Hillary On The Debate: Obama Is "Very Frustrated"
At a press conference this morning in Washington, Hillary Clinton was asked about last night's contentious debate, and she returned to a theme of her campaign in recent days — that Obama is "frustrated."
"I think what we saw last night is that he's very frustrated," Hillary said. "The events of the last ten or so days, particularly the outcomes in New Hampshire and Nevada, have apparently convinced him to adopt a different strategy." She then added that Obama came to the debate "looking for a fight."
The campaign has been using this theme quite a lot in the last few days, calling Obama "frustrated." Having the candidate herself use the terms clearly shows that they think it's a good line to follow.
Late Update: This morning, Bill Clinton responded to Obama's claim that he's running against both Clintons.
Late Late Update: Obama himself replies directly to Hillary's assertion that he's "frustrated" by his losses.
Comments (157)
BluePuppy wrote on January 22, 2008 10:18 AM:Casting Obama as frustrated is smart politics. It reframes his attacks as being desperate while pointing out her string of victories. It also recasts his persona of being a ‘transformative’ candidate into a shrill and brittle candidate, which was in evidence last night.
TheraP wrote on January 22, 2008 10:19 AM:Looks like billary is using the repub playbook. Frustrate someone. And then call them on it!
steve wrote on January 22, 2008 10:20 AM:Hillary got the upper hand last night, and not just in the fighting but also in the policy discussions.
Yet again, she made smart, reasoned, impassioned cases for Democratic ideals and values. And once again, Obama presented empty rhetoric.
On the "fireworks" side of things, Hillary again proved that she will be the strongest, toughest, best nominee. Obama is a deer in the headlights when attacked, and that does not bode well for a general election. He did himself no favors last night.
It may be smart politics but I dislike her more and more. It would be fair to say I'm disgusted.
Michael wrote on January 22, 2008 10:21 AM:Here's the progression.
Clinton campaign lies/distorts Obama's record/statements.
Obama corrects those distortions.
Clinton campaign says "he's just frustrated" and "he never takes responsibility for anything"
It's interesting. Obama's emphasis in the debate was on trust--he's trying to cast the Clintons as dishonest, which re-enforces voter concerns about them. Clinton is trying to cast him as just another pol, who is angry about losing and lashing out as a result.
Ironically, if any campaign got frustrated with losing and lashed out wildly, it was the Clintons post-Iowa.
wwjb wrote on January 22, 2008 10:21 AM:I'm pretty sure Hillary was just as pissed last night. I don't know which debate she was watching, but Obama came off as calmer and more composed than her.
And he has every right to be frustrated if he was frustrated. He has faced a nonstop barrage of false attacks from the Democrat party's two biggest figures, ever since his big victory in Iowa. If anyone changed their strategy after a loss it was the Clintons and their adoption of the GOP handbook post-Iowa.
And you gotta love how the person who has been on the receiving end of attacks this entire campaign is the one who is "looking for a fight".
She makes me sick. It will be poetic justice when McCain wipes the floor with her, she'll have had it coming for a long time. It is only unfortunate that the rest of the country will have to suffer for her hubris.
Michael wrote on January 22, 2008 10:22 AM:I'd expect Obama's campaign, conversely, to push a narrative of "dishonesty" this morning.
Bupalos wrote on January 22, 2008 10:24 AM:Damn right he's frustrated. It's pretty irritating calling out Bill Hillary Clintons flat lies, while the only response from them is "oh, that's politics."
I think Obama's problem is that he hasn't come to the realization that most of us have, that the Clintons simply cannot do anything but stretch the truth to the point that it breaks. It's a reflexive thing. Once you accept that it is simply innate, you can find inner peace and learn to love the ruler.
War is peace. Fear is Courage. Is isn't is.
Just go with it.
LynnDee wrote on January 22, 2008 10:25 AM:If these posts are any indication, it would appear Hillary may be as polarizing a figure as her husband was. And don't get me wrong: I respected Bill Clinton enormously.
TheraP wrote on January 22, 2008 10:25 AM:I have an inkling that billary's nastiness will not play well with women. but that Obama's generally calmer demeanor will feel much more comfortable to women. If she loses both blacks and women, she'll be in trouble.
Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 10:29 AM:Obama's calm demeanor? Who are you shitting?
barbara wrote on January 22, 2008 10:29 AM:I didn't watch the debate though I looked at TPM and NYT blogging. They both made me think the debate would make me mad, but instead it made me smile. Hilary certainly looked more frustrated than Obama in this clip but I think they both were great. Didn't help me choose one over the other at all. I'm always surprised at the nasty comments made by the supporters of each in the TMP comment section. I think either one of the two--three- of them will make a very good President.
Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 10:29 AM:"I'd expect Obama's campaign, conversely, to push a narrative of "dishonesty" this morning."
Gee golly gosh...why would they do that? The fact that the Clintons are serial prevaricators is already old news. It's been vetted by the vaunted Republican attack machine. The country has already agreed that they are allowed to lie as much as they want, because it makes such good theater.
In this new iteration, Bill is allowed to be as drunk as he wants and say whatever he wants, because as Hillary reminded us last night, they are technically two different people.
NCSteve wrote on January 22, 2008 10:30 AM:Actually, having her use the line herself shows that Mark Penn thinks its a good line and engineered a poll that supports his personal opinion.
One of the things that kills me about Hillary's campaign is that her people pop off these oh-so-clever little barbs without once thinking about how they could be turned around against her.
Like, say, "my frustration is with a politics, and a campaign, that values cheap point-scoring over substantive action to address the problems facing the American people."
Qtip wrote on January 22, 2008 10:30 AM:We know that Bill is a liar.
I'd be interested to know how many feel Hillary is a liar... and expect Hillary supporters to provide reasons why she was not deliberately distorting his record.
What say you all?
Steve wrote on January 22, 2008 10:30 AM:Here's the thing ... what the Clintons have said is true. Obama has slid around about the war in Iraq. He spoke admiringly of the Republicans in the 1990s (read the transcript or watch the video, foplks), he voted "present" like a typical politician, not the fresh new man who does it differently, he voted wrong on the bankruptcy bill. When confronted on all of these things and more, he dances around with empty rhetoric. Finally -- for the first time -- she called him on this pattern last night, and it stuck. He's in trouble.
Joe Lisboa wrote on January 22, 2008 10:32 AM:If we nominate HRC then we'll get the McCain/Romney presidency we deserve. This has been an infuriating slow-motion trainwreck to observe -- i.e., the party shooting itself in both feet simultaneously -- but hey, we should be used to it by now, right? Ready [for gridlock and soap operatics] on Day One!
Once again Hillary reminds so many voters across the spectrum why they don't like her and won't vote for her under any circumstances. Once again Bill reminds us of the chronic liar who will do whatever it takes to protect himself and his legacy.
"I never had sex with that woman." An impeached former president who betrayed his most devoted supporters, and is now disbarred from practicing law because he lied under oath. A great role model for the country, a great inspiration for us all, a truly credible voice of integrity.
