Hillary On Obama: "Where's The Beef?"
Hillary hits the morning shows, says of Obama, "where's the beef?"...
Comments (35)
Hillmentum wrote on January 7, 2008 12:22 PM:She has lost. Bye bye.
DaveW wrote on January 7, 2008 12:26 PM:Where's the beef? Let's see -- that was the buzz phrase in, what, 1985? What a sad epitaph for Clinton's so-last-century campaign.
brm wrote on January 7, 2008 12:27 PM:The DLC princess is going to get trounced
Celebrate the end of the Bush-Clinton era of politics.
The debate performance just killed her in NH. I know all the Clintonites scoffed at Luntz's focus group. But that is exactly what NH voters think of her.
Another reason is her AUMF vote. In the beginning of the campaign, she took a question on that from a NH voter, and dismissed the questioner, by saying if you dont like my vote on the AUMF, vote for someone else.
We heard you Hillary and we are going to do that tomorrow in record numbers
won't vote hillary wrote on January 7, 2008 12:28 PM:The body language in this is interesting. During the entire segment where Mrs Clinton is saying how calm and confident she is, she's vigorously shaking her head 'No' (i.e. side-to-side).
Possibly a 'tell' that she's not as calm as she'd like us to believe?
Nuf wrote on January 7, 2008 12:29 PM:That's what she said.
bridoc wrote on January 7, 2008 12:29 PM:Um, how about "where's your resume"?
I don't think the queen of fluff should be attacking other candidates on their history. Has Obama not named enough libraries and buildings after people while in the Senate? Is that the Hillary-certified bar of achievement? Has Obama not had a large pet project blow up in his face while he was married to a president? Is that the measure of "getting things done" now?
Oh oh, wait, if you actually look at his history in Illinois and the Senate, you'd find that he actually has a history of getting things done. But of course Hillary has never been a fan of putting attacks in context...nooo...throwing stones from a glass house is her style. Very nice..
NCSteve wrote on January 7, 2008 12:33 PM:Her national numbers are cratering according to the Rasmussen Daily. I did not expect things to collapse as rapidly as they are. I'm almost starting to feel kind of bad for her. Really.
steve wrote on January 7, 2008 12:33 PM:The Obama bubble is at its peak, since he is about to be the subject of real questions for the first time. He is all sizzle and no steak, which didn't matter when he wasn't ahead. Now it does matter. Glossy ideas and broad themes won't be enough from here on out. Iowa and New Hampshire are "message primaries" -- voters want to send a message that they want change, which they have now done. But once we move past these "message primaries," people start actually asking what the candidate will do and what the candidate has done before -- and when the questioning gets serious, Obama looks more and more empty.
carrenderb wrote on January 7, 2008 12:33 PM:So, her new strategy is to cast herself as a complaining little old lady from the 80's? Let's see how that works out for her especially with the 18-29 crowd.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 7, 2008 12:35 PM:Well, she is entitled to try this approach if she thinks it will work. It does not look especially promising to my mind, but if that is the best that she has, I can hardly fault her for running with it.
AC Slater wrote on January 7, 2008 12:36 PM:LOL. The fact that the Hillary camp thinks the key to their success is stealing a line from Walter freaking Mondale in 1984 says everything you need to know about the ineptitude of her campaign. Where's the beef? That's the best she's got? Seriously? Yikes.
HolyRomanUmpire wrote on January 7, 2008 12:36 PM:Even as an Obama supporter I think that Hillary's line about delivering change as opposed to talking change is a pretty good strategy for her. Although, she should probably be careful in how frequently she uses it. Every time you say 35 years of change two questions are called to mind
1) 35 years? Really? If you get to count all the stuff you did in Arkansas, even in non-elected positions, and all the stuff you might have done in the WH as First lady, doesn't Obama get to count all the stuff he did as a community organizer and state senator? Frankly, I think both count, but if she tries to day "I have 35 years and my opponent is only on his first term in the senate" that's apples to oranges. It ends up being 35 years versus 20 or so years, and that's not such a huge difference in and of itself.
