Hillary Mailer Attacks Obama On Abortion
Okay, it's starting. After a bunch of debate in the Hillary camp over how directly to draw "contrasts" with Obama, the Hillary campaign has sent out a new mailer in New Hampshire attacking Obama directly on abortion.
Click on the images below to enlarge:
The Obama campaign has sent us a response to debunk the mailer's charges: Two links. This one, and this one.
Comments (100)
john mccutchen wrote on January 5, 2008 7:16 PM:She's falling apart faster than a Detroit car company
Blame Game Begins in Camp Billary
MarkL wrote on January 5, 2008 7:17 PM:Good for her.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/05/postiowa-blame-game-begin_n_79921.html
josh wrote on January 5, 2008 7:20 PM:Her desperation reeks.
The Facilitatrix wrote on January 5, 2008 7:33 PM:Where is the debate being broadcast? I can't find it listed anywhere--even online.
AlwaysTipTheWaitress wrote on January 5, 2008 7:39 PM:Oh boy. Mark Penn came up with another billiant ploy to win back the women vote.
If this is how Clinton deals with quickly changing circumstances, thank goodness she won't be president. She definitely is not quick and nimble.
debate is on ABC
bvd wrote on January 5, 2008 7:41 PM:"Planned Parenthood was encouraging “Present” votes by some of their more loyal members in order to encourage the moderates to vote that way as well."
So Hillary's attacking Obama for supporting Illinois Planned Parenthood by working with their strategy against these anti-abortion bills.
“The poor guy is getting all this heat for a strategy we, the pro-choice community, did,” said Pam Sutherland, president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council.
Hillary, please stop embarrassing yourself. And us.
I am watching the republican debate. One good question to ask Obama is when he is standing on the same stage with McCain, comparing a man with no foreign policy experience and a man with a lot, who does he think people would pick to keep this country safe?
Rhoda wrote on January 5, 2008 7:43 PM:The key is that this is a mailer. If it was a commerical they could cut an ad and rebute it directly but since it went out to the Clinton mailing list; it's harder to gain traction against the clear mis-information. And there is enough time that it might work or at least turn single issue voters away from Obama.
This isn't a contrast or an attack, it's clear misinformation.
And it's sad.
hello_world wrote on January 5, 2008 7:44 PM:You got to give it to Obama's camp. They obviously are ready to respond to these attacks from the Clinton campaign. But they will need to get that message out to voters outside of the internet wonks that actively read up on this stuff.
I can't see any way for Clinton to pierce Obama's momentum in time for the primary, barring a some huge surprise coming out of tonight's debate. The real question becomes how his team responds to the all-out blitz of negativity she'll unleash going into Feb 5th. At one time, I was worried, but now I think he'll be just fine.
CalD wrote on January 5, 2008 7:45 PM:What about the other 130 times?
bvd wrote on January 5, 2008 7:49 PM:Ni Daye - An awful lot of people will pick the man who had the good sense to know that invading Iraq was going to be a total disaster and wants to get out.
McCain was for it going in, for it all along, is still for it now and is for it continuing for the next 50-100 years.
How many people do you think side with McCain?
Michael A wrote on January 5, 2008 7:49 PM:Now, this really sucks and is a fraud. He voted present because it was a strategy promoted from pro-choice groups. I see this garbage and just can't wait until the primaries are over. She is getting such bad advice. She should fire her whole staff and shoot for 2016. Pathetic.
Musashi wrote on January 5, 2008 7:52 PM:"I am watching the republican debate. One good question to ask Obama is when he is standing on the same stage with McCain, comparing a man with no foreign policy experience and a man with a lot, who does he think people would pick to keep this country safe?"
The general election is a popularity contest where the candidate better able to allow the American people to feel good about themselves and their country wins. Always.
Obama vs. McCain = Obama wins
The Facilitatrix wrote on January 5, 2008 7:53 PM:Thanks for the info, but it's not showing until 7 our time in the west. By that time, I'll know everything that happened via the blogs!
Re Obama and Clinton, I so hate the attacks--from anyone on anyone.
I'm a silly idealist, I know, but I wish there were an agreement among the candidates to stick to touting themselves and going into detail about their proposals rather than disparaging the others. Point out the differences between themselves and their competitors, but only accurately.
Whenever I hear or read an attack, I feel as if the attacker doesn't have a legitimate way to make him or herself seem better than the others. Every attack makes me mentally rate them down another notch.
Desider wrote on January 5, 2008 7:55 PM:Mostly I think it's a stupid response to Wednesday - mostly because I don't think abortion is high on people's worries in the Democratic primaries with a guaranteed Democratic Congress, and it feels like a retread. They need something bold and clever and this is what they come up with? At least it seems Hillary is talking to the press more and discussing Iraq. We'll see.
Anonymous wrote on January 5, 2008 7:55 PM:Hillary Cliinton's campaign is in a panic downward spiral. This tactic of negative, dishonest, obfuscating attack on another Democratic candidate is absolute desperation, and truly reprehensible. Hillary and her mean machine are saying nothing matters but her candidacy. It is the same mentaltity that led her to vote for war in Iraq, ignoring the staggering costs of life, dollars, and to American standing and world peace. No one who is honest can deny it.
