WMD, and is both incompetent and irrational.

And it's fair to say that Hillary voted for the Iraq war which left Afghanistan to neglect, and left the dictator who we knew was a problem, who actually has verified WMD, and actually have AQ, the people responsible for 9/11, being harbored in his country.

kozmik wrote on December 29, 2007 3:24 PM:

"Opposing Hillary does not mean "hating" her. That is a Clinton campaign mime. Why do you Hillary Lovers always portray her as a victim? Not the profile that makes people want her to lead the nation and the world."

Exactly. I even used to support her, pragmatically, as the lesser of evils.

But she's still a pretty unqualified Washington insider, it's still nepotism, and Bill still passed too much bad legislation, like NAFTA and so much bad deregulation, and is known for the bait and switch campaign promises. And Bill is the less conservative member of the family. Hillary came from money as her family owned a factory, she was an anti-labor and anti-tax Republican growing up, and remains a Republican on many social economic issues today.

On top of it all it's been one bogus and sleazy attack from her campaign after another, as she tried to smear, I mean "define" Obama early. And to be a hypocrite she also claims to be a victim whenever Obama criticizes her bad policy choices and legislation over the years.

Better than Bush, but not anywhere close to a real Democratic candidate.

Anonymous wrote on December 29, 2007 3:29 PM:

Is it me or are the only "haters" out there according to Hillaryland the Hillary Haters? Assuming that is true, why do you think it is?

kozmik wrote on December 29, 2007 3:31 PM:

btw, watching the video, just reminds me how fake Hillary is. What's up with all the head shaking and the facial expressions? It's just like the cackle. Why can't she just make her case with a straight face?

Probably becasue she doesn't have much to say. She met Bhutto. So did a lot of people at photo ops. So what?

She claims criticism of her record is "politicization" instead of dealing with the issues of Iraq and Iran vote while Afghanistan and Pakistan have been neglected.

Maybe if she actually had some experience and a voting record she could stand on, she wouldn't need all these theatricalities and games.

Anonymous wrote on December 29, 2007 3:40 PM:

She is such a calculating phony. I can't stand her!

Kefa wrote on December 29, 2007 3:41 PM:

I think she hit the nail right on the head.

kozmik wrote on December 29, 2007 3:44 PM:

Anonymous wrote on December 29, 2007 3:29 PM:

Personally, I think it's because many of the hardcore Hillary supporters, the sort of people who'll attack people online on her behalf, tend to be the victim mindset types and not exactly the brightest people to begin with. A lot of these people aren't supporting Hillary for her policies or record, nor are they even going to be well informed about her record.

The main reasons, in fact just about the only reasons, I've ever heard from Hillary supporters are:

1) She's a Clinton, and the economy was good under Bill, so it must be good under her.
2) She's a woman, and we're due for a woman President, so people must support her.
3) She has "experience."
4) She's the sure winner, and inevitable.
5) She'll get Bill back in the WH and the Clintons are the DLC establishment.

None of those are actually rational arguments. They're logical fallacies, sloppy associative thinking, and emotionalism.

#3 is usually made half heartedly with a lot of resume fluffing.
#4 has already fallen apart.
#5 is made only by Washington insiders and DLC types.

Kefa wrote on December 29, 2007 3:47 PM:

Cry,cry,cry, No matter what she does it's always wrong, never right. Never sincere. Damn become Repubs or something. She gonna be your Madem Prez so get used to it. Just Kidding. Getting some practice for next year. ;)

Kefa wrote on December 29, 2007 3:51 PM:

kozmik

I'll take 4) She's the sure winner, and inevitable.
5) She'll get Bill back in the WH and the Clintons are the DLC establishment.

and #5 is made only by Washington insiders and DLC types.

Barbara wrote on December 29, 2007 3:59 PM:

There ain't no way someone with 50% negatives will be President. If she gets the nod, Bloomberg will wipe out half of her support and she will lose to McCain. For everyone's sake, let;s hope Obama gets it.

Susan Miller wrote on December 29, 2007 4:02 PM:

It is just a matter of time before Bill's sex addiction rears it's ugly head (no pun intended) and the country is dragged into more of a distraction. My sense is that the press has laid off for the primaries but will start reporting about Belinda Stronach and all of the other Bimbo eruptions that have been occurring since he left office. What will be most interesting is if they start reporting on Hillary's gal escapades.

Kefa wrote on December 29, 2007 5:05 PM:

Susan Miller...oooh please. Old hat. Folks will just laugh that off. That card can't be played again. The vrwc needs a new deck.

Jor wrote on December 29, 2007 6:47 PM:

Kefa, not that its right to play Bill's promiscuity card, but a large percentage of Hillary's supporters are older and women. Something tells me women, don't like women who stick around with serial cheaters. No democrat is going to make this argument, but if something slips out of someones pants during the general, you can sure as hell bet that the republicans will make this argument. And it will be effective in alienating some of hillary's current supporters.

bbln wrote on December 30, 2007 2:35 AM:

Obama supporters, Hillary haters - the ones politicizing this are the MEDIA. If you can't see that, you're idiots. Blitzer's the one that creates this food-fight by bringing up the Obama comment; TP truncates this interview to further energize the Obama feeding frenzy. Watch the entire interview: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Senator_Clinton_No_blank_check_for_1229.html

ALL of the candidates are talking about how they would deal with the current turmoil in Pakistan - that is FAIR GAME - given that we're picking a President.

I would guarantee that if Clinton did not give her genuine condolences to Bhutto's family the day she died, you lemmings would be calling her cold and callous. If you only you would turn the mirror on yourselves - you haters - you would see hypocrites and ignoramuses.

Post a comment

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