Hillary Pollster: "Kindergarten Attack" On Obama Was Just A Gag!

Comments (136)

Zueda wrote on December 4, 2007 11:07 AM:

I think Penn would be just as well off to claim that their website was hacked by malicious Obama supporters.

DRinOH wrote on December 4, 2007 11:08 AM:

No sir, the "silly joke" is you and your flagging campaign.

Michael A wrote on December 4, 2007 11:09 AM:

Ok, I have called out clinton II supporters on their lack of a sense of humor. Can one of those lovers explain to me the humor in this? I don't see it.

Seems to me, clinton II staffers, either through polling or a sudden revelation of common sense, realized how stupid this move was. By the way, now we have obama's kindergarten papers. Where are the clinton II white house papers??????

Kefa wrote on December 4, 2007 11:10 AM:

The press are just looking for anything to jump on HRC about just so bias about her it is a joke in itself.

Jesse wrote on December 4, 2007 11:11 AM:

Actually the full press release is important and does show that Obama has been planning this run for the presidency for a long time. It is a shame that the press takes one snipet of a release, usually out of context, and that is what the play repeatedly.
Perhaps the kindergarten part was a joke, but didn't Obama bring this upon himself when he said he got his foreign relations experience between the ages of 6 and 10 when he lived in another country?

DTM wrote on December 4, 2007 11:11 AM:

Well, I agree that Kindergate is easily the most amusing story of the Democratic campaign so far (although I would give the Shag Fund story overall honors). And the Clinton campaign trying to write it off as a joke just makes the story all the more amusing.

So, I do thank Penn for providing me with this amusement.

someparisian wrote on December 4, 2007 11:15 AM:

Meet Mark Penn, the politicker who learnt his debating skills from internet trolls.

Mukal wrote on December 4, 2007 11:18 AM:

To believe that this was a joke is amusing. They tried a smear and it blewup in their faces and now they want us to believe it's a joke. Their explanation is the joke.

John McCutchen wrote on December 4, 2007 11:19 AM:

I LOVE it. Smooth stroke. Just showing Brunehilde has a sense of humor!!!

Hillary Attacks!!
http://hillaryattacks.barackobama.com/

DRinOH wrote on December 4, 2007 11:19 AM:

Gallup's new nationwide poll is out. Her lead was cut in half in one month - down to 15 points from 28. Panic mode is now in full swing.

Dan wrote on December 4, 2007 11:19 AM:

SUSA released a poll of the California initiative to divide electoral votes -- and it suggests the proposal cold pass, though Democrats have no reason to panic at all yet.

DRinOH wrote on December 4, 2007 11:20 AM:

Here's the link to that Gallup poll...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-12-03-poll-clinton-giuliani_N.htm

CMC wrote on December 4, 2007 11:20 AM:

Thanks Mark, now THAT'S funny. Almost as funny as you defending Blackwater...

Anonymous wrote on December 4, 2007 11:21 AM:

Wow. I thought these guys were supposed to be the professionals.

A little drop in the polls and it's Amateur Hour over at Clinton '08.

Chris Brown wrote on December 4, 2007 11:24 AM:

"foreign relations experience between the ages of 6 and 10 when he lived in another country?"

Come on, Jesse, Obama said no such thing.

Go find the quote and you will find Obama indicated something to the effect that his living abroad gives him a leg up on understanding other parts of the world.

Stephen Johnson wrote on December 4, 2007 11:26 AM:

Some people just can't tell a joke.

Keith wrote on December 4, 2007 11:27 AM:

Good Gawd. I've never seen such a discplined and well oiled campaign machine make such political blunders. This is PATHETIC.

Kefa wrote on December 4, 2007 11:31 AM:

Nationwide 15pts down from 28pts....do you know how long 15 pts is nationwide is ???
Nothing to crow about. 5 points nationwide is a landslide.

Michael A wrote on December 4, 2007 11:31 AM:

Can anybody explain how this is supposed to be funny? I really don't get the joke.

Geek, Esq. wrote on December 4, 2007 11:34 AM:

Nice rapid response team you got, Hillary.

Homefries wrote on December 4, 2007 11:36 AM:

Just what Billary needed.

More negatives to tack on top of an already abysmal negative rating.

Keith wrote on December 4, 2007 11:36 AM:

Kefa:

This is no media conspiracy, this is another self-inflicted wound by the most disciplined and professional campaign in the game.

frankly0 wrote on December 4, 2007 11:40 AM:

Honestly, if you read the press release as its written, how can you not see that it was likely intended as a kind of ridicule of Obama? It first puts out some serious evidence that Obama had been seriously entertaining the idea of running for President while an adult, and then tacks on at the end, as a pretty clearly humorous reductio ad absurdum the anecdotes showing that he thought about it even when he was a kid.

Is the ridicule here just too subtle for people to get? I can easily imagine Jon Stewart using such a technique to make fun of a politician.

Franklin wrote on December 4, 2007 11:44 AM:

Oh the inanity!

I don't know what's worse:

1. The original line of attack criticizing Obama's honesty and integrity using sources from his days in kindergarten.

2. The bald-faced lie that Penn used to defend an inane attack against Obama's honesty and integrity.

3. The fact that the Clinton team has had to go back to Obama's kindegarten and elementary school days to find "dirt".

Beyond absurd.

Rob Mac wrote on December 4, 2007 11:46 AM:

The Hillary hate is pretty thick here. Why is it so hard to believe that this was meant to be funny? Is it really more believable that someone would seriously point to statements someone made in kindergarten and 3rd grade? Do you guys really think that the Hillary campaign has literally gone insane?

This stuff is starting to remind me of campaign 2000 when Gore was mocked for "claiming" that his mother sung him the Union Label song as a lullaby, when he was obviously making a joke. This is the kind of crap that's going to boomerang on us in the general election, people. Wake up.

And Michael A, you are either a repug troll or a blithering idiot. What "white house papers" do you want the Clintons to release?

Jesse wrote on December 4, 2007 11:47 AM:

To Chris Brown...

This is what he said:

On Monday, Obama told an Iowa audience, "Probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact that I spent four years living overseas when I was a child in Asia—Southeast Asia."

According to the campaign, Obama was six years old when he moved to Indonesia in 1967, and stayed until he was 10.
DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN)11/20/2007)

He hasn't gotten any new experience since then!!!

Michael A wrote on December 4, 2007 11:47 AM:

frankly0, huh? I don't understand. There is a difference between ridicule and humor. I watch stewart all the time and no I have never seen him do anything remotely as unfunny as this one. I just don't see the humor and the press release is not set up as humorous at all. I really don't get it.

frankly0 wrote on December 4, 2007 11:49 AM:

Sometimes, you know, I feel like politics turns people into humor-impaired, self righteous, ranting fools.

If you can't see the humor in this press release as written, please stay away from any party I go to, OK? For my taste, there are already plenty enough pompous, literal-minded bores knocking around this sorry world.

Jimbo wrote on December 4, 2007 11:50 AM:

If Barack Obama was writing essays in kindergarten, maybe that shows he should be president.

I'm pretty sure I never wrote kindergarten essays....

wes2 wrote on December 4, 2007 11:52 AM:

No dice.

Any campaign that devotes a great deal of time and energy promoting the choice of a Celine Dion-Air France jingle as its campaign theme song has irrevocably entered an irony-free zone.

You can have Celine, or you can have a sense of humor, but no way can you claim to have both. Matter and anti-matter.

crick02478 wrote on December 4, 2007 11:53 AM:

A comment above was spot on - its amateur hour at the Clinton front office. That Obama allegedly wrote an "essay" while in kindergarten, presumably in the native language while he was at a local indonesian school, is absurd. Otherwise, perhaps we should be following the Indonesian educational model in our own schools. Don't know too many of our students, my children included, who were writing what coyld be described as essays at that age.

Dave J. wrote on December 4, 2007 11:55 AM:

I heard through a guy who knows a guy that Obama once crossed at a corner EVEN THOUGH THE LIGHT SAID "DON'T WALK"!1!eleventy!! OMG!

frankly0 wrote on December 4, 2007 11:55 AM:

Michael A,

Suppose, say, Bush were to assert that he never used drugs. Suppose Jon Stewart, say, then composed a video sequence in which a number of people Bush knew as adults came forward and said they saw him snorting lines of coke and smoking marijuana. Then suppose at the end of the sequence his grade school teachers reported that he seemed to enjoy eating paste. Wouldn't that be considered a form of humorous ridicule on top of all the more serious refutation?

Is this concept just too hard for people to grasp? Why am I reduced to explaining jokes?

Major sigh.

John Moody wrote on December 4, 2007 11:55 AM:

Actually I got the joke. Hillary has been criticized in the media as having made some 20 or 30 year old "secret pact" with her husband that they would both be elected president. Of course the evidence of this pact is all hearsay. Obama referred to this silly smear in his stump appearances. So she called him on it. The references to his desires to be president are no more or less absurd than hers. We'd all be better off focusing on campaign issues that matter rather than the bright shiny objects the press dangles before us under the guise of "character revealing moments."

Michael A wrote on December 4, 2007 11:56 AM:

I guess you are an uniformed hillary lover Rob Mac and you don't watch any debates or listen to any of her speaches. Clinton II is blatantly running on clinton I's record to get the white house. She is claiming all this experience from her white house years that qualify her to be president. HOWEVER, she and clinton I are refusing to release any clinton white house documents until 2012, after her reelection run, in their minds. That's the point "blithering idiot."

Still don't see the humor. Maybe penn and clinton II should do stand up. Gotta love those clinton I lover posts. If you don't see the humor, you are a hillary-hater, idiot, left-wing, wacko, fanatic, imbecile, stupid, moron, commie, pinko. Now that really helps people see the "humor" in this one.

Obama/Webb 08.

DRinOH wrote on December 4, 2007 11:57 AM:

I think it's actually quite interesting how the Hillary people are reacting to what's going on right now. Some guy up there tells me it's no big deal that her national lead went from 28 points to 15 in a month. If you don't think it's a big deal, give it another month. Somebody else actually buys this garbage that the attack was a joke...do you really believe that? Or are you just wearing blinders and the tunnel-vision is affecting your judgment?
And Rob Mac, if you don't know what papers he's talking about at this point, just go home, you obviously haven't been following along. Her papers aren't a big deal at all, but given the attention that story got, you should have at least some idea by now.

Brian Jacobsmeyer wrote on December 4, 2007 11:59 AM:

Obviously it wasn't a joke, but everyone seems to be missing the bigger picture here, which is that Obama WROTE AN ESSAY WHEN HE WAS IN KINDERGARTEN?? Five-year-olds typically don't write essays, mainly because they can't read or write. So either Obama's old teachers are full of shit or the man is some kind of genius.

BJ wrote on December 4, 2007 12:00 PM:

Dear Mark,

As a Clinton supporter, may I ask you, please, no more jokes like that. It was ridiculous and definitely backfired.

DTM wrote on December 4, 2007 12:00 PM:

Even if it was a joke, they completely blew it, and they are just extending the lifespan of Kindergate by trying to defend it. Amateur hour indeed.

Jesse,

You might want to note that Obama got a degree in Politicial Science with a concentration in International Relations from Columbia, and he currently serves on the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate. Indeed, one of his signature accomplishments in his first Congress was Lugar-Obama, which extended the Nunn-Lugar framework to stockpiles of conventional weapons such as shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles.

frankly0 wrote on December 4, 2007 12:01 PM:

My suggestion to the Hillary campaign: use smiley faces in your press releases so that the humor-damaged can know in advance what is in jest and what is serious.

CT Voter wrote on December 4, 2007 12:06 PM:

John Edwards' comments were funny. This press release, if it was meant as a joke, isn't all that funny, so either way, the Clinton campaign probably wishes it hadn't issued this press release. If it was meant as an attack, it misfired. If it was meant as a joke, it misfired, as well.

DRinOH wrote on December 4, 2007 12:06 PM:

"Botched joke." That sounds like something John Kerry would do. I haven't heard from him since. Here's hoping history repeats itself...

Michael Lafferty wrote on December 4, 2007 12:06 PM:

This entire matter is really rather pathetic.

But, seriously: there is a larger issue. Mark Penn has 'earned' the trust of Senator Clinton, and that fact—as evidenced by his placement in the campaign hierarchy and his positioning as a public face for the Clinton campaign—ought to seriously call into question the judgement of the candidate herself. As if there weren't already literally hundreds of examples of poor judgement on the part of Senator Clinton!

I suppose I might be mildly impressed if Penn were muzzled or fired by the Senator, but that is not likely to happen. He is a friend, trusted associate and iconic figure for much of what is wrong with her candidacy.

Sigh. Do you really want her, or this team—or, parties like the members of this campaign team—running the country?

Michael A wrote on December 4, 2007 12:08 PM:

Michael Lafferty, NOPE.

Robenoir wrote on December 4, 2007 12:12 PM:

Simple way to get a bead on the question as to whether it was meant as a joke or not: are the attached citations [ex: AP, 1/25/07] to the last two points real or not? If they're not real, how could it be anything but a joke? And if they are, then sorry, Hillary camp, but it's going to be harder to spin it as one.

Franklin wrote on December 4, 2007 12:14 PM:

frankly01, what exactly was the purpose of the "joke" that team Clinton launched then?

It's one thing for a candidate to be self-depricating about him or herself. It's another to make jokes that are purely self-serving.

Even if this was about false levity -- the kind of "joke between friends" idea, it was just frankly still kind of stupid.

There is a time and place for laughs. And there is a way that this should be done. The Clinton "joke" though is just flatly bizarre. I'm not really clear how the joke was even remotely appropriate to the occasion.

If this was intended as kind of mean-spirited, disassociative GOP humor, then yeah I kind of get it (e.g. Obama's a liar -- GET it? Ha! HA! Funny!). It's funny in the same way that Rush Limbaugh is funny when he calls Hilary Clinton fat. Mostly I just want to shake my head -- it's just so stupid. And these people are being paid to do this kind of stuff professional? And Clinton spends good money hiring these people?

Bizarre.

Keith wrote on December 4, 2007 12:15 PM:

You don't deliver jokes through press release. And if you have to come out a say that it was a joke, then it is clear that NOBODY GOT THE JOKE.

It was reported seriously yesterday and I don't recall anyone from the Clinton campaign suggesting that it was a joke. My guess is that they were ridiculed widely in the press for the comment and this is their attempt to "save face".

Art wrote on December 4, 2007 12:17 PM:

A joke? They actually interviewed one of his kindergarten teachers! It's a show of desperation if you ask me.

Rob Mac wrote on December 4, 2007 12:18 PM:

Michael A, I suggest you try to start getting your news from someone other than Rush Limbaugh. That whole "Clinton won't release his White House papers" thing is a Republican lie.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071103/D8SM34700.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307756,00.html

And this is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about above. When so-called liberals use the same tactics as the right-wing smear machine against each other they destroy any credibility they might have had and they give fuel to the right-wing machine that will come after us in the general.

And by the way, I'm an Edwards supporter. But I'll take HRC over Obama.

Rob Mac wrote on December 4, 2007 12:21 PM:

Art, "they" didn't interview Obama's kindergarten teacher. Someone from AP did in January of this year, as the press release clearly indicates.

DTM wrote on December 4, 2007 12:22 PM:

I actually wondered just recently whether Penn might get fired soon. Yes, he is a long time friend, but when the storyline becomes "Campaign X is Flailing!", the standard political playbook says to make someone else besides the candidate the goat and fire him.

Peter wrote on December 4, 2007 12:25 PM:

It is a mistake for Senator Clinton to go negative because for some reason(perhaps her less than completely appealing public persona) when she does she becomes the issue and not her ostensible target. Also, she evidently believes that a negative tone is more important than saying anything substantive because her attacks on Obama have been trivial, unfair and/or foolish. Her best shot,her only shot is to make voters think that she is best qualified to be president by dint of her intelligence, experience and willingness to work hard. This "pivot," as they now say, is not helping her. I am surprised than none of her expensive helpers have noticed this. They will when she loses Iowa and then NH. But by then they will be licking their wounds on some salubrious Caribbean island.

DonnaG wrote on December 4, 2007 12:30 PM:

So, how can we know when stuff coming from the Clinton campaign is 'straight' and 'serious'?

Oops....maybe the public from now on will give PennCo the benefit of the doubt and take everything coming out of their mouths as another joke.

Anonymous wrote on December 4, 2007 12:31 PM:

"The Hillary hate is pretty thick here. Why is it so hard to believe that this was meant to be funny?"

a) Because it wasn't;
b) Because when a Perfect Campaign releases a joke press release that is even a little bit subtle, it knows to signal to the press that its a joke;
c) Because it took the "Perfect Campaign" with the "Most Fearsome Rapid Response Team in the History of Politics" more than a day to decide it was a joke;
d) Because the interval between the press release and the official "j/k" was exactly the amount of time it would take Penn to do a quick poll to see if it was getting traction as a straight-up attack and/or backfiring.

"Is it really more believable that someone would seriously point to statements someone made in kindergarten and 3rd grade?" Well, if one thought, based on observable evidence, that the candidate's campaign was panic-stricken by what its internals, was bloated and about as sure-footed as a brontosaurus in a tarpit when confronted by events that are not unfolding according to The Plan, and, to some extent the external polling was showing and thought the whole operation run by humorless, insular, syncophantic True Believers, yes. Hey, its only a theoretical model that may or may not ultimately be be proven true, but, at this point it certainly explains all observable facts and has predictive value.

"Do you guys really think that the Hillary campaign has literally gone insane?" Yes. Yes we do.

Smith wrote on December 4, 2007 12:31 PM:

Most of us are intelligent and informed enough to recognize that Obama has been throwing jabs at Hillary to poke at one of her supposed soft spots - that she is overly ambitious and grasping. But Obama has been just throwing jabs. It's not over the top, it's not overblown.

Camp Hillary, though, can't stand to have anyone throwing a jab. So they respond with what they think is a knockout punch but in fact is just a wild roundhouse that misses by a mile. It's way over done. There's no subtlety. There's no humor. And yes, it does make Hillary look trite, thin skinned, and desperate.

I'm beginning to think we're witnessing Clinton the Lesser.

KG wrote on December 4, 2007 12:33 PM:

I think the important element here is that Obama was writing ESSAYS in kidergarden! Not sentences or words but ESSAYS!

Keith wrote on December 4, 2007 12:35 PM:

Actually Rob Mac, Clinton WON'T release his White House papers. If you check the Presidential Records Act (44 USC 2204(a)), Clinton has the right to withhold his records for 12 years after he leaves office (2012); which he did in 2000. He subsequently asked for certain records to be released immediately, but that archivist continue withholding the bulk of the documents that folks would be interested in seeing.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/62133

He's basically asking that communications related to, among other things, the following be withheld until 2012: (1) foreign policy matters, (2) directly from the President (unless routine), (3) communications between the President and Vice President, (4) communications directly between the President and First Lady.

NCSteve wrote on December 4, 2007 12:36 PM:

Doh! Flag for incorrect use of cut and paste functioning . . . Should have said:

"Is it really more believable that someone would seriously point to statements someone made in kindergarten and 3rd grade?"

Well, if one thought, based on observable evidence, that the candidate's campaign was panic-stricken by what its internals, and, to some extent the external polling was showing, and thought the whole operation run by humorless, insular, syncophantic True Believers, and was bloated and about as sure-footed as a brontosaurus in a tarpit when confronted by events that are not unfolding according to The Plan, yes.

Hey, its only a theoretical model that may or may not ultimately be be proven true, but, at this point it certainly explains all observable facts and has predictive value.

Talk about blowing a punchline . . .

Michael A wrote on December 4, 2007 12:42 PM:

Rob mac, you're about as much an edwards supporter as I am a clinton II supporter. If it's a republican lie (typical clinton II spin), then where the f*ck are the papers? Why not until 2012? Why was she stumbling all over the place on the issue? Why is it a big secret? And, what in the h*ll do you think republicans are going to say about those papers and her "record" if she gets the nomination? Of course, they are going to make it sound so much worse than it is.

I have been saying for months now, she should just release them and let the chips fall where they may. There probably isn't anything that bad anyway, because the clintons are smart and were under the gun the entire time they were in the white house. So just release them.

I want a dem in the white house in 08, not another election f*ck up by being too clintonian. I am so sick of the ridiculous spin machine, that seems to have blown its bearings on this one, called the clinton II campaign. No substance just spin, spin and more spin.

colonpowwow wrote on December 4, 2007 12:43 PM:

As a Clinton supporter, I just want to say that Penn is violating the "if you've dug yourself a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging" rule.

Not the biggest issue so far, but it does make her look petty and, worse, a bit ridiculous.

Now about Obama showing spinelessness and duplicity with his serial "Present" dodges on controversial issues, and his duplicity and lack of leadership on KL . . .

BTW - The Hillary haters have already exhausted the "Hillary is petty and ridiculous meme." - so I give it about another week of shelf life (that would have been about two days if Penn would have stopped digging already).

Blake wrote on December 4, 2007 12:47 PM:

"Oh, that is so silly."

Not to get too pop-psych here, but that's *exactly* the tactic bullying family members use on the people they verbally abuse:

"Jane, you're ugly and you smell."

Jane gets angry. To which the bully responds:

"You can't take a joke, can you?"
or:

"You have no sense of humor. I was obviously kidding."
or:

"You're so serious."
or:

"Oh, your outrage is so silly."

My point: how totally adolescent. It only strengthens my support for Obama and augments my dislike of Hillary.

ProDemocrat wrote on December 4, 2007 12:48 PM:

Honestly..? Mark Penn..? Is this the best Hillary can do??...Where do they find these people...?

Keith wrote on December 4, 2007 12:51 PM:

Colonpowwow:

Now about Obama showing spinelessness and duplicity with his serial "Present" dodges on controversial issues, and his duplicity and lack of leadership on KL

Who you gonna believe, HRC or Planned Parenthood et al? The one with an axe to grind or the party that is grading on this issue?

See the problem with this attack, the FEC attack, etc., there is another party who has a bigger dog in the fight. If he's weak on a woman's right to choose, then his grade from NOW/Planned Parenthood and other organizations, would bear that out. So far, it doesn't. If the HopeFund was running afoul of election law, the FEC would be all over it. So far, it hasn't said a word.

At the end of the day, you are left with the unsupported accusations and in this day and age of Google/24-hour news cycle, it's harder and harder to get away with something like this (and all indications are that it isn't working).

She's hoping that Obama contributes to his own death in Iowa (and nationally) by responding to each of these baseless attacks. She could careless about winning Iowa; she just doesn't want Obama to do so (he, unlike Edwards, has the organization and dollars to fight unitl February 5th). At least that's my opinion...

Jay wrote on December 4, 2007 12:52 PM:

The Emperor Wears No Clothes

MonaL wrote on December 4, 2007 12:54 PM:

MichaelA said:
"I want a dem in the white house in 08, not another election f*ck up by being too clintonian. I am so sick of the ridiculous spin machine, that seems to have blown its bearings on this one, called the clinton II campaign. No substance just spin, spin and more spin."

If you want a dem in the white house, then stop bashing Dems and aim your considerable anger at the Repugs! Same to all of you Hillary haters.

I'm starting to understand why Dems are called Elitists and the hate America crowd, and why we lost the middle to the Thugs in 1996. This is sickening.

Anonymous wrote on December 4, 2007 12:55 PM:

Hillary's internal polls must be really grim

Joe Blow wrote on December 4, 2007 12:58 PM:

frankly0,

I think I understand you. By your logic, if a person makes a joke and no one laughs, then obviously everyone who failed to laugh has no sense of humor.

Back in the real world, we usually say the author of a joke that makes no one laugh is the one with no sense of humor. But hey, to each her own.

JB

Michael A wrote on December 4, 2007 1:05 PM:

Oh, I get it monal, clinton II can whip out the lies and go negative against obama, but we aren't suppose to say a thing about clinton II. She is just so wonderful and we all just love her. Where's the crown?

Oh, that's right there will be a republican nominee, but no the angry white guy (which they all are) won't say anything bad about clinton II. He will just love her as well. We will have a happy love fest for clinton II all the way to the white house.

What are you clinton II lovers smoking? I need to get me some of that stuff.

Greg from Canada wrote on December 4, 2007 1:07 PM:

I liked Sullivan's comment. If his Kindergarten and Grade three teachers are remembering his essays, then perhaps this is the kind of communicator that the US wants facing the world.

What did Shrub want to be in Kindergarten? What did Shrub want to be on his fortieth birthday?