>>>but that Obama's generally calmer demeanor will feel much more comfortable to women.>>>
What?!@! are you insane? Oh yeah, women are just all little shrinking violets that have to have a "calm demeanor" or they will be "turned off." The sexism here is disgusting. Hillary smoked that idiot upstart. The look on his face when he said "I don't even know who I'm running against anymore, you or Bill" was priceless. Damn right you don't. You don't know what just hit you.
Scotty wrote on January 22, 2008 10:34 AM:I really, really dislike Hillary Clinton and her tactics. I'm usually happy to go along with whoever the nominee is but if Hillary wins this by choosing tactics from the Republican playbook (attack, lie, distort) then it will be a disaster for the Dems.
Actually, I think her tactics will backfire. How anyone could find her to be an attractive candidate after the events of the last week or so I don't know. Just so, so depressing to see one of our candidates take a leaf from the Rove/Atwater playbook.
(And enough with the "Edwards was above the fray and the only grown up on the stage" stuff. He's not relevant any longer. If he'd been a serious contender, then Hillary would have gone after him too...)
Michael A wrote on January 22, 2008 10:34 AM:I am so sick of the clintons. I can't even stand listening to her or mr. bill anymore, which really doesn't matter, because anything they or her campaign says is a lie. Politics as usual 90's style. Hopefully, the american people will wake up and send the clintons packing. I am not interested in watching this disaster for the next four years. America will suffer.
Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 10:35 AM:@Qtip: Hillary is a liar.
LynnDee wrote on January 22, 2008 10:36 AM:Quote: "He spoke admiringly of the Republicans in the 1990s (read the transcript or watch the video, foplks), he voted "present" like a typical politician"
You're confusing two points of Hillary's, both of which are false.
First, Obama did not slide on his opposition to the war. His later comments were at the time of the 2004 election, and rather than disagree with the Democratic candidate, John Kerry, he simply acknowledged that he wasn't in the Senate at the time of the vote to authorize military force and thus didn't see the intelligence the Senators saw, but that, even so, he didn't the case for war had been made.
Second, the "present" votes are an idiosyncrasy of how the Illinois senate works and used as a strategic device to signal approval for a particular bill but that there's a correction you believe should be made. As most of us, I hope, know, you cannot vote "present" in the U.S. Senate.
So, git your Hillary talking points straight, Steve.
Scientific wrote on January 22, 2008 10:36 AM:This kind of politics makes me sick. It's bullyish baiting. I think Obama got the better of her last night, correcting lies in an direct and emphatic fashion.
And this "frustrated" talk is empty nonsense. Give me a break, Hillary. For someone that claims to be all about substance and giving to others, it's plain that appearances and ego mean more.
David wrote on January 22, 2008 10:36 AM:>>>A great role model for the country, a great inspiration for us all, a truly credible voice of integrity.>>>
Get over it. The rest of us have. This isn't kindergarten. This is bare knuckle politics, and your man can't play the game and is getting the ?@#! beat out of him from two directions. What a bunch of knaive clowns you people are. Oooooo, Bill stretches the truth!! Ooooo, I'm telling Ms. McGillicuddy!
tek wrote on January 22, 2008 10:36 AM:TherP: you're totally wrong about women. Last night at one point a whole group of black women stood up and applauded Hillary. Never at any time did the audience boo that here wasn't accompanying applause. The Obama people really can't accuse the Clintons of anything that Obama isn't doing, and then you're just being hypocrites like the GOP. But Obama is more Republican than liberal, he's not progressive at all.
I suspect that the people who criticize Hillary so roundly have never watched her stump speeches or her interviews. She never criticizes Obama or any other candidate. She doesn't have to because she has so many positive, practical ideas to talk about. You don't hear Hillary whining about all the criticism she gets, she's not trying to "shut up" the other candidates like Barack is doing. How Republican--stifle Bill Clinton's First Amendment rights because he's--OMG--criticizing Barack.
Michael A wrote on January 22, 2008 10:37 AM:One other thing on the polls. I've been harping on the cali rasmussen poll that showed only a 5% split between clinton and obama for days now. Clinton at 38 and obama at 33. No posting of the poll, but a field poll is posted showing a much larger spread and the rasmussen cali poll is ignored???? WTF.
Kucinich for prez wrote on January 22, 2008 10:37 AM:Nobody can stand Hilary. Except the press.
stryker wrote on January 22, 2008 10:37 AM:Obama clearly opened the ball last night, not Hillary and she made him dance to the music. Look, I don't need to like my candidate and I am never going to have a beer with her or any of that BS. I just want one that can kick GOP butt in the general and withstand all the incoming fire from the right unlike John Kerry who turned out to be the biggest pussycat I ever saw.The infighting in these debates is NOTHING compared to what is to come in the general and Obama is shaping up to be another Kerry who proved the old adage that " nice gals finish last " and turned around and endorsed Obama this time which IMHO is the kiss of death.
Sue wrote on January 22, 2008 10:38 AM:Oh, David, how happy we little women are to have you to channel "what women must think" about the campaign.
I am feminist who is appalled by the campaign Hillary is running. She has taken the worst of political campaigns and has turned them against a fine candidate who has done more for the American people than she has and who has far more political courage.
Her tone is patronizing and arrogant and makes me angry. She used to be my choice -- no more.
LynnDee wrote on January 22, 2008 10:38 AM:Quote: "I suspect that the people who criticize Hillary so roundly have never watched her stump speeches or her interviews. She never criticizes Obama or any other candidate."
Right. She lets Bill do that.
I'm not impressed.
Barbara wrote on January 22, 2008 10:38 AM:I don't know about other women or women who are of a different generation, but this 65-year-old woman loved watching Hillary hold the day. Not enough that it has made me decide to vote for her instead of Obama. I may have to toss a coin--or vote for Edwards.
GMFORD wrote on January 22, 2008 10:38 AM:Here's something I have been wondering about. If the Dems settle on a candidate before the Reps do, doesn't that give them (Reps) an advantage in that they will know which Dem they will be running against before they pick their candidate?
awrbb wrote on January 22, 2008 10:38 AM:
I wish she would leave the immature trash-talking to her campaign staff.
Joe Lisboa wrote on January 22, 2008 10:38 AM:The look on his face when he said "I don't even know who I'm running against anymore, you or Bill" was priceless. Damn right you don't. You don't know what just hit you.
You're proud of our ex-President acting like some drunken uncle with an aggression problem?
Scientific wrote on January 22, 2008 10:39 AM:David at 10:33am -
You do realize this is a campaign, and not a football game? I expect to hear that kind of talk on Sundays in a sports bar. And it sure seems terms like "idiot upstart" is the new code for "uppity", doesn't it?
Bupalos wrote on January 22, 2008 10:40 AM:>>>>>>>>The look on his face when he said "I don't even know who I'm running against anymore, you or Bill" was priceless. Damn right you don't. You don't know what just hit you.>>>>>>>>
Yeah. Is it Bill in the office with the cigar, or Hillary in the tub with the waterworks?