2) Which changes are you responsible for? I'm not saying that Hillary hasn't done good things, both in elected office and out, but there are a lot of things that Bill did - balance the budget, various foreign policy decisions - that she really needs to explain why she gets some credit for. Sometimes spouses are instrumental in each other's work. Sometimes not. To count Bill's accomplishments as hers as well she needs to prove the former.
Secondly, I am really not liking this "A lobbyist is running Obama's campaign in NH" line. Jim Demers is a longtime Dem operative and a state, as opposed to federal lobbyist.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/06/the_chairman_wars.html
Some will say "state, federal, whatever" but I'm certain the Clinton campaign would not want Obama to conflate his time in the Illinois state senate with his time in the US senate. Or would they? I'd make that trade if I was Obama.
Also, since when does being one of 4 co-chairs means you're running the campaign? Actually, never, but I suppose Clinton thinks it's a lie close enough to the truth that she won't get called on it.
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/obama/obamaorgnh.html
Notice how far down the page Demers is.
Nathan Avinbl wrote on January 7, 2008 12:37 PM:"Where's the beef?"
Recycled campaign sound bites surely makes her look like the voice of a new generation!
Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 12:37 PM:It would be more inspiring if the progressives were beating Hillary senseless because they were supporting a progressive candidate as opposed to a mirror image of her in the Corporate/DLC candidate that is Obama.
miasmo wrote on January 7, 2008 12:46 PM:"Let's see how that works out for her especially with the 18-29 crowd."
How many 18-29 year olds are going to even recognize a reference to an early 80's Wendy's ad campaign. It will go right by them.
Michael A wrote on January 7, 2008 12:47 PM:I agree with ncsteve. I actually kind of feel sorry for her. She does and says things that are irritating, but she is tanking pretty fast and it is kind of sad.
On another note, mondale's where's the beef line will blow up in her face like every other line of attack. I wrote it on another thread, but I think it speaks volumes. She throws out a line like that and the immediate next question should be, but isn't always, ok so what have you done? Then she fumbles around, because she really doesn't have this great record of achievement, despite her conclusions about experience. This morning on npr she tried to take credit for schip claiming as a senator she marshalled it through the senate. Well the problem with that is its false as it was started in the 90's when she wasn't in the senate. She also took credit for a veteran's health program, which is a good thing of course, BUT that was it. If she's criticizing obama claiming where's the beef, she sure doesn't have any accomplishments to speak of claiming all this doer as opposed to talker bs.
Nonetheless, this may be over sooner than we all think, if she gets slaughtered in NH. Also, mr. bill is getting desparate. Mandela and rabin? WTF. That's really insulting to what those people accomplished.
grover_rover wrote on January 7, 2008 12:53 PM:@Anonymous
You obviously don't know a whole lot about Hillary, or Obama. They have significant policy differences (Obama's are clearly more progressive) and even more important character differences (and here I would also say Obama's character is more "progressive", whereas Hillary is a classic establishment power-monger, thus, more of the same).
Basically, Obama is in no way a mirror image of Hillary. If they are that close to you, obviously no Democrat running (with the exception of Kucinich perhaps) would satisfy you. Since Kucinich isn't viable, you should either come to terms with that, or shut up and vote Green because obviously political reality isn't your bag.
DaveW wrote on January 7, 2008 12:56 PM:If Clinton's best shot is dredging up ad slogans from a quarter century ago, I'm afraid there's another one that will prove more prophetic:
"I've fallen and I can't get up."
Bupalos wrote on January 7, 2008 1:02 PM:Where's the beef???!?! Bwahhaaahahaha. She's the "where's the beef" lady? Tell me you're kidding. Was this supposed to be some kind of ironic self-deprecation?
Upper left wrote on January 7, 2008 1:04 PM:I don't hate HRC, but I do despise the way that she and BC play the game.
This is why. Substantive contrasts are fine, but distortion, deception, and misinformation are the Clinton's stock-in-trade.
I am afraid that we are going to see a lot more of this over the next month in the run up to Feb 5. She will cement her place in Democratic history as one of the most unlikeable candiates ever, but in doing so she will inflict real damage to the party and its nominee.
Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 1:06 PM:Grover, they have voted differently only 4 times. I would call idealistic cult like followers exempt from political reality.
calguy wrote on January 7, 2008 1:07 PM:Because so many people remember a 24 year old Wendy's ad campaign and how Walter Mondale used it to club Gary Hart. Now that is an effective strategy, especially to woo the young. Props to the HRC campaign!
calguy wrote on January 7, 2008 1:09 PM:Because so many people remember a 24 year old Wendy's ad campaign and how Walter Mondale used it to club Gary Hart. Now that is an effective strategy, especially to woo the young. Props to the HRC campaign!
Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 1:12 PM:Grover, I should have said yes, I was absolutely a Kucinich fan until he sold out everything he stood for asking his voters to go with a rank and file corporate Democrat, does this cult even look at campaign contributions, Clinton and Obamas dollars raised and where from are practically indistinguishable.
Don't get me wrong, if Obama is the nominee I will flip flop so fast you won't see it coming but this lunacy of making a standard corporatist the flag bearer of progressive ideals, that I cannot fathom.
BeAngryAtTheSun wrote on January 7, 2008 1:15 PM:@won't vote hillary:
The body language comment was especially incisive. I don't remember her doing this before, either. Props.
@steve:
"All sizzle but no steak?" As an Edwards backer, I can concede that the message of the campaign at this point is mostly sizzle. But the Clinton campaign is an old and unsavory steak, especially tough to swallow. I don't want to return to the 90's and legislate them any more than the 60's.
OK, and my own thoughts:
Whoever said that the Clinton attack line might vanish if they have poor showings in NH and SC so as not to tarnish a promising Senate career might be on the money, but I think this is how she threads the needle. She won't be passive but neither will make overt attacks on Obama. For one thing, she won't convert the youth vote that isn't already in the Clinton camp. For another, I'm sure she wants John Edwards in the White House even less, and returning to her oblivious, air of inevitability campaign would leave a door open for Edwards to continue the line he's using now.
I'm sure that line was directed at Obama, but let's not mistake the swipe at Edwards. As he rises (but so far, not yet enough) to unseat her as the anti-Obama candidate, she'll have to make sure she boxes him out. Drawing as deep a contrast with Obama as she can in familiar phrases seems like one way to do it, but I'd be shocked if she doesn't try a different approach if she doesn't win tomorrow.
Nice comments on the empty decades of Hillary's experience, above.
I'm looking forward to the time when HRC stands for Human Rights Campaign again.
Patrick wrote on January 7, 2008 1:29 PM:I started out as a Clinton supporter, and I still think she would make a good president. But if Iowa and New Hampshire are any indication, the reality is that Obama most likely is going to win the nomination. I can live with that (as long as he gives up that nonsense about going into Pakistan unilaterally). The Dem-GOP matchup polls show that he's more electable--the only Republican who would give him trouble is McCain. An Obama-Richardson ticket would quiet any concerns about Obama's relative lack of foreign policy experience.
Not only is this recycled from the 80's, its also recycled from within this election cycle. Remember April 2007? Once Obama matched/beat Hillary in fundraising, all of a sudden, the knives came out, and many a reporter and Hillary supporter claimed that Obama was "all sizzle, no steak" and wondered where his healthcare plan was, how he was light on FP experience, etc etc.
That's exactly why the "naive and irresponsible" smear seemed to stick--for a minute, it seemed to re-enforce the idea that Obama was all show, but light on substance.
Only, Obama spent all summer answering those questions, proving to have a broad and detailed array of solid policy proposals, an enormous and perhaps superior-to-all-others set of advisers, and a track record of accomplishment both in the state senate and in his short time in Washington.