In "Clinton Machine Shaken by Setback" Kay Tumulty reports for TIME:
"The scope of Barack Obama's victory in Iowa has shaken the Clinton machine down to its bolts. Donors are panicking. The campaign has been making a round of calls to reassure notoriously fickle "superdelegates" — elected officials and party regulars who are awarded convention spots by virtue of their titles and positions — who might be reconsidering their decisions to back the candidate who formerly looked like a sure winner." She notes that Clinton insiders are now fighting each other to avoid blame for the campaign fiasco.
This means Light-weight, value-challenged pandering-loyalist Mandy Grunwald against heavy-weight, dishonest, deeply-professionally-conflicted Marc Penn. And Monica slayer Anne Lewis against them both.
Mrs. Bill Clinton is not qualified to be president beyond her nepotistic family connections and corporate dollars, the same qualifications that brought us her mentor George W. Bush.
Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton is history. And we should all be VERY grateful.
Jean wrote on January 5, 2008 7:55 PM:I just asked my husband Ni Daye's question (former Navy officer) and his response....
It does not take years of experience to keep the country safe, it requires common sense. A prime example is the present administration who had years of experience and no common sense. (my addition...and an total lack of ability to listen to others)
Anonymous wrote on January 5, 2008 7:57 PM:link for devastating Time article by Karen Tumulty, "Clinton Machine Shaken by Setback"
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1700705,00.html
Ni Daye wrote on January 5, 2008 7:58 PM:the Republicans are being quizzed about healthcare insurance. here is the main difference between Obama's 15 milion short plan and Hillary's all-covered plan. the difference is mandate. Unless you live in NH, you are mandated to buy auto insurance. How many of you think poor people should be allowed drive cars without insurance? if there is no mandate, how many people do you think will buy insurance?
I guess most of you, if you were old enough to vote, voted for Bush over Gore in 2000. After all, Bush ran as a uniter who promised to bring honor back to the White House. Gore, on the other hand, was such an old-time washington insider.
Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you. In a time of such peril, how dare anyone make a gamble on a novice? As a warning, don't forget the disaster Hitler brought to Germany and humanity!
CalD wrote on January 5, 2008 8:05 PM:Greg,
This mailer would almost have had to have been produced and likely mailed before the Iowa caucuses, BTW.
Back when I was in the junk mail biz, it would take a bare minimum of a week to two weeks to get something like this printed and lettershopped and into the mail, then another day or two in the mail once it dropped. Now mind you it's been 10 years since I was a tree-murderer myself and there may well be companies that specialize in lightening turn-around for political campaigns -- we used to always joke about printing stuff in a day but you can probably do it now.
But I'd still have to believe the absolute latest the decision to push the button on a mailing like this could have been made would be the beginning of the week if the mail is hitting now. That would mean the copy and design would have to have been signed off at least a week ago by now with the holiday in there. Presumably any debate over how to draw contrasts would then have to have been in advance of that.
Michael A wrote on January 5, 2008 8:08 PM:Excellent points desider. Excellent. She is getting horrible advice. At this point its probably too late to stop the tidal wave, but you are totally on target. She should fire penn and the rest of them now if she wants to salvage a run, which might be too late. Otherwise, she is looking at a slaughter.
The more that her campaign tries to "attack" obama, the more that I am sooo confident in an obama landslide in november. If this is the best that they got and they interviewed his freaking kindergarten teacher in indonesia, they got zippo and so do the republicans.
Lauren wrote on January 5, 2008 8:08 PM:Interesting. Which is it, Senator Clinton, is Obama too liberal or not liberal enough?
Paulie wrote on January 5, 2008 8:09 PM:Good response bvd.
Ni Daye, you cannot seriously talk about hillary having an "all-covered" health care plan. She blew it in the 90's and is simply touting a BS all-covered plan because she knows it's what most people want.
She's like a drowning man, she will say and do anything to get the nomination (although she's always had those tactics).
It comes down to the fact that repugs will come out in force if hillary is the nominee and many will stay home if she's not. She is absolutely the candidate of division.
Anonymous wrote on January 5, 2008 8:10 PM:For Mrs. Bill Clinton, "change" means inventing a new image and new message to pander, like her frequent hair style changes. It superficial, fake, dishonest. What Hillary learned from Iowa was that the new "buzz word" is change. Edwards and Obama speak from the heart about the need for change. For Hillary it is just more calculated talking points rhetoric.
The Clintons will destroy the Democratic party rather than face the realization that voters don't want Mrs. Bill for their president. Period. The End. Go Away!
hello_world wrote on January 5, 2008 8:12 PM:Ni Daye, you're joking, right?
McCain recently said that he wouldn't mind if the troops where in Iraq for another "100 years". The man that strolled down the middle of Iraq followed by several armored troop support vehicles, multiple tanks, Blackhawk helicopters, and several platoons of heavily armed and armored soldiers while saying how safe and normal things are there. McCain no longer has any real credibility on Iraq, and will be whipped on his cow-towing to Bush.
And besides that, have you seen McCain? He looks old lacks forcefulness, even on questions that shouldn't be difficult ones. He's a shadow of what he was in 2000, and in a stronger field, he wouldn't be getting any attention. Remember, there was a reason his poll numbers hit the floor before Rudy and Fred bumbled away their support.
