Obama To Hillary: "I'm Looking Forward To You Advising Me"
This might have been the debate's best moment. Toward the end came this exchange:
MODERATOR: Senator Obama, you have Bill Clinton's former National Security Adviser, State Department policy director and Navy Secretary among others, advising you. With relatively little foreign policy experience of your own, how will you rely on so many Clinton advisers, and still deliver the kind of break from the past that you're promising voters?(Laughter)
Obama: You know I am --
Hillary: (Laughing) I want to hear that.
Obama: Well, Hillary, I'm looking forward to you advising me as well. (Laughter)
I'd say that this exchange very neatly captures many of the Campaign 2008's various underlying tensions and absurdities, wouldn't you?
Late Update: Here's video of this moment:
Comments (188)
Natasha wrote on December 13, 2007 3:39 PM:I thought Hillary looked petty for interrupting but then, Obama looked vicious in his reply. It went to the heart of why I am leary of him as a presidential candidate - I'm not convinced he has enough mature self-control to be diplomatic when he is speaking extemporaneously, not a prepared script. What if he jabs at a foreign leader when he's supposed to be negotiating??
Dem08 wrote on December 13, 2007 3:41 PM:umm anything of actual substance coming out of the debate?? or you know...just a small piece of wit.
Greg wrote on December 13, 2007 3:41 PM:that is an interesting point. I hadn't seen it that way. there is an underlying sharpness to the response.
Helter wrote on December 13, 2007 3:42 PM:Obama is a lot faster on his feet than the bombastic right-wingers that Hillary is used to dealing with. Note to Hillary: He's not Rick Lazio.
vena wrote on December 13, 2007 3:42 PM:Hillary should've kept her mouth shut, but she just had to chime in. She definitely got owned on that one. It was the only part of the debate I got to see, but it was memorable.
fj wrote on December 13, 2007 3:42 PM:zing
DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 3:43 PM:Natasha,
That is your idea of "vicious"?
By the way, I am going to go out on a limb and suggest Obama would probably understand the difference in context between meeting a foriegn leader and a debate with a political rival.
bemindfull wrote on December 13, 2007 3:43 PM:This was great. You have to put this clip up. Hillary was laughing it up, couldn't be more excited, and couldn't wait to hear Obama's response....
and then he nailed her with that quip. He's extremely quick on his feet. She didn't know what hit her. I have to see this again.
demic wrote on December 13, 2007 3:44 PM:great...if this is last comic standing..not you know..looking for a future president.
CalD wrote on December 13, 2007 3:44 PM:Cute.
along wrote on December 13, 2007 3:45 PM:to me the underlying sharpness was in Hillary's interrupting line, so the sharpness of Obama's parry was entirely appropriate.
I think the questioner's third example was "Navy Secretary."
Keith wrote on December 13, 2007 3:46 PM:That my friend is how you say STFU in political speak.
Bourgeois Deivant wrote on December 13, 2007 3:49 PM:Zing indeed. And its telling of Hillary's character study. She says "Show me the money." and its shown. Then she doesn't recover gracefully.
Though I didn't see the exchange, I sincerely doubt that Obama would ever let frustration spill out like, say Howard Dean would.
ladydem wrote on December 13, 2007 3:50 PM:It'll be interesting to see how this actually plays out. It's one thing for Edwards to use this kind of dig (its expected at this point) but its another thing for mr. change-politics of hope. He's really gone negative..i guess it seems to be working, but it brings up questions on how genuine this whole persona he's been selling is.
green heron wrote on December 13, 2007 3:50 PM:Obama is revealing what my father-a devout democrat-has been arguing since the early nineties: the Clintons are overrated.
Derek wrote on December 13, 2007 3:50 PM:You should change
Hillary: (Laughing) I want to hear that.
to
Hillary: (Cackling) I want to hear that.
cuz that was a full on cackle.
Kefa wrote on December 13, 2007 3:51 PM:My advice for HRC would be....sometimes it's better to just stfu.
Dem08 wrote on December 13, 2007 3:52 PM:Derek--typical male response. Go to the sexist dig whenever possible. Cackling like a witch right???
framecop wrote on December 13, 2007 3:53 PM:It's nice to see that with each day TPM is becoming more and more like the corporate media.
All Clinton v Obama bullsh** all the time.
DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 3:53 PM:ladydem,
Seriously? That is your idea of "going negative"?
along wrote on December 13, 2007 3:53 PM:Remember how everybody said after Hillary's "gaffe" on driver's licenses that she rested up before the next debate, and it showed in how she looked and performed?
Well, she should have rested up a bit this week. She looked awful. Tired and beat up. And it wasn't just the lighting, which was awful on Obama. Her performance was not so bad, but not terribly sharp.
agfalk wrote on December 13, 2007 3:53 PM:".....you'll be working for me"?! that's taking it pretty out of context and definitely not what he said. what a disingenuous headline guys. you sould change it asap.
Derek wrote on December 13, 2007 3:53 PM:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhPxSm9Es0w
Man...that got there FAST.
RaymondA wrote on December 13, 2007 3:54 PM:My superstitiousness makes me want to avoid full gloat mode, but, wow, I thought Obama just flat owned her on that one, and it did capture that "a change is gonna come"--something that many Obama supporters myself have been feeling.
I could not believe it. First, I was peeved at how she interrupted him; I thought it was Gore-like. Then he nailed her.
QMJ wrote on December 13, 2007 3:55 PM:"maybe secretary"
You might want to listen to it again. It's probably "Navy Secretary"
vena wrote on December 13, 2007 3:57 PM:Not what Hillary was looking to achieve...she definitely lost on that one and came out of it looking very childish.
Liam wrote on December 13, 2007 3:58 PM:Hillary is acting desperate. She started counting it as a score for her, before Senator Obama had even answered the question. That is why Senator Obama had to top her.
She has got to stop gilding the lily. The question was the jab.She must be really worried about how Obama is doing, to overplay her hand like that.
She needs to regain her campaign composure, or she will get trounced.
natasha wrote on December 13, 2007 3:58 PM:I think the headline is dead on - that's exactly what he meant and that's why I think it was a vicious retort - like a slap on the face.
votenic wrote on December 13, 2007 4:00 PM:2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.
Is it just me, or did that little approval graph at the end of that YouTube clip spike on that line?
Anyway, I'm guessing at a minimum Obama escaped this debate with no change in the overall narrative.
fuzz wrote on December 13, 2007 4:01 PM:I don't think that's fair at all, Natasha. His comment wasn't made anywhere near the context of a diplomatic meeting with a foreign leader. It's like saying "OMG, what if Bill Clinton tries to get some foreign leader to give him a blow job??"
brewmn wrote on December 13, 2007 4:01 PM:Hey Natasha:
Your comment was stupid when you posted it at Salon (War Room).
It didn't get any smarter by you posting it over here.
Carl Nyberg wrote on December 13, 2007 4:02 PM:I still think Obama's experience living overseas among regular folk is more useful in forming an world view than schmoozing with a bunch of political leaders.
Presidents have to make judgment calls. Using Iraq as the example, Obama's judgment is better than HRC's.
But what scares me about HRC and Iraq is her unwillingness to admit she made a mistake.
To me, unwillingness to admit a mistake or flip-flop is a sign of insecurity.
I don't want the United States to stay in Iraq for an extra six months or an extra six years b/c the POTUS is too insecure to admit s/he made a mistake.
O wrote on December 13, 2007 4:03 PM:She was going to hear his answer with out chimming in so obviously her only point was to belittle him
Which she failed at miserably
GO O
brewmn wrote on December 13, 2007 4:04 PM:Substantively, though, Obama is supported by those members of the Clinton I foreign policy team who want a clear break with all-carrot, no-stick, Bush-style foreign policy. All of those who still think that Iraq was a good idea, and that Iran would be even better are still with Hillary. See, e.g., Albright, Madeline.
Keith wrote on December 13, 2007 4:05 PM:The You Tube is even better. He delivered it pitch perfect and it made HRC look like a fool.
The debate itself will be lost in a matter of hours (Major League Baseball) . . . this thing is going to be all over the web in the next hour. That's NOT what HRC's campaign needed after the last few news cycles.
Gnopple wrote on December 13, 2007 4:06 PM:DTM, you're right. The rating soared at the end. Apparently he is good on his feet in the minds of Iowans too.
Nice job, Obama. Keep it up, big guy.
DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 4:06 PM:natasha,
I think you are confusing the effect of the retort with the tone. There is no doubt it was a bad moment for Clinton. But that wasn't because Obama was "vicious". Rather, he responded cleverly and with poise to her interruption, and that made her look bad in comparison.
AlwaysTipTheWaitress wrote on December 13, 2007 4:07 PM:Wow. Home because of a snowstorm here Upstate so I have been able to follow. I truly am convinced that the Shaheen "drug" thing was too stupid to be anymore than an active supporter being really dense. I kind of expected Hillary to come back strong today. Obama basically cold c*ed her with that response after she broke in. Not the lasting image I would want to leave in voter's minds. Her rcampaign is having a truly lousy run.
agfalk wrote on December 13, 2007 4:08 PM:While I obviously understand the inference, I don't see how Obama’s statement "I'm looking forward to you advising me" quite justifies the headline: "You'll be working for me." Rather different tone don't you think? You guys reporting the debate or spinning it?
judyinnm wrote on December 13, 2007 4:15 PM:How is Obama saying he'd want Hillary's advice on foreign policy vicious? If he'd said he wouldn't want her advice, that would have been mean. I noticed the clip ends on that note, and doesn't complete his answer, and I'm sure that's how the MSM will play it, too - not the substance, just the show....
Freewheelin' Freddie wrote on December 13, 2007 4:16 PM:Hillary just saw the ghost of Lloyd Bentsen.
Anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 4:16 PM:Pwned.
ojernan wrote on December 13, 2007 4:18 PM:I don't know why some are perceiving Obama as being vicious.
And look at the Clinton Advisors comments about Obama’s teenage past.
Hillary is no longer the leader in this race. She was being petty and she was laughing as if she was a lock for the nomination. Typical corporate executive style snootiness is what we were seeing from Hillary.
Obama took exception to it, and he should. CNN will say Hillary was the winner today, but look at all the debates and campaigning and questioning from the press and the answers that were given so far. I don't think Iowa will vote Hillary this round. I think it will go to Obama or Edwards he was strong today too.
I'm obviously an Obama guy, but did he leave it at that? I mean, that was a perfect chance to use the "judgement" theme, as in, "I recognize the importance of having access to experience, and that's reflected in my diverse and experienced advisors. But as we have seen, the important thing is excercizing judgement, and that's where I think I can provide a clear and important break with the battles and mistakes of the past."
He could have extended that answer to both of the "definition of is" twins if he wanted, depending on whether Hill was running with Bill today or not. It sounds like she was.
Mike wrote on December 13, 2007 4:20 PM:Great Obama response... question was designed to make him deny and defend... he does a quick spin and says he'd like advice even from his chief opponent and the number 2 person in the Clinton White House... Hillary Clinton.
He was gracious, embracing, quick witted.
He said "come on over and join me" to Ms. Clinton.
Excellent. I hope Edwards or Kucinich defeat him, but if they don't he'll be just fine.
I have nothing against Hillary, but at least one party should be against dynastic politics.
Hillary is a decent person no doubt, but nothing special as a political communicator. She is just the wife of an unusual and somewhat politically gifted man. Let the first woman President get there through her own career and life, not riding on the back of a man's career. There is no compelling reason to vote for Hillary Clinton.
Anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 4:20 PM:Dem08, your response was paranoid in the extreme and exemplifies exactly what bothers some people about people like you- arrogant abuse of gender card. You see a JOKE made by another person, and immediately disparage him as a sexist. It is entirely possible for a man to cackle.
(It should be admitted that race and religion are also abused in the same way)
I agree with brewmn to Natasha, though I concede it is quite possible that it is a valid concern.
On the debate, well, I haven't seen something that good since the nutcases on the Republican YouTube presidential debate- and this little engagement distinguished itself by NOT making me want to move to another country.
DaveWoo wrote on December 13, 2007 4:20 PM:Hey there, just wanted to mention that the headline for this article on the main TPM site incorrectly reads "Obama to Hillary: You'll Be Working for Me" instead of the actual line, "I'm Looking Forward To You Advising Me". Might want to fix that; don't want anyone getting the wrong impression, after all.
baldheadeddork wrote on December 13, 2007 4:21 PM:Obama is so good at turning on a pitch like this.
NJ Lawyer wrote on December 13, 2007 4:21 PM:I'm not an Obama supporter as a result of his positions on SS and healthcare, but that was a great line.
Ron Wagner wrote on December 13, 2007 4:22 PM:Campaigns are made by one liners, and you got to give that one to Obama. I think she is toast in Iowa. It is between him and Edwards. Watch her in the next three weeks and see how much more time she spends in NH, rather than Iowa. I think she will shift and pretty much give up on Iowa.
CalD wrote on December 13, 2007 4:22 PM:My take is, bottom line, they all pretty much got their talking points in. The moderator had no virtually success in knocking any of them off their stump speeches and I'd tend to call it a wash in terms of likely effects on the race. Everyone there put in a solid performance I thought, but really stand-out moments were few.
The one exception might be the new brand positioning that Clinton took this opportunity to roll out (work for change). It seems well targeted for the Iowa and NH races in particular and it was a smart move to use this debate to launch it. I'd bet she'll get a fair amount of free ink and airtime from that, since it ended up being about the most newsworthy feature of the entire debate and should make an attractive sound byte for evening newscasts.
bc wrote on December 13, 2007 4:23 PM:I'd say that this exchange very neatly captures many of the Campaign 2008's various underlying tensions and absurdities, wouldn't you?
Yes. They're both emotional infants who have no business being president. Next!
Bupalos wrote on December 13, 2007 4:23 PM:"Obama to Hillary: You'll Be Working for Me" instead of the actual line, "I'm Looking Forward To You Advising Me".
Yeah, let's all hold our breath and wait for the change.
dcshungu wrote on December 13, 2007 4:23 PM:I did not watch the debate but coming here would not tell me about any substantive issues that might have been discussed. It seems to me that Obama was lobed a softball that he swiftly hit out of the park to a chorus of "Amen" from his supporters, which makes me wonder whether the excessive noise that is being made about this inconsequential issue isn't a manifestation of the so-called "soft bigotry of low expectations."
agfalk wrote on December 13, 2007 4:26 PM:maybe people in this thread think obama's response was vicious (and sexist?) because it's being grossly misrepresented by TPM's lead headline? he didn't say "you'll be working for me". he said "I look forward to you advising me." How those are equivalent statements I have no idea.
gcs wrote on December 13, 2007 4:26 PM:You people are ridiculous whiners.
Vicious? Mean-spirited? Not at all.
Obama's response was sharp, barbed, pointed and shut Hillary up in a big hurry. I for one want someone like Obama who'll take on whatever religofacist dumbass the right puts up, rip his nuts off and show them to him the way he did with Hillary.
Hillary's biggest problem is that she's acting as if all this silly debating is a formality she has to pretend to care about. She is NOT the nominee, nor will she be. Just because the bobbleheads on the teevee stopped paying attention after polls were taken a year ago, doesn't mean the voters have. The nomination was never Hillary's to lose because it was never hers to begin with.
ProDem wrote on December 13, 2007 4:26 PM:Obama looked good! And by the way, NATASHA, you're over reacting! And so what if he does "jab at a foreign leader when he's supposed to be negotiating"? What a ridiculous statement...obviously you're a Ms. Clinton supporter...
Jessica M. wrote on December 13, 2007 4:27 PM:I think the question was bad for Obama. It states it as factual that he doesn't have foreign policy experience. I think that will resonate with the people. He needs others to tell him what to do. It was funny how everyone seemed to start laughing at him. Hillary too though. His quick reply to Hillary seemed passive aggressive though.
kc wrote on December 13, 2007 4:27 PM:Did Obama ever answer the question? 'Cause it's a good one.
Jay wrote on December 13, 2007 4:27 PM:I agree with all the commenters above who are asking for the headline to be changed.
Anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 4:30 PM:"I'd say that this exchange very neatly captures many of the Campaign 2008's various underlying tensions and absurdities, wouldn't you?"
Tensions, maybe. Absurdities? Only if you accept the questioners premise that if you have two of the same people in your cabinet as a previous administration, you have to be just like them.
Clinton had a sloppy open-mouthed grin on that one because it was exactly in line with her theme of the day that SHE is the authentic change agent, not Blackie McDruguser there. Obama made her snap that flapping jaw shut mid-drool, but I still say he missed a big opportunity to make a substantive point.
jeffs wrote on December 13, 2007 4:30 PM:There was nothing "vicious" about Obama's zinger. He clearly made it in response to Clinton's own delighted quip, "I want to hear that," which was obviously intended to score a point, and which backfired.
Now her campaign must deal with how this is going to play all over the internet. My guess is that the Youtube clip will be among the most viewed for quite a while.
DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 4:30 PM:CalD,
Well, here is an early take from AP:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071213/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_debate;_ylt=AiO8_JqUkC9lcK75AkfPPbWs0NUE
Strangely enough, it goes into detail on the Obama retort, but nothing about Clinton's hard work statement.
NPH wrote on December 13, 2007 4:31 PM:That was phenomenal. Quick and delivered to perfection. Another nail in the coffin.
If somehow Obama loses, I will always have that video to watch.
p.s. all those Clinton foreign policy advisors supporting him makes him look good too.
pkoso wrote on December 13, 2007 4:32 PM:Lost in all of this nonsense...why are so many former Clinton folks taking their expertise to the Obama camp? Because they believe in what he offers. Obama may want to make that point.
CornBred wrote on December 13, 2007 4:32 PM:This strangely reminds me of Al Gore's debate with Dubya in 2000 when Gore was sighing loudly while Dumbya was talking. It made Gore look petty and childlike when that got played over and over again. This one was ugly, and I'd bet this gets played more than a few times over the next news cycle. This is a video example of why so much of Hill's recent slide is self-inflicted.
The most priceless part was the look on Hill's face after Obama's comment. It basically said, "Oh Jesus Christ I just got pummeled."
Bupalos wrote on December 13, 2007 4:32 PM:Why did you change the response in the headline from reality? You didn't make it shorter or more accurate. You just made it sound harsher.
agfalk wrote on December 13, 2007 4:34 PM:please change the headline. it is a blatant misrepresentation of what was said
Chris Brown wrote on December 13, 2007 4:36 PM:I watched it and took the exchange as a bit of good humor on both Clinton's and Obamma's parts. Obama's response was far from "vicious" but did display his quick wit.
The debate, in general, I found to be much more substantive than the republican debate yesterday, which I also watched.
OK, I admit I've got too much time on my hands. It's comes with retirement.
I thought the democrats were much much politer and more deferential to the moderator. Some of the republicans yesterday were rude.
As for the most qualified candidate amongst the group, I say it's Biden, with Dodd and Richardson not far behind. Unfortunately none seem to have a chance at the nomination.
Of the front runners I think Obama seems to be the most genuine and I think would have the sense to he were president he would appoint competent folks to important policy positions, a la Bubba, rather than incompetent cronys, a la GDub. Further, of the three leaders, Obama seems to tell it relatively straight.
Steve wrote on December 13, 2007 4:36 PM:Interesting that the Obama supporters simultaneously complain about Clinton acting like she already has the nomination and praise Obama for acting like he already has the nomination.
Clinton-hating is an interesting pathology, even if (among liberals) it is just an internet phenomenon.
AC SLATER wrote on December 13, 2007 4:37 PM:Obama to Hillary: PWN3D!
slightly better....too much to go all the way and just accurately represent the quote in the headline huh guys?
ceinstein wrote on December 13, 2007 4:44 PM:I agree with agfalk. i still think the headline is misleading.
synykyl wrote on December 13, 2007 4:46 PM:That was a decent comeback by Obama, but talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. What the hell is wrong with you people?
DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 4:47 PM:Steve,
Not that it matters, but the question was posed as a hypothetical in which Obama is President and relying on former Clinton foreign policy advisers, and Senator Clinton was playing along with that hypothetical when she interrupted. So it is a little odd to complain about Obama's retort also operating within that hypothetical.
Anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 4:49 PM:Shorter Clinton:
Hey, Blackie McDruguser is high on his hopes and dreams. Captain class warfare will go all Hugo Chavez on us. That's the way lazy people act. I had to work for everything I've been given.
Shorter 'Bama:
I've got something to give you right now, Beyotch.
Margaret wrote on December 13, 2007 4:51 PM:Once again - Hillary's cackle and desperation did her in.
If she hadn't cackled, Obama probably wouldn't have had an opening for his zinger.
But on SUBSTANCE - Edwards wins - again!
savvy wrote on December 13, 2007 4:51 PM:
What I enjoyed most about the quip is that it was a double entendre as Hillary claims to have been one of the advisors during the Clinton administration.
So Obama nailed her good and fast, with her own 'experience' being one of the Clinton advisors.
rotflmao....Obama said she could have her ol role back in his administration
ctfu!!
go barack...
that nasty witch deserved it with that disengenuous apology right before the debate
whats wrong with all these people is that the headline is still incredibly misleading.
had obama responded to hrc by saying "you'll be working for (or excuse me advising) me soon," i think that some of these comments would be justified.
he didn't say that however, and for some reason, TPM continues to misrepresnt the dialogue.
id really appreciate a response from the moderator here.....
agfalk wrote on December 13, 2007 4:56 PM:yep, pretty absud. greg?
Margaret wrote on December 13, 2007 4:56 PM:DTM - there's nothing hypothetical about Clintonistas CURRENTLY advising Obama.
However, that fact will be ignored by Obama supporters.