They're literally out of ammunition.
Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 1:40 PM:Since Obama appears likely to win the nomination, I think I'll refrain from reading comments on anymore liberal blogs, I went over to Politico and frankly the only thing that turns me off about Obama is the fanbase, everyone keeps mentioning Rovian tactics but frankly he's a saint compared to the Obama supporters.
Shii wrote on January 7, 2008 1:57 PM:How many 18-29 year olds are going to even recognize a reference to an early 80's Wendy's ad campaign. It will go right by them.I'm 20 and I recognize it because washed-up comedians quote it.
I went over to Politico and frankly the only thing that turns me off about Obama is the fanbase, everyone keeps mentioning Rovian tactics but frankly he's a saint compared to the Obama supporters.Welcome to the Ron Paul Effect.
The Obama bubble is at its peak, since he is about to be the subject of real questions for the first time. He is all sizzle and no steak, which didn't matter when he wasn't ahead. Now it does matter. Glossy ideas and broad themes won't be enough from here on out. Iowa and New Hampshire are "message primaries" -- voters want to send a message that they want change, which they have now done. But once we move past these "message primaries," people start actually asking what the candidate will do and what the candidate has done before -- and when the questioning gets serious, Obama looks more and more empty.If you seriously believe that, enjoy your President Romney. CalD wrote on January 7, 2008 1:58 PM:
Pretty impressive performance.
jhv wrote on January 7, 2008 2:03 PM:wow...causing me to flashback to the 4th grade when i wore a mondale button as i skipped past the jesse helms signs ont he way to school. is no way to win the youth vote.....and i'm 'old' for the youth vote demo.
LS wrote on January 7, 2008 2:18 PM:She is right here, Obama has no record, has no experience. So, whether you like her or not, stop the double standard. If she were male we wouldn't even be going her.
So Edwards and Obama can attack her but she can't defend herself, Really, enough double standard already.
Michael S wrote on January 7, 2008 2:25 PM:It really looks like Clinton's campaign was believing the press releases of its own inevitability and are now caught completely off-guard. Meanwhile Obama focused on logistics.
"Where's the beef" Hillary.
Have you checked under Bill's desk? That is where Monica found it!
SecularAnimist wrote on January 7, 2008 3:37 PM:Anonymous wrote: "It would be more inspiring if the progressives were beating Hillary senseless because they were supporting a progressive candidate as opposed to a mirror image of her in the Corporate/DLC candidate that is Obama."
grover_rover replied: "If they are that close to you, obviously no Democrat running (with the exception of Kucinich perhaps) would satisfy you. Since Kucinich isn't viable, you should either come to terms with that, or shut up and vote Green because obviously political reality isn't your bag."
I am a Kucinich supporter, on the basis of my preference for the merits of his policy proposals rather than on the basis of other people's opinions about his electability.
I'm not going to say that there are no substantive differences between Obama and Clinton, but in all honesty I don't see enough differences to justify all of the heat, and even bitterness, between their respective supporters.
If you think you would like the things that Obama is likely to do, you probably won't be horribly unhappy with what Clinton would do if she were elected, and vice versa. The two of them don't even argue very much about substantive policy differences, but about intangible and unverifiable claims of who would be better able to implement vaguely-defined "change".
However, if I had to choose from the "viable" Democratic contenders, I would without hesitation choose John Edwards over Clinton or Obama.
Remember John Edwards? He's the guy who came in second in Iowa, ahead of Hillary Clinton.
Of course, immediately following that victory over Clinton, Edwards was immediately deemed "non-viable" by the corporate media, thanks to his unapologetic truth-telling about the ironclad grip of America's Ultra-Rich Ruling Class, Inc. on the federal government. He has now been virtually "disappeared" from all discussion about New Hampshire and beyond. He's lucky the moderator of the ABC-sponsored debate didn't ask him questions about UFO sightings.