As always, it depends on the definition of is.
bnb wrote on January 22, 2008 10:40 AM:The public's frustrated too. Nomatter what happens, press coverage is positive for Clinton and Obama, and negative or nonexistant for any of the others.
LynnDee wrote on January 22, 2008 10:42 AM:Quote: "Oh, David, how happy we little women are to have you to channel "what women must think" about the campaign.
I am feminist who is appalled by the campaign Hillary is running. She has taken the worst of political campaigns and has turned them against a fine candidate who has done more for the American people than she has and who has far more political courage.
Her tone is patronizing and arrogant and makes me angry."
Amen, sister. This longtime feminist feels the same.
Not that being a feminist, or a woman, has anything to do with my response. I just dislike dishonesty of the sort she and her husband are demonstrating over and over and over. I am disgusted by the two of them.
NCSteve wrote on January 22, 2008 10:42 AM:And again with we have a sudden influx of anonymous pro-Hillary postings. Boy, funny how that happens after every debate.
john mccutchen wrote on January 22, 2008 10:44 AM:Campaign Manager David Plouffe on the debate...
Tonight we saw how important it is to elect a President we can trust. Barack Obama’s commitment to fighting for working families, expanding health care to the uninsured, and taking on the lobbyists who shut out the voices of the American people hasn’t changed with the politics of the moment, it’s been the cause of his life.Steve Johnson wrote on January 22, 2008 10:44 AM:
This campaign is a choice between a candidate who will do or say anything to get elected and a leader who has spent over two decades bringing people together, taking power away from the special interests, and being honest about the challenges we face. That is how we’ll turn the page on the politics that have let us down for far too long, and that’s how we’ll solve the challenges we’ve talked about year after year after year.
People seem obsessed with tactics and forgetting basic issues like, for example, trust. When I see someone perpetrating an obvious lie, distorting their opponent's words, the first thing I think is that I'm not going to trust anything this person says on issue positions. The second reaction is that I've been insulted because the candidate thinks I'm too stupid to see an obvious distortion.
Liam wrote on January 22, 2008 10:44 AM:I watched the debate. I am an Obama supporter. I saw two candidates going at it. Nothing wrong with that. This is how we will find the candidate who has been proven the toughest, and most capable of fighting the Republican nominee.
Quit all your whining, on both sides. Let them compete and challenge each other. I saw nothing wrong with how either Hillary or Obama went about it. How the hell are we supposed to find out which one can take a punch if we do not let them throw some punches. I enjoyed watching them joust. It is far better than having to pick a nominee from a couple of doormats.
We tried that in 2004, and how did that work for you!
adyacent wrote on January 22, 2008 10:45 AM:Reading this post I realized I am not alone. When this campaign started, I was leaning towards Obama but I was thinking that any of the candidates were pretty good, especially against a field of republicans that seemed to me really loony. But yesterday dabate gave me a bad taste. Yes, by standart politics Hillary may have score more points. But looking at her, her body language when Obama was talking, it was the body language of an angry person looking for cold revenge. And it wasn't pretty. I can imagine that body language against the old veteran McCain, and I can see a lot of people running away from her. I still thinks that she will be a good president, but the best hopes with her will be a 50.5-49.5% victory, and I wonder if that would be good for the country.
LordKhaine wrote on January 22, 2008 10:46 AM:I'm a dyed in the wool Dem. I liked Bill (emphasis on liked.)
Fact is, if Hillary gets the nomination, the Reps will be popping champagne corks all around. The Dems will give them the one thing they desperately lack with their own candidates, a reason to fight.
Deserving or not, 1/2 this country HATES Hillary. If for some strange reason she manages to get the Presidency, it's back to superpartisanship & bickering. Oh, joy, just what we need.
Bill was right, a vote for Obama is like taking a roll of the dice. But I'd rather make an all-in bet with a chance at actually UNITING this country than one I'm sure to lose with and keep the divisions well entrenched.
mark n wrote on January 22, 2008 10:46 AM:I think Hillary Clinton came off as looking pretty mean and nasty. She really looks like an obnoxious power-thirsty tyrant.
LynnDee wrote on January 22, 2008 10:47 AM:Quote: "I don't know about other women or women who are of a different generation, but this 65-year-old woman loved watching Hillary hold the day. Not enough that it has made me decide to vote for her instead of Obama."
I am 56. Do I count as "your generation"? I am no spring chicken.
I am also a divorced mother of two. Supposedly Hillary's base. But, although I used to be neutral about her, preferring Obama but willing to wait to see who the nominee was because I thought they were all great, I am now completely disgusted by Hillary.
Is anyone here confident that she would keep us out of a stupid military action if she thought it would burnish her liberal hawk bona fides? I'm not. Hopefully any stupid decision she made in that arena wouldn't be as disastrous as Iraq, but I don't trust her to keep us out altogether.
Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 10:47 AM:And comments like yours, David, will ensure that Hillary does not get my vote in November. Thanks for plyaing.
peterb wrote on January 22, 2008 10:47 AM:Obama was not looking for a fight, he was refuting scurrilous charges by her deceptive campaign.
Obama needs to harp on her war mongering votes of the past, Iraq and Iran. Move the debate to the most important vote of her time as a Senator. In addition, he needs to reiterate the fact that she did not take the time to read the NIE prior to her Iraq war vote. Frankly, that is inexcusable!
The only way the Clintons can win is to drag Obama down into the mud that spawned them. It's a sad indictment of our politics and sad to see people so joyous at it. This is a pivotal election to indicate the direction this country will go in the next decade or so, and it appears two selfish, arrogant people are going to hoodwink enough people into voting for them and drag the cheer and hope of the next generation into the mud with them. It's very sad. Increasingly the only recourse will be to vote McCain, a man I disagree with on issues, but a man with principles. Sure, principles he held his nose and pandered against a few times, but a man who is in politics for some reason other than self-aggrandizement. I do not want mud.
wwjb wrote on January 22, 2008 10:47 AM:Steve, he hasn't slid on the Iraq issue if you actually check what he has said and the reasoning behind it, it is sound. This is just the kind of "flip-flop" crap the Republicans ran against Kerry in 04, granted his explanations of his changes weren't the best, but the Republicans capitalized on Americans not paying enough attention to the context and what is really going on. He also didn't praise the Republicans, he was simply making a very well reasoned observation about the historical significant of Reagan's presidency and how he was able to achieve such radical (and bad) political change. There is nothing there and it is disingenuous to say there is something there. He has also already addressed the yes votes. He wasn't using them to cop out, he was using them to protect vulnerable Democrats on abortion votes, and the plan was designed by pro-choice groups, who have backed him against Hillary's attacks. Other present votes were on technical matters, for instance if he believed a bill was good, but unconstitutional. If you actually look at the votes it is clear that there is nothing there as well. And what bankruptcy bill are you referring to? That wouldn't be the one that Hillary voted for too was it? Pot, Kettle, Black. And what about the Iraq vote, if we want to talk about really important matters, I'm pretty sure he showed much better judgment than Hillary on that, and what does she do when called on it? She refuses to take responsibility for it (like Edwards has) and, well, dances around with empty rhetoric. Obama isn't the one dancing around and using empty rhetoric, it is her. If you actually listen to what Obama is saying, it is clear that there is a lot more there than what Hillary supporters like to pretend. But of course it is typical GOP style tactics (again, think Kerry 04), where one party lies and attacks, and when the other party responds with a correct explanation of how that is a load of crap, the attacking party claims they are full of empty rhetoric, or flip flopping, or "shuckin' n' jivin'" as we know it now in this campaign. It is straight GOP strategy, the simplistic attacks prevail because trying to explain and put things in context, in short, trying to inform voters, is too difficult, it bores them, they don't pay enough attention to understand, so the attacker, be it Bush/Cheney/Rove or Hillary/Bill/Penn paints them as weak, or empty, or a flip flopper, or whatever. And you parrots repeat these lines dutifully, and try to make it conventional wisdom. You are transparent as can be, and I'm disgusted to be in the same party as you and the Clintons.