Good stuff....Look, you need to be quick on your feet with rethuglicans...I liked that quip and I am not a big Obama guy at all...No matter which Democrat is selected, the GOP smear and hate machine will be revved up...Our candidate will need to be ready to fight and fight tough from day 1...I think Hillary has proven she knows how to fight against the wingnut hate machine when she needs to...this gives me some hope that Obama will be able to, if needed...His "new politics/kumbaya" nonsense will be DOA on the first day of the Presidential campaign if he wins the Dem nod.
brad wrote on December 13, 2007 4:57 PM:Obama' entire answer was actually pretty gracious. As for the zinger, she left that pitch right over the plate and he crushed it.
za wrote on December 13, 2007 4:57 PM:YouTube average responses......
He should have high-fived Biden after that remark.
-----------
i love it! the equivalent of SFTU, beeyotch!
classic. go, obama, go!
-----------
that was awesome. shut her up pretty good.
-------------
I can see why her unfavorables are at 50%...can you imagine that for the next 4 years?
-------------
Damn, Hillary really is obnoxious!
--------------
HRC wuz pwned!!
-------------
Yeah, that was great
-----------
SMACK DOOOOWN
------------
yesss
Natasha...only the most ardent-and desperate, I might add- Clinton supporter would characterize Obama's reply as "vicious".
THIS exchange-much to HRC's dismay-will dominate the mainstream media.
Anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 5:00 PM:This bears repeating. There is substance here, even if Obama failed to provide it.
>>>Substantively, though, Obama is supported by those members of the Clinton I foreign policy team who want a clear break with all-carrot, no-stick, Bush-style foreign policy. All of those who still think that Iraq was a good idea, and that Iran would be even better are still with Hillary. See, e.g., Albright, Madeline.
Richard wrote on December 13, 2007 5:00 PM:TPM is no different from MSM - all Obama-Hillary all the time.
And Obama's cute YouTube zinger is highlighted - rather than SUBSTANCE from the debate.
Yet another reason to caucus for Edwards.
Yep, obama did not say what you are attributing to him. While its not a surprise coming from elect clinton II.com, it should be corrected.
Anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 5:03 PM:shorter sargent, obama to hrc: "you'll be sweeping my howse biatch"
Cinderella Ferret wrote on December 13, 2007 5:03 PM:What is the modern vernacular for a moment like that?
Oh, yeah.
PWNED!
synykyl wrote on December 13, 2007 5:05 PM:"whats wrong with all these people is that the headline is still incredibly misleading"
No. What's wrong is that so many of you seem to think this was exceptionally witty, or that it matters in the slightest. It wasn't, and it doesn't.
Bupalos wrote on December 13, 2007 5:06 PM:why are you people laughing?!!! It's not funny! Shut up it's not funny. He pushes drugs!!! Do you hear me! Stop laughing NOW!! He's a druguser and no one will vote for him!!! You can't like HIM. He's, he's... well, you know....he's... I don't want to say it...get my SC campaign chair on the phone...
Natasha wrote on December 13, 2007 5:06 PM:Jonathon - Gee! I am NOT a Clinton supporter. I am an Edwards supporter and have a depleted checkbook to prove it. What are you all so nasty? Let me say that the reason this exchange is going to, according to your prediction, dominate the msm is BECAUSE it was vicious! It appears to me that Obama actually did mean that Hillary would be working for him because otherwise, why would he be getting her advice? I just don't see it as a "gracious" response to her - and I didn't like what she said, either. oh well. It is a mountain out of a molehill!
nogo war wrote on December 13, 2007 5:07 PM:When i watched...this series of a personal question was important. Yep Obama gave the touche' on something Clinton (back to the 90's) initiated. But Edwards nailed his.
For those of us who want to take on the bought out slackers in both Party's elected folks...It's gotta be Edwards...
by the way..Shame on them all for not mentioning the exclusion of Kucinich when Allen Keyes was allowed.
"This ain't no Party
this ain't no disco.
this ain't no foolin' around"
fyi, i give advice to lots of people i dont consider my employers
EH wrote on December 13, 2007 5:12 PM:So, are we seeing a battle between Hillary and Obama campaign volunteers in the thread here? Lots and lots of useless "me too" comments.
Tithonia wrote on December 13, 2007 5:14 PM:Obama's comeback was JFK-esque. Can't wait to hear his first press conference as POTUS. Yes, I am that old :)
Pandora wrote on December 13, 2007 5:14 PM:When this is over Hillary will have the last laugh or the last cackle. I wonder if all the Hillary haters will still be on this site.
Anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 5:18 PM:This bears repeating. There is substance here, even if Obama failed to provide it. Though it should read "all-stick no-carrot"
>>>Substantively, though, Obama is supported by those members of the Clinton I foreign policy team who want a clear break with all-carrot, no-stick, Bush-style foreign policy. All of those who still think that Iraq was a good idea, and that Iran would be even better are still with Hillary. See, e.g., Albright, Madeline.
Anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 5:18 PM:a "battle" completely facilitated by a blatantly false and misrepresentative headline. i dont have a horse but greg clearly does. for him to be less than forthright about his leanings is a disservice to the readers and it reflects incredibly poorly on TPM as an unbiased source of news and information.
Tom wrote on December 13, 2007 5:19 PM:Obama was trying to answer, but Hillary just couldn't stop laughing at him and then sensing the pause she tried to zing him. Reeeejected!
Michael A wrote on December 13, 2007 5:19 PM:She totally set herself up and it was a smack down. Good for obama. Once again she revealed her true colors. Why did she laugh or say anything. She was trying to belittle and demean him. Another stupid move by an amateur campaigner.
Thanks for changing the title to the post. It completely misrepresented what transpired.
IT wrote on December 13, 2007 5:24 PM:Hillary's advise to Obama: Grow up!
waka waka wrote on December 13, 2007 5:26 PM:I've got one word for Hillary: PWNED.
She couldn't resist butting in and trying to belittle the newbie. Instead, she allowed him to create the moment of the debate that everyone's going to be talking about: Hillary will be working for Obama.
Good for you, O-Man!
erik wrote on December 13, 2007 5:26 PM:Didn't Hilary learn from Al Gore in the 200 0 election. He often sarcastically cackled at Bush during debates with an air of superiority and inevitability. Granted, Bush was fairly ridiculous, but it made Gore look like a pompous fool. Hilary came off the same way, and the laugh of inevitability really made her look bad.
When i first read the post, i got the sense that the whole crowd was laughing from the onset of the question, but upon watching, it became clear that it was a good question that they seriously wanted to hear an answer about. Hilary stepped in the way and her ego blew up in her face.
CalD wrote on December 13, 2007 5:33 PM:dcshungu,
There was some good stuff about agricultural policy that got a little wonky in places and included some good stuff I hadn't heard before. But as with most other issues, they all seemed generally in agreement about actual policy.
It attempted to get into the weeds on education a little at on point too, but then ended up lapsing into dueling sound bytes yet again. I was leaning toward giving that round to Obama until Clinton busted out with a remark about the 21st century classroom that left it kind of a coin toss as to who had the best fluff applause line. Edwards was pretty good too. Joe Biden's wife is a teacher.
In general, Obama was laying on the sappy bromides thick as usual, Clinton was plucky and hyper-competent, John Edwards has mostly rolled back to version 1.0, Richardson still sounds like and old hippie, Biden is really smart, Chris Dodd is a really nice guy who is polling at 1%.
mitzi morris wrote on December 13, 2007 5:36 PM:I did not think Obama showed any maturity in his smart alec remark. Not only unpresidential, but arrogant.
He acted as though he is superior by throwing this kind of rude obvious jab.
It was not the Kennedy moment he was hoping for, ha ha ha.
DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 5:41 PM:"Kennedy moment" doesn't seem quite right to me either.
I'd rather suggest a "There you go again ..." moment (from Reagan/Carter in 1980).
Anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 5:43 PM:ha ha ha.....you mean the kennedy moment where she rudely interupted him? man, poor guy can't buy a bucket can he?
maria wrote on December 13, 2007 5:51 PM:Off topic, but the person who did the lighting for this debate must be a Republican.
DougMN wrote on December 13, 2007 5:52 PM:Jesus the Obama bots are everywhere.
DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 5:53 PM:By the way, in case people don't remember, the setup in 1980 was that President Carter finally agreed to debate Reagan on the theory that he could make Reagan look like he didn't understand complex issues and was also excessively hawkish. Carter kept attacking Reagan and finally Reagan pulled out the "There you go again ..." line. The conventional wisdom is that impact of that line was to make Carter look petty, Reagan look poised, and generally to make Carter's attack strategy backfire.
bob wrote on December 13, 2007 5:55 PM:Ugh, Hillary sounds so obnoxious with her cackling "I want to hear that" comment. Is it just me, or does her cackling oddly develop after everyone else has already been laughing for a few seconds?
It just seems a little...contrived.
I think that makes Obama's comments a bit extra satisfying.
savvy wrote on December 13, 2007 5:55 PM:Help.
Can someone tell me what the acronym PWNED stands for?
im not an obama suporter but id love to hear how its not a ridiculous double standard to say his response to hrc was petty and disrepectful but HER interupting his response was not. oh wait....he was ganging up on her right?
DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 6:02 PM:savvy,
The verb "to pwn" is actually a neologism arising out of internet gaming culture. It is usually treated as roughly equivalent to the slang usage of "to own" an opponent, meaning to dominate or otherwise defeat in a humiliating way.
O-zone Friendly wrote on December 13, 2007 6:03 PM:FROM THIS ->
Natasha wrote on December 13, 2007 3:39 PM: "I thought Hillary looked petty for interrupting but then, Obama looked vicious in his reply..."
TO THIS ->
Natasha wrote on December 13, 2007 5:06 PM: ".... oh well. It is a mountain out of a molehill!"
Natasha, dear, you have issues! :)
I would love a women president myself being honest y'all. Hand on heart (male here). But give me ANY woman other than Hilary - a DISGUSTING EXAMPLE of a woman. Her instincts were to laugh and attempt to ridicule the senator she assumes will ultimately lose (to HER). Where's all that experience she's always barking on about? It was a simple shut your mouth and let him hang himself moment but no.... she's SICK!
And Woohoo! Obama is FINALLY gonna shutdown the Clintons down - and if i'm on the money trigger a divorce within a marriage i reckon is being held together for the sake of this race!
environmentalist wrote on December 13, 2007 6:03 PM:That Hillary cackle is HORRID.
Anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 6:07 PM:what is this Drudge?? cut the crap, not what he said. you guys are better than that
CalD wrote on December 13, 2007 6:08 PM:savvy,
To pwn (v) is gamespeak. It means to beat some one soundly at something. Probable origin is online multi-player gaming, where it is believed that someone attempted to type "I own you" after fragging someone and hit the P key by mistake.
Tara wrote on December 13, 2007 6:09 PM:what is the average age of the posters here? 18?
ww wrote on December 13, 2007 6:11 PM:Over analyzing. It simply doesn't mean that much. Sharp wit is entertaining but it says very little about anything substantive. Its good to know someone is quick on their feet. Both Hillary and Obama are miles beyond any GOP'er.
But to base much on it is rather shallow. Like the Dean 'scream'. It only meant something because of the hysterical reaction to it. Such thinking will leave a country with sorry leadership. Oh ... right ...
Natasha wrote on December 13, 2007 6:12 PM:To O-zone Friendly -
Boy, do I have issues!!
It is possible to have thoughts that aren't necessarily profound without being an idiot, isn't it?? Just to air ideas? I'm NOT a Hillary supporter! I just thought Obama slammed her. I didn't like her comportment, either. Aauuggh. I'm going to give up reading/writing comments. So many respondants are just plain mean. Which is sad because you'd think, readers of salon and tpm are basically on the same page, virtually, as it were.
Barbara Solomon wrote on December 13, 2007 6:13 PM:Sharpness to his response? If anything Obama is thoughtful, measured and uses good judgement.
Hillary is shrill and nasty just like her campaign. Moreover, she will govern just as she campaigns...based on polls, not conviction, judgement and intellect.
He is ready and will no doubt surround himself with the best and the brightest.
Anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 6:16 PM:dont stop posting....just dont take it so personally. comments are a great place to air out ideas. most of the people calling you an idiot are probably 14 and using the word "pwned"
Barbara wrote on December 13, 2007 6:20 PM:Obama's response was in good cheer, and it wasn't nasty or shrill. I found her interrupting him to be rude. As if she was entitled to ownership of any question having to do with the Clinton administration. It just shows how beholden she is to her husband. I also found the question to be stupid, as if anybody who worked for Clinton must be hopelessly retrograde. Obama came out looking better than either of the other two.
Zueda wrote on December 13, 2007 6:25 PM:Did anyone else notice the instantaneous Cheshire cat smile from Obama when Hillary blurted "I want to hear this"? He knew right away she was gonna get pawned.
CalD wrote on December 13, 2007 6:28 PM:It occurs to me that every time this clip is played, people hear:
"Senator Obama, you have Bill Clinton's former National Security Adviser, State Department policy director and maybe secretary among others, advising you. With relatively little foreign policy experience of your own, how will you rely on so many Clinton advisers, and still deliver the kind of break from the past that you're promising voters?"
It's possible that some people who aren't already starry-eyed Obama fanz (a group that apparently includes more than 70% of likely Democratic primary voters) might consider it a legitimate question that was left substantially unanswered.
brewmn wrote on December 13, 2007 6:33 PM:I'd rather suggest a "There you go again ..." moment (from Reagan/Carter in 1980).
I thought it was more like: "Senator, I knew Jack Kennedy. I served with Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."
AWESOME!!! Has Hillary picked her jaw up off of the floor yet?
onceler wrote on December 13, 2007 6:34 PM:hehehe, perfect response. god Hillary is annoying. and there's more to that question that immeidately meets the ears: WHY would that handful of people who ONCE advised Clinton have defected over to Barack even with Bill's wife in the race? Obviously, they want a change too, don't they? **think about it for a minute, Hillary-Bots**
onceler wrote on December 13, 2007 6:35 PM:DTM - wasn't the "there you go again" line used against Mondale, not Carter?
O-zone Friendly wrote on December 13, 2007 6:35 PM:Natasha, I have a very important question for you dear... It's the question all Obama supporters and strategists need an answer to.
WHO IS YOUR SECOND CHOICE CANDIDATE AFTER JOHN EDWARDS?
-= 2008 HUCKABEE vs OBAMA 2008 =-
Anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 6:37 PM:um, i thought he answered it......ya know, the part about taking lots of advice from all kinds of smart and experienced people. (he literally has dozens of senior advisors.) if that's unacceptable, how would you have had him respond? he could've turned the question on hrc and asked why such high ranking members of bill's administration were supporting his campaign instead of her's but he didn't. now that would've been petty and vindictive
DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 6:38 PM:CalD,
Of course, Obama did answer the question (it just isn't in that clip).
By the way, I think that is sort of like arguing that every time people saw a clip of the Dean "scream", they also heard him say he was going to win in New Hampshire.
Michael A wrote on December 13, 2007 6:40 PM:The there you go again line was against carter originally. It was the ultimate deflection and he used it repeatedly. I think that he may have done it against mondale also though.
DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 6:45 PM:onceler,
Nope, Carter. By the way, Jim Lehrer actually interviewed Reagan about the line in 1989:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debatingourdestiny/interviews/reagan.html
Natasha wrote on December 13, 2007 6:47 PM:if Edwards has no chance - Obama. Risky in terms of, is he electable? So many people say they will vote for a black man (or a woman) when polled. But I doubt the veracity of self-reporting bigots.
If any one of those Republican candidates wins the general election, I will weep for my children.
Tithonia wrote on December 13, 2007 6:50 PM:The "there you go again" line was much less clever and much more condescending. It succeeded, though.
SP479 wrote on December 13, 2007 6:54 PM:Re:Natasha 3:39 PM
Serves Clinton right for chuckling like a mad women before he could even respond.
natasha wrote on December 13, 2007 6:58 PM:Sorry. I'm not a Clinton fan. But I am really really sick of the "mad, cackling witch woman" references. That would be like um, fag, pansy, wimp, whiney, sort of description for a male candidate. Can we please stop it?
Hank Essay wrote on December 13, 2007 7:00 PM:For questions on the meaning of "pwned," I refer you, of course, to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwned
anon wrote on December 13, 2007 7:19 PM:the best part is when barack mutters under his breath, "you wanna hear that?"
savvy wrote on December 13, 2007 7:34 PM:Thanks DTM and Cal for answering my query.
CalID, Obama did answer the question and he noted that the folks that are his advisors believe in diplomacy as the top priorty as he does.
Which if people are thinking they will recognize as code for that is why those folks broke from HRC and are not advising her. They disagree with HRC on the war, her vote on K-l and her general warhawish military might makes right approach to US foreign policy.
Albright asked Powell, when he cautioned against going into Bosnia, why we had such a fine military if we were not willing to use it!
That is the kind of FP folks Hillary has surrounded herself with...neo cons in exile.
Anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 7:38 PM:agfalk asked "You guys reporting the debate or spinning it?"
TPM/EC is a major spin machine for Hillary. They've damaged their credibility beyond repair.
JP wrote on December 13, 2007 7:42 PM:Wow, Tuvok has a sense of humor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvok
I thought all Vulcans were supposed to be logical aliens. Anyway, I still like Clinton better whether she cackles and spits out steam.
Anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 7:52 PM:CalD,
The flip side of the question is why so many former Cliton advisors have chosen to support Obama over Hillary. I think it's because they know how little substance she has and see Obama as smart and forwardthinking.
c wrote on December 13, 2007 7:58 PM:Sheesh. Can't candidates enjoy a little good-humored ribbing without fans of one side or the other turning it into a death match? I didn't think either was remotely out of line.
One of the better moments of the 1996 Presidential debates was when Dole started an answer to a question about whether the country was better off by saying well, "he's better off," pointing at Clinton, and Clinton had the good sense to just enjoy the joke.
Natasha is right that these references to cackling are way out of line.
It's also true that the question was a cute curveball that initially tied Obama up. (HRC actually saved him.) But there's a perfectly good answer. While there were lapses, on the whole Bill Clinton's foreign policy record was pretty good at least as compared to the last eight years. I can't imagine a serious Democratic contender not talking to the grownups from that period.
CalD wrote on December 13, 2007 8:00 PM:The flip side of the question is why so many former Cliton advisors have chosen to support Obama over Hillary. I think it's because they know how little substance she has and see Obama as smart and forward thinking.
DTM, shame they couldn't have worked that into the video clip. Oopsie!
Bus seriously, everyone's got to make a living somehow, and Barack Obama obviously needs a lot more foreign policy advice than Hillary Clinton. If foreign policy advising is what you do, gotta go where the customers are. ;-)
demos wrote on December 13, 2007 8:08 PM:The jab at clinton was sharp and very smart of Obama.
HRC just proved once again that she doesn't pay attention and do not think on her feet. She is too emotional and acts as if she thinks inside a box. She didn't expect a clear savy answer from Obama because if she was face to the the same circumstances she would panick.
The "Laugh and emotional reaction of HRC" tells more about how a bad leader she can be.
Negotiating? Self-Control? HRC was reactional and really lacked self countrol by laughing prior to Obama answering the question and she paid the price, Obama struck.
Obama showed that he thinks on his feet and is very fast and smart.
demos wrote on December 13, 2007 8:16 PM:I am still waiting to see the "CLINTON MACHINE" Operates. If this is what they were telling about that Machine, well I got news for them. They are either overated or the Junuor Senator from illinois NEUTRALIZED THEM.
I think that Barack Obama, has proven throught the campaign that he is capable.
He has so far been able to the table a new sens of going about politic. And if you guz watch this closely, you would see that HRC is trying to adopt the style and the message that Barack has brought forth since the beginning of his campaign.
Check this video.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=NdaROq57qsg&feature=user
improper wrote on December 13, 2007 8:21 PM:Natasha wrote on December 13, 2007 3:39 PM:
Well if faced with obnoxious petty heckling like HRC tried to dish then Obama knows how to shut their pie hole.
Hehe wrote on December 13, 2007 8:32 PM:http://www.theskeptik.com/?p=15
joejoejoe wrote on December 13, 2007 8:53 PM:"He's not Rick Lazio."
Hah! Truer words were never spoken. The Clintons have a good record of winning elections but the strength of opponent is rarely taken into account.
George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, and Rick Lazio are not exactly a murderer's row of opponents. Obama hasn't beaten anybody of notice to this point either but the same could have been said of a young fighter named Clay early in his career.
At some point Muhammed Ali was standing victorious over a flattened Sonny Liston. The Clintons have reputations as tough fighters but Bill Clinton never got 50% in a national election and Rick Lazio appears to have been as resilient as Glass Joe. Sonny Liston was widely considered the toughest fighter around. Then in a moment or two, nobody thought that anymore.
ding7777 wrote on December 13, 2007 9:13 PM:How many interations has Obama used to "jokingly" intimate that Hillary can have a subordinate role in his administration.
Slightly witty the 1st time, it's now starting to sound petty and dismissive.
Nathan wrote on December 13, 2007 9:26 PM:I don't know if anyone has said this, but the really the telling part of the whole Obama-Hillary "you'll advise me" exchange was that Obama immediately followed up his line by saying "because I want to gather talent from everywhere."
Obama was able to totally shut Hillary down AND compliment her, all in the same moment. That is damn impressive in my book.
MNPundit wrote on December 13, 2007 9:50 PM:Just for the record, as a male, my natural laugh is a cackle. It's genetic, comes from my grandmother.
I hated it and it was annoying so I trained myself to chuckle instead. Hard, but doable.
ibc wrote on December 13, 2007 10:00 PM:"George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, and Rick Lazio are not exactly a murderer's row of opponents."
If Gore had beat W in 2000, we'd be laughing about the unimpressive candidate the GOP put up. Point is, nobody's impressive when they lose.
Marilyn Geary wrote on December 13, 2007 10:19 PM:I just saw my Tivo'd Hardball from today. Marc Penn epitomizes the petty desperation of the Clinton campaign. The guy looks like a heart attack waiting to happen. They are crumbling and he obviously knows it. They are a classless, ruthless organization that will obviously stop at nothing. It's amazing the similarities between the Clintons and the Bush machine. Enough already!
CalD wrote on December 13, 2007 10:30 PM:It's your own fault you're watching Hardball.
Anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 11:15 PM:God, she's obnoxious.
busdrivermike wrote on December 14, 2007 12:37 AM:Everybody who watches the news tomorrow, or the talk shows this weekend, will see it. Everyone in NH and Iowa will see it.
I am not a Hillary supporter. That said, she just had her Howard Dean moment.
She does not look presidential. She looks like someone who did the busy work for the frontman for many years, and cannot step in for him now as the emcee. She is a great backstage politician. She was obviously Bill's Karl Rove. I give her credit for her abilities, and she would make a decent president.
But she is toast. And there will be no comeback. NH will be her only victory, then you can stick a fork in her. I think the Democrats are in for a hell of a ride. This primary season will not be over quick. And it will help the eventual nominee in the general election.
ceci wrote on December 14, 2007 12:49 AM:I can't stand Hillary's mad cackle. She had it coming. Obama zapped her masterfully, elegantly, a class act. She looked like a fool.
Captain-Sky wrote on December 14, 2007 12:51 AM:You Know It Really Strikes Me As Very Funny When Asked That Revelant Question By The Moderator,Mr Saviour Of America Quipped A Real Good Funny,Now Why The H-ll Didn't He Answer The Question That Were Put Before Him,Nothing From His Screeeeeeewwwwwyyy Leeeewwwwwyyyies.It Scares The Bejibbies Out Of Me That Two States Could Actually See A President In This Fool.I Hope He Still Has His Funnies When It Actually Comes Out That Mr Obama Is A Liar,A Cheat,A Snitch,And A Dope Addict.What's This About His Past Is Not Fair Game,Hilliary's Entire Life History Is Fair Game To Moderators,Like Them Two MSNBC Lost Causes,He And That Sissy Have Been Attacking Hilliary When She Were Wiping The Floor With Both Of Them,Then Mr Obama And That Sissy Went Full Time Ballistic On Hilliary And It Were Just Fine With The American People Do Anyone Smell Pig Slop In Iowa,& New Hampshire.I Don't Know Where You Obama's Fans Got Your Hooorraaahhhs From But I Thought Their Were 50 States,The Other 47 That Senator Clinton Is Leading In,And By A Very Large Margin,Do You Obama Camp People Think That All The Other States Will Follow Iowa,& New Hampshire's Lead Well They Haven't For Almost A Year,It's Only Those Two States That Can't For Some Reason Seem To Add 2 Plus 2.Senator Clinton Should Have Took Her Campaign Advisers Advice And Bypassed Iowa,& New Hampshire,They Are Still Trying To Make Cars Run Off Corn,So Anything Coming Out Of That State Is Straight From Jed Clamppet,When He Moved Away From Their.
Captain-Sky wrote on December 14, 2007 1:33 AM:You Know I'am Not Going To Make Any Comment About That Funny Mr Obama Made Which Had Nothing To Do With The Question At Hand.Don't You Senator Clinton Supporters Get It By Now,Check This Out None Of The Obama Supporters,Answered Any Of The Pertinent Questions That Were Asked On This Site,The Moderator Is A Republican,And The Majority Of The Responses Are, That's Right Republicans,This Is How They Get You Frustrated And All Out Of Control,I Tried To Tell People Earlier In This Campaign,The Hilliary -Haters---..(1)Against Hilliary.com,(2)Stop Hilliary.com,(3)Hilliary Is Flawed.com,(4)Swiftboaters Against Clinton.com,They Are Getting Desperate Over Who Is Going To Appoint The Next Array Of Supreme Court Justices,And If That Happens Their Way Of Life Will Be, Oh Well FATALLY FLAWED.All Of These Sites Were At First All Over The Internet Vouching That They Were Going To Stop Hilliary Clinton From Being Elected Prez,Now They Have Went Underground And Posting Ghost Sites,Just Follow The Yellow Brick Road,It's Karl Rove,Imus,Coulter,Matthews,Russert,& My Favorite Nut Case He And Mr Obama Could Hang Out Together And Just Smoke And Shoot,& Snort Cocaine.Besides Isn't This The Topic Of This Blog,Mr Limbaugh.Two Junkies Sitting On A Log,One Junkie Bought Oprah,And One Bought A Frog,Anyone In This Blog You Can Find On Bushies Farm With The Rest Of His Hogs.
Davidson wrote on December 14, 2007 3:25 AM:She was an idiot to let him punch her like that. Here's a man who regularly blasts Hillary as Bush-Clinton lite and slams her as horribly unwise when it comes to judgment and yet he's saying he'd welcome her advice? C'mon. It only looked good b/c she doesn't have the skill to fight back. Hillary's an idiot. Obama dodged the great questions. Seriously, how's he going to be all about change when he's so wrapped in the status quo?
BettyPageisaBlonde wrote on December 14, 2007 4:11 AM:Captain-Sky, slow down with the old shift key. You make me think you don't want me to read what you're writing!
Oh, nevermind.
I don't want to read what you're writing.
On-Topic: Vicious? Oy. Hardly. My partner just said that Obama learned to play "the dozens" somewhere along the line. I think so too.
Desider wrote on December 14, 2007 4:26 AM:Okay, dudes, first, yes, Obama got in a good "who's your daddy?" comeback. Touche.
Now, after a well-earned chuckle (or cackle, depending on your taste), ask: Haven't we gotten past the idea that someone can just assemble all the greatest advisers to overcome their weakness in foreign policy? Isn't that one of the big problems of the last 7 years when the "grown-ups have been in charge"? (Aside from a full rush ideological frenzy that knows no bounds)
heretic wrote on December 14, 2007 6:41 AM:I am curious. Did he actually answer the question? How is he a break from the past with a raft of Clinton advisers? Maybe we should start calling him Clinton-lite.
DTM wrote on December 14, 2007 7:21 AM:Davidson and heretic,
There is actually a pretty interesting ideological pattern when it comes to which former Bill Clinton advisers went to Hillary Clinton and which crossed over to Obama. Matt Yglesias and a few other people have been tracking this, but in a nutshell, the more unilateralist/hawkish people (namely the ones who tended to support the Iraq War) stuck with Hillary Clinton, and the more internationalist types (the ones who tended to oppose the Iraq War) crossed over to Obama. See here for part of that discussion:
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/11/team_obama_1.php
By the way, as always it may be useful to examine the premise of the question a bit. Obama got a degree in Political Science with a concentration in International Relations from Columbia University. He wrote extensively on foreign affairs in his book The Audacity of Hope. He serves on the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate. One of his signature accomplishments in his first Congress was Lugar-Obama (regarding the international proliferation of certain conventional weapons like antiaircraft missiles).
So I think it is fair to assume that Obama has some of his own ideas and inclinations on foreign policy. In that sense, the true question may be less a matter of how his advisers would shape his views, and more a matter of what it is about his views that attracted those particular advisers.
On that subject, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s national security adviser, explained in an interview why he chose Obama over Clinton:
"I think Obama is clearly more effective and has the upper hand. He has a sense of what is historically relevant and what is needed from the United States in relationship to the world. He recognizes that the challenges, a new face, a new sense of direction, a new definition of America’s role in the world.
The senator from New York talks in very conventional terms and I don’t think the country needs to go back to what we had eight years ago. I think there is a need for a fundamental rethinking of how we conduct world affairs and Obama seems to me to have both the guts and the intelligence to address that issue and to change the nature of America’s relationship with the world."
So that I think is the basic answer to this question. Unfortunately, the format of these debates is not conducive to such a discussion.
kozmik wrote on December 14, 2007 7:23 AM:Ugh, yet another reason why I like Hillary less and less and have more doubts about her character, judgment, and confidence in her own abilities.
She and Gulianni have the phoniest laughs. Why? It's straight out of a cheesy mngt book on how to "project confidence" for someone over compensating or looking for a gimmick. Hillary has been at it for a while now and it just screams phony and insecure. She's constantly trying to prove how tough she is by doing things that would be considered obnoxious and excessive even if done by the most macho asshole type CEO. Why doesn't somebody in her campaign tell her it's obnoxious and why doesn't she know that?
I suspect it's because she's never actually led anything. So she's overcompensating like a twenty something given first time mngt responsibilities. Great, another insecure President who over compensates.
On Obama, well he really showed class and smarts and a much greater calm. Notice the way he smiled when Hillary interrupted, didn't lose his cool, and replied appropriately? Classy. Also, his joke worked on several levels.
Hillary would certainly like to have had the endoresement of people like Brzezinski, and knows it's embarrassing to have lost him to Obama.
Obama's first career and degree as a young man, before law, was in Foreign Affairs and analysis. Unlike most pols he was always interested in FA, and didn't come to it late in life to fluff his resume when seeking a higher office.
Hillary was an "adviser" at most to Bill Clinton, and an unoffical one at that. What experience does she have in FA? Besides recent attempts to fluff her CV, basically she has zero. In fact, what experience does she really have on her own in any regards? Basically nothing. She owes her political career to her association to Bill. She would never have been elected in NY otherwise.
I'll still vote for Hillary over any of the wingnuts the Republicans are fielding, but I hope she doesn't get the nomination, because she's frankly unqualified and has shown little character, judgment, or wisdom on the campaign.
btw,
The question was idiotic. Obama has some Clinton advisers, just as he has advisers from elsewhere. He also has the most FP background and experience of all the Presidential candidates, Democratic and Republican, with the exception of Joe Biden and McCain, though imo Obama has shown better judgment than any other candidate on FP.
He's the only major candidate I'm aware of who opposed the Iraq war on practical grounds, from the beginning, and correctly predicted it would be a mess. And not merely on anti-war ideology, like Kucinich and Gravel.
Brzezinski endorsed Obama, and he's been around FP circles since long before Bill Clinton. He's a highly respected pillar of the FP community, certainly one of the people anyone would want to consult with for one important opinion. He's also condemned the Iraq war as a fiasco and pointed out it's a fundamentally inappropriate strategy for the "Post Colonial" era.
Michael A wrote on December 14, 2007 8:45 AM:Once again excellent post DTM and thanks for the info. I was wondering about the foreign policy advisors as well. I personally prefer the international approach revealed by obama's advisors. Another reason for thinking people to reject clinton II.
Exo wrote on December 14, 2007 10:16 AM:Interesting how Barack still secretly hankers after that Clinton advice. First in a Time magazine interview he says he would hire Bill in a minute, now he is begging for Hillary's advice. I wonder how Brzezinski feels, so fervently backing Barack in the hopes of having Barack as his rehabilitation meal ticket only to find out Barack still wants Clinton back door advice. What about all those Clinton B-level administration folks working their hearts out for Barack? Anthony Lake, Susan Rice and Greg Craig? How do they feel that the boss is still hankering after real Clinton input? Baracks may convince some that he is turning the page but he certainly has those Clinton Post-Its everywhere. You, know, just in case.
Anonymous wrote on December 14, 2007 10:29 AM:You people just see and hear what you want to. The whole thing sounded to me like good natured - yet - competitive jostling that showed both of them have a sense of humor.
So get a grip - all of you whinners!!!
The person who deserves to be president is the person with the most experience and is best prepared. All the dreaming and hoping will not accomplish anything.
And, I do not care to have former druggie in the Whitehouse. We already have a former alky. Why do you want someone else with poor judgment running this country?
Michael A wrote on December 14, 2007 10:32 AM:Anon, I didn't know clinton II did drugs. That's news. So why on earth is she trying to smear obama with the drug use issue? Seems kind of hypocritical to me.
Quirkygrl wrote on December 14, 2007 10:33 AM:I didn't see the whole debate but looking at this clip out of context, it showed: all the candidates laughing after the (impertinent) question was asked, and I think Hillary's comment was meant in humor, Obama has a (very dry) sense of humor himself, and Hillary can take a joke.
I actually thought it was encouraging because the infighting between Democratic candidates has been frustrating. Why is this exchange bad for either of them? It was a fairly light-hearted moment which I think was good for both of them, because they will need to show they can be fighters but are not at each others' throats when the nomination is sown-up this summer, whoever the nominee is.
Exo,
The thing about advice is that you can get it from more than one person. That in fact is exactly what people like Tony Lake have said in support of Obama (that he wants to hear multiple views on these issues).
noshrub wrote on December 14, 2007 11:47 AM:funny
Liam wrote on December 14, 2007 12:36 PM:To get back to an answer to the actual question to Senator Obama, that Hillary actually was foolish enough to deflect, and actually allow Senator Obama not to have to deal with.
One good answer to the question, that Senator Obama can give;
Having worked in the Clinton adminstration, those advisors, based on their prior experience working with Hillary,have decided that they would be better supporting my campaign.
All Senator Obama has to do is point out that the Senior Clinton Admn. people who know what it was like to work with Hillary, have decided that it is better to join his campaign.
Kija wrote on December 14, 2007 1:10 PM:
Such ado about one quip. Yet I have to add my two cents. If Obama had let Hillary's jab slide, the story would be how weak he is. It's a can't win situation.
And frankly, a few folks here read like Hillary campaign folks assigned to help direct blog opinion.
Kija very astute observation on the exchange. You're right obama had to do something in the face of clinton II's taunting. You are also correct about the clinton II campaign people. There are alot of them and they constantly distort and twist in clinton II's favor. Several months ago it was all about her inevitability, now the theme is bogus attacks against obama.
Anonymous wrote on December 14, 2007 1:47 PM:thanks for changing the headline
Jon Koppenhoefer wrote on December 16, 2007 1:49 AM:All this 'concern' over Obama's comment shows me just how little substance there is in the new extended campaign for the nomination.
Get a life, people. Obama didn't call Hillary a piano-legged old harridan, did he?
And I don't like either one of them but will vote for whoever gets the party's nomination. I despise the GOP and all it pretends to stand for.
Ray wrote on December 17, 2007 10:21 AM:Notice the tone of Hillary's laugh before and after Obama's response. Laughing on the outside, bruised on the inside! :)
torna wrote on December 24, 2007 2:21 AM:gjfgwo341 cool site!!! [url=http://torna1.com]cool site!!![/url] http://torna2.com rw96w9gs
fomar wrote on January 19, 2008 1:18 PM:orwtywgh cool site!!! [url=http://fomar1.com]cool site!!![/url] http://fomar2.com gfgw6jh