JenJen wrote on December 4, 2007 1:08 PM:

Hey, Mark Penn, you wanna be funny? This is how you do funny. Listen and learn. :-)

(John) Edwards grinned as he recounted the Clinton campaign's allegation.
"I want to confess to all of you right now," he told his audience, "in third grade, I wanted to be two things: I wanted to be a cowboy, and I wanted to be Superman."

colonpowwow wrote on December 4, 2007 1:13 PM:

Keith:

Okay, Obama showed great leadership by voting "Present" on controversial votes important to women's rights. If one of his friends from Planned Parenthood says so, even though many others say as emphatically "not so," it must be okay.

And his standup performance on the Kyl-Lieberman thing. Hoo Doggies! What leadership! What forthrightness in attacking Hillary on the issue a few days after saying nothing while the amendment was being debated and then missing the vote. And, how conveeeenient!

The only reason Obama got this far so fast is the dumb luck re his Senatorial opponents in Illinois tripping on their own corruption - otherwise, he'd still have the luxury of voting "Present" (although he might Freudian slip up now and then and vote "Presdent"

I stand corrected.

modmom wrote on December 4, 2007 1:13 PM:

In 2006, with Penn at the helm, the company gave 57 percent of its campaign contributions to Republican candidates.

-snip
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070604/berman

Couple this with the fact that his firm represents the likes of Union-busters, Blackwater, Union Carbide after the Bhopal Disaster, and an alliance to fight tobacco regulation for Phillip Morris, to name a few. Does this guy sound like the type of Dem that our Dem candidate for president uses as a strategist?

We need a populist, not more toeing the line for corporate interest.

frankly0 wrote on December 4, 2007 1:15 PM:

I think I understand you. By your logic, if a person makes a joke and no one laughs, then obviously everyone who failed to laugh has no sense of humor.

Yeah, and I guess there's no such thing as a pompous, literal minded bore who has to have every joke explained to him.

Is this what we have to look forward to if Obama is elected? Four or eight years of explaining jokes to his schoolmarm supporters?

DTM wrote on December 4, 2007 1:33 PM:

colonpowwow,

Again, the pure politics of this is that for those talking points to have worked, it was very important that people not approach them skeptically (meaning not talk to people at Planned Parenthood about Obama's Illinois Senate career, not check what Obama said about Kyl-Lieberman at the time of the vote even though he admittedly made a mistake by missing it, and so on).

Unfortunately for your candidate, now people are approaching them skeptically, and so they are unlikely to work.

votenic wrote on December 4, 2007 1:33 PM:

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.

Jay wrote on December 4, 2007 1:34 PM:

it's definitely not pompous to call all obama supporters "schoolmarms."

Jay wrote on December 4, 2007 1:37 PM:

or was that a joke, too?

Jackie wrote on December 4, 2007 1:37 PM:

I may be a joke but I wouldn't put anything past her.

roo_P wrote on December 4, 2007 1:39 PM:

The most amusing part about this whole debacle is that the people who were just yesterday defending the kindergarten stuff as a valid claim are now pointing out to all us mentally handicapped people how it was OBVIOUSLY a joke.

KathyF wrote on December 4, 2007 1:40 PM:

FranklyO, we get what you're saying, no need to condescend. (Is that what we have to look forward to if Hillary is elected? 8 years of condescension?) The joke COULD have worked, if they'd played it differently. Much differently. But they didn't, and waited 24 hours to "admit" it was a joke.

Like Franklin said above, if it was a joke it was the most bizarre joke ever. And somehow I just don't see Hillary doing bizarre. Do you?

They should leave the joke telling to experts. They're no good at it.

Franklin wrote on December 4, 2007 1:41 PM:

"Is this what we have to look forward to if Obama is elected? Four or eight years of explaining jokes to his schoolmarm supporters?"

frankly01,

That isn't really an explanation, so much as a dodge. Just like Clinton. Get it? Hypocritical and slippery! Ha! HA ! HA! Just. Like. Clinton.

But seriously.

Explain to me how the Clinton remarks were supposed to be funny. You thought the stunt was funny. Why? Simple question.

As I understand it, the "joke" was essentially "Obama is a liar". And it was "funny" because Clinton, who is noted ESPECIALLY for her honesty, had her people talk to Obama's teachers and family members and they REFUTED Obama's outlandish statements proving that HE was IN FACT a liar. Get it? It turns out that Obama the 5 year old completely obliterated the idea that 40-something Obama actually had reservations about running for the president. Kind of cute. Funny. Ta-ta.

But not really.

Unless of course there's more to the joke than you're leading on. Perhaps there's a context that made the joke funny to the Clinton staffers who came up with the stunt. Maybe it was inspired by recent Iowa and New Hampshire polls? Clinton slides in the polls, so her people start cracking jokes about Obama's honesty in a desperate attempt to salvage the Clinton campaign?

That's not really funny either. It's more sad and pathetic.

Clinton needs to raise the bar, or just get out of the race. The last thing we need are 8 more years of bad jokes. These are tough times for a lot of ordinary folks. The times require leadership, not second rate comedy.

donna L. wrote on December 4, 2007 1:50 PM:

They are lying again. If they had really intended an obvious "joke" wouldn't that call the into question the seriousness of the rest of the accusations?

Oh -- and Bill was against the Iraq war from the start. Now that is hillarious!

DemAC wrote on December 4, 2007 1:52 PM:

Some people, like Politico’s Ben Smith understands a joke immediately when they hear it.

Other, very very serious people with a vengeance (pick your choice above) wouldn’t understand a joke if they had it glued to their forehead. Now, politics is a serious business but it’s not that serious. Chill.

frankly0 wrote on December 4, 2007 1:53 PM:

The joke COULD have worked, if they'd played it differently. Much differently. But they didn't, and waited 24 hours to "admit" it was a joke.

Look, I'll admit that it wasn't a good telling of the underlying joke given it's political context. When it comes to politics, you should probably pretty much just assume that everything will be taken literally unless you make all manner of meta statements about it signaling that it is intended as a joke. Basically, you're talking about the lowest common denominator here. So, from the standpoint of politics and audience, it was a failure.

But that doesn't mean that I can't get mighty depressed over just how low the lowest common denominator goes, even among Democrats. If I want humorlessness in its true purity, I ordinarily seek out a Republican.

How disappointing that I can find any number of Democrats who do the trick every bit as well.

Joe Blow wrote on December 4, 2007 2:06 PM:

frankly0,

The more you respond, the more we understand your "sense of humor", and how on par it is with your Fembot candidate. You both desperately need an upgrade.

READY
10 SMEAR "OBAMA"
20 IF NO APPROVAL GOTO 30
30 EXECUTE LAUGHTER
40 SPIN "JOKE"
50 GOTO 40
RUN

JB

Liam wrote on December 4, 2007 2:13 PM:

A question that Senator Clinton should be required to answer:

Why is it that you have been able to uncover and release the writings of Senator Obama from when he was in Kindergarten, but you have been unable to release your own records from your very recent eight years in the White House?

frankly0 wrote on December 4, 2007 2:15 PM:

JB,

You tell your jokes in computer code for God's sakes?

Say hi to the rest of the Borg for me, OK?

DTM wrote on December 4, 2007 2:17 PM:

frankly0,

Republicans tell "jokes" about Democrats all the time. There are entire careers devoted to doing just that.

Brad Burklow wrote on December 4, 2007 2:20 PM:

Ha ha ha ha, is it me or are Hillary's eyes becoming increasingly bulgy by the hour. Someone get me some popcorn and a big gulp. The Saturday Night Live skit where she goes ballistic when Obama's name is mentioned comes to mind. I thought she and her advisors had enough sense to keep hiding that side of her personality. The "fun part" is watching 50 foot queenie and her campaign go china syndrome.

I predict she will be sunny side up the rest of the way. That's the only chance she has now but the trajectory is clearly in Obama's favor. His to lose and he seems to be playing it smart by staying above the fray and not going over the top. He should stick to "HRC and Edwards voted for the Iraq War and I was opposed because..." in a matter of fact way and otherwise tout his policy proposals on Health Care, SS etc.. If he wins 2 of three in Iowa, NH, and SC then the revolution in the Democratic Party is on baby. and he has the money to contend on super tuesday.

Come on progressive dems!!!! Obama's not perfect but even critics would have to admit he's pretty damn smart, a proven winner with a great American story, and dare I say quite inspiring on the stump. He kills HRC in likeability which is basically what the general election is based on, particulary the independent swing vote. What's not to like? Experience? Please. That dog won't hunt as Bill used to say. Anyone who has read his books or listened to him speak substantively on foreign or domestic policy can tell he's no lightweight. Debates are not so far his best format but he seems to be learning. If I were Hillary I'd be worried and if I were a Republican, he'd be the one I would not want to run against.

Mike wrote on December 4, 2007 2:24 PM:

Funny stuff. I doubt even The Onion could match this level of satire.

freaktown wrote on December 4, 2007 2:32 PM:

Wow. Hillary Clinton, of all people, is trying to criticize someone for having political ambitions.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

ChrisO wrote on December 4, 2007 2:59 PM:

frankly0

Please, give it a rest. Not seeing that release as a joke is in no way a sign of humorlessness. As others have stated, when no one gets a joke, it's a bad joke. Isuing a press release with serious charges in them, then allegedly switching to humor mode part way through is just stupid. If you want people to get a joke, you first have to signal to them that it's a joke. And no, Jon Stewart would not do something this lame. The fact that you think this "joke" rises to that level is an indication of how bad your sense of humor is. So lay off the lectures, OK?

I'm not a supporter of Clinton or Obama, and I've posted more than one comment here defending Hillary against over the top criticisms. But this was just stupid, and the follow-up smacks of mendacity.

And BTW, I've been a stand-up comic for 17 years, so I have some idea of how jokes are structured and presented. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Joe Blow wrote on December 4, 2007 3:07 PM:

From: Is the ridicule here just too subtle for people to get? I can easily imagine Jon Stewart using such a technique to make fun of a politician. - 11:40am

To: Look, I'll admit that it wasn't a good telling of the underlying joke given it's political context...So, from the standpoint of politics and audience, it was a failure. - 1:53pm

On behalf of everyone here with no sense of humor, I'd like to thank frankly0 for being generous enough to explain this hilarious "joke" of a press release and why it was funny, and then just 2 hours later helping to explain why it wasn't funny.

He's here all week, folks!

Kefa wrote on December 4, 2007 3:19 PM:

If you listen to the right wing as much as I do.....they are pulling hard for Obama and Edwards and thats for only 1 reason and 1 reason only.....it's easier to beat Obama
(race) and Edwards (sleze/lawyer). Mark my words. Beck/Rush/Hannity are pulling and pulling hard and giving advice to the 2 men for that reason only.

holden caulfeld wrote on December 4, 2007 3:26 PM:

Sorry you didnt get hhe joke- - it seems much of thee press corps doesnt know sarcasm fro scabbies...I got it - heres part of a diary i wrote up at mydd - called - "Its Sunday Night - Lets laugh at Obama"

On the campaign trail, Sen. Obama is once again repeating a discredited claim from the failed Hillary Clinton biography, Her Way. Newsday reports:

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

That is a not so veiled reference to an account by biographers Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta that the Clintons sealed a "secret pact of ambition" to both win the presidency--which has been vehemently denied by those that supposedly supplied the quote!

Asked if Obama was referring to the pact, a spokeswoman replied, "Barack Obama has not been mapping out his run for president from Washington for the last 20 years like some of his opponents."

The claim repeated by Sen. Obama and his campaign has been completely discredited by the alleged source, Taylor Branch. The Washington Post reports:

They cite two people, Ann Crittenden and John Henry, who said Taylor Branch, the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and close Clinton friend, told them that the Clintons "still planned two terms in the White House for Bill and, later, two for Hillary." Branch has repeatedly said that "the story is preposterous" and that "I never heard either Clinton talk about a 'plan' for them both to become president.

It's odd that Sen. Obama would choose to perpetuate this claim about Hillary since there is a long list of people who report that Sen. Obama has aspired to be president for practically his entire life.

Just for fun - lets look back at how others have described Obama's lifelong ambition to rule the world..

Be warned - at points - its too CUTE to handle!

That's our Barry...too cute by half....

His kindergarten teacher:

Iis Darmawan, 63, Obama's kindergarten teacher, remembers him as an exceptionally tall and curly haired child who quickly picked up the local language and had sharp math skills. "He wrote an essay titled, "I Want To Become President," the teacher said."

-Now isnt that darling, he thinks hes gonna one day rule the world!

His third grade teacher:

Fermina Katarina Sinaga, Obama's third-grade teacher, "asked her class to write an essay titled 'My dream: What I want to be in the future.' Obama wrote 'I want to be a president,' she said." [The Los Angeles Times, 3/15/07]

Oh Barry -he must have had nice curls too - all young boys - theyre all such budding fascists! - its so cute! -

His law school classmates:

[A]ccording to those who know him, he has been talking about the presidency for more than a decade. "It was clear to me from the day I met him that he was thinking about politics," says Harvard Law School classmate Christine Spurell.

Wait...now this is getting a lil weird, most people KNOW by the age of 30 by God - not to say this stuff out loud, uh oh...

His brother-in-law Craig Robinson:

...Craig [Robinson] pulled him aside [in 1992] and asked about his plans. "He said, 'I think I'd like to teach at some point in time, and maybe run for public office,' recalls Robinson, who assumed Obama meant he'd like to run for city alderman. "He said no -- at some point he'd like to run for the U.S. Senate. And then he said, 'Possibly even run for president at some point.' And I was like, 'Okay, but don't say that to my Aunt Gracie.' I was protecting him from saying something that might embarrass him."

Waaah!? Wow. Now thats downright creepy! Lord - we oughta have a constitutional amendment that says that anybody who actually thinks they CAN be President - shouldnt be allowed to RUN for President!! Yikes! Makes ya think of Stephen King's The Dead Zone" a lil bit doesnt it?

holden caulfeld wrote on December 4, 2007 3:28 PM:

Sorry you didnt get hhe joke- - it seems much of thee press corps doesnt know sarcasm fro scabbies...I got it - heres part of a diary i wrote up at mydd - called - "Its Sunday Night - Lets laugh at Obama"

On the campaign trail, Sen. Obama is once again repeating a discredited claim from the failed Hillary Clinton biography, Her Way. Newsday reports:

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

That is a not so veiled reference to an account by biographers Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta that the Clintons sealed a "secret pact of ambition" to both win the presidency--which has been vehemently denied by those that supposedly supplied the quote!

Asked if Obama was referring to the pact, a spokeswoman replied, "Barack Obama has not been mapping out his run for president from Washington for the last 20 years like some of his opponents."

The claim repeated by Sen. Obama and his campaign has been completely discredited by the alleged source, Taylor Branch. The Washington Post reports:

They cite two people, Ann Crittenden and John Henry, who said Taylor Branch, the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and close Clinton friend, told them that the Clintons "still planned two terms in the White House for Bill and, later, two for Hillary." Branch has repeatedly said that "the story is preposterous" and that "I never heard either Clinton talk about a 'plan' for them both to become president.

It's odd that Sen. Obama would choose to perpetuate this claim about Hillary since there is a long list of people who report that Sen. Obama has aspired to be president for practically his entire life.

Just for fun - lets look back at how others have described Obama's lifelong ambition to rule the world..

Be warned - at points - its too CUTE to handle!

That's our Barry...too cute by half....

His kindergarten teacher:

Iis Darmawan, 63, Obama's kindergarten teacher, remembers him as an exceptionally tall and curly haired child who quickly picked up the local language and had sharp math skills. "He wrote an essay titled, "I Want To Become President," the teacher said."

-Now isnt that darling, he thinks hes gonna one day rule the world!

His third grade teacher:

Fermina Katarina Sinaga, Obama's third-grade teacher, "asked her class to write an essay titled 'My dream: What I want to be in the future.' Obama wrote 'I want to be a president,' she said." [The Los Angeles Times, 3/15/07]

Oh Barry -he must have had nice curls too - all young boys - theyre all such budding fascists! - its so cute! -

His law school classmates:

[A]ccording to those who know him, he has been talking about the presidency for more than a decade. "It was clear to me from the day I met him that he was thinking about politics," says Harvard Law School classmate Christine Spurell.

Wait...now this is getting a lil weird, most people KNOW by the age of 30 by God - not to say this stuff out loud, uh oh...

His brother-in-law Craig Robinson:

...Craig [Robinson] pulled him aside [in 1992] and asked about his plans. "He said, 'I think I'd like to teach at some point in time, and maybe run for public office,' recalls Robinson, who assumed Obama meant he'd like to run for city alderman. "He said no -- at some point he'd like to run for the U.S. Senate. And then he said, 'Possibly even run for president at some point.' And I was like, 'Okay, but don't say that to my Aunt Gracie.' I was protecting him from saying something that might embarrass him."

Waaah!? Wow. Now thats downright creepy! Lord - we oughta have a constitutional amendment that says that anybody who actually thinks they CAN be President - shouldnt be allowed to RUN for President!! Yikes! Makes ya think of Stephen King's The Dead Zone" a lil bit doesnt it?

Michael A wrote on December 4, 2007 3:37 PM:

Nope, kefa wrong on that one. They are dying for clinton II to be the nominee. They think that she is the only dem that they can beat. Even dems are afraid of her candidacy, check out the front page of the NY times today. A congress woman in Kansas doesn't want clinton II because of what she will do to energize the republican base. The right-wingers from rove to britt hume to billy boy kristol all sing her praises and play her up as the "only dem" nominee with the creds to be pres, even though they are non-existant. Why? In order that she is the nominee so that they can beat her.

Now, if you told me kefa, that they were spinning about her white house years or her senate record or something like that, I would agree with you. They are eerily silent. Gee, I wonder why.

colonpowwow wrote on December 4, 2007 3:38 PM:

DTM:

Agree that Clinton talking points re Barry's sanctimonious duplicity and artful dodging of controversy while advancing his political career took a hit by this ridiculous kindergarten "joke" (which I don't believe for a second was a joke - considering where it was and how it was couched).

My only disagreement would be you need to insert "a few" in your sentence to read: "now (a few) people are approaching them skeptically." This isn't or won't be a very big deal to voters. It will provide them (like me) with a head-scratching, what-the-hell-were-they thinking? moment. (And then a second such moment when they tried the "it was just a joke" thing). If this is Penn's baby, he does need a trip to the woodshed if not worse.

Not to be characterized by my loose cannon style on this board, I do have experience working in three campaigns for local office in Wisconsin, and there's no way we'd try to say anything so insipid.

Phoebe wrote on December 4, 2007 3:50 PM:

liar liar pantsuit on fire. pfft!

ChrisO wrote on December 4, 2007 3:50 PM:

Hey Holden, if you're going to double post, try to make them a little shorter, OK? I for one think that Hillary has planned to run for President for a long time. Lots of people plan to run for President, but not all do. I assume that anyone who makes a serious run for President is very ambitious (OK, GWB is the exception). What I do not believe is that Hillary and Bill made a specific "two terms for you, then two terms for me" pact. I think that allegation just plays into certain people's paranoid fantasies about the Clinton's. And it's that allegation that has been disputed by Taylor Branch.

So why can't Obama reference her ambition, especially when so many people are concerned about the dynastic element of her candidacy? You are extrapolating that he is "once again repeating a discredited claim." He's doing no such thing. One of the knocks on Hillary is that she's overly ambitious. Why isn't Obama allowed to speak to that? And if the Clinton camp wants to level the same charge at Obama, let them. Oh wait, they tried that, only it was actually a joke, I think. The problem is that overwhelming ambition just isn't one of the negatives people attribute to Obama. The Clinton campaign is displaying a cerrtain tone deafness in this regard. There's plenty to go after him on, but they try to claim that Hillary's negatives are his, as well. Your entire lengthy waste of space post was a fool's errand, because it doesn't matter how many anecdotes, real or joking, you can conjure up. They just don't hit Obama where he's vulnerable.

Next they'll claim that Obama doesn't really have relevant experience, because he was only first lady for eight years. Hey, if people can say that about Hillary, the Clinton campaign can say it about him, right?

colonpowwow wrote on December 4, 2007 3:54 PM:

Mich A.

How can you criticize me for my Chertoffian gut feeling re Obama's electablity that at least has some basis in subjective reality - while at the same time you offer unproven nonsense about Hillary's electability that doesn't jibe with any of the head-to-head comparison polling done so far?

You "know" "they" are dying for Hillary to win the nomination because "they" "know" she's the easiest to beat?!?

How do you "know" this? Who, exactly, are "they" anyway? Name some names. What data can you show to support your Chertoffian gut feeling?

Joe Blow wrote on December 4, 2007 3:55 PM:

Kefa,

I'm saddened to hear that you have such little faith in the American public that you believe a candidate can be taken down simply because he is of color.

You're also in dreamland if you think the right won't have anything with which to take down Hillary - she barely made it through the October Democratic debate! Her name alone is enough to be her downfall, let alone her duplicitous nature.

No one, and I mean NO ONE, will bring out the Rovian Religious Right to the voting booths even half as well as Hillary will.

DTM wrote on December 4, 2007 3:55 PM:

colonpowwow,

Sure, by no means is it true that everyone is paying attention to this stuff (and good for them). The problem is that the universe of people who are paying attention to Clinton's other anti-Obama talking points is likely no bigger, and I suspect substantially smaller, than the universe of people paying attention to Kindergate.

Most important, though, are the indirect effects. Clinton has long been the beneficiary of the widespread notion, promoted by the press, that her campaign so far has been exceptionally well-run. The press started questioning this notion around the time of the Philly debate, and her poll numbers have been going down ever since.

Kindergate and all the other recent missteps are tossing gasoline on this fire, and I expect the press to keep undermining this notion for the indefinite future. Exactly what that means for Clinton's chances in Iowa and beyond is anyone's guess, but it probably won't be good.

Phoebe wrote on December 4, 2007 4:04 PM:

Was it a joke when they said Obama should give back David Geffen's money because Geffen said something mean about the Clintons? If it was, it was self-parody, and I don't think they do that. They do overkill, and that's what this was. And then they lie "with such ease that it's troubling" as Geffen put it.

Danielle Clarke wrote on December 4, 2007 4:10 PM:

This is even funnier. Mark please shut your mouth your as bad as Bill now!

Yea right great time to make a joke during an election 30 days from the first primary !

Desider wrote on December 4, 2007 4:16 PM:

Perhaps part of the joke was that Obama supposedly to have been fluent in Indonesian (Javanese) within 6 months, which of course wasn't true. [Someone who worked with Obama at his supposedly high-powered international "consulting house" that really just published newsletters... well, if you want to call Kindergarten writing exercise "an essay", then why not? Just artistic expression.]

Maybe the press release should have said, "In his weekly Kindergarten blog, Barry Obama noted his plan to use his position as line monitor to vault his way to the Presidency", or "While translating the Vedas into Javanese in his 2nd grade religion class, Barry caught a mistake not noticed for the previous 2500 years and brought it up to his teacher, who was quite impressed, expressing hope that maybe it would finally lead to a unified field theory after all." Would that be funny enough for y'all?

Michael A wrote on December 4, 2007 4:23 PM:

As you well know colonpowwow, we have been down this road many times before. For starters, I am sure youtube has rove's going away speech and sunday talk show circuit when he was praising clinton II and making it sound like a fait accompli that she will be the nominee. Check out fox news sunday archives and listen to kristol and hume praising her. It is kind of bizzare. How about the trent lott praise that was flowing before he resigned. Why? Why would they bother?

How about falwell before he kicked. How about all the nominees "attacking," and I use that term loosely, clinton II in the debates. They really don't attack her, they invoke her name and use generalizations to make her sound like the "devil" to quote falwell. Why? For the heck of it????

As I offered to dc, come up with one political activist, advisor or operative, that is not affiliated with the clinton II campaign, who will take the opposite position, that she won't fire up the base. Every single one says she will. Do you know of one with creds who says that she won't? I bet you can't find one.

How about today's front freaking page of the NY Times. Even dem congress persons are coming out against her in an off-handed way, because she will energize republicans to come out and vote against her and in turn other dems running. Check out the story.

Chertoffian "gut feeling" my a**. You're smarter than that colonpowwow. You know its true, why can't you admit it and come up with some other spin?

I find the race issue that you bring up about obama kind of repugnant and the polling doesn't support your claim, while the high negs against clinton II and the high number of republicans against her are blatantly obvious. You know the poll I keep quoting.

colonpowwow wrote on December 4, 2007 4:32 PM:

Okay Michael A.:

Your logic is unassailable. It's true. I admit it. Hillary is unelectable and the preferred candidate of all right wingers despite what all the polls show. How can I be so thick? Yes, she will fire up the base. Now I can cite myself as one who will say this.

Thanks.

Oh, I'm still voting for her anyway.

Danielle Clarke wrote on December 4, 2007 4:39 PM:

1st she was inevitable so she wasn't even going to go to Iowa.
2nd she decides to go but doesn't take the time to study her facts.
3rd she goes and copies Baracks ideas.
4th she gets caught with plants in the audience.
5th she complains gender card.
6th she tells Katey Couric she "will win".
7th she realizes she is losing it.
8th she attacks with kindergate.
9th she is taken away to the funny farm screaming and hollering I am the president I am I really am I am i am i i i i i

Finally the citizens who said they supported her quickly say it was all a joke ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Jim H wrote on December 4, 2007 4:41 PM:

Got to say, I thought it was an obvious joke, if you read the whole thing. Probably unwise, since Obama's ramped up the spin machine to full, past the point where he could possibly just laugh it off.

It's okay to attack Hillary's "character" with the idea that she's had this conniving, deep, ambitious, female addiction to power for x years, but not to point out that Obama's desire for political office and the presidency goes back nearly as far? I don't think so. In fact, wanting to be president used to be a good thing. And it is. Both of you kids, shut up and tell us what you'll do about Homeland Security.

Smith wrote on December 4, 2007 4:43 PM:

Phoebe is exactly right: overkill plain and simple. The trouble is that Hillary does overkill with such regularity that it begins to look like a serious case of entitlement. After the last 7 years I've just about had it with leaders who feel that Presidency is their birthright.

vicissitude wrote on December 4, 2007 4:58 PM:

If this was a joke...it is on HRClinton.

Hillary is imploding before our eyes she has gone into kamikaze self destruct mode.

I think I know why. It is the polls in Iowa. The polls that say Obama is principled and likeable and that 7 out of 10 women are not supporting her in IA. Principled trumps experience and strength. Likeable trumps gender cards.

surrrprise surrrpirse...Seven out of ten women are not supporting Hillary...and she has been touting them as her base. They have been crowing and playing the gender card and starting up yougogirl sites and just all types of sexist pandering coming out of that Hillary campaign.

Guess what...it backfired..women hated that she used her gender to play 'damsel in distress' and had big daddy Bill running to her rescue...just like we were all back in the fifties before women had equal rights and steel trap ceilings with no access. Just ask Sandra Day O'Connor why she went home to raise babies after graduating from Stanford Law.

Yes, Hillary seriously overplayed her hand and those polls that told Penn to slam that gender card out there with the 'pile up' video and fundraising letter cause women would close ranks around her only worked at the Senate level. Oh and lets not forget the loud garish colors at debates where she looked like a pumpkin in orange or a deerhunter along with the 'clevage fundraiser letter. Sexist pandering overload is what it was.

When it comes to choosing a President just because she is female with the overwhelming credential being that she is MRS Clinton...well that is just not the right role model those women were thinking about for their daughters seeing how it is the same ol thing of riding hubby's coat tail and that is as old as time and does not represent progress. Women have been wives with successful husband for centuries. Just what kind of progress is that?

Hillary lost 'her' base...if she ever indeed had one and now we can watch her cackle like the wicked witch of the east in the wizard of oz and slowly evaporate when the bucket of water is thrown on her and her dying cackle.

Michael A wrote on December 4, 2007 4:59 PM:

In all seriousness colonpowwow, read the NY times story.

Also, I am worried about her and I am worried about what is going on with her campaign right now. I want a dem in the white house because of the supreme court more than anything else, at a minimum, and she is really screwing up. If she gets the nomination, what do you think will happen up until the election. Will we have bill rewriting history or penn making "jokes" that really aren't jokes? It is very strange.

Hank wrote on December 4, 2007 5:08 PM:

No, Jim H, it wasn't an obvious joke. It was a real AP article, and they were making Obama look bad. Like the guy said, you have to signal jokes. Like an April 1 dateline, or have the whole thing be odd misstatements, or attribute the statement to a personal conversation or friend of a friend. But to use an actual AP quote, out of context, be universally condemned for it, and spinning it away as a "joke" doesn't work, and shows why HRC is indeed the most polarizing figure in American politics today.

Ni Daye wrote on December 4, 2007 6:12 PM:

"In third grade, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want To Be a President.' His third grade teacher: Fermina Katarina Sinaga "asked her class to write an essay titled 'My dream: What I want to be in the future.' Senator Obama wrote 'I want to be a President,' she said." [The Los Angeles Times, 3/15/07]

In kindergarten, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want to Become President.' "Iis Darmawan, 63, Senator Obama's kindergarten teacher, remembers him as an exceptionally tall and curly haired child who quickly picked up the local language and had sharp math skills. He wrote an essay titled, 'I Want To Become President,' the teacher said." [AP, 1/25/07 ]"

If the above two paragraphs were the only ones the Clintion compaign used to dispute Obama's lack of plan for the president, you could all ridicule the compaign. But as you can all read, these two were just a part of a whole literny of things showing Obama was not as innocent as he appeared to tell people. You guys did not say anything when your supposedly "pure" human being Obama attacked Hillary based on Clinton hater Jeff Girth's thinly researched book which was refuted by another book by Bernstein. If Obama can attack Clinton for hatching a plan twenty years ago, you do not want to allow Clintion to hit back to say "heck, people said you startd this thing while you were in Kindergarten!". By the way, Clinton did not dig out this "dirt" aganist Obama, it is the LA Times and AP who found those items worthy of publication.

Can any of you dispute that Obama was lying when he said he just realized he would like to run for the President last year? If not, I have a bridge connecting downtown Mahattan and Brooklyn to sell to you!

DTM wrote on December 4, 2007 6:29 PM:

I find it amusing that even as some people are saying it was an obvious joke, other people are still claiming it was a perfectly valid attack.

Michael A wrote on December 4, 2007 6:45 PM:

Actually, I do believe that he just decided last year. It makes sense. It didn't run for the senate with the thought of immediately running for president. He wound up with the wind at his back to make a run and he decided to jump in. I remember for a while there he was on the fence and alot of people were encouraging him to run.

There is no evidence otherwise and to claim this big conspiracy is false and will blow up in clinton II's face. It's not like it was planned and it is ridiculously to go back to kindergarten to claim that somehow it is this big conspiracy. Why does she do things to make people not like her? It's very strange.

Smith wrote on December 4, 2007 7:18 PM:

Ni Daye:

If you had read the above posts you would realize that most people, myself included, understand the setting for the entire give and take.

To be clear: Obama has been jabbing Clinton for being overly ambitious for some time. The troube is that Clinton's over the top, thin-skinned, and petty response has drawn negative attention to herself. Seriously, if she can't take a few jabs and jab back in kind - but instead must resort to total meltdown mode, eviscerating her opponent - then she's bound to make ridiculous mistakes like this habitually. Seriously, if I were pro-Clinton I would go into a serious re-evaluation of this line of campaigning. There's got to be a way to distinguish Clinton from Obama without making Clinton look so horribly mean-spirited at the same time.

Michael A wrote on December 4, 2007 7:27 PM:

Actually you have a point Mr. Smith. She should have blown off the "attack." As colonpowwow pointed out, what's the problem with ambition? Doesn't ambition and experience go hand in hand? She could have spun it completely differently as opposed to this silly press release and then back tracking claiming it was a joke. None of this makes sense and makes it look like her campaign is imploding.

DTM wrote on December 4, 2007 7:31 PM:

By the way, not that it matters, but the whole setup for Kindergate is also spin.

Obama has used the line in question in his speeches to deal with the common question of why he decided to run now rather than at some later point. This question is often premised on the idea that he would be better off spending more time as a Senator before running. You can see a related notion here among supporters of other candidates who claim they like Obama, but would rather see him run in 2016, presumably after their candidate has had his or her turn.

In reply to this notion, Obama argues that more Washington experience would not necessarily make him a better President. He also argues that America is now at a unique and important moment, and needs the kind of campaign and victory he believes that he can deliver. That is the context in which he says:

"I am not in this race to fulfill some longheld ambitions or because I believe it's somehow owed to me. I never expected to be here. I always knew this journey was improbable. I am running in this race because of of what Dr. King called 'the fierce urgency of now.' Because I believe that there's such a thing as being too late, and that hour is almost upon us."

So, Kindergate is silly in part because the sugegstion that he claimed he never even thought about being President before is false. He is actually responding to the suggestion that he should have spent more time in Washington and in general waited before running.

As an aside, the Clinton campaign insists on viewing this as an attack on Clinton specifically, but he could equally be talking about Biden. In fact, Biden has hit Obama just as hard on his relative lack of experience in Washington, suggesting he is not "ready" to be President, and of course Biden has literally been running for President for 20 years (since the 1988 campaign).

But poor Biden just can't catch a break--even when he attacks Obama in the same way as Clinton, and Obama responds without naming either, the story becomes about Clinton, and Biden is ignored.

Patience wrote on December 4, 2007 7:34 PM:

Why didn't the Clinton folks just recycle the "madrasa" urban legend and claim that Obama had written in second-grade about wanting to be "head of the Islamic caliphate" when he grew up?

Also, I know Obama is brilliant, but describing anything he wrote in 3rd grade or kindergarten as a frickin' essay is a bit of an overreach.

Rich wrote on December 4, 2007 7:53 PM:

Run Hillary, run. All the way back to wherever you came from. Let see,Illinois, no..., oh yeah, Arkansas.....no not that either, oh yeah I remember, you have that long time in New York.... wait, you don't spend much time their either. O well you will have plenty of time to think about it in a few months because the white house will have the Senator from Illinios in it with Biden as his VP

BevD wrote on December 4, 2007 8:09 PM:

Eric Kleefeld and Greg Sargent are so biased in favour of Obama that they are deliberately spinning stories to discredit Clinton. I don't give a damn who you're for, but I object to deliberately sloppy reporting that so obviously is meant to spoil the pool. This is the third time this has happened at TPM, the second time Kleefeld has conveniently re-arranged the facts to suit his own personal bias. It is ethically wrong. Stop it.

Joe Blow wrote on December 4, 2007 8:14 PM:

Will we have bill rewriting history or penn making "jokes" that really aren't jokes?
No, we'll have Republicans digging up every tryst Bill has had for the last 7 years. And since he had so many in office, one can only imagine how many he's had since. Then, the next logical question will be "Did she know about them?" And that, my friends, is what you call a "lose-lose" question. If she knew, she's hardly the feminist she claims to be. If she didn't, she's hardly intelligent enough to run our country. And the Republicans walk away with at least another 4 years.

Dave Wilcox wrote on December 4, 2007 8:21 PM:

Wow! I want my grandchildren to go to an Indonesian schoo! Imagine, grade three pupils writing ESSAYS! I was in grade seven before I got that kind of assignmentin my Canadian school.
Dave,

Anonymous wrote on December 4, 2007 8:48 PM:

How many times on how many issues and how many assertions is Hillary going to change positions BASED ON PUBLIC REACTION AND POLITICAL POSTURING.

The honest thing would have been to say "We really went overboard on that charge. I was rather silly."

The dishonest thing to say is "we were just kidding. No one really believed we were serious they?"

It this is Hillary as expereinced, polished, effective, the best hope agains the Republicans...oh my, the GOP must be estatic.

Paul Gilmartin wrote on December 4, 2007 10:16 PM:

WOW! Hillary really is a neocon in dem clothing. All of the people defending her here are using standard repug tactics i.e. when caught in a lie, don't defend yourself against it, act like your accusers are insane for even suggesting it. Frankly0, are you a closet Rove fan????
The tone of the press release is clearly not humorous but the biggest test as to whether this is a "joke" or not: how many joke press releases as Hillary's campaign issued?

Smith wrote on December 4, 2007 11:12 PM:

DTM,

That's a great post. When you read Obama's statement in context you see that he's setting a narrative that makes his run for President plausible. That his narrative includes the idea that he believes he is right for this time necessarily means he believes he's more suited than the other Dems running. There's no way someone of Obama's caliber is going to run just to make a point (like Kucinich) - he's truly got to believe and argue that he would be best for America. Hillary is trying to recast this narrative as "Obama isn't waiting his turn, hasn't paid his dues, is uppity, etc." She's doing it, though, in an annoying and juvenile fashion. Frankly, I find it depressing.

I've never been anti-Hillary. I've always thought she would make for a competent President. My thought as I broke things down was that with Hillary we'd get a change of party (good), mostly competent domestic governance (good), and someone who can represent America on the world stage without making me want to vomit and the rest of the world want to kill us. I decided to support Obama when I realized that he was fully capable of all that Hillary is capable of - only so much more. Obama could really reset America's self definition for generations to come. Obama really could evoke the best in us as a nation. Voting for Obama is an opportunity I simply can't pass up. I think I'd regret it the rest of my life if I didn't do what I could to get him elected.

Hillary represents a slight change in the trajectory of the country over the past 7 years. Obama gives us an historic opportunity to redefine who we are as a nation. For me, it's game, set, match, Obama.

Anonymous wrote on December 5, 2007 5:38 AM:

Rob Mac said "The Hillary hate is pretty thick here."

Maybe. Hillary Hate sure is growing in numbers and intensity around the nation.

What is also growing is the disgust and even rage of serious Democrats and independents who want change and see an unqualified, dishonest Hillary and her mean machine attacking Obama and Edwards in bizzare, personal ways. If this is the knowledgable, experienced, seasoned candidate Hillary claims to be, she will absolutely flip out if and when the Republicans start in on her.

Hillary Lovers cannot seem to grasp the simple fact that this nation does not owe Hillary Clinton the presidency. Being Bill's long suffering wife and simply being a woman are not sufficient qualifications.

Increasing numbers of voters are recoginizing that if Hillary wins the nation loses. That is not about hate of Hillary, but deep. loving concern about the future of our nation.

Anonymous wrote on December 5, 2007 5:45 AM:

colonpowwow said "It's true. I admit it. Hillary is unelectable and the preferred candidate of all right wingers despite what all the polls show."

An empihany. Congratulations you have seem the light.

Concerned in Iowa wrote on December 5, 2007 5:53 AM:

colonpowwow said: "It's true. I admit it. Hillary is unelectable and the preferred candidate of all right wingers despite what all the polls show."

You Hillary Hating toll. Stop spewing your venom. Hillary will be the next persident period. Bill owes her big time. She is a woman. Bill and Pappy Bush have agreed on the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush thing, Hillary now Jeb next. Hillary is the darling of corporate special interests who are supprting her big time to purchase influence in her administration, you know the coporatiosn we all admire, the profiterring banks, oil companies, defense contractors, healthcare and drug companies, and WalMart. Forget about Hillary's little slip ups like believing Bush's lies and voting for the Iraq war and an attack on Iran. Forget about her mean spirited, dishonest attacks on rivals. Hillary is inevitable, we should crown her now.

So colonpowwow, end your mindless attacks on Hillary and get with the program. You Hillary haters digust me. What do you think this is a democracy?

scooter wrote on December 5, 2007 8:07 AM:

I don't care if she has as much "experience" as Eleanor Roosevelt and Mark Penn is as funny as David Sedaris. She acts like she's entitled to the nomination.

Funny how people get that impression when the whole point of your campaign is to appear polished, competent, inevitable and unstoppable. And for a while they had the media playing along.

What was it her husband said about D and R presidential politics? D's fall in love and R's fall in line? They are seriously cranked that D's aren't falling in line.

Their humor is as funny as one of those anonymous wingnut email circulars. They probably *were* laughing when they launched that one from the bunker. That's as funny as they are ever going to get folks.

not my president wrote on December 5, 2007 11:51 AM:

They are both waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay
too ambitious.

Conservatives are stupid wrote on December 5, 2007 1:02 PM:

Hillary is losing her mind.

"How did running for president become a qualification for being president?"

How did sleeping with a president become a qualification for being president?

Chris Andersen wrote on December 5, 2007 6:16 PM:

The sad thing is that if they had just left off the last two "joke" items the press release might have fulfilled its purpose: demonstrating that Obama has had presidential aspirations for some time (nothing wrong with that).

votenic wrote on December 11, 2007 5:15 PM:

2008 Presidential Candidate Weekly Poll

www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Evening At Midnight.

Post a comment

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