Qtip, put me down for "Hillary is a liar"
Mildred wrote on January 22, 2008 10:47 AM:Listen, we all know that if the Clintons make the White House, Bill can make really big money. Power and lucre...what else would drive him to savage his/her opponent,
David wrote on January 22, 2008 10:47 AM:>>>You're proud of our ex-President acting like some drunken uncle with an aggression problem?>>>
I'm proud of the greatest political couple in history showing Captain Kumbaya how to find his ass...because it's the big swollen thing that hurts from all the kicking.
When I see democrats come on here and complain that Obama is being "smeared" with "lies" I know how the other side felt these past years. Like a winner. Politics isn't kindergarten folks. I'll take the "unfair" "lying" "smearing" tag team, and you take your pure saint and we'll see who's ass is sore in the morning.
peterb wrote on January 22, 2008 10:48 AM:In what way is "Obama a deer in the headlights". I thought he defended himself well and came off as more presidential throughout the whole debate. Hillary is the one who is constantly shouting her views...talk about frustrated!
savvy wrote on January 22, 2008 10:49 AM:Hillary leaves SC to Bill should be the point that Obama attacks. Hillary does not care enough about the voters in SC to campaign there. She has left it to Bill. How much will she leave to Bill in the WH? Hillary talks about accountability but when the going gets tough, she walks away and lets Bill do the work. Is this the type of leadership we want in our next President, where her spouse is the one making the case whenever the tension in the Middle East erupts or when the economy is tanking?
Hillary is dishonest and both her and Bill are liars. He is suppose to be frustrated and talking rightwingtalkingpoints when he points out the lies and distortions of Bill Clinton?
Hillary and Bill are brawlers, that is what caused the divisiveness and polarization that paralyzed this country and brought about gridlock and a GOP majority. That is very clear during this campaign. If the Clintons are elected we will have more of the same and a fierce return to the 90s with the Clintons throwing blows the entire time. They may take body blows, but it is because they have to after they throw the first punch.
The Clintons are the worse thing that has happened to Democrates in the past 10 years. They are not leaders. Bill Clinton did not lead this party and get democratic ideas passed, he triangulated and capitualated that's why we had welfare reform, no universal health care and NAFTA trade agreements that destroyed the midddle class. Bill Clinton could not lead because he pissed the GOP off just as he is doing to the voters in the primaries. Now, we know why the Clintons deserve each other, they are two pitt bulls, the only difference is Bill knows how to mask and disguise his bulldog belligerence far better the he does. Which is why she is his bitch, they are both dogs. We just see hers better.
Obama on the other hand truly knows how to sit down and work with people and bring about change. The Clintons don't. Folks who beleive Obama's committment to change vs. brawling is a weakness do not understand leadership.
The Clintons accomplish nothing in the 90s other than 15 years of GOP in the majority and the very divisiveness between the parties they engendered and are now using to create a split in the Democratic party because all the Clintons care about is themselves.
The GOP was right. Bill and Hillary do not care about this nation. It is all about them.
That is not a righwingtalkingpoint it is the truth.
Even if it frustrates the Clinton for them to be called on it.
They are strong and wrong.
Hopefully America will stick to be being right and vote for Obama and jettison all the acrimony, hate and blue and red divide that the Clintons politics created.
TheraP wrote on January 22, 2008 10:50 AM:Interesting to see all the different reactions to billary. Even if some black women stood up and cheered, you have no idea of they were paid to do that.
What strikes me as bothering some women is her level of nastiness. Put that together with the fact that she needs a husband to do the worst dirty work, and you have a woman who appears not to be able to fight on her own. Really doesn't look good all the way around.
But for those who love that, go ahead! I just think she's risking a huge backfire here.
Ron Cantrell wrote on January 22, 2008 10:50 AM:Obama is probably a real nice guy, but his supporters are the nastiest, rudest, most ill informed bunch I have seen on a progressive website. They would fit right in over at LGF or Malkin, though.
BluePuppy wrote on January 22, 2008 10:50 AM:The meme that Obama is less polarizing than Hillary is not born out by the data. He is equally as polarizing and yet he hasn't experienced the full-force Limbaugh/Hannity/Hewitt/FoxNews attack machine. In fact, his tacking to the right has cost him dearly in NH & NV. Obama has staked out his election on independents, Republicans, and elite, upscale Democrats (AKA as Hillary-haters here), but fortunately that is a not winning coalition. Working & downscale Democrats, the base of our party, are voting for Hillary by huge margins.
Joe Lisboa wrote on January 22, 2008 10:52 AM:I'm proud of the greatest political couple in history showing Captain Kumbaya how to find his ass...because it's the big swollen thing that hurts from all the kicking.
"The greatest political couple in history"? Are you suffering from trickle-down egomania? Cleopatra called, she wants a recount.
Politics may not be kindergarten (and I wouldn't go around bringing up kindergarten, by the way) but your anal fixation doesn't make it a colonoscopy, either. Lay off the 'roids already.
FlipYrWhig wrote on January 22, 2008 10:52 AM:Funny how bringing back all the greatest hits of 1998 -- Now That's What I Call Impeachment! -- is the prescription for ending nastiness and bullying in politics. Fight about _Hillary_ Clinton, not "The Clintons."
gcs wrote on January 22, 2008 10:53 AM:Face facts.
Hillary C-A-N-N-O-T win the presidency.
Far too many people in this country either despise her (this Independent included) or are at best ambivalent about her. She said it herself, the republicans have been going after her for 16 years. And they have an entire generation of voters who were too young to remember the 92 election and so have a whole new generation of mindless morons for whom Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster's suicide, the cattle futures, Bill's infidelity, their marriage, and on and on and on.
Hell, they don't even have to make up new lies.
Hillary's biggest lie is that her run for the presidency is about the American people. please. It's about her and her ego, because if it really was about what was best for this country she'd step aside and spare us a repeat of the ugly mudslinging she knows is coming.
LynnDee wrote on January 22, 2008 10:53 AM:Quote: "The meme that Obama is less polarizing than Hillary is not born out by the data."
