Hillary Hits Obama: We Need A "Hands On" President

Comments (173)

femdem wrote on January 16, 2008 1:29 PM:

Wasn't that Jimmy Carter's take on the presidency?

mari wrote on January 16, 2008 1:31 PM:

I think he was pretty clear in the debate that he would hold people accountable and get things done. I think this is a pretty silly attempt at trying to make something out of a brief comment. But I suppose Hillary will try to run with whatever she can at this point.

Keith wrote on January 16, 2008 1:32 PM:

Is she arguing that she's going to do everything herself? Micro-manager-in-chief? Really? Even she's not that foolish to believe that is what is required of the POTUS.

This is going to backfire on her just the way it did last night.

Angry Vet wrote on January 16, 2008 1:32 PM:

Obama HAS played into Hillary's hands on this point. It's must really be pulling long hours these days to let something like that slip out in an interview.

But, so what? You don't think Obama would be able to give his subordinates marching orders?

Matt A wrote on January 16, 2008 1:32 PM:

Time for Obama to take a page out of the Republican playbook (since Hillary loves doing it so much) and use Reagan's line: there you go again.

Obama needs to hit back hard on this one. He can't be like John Kerry and let the argument, as wrong as it is, start to stick.

DonnaG wrote on January 16, 2008 1:34 PM:

Speaking of hands on stuff, it was interesting that Mark Penn was no longer the public face of the Hillary campaign as seen in the aftermath spin room following last night's debate.

Instead of Penn, Hillary camp put forth a new [black] face whom I don't know, but whom Chris Matthews forced into admitting that he is a lobbyist.

Michael Murray wrote on January 16, 2008 1:34 PM:

Let's see: The Clinton Campaign has tried:

1. Experience
2. Race
3. Waffling on Iraq
4. Being COO of The Guv'mint

and nothing has stopped Obama in the polls. What could they throw next @ him? Clearly, they're trying every angle they can. It's tiresome, really.

CaliMatt wrote on January 16, 2008 1:34 PM:

Hillary loves that Republican playbook, doesn't she.

Well, time for Obama take a line from Reagan and say, "there you go again."

And, Obama needs to hit back on this; HARD! He can't be like John Kerry and let the argument, as wrong as it is, stay out there long enough to stick.

grover_rover wrote on January 16, 2008 1:35 PM:

Every president has their own management style. I think it is pretty clear from his past comments that he intends to be a president who listens, who knows how to make sure he has the best people working for him, and who will make good decisions using sound judgment...pretty much the exact opposite of Bush. Personally I think that Obama has shown the best judgment in the past, especially on matters of foreign policy, and I think that counts for a lot more than trying to parse a rather meaningless comment to try to score political points. Give me a break.

Seth H. wrote on January 16, 2008 1:37 PM:

This is so much of why I will definitely not be caucusing for Hillary. The level of manipulation she uses reminds me of the Bush campaign in 2000. Anyone who thinks this is for campaigning purposes only is, I think foolish. We put her in the White House and she'll deceive, dodge, manipulate there, too. Hopefully, though, should she get elected, she'll do so to better ends than our current WH resident.

Common Sense wrote on January 16, 2008 1:37 PM:

Donna G:

The spokesman last night was the former Secretary of Transportion under Bill Clinton. He's also a registered lobbyist.

Gnopple wrote on January 16, 2008 1:39 PM:

Isn't the answer?:

No, I'm not going to be a chief operating officer of the White House. I'm going to be the Chief Executive Officer. I set the strategy, the agenda, and lead the nation. I hire responsible cabinet members to run the bureaucracy. Those cabinet members will have to answer to me. If Hillary thinks she'll have time to micromanage the bureaucracy, she won't have time to be the leader this nation needs. As you can see from her Health Care debacle, she's not particularly good when she gets herself deeply involved into the day-to-day operations.

willyjsimmons wrote on January 16, 2008 1:39 PM:

'But I suppose Hillary will try to run with whatever she can at this point.'

Or, you know...

it could be that the reporter asked her a question, and she answered it?

**gasp**

JohnG wrote on January 16, 2008 1:40 PM:

There is a reason that a large entity has a chief executive officer (the boss of all bosses) and a chief operating officer (the one who makes sure things get done). The CEO has to be a big picture person; the COO has to be detail oriented.

The President is not the COO (see Jimmy Carter). The President's job is to come up with big ideas, grand concepts, etc. (see FDR, JFK, and (gulp) Reagan). The President, however, must be sure that he or she has the folks around who can implement these plans!

Ryan wrote on January 16, 2008 1:40 PM:

I actually think this controversy is a lot less manufactured than many of their other recent dust-ups. Obama's statement seemed to be drawing a clear contrast between him and Hillary, which is odd, because I think it's a contrast that she has been trying to push (somewhat unsuccessfully) for *months*. In that sense, he really did play right into her hands. And yes, I think it's not wise for Hillary to get into a "who's more like Bush?" argument with Obama, EXCEPT when it relates specifically to Bush's hands-off approach to the job. I don't think Obama comes off well here at all.

anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 1:40 PM:

The flip side of that argument is: We need a micro-manger in the White House.

John Y wrote on January 16, 2008 1:41 PM:

Hillary's obviously hoping voters are ignorant of the difference between a COO and a CEO. The CEO is what Obama's trying - albeit hamhandedly - to say he'd be. I mean does anyone really think he believes he can just give inspiring speeches to his subordinates? The guy was a community organizer in Chicago. That's some brass tacks work right there.

Elizabeth wrote on January 16, 2008 1:41 PM:

I don't think Obama needs to do much on this one except let her talk - and talk - and then, when questioned, play the *full* section of the debate -- you know, where Hillary claims that her greatest weakness is "being to impatient to do what I know people need even if they don't" while Obama showed realistic self-knowledge and that he takes reasonable steps so that that weakness is countered. --- Followed by his observation that GWB (and perhaps Clinton herself?) is proabably always on time and never lost a piece of paper. -- I think those were two of her weakest moments and she's a fool to call attention to them.

Tallguy wrote on January 16, 2008 1:41 PM:

MM funny how Hillary uses Hand on.. in other words a micro manager

seems Reagan used to be a manager and surrounded himself with very good people for the most part and he was a great President.

Carter was a micro manager and look at what happened to him and the country

I will take a chief executive (which last time I checked is the Presidency) who picks good people to do the jobs assigned than a nit picking micro - oholic.

A good manager knows how to pick the right people and manage them, not look over their shoulders all the time!

After all the buck does top at the top!

roanoke wrote on January 16, 2008 1:43 PM:

A "president who they believe gets up every single day and works..."? In last night's debate Clinton also tried to imply that Obama, on this COO issue, is lazy. Here she's at it again. I am very sorry, but the Clintonites are too smart to not know that Lazy + African American = yet another of the old racist canards that they seem to be unable to not deploy. I seriously do not believe this is reading too closely given how scripted all of Clinton's statements regarding Obama have been.

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 1:43 PM:

But she didn't read the NIE before the Iraq War?

anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 1:46 PM:

Hillary's argument: Micro-manager in chief.

Josh-Quasimoto wrote on January 16, 2008 1:47 PM:

Just a question, but didn't current President Bush also use this type of managerial arguement to favor him during his run for election? However isn't it also true that many Military vets have issues with micro-managers in congress or the white-house, such as in many proponents of Bush military as POTUS not micro-managing the war? And then isn't it also true that Hillary's campaign in regards to the recent lawsuit in Nevada that the caucus rules do not fairly take in absentee-balloting participation by those in our Military service? It just seems like their is some irony in all these things or maybe you could just call it opportunism when the mood strikes!

Gotta Go, Stay Solid!

JoseyJ wrote on January 16, 2008 1:47 PM:

Obama has so many fooled - especially TPM.
He's got his HANDS ON all kinds of lobbyists drug money.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275

You'd think Obama supporters would eventually wonder WHY the media has given him a pass.

He's a joke - and a DC insider - evidenced by his ties to Washington lobbyists - AND his declaration that Bush and Cheney HAVE NOT committed impeachable offenses!!

So many are duped by Oblahma!

LJ wrote on January 16, 2008 1:49 PM:

What a complete load of horse shit.

willyjsimmons wrote on January 16, 2008 1:49 PM:

'seems Reagan used to be a manager and surrounded himself with very good people for the most part and he was a great President.'

**dies laughing**

Did you read what you typed?

'I am very sorry, but the Clintonites are too smart to not know that Lazy + African American = yet another of the old racist canards that they seem to be unable to not deploy.'

Oh.Boy.

karikat wrote on January 16, 2008 1:51 PM:

Yeah, one of the first things that came to mind when she tried making this point was her botched effort at healthcare reform in the 90s. Kudos on that, way to manage!

And yes, the COO vs CEO distinction pretty much hits it on the head. I'd much rather have someone with Obama's style running the government than someone with Hillary's style.

JoseyJ wrote on January 16, 2008 1:52 PM:

Has Obama apologized for voting with Repubs for 2 years to fund the war?
Why did he stop voting to fund it AFTER he became a prez candidate?
Is the war over?

NO!

It's all political calculation with Obama - and raking in moolah from war profiteers on Wall Street.

Michael A wrote on January 16, 2008 1:54 PM:

Darn, somebody beat me to it already, but I'll say it anyway. She will be a hands on president, well it would have been nice to have a hands on, detail oriented senator that read the freaking NIE that revealed that the case for war was based on lies before voting on going to war to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent iraqis and americans. Now, that's one detail I wish she would have read and then acted upon. It would have been nice and would have saved alot of lives. However, that would not have been the clintonian thing to do, read the freaking intelligence report. Look at the politics of being a warrior as opposed to a hands on COO. Give me a break.

willyjsimmons wrote on January 16, 2008 1:54 PM:

@Josh-Quasimoto

Yes.

Except Bush was the 'CEO in Chief' ala Obama.

Remember, Bush was going to run the government like a Fortune 500 company?

**giggle**

That was the entire rational for picking Cheney as his VP.

Then Enron happened.

The choice of words came from Obama, not Hillary. IIRC

I've only managed to watch the first 20 minutes or so of the debate.

Had to bowl.

AlwaysTipTheWaitress wrote on January 16, 2008 1:56 PM:

Let's see:
Clinton led a health insurance task force that proved she couldn't manage her way out of a paper bag.

She's been a Senator (not a Governor).

She did manage the entertainment side of the White House.

I hate to say it but Laura Bush proved she was a better manager when she put together the very successful Texas Book Festival.

Bill R. wrote on January 16, 2008 1:56 PM:

This is a loser for Hillary. Fits the frame already there that this a control freak, is unlikable, and couldn't inspire a slug. This is the same person who made the misstep of elevating LBJ over MLK. I think this is central to the argument. Do the American voters want a leader or a manager? Obama wins that one.
The public disagreed with Ronald Reagan on most policy issues. But they mostly loved him as a leader.

meg wrote on January 16, 2008 1:56 PM:

hands on....hmmmmmm

clinton-style hands-on....boy, talk about walking right into a baaaaaaaaaad joke....

DonnaG wrote on January 16, 2008 1:57 PM:

Uhoh, this has already backfired, Hillary.......maybe you need to do a bit more of telling us the facts hidden in those withheld Clinton White House papers and about your 'successes' as a Senator.

If you want to be believed about your abilities to micro-manage and also execute, then tell us why, when your staff weren't allowed into the Senate safe room to read the NIE, you yourself couldn't manage to do so, and that on the most important matter before the Senate.

Publicus wrote on January 16, 2008 1:57 PM:

Problem with the Bush comparison is (1) Bush had run stuff before and he had a track record for doing a shitty job and (2) Bush is unwilling to acknowledge the value of diverse opinions or that he may not be wrong. Surprisingly, I think, at least on point 2, Hillary is more closely aligned with Bush. She's reluctant to every acknowledge error on her part or take responsibility for her actions. If you don't think that will be part of her management style, you haven't been paying for close attention.

whowouldjesusbomb? wrote on January 16, 2008 1:58 PM:

God, Hillary supporters just can't make up their minds! He is too inexperienced! He is a Washington insider! Lol, excuse me? And then saying that he is bathing in lobbyist dollars (even though he refuses money from registered federal lobbyists) when your own candidate has been the #1 recipient of lobbyist money this whole time and has stated on record that she doesn't see any problem with that. Nice hypocrisy. Yeah, lets see who is the #1 recipient of money from arms manufacturers. It is no wonder she helped lead us into war with Iraq and took a hawkish pro-Bush stance on Iran. The more wars (or "conflicts") she can get us into the better for her lobbyist friends.

phil james wrote on January 16, 2008 2:00 PM:

A Chief Operating Officer or Chief Operations Officer (COO) is a corporate officer responsible for managing the day-to-day activities of the corporation. The COO is one of the highest ranking members of an organization, monitoring the daily operations of the company and reporting to the Board of Directors. The COO is usually an executive or senior vice president.

The chief operating officer is responsible for operations management (OM). The focus of the COO is on strategic, tactical, and short-term OM, which means he or she is responsible for the development, design, operation, and improvement of the systems that create and deliver the firm's products/services. Managers need to understand the real work behind the company's core operations, and the buck stops with the COO, whose primary concern is operations improvement. The duties of the COO may reside in certain organizations with a Vice President of Operations.

Agree with others who state that the closest position to President is CEO not COO. If Hill really wants to be COO then she should be running for Vice President or Chief of Staff, either of which may be the best place for her, except for the fact that her ego would not allow any other egos in the same cabinet meeting.

Kefa wrote on January 16, 2008 2:04 PM:

roanoke .....more racist stuff???? you non-racist know more racist stuff then I can shake a stick at. You guys must stay up at night making this stuff up. It is just crazy. It is hurting your guy. HRC is just loving it.

whowouldjesusbomb? wrote on January 16, 2008 2:05 PM:

JoseyJ,

Obama has no reason to apologize for voting to keep funding the troops in Iraq. There was no way that Congress was going to stop funding them, and at that time there was no chance of being able to even attempt withdrawal deadlines. You might notice that as time and events pass, circumstances change. He has been completely against the war from the very beginning, and he was done a great job of not abandoning the troops, while still putting pressure on Bush to bring the war to an end. I can't say any of the same for Hillary, so I really can't see your point.

And Hillary is the #1 recipient of arms manufacturer money out of all Republicans or Democrats, so don't give me that crap about Obama making money off this war, nothing could be farther from the truth. I'm sick of you Hillbots and your complete contempt for facts and your ceaseless hypocrisy. Go join the GOP already, that is their style, not ours.

MomentOfTruth wrote on January 16, 2008 2:07 PM:

It wasn't Hillary, but Barack himself, who was convincing, in that, he can't manage. To paraphrase Howard Fineman, Barack was convincing voters he "can't manage his way out of a paper bag." All this attacking Hillary is blaming for your candidates own answers.

Also, a comment above labels a Clinton spokesperson as a lobbyist... Why don't you devote some keystrokes to explaining Obama's support of the energy bill, his support of nuclear power and his ties to the industry's "special interests"?

Jeremy wrote on January 16, 2008 2:09 PM:

Is Hillary running for department store manager? You can't micromanage as a president. Obama is right on this one. Presidential leadership means more than head beurocrat. It means getting the country behind an agenda to address our problems. We're not going to stop changing the climate by having someone making day to day office decisions.

It's going to take real presidential leadership and it's going to take someone that is truthful about the challenges we face. I thought there was a telling moment in the NH debate when Obama talked about the cost of cap-and-trade being passed on to consumers and the need for conservation. Hillary, as a smart politician, immediately started talking about costs to the middle class. It was subtle, but the message was clear: Obama will make energy more expensive and I will make it cheaper. That's not the kind of leadership we need.

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 2:09 PM:

Greg: Your header sets the tone for the discussion. Wht does Hillary always attack Obama, but Obame always gives us noble words, inspirational and and appears to above the fray. If you favour Hillary you can read is as a straightforward answer to a question setting out her position and saying Obama's is wrong. But saying your opponent is wrong does not mean you take a HIT. Why are well all so confrontational?

So: let us assume Obama wins the primary. Do you expect the Hillary supporters to sit out and mope? Do you want them to help Obama? Or are Obamists so cocky that they think they can carry this off because they only deal with issues at an inspirational level, and that will have voters flocking to the polls without any help from, say, former Edwards and Clinton, supporters?

phil james wrote on January 16, 2008 2:10 PM:

Two other issues were raised that I don't see being pursued:
1) Obama gave a detailed response to the lobbyist money question posed by Edwards but HRC was not forced to respond. When will she be?
2) Edwards said he opposes Yucca Mtn and he would not build nukes but no one is pushing the issue with him or BO or NRC about what is going to be done about the nuke waste we already have in place around the nation and around the world for that matter. Why not?

Lloyd Bentsen wrote on January 16, 2008 2:11 PM:

"This election isn't about ideology. It's about competence."

- Mike Dukakis, 41st president of the Unit- oops, I mean utterly uninspired washout

PeterB wrote on January 16, 2008 2:11 PM:

As he responded in the debate "you need someone who will ask tough questions of the intelligence before going to war".....in other words Billary, you should have read the NIE prior to voting to go to war!!!

I want a president that can critically analyze and present reasoned and informed decisions. Not someone that is too concerned with political posturing.

Josh-Quasimoto wrote on January 16, 2008 2:13 PM:

To willyjsimmons, I think comparison between Obama and Bush end after you point out the obvious, they are both male. So unless I read your poost wrong, I just want you to be clear that in no way do I see Obama in any of the same way as the current POTUS.
I am from Texas and am ashamed at the legacy of this man. If I had it my way he would be tried for war-crimes and his buddies would be tried with war-profiteering. And he would never be able to come back to Texas unless our citizens were allowed to be within 150 yards of him with protest signs and cheers which might make him realize the polarization he and his ilk have caused for us Good ol' Americans!
Obama comes off to me as a rational individual who realizes when he is in a tough spot on some issues. He has been criticized from those on the right as well as the left for his positions. He has admitted when he made mistakes and he has let some from his staff go as well as taken positions contradictory towards those in his party. All of this adds up to someone who enjoys discourse and the fleshing out of serious subject matters. Also he is someone interested in empathy for our fellow men and women, and I as human can not help but feel uplifted by those that see the good in people rather than the bad.

Publicus you made good point!
Gotta Go, Stay Solid!

willyjsimmons wrote on January 16, 2008 2:14 PM:

'He has been completely against the war from the very beginning, and he was done a great job of not abandoning the troops, while still putting pressure on Bush to bring the war to an end. I can't say any of the same for Hillary, so I really can't see your point.'

So...let me see if I got this straight.

Obama's hands were tied in congress, but Hillary's weren't?

And, 'abandoning the troops' is a right-wing talking point.

Stop using it to defend congressional dems who fell for it.

(and that includes Clinton)

bp wrote on January 16, 2008 2:18 PM:

Help me here. Obama tells us he needs someone to put a paper 10 seconds before he has to deal with an issue. He is disorganised. So does he want his White House to keep the paper flow to him that way. If I ask such a question am I taking a "hit"at him? I don't care if Obama supporters makes excuses for him, and I am sure Clinton's supporters do the same. But if either one of them becomes the candidates is the other side going to take their ball and go home.

People: don't over examine every word and sentence. These two people are in a tough campaign. They try to make their case. We have lots of time to sit and be indignant and over analyse. The parsing is too ridiculous for words. The greatest enemies of these candidates are their surrogates and intemperate supporters.

In the end Clinton, Obama will have to work together if one them is the candidate. Their supporters may well become their worst enemies because of excessive zeal and too much partisanship.

Franklin wrote on January 16, 2008 2:18 PM:

Hillary has an excellent point. The key to a strong manager is the inability to trust subordinates, period.

This is one of the major reasons why Carter was viewed as such an exceptional manager. He was very hands on and detail oriented to the extreme. He had tremendous difficulty delegating responsibility and spent just as much time making sure that the campaign bumper stickers were ABSOLUTELY just perfect, as he did managing the Iranian hostage crisis.

This inability to trust subordinates is an even greater virtue in a massive bureacracy where one person can very easily manage the day to day affairs of and several hundred thousand federal employees. I'm beginning to see know that clearly health care during the Clinton years was not a failure of management.

Michael A wrote on January 16, 2008 2:20 PM:

Hey, willy, no clinton's hands weren't tied. She had the opportunity to read the NIE saying that the king's case for war was based on lies. She didn't. She voted to launch a war of aggression against a sovereign country based on lies that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent americans and iraqis and untold destruction and devastation. She could have exhibited some of that coo mentality by reading the freaking nie and she could have exhibited leadership in the senate by leading the charge against the war. Simple. She did none of the that and voted for war based on politics. And she wants to be president of the United States? WTF.

How's the gravel campaign going by the way?

paDem wrote on January 16, 2008 2:20 PM:

Hillary Clinton is Tracy Flick

willyjsimmons wrote on January 16, 2008 2:20 PM:

'I think comparison between Obama and Bush end after you point out the obvious, they are both male.'

Did I SAY that Obama is 'like' Bush?

Nope.

I said Obama comparing himself to a CEO is what Bush did.

'Also he is someone interested in empathy for our fellow men and women, and I as human can not help but feel uplifted by those that see the good in people rather than the bad.'

So by extension...

Hillary doesn't feel any empathy?

Hillary only sees the 'bad' in people?

**WOW**

paDem wrote on January 16, 2008 2:22 PM:

Hillary Clinton is Tracy Flick

Link

Steve LaBonne wrote on January 16, 2008 2:23 PM:

Some good points above- the other campaigns need to find ways to remind voters that leading examples of HRC's management style include the health care fiasco and not bothering to read the NIE before voting to enable Chimpy's war. Yeah, that's the kind of manager I want in the White House!

paDem wrote on January 16, 2008 2:26 PM:

It's pretty lame, and here's why, as we can all see on this page: http://www.pollster.com/08-US2-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

MrLittlePants wrote on January 16, 2008 2:27 PM:

She is despicable. Obama was the only one who didn't give a complete BS answer to the weakness question, and she sat there scribbling notes, ready to pounce on him for it. To use this against him when she isn't candid enough to even answer that question has pushed me over the edge, and I will not vote for her.

whowouldjesusbomb? wrote on January 16, 2008 2:28 PM:

willyj,
Obama's hands were tied in the Senate, and Hillary's were too. I don't fault her for funding the war after it was already going on, I fault her for not having the judgment to vote against giving Bush the green light to invade. I fault her for not even reading the intelligence reports before voting on perhaps the most important vote cast in the last decade. I fault her for her vocal support for the war for the first couple years, until it became unpopular to support the war. I fault her for walking in lockstep with Bush/Cheney on Iran, for not learning her lesson the first time around.

I'm not one of those people who are going to scream at the Democrats in Congress about why they haven't ended the war yet because I know they are being blocked at all turns by the president and most of the Republicans in Congress. They can put on shows and cast symbolic votes, but the fact is they don't have the votes to stop the war from Congress right now. If they voted against funding "the troops", even when there was no way the war was going to end, it would be political suicide for the general election, and everyone with their heads out of their asses knows that. It isn't a right-wing talking point, it is a fact. Any time the Dems try to cut war funding the GOP have a propaganda field day and the war doesn't get any closer to being over. Quit being naive, or quit being disingenuous, whichever it is you are being.

All of the Dems are going to get the hell out of Iraq as soon as they get a chance, and it isn't going to happen before that, so all talk about the exit plan at this point is completely pointless. What IS important is how we got into this mess in the first place, who supported it, who made similar mistakes after that, and what that says about the judgment about those people.

hwc wrote on January 16, 2008 2:28 PM:

I just hope they don't give Obama any classified documents or the codes to the nuclear arsenal more than "2 minutes before he needs them".

edshea wrote on January 16, 2008 2:29 PM:

go, you hill-haters, go....keep it up...nourish the beast...and watch her win...

willyjsimmons wrote on January 16, 2008 2:29 PM:

'She could have exhibited some of that coo mentality by reading the freaking nie and she could have exhibited leadership in the senate by leading the charge against the war. Simple.'

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/few-senators-read-iraq-nie-report-2007-06-19.html

'Similarly, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee who voted in favor of the invasion, said, “I read the summary, but I didn’t read the full report because I got it from them straight,” referring to personal briefings he had with senior administration officials.'

Is Obama prepared to address Kerry not reading the NIE?

'Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) is the only 2008 presidential hopeful who contends he read the NIE before casting his vote in support of authorizing war.'

Anyone beating Joseph Biden upon the head for reading the NIE and STILL voting for the war.

Remember, Biden was supposedly the candidate with the MOST foreign policy experience.

Is Obama going to challenge Biden's logic for voting for the war?

The big elephant in the room is Colin Powell...

were senators supposed to assume that Colin Powell was lying?

Assume Bush is a liar, OK.

But Colin Powell?

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 2:30 PM:

hwc, it's like you are competing with yourself to make the most pointless comment in each thread.

Greg, given that Hillary's campaign gave you the video, isn't "suggests" a little weak?

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 2:31 PM:

"We all need to be inspirational and set goals, and I’ve been doing that throughout this campaign."

Another Clinton lie!

BluePuppy wrote on January 16, 2008 2:32 PM:

Obama's on the defensive again. On purely political terms, using his own words is a brilliant tactic.

willyjsimmons wrote on January 16, 2008 2:33 PM:

'I fault her for walking in lockstep with Bush/Cheney on Iran, for not learning her lesson the first time around.'

'What IS important is how we got into this mess in the first place, who supported it, who made similar mistakes after that, and what that says about the judgment about those people.'

Then I would like to point you to Bill S.970.

Section 3, part 8.

Please pay attention to the co-sponsors.

frankly0 wrote on January 16, 2008 2:34 PM:

Look, whatever people may think, being able to understand the mechanics of how government runs is absolutely key to achieving desired ends. It may not be sufficient (Jimmy Carter), but it damn sure is necessary.

Oh, and who was the last President who chose to run the government as a "hands off" manager?

Despite the problems, Bush is hanging tough. "I have not seen a change in the president's leadership style and the management tools he uses," [White House chief of staff Andrew] Card told U.S. News. Card and other Bush confidants say the chief executive is applying the hands-off style he learned at Harvard Business School, where he earned a master's degree in business administration in 1975, and also the methods that worked for him as an oilman, as managing partner of the Texas Rangers baseball team, and, later, as governor of Texas.

At least we all know that that worked out just great don't we? Aren't we all eager to see Obama follow in such distinguished footsteps?

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 2:34 PM:

willyjsimmons:

Kerry can answer for himself. He's not the one running.

Since Biden's "logic for voting for the war" was proved wrong, it's not a big deal to note that now.

And yes, they should have assumed that Colin Powell, as a key member of the Bush/Cheney administration, was part and parcel of making the case for war.

This has been another episode of simple answers to simple questions.

ChrisNBama wrote on January 16, 2008 2:34 PM:

I have to admit, as an Obama supporter, I groaned when Senator Obama made the point of saying he didn't want any paper around him until the last minute when responding to the question about strengths and weaknesses during the debate. I saw Hillary's eyes light up at that, and true to form, she tried to sock it to him. I thought his response was dead on though, describing himself as someone who listens, and values contrary opinion, and uses seasoned judgment to arrive at a good outcome. She visibly deflated at that point.

It strikes me that Hillary is grasping at straws in attempting to contrast herself with Obama. This recent flap regarding the "Operating Officer" non-issue is a case in point. Frankly, I'm sick of the comparisons of the Presidency to pedestrian business archetypes.

Finally, I find Hillary's arguments about experience completely hollow. She has no executive experience, and her legislative experience parallel's Obama's. Her only strength here is that she can say she's been in Washington longer than him, and this message conflicts with her message of change. Do we want someone that has more experience in Washington? I think not.

Matt A wrote on January 16, 2008 2:42 PM:

Hillary's comments are hallow, weak, and wrong but Obama CANNOT just let them ride or he'll lose. The reason he won Iowa is that he built a great organization; he can do it as president too. But he has to answer the bell on this one. Soon!

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 2:45 PM:

Read the quote from Hillary. Who do you think you would perform your best work for? The Boss that leads by inspiring you to achieve your highest aspirations, or the Boss that calls you into her office every morning to chew your butt off for falling behind on the numbers for the quarter?

I think you can see from the campaign how Hillary who was expected to easily win the nomination but has steadily gone downhill in the polls, vs. Obama who has built a campaign from the ground up and is steadily growing still, that the boss that inspires is the one that will achieve success beyond the worker's expectations. If the chew-your-butt boss is lucky her team will meet expectations, but never exceed them.

willyjsimmons wrote on January 16, 2008 2:45 PM:

'Kerry can answer for himself. He's not the one running.'

Diffuse. Nice.

'Since Biden's "logic for voting for the war" was proved wrong, it's not a big deal to note that now.'

Oh...but once Hillary's name is brought up, it's 'back on the table'? No Pelosi for you man.

'And yes, they should have assumed that Colin Powell...was part and parcel of making the case for war.'

Not even what I asked.

I asked if senators were to assume that Colin Powell was lying.

Care to answer?

wasab wrote on January 16, 2008 2:47 PM:

Hillary is running as the competent administrator. She has a reputation for thoroughness in the Senate. She knows her stuff. What's wrong with highlighting your positives? Where's the controversy here?

Liam wrote on January 16, 2008 2:48 PM:

Hillary had her hands on the Health Care reform project. How did that work out for us?

Hillary had her hands on the Whitewater investments. How did that work out for them?

Hillary had her hands on the Travel Gate firings. How did that work out for her.

Hillary had her hands on the FBI files that disappeared while under her care, and years later mysteriously reappeared, like fairy tale magic. How did hands on Hillary lose them, and not know how they finally showed up again in her White House Offices.

Hillary had her hands on her White House records, but now claims that she can not be a hands on person when it comes to disclosing what she did.

Bill Clinton was hands on all the time. Hands on every Bimbo that he could reach above and below the desk.

No more of the "Hands on" Clintons.

willyjsimmons wrote on January 16, 2008 2:49 PM:

'The Boss that leads by inspiring you to achieve your highest aspirations'

Frankly, reminds me of those annoying posters you see in corporate offices featuring inspirational 'feel good' cliches.