As for Hillary's "all-covered" plan, that's been covered. There is very small differences between the two plans, numbers-wise. The myth that Clinton's healthcare is all inclusive, and Obama's is not is false.
Paulie wrote on January 5, 2008 8:15 PM:Very nice Ni Daye. Comparing Hitler to Obama, I see where you're coming from alright. Let's get a pacifist like McCain in the whitehouse, then we can all relax.
If you insist on talking out of your arse, I suggest you tune in to the O'Reilly factor where you should feel more at home.
While Clinton was in China speaking out about women's-rights issues, Obama was in Illinois voting "present".
One of those actions is Presidential and audacious, the other one is not.
Ni Daye wrote on January 5, 2008 8:18 PM:Paulie wrote on January 5, 2008 8:09 PM:
Good response bvd.
-- Paulie, you may be fooled by a snake oil salesman's words but hopefully you still have a pair of eyes that can read. check out expert review of Hillary's plan. teh week she released the plan, She appeared on all five network weekend programs and her plan was universally praised, even by insurance companies and medical communites. This is a plan people can get together to.
Anonymous wrote on January 5, 2008 8:20 PM:Ni Daye wrote on January 5, 2008 8:05 PM:
I guess most of you, if you were old enough to vote, voted for Bush over Gore in 2000.
How do you figure that? Gore won the popular vote meaning more than 50% of people voted for him. I think you stumbled across the wrong website son!
Ni Daye wrote on January 5, 2008 8:24 PM:check out GWB websites, his retoric were quite similar to Obama's.
Ni Daye wrote on January 5, 2008 8:24 PM:check out GWB websites, his retoric were quite similar to Obama's.
bvd wrote on January 5, 2008 8:27 PM:Ni Daye - It's hard to take you seriously after reading your posts. This is your second time comparing Obama with Hitler - even if only meant in the most abstract, non-direct way it's just flat-out idiotic and offensive.
You're not helping your candidate with this crap. I expect Hillary supporters will denounce you as well - or claim you're an Obama shill. In any event, your rantings are loony.
And if you actually think most of the people reading this website voted for Bush in 2000 you need a new roadmap.
I guess most of you, if you were old enough to vote, voted for Bush over Gore in 2000. After all, Bush ran as a uniter who promised to bring honor back to the White House. Gore, on the other hand, was such an old-time washington insider.Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you. In a time of such peril, how dare anyone make a gamble on a novice? As a warning, don't forget the disaster Hitler brought to Germany and humanity!
Dude, I'm sorry, but, damn. We all voted for Bush? And Hitler? You think Obama is like Bush and/or Hitler?
At best, have you ever heard of Godwin's Law?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
I've got to say that between your earlier statements that you actually hate the guy and this I'm genuinely concerned that maybe you're taking this thing more seriously than is healthy, even by the overheated standards of blog comment boards. Dude, you've seriously got me wondering whether someone needs to think about dropping a dime to the Secret Service. Honestly, that's not meant as a threat or an attempt to suppress opinions or anything, but that's got to be the most disturbing comment I've ever seen here.
Paulie wrote on January 5, 2008 8:29 PM:That post about Gore was from me, I forgot to sign it.
Ni Daye, Snake oil salesman? Come on. Touting hillary's health care plan is supreme snake oil salesmanship. When you say that the plan was praised by the insurance companies then that's a red flag right from the start. As I said, she had a chance to fix this problem as the first lady and was bought off. She has ZERO credibility.
I would take hillary as president over any republican (I know that's not saying much!), but as I said earlier, if she won the dem nomination, a HUGE amount of repug voters would come out simply to vote against her.
bvd wrote on January 5, 2008 8:29 PM:And your rhetoric is quite similar to Elmer Fudd's.
Adois.
bridoc wrote on January 5, 2008 8:30 PM:God, Hillary is pathetic and incredibly dirty with this one. Talk about acting just like a Republican. REPUBLICANS rely on purposely misleading the American people with smears that they know are bullshit but they are counting on the common people to be too ill-informed to know any better. That is abhorrent of a so-called Democrat to be doing period, let alone against a fellow Democrat. Shame shame shame shame shame.
This is one of the biggest reasons I can't stand her. Her way too comfy of a relationship with corporate interests, her conservative foreign policy, her poor judgment time and time again, her secrecy concerning her government records, all that makes me not like her all that much, but I would have voted for her against a Republican nonetheless. But after seeing how DIRTY and NASTY she is in this campaign, these GOP tactics, this power-at-all-costs attitude that reeks of Bush/Cheney...it repulses me and I couldn't vote for her in a general election because of it. I'd have a much cleaner conscience just leaving that part of the ballot blank.
Paulie wrote on January 5, 2008 8:42 PM:Nice reference NCSteve, per Godwin's Law, Ni Daye has therefore "lost" the debate hence no comments from him/her recently.
Bridoc, you are absolutely right. hillary is pathetic and an absolute disgrace to our party. That's not news to me, of course!
john mccutchen wrote on January 5, 2008 8:43 PM:Death by Inevitability
The scope of Barack Obama's victory in Iowa has shaken the Clinton machine down to its bolts. Donors are panicking. The campaign has been making a round of calls to reassure notoriously fickle "superdelegates" — elected officials and party regulars who are awarded convention spots by virtue of their titles and positions — who might be reconsidering their decisions to back the candidate who formerly looked like a sure winner. And internally, a round of recriminations is being aimed at her chief strategist, Mark Penn, as the representative of everything about her pseudo-incumbent campaign that has been too cautious, too arrogant, too conventional and too clueless as to how much the political landscape has shifted since the last Clinton reign. One adviser summed up the biggest challenge that faces the campaign in two words: "Fresh thinking."CalD wrote on January 5, 2008 8:44 PM:http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1700705,00.html
I hate to say it Ni Daye is right. I've actually heard Obama boosters use Bush's "a uniter, not a divider" line from the 2000 campaign. I have not heard Obama himself use those words exactly, but that was very much the gist of his puffery in the closing days of the Iowa campaign.
Bye Bye Hitllary wrote on January 5, 2008 8:48 PM:Thanks for the memories... Time for a real Democrat.
Michael A wrote on January 5, 2008 8:52 PM:No you don't cald. Give me a break. You are toooo into the clintonion thing. At least be honest.
CalD wrote on January 5, 2008 8:54 PM:I noted that Obama pulled another page from Karl Rove's playbook in Iowa, when he began attacking Clinton where she's actually strongest with his "right kind of experience/wrong kind of experience" line. The swiftboaters who smeared John Kerry must have been high-fiving like crazy when they heard that one. No wonder Republicans like him.
Paulie wrote on January 5, 2008 9:00 PM:Just because bush was lying when he said he was a uniter doesn't mean that Obama is!
Republicans like obama because they cannot stomach hillary being in the whitehouse. If there is ANYONE in this race that uses repug tactics, its hillary.
I always did say Barack Obama is a quick learner though. And presidential politics ain't beanbag, after all.
debcoop wrote on January 5, 2008 9:04 PM:Barack Obama voted present on many, many other bills. Bills on which there was no activist group plotting a strategy.
I think that COMPLETELY UNDERCUTS the idea thaton those 7 votes on which he didn't stand means nothing on his lack of leadership. I think it tells you a lot.
I think it tells you that avoiding tough votes is a strategy that he employed just in order to maintain his political viability for higher office.
And it looks like avoiding the controversial votes is a prememditated strategy that works.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 5, 2008 9:05 PM:Bridoc,
Clinton is not acting like a Republican . . . Clinton is a Republican registered in the wrong party.
Clinton is or is not 'getting bad advice' . . . That is NOTthe issue.
Clinton is making piss poor decission and acting on them.
I call that living up to my expectations of the Clinton's corporate-sponsored campaign.
Additionally, Clinton is mot finished. Clinton will ride this train straight into hell and pooch the rest of her career. Such is the fate of the mean hearted and soulless.
josh wrote on January 5, 2008 9:10 PM:debcoop, that might play, if not for the quote -- very widely circulated -- from the Illinois Planned Parenthood director saying they begged Obama, and other legislators, to vote present.
There's also the little matter of his 100 percent rating from Planned Parenthood.
But don't let the facts get in the way of a perfectly good rant. Goddess knows, it won't stop Hillary.
NCSteve wrote on January 5, 2008 9:10 PM:Actually, CalD, the "right kind/wrong kind" thing was a play from Bill Clinton's playbook in 1992.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22273339/
And, damn, just because Bush said something (and lied) means that uniting the country is a bad thing?
Or are you saying that because Bush mad a statement about what he wanted to do that was a lie, anyone who says he/she wants to the same thing, or can do the same thing, is also lying? Bush said he wanted to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. He lied. Obama (and Clinton and every other Dem) says the same thing. Does that mean they're all lying about it?
Christamighty, that's some powerful logic you guys are bringing to the debate there.
The part of this that is totally fucked up is Obama has been running to the right of Clinton for almost three months now. Clinton is the one player that coulda called him on that shit with some real impact . . . When the Kaiser calls you a right wingnnut, you are . . . Well . . . Ron Paul.
Clinton could have provided a real service to her country and she went for pompus vanity instead.
BUT she is Hillary Clinton and that was to be expected.
DonnaG wrote on January 5, 2008 9:18 PM:Hillary is criticizing the STRATEGY [of 'voting present'] DESIGNED BY THE PRO-CHOICE COMMUNITY to help Planned Parenthood to successfully counter Republican majority shenanigans in the Illinois State Legislature.
So, to twist this matter in hopes of smearing Obama, Hillary is, in fact, dissing the pro-choice community. Um, Hillary, you or your campers are not real bright. I predict that karma will demand an accounting from you for this slime, and not too far into the future......maybe as early as Tuesday if it turns out that voters are a bit more aware than you give them credit for.
CalD wrote on January 5, 2008 9:19 PM:Another planet heard from.
CalD wrote on January 5, 2008 9:20 PM:(Not you, Donna.)
CalD wrote on January 5, 2008 9:24 PM:Barack Obama logged nearly 130 present votes in the Illinois state senate, the New York Times said in an article a couple of weeks ago. He seems to have pretty sharp instincts (some might even call it "judgment") when it comes to recognizing when to duck a vote that could jeopardize a man's aspirations to higher office.
CalD wrote on January 5, 2008 9:28 PM:(Apologies for the missing close tag on the href there.)
josh wrote on January 5, 2008 9:28 PM:You skipped the step where you explained what is wrong with voting present if the option is given.
Just because the strategy isn't available in many statehouses doesn't make it inherently bad.
But keep flogging this silliness. By all means.
Josh, from the Times article:
“If you are worried about your next election, the present vote gives you political cover,” said Kent D. Redfield, a professor of political studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield. “This is an option that does not exist in every state and reflects Illinois political culture.”
Get it? (Profiles in courage, and all that.)
josh wrote on January 5, 2008 9:46 PM:"Planned Parenthood was encouraging “Present” votes by some of their more loyal members in order to encourage the moderates to vote that way as well."
So Hillary's attacking Obama for supporting Illinois Planned Parenthood by working with their strategy against these anti-abortion bills.
“The poor guy is getting all this heat for a strategy we, the pro-choice community, did,” said Pam Sutherland, president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council.
Get it? Hillary's lying here. And you're a two-bit Internet shill who's trying to shift the lie to something you can argue.
It won't work.
Ugh. I'm not an Obama Koolaid drinker, but as an attack, this just doesn't fly. It's up there with the "you're really for universal health care, you flip-flopper" line that Hillary just trotted out in the debate.
Hillary-camp is losing it.
CalD wrote on January 5, 2008 9:50 PM:So what about the other 120-something votes, Josh? Who's trying to kid who here?
Josh wrote on January 5, 2008 9:59 PM:Was the mailer about those votes?
No, because they tried that smear already, and it didn't work.
I notice you haven't pointed out any problems with any specific vote. She's lying in the mailer. And you haven't said she isn't.
If I were in Hillary's camp, I'd want to know why my top strategist lied to me right up to the day of the Iowa caucuses a lot more than I'd worry about trying this kind of sleazeball move. Lots and lots of lying over there, it seems.
But that's me.
CalD wrote on January 5, 2008 10:11 PM:I'm willing to give you that this one in particular may be just a bit of a reach. Politics. But 130 is still a pretty big number.
Josh wrote on January 5, 2008 10:18 PM:130 isn't a big number or a small number without any context.
And, also, without any context, as I already said, there isn't any reason to think those votes aren't the same as these: Part of a strategy to give more moderate members political cover.
It seems odd to me that Hillary, the voice of experience, would want to bring up Obama's expertise in using the machinations of the Illinois Legislature.
But again, that's me.
Daniel wrote on January 5, 2008 10:28 PM:Check Campaign Diaries's detailed analysis of the GOP debate which was a truly pathetic 90 minutes in which the stage sank to a middle-school classroom with candidates ganging up against Romney with personal insults.
NCSteve wrote on January 5, 2008 11:03 PM:Cald, cald, cald.
130/4000 votes cast during his Illinois legislative career=0.0325 which is not what anyone would call "a pretty big number."
The NYT (Hilly's hometown rag which has not exactly gone out of its way to hide its sympathies) admits that 50 of those were made as part of a coordinated political strategy with other Democrats.
80/4000 = 0.02, also not a big number.
Of the remainder, in Illnois legislative political culture, voting "present" is a way to signal either a willingness to work with a bill's sponsor if he'll change parts that are found objectionable or even actual honest-to-god ambivilence about the bill.
So this is it? This half-assed cheap shot the best you guys got? Give it up. You're embarassing yourselves and its painful to watch.
Anonymous: "In 'Clinton Machine Shaken by Setback' Kay Tumulty reports for TIME ..."
Please don't use TIME to support your arguments for or against Democratic candidates primaries. That magazine today has a distinct and rancid anti-Democratic Party bias in general, and besides that, it's but a shadow of its former self in its 1950s-70s heyday.
Suffice to say that when it comes to political analysis in general, Jay Carney, Karen Tumulty, Joke Line, et al., will swoon at whatever they perceive the flavor of the month (usually GOP) to be. Those clowns couldn't find their own asses in broad daylight if we gave them hand-mirrors and illustrated instructions.
kucinich for prez wrote on January 5, 2008 11:13 PM:She's getting desperate, now she's talking about issues.
Donald from Hawaii wrote on January 5, 2008 11:28 PM:NiDaye: "As a warning, don't forget the disaster Hitler brought to Germany and humanity!"
Look -- I'm no Obama supporter by any stretch of the imagination (unless and until, of course, he wins our party's nomination), but I'm very deeply offended by your insinuation.
Your otherwise-valid points about Barack Obama's potential shortcomings are simply washed away and lost by your gratuitous use of such vile, over-the-top, and totally inappropriate political hyperbole. Either tone it down, or shut up.
morris1030 wrote on January 5, 2008 11:35 PM:Obama voted for Patriot Act, and his present votes added to around 133 to offer political cover on dicey issues.
Mr Clean is a politician, too.
Anonymous wrote on January 6, 2008 12:17 AM:ISSUES MATTER
Obamalosing wrote on January 6, 2008 12:23 AM:It is just me or Obama was just not as articulate in last night's debate as he is normally. he stutterred quite a bit. It appears Charlie Gibson knows more about his signature achievement (as a co-sponsor of Fingold) of ethics legistration. the joking around about standing makes one eat less is really damning. Man, was not Obama looking uncomfortable? If the press do not report this "standing" achievement and the fact his NH chair is a lobbyist for drug company, they should all be taken out and shot!!!
Ess Chip wrote on January 6, 2008 12:24 AM:Hillary didn't do a damn thing to make SCHIP (which she claimed in tonight's debate), she is full of shit.
dajafi wrote on January 6, 2008 12:25 AM:What's sad about tactics like these is that Clinton--and I write this as someone who's opposed her for a year and is happy to see her likely headed for defeat--could have run her entire campaign very differently.
I happened to turn on C-SPAN this afternoon, where they broadcast her taking questions at great length from a NH audience--I think earlier in the day. I've watched most of the debates and a few of her televised rallies, and she's my Senator and obviously she's been in the public spotlight for a decade and a half... but I've never seen her as good as she was in this format.
Her answers--including the ones I disagreed with on policy grounds--were sharp and detailed without being wonky or boring. She treated even the hostile questioners with respect. She communicated very effectively, tying personal stories back to abstract policy questions and touting her own accomplishments without coming off as shrill, boastful or defensive. Even her speaking voice and body language were better.
Then in the debate, or at least the part I saw, a whole other, much less appealing character was on display. Clinton's voice consistently had a nasty edge, she glared at Edwards and Obama with seeming fury, and she almost gleefully--and certainly with full knowledge--mis-characterized Obama's positions.
I got the impression she was using a playbook that had worked for Bill... but that's not her strength as a candidate. The shame is that before today I honestly didn't even recognize that strength.
Clinton got terrible tactical advice, and that plus her own innate timidity on big issues is why she's on the brink in this race.
Shii wrote on January 6, 2008 12:26 AM:Obamalosing, I'd say he was tired. So were Hillary and Edwards. It's been a long campaign, they just finished their Sleepless in Iowa tours, and it's only three days till New Hampshire. Our expectations for this debate were too high.
CalD wrote on January 6, 2008 12:35 AM:I got the impression she was using a playbook that had worked for Bill... but that's not her strength as a candidate. The shame is that before today I honestly didn't even recognize that strength.
Dajafi, where did you get that impression?
CalD wrote on January 6, 2008 12:41 AM:Dajafi wrote: "Clinton got terrible tactical advice, and that plus her own innate timidity on big issues is why she's on the brink in this race."
Given that Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have fundamentally identical positions on virtually every big issue (one notable exception being that Obama actually is significantly more timid than the other two on healthcare), then they must have gotten "terrible tactical advice" too. Right?
DTM wrote on January 6, 2008 12:44 AM:Of course, it is true that a lot of similar rhetoric has been used by successful politicians since Ancient Greece. But one would think the Democrats would actually want a nominee who was, you know, kinda good at this politics thing.
dajafi wrote on January 6, 2008 12:44 AM:CalD--obviously it's been a long time since he debated, but as I remember Bill was able to do those things--attack, defend and mischaracterize (he'd probably say "reframe")--without looking nasty in the process. He could be glib, skirting on dishonest, without you figuring it out immediately, because he kept his cool.
Again, my "impression" might be far off the mark, and maybe I was too influenced by seeing this much more appealing Clinton earlier in the day--but she didn't benefit by the comparison.
sparrow wrote on January 6, 2008 12:52 AM:How can I hold this against her? After all, she and Bill sent me a Christmas card!
dajafi wrote on January 6, 2008 12:58 AM:Given that Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have fundamentally identical positions on virtually every big issue (one notable exception being that Obama actually is significantly more timid than the other two on healthcare), then they must have gotten "terrible tactical advice" too. Right?
Um, yeah. If their positions are really the same, they're evidently selling it much, much more effectively.
The other part of it is that she's simply not credible selling these positions. To paraphrase Edwards, it's tough to "take on the interests" while also taking their money.
But you seem to assume that people should trust her to do just that.
CalD wrote on January 6, 2008 1:08 AM:Dajafi wrote: The other part of it is that she's simply not credible selling these positions. To paraphrase Edwards, it's tough to "take on the interests" while also taking their money.
Wow, Dajafi, that sounds terrible. What are some of the really bad special interests has Clinton taken money from. And how much money are we talking about? Must be a huge percentage of her total, right?
nene wrote on January 6, 2008 1:12 AM:I hold it against Obama that he voted present on certain abortion votes as a state legistor. He chose to let women take one for the team, Team Obama. Because Obama's career is more important than the basic rights of women.
I hold it against Obama that he called Paul Wellstone a "gadfly."
I hold it against Obama that he is not for universal healthcare.
CalD, your snark isn't going to do much to convince me to support a candidate in whom I fundamentally don't believe... particularly since it seems like a replacement for some compelling argument you might otherwise make. If I'm incorrect, by all means tell me why. But your condescending questions just seem like the frustration of a partisan whose candidate might be in trouble.
I first posted in this thread--probably against my better judgment--because I saw something of Sen. Clinton this afternoon that I hadn't seen before, and that I liked. I didn't think she showed that same appealing character in the debate this evening. Your initial response seemed like you wanted to follow up on one point. It now seems like you're more interested in the usual Obama/Clinton pissing contest, which I'm just not playing tonight. But if you really want to do that, I suggest defending her rather than attacking me with your "Wow"s.
hadenough wrote on January 6, 2008 1:34 AM:looks like Hillary hit a homer. From obama's 'debunking':
* Maybe only a few members the Tribune contacted remember this ploy, but I do. It was specifically designed by Planned Parenthood to counter Republican Senate President Pate Philip’s barrage of hot-button abortion bills that he was continually trying to ram through the Senate in 2001 and 2002. The Tribune missed the point - and by not contacting the groups involved, flubbed the story.
http://thecapitolfaxblog.com/2007/12/04/about-those-present-votes/
From the president of il. planned parenthood:
"We at Planned Parenthood view those as leadership votes," Pam Sutherland, the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, told ABC News.
...
"He came to me and said: 'My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women,'" said Sutherland in recounting her conversation with Obama. "A 'present' vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted."
"What it did," she continued, "was give cover to moderate Democrats who wanted to vote with us but were afraid to do so" because of how their votes would be used against them electorally. "A 'present' vote would protect them. Your senator voted 'present.' Most of the electorate is not going to know what that means."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/obama-abortion-.html
The president of planned parenthood says obama came to her whining that he might lose his job. obama's 'debunk' now debunked trys to make it sound like it was planned parenthoods idea. And the bottom line is obama wanted to keep his job more than he wanted to stand up for core liberal policies. Hillary's right out there baby tough as nails. obama not so much.
I'm sure sargent would have gotten around to debunking this, yeah I'm sure, but I thought I'd post anyway.
CalD wrote on January 6, 2008 1:53 AM:Changing the subject, Dajafi? Don't you want to give me some specific examples of all those nefarious special interests that Clinton has taken money from and what huge sums we're talking about? You were the one who made the allegations. I'm just asking for some details.
dajafi wrote on January 6, 2008 2:23 AM:You seem really upset about this for some reason. Can't imagine why.
So be it. I don't claim to be a campaign finance expert, but I found the following on opensecrets.org.
Clinton has taken $748,052 in PAC contributions, 56 percent of which ($304,408) is from "business."
She's taken a bit under $600k from lobbyists--the most of any candidate in the race, and it's not particularly close.
Let's turn to the industries. Clinton has taken a lot more from insurance companies than Obama--though not as much as Romney or 9iu11iani.
Oil and gas has given her a bit more than twice as much as they have Obama.
This one is more symbolic than important, I'd argue, but freakin' tobacco has given her four times as much as they have to Obama.
Actually, every single industry tracked on opensecrets.org has given her more than him, other than "computers/internet", "education," "retired," and "TV/movies/music." In addition to those I mentioned earlier, this illustrious group includes "commercial banks," "hedge funds and private equity" (though that's very close), pharmaceuticals/health products (also close), "securities & investment," and "telephone utilities."
Since you like rhetorical questions, here's one:
Did all these corporations just believe in her "strength and experience," or did they maybe like their odds better with her in charge?
Oh, and News Corp is one of her top 20 donors. That Rupert's one helluva progressive.
Sam wrote on January 6, 2008 2:37 AM:Barak Hassan Obama if elected will bethe first Muslim president of America.
Why does he hide his religion? His father was a Muslim so he too is a mulsim.
He spent his childhood in largest muslim country Malasia.
Why does he paint balck the truth?
He should be proud of his family religion not denounce it.
Also Barak used Cocain and was a heavy smoker ? Gave up smoking just recently. How can you trust his judgement?
Ok he is a better talker, he is attractive. Ok So was George W. Bush when he ran against Gore. It takes a lot to lead the US out of this Bushes miserably policies.
Barak need to be honest with the American people.
You cant just say work together, Like Bush said 2000, what is your record ?
Dajafi,
Bravo! That was a very heroic attempt at spinning. I have a confession to make though. I already knew the answer. I just wanted to see if you knew. You didn't, did you?
To be clear, as of the end of Q3, Senator Clinton had raised a grand total of $90,935,788. Of that, a total $748,052, less than 1% came from PACs of any kind. Of that, little under half came from labor unions and issue/ideological groups. As for the rest. You can go to the FEC site and poke though the disclosure forms line by line (again, I have) and you won't find a single insurance or pharaceutical industry group among them. There's no pattern of abuse to be found. No smoking guns.
Of course when you're talking about money from lobbyists, you're talking about individual contributions from people who happen to be registered as lobbyists for some reason -- whether they work for the Sierra Club or Exxon -- it's their own personal contributions, not their clients' money.
And of course if you add it all up, all of the contributions Senator Clinton has accepted from business-related PACs and individual contributions from lobbyists amout to just a tick under 1% of her total fundraising.
1%.
As for the amount the amount of money Senator Clinton has taken from "insurance companies" or gas and oil companies or tobacco companies or any other companies, that's an even smaller percentage. Like every other candidate, contributions directly from businesses would be 0% of her total fundraising.
When you talk about industries in that context, you are talking about individual contributions from people who happen to be employed in those industries. Shocking isn't it, that most people who have money to contribute to political campaigns have jobs. Clinton has also raise more money from all sources so it isn't terribly surprising that she's raised more from people working in one industry or another than someone else did, now is it?
CalD wrote on January 6, 2008 3:56 AM:Sam,
They surely must have told you this would happen to you if you don't take your medication.
Patchwork wrote on January 6, 2008 9:46 AM:JoeCHI wrote on January 5, 2008 8:17 PM:
While Clinton was in China speaking out about women's-rights issues, Obama was in Illinois voting "present".
One of those actions is Presidential and audacious, the other one is not.
So, I wonder, what did she do as co-President to change women's rights in China besides jaunting all around on tax payer money and "speaking" out about it? Women in China, are they better off now, due to her "speaking" out about it?
and what about women's rights in Iraq? Under Saddam, universities in Iraq had nore women students than men. Now? I don't know but am willing to bet the education of women under the Shiite regime is suppressed. Any "speaking" out from Hillary on Iraq and the plight of women there?--of course not. She voted to let Bush invade and occupy.The population of women in Iraq has gone down, either because they were forced out of their homes and their homeland or killed by Bush's bombs--which she voted for. They no longer have the freedom to dress as they please--she speaks to that? Of course not. She does not want to remind anyone about Iraq or even mention it because she voted for it and just would like you to forget that--or use one of her silly excuses for her terrible judgement.
If voting to kill, displace and wreck a country, and it's women and children, based on lies is presidential, perhaps she really needs to be on the Republican ticket instead of tearing down the Democratic ticket by attacking Obama on nineties issues like abortion rights. It's not as relevant as it was back then but she is trying desperately to bring it back as an important issue--and consequently she will bask in the division of the country, just like Bush.
TK wrote on January 6, 2008 10:55 AM:
Is it time now to shift the conversation to not IF Obama will win the presidency, but by how wide of a margin? His momentum continues to defy most political projections and he stands alone yet on the idea of unifying and healing our nation. Obama could quite possibly take NH, then MI, NV, FL and beyond. This is the year of blowouts, upsets and underdogs. The American people have found their voice and it is screaming change. It was a distant notion at one time, now I see a country realizing the potential of grassroots organization, online networking and most importantly, the power of a vote. Thank you GW for waking us all up. We are alive and well apparently. 08' for change!
CalD wrote on January 6, 2008 11:23 AM:Gotta love an optimist.
Its about the future stupid wrote on January 6, 2008 12:15 PM:Well TK sorry to burst your bubble but he will not win michigan, he's not on the ballot.
dajafi wrote on January 6, 2008 12:21 PM:CalD,
It's a bit rich that you accuse me of "spinning," when your candidate has taken more than 100 times as much lobbyist money as the guy I'm supporting. That more of her money comes from the very rich (or criminal bundlers like Stormin' Norman Hsu) in their own capacity than otherwise doesn't strike me as particularly relevant.
The truth is that Obama has raised more money from smaller-dollar donors and people who work in less clearly exploitive industries for the same reason that he won Iowa: people simply like him and trust him to a far greater extent than they do Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation.
You can argue that this isn't fair or valid, or that the people are suckers and fools. But then, sour grapes, distortions and the sort of sneering posts you've come at me with are pretty much all the Clinton apologists are left with at this point.
Please consider supporting Obama in November. Clinton's corporate establishment backers will be okay somehow, I promise.
dajafi wrote on January 6, 2008 12:24 PM:If Obama wins the nomination and the Republicans tap anyone but McCain, Obama gets 55 percent and 400 electoral votes. He probably drags in a larger House majority, and the Dems were going to pick up 3-5 Senate seats regardless of who the nominee is--though I think his coattails play a lot better in states like Minnesota and Colorado than Clinton's would.
If it's McCain, I think he still wins, but it's a lot closer.
By contrast, McCain with the media fluffing he'll get would be well nigh impossible for Clinton to defeat.
Alan Snipes wrote on January 6, 2008 5:26 PM:dajafi:
What polling information do you have that supports Obama getting 55% of the vote and 400 Electoral vote?
Obama supporters need to stop fantasizing about how easy he wins. Maybe he does maybe he doesn't. I would like to see the Dem nominee win by that. However, he won't win if he thinks the Republicans will play pattycake with him or any other dem nominee.
Obama and his supporters should stop using Republican talking points agains Senator Clinton. Those who criticize her for taking campaign money: Should she run not using money? What have you done to ensure a campaign finance system that uses public funds? Does Saint Obama not accept money from donors?
Obama supporters have apparently not been paying attention to a media and Republican slime machine that I guarantee you if Obama is president will call for investigations into anything he has done in the past and will try to make a mountain out of a molehill. This is what they did to the Clintons. There was never anything to Whitewater and everyone knows it but Obama supporters are buying into the same bs that the Republicans threw at the Clintons and think that the Republicans will not do the same to him because he talks about the politics of "hope".
Obama Supports need to stop acting like their crap doen't stink and that he is holier than thou (Sen Clinton)
A little hint for the Clinton Campaign: Blair Hull didn't win either when he pulled this.
Ni Daye: you can't spell rhetoric *and* you compared Obama to Hitler?
Please don't pollute the internet any more, please OK thanks.