Oh it's a meme, now, is it?! Hi-larious.
BTW, I'm not seeing any of the data you mentioned. Just argument.
Heretic wrote on January 22, 2008 10:54 AM:It'll be interesting to see how many of you change your tune when Hillary is duking it out with the republican nominee. Obama is a weak, empty vessel and he deserves to be trashed. Anybody who thinks he could stand up to the rigors of running against the actual enemy (the repugs) is gravely mistaken. McCain seems likely to take out either one at this stage, but Hillary stands a much better chance of revealing him for what he is (a warmongering corporate shill). If Obama does as poor a job at defending himself and his policies in the GE, the only repug he could probably beat at the end of the day is Huck.
brad wrote on January 22, 2008 10:54 AM:again. The Clintons or your lying eyes?
Nick wrote on January 22, 2008 10:54 AM:Hillary broadcasts voter-repellent rays all over the country every time she opens her mouth. If she comes within 25 points of McCain with men and independents, it will be a surprise. I simply can't believe we are going over this cliff, in a year when the GOP should get creamed. It's just incredible. I hope all you Hillbots don't disappear the day after the election next fall; I want to hear your excuses. Although iut won't be any comfort.
partyofignorance wrote on January 22, 2008 10:55 AM:When Obama calls Republicans the party of ideas for the last 15 years, what does that say about Democrats in the last 15 years? And wasn't Universal Health care--something he now somewhat supports-- a Democratic idea from that time period?
Jim J wrote on January 22, 2008 10:56 AM:I have been on Republican websites that use the exact same terminology and arguments against the Clintons that I see here. Kos is the same way these days. Seems the blogosphere is returning to its rightist/Naderite roots.
wglad wrote on January 22, 2008 10:56 AM:I man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. -- Paul Simon
David wrote on January 22, 2008 10:57 AM:>>>Is anyone here confident that she would keep us out of a stupid military action if she thought it would burnish her liberal hawk bona fides? >>>
Like it or not, those liberal hawk bona fides are what is going to get us the win in the general. Hillary was exactly right on that last night. She can go up against McCain because he can't say #@$! about her being weak. Compare and contrast Mr. "I voted for the war but it was a mistake," or Mr. "I was against the war from the start." No contest.
The Clintons know where to pick their fights, because they know the game. It's a winning game. Obama doesn't. And it shows.
bvd wrote on January 22, 2008 10:57 AM:All the folks excusing or even enthusing over the Clintons for their lies, distortions and disingenuousness become apoplectic whenever a Republican does the same. Why is that, I wonder?
That's downright eponysterical, partyofingorance.
FlipYrWhig wrote on January 22, 2008 10:59 AM:He also didn't praise the Republicans, he was simply making a very well reasoned observation about the historical significant of Reagan's presidency and how he was able to achieve such radical (and bad) political change.
And Clinton wasn't diminishing the role of Martin Luther King, she was simply making a very well reasoned observation about the necessity of pairing movement-building and rhetoric (from the outside) on the one hand with pragmatism (from the inside) on the other. But that didn't stop people from jumping on her for tone-deafness at best and outright racism at worst. Now it's Obama's turn to take some heat for the way his Reagan remarks tie in to his vision of the place of Republicans and other entrenched interests in making political change. When you say something in a sloppy manner, you pay a price for it (at least if you're a Democrat!). Ask Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Howard Dean, etc..
noblejoanie wrote on January 22, 2008 11:01 AM:Edwards came off the most presidential and the candidate with the best ideas.
/pin drops
BluePuppy wrote on January 22, 2008 11:01 AM:TPM is a good thermometer of how worried Obama’s supporters are. The nastier, meaner,hateful, and more shrill the posts here (like today), the calmer and more relaxed I feel about our girl winning the nomination. I'm feeling very sanguine now.
Heretic wrote on January 22, 2008 11:01 AM:Bluepuppy
You've nailed it. I have said before myself in these forums. Obama is the candidate of rich elitists. The college kids and wealthy, ivy-leaguers who support him whine like the babies they are anytime someone plays a little rough. They are used to protected, privileged lives and threaten not to play if they don't get their way. This is the democratic party that America hates. It is the main target of rightwing talkshow hosts (and not without reason). We keep losing because the party of the people doesn't speak to the people. Look at Kerry—privileged rich boy. Look at Bill—po' white trash. Ironically, Hillary was privileged herself, but that is not how she is perceived by the rank and file because of Bill. He is clearly her best asset among the voters who really count. And plenty of indie women will vote for her in the end.
truman82 wrote on January 22, 2008 11:01 AM:Hillary's sense of entitlement is revolting. She and Bill care more about themseleves than they do the Democratic Party or the country--always have and always will. She is a phony "politics as usual" candidate, and would be that sort of president.
onceler wrote on January 22, 2008 11:01 AM:um, this is news? well, it does sound like TPM saw a resounding win for Hillary here. not the debate I watched, but these things do happen. Chris Matthews forcefully called the last one for her as well, and I also thought that completely mystifying. all depends on what one wanted to see or was forced to say, I suppose. they both looked pretty frustrated. why does Hillary seem so frustrated as the front-runner who won the last two significant primaries? she sure is cranky about it.
as far as her jibes being effective - again, depends what you were looking to see in the first place, I think. if you can honestly say that watching her lie about what Obama said about Reagan makes you 'cringe', but you also think her attacks are 'effective', then there's a serious disconnect going on. to me, any substance she might have is undermined by her current style. it may seem normal for some to have a candidate send a former president out on their behalf to do their dirty work and attack their opponents, but I for one think it is outrageous and wrong. so any 'attack' against Obama based on this crap falls completely flat to me. non-starters. why can't she win on her own, without having a ringer? it's pretty sad, if you ask me. JMM saw Obama as bringing a knife to a gun fight. I saw the debate as Hillary bringing a shoulder-launched missile and being way, way too forceful about things which simply don't matter.
goldberry wrote on January 22, 2008 11:03 AM:Hillary's camp is just taking advantage of Obama's debate style to associate a negative attribute to him. He frequently comes off as flustered, unfocussed and incoherent. He can't land a punch because his thoughts are disorganized and they come out of his mouth that way.
So, yeah, it looks like he's frustrated. Like, "Can't you see what I'm trying to say? Let me put it another way. No, let me try again and tie it back to this other concept. Which prepositional phrase was I on? Oh, yeah, And that goes for Bill too!"
The reason Hillary and Edwards don't do this is because they have a comfort level with the material and confidence that only practice can produce. You can't fake it.
And whether he actually is or is a hostage to the debate format, he *does* come off looking frustrated.
And young and impatient and not ready.
>>>Fight about _Hillary_ Clinton, not "The Clintons.">>>
Just as soon as she muzzles that drunken dog and runs on her own merits. The fact is, they are a team, they've always been a team, they will always be a team. It's a political marriage who's attraction to power overcomes sexual misconduct, statutory rape, financial malfeasance, everything.
Hillary is running on "our record" and has started using "we" almost exclusively. Unless she's tapping into monarchical language to reinforce her absolute authority, I'd say it is more accurate to say "the Clintons" than "Hillary."
one wrote on January 22, 2008 11:04 AM:Like Bill, HRC does not know when to shut-up. Simply, move on! Pin the tail on the donkey routine is too old; it depends on getting a pass from too many observers. The Clinton's approach assumes of Obama the bubbling of Gore and Kerry with doses of Swift Boat lite is the tonic; folks are not that dumb and those that may be are not worth the effort to pursue
After seven plus years of Bush & Co. this is high wire act; the question is it too high?
BluePuppy wrote on January 22, 2008 11:06 AM:The Obama supporters sound FRUSTRATED......LMAO!!!
NC State Dem wrote on January 22, 2008 11:06 AM:I watch Hillary's tactics and I think one thing - Karl Rove. Yes, maybe she can get a short term, narrow win in the primary and even in the general that way - but at what long-term cost? Look at the tatterred state of the current GOP. Do we want that to be US in 2010 or 2014? Do we really want to rally and unify the GOP base for them, by continuing the stream of sewage that started with the Arkansas Project?
Hillary Clinton will NEVER realign the country for progressive values. If she wins, she'll win with 51%, tops - in 2008 and 2012. The wins will likely come with GOP comebacks (if not outright takeovers) in Congress, and in the states leading up to crucial redistricting. But the Clintons will be in power again, which is all that really matters to Bill and Hillary. They view themselves as absolutely indispensable, and the sense of raw entitlement sickens me.
Obama isn't perfect. He has trouble being concise in debates (particularly in responding to attacks), as Josh noted. He wouldn't be a guaranteed winner in November. But at least there's a best case scenario to hope for. Hillary's best case scenario isn't so hot for the Democratic Party or the progressive movement (beyond saving the judiciary from complete wingnut takeover). Obama's best case scenario is a complete realignment of American politics that could have people flocking to the Democratic party and progressive values.
I'll take my chances with Barack (warts and all).
Angry Vet wrote on January 22, 2008 11:07 AM:I'm frustrated too.
I'm frustrated because most voting-age Americans don't give a crap about what is going on.
I'm frustrated that our media, and our candidates, promulgate lies without very much fact-checking. It was interesting to see on msnbc.com last night Chuck Todd admitting that he actually needs to fact check something, and lo and behold, he found out HRC didn't vote on the 2005 Bankruptcy Bill.
I'm frustrated that BHO says an honest thing about Ronald Reagan and an appreciation of his political strategy, but not his policy, and gets attacked for it.
I'm frustrated most people blindly are following the candidate who appears "the strongest." Whatever that means.
I'm frustrated the netroots apparently no longer encourage intelligent discourse, but instead have mostly descended into the same identity politics that have plagued this country since the beginning.
I'm frustrated that the lying continues. I'm frustrated most people are not thinking for themselves. I'm frustrated most HRC supporters will not engaged with me on an intellectual level.
I understand Obama's frustration. His message of hope is what made me ripe for his campaign in the first place. Frustration is not a bad thing, because it is merely a step that needs to be taken enroute to overcoming a difficulty.
I don't understand HRC's attack in the slightest. Of course, I'm sure there are a number of writers out there who would care to enlighten me. However, I'm sure those explanations will be lacking, as they usually do from the other side.
Hence BHO and his "wine circuit" base. Do you know why he gets support from that sector? Because he's smart and he speaks intelligently to a piece of the electorate that demands to spoken to intelligently.
Hence the demographic breakdown based on wealth of BHO's supporters vs. HRC's.
Hallmark of frustration: "How can these people be so OBTUSE?!"
Ok. Now I have to write a paper on this very subject.
John Y wrote on January 22, 2008 11:08 AM:I thought Obama did well last night. I was thrilled to see him hit back against the ridiculous lies the Clintons have been propagating.
I am a lifelong liberal Democrat, but as things stand today, there is no way I could ever vote for the Clintons. I just can't do it. I have lots of friends who feel the same way. And if I feel this way, you can't forget about any independents voting for them in November.
Yes, the Clintons are tremendous fighters.
Too bad they're proving so much "tougher" against Obama and Democratic rank-and-file voters disgusted with their self-serving dishonesty, than they were against George W. Bush and the Republicans. If only Bill had been this tough and hard-hitting when his successor took us into a tragic, stupid, wasteful war... though I guess it would have been bad form to do that given that his wife voted for that war.
The Clintons really show that legendary "toughness" when it's other peoples' lives and the public treasury at stake. When it's other people dying and spending, nobody is braver.
Joe Lisboa wrote on January 22, 2008 11:08 AM:This is the democratic party that America hates.
Quoth the Hillary-backer with a straight face.
w wrote on January 22, 2008 11:10 AM:""Is anyone here confident that she would keep us out of a stupid military action if she thought it would burnish her liberal hawk bona fides? ""
Yup. I do. She's not stupid.
peterb wrote on January 22, 2008 11:10 AM:Ron Cantrel
STFU - take your devotion to hillary elsewhere. Obama supporters are frustrated by Billary's shameless attacks at the expense of the democratic party.
What many dems forget, is that Billary killed the democratic party. WE are just now recovering from their destruction to the democratic party. Hillary is the only way we can lose in 08.
jd wrote on January 22, 2008 11:12 AM:I also thought that completely mystifying. all depends on what one wanted to see or was forced to say, I suppose. they both looked pretty frustrated.
agree,plus MSM is at work,trying to keep you in this,to make money,only money. now if we don't go out there do something,we'll have Clintons back in the white house surrounded by their greedy,power-hungry friends. and guess who's coming BACK to dc.Bush's little brother,jeb-am I overreaching here?
hello_world wrote on January 22, 2008 11:13 AM:""Is anyone here confident that she would keep us out of a stupid military action if she thought it would burnish her liberal hawk bona fides? ""Yup. I do. She's not stupid.
Is that why she voted for Kyle/Lieberman? Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 11:15 AM:
And wasn't Universal Health care--something he now somewhat supports-- a Democratic idea from that time period?