Feh.

willyjsimmons wrote on January 16, 2008 2:52 PM:

Liam's comment is the perfect example of CDS.

Whitewater?

'Travelgate'?

Ken? Kenneth Starr? Is that YOU!?!?

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 16, 2008 2:53 PM:

Obama's statement seemed to be drawing a clear contrast between him and Hillary, which is odd, because I think it's a contrast that she has been trying to push (somewhat unsuccessfully) for *months*. In that sense, he really did play right into her hands. And yes, I think it's not wise for Hillary to get into a "who's more like Bush?" argument with Obama, EXCEPT when it relates specifically to Bush's hands-off approach to the job. I don't think Obama comes off well here at all.

I am not sure that it is possible at this point to say that the respective statements of either candidate represent a mistake on either of their parts. Yes, Sen Clinton has been promoting herself as the technocrat in the race, while Sen Obama has been promoting himself as the big-vision guy. Both of the candidates have been saying things contrived to convey these respective images. Sen Clinton is betting that most democrats want a technocrat and Sen Obama is betting that most want a big-vision candidate. We will see who's bet is nearer the mark. To draw the contrast more sharply, however, does not play into either Clinton's hands or Obama's because neither wants to be confused for the other's "brand" on this matter.

frankly0 wrote on January 16, 2008 2:53 PM:

I do wonder how Obama is going to respond to the question of whether he's going to be a "hands-on" President. It's going to be hard for him to say that he is, given what he's already admitted to. But if he says he isn't, he'll immediately be tagged as a "hands-off" President, and get lumped with George W Bush, who has described his own Presidency that way.

Seems to me Hillary's doing a good job framing this issue.

coonsey wrote on January 16, 2008 2:54 PM:

The CHIEF OF STAFF is the OPERATING OFFICER in the WHITE HOUSE.

Coonsey's view www.freewebs.com/coonsey/

hwc wrote on January 16, 2008 2:55 PM:

Those who have read the many books published about the inner workings of the Bush II White House should be very concerned about Obama's concept of the Presidency.

The fundamental managerial failure of the Bush White House is that a detached President allowed his subordinates (Cheney and Rumsfeld) to grab control of the bureaucracy and restrict the flow of information to the President in very dangerous ways, specifically preventing his access to national security intelligence. The failure of "hands off" management created the conditions for a radical neo-con philosophy to kidnap the country's national security.

A hands-off President is very, very dangerous.

ChrisNBama wrote on January 16, 2008 2:55 PM:

"BluePuppy wrote on January 16, 2008 2:32 PM:

Obama's on the defensive again. On purely political terms, using his own words is a brilliant tactic."

Hillary knows full well what Obama meant with his remarks. The fact that she is making political hay with them exposes her "politics as usual" style.

I will say this, Hillary is quite the street fighter. When I was a kid I was told that there are certain things "out of bounds". You don't knee people in the groin or pull hair. I would always agree such behavior's were "cheap" or otherwise contemptible. The truth is, when I got involved in a scrap that I was losing, I immediately kneed my enemy in the groin. It worked. That is what I see with Hillary, she will do anything to win. And it is precisely for that reason, above all else, that I can't bring myself to support her.

frankly0 wrote on January 16, 2008 2:58 PM:

Hillary knows full well what Obama meant with his remarks. The fact that she is making political hay with them exposes her "politics as usual" style.

I'm shocked, shocked that there's politics going on in a political campaign!

LJ wrote on January 16, 2008 3:00 PM:

...you’ve got to to run this government, you can’t leave it to others.

Here are Hillary Clinton's top picks for each of the cabinent posts in her administration. This is her short list, which includes only the single most qualified person for each position.

Secretary of State: Hillary Clinton
Secretary of the Treasury: Hillary Clinton
Secretary of Defense: Hillary Clinton
Attorney General: Hillary Clinton
Secretary of the Interior: Hillary Clinton
Secretary of Agriculture: Hillary Clinton
Secretary of Commerce: Hillary Clinton
Secretary of Labor: Hillary Clinton
Secretary of Health and Human Services: Hillary Clinton
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development: Hillary Clinton
Secretary of Transportation: Hillary Clinton
Secretary of Energy: Hillary Clinton
Secretary of Education: Hillary Clinton
Secretary of Veterans Affairs: Hillary Clinton
Secretary of Homeland Security: Hillary Clinton

In addition, look for her to appoint herself to any Supreme Court vacancies.

mencken wrote on January 16, 2008 3:00 PM:

it's strange how many dems see hillary clinton as the anti-christ. as josh et al noted elsewhere, nearly all her conduct seems to be viewed through the prism of manipulation and ambition.

really, who cares?

I want a democratic president who's policies I support, who'll stand up to the tweeties and loofahs, and who can kick the GOP in the nads. a little manipulation and ambition is a plus.

clinton's probably good for the latter 2, but I think she sucks on foreign policy. so I'm an obama guy. I think he's a smart politician in the classical sense: he's shown he can build coalitions to pass legislation. not appeasement, not mouthing GOP talking points, but compelling the opposition to fall in line.

seems logical to me.

phil james wrote on January 16, 2008 3:02 PM:

Arguing about whose management STYLE is appropriate for a President and would be most effective is a red herring. Sure Bush is a hands-off CEO type, to the nth degree. It's not his style that has caused problems, it's his judgement about how best to protect America, how to gain his political goals, how to deal with the opposition party, what he owes by way of accountability and transparency, to name a few, that are really at issue. Obama said it that way though not very forcefully. But the judgement issue is the real dog that won't hunt for Hillary so she would much rather everyone focus on management style. And by the way, I for one would not like to work for her. She admitted her impatience but that was an extremely charitable way she had of characterizing the overbearing demander-in-chief she would make.

Liam wrote on January 16, 2008 3:02 PM:

Since she is now declaring that she is Hands on Hillary, then why the hell has her campaign staff been out of control, and why has she had to keep dumping key staff for various malpractices!.

How come Hands On Hillary did not get her hands on her own campaign staff, and control them!.

No more of The Hands on Clintons. They were so hands on, the last time, that they handed the House and Senate to The Republicans, after forty years under the Democrats. Now the Democrats are just getting it back, so keep the Clintons hands away from the party. They will just hand it over to the Republicans once more, and this time it will be for good, because the Supreme Court will be made into a rubber stamp for the Right Wing.

No more Hands on Clintons.

Ed Deevy wrote on January 16, 2008 3:02 PM:

The ability to provide a "motivating vision" for the country is the most important responsibility for the individual in the oval office. That's a very special gift that few have. In listening to Obama last night I was left with be belief that he understands this responsibility of the President.

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 3:06 PM:

Good grief. I was so excited last night watching the debate, excited to be a Democrat. I was so pleased with all of them and excited that one of them will be President. Now next day, the supporters haven't followed suit.

Now, this most certainly seems like Hillary being an opportunist. One misspeak and in less than 24 hours, she's pouncing. My question would be, had anyone else done it, would we be so angry? I truly suspect not.

Even if she's not my ideal candidate, her words here are true. If they were written sans author, I don't suspect we would see this outcry. Is the outcry about her or him? I suspect fans are defending him, and that is fine, I defend him each day, but I see no defense of Obama in causing friction within the party. I would say this equally to the Hillary supporters who making rash comments about us or Obama. We are Democrats.

He made a huge gaffe last night. She acted on it, she's trying to win the nomination. Reality is there is little policy difference, there has to be something else to endear voters. He pointed out a weakness himself that just happens to be her strongest card, bad move. That is not her fault.

I would also like to say I think it is completely unfair to use the previous healthcare proposals from Hillary in the first Clinton administration as a failure for her. She was clearly sabotaged by the right, our real problem, not each other. Does anyone honestly think that Barack Obama would have gotten through then either?

The Dems are not to campaign in Florida, apparently there's word that Hillary will be breaking this rule and Obama hits her on this, this is okay? YES. This is a campaign. Now he makes a gaffe and she hits him with that and we are all so angry?

onceler wrote on January 16, 2008 3:08 PM:

well I supposed this is better than the blatantly false headline you were running the story under yesterday "Obama - I'd be a bad COO", which is of course, not what he said. he's just describing his management style. some people are detail/control freaks (Clinton, and there is accompanying baggage there of its own kind) and some are more about delegating, as Obama would be. which is good. Clinton will alienate her own staff at an alarming rate, based on her past performances in executive positions. (which are few and far between, the failed healthcare fight is just about the only one of prominence)

ChrisNBama wrote on January 16, 2008 3:09 PM:

"Liam wrote on January 16, 2008 2:48 PM:

Hillary had her hands on the Health Care reform project. How did that work out for us?

Hillary had her hands on the Whitewater investments. How did that work out for them?

Hillary had her hands on the Travel Gate firings. How did that work out for her."

Liam, you are dead on. You strike me as a likely republican, but your points are well taken.

I have written about this issue on other threads, but I think it bears repeating. If Hillary wins the nomination, we will be mired in re-litigating the "greatest hits" of the Clinton Era. While Hillary is attempting to lay out her vision of the future, she be stuck defending the past. As much as I liked Bill and the economy of the 90's, I desperately want change. It's time the torch is passed to a younger, fresher generation. One without a closest crammed full of distracting trash.

phil james wrote on January 16, 2008 3:10 PM:

hwc wrote: Those who have read the many books published about the inner workings of the Bush II White House should be very concerned about Obama's concept of the Presidency.

The fundamental managerial failure of the Bush White House is that a detached President allowed his subordinates (Cheney and Rumsfeld) to grab control of the bureaucracy and restrict the flow of information to the President in very dangerous ways, specifically preventing his access to national security intelligence. The failure of "hands off" management created the conditions for a radical neo-con philosophy to kidnap the country's national security.

A hands-off President is very, very dangerous

If a mafia don establishes his enforcement group with thugs he trusts and they manage his criminal empire with a shroud of secrecy to hide the real goals and objectives while orders are being carried out, then the don is happy and successful. That's the real model for the Bush administration....not this myth about Bush clearing brush in total ignorance while all the White House flaks were doing what the hell they wanted to undermine the government. Please don't keep perpetuating that myth. Sure the public hands down does not like how Bush ran the government but not many people are enamored of the mafia either.

willyjsimmons wrote on January 16, 2008 3:12 PM:

'I think he's a smart politician in the classical sense: he's shown he can build coalitions to pass legislation. not appeasement, not mouthing GOP talking points, but compelling the opposition to fall in line.'

Except when, you know, Obama DOES use GOP talking points...

see Krugman.

Daniel wrote on January 16, 2008 3:14 PM:

Well Bill was certainly a hands-on president, if you know what I mean, ba-dum-dum.

Stick a cigar in her, she's done.

conway wrote on January 16, 2008 3:15 PM:

First time at Matt's site. Never seen such a bunch of bozos backing Obama. He is in trouble. He has too many fellas who are great at invective. Looks like Obama will be restoring dignity and honor to the White House given his plans for a detached Presidency. Or will it be by remote control. Mr President you have ten seconds to push the button. The Obamistas have taken Bush's kool aid with a vengeance. Keep it up boys. The Republicans will roll your man,while he is on Mount Olympus above giving inspirational speeches.

Arnie wrote on January 16, 2008 3:15 PM:

Hillary's approach a lot like Bill's:

"you go back to the White House and you start holding people..."

frankly0 wrote on January 16, 2008 3:17 PM:

Arguing about whose management STYLE is appropriate for a President and would be most effective is a red herring. Sure Bush is a hands-off CEO type, to the nth degree. It's not his style that has caused problems...

That's going to be a very hard case to make to the voters. I think that when they look at the breakdown that was Katrina, they knew that there was just a fundamental breakdown in competence and oversight, and that it went to the very top. Everybody was asleep at the wheel, Bush included. I mean, the guy didn't himself see the urgency of Katrina, even though everybody in America knew it?

When another Katrina comes round, the people in authority had better not be talking hope and inspiration. They better be getting down in the trenches and doing the hard work, and the guy (or gal) at the very top had better be all over their asses making sure that things get done right and as fast as humanly possible.

I'm sure, though, that Obama would have an inspiring speech for the occasion. Everybody would love it except for the people who need actual help.

denisem wrote on January 16, 2008 3:18 PM:

wjs, Krugman obviously has a personal hurt-pride vendetta going against Obama, he has constantly attacked Obama, while giving his opponents a free ride, ever since Obama disagreed with him on healthcare plans. Krugman needs to stick to economics because he has shown time and time again that politics is not his strong suit.

Conway II wrote on January 16, 2008 3:19 PM:

I've never been here either. Even though I'm a Hillary supporter, I can't believe how stupid most of her supporters are. The woman is a liar. What's she going to do, sit there and refill the paper clips while the nuclear missiles are flying at us? Jeeeeeze. Give me a break, will you.

Are you with me sisters?

Hugo in NY wrote on January 16, 2008 3:23 PM:

Hillary Clinton is a one-term senator with no executive experience. The "35 yrs" she keeps invoking means she thinks she was an elected official the moment she left law school. Sen. Obama has won more elections than she has. We do not need a drone and a wonk as the next president, we need someone with a capacious intellect and an open mind. Clinton has neither. Her entitlement is breathtaking. Clearly she will play the race card or any other Rove card to take the wind out of Obama's sails. And that is what this is about: bringing him down into the muck in which she and her surrogates operate. She does not have the experience to be president because she utterly bungled health care in 1993, due to her arrogance and isolation. Give Obama your vote!

mike wrote on January 16, 2008 3:24 PM:

I hate to say it, but I was a bit taken aback by Obama's assertion.

He runs a great campaign (as opposed to Howard Dean) so he can run stuff, but I do think he provided her with a bit of an opening. I hope it blows over, but it sticks in my craw.

Michael A wrote on January 16, 2008 3:25 PM:

Hi willy, I wasn't happy with any of those people voting for war. What's your point, since someone else did it, its ok for the coo/LBJ/change agent clinton to do it? That doesn't make sense.

On colin powell, yep, on an issue of freaking war, I would expect that elected officials making the vote to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent americans and iraqis and to destroy a country would want unvarnished and unspun information. When I found out that the best they had was the garbage they spewed at the UN from one tainted source appropriately named "curveball" I nearly threw up. I blame every single one of the bozos for voting for war that voted for war without reading the NIE, period. I also blame the right-wing media just as much for not getting to the truth or even trying.

Still didn't answer on the gravel campaign. How's it going, any prospects?

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 3:25 PM:

"When another Katrina comes round, the people in authority had better not be talking hope and inspiration."

The difference is that Bush didn't talk hope and inspiration at all. He talked about how rotten government was, how it couldn't do anything, how only the private sector can be trusted, and then he set out to prove it.

This is truly a foolish distinction. The fact is, the president can't do what Hillary is suggesting she will do, and if they try, they fail. This is generally considered to be Carters greatest failing, and Carter is the president that most tarred our name. The problem wasn't that Bush wasn't on the trucks delivering water. The problem was that he feathered the federal nest with incompetent cronies sucking on the tax teat. Clearly Clinton, with her machine that runs on favors, is more likely to appoint similar patronage.

Michael A wrote on January 16, 2008 3:27 PM:

As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. This picture speaks volumes.

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Most-Recommended-Photos-MSNBC-Nevada-Senator-Hillary-Clinton-Senator-Barack-Obama/ss/1750/im:/080116/ids_photos_ts/r3274081277.jpg/;_ylt=AjO6.lTp7U7mE_fXlVRTT3piWscF

joejoejoe wrote on January 16, 2008 3:28 PM:

If Hillary Clinton wants to run as Mike Dukakis "Competence, not ideology" then let her. I think Obama through out that COO line to draw an attack to set up a counterpunch.

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 3:31 PM:

I take that back. I'd say Clinton herself is most recently the one who tarred progressive's name with this management style in so called "HillaryCare." She provided it with no rhetorical backing, just sweated out a bunch of details. She missed the big picture, both in terms of details of the plan (it really did suck, and submarined single-payer) and it terms of it's political chances. It died a nasty death because she held on tightly to details that hardly mattered.

That's a micromanager for you. Hillarycare.

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 3:32 PM:

I'm surprised how many people side with Obama's invocation of Bush here.
Pretty disappointing

roanoke wrote on January 16, 2008 3:32 PM:

Kefa regarding "racist stuff": if I don't see it, it isn't there; get over it; move on. Please. This is a typical "the world really is color-blind, really" attitude. The illogical suggestion that somebody who sees something as racist, especially if the racist suggestion is effectively veiled, is somehow racist herself holds no water. This was only the first round of race-baiting. If you think the "racist stuff" is over and done with because the candidates agreed to agree it wasn't good for them, then you're missing something. [Listen to John Lewis vs. Rev. Joseph Lowery on PBS on Monday. Lewis won't let this go and he seems to really want to hammer Obama the upstart.] Clinton is only effective when in attack mode; the big tent with everyone getting along rhetoric is owned by Obama so Clinton has no other recourse but to attack on any and all fronts--including the racial ones--if this campaign gets much closer.

goldberry wrote on January 16, 2008 3:34 PM:

Yeah, I heard something like this from an Obama supporter the other day. He said something like, "We're voting for a leader, not a department store manager."

I thought Obama people were supposed to be the smart demographic group. Or was the creative? Must be creative because from what I remember of the way our government is laid out, the President sits at the top of the executive branch which consists of a bunch of-
wait for it-
*Departments!*

So, the analogy is really quite apt. He/she is a department store manager and probably should know a little about how the whole store and each department works so he/she can hire the right people to run the place.

Yep, Obama stepped right into that one. But I'm not surprised the Hillary is running with it. It remains to be seen whether it makes any difference to the Obama fans who have a tendency to ignore such inconvenient details.

Bupalos wrote on January 16, 2008 3:36 PM:

I think HillaryCare as the test case for the management style that Hillary is talking about is valid. She was the "operating officer" on that one, and we saw where it went.

Of course, we aren't allowed to see the presidential papers, so I guess we're supposed to wait until after the election to have a closer look at that.

hwc wrote on January 16, 2008 3:36 PM:

Phil James:

The degree to which GWB actively understood and endorsed what was happening in his his administration is an unanswered question.

What is NOT in dispute is that Cheney and Rumsfeld effectively built a firewall between the career professionals and the flow of information to the White House.

Those career professionals serve as a critical check and balance against extremism and incompetence in the Oval Office. For example, the CIA developed very good intelligence questioning Sadaam's nuclear program in the months immediately before the Iraq invasion. However, Cheney used the shadow neo-con intelligence shop in the Pentagon to effectively squelch the flow of information to the President and to the NIE report.

A hands-on President would have demanded a flow of information outlining both sides of the debate. It is vitally important that the President understand how the government works and the constant risk of underlings shaping the flow of information. That's why a President must be hands on.

ChrisNBama wrote on January 16, 2008 3:36 PM:

If Obama's smart,he will continue to pound away at Hillary's war vote. Judgment trumps experience every time, and on the singular issue of our time, the one dealing with life and death in the most graphic terms, Obama was right. Not only right, but speaking out against this travesty a full five months before "shock and awe". Hillary was walking, somnambulistically in lockstep with other's in the Washington bubble.

I also find it troubling, that whereas both Edwards and Kerry admit that the AUMF vote was a mistake, Hillary continues to argue that her vote was only meant to signal our resolve in settling the matter diplomatically. The vote was an AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE. Additionally, when the vote occurred, Bush was already dramatically ramping up our military presence in the area, building sortieing bases in Qatar and the like. Can any reasonable person believe that the vote wouldn't result in the invasion? Again, Judgment matters, and Obama without having read the NIE, like Hillary, foresaw the outcome.

phil james wrote on January 16, 2008 3:41 PM:

"When another Katrina comes round, the people in authority had better not be talking hope and inspiration. They better be getting down in the trenches and doing the hard work, and the guy (or gal) at the very top had better be all over their asses making sure that things get done right and as fast as humanly possible."

This just reinforces the importance of judgement over management style. Obama said he would put the best people in management positions reporting to him. And make decisions based on his best judgement. Bush obviously did not and does not. Why? He doesn't really care about competence. He wants suck-ups and yes-men to make him feel important. And by the way, wouldn't it also have to be the case that Bush would have actually had to give a rat's ass what happened to the people of the Gulf Coast to really make sure the response was fast and well executed. I suggest he simply did not, just like he doesn't give a rat's ass what his poll numbers are or how most people in the world hold him in contempt. So long as his gang loves him. He IS a mafia don.

Bupalos wrote on January 16, 2008 3:41 PM:

What about it Hillary fans? Don't you think her "executive" leadership of health care reform should be an informative test case for this management style?

If you ask me, the problem with Hillary is that she thinks it takes hard work to pass laws. It doesn't. It takes majorities. Period. You can work yourself into a lather trying to cram through your latest perfect pet project (cf. HillaryCare). No one gives a ?#!@ how hard you worked. They're for it or against it based on whether they have been convinced of the case. No one in the field, IMO, is less convincing than Hillary.

Donald from Hawaii wrote on January 16, 2008 3:41 PM:

coonsey: "The CHIEF OF STAFF is the OPERATING OFFICER in the WHITE HOUSE."

Actually, the White House Chief of Staff is akin to a chief executive officer.

In fact, when President Reagan's C-of-S Don Regan tried to act otherwise while his boss was recovering from colon cancer surgery, he was roundly criticized for it. From TIME Magazine (July 1985):

"Vice President George Bush did not get to pay a post-operative call on Ronald Reagan until last Wednesday, National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane not until Thursday. But Chief of Staff Donald Regan shuttled between his White House office and the Bethesda bedside all week, constituting, with Nancy Reagan, the President's principal contact with the outside world and becoming, for all intents and purposes, the chief operating officer of the U.S."

Link: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1048400-1,00.html

phil james wrote on January 16, 2008 3:48 PM:

hwc says:
"A hands-on President would have demanded a flow of information outlining both sides of the debate. It is vitally important that the President understand how the government works and the constant risk of underlings shaping the flow of information. That's why a President must be hands on."

Interesting, but beside the point. It would not have made a damn bit of difference for Bush. Bush did not care to hear information weighing against an invasion. He had decided when he won the Presidency that he was going to invade Iraq. He just needed any plausible cover for it. Which is what his henchmen provided. His failure wasn't a failure of not minding the store well enough. His failure was in faithfully following the dictates of his own arrogance and the self-serving irrational belief that he was ordained by God to do what the hell he wanted.

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 3:48 PM:

But do we need another four years of Bill and his wife?

Polemarchus wrote on January 16, 2008 3:55 PM:

That is why we never got health care reform. It's the LBJ without the MLK. They were going to cram it through, and they forgot to tell people why they wanted it. So the Republicans were able not only to sink it, but used it as a basis to overturn congress.

By rights, the rhetoric should have been Bill's job though. Still, I do think the LBJ v MLK thing, that got lost in stupid racial stuff, is instructive in the emphasis of these two candidates. I lean slightly towards Obama on this--I mean, look at reagan, the man was nothing but a gas-bag hope machine, and he became a movement that's been biting progressives in the ass for 25 years. But I do think they both Obama and Clinton have a point and a weakness here.

rashad davis wrote on January 16, 2008 3:56 PM:

Not surprising given Barack's admiration of Ronald Reagan's presidency:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaoYD7iZG9w

ChrisNBama wrote on January 16, 2008 3:59 PM:

"Phil James:

The degree to which GWB actively understood and endorsed what was happening in his his administration is an unanswered question...However, Cheney used the shadow neo-con intelligence shop in the Pentagon to effectively squelch the flow of information to the President and to the NIE report."

I don't buy this analysis for a moment. The evidence suggests that Bush, from very early on in his Presidency, was bent on removing Saddam from power.

Your effectively diminishing the role Bush played in this cluster f***. While I think Cheney is a creep, and certainly has had free reign in the Administration, I reject any argument that minimizes the culpability of Bush regarding Iraq. I think Bush was fully aware of the ambiguity of the intelligence, and constructed a narrative supporting his desire to remove Saddam.

You are seeing the very same thing happening in real time regarding Iran. The President recently said,

"I defended our intelligence services, but made it clear that they're an independent agency; that they come to conclusions separate from what I may or may not want," said the president."

"Bush said he had also told the king that the Iranians "were a threat, they are a threat, and they will be a threat if we don't work together to stop their enrichment."

Translation: The NIE will say one thing, and I reserve the right to say another. Afterall, our intelligence agencies are only one source of information. Bush has a 'higher father' that he deals with.

The full article is here:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i6Pipi-FQW3c2eqvNXfi9csfK97A

Polemarchus wrote on January 16, 2008 4:00 PM:

You'd do well to consider, Rashad, that Raygun has been the most successful president at effecting change in a couple generations. Now granted, it was horrible, awfull change that we are still undoing. But no one argues he was a wildly EFFECTIVE president that changed the political map.

That's what Obama MIGHT be able to be for us.

NoahB wrote on January 16, 2008 4:03 PM:

When asked about their weaknesses, Clinton and Edwards both replied with a variation of, "I'm just too committed, too earnest, etc. etc." -- empty focus-grouped treacle. Obama, on the other hand, actually tried to respond honestly; he admitted that he has weaknesses.

That's why I like him. I don't agree with him on everything, and he's much more of a politician than he sometimes pretends (his support for Todd Stroger, for example...ick.) But he doesn't come across as perpetually terrified of losing. As a result, he seems able to, at least somewhat honestly, evaluate himself and listen to what other people are saying. Hillary, and yes, Edwards too, just seem buried by their mission statements.

Incidentally, the problem with Bush is not that he's willing to delegate authority (which any President has to do) but rather that he's intellectually disengaged in a catastrophic way. It's his lack of curiosity that's the problem. Obama is much, much, much less like Bush in this regard than Hillary is. And many of the problems of Bill Clinton's administration (those last-minute pardons, for example) were, from what I've read, very much tied up in his inability to delegate. So was Hillary's health-care debacle, for that matter.

Steve wrote on January 16, 2008 4:05 PM:

HillaryCare may be a fair case for her management style, but I would argue that her proposal was actually not bad. It didn't go anywhere because the special interests sabotaged the process, but that's hardly her fault. She was, in many ways, and as Anne Rice said, prophetic.

Bupalos wrote on January 16, 2008 4:09 PM:

The point isn't whether HillaryCare was a good or bad proposal, or whether she worked hard enough at it. That's exactly the point here. She worked her ass off as a lone micromanager, and the result was a perhaps technically competent proposal that went down in flames and cause a congressional route.

Exactly the point. This is what micromanagement, and missing the forest for the trees, results in.

Nickal wrote on January 16, 2008 4:11 PM:

Mari:
Obama cannot hold someone accountable if he does not understand what the individual is supposed to be doing. Obama needs depth (and soon!) if he is to be the president. We are in year 8 of the hands off president. How's that working out for us? Believe me when I tell you that the bureacracy cares very little for inspiring rhetoric and "vision", whatever that means. Though Obama seems fresh now, how fresh will he be by Jan. 20, 2009? Or Jan. 20, 2011? The answer is "not very." By then, real leadership had better replace the "I hope and I dream" hoo-ha that Obama is peddling now.

Polemarchus wrote on January 16, 2008 4:11 PM:

Can we stop calling it HillaryCare? That's a republican talking point. It was the Clinton Administration's proposal to reform health care, and we'd be a lot better off if it had been adopted.

Goldberry wrote on January 16, 2008 4:13 PM:

*Bupalos*- No, I don't think so. If you've ever run for office and won, you quickly find out that what looked like it should be a piece of cake is actually a bunch of entrenched interests who passively or aggressively set out to thwart anything that asks them to change the way they do things. It's happened to me on a smaller scale than healthcare.
But with enough experience and having burned your hands, you tend to go about things differently from that point on. That is not to say that you can't be effective but you learn how the system operates, you learn what to use as carrots and you know how to whack people with sticks.
So, I think the danger is greatest for Obama who hasn't been through it yet, has little practical experience in the executive branch and who seems to be pushing for change in a way that will have the entrenched interests salivating with glee at his naivete.
Not only that, but I have absolutely NO idea what it is he wants to change. What is Change? And if he thinks that by reducing his demands in the healthcare area up front is going to result in change, he is sadly mistaken. We will end up with less than nothing because he has already ceded the middle ground to the ruthless ones.
I feel much more comfortable with Hillary in charge because she's done it, made her mistakes, fixed her approach and got something accomplished (SCHIP. Now that we see what a battle it has been to expand SCHIP, the creation of this program was no small accomplishment.

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 4:13 PM:

Brunehilde, the Iron Maiden

And 500,000 Iraqis and 4,000 US soldiers are dead just so she could prove how tough she is

What no tears?

Bupalos wrote on January 16, 2008 4:15 PM:

The fate of Hillary's health care reform exactly mirrors the Carter administration, and the failure of both was due to exactly this style that Hillary is priding herself on.

We'll get health care reform if we get a decent majority. If we don't, we won't, no matter how hard the bureaucrats "work at it."

DonnaG wrote on January 16, 2008 4:17 PM:

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the HillaryCare initiative of the 90's get presented to a majority Dem Congress?

I think this is relevant, especially for the history revisionists like anon at 3:06 pm who said 'the Republicans' defeated it. I think it is also relevant to see how Hillary remained tone-deaf to those in her own party, even dividing them on a matter such as health care.

Michael A wrote on January 16, 2008 4:23 PM:

Polemarcus, this has got to be the funniest line that I have seen in an age:

I mean, look at reagan, the man was nothing but a gas-bag hope machine, and he became a movement that's been biting progressives in the ass for 25 years.

I am still laughing. Very, very funny line. Thanks.

Nickal wrote on January 16, 2008 4:23 PM:

Donna is correct. The fault was not the Republicans. Rather it was a shared short coming of Clinton and the Dems. The Congress lacked the nerve to implement what HRC proposed because they could not see themselves upsetting the big loby apple cart. HRC shares the blame, too, because she assumed that she was too smart to be denied. She wasn't and isn't. From this fiasco, however, I see evidence that she has learned that she needs to bring interested parties together to get things done.

Gnopple wrote on January 16, 2008 4:24 PM:

To the point on comparisons to the Bush "hands off" presidency:

Bush refused to take responsibility for the work of his underlings. Not only was he hands off, but he couldn't care less. He valued loyalty over competence. I see that as a huge difference between a good leader who holds his subordinates accountable.

Ron Jeremy wrote on January 16, 2008 4:28 PM:

Fact Sheet: Sen. Obama's 129 Present Votes
Today, Sen. Obama’s campaign held a conference call to defend his record of voting present on choice issues. But the Obama campaign failed to address the fact that Sen. Obama voted present 129 times on a wide array of issues, including choice, privacy for victims of sexual assault, and school violence. In fact, the Obama campaign claimed that Sen. Obama’s present votes were part of a legislative strategy but failed to mention that Sen. Obama was the lone present vote on a number of key issues.

Sen. Obama’s Present Votes By The Numbers

Sen. Obama voted 'present' 129 times while in the State Senate. [New York Times, 12/20/07]

In 1999, Sen. Obama voted 'present' more often than he voted 'no': According to state records, Obama voted 'present' 43 times in 1999, while voting 'no' just 29 times. [ilga.gov]

At least 36 times, Sen. Obama was either the only State Senator to vote present or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way. [New York Times, 12/20/07]

Other Present Votes of Interest:

Sen. Obama was the only State Senator to vote 'present' on a bill that sought to protect the privacy of sex-abuse victims, and the only state senator to not support the bill. [HB854, Passed 58-0-1, 05/11/99]

Sen. Obama was the only State Senator to vote 'present' on an adoption bill that imposed stricter requirements for parental fitness, and the only State Senator to not support the bill. [HB1298, Passed 57-0-1, 5/6/1999]

Sen. Obama voted 'present' on a bill that would increase penalties for the use of a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. The bill called for the mandatory adult persecution of a minor at least 15 years of age being tried for using a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. [SB759, Passed 52-1-5, 3/25/1999]

Sen. Obama voted 'present' on a bill to prohibit the presence of adult sex shops near schools, places of worship, and day care facilities; bill allows local governments to regulate the presence of adult sex shops. [SB609, Passed 33-15-5, 3/29/2001]

Illinois Now on Obama's Present Votes On Choice:

During Sen. Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign, the Illinois NOW PAC did not recommend the endorsement of Obama for U.S. Senate because he refused to stand up for a woman’s right to choose and repeatedly voted ‘present’ on important legislation.

As a State Senator, Barack Obama voted ‘present’ on seven abortion bills, including a ban on 'partial birth abortion,' two parental notification laws and three 'born alive' bills. In each case, the right vote was clear, but Sen. Obama chose political cover over standing and fighting for his convictions.

"When we needed someone to take a stand, Sen. Obama took a pass," said Grabenhofer. "He wasn’t there for us then and we don’t expect him to be now."

Bupalos wrote on January 16, 2008 4:29 PM:

Goldberry, you turn a decent argument and I can respect that. But I disagree. In national politics, there are no "tricks" that the old dog can learn to game the system these days. The only way to beat the entrenched interests is with a game-changing victory that changes majorities.

Look at Reagan. No experience whatsoever. A total outsider. No tricks. No hoops. Just a knack for a speech that produced a total rewriting of the electoral map, and has been pushing "conservative" legislation for three decades.

We have the same kind of electoral set up for us now that the Republicans had in 80. Wildly unpopular president, failing economy, divided opposition party, and popular support for much of our platform. This is where you go for the game changer. An uninspiring, middle of the road, plodding work-horse is a waste here. Clinton will bring essentially no independents in. Obama might bring in a ton. That's my bet. And I'm not going to throw away that chance because Clinton is "safer" or because we can't risk a neophyte with terrorists at our doorstep or whatever. Let's go for it!

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 4:36 PM:

>>>(SCHIP. Now that we see what a battle it has been to expand SCHIP, the creation of this program was no small accomplishment.

By the by, it's not a battle at all to expand SCHIP. It has broad bipartisan support. Just not quite enough to override a veto. So that gets done almost no matter what.

Michael A wrote on January 16, 2008 4:36 PM:

ronnie, that is a complete distortion. Now you want to talk about votes how about voting to launch a war of aggression that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent americans and iraqis and the destruction of a freaking country. AND, the vote was made without even reading the intelligence estimate that revealed that the whole case for war was based on lies. AND, making that vote solely for political purposes. Now that is one heck of a vote.

Notwithstanding you have no clue what you are talking about and that you are completely distorting what the present votes were, he could have made 400 or more present votes in the face of clinton's iraq war vote and it wouldn't matter. Throw on top of that the iran war vote.

And she wants to be the coo/LBJ/change agent president. Give me a break.

Ron Jeremy wrote on January 16, 2008 4:39 PM:

It's all documented and incontrovertible, my little friend. He's not who you think he is.

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 4:41 PM:

>>>Though Obama seems fresh now, how fresh will he be by Jan. 20, 2009? Or Jan. 20, 2011? The answer is "not very." By then, real leadership had better replace the "I hope and I dream" hoo-ha that Obama is peddling now.

Why don't you ask the 1980 Republicans how their hope and dream hoo-ha candidate worked out. Last time I checked, 28 years later, he was so "stale" that every single republitard was falling all over themselves to say they would be the next one.

Bush-clinton-clinton-bush-bush-clinton...."false hopes," "lowered expectations..."

You guys don't know how to go for a win.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 16, 2008 4:41 PM:

"When we needed someone to take a stand, Sen. Obama took a pass," said Grabenhofer. "He wasn’t there for us then and we don’t expect him to be now."

Who is "Grabenhofer"? The rest of the post from which this quote was culled does not make that clear.

Ron Jeremy wrote on January 16, 2008 4:45 PM:

Bonnie Grabenhofer, president of Illinois NOW

http://www.illinoisnow.org/

Go to the link. See their anti-Obama position.

He's not who you think he is.

Ron Jeremy wrote on January 16, 2008 4:50 PM:

Matt Stoller weighs in on Obama's Reagan admiration

There are many reason progressives should admire Ronald Reagan, politically speaking. He realigned the country around his vision, he brought into power a new movement that created conservative change, and he was an extremely skilled politician. But that is not why Obama admires Reagan. Obama admires Reagan because he agrees with Reagan's basic frame that the 1960s and 1970s were full of 'excesses' and that government had grown large and unaccountable.

Those excesses, of course, were feminism, the consumer rights movement, the civil rights movement, the environmental movement, and the antiwar movement. The libertarian anti-government ideology of an unaccountable large liberal government was designed by ideological conservatives to take advantage of the backlash against these 'excesses'.

It is extremely disturbing to hear, not that Obama admires Reagan, but why he does so. Reagan was not a sunny optimist pushing dynamic entrepreneurship, but a savvy politician using a civil rights backlash to catapult conservatives to power. Lots of people don't agree with this, of course, since it doesn't fit a coherent narrative of GOP ascendancy. Masking Reagan's true political underpinning principles is a central goal of the conservative movement, with someone as powerful as Grover Norquist seeking to put Reagan's name on as many monuments as possible and the Republican candidates themselves using Reagan's name instead of George Bush's in GOP debates as a mark of greatness. Why would the conservative movement create such idolatry around Reagan? Is is because they just want to honor a great man? Perhaps that is some of it. Or are they trying to escape the legacy of the conservative movement so that it can be rebuilt in a few years, as they did after Nixon, Reagan, and Bush I?

I don't know. But if you think, as Obama does, that Reagan's rise to power was premised on a sunny optimism in contrast to an out of control government and a society rife with liberal excess, then you don't understand the conservative movement. Reagan tapped into greed and fear and tribalism, and those are powerful forces. Ignoring that isn't going to make them go away.

Gnopple wrote on January 16, 2008 4:50 PM:

Bonnie Grabenhofer is the president of Illinois NOW -- and is backing...you guessed it: HRC.

Apparently Planned Parenthood didn't consult with NOW when they formed their present-vote strategy.

This is all hillary hogwash. THe strategy, of course, wasn't to protect Obama -- he was in a safe district -- but to give cover to those abortion rights supporters in conservative districts.

This is one of those things about Hillary which makes it so hard to support her. She pulls the same "keep misrepresenting until it becomes truth" garbage as Rove/Bush. It's gross.

Michael A wrote on January 16, 2008 4:52 PM:

That is not true ronnie, he voted present at the request of the pro-choice people. There was one allegedly controversial present vote out of 4000. Clinton has two out of alot less and one caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent americans and iraqis and the destruction of a country.

I really hate the clintonion distortions and lies and cannot wait until the primaries are over. I hope she gets voted out of the senate next time around and she goes into retirement. No more 90's politics and lies.

Nickal wrote on January 16, 2008 4:57 PM:

Bupalos:
Reagan was the governor of the most populous state in the country. Most people would call that fairly extensive experience, even if you would not. In addition, Reagan had experience as the head of the actors union and was a nationally known political figure. He was also a former Democrat. Something, I gather from his recent courting of Republican voters, Obama is aspiring to become.

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 5:03 PM:

To Anonymous 4:41p.m.:
There is no accounting for taste. That the "republitards" as you so eloquently put it, aspire to be Reagan should tell you much about his legacy. If he were so great, why is not every politician trying to emulate him. No, it took REAL Democrats to end Reagan's legacy of bloated deficit spending and ever increasing national debt. I do not know of any politician who would choose as a legacy nearly bankrupting the country over being known for implementing sane financial principles.

Ron Jeremy wrote on January 16, 2008 5:13 PM:

According to Reagan, all people had to do was believe in a new morning in America and put their faith in him.

According to Barack Obama, all people have to do is believe in hope and change and put their faith in him.

It's easy to see why Obama admires Reagan. The two have so much in common.

Goldberry wrote on January 16, 2008 5:30 PM:

To Bupalos: I think that's what we call throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's a very dangerous path to take for several reasons:
1.) There are businesses and agriculture and housing and a whole host of other entities that rely on a working federal department system. Some of these, *most* of these agencies and departments have been very badly mishandled by the Bush administration. As a result, a lot of people are at risk. Take the FDA for example. That regulatory agency is in crisis. It's affecting both consumers and businesses. To say that all we need to do is apply new thinking and change is ignoring the fact that there are serious problems in the here and now that could benefit from skilled management.
2.) I have no idea what Obama means by change but he is running to the right of both Edwards and Clinton in order to appeal to independents and that troubles me greatly. Because we have seen that a Democrat can not win by trying to run as a version of a Republican. In other words, you can not win if you appeal to the right. This is because the TRUE authoritarian doesn't care if you are the most sensible person on earth and is willing to work with you. They are interested in safety, conformity and compliance.
3.) There is a reason why they're called Independents. It means they can be persuaded to vote in either party depending on issues (or so they say, but let's take them at their word). I fail to see why Obama's message is more appealing to them than Clinton's or Edwards, especially if they are fed up with Republicans. You might find some libertarians who are receptive to Obama but if there is a compelling reason why Independents would prefer Obama, I haven't heard it yet.
Independents went for Bush in 2004 because they were frightened into it and wanted to stick with the devil they knew. It is my suspicion that if Obama is the nominee, the fear issue will be rolled out again and Independents will be vulnerable because Obama might be seen as weak on national security issues. Independents will not have similar misgivings about Clinton. And whether you hated it or not, the Lieberman-Kyl resolution is favorable to her in the general election. We don't know how Obama would have voted.
So, you don't have to take any advice that I give you but if I were you, I would pin Obama down on just exactly what he means by Change. Because if I don't know what I'm buying, I continue to shop around.

Ron Jeremy wrote on January 16, 2008 5:58 PM:

Does anyone know how many of the Culinary workers in NV are legal residents?

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 6:14 PM:

chris n bama said

"Phil James:
The degree to which GWB actively understood and endorsed what was happening in his his administration is an unanswered question...However, Cheney used the shadow neo-con intelligence shop in the Pentagon to effectively squelch the flow of information to the President and to the NIE report."

I don't buy this analysis for a moment. The evidence suggests that Bush, from very early on in his Presidency, was bent on removing Saddam from power."

I don't buy it either. Thats why I argued against it. It was hwc's argument, not mine.

Anon 1 wrote on January 16, 2008 6:14 PM:

Obama never makes a decision on issues that appear controversial. He is a Masterful Ducker. The Vice President will have to be someone who is in a Red State.

“Barack Obama has been very careful not to position himself as Rev. Jesse Jackson or Rev. Al Sharpton as a promoter of ‘The Black Cause,’” Farrakhan said in the interview with FinalCall.com. “He has been groomed, wisely so, to be seen more as a unifier, rather than one who speaks only for the hurt of black people.” (Louis Farrakhan)

Who groomed Obama so well?

ChrisNBama wrote on January 16, 2008 6:45 PM:

I apologize if I misrepresented you Phil James, sometimes following lines of conversation in these threads is like driving in congested traffic with your eyes closed.

Cheers.

Sasha wrote on January 16, 2008 6:54 PM:

She needs to do this, and talk policy. Her policy proposals are impressive. Her campaign found out that talking policy is a good technique on the ground--she needs to get it on the air as well. This is harder because it doesn't raise ratings for the media, but people respond to it--and it would strongly reinforce her talking point about her experience and capability. Also it would earn her progressive votes.

Franklin wrote on January 16, 2008 6:54 PM:

Ron -- every single caucus participant will be a legal citizen. In order to participate you need to be registered voter, and in order to be a registered voter in Nevada you need to be a legal resident of this country. The same is true for the members of the union.

Anon 6:14 PM -- Bush talked about the Iraq and the likelihood of an invasion during the 2000 presidential debates. Guys like Wolfowitz had also made it their life's mission during the 1990s to "get the job done" -- even lobbying the Clinton administration to do this.

The fact that Perle, Rumsfeld, and Cheney found positions of responsibility within the administration also played a role in the decision to invade.

I do not think though that Bush committed fully to the Iraq invasion in his own mind in 2000. The echo chamber within his administration, and the ideological bent of his advisers towards Iraq though unquestionably hardened after the 9/11 attacks.

Anon1, as far as Obama "never making a decision on controversial issues", I'd be curious to hear what your thinking is here. One thing that I do know is that ideologues tend to go into policy debates knowing EXACTLY what the outcome should be (regardless of the evidence).

I do not think that Obama is strongly ideological -- from everything that I've heard -- he is someone who has the ability to listen to people's reasoning and look at new evidence, and to change his mind based on new information.

In broad outlines I see his key priorities as being: Ethics legislation; energy independence; health care; education reform; and drawing down the U.S. presence in Iraq -- refocusing the strategy in Afghanistan.

There is a track record to go on on all of these issues and he has a demonstrated commitment to these issues as well.

If you're talking about illegal immigration, I think all of the Democrats are on more or less the same page on this one. Civil penalties (fines and what not), English requirement (some favor this), improved border security, no forced deportations for illegal immigrants who are otherwise law-abiding. Some kind of a path way to citizenship (call it "amnesty" I call it "smart fiscal, and moral policy" -- the right thing to do).

Who groomed Obama so well? His grandparents and his mother for starters. Those are the big ones.

Elizabeth wrote on January 16, 2008 7:55 PM:

Of COURSE it's meant to deceive, specifically to decieve the less educated, poor citizens who gave her the edge in NH (where this flyer went out *1* day before the election). If HRC was truly interested in having an honest 'conversation' with voters or to truly 'contrast' her position with those of her opponents, the statement of Sen. Obama's position would have read:

"Lifting the cap on Social Security taxes SO THAT THOSE OF YOU MAKING OVER $102,000 A YEAR WILL send more of your hard-earned dollars to Washington."

But then ... that wouldn't be very frightening to her targets would it???

Disgusting!!!!!

(And, BTW, what is *her* proposal -- it's too faint to read what is on the flyer. AND you can't find it on her website ..... Obama's position is easy to find and understand on his web site. So much for which one has substance!)

roo_P wrote on January 16, 2008 8:04 PM:

Yeah, there is a really simple answer Obama can put out:

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

The President is not the COO of the nation. The president is the CEO. As in the, ya know, EXECUTIVE branch?

(As a bonus, he might get props from the business-types.)

NoahB wrote on January 16, 2008 8:21 PM:

I don't get the "Obama is running to the right of Hillary" meme at all. Their policy positions are really nearly indistinguishable from what I can tell. The evidence is that he doesn't want a mandate for health care and that he wants to try to fix social security by raising the cap so that rich people pay more into the system. To me those seem like wonkish disagreements, not hard core ideological differences. (Oh, yes, and he uses right-wing talking points -- which, as far as I can tell, means that he occasionally says negative things about Clinton, against whom he is, after all, running.) His qualified appreciation for Reagan is, after all, hedged in by numerous statments that he didn't agree with the man.

Obama's a progressive, liberal democrat from an extremely democratic state. He's pro-choice. He's against imperial wars. He's pro universal health care (though he has practical concerns about passing it.) The whining about how he's going to be another Reagan or Bush is simply nonsense. He's smarter than both of them doubled and put together, for one thing. You'd be a lot closer to a rational concern if you argued that he'd be another Carter (another very intelligent, nice guy with liberal views who didn't make such a hot President, for various reasons).

I feel like there are reasons to dislike or worry about Obama, but that the stuff coming out of the Clinton campaign and this forum are largely completely inaccurate. He's not an empty suit -- he's an enormously intelligent guy with lots of legislative cred and detailed policy positions. He's not a closet Republican -- he's interested in reaching out to Independents and Republicans because he thinks he can completely transform the electoral map in favor of progressives. He is extremely ambitious and impressed with himself -- but when HRC tried to hit him on this she overreached and sneered at his kindergarden essay, which has largely taken the issue off the table. So instead we're stuck with smearing him for stuff that's not true, I guess.

sfam wrote on January 16, 2008 8:35 PM:

For those who have never been inside the west wing to see how things operate, I have really bad news for you - the President is ALWAYS handed the paper 2 seconds before he has to do something with it, and its ALWAYS taken back right after. Why? Because everything the President sees has to be stamped as being seeing by the president at this time on this date. Literally, every version of every document the President sees during his/her entire presidency is supposed to be stored meticulously.

Bottom line, if ANYONE thinks the President, let alone any top-level executive, is managing paper, you're truly out to lunch. This is NOT the job of the President, and Hillary more than anyone else, knows this.

latinaforobama wrote on January 16, 2008 9:31 PM:

Would you want Hill for a boss? No. Blames staff for her shortcomings, yells, scapegoats, steals ideas.

Would you want Obama for a boss? Yes. Admits mistakes, teaches, listens, inspires.

Marc wrote on January 16, 2008 10:20 PM:

That Hilary as Track Flick video pretty much nails it.

If anything Barack might have been a little TOO honest on that weakness question there, but I think he was showing good character, and also a sense of humor. Hilary, like JE, tried the phony approach and man it was so obvious. I just care toooo much. Give me a break.

Freddie Flintstone wrote on January 16, 2008 10:41 PM:

Obama has got to be one of the emptiest, vain politicians to come along besides George W. Bush. He proved himself a complete boob last night with his admission that he hasn't a clue what's going on in the world. Did he really vote for Cheney's energy bill because he thought it was helping alternative energy. My wife and I nearly fell out of our chairs laughing when he said that. His fake MLK style has also had us rolling on the floor with laughter. He's another John Kerry without the war metals but with the prep school, Ivy League affectations. Do you honestly think this guy knows the price of a gallon of milk? Liberals are drooling over themselves about voting for him because voting for a black man makes them feel good about themselves. It reminds me of my rich liberal friends who throw a bone or two to some cause and then live high off the hog and feel quite satisfied that they have done their thing for humanity. Never mind the ten or so million in the stock market sucking the labor out of the dollar a day wage earners in developing countries. If I were Karl Rove I would be doing that awful white boy dance he did recently up and down the stage. Yee hi!

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 11:00 PM:

Every president has their own management style. I think it is pretty clear from his past comments that he intends to be a president who listens, who knows how to make sure he has the best people working for him, and who will make good decisions using sound judgment...pretty much the exact opposite of Bush. Personally I think that Obama has shown the best judgment in the past, especially on matters of foreign policy, and I think that counts for a lot more than trying to parse a rather meaningless comment to try to score political points. Give me a break.

Obama hasn't done zip. He is chairman of the sub-committee on Europe and he hasn't held one single hearing. He doesn't like to work.

Or what kinds of legislation has he in