Actually, it was from the 50s, but you're close
onceler wrote on January 22, 2008 11:15 AM:who are these people who see the country electing Hillary Clinton in the general election??!!! I mean seriously, it's the saddest form of denial. McCain, most likely, against Clinton, she loses. there is no WAY she will get more of the country to vote for her! people who follow politics closely are far more insular than they realize. if it's those two head to head, I'd say 60-something McCain, 30-something HRC, and that's with no Bloomberg entrance into the race.
people do admire the Clintons on some levels, but Clinton fatigue in the country is being seriously under-measured by people who are into way-inside politics. the country doesn't give a crap about her 'voice' or whatever. "bare knuckle" politics - I don't think of things in those terms. you do win through integrity and trustworthiness. the Clintons don't believe in those things and won despite disregarding them, for the most part. but never did Bill really win any resounding victories, he always just squeaked by, while costing Dems seats in Congress. they have a very short-sighted, selfish strategy which may propel her to the nomination, but at the expense of the most massive rift within the party since the late 60's. I don't see the Clintons as better fighters, I simply see them as more likely to get into fights due to their style of engagement. and the thing is, especially within the media world - they LOSE a lot of these fights! sad that the world will have to witness a major loss by a Clinton for the narrative about how they know how to 'beat' the Republicans to die. being co-opted and spending all your time out-maneuvering opponents wielding totally unpopular viewpoints is not really "winning" in politics! the Defense of Marriage Act was not a 'win'. 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' was not a 'win'. Health Care reform was a definite 'loss'. can't stand the thought of looking backwards to the 'greatness' of the Clintons, they completely set the stage for George W. Bush to be able to take over. and I don't even really credit Bill with beating Bush Sr. in the first place. he was beaten by one man, and one man alone, and that man's name was - Dana Carvey.
partyofignorance wrote on January 22, 2008 11:15 AM:Oh geez Obama supporters. I don't care if you like him, that's fine. I do too. But he's not perfect and he's not above the fray. He called Hillary's MLK remarks "ill-advised" but won't admit the same about his "party of ideas" comments. See my above comment if you want to see my logic on this one...Weren't you the very ones calling for her head when she said that? It's just a series of double standards he's pursuing.
Jay wrote on January 22, 2008 11:16 AM:I have never voted for a Republican, but I will not vote for Hillary.
Matthew wrote on January 22, 2008 11:17 AM:Pardon me that I haven't read all the posts in this thread but David's observation "Hillary smoked that idiot upstart. The look on his face when he said "I don't even know who I'm running against anymore, you or Bill" was priceless. Damn right you don't. You don't know what just hit you." kind of sums it up for me. While I definitely do not think Obama is an idiot, Clinton did run circles around his inexperience. It didn't help that he unsuccessfully tangled with Edwards as well. It has really been a bad few weeks for Obama, especially this past week. At this point, frustrated is probably is more true than false.
I do think that both Clinton and Edwards had a good night at the debate. And posters can complain all they want about the roughness of things but it is refreshing to see some serious candidates. We don't need another Kerry, unwilling to fight for the win, nor willing to defend himself until it is pathetically too late.
Genghis wrote on January 22, 2008 11:18 AM:It's smart strategy for Clinton to take the offensive, but seriously, her attack line is that Obama is frustrated? First, who cares if he's frustrated? Second, the attack raises the question, "Why is he frustrated?" At the debate last night, he did not seem to be frustrated by the NH and NV primaries, as Clinton suggests. Rather, he was quite obviously frustrated by the Clintons' distortions of his record and comments. Hence, all the posts above about how Clinton said things to frustrate him and then accused him of being frustrated. So it's a weak attack that's likely to backfire.
If I were Obama, I'd say something to the effect of "Hell yeah, I'm frustrated, frustrated by the dishonesty and distortions of the Clinton campaign".
I'd say frustrated sums of the Obama operation from top to bottom. Whenever they lose, they call the election itself into question. I'd say that's a sign of frustration, and, worse, it's crying wolf before the general. Who's going to believe us when the NEXT Florida or Ohio happens?
ds wrote on January 22, 2008 11:21 AM:I have a hard time imagining voters wanting a rather nasty, dysfunctional couple (one of whom lied to the country about an affair he had in the White House!) as co-Presidents. They'll buy McCain or Giuliani's hoky patriotism over that (factual) storyline.
Wowsas wrote on January 22, 2008 11:22 AM:Were you Obamaites watching the same debate I was last night? As an Edwards guy, I officially went Hillary last night as my 2nd choice. And for all the talk about how Hillary is being dishonest and slimy, I thought the converse was true: I thought she was making very fair criticisms of Obama, and Obama was responding with half-truths and misrepresentations.
1) On the Bankruptcy bill issue, which is something I've followed, the following are true: a) the 2001 bill was bad, and Hillary and Edwards voted for it; b) on the other hand, this bill was a bit under the radar as far as the consumer groups and traditional Dem constituencies were concerned; c) the 2005 bankruptcy bill was unquestionably awful compared to the 01 bill-- if 01 was bad, 05 was just unbelievably awful; d) Obama was pretty much forced to vote against the 05 bankruptcy bill by his angry constituents-- he initially indicated that he was going to vote for this, which riled up his Illinois Dem groups; e) by no means can Obama truthfully claim he fought against this bill; f) Hillary accurately represented the usury amendment as the Dems' best shot at tamping down this bill, and Obama voted against this amendment; g) Obama's answer was nonsensical, as pointed out by Edwards (he voted against it because 30% was too high? So he preferred to have no usury cap in a bankruptcy bill?); and h) Obama lied at the time he voted against the amendment, claiming that the usury cap would preempt state usury laws. http://davidsirota.com/index.php/2006/06/28/dont-lie-about-the-dayton-amendment/
2) On health care, Obama is not only using a Republican frame (a mandate necessarily forces people who can't afford health care to buy health care), he is lying about Edwards's and Hillary's plans, claiming that they would force poor people to pay money they don't have for health care. Further, he was claiming that he was in favor of single payer if possible. Bullshit. His plan's non-mandate effectively kills any possibility of single payer, or any truly universal health care, and he knows it. The insurance companies vastly prefer his plan over the others', because it entrenches them forever in the system. By allowing people to opt out of his plan, Obama is effectively ensuring that under his plan, young healthy people will tend to get private insurance, since they are cheaper risks, and only switch over to the govt plan when it makes economic sense. As a result, his health care plan will indubitably *lose* buckets of money, and be more costly (perhaps even more costly than our current boondoggle). That is not the way to build a sustainable universal health care system. Even if you disagree with that, you should agree that Obama's claims about Edwards's and Hillary's plans were lies.
Before this debate, I thought Obama was someone who spoke in platitudes, and refused to provide specifics. After this debate, I think Obama is someone who speaks in platitudes and refuses to provide specifics, for a reason: when he talks specifics, he betrays an ideology that is Republican-leaning.
or to wit, if MLK were alive today, I want to believe he wouldn't be running on his resume of being a community organizer, while pushing right-leaning policies.
onceler wrote on January 22, 2008 11:25 AM:oh lambert, its not enough for you to be in every Dkos thread shilling for the Clintons, is it? where do some people find the time to be on every blog touting the greatness of the Clintons?
Michael A wrote on January 22, 2008 11:26 AM:Good point annon on the universal healthcare. Another nugget concerning universal healthcare is that it was pursued as well by the nixon administration. However, nixon put the cabash on it and gave us the wonderful
hmo's to keep profits being funnelled to insurance carriers. Anyway, if we get clinton, we get more of the nixonian philosophy of insurance company welfare on the backs of the poor and middle class. Just marvelous.
Well, I imagine it has to be pretty 'frustrating' to have people lying about you, to your face, in public, even when you (and they) know they are lying and can be proven wrong!
At the debate, Hillary Clinton said in a perfectly convincing tone, "The facts are that [Obama] said in the last week that he really liked the ideas of the Republicans over the last 10 to 15 years, and we can give you the exact quote." ---------- Now they can't, of course, because he never said any such thing. However, a very large audience heard those words and believed them (after all, she's a former First Lady and no one would lie about something when they could so easily be proven wrong) And only a few isolated individuals from that large audience are going to realize that she will never be able provide the quote (because it doesn't exist) and, if pressed, will even have to admit that he never said such a thing.
This is supposedly "brilliant" campaigning, in the same way that the pundits keep calling Karl Rove a 'genius' or 'brilliant.' In truth, however, if you aren't hemmed in by things like honesty or integrity or fair play, then it really isn't hard at all to make effective moves like this. Any of us could do it. Destruction is *always* easier than building something solid - and easier still when you have no civil or ethicals restraints to get in your way.
I found myself watching the debate and thinking "what a damn shame" She's attractive, articulate, hard-working, intelligent - so many things I would love to see in a president. And Lord knows I don't want to vote for a Republican, even the best of them. ...... BUT, despite all that, she'll never have my vote.
If she governs the country the way she is conducting her campaign (and people's procedures rarely change), then there can never be any trust or belief. After GWB, I'll take anything - a 'roll of the dice' or even a Republican - before asking for more of that.
Sure Obama stumbles a bit and looks frustrated. You see, it's a much harder job to hit back, clear the record, keep your cool (if possible) and **still** be accurate and truthful. The true, but dull, facts are rarely as flashy and attention-getting as a bold lie. - "She never stumbled," someone said. Why should she. She just has to counter with words that sound good, unrestrained by truth or even good sense. This is something the Clintons and Karl Rove have learned well - and which has helped them succeed greatly.
I guess you could say that someone engaged in all this political brangling who is not troubled by integrity or conscience really has an unfair advantage, like an athlete on steroids. And, like those athletes, they will most often win. ....... unless ......
In an interview last year, Walter Cronkite stressed that the best protection of a democracy - the necessary ingredient for it to function and to remain a true democracy - is an educated citizenry. If the American people can't wake up or pay attention, then -- oh, I don't know -- you might wind up with all sorts of ills: things like monarchical succession of leaders or getting into wars for no legitimate purpose or even good reason......
Elizabeth,
you wrote:
At the debate, Hillary Clinton said in a perfectly convincing tone, "The facts are that [Obama] said in the last week that he really liked the ideas of the Republicans over the last 10 to 15 years, and we can give you the exact quote." ---------- Now they can't, of course, because he never said any such thing.
Hillary was talking about what he was implying. I'll repost something for your analysis:
When Obama calls Republicans the party of ideas for the last 15 years, what does that say about Democrats in the last 15 years? And wasn't Universal Health care--something he now somewhat supports-- a Democratic idea from that time period?
Please discuss.
Last night was such a poignant reminder of why Hillary is not a role model for me our my six year old daughter. What a better example of a strong woman leader but one who rides on her husband's coat tails, misappropriates his success as her own, but quickly discounts any response to his attacks by blurting out "I never said that". Give me a break - she needs to step up and be the strong woman shattering glass ceilings that she claims to be by doing so on her own merits and without getting her husband to do all her dirty work. If this is too much to ask, then maybe she isn't ready for the job. Should we take comfort in knowing that if she gets to the White House, her "readiness" on day one means her husband can step in to do all the dirty work while she sits back looking pretty? I am sure the framers did not contemplate having a president serve four terms through a surrogate - Billary needs to step aside so that the country can move forward.
Angry Vet wrote on January 22, 2008 11:33 AM:Yes I watched the debate last night.
I was so disgusted at one point I had to stand up and walk away. I didn't like seeing Obama have to go on the attack. But he did, and good for him, because if that's what it takes, so be it.
Edwards' attacks were good and to the point. He hit Obama pretty hard and I was impressed with the intelligence of his discourse.
HRC, of course, didn't answer any attacks, but counter-attacked instead. I guess her strategy, then, must be "if I am in the mud, then you are too."
So what?
That still doesn't give me a reason to vote for her. And I haven't seen any intelligent reason to vote for her since this entire campaign started. Status quo, then, in my mind.
My alternative would be JRE. Being a woman" just like being an African-American) is just not a good enough reason for me to vote for someone. Do HRC supporters have anything more?
The hypocrisy flowing from the Clinton supporters is astounding. Really, I don't know if I've ever witnessed such hypocrisy in politics, even from the Republican side of the aisle.
You people are frickin' brainwashed, and it is frightening.
Elizabeth wrote on January 22, 2008 11:38 AM:PS Want to know a move I think is a "brilliant" political move? Saying something that is absolutely true and worth talking about, in a conversation focused on something else, and including just a tiny -- very accurate -- comment that, in addition to being true and helping you prove your point, also manages to "tweak" your opponent to the point they go ballistic and start making all sorts of stupid, pompous remarks. "``Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not." Ouch!! Talk about waving a red flag in front of an bull (bully?) .... It's too soon to know if it really succeeded in the long run, but nevertheless a brilliant move, IMO. Try doing something as classy as that, Karl Rove!!
Wowsas wrote on January 22, 2008 11:39 AM:Michael A.,
On health care, you are mistaken. There is no legitimate debate over the fact that Hillary's plan (modeled after Edwards's plan) is more progressive than Obama's plan. To claim that Hillarycare will ride on the back of the poor and middle class (as opposed to Obama's, which presumably you think will not) is frankly just ignorant, and the result of misrepresentations made by Obama and his people.
Think about it this way. A health care plan can either be self-funding (like Social Security) or subsidized by the general tax base. All 3 of the candidates purport to have self-funding health care plans. This is a good thing, because the general notion is that self-funded programs are more politically secure than programs that rely on the general tax base (which can be subject to tax cuts, as we've seen, which eradicate that funding).
But Obama's plan allows people to opt in. So who is most likely to take up the government plan? People who are currently uncovered and people who currently have high costs of health care. Who is least likely to take up the government plan? The wealthy, and folks who are young, single, and healthy.
On the other hand, Edwards's and Hillary's plans force everyone to participate.
So basically, Obama's plan is going to have a much higher cost per participant than the Edwards/Hillary plan, because unless they are particularly civic-minded, young healthy people will tend to opt out rather than subsidize the poor sick folks.
At the same time, Obama's plan is going to have a poorer tax base. Because he's allowing people to opt out, and it's likely that none of the poor or uninsured will choose to opt out, it necessarily means his tax base is much smaller.
So if Obama's plan, as it purports to do, is self-funding, it is going to have a much higher cost per participant (in which case, it will be "on the backs of the poor and middle class", as you say). If, as is more likely, it ends up being subsidized by other taxes, then it's going to be an entitlement program for poor people, and subject to the political pressures faced by those types of programs (much like welfare or public housing). Which basically means it's gonna be crappy health care for poor people.
You can support Obama all you like, and tear down HRC (I'm a JRE guy, as abovementioned), but you should at least be grounded in facts, and not just openly swallowing the bullshit being propagated by Obama the liar.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 22, 2008 11:40 AM:This isn't kindergarten. This is bare knuckle politics, and your man can't play the game and is getting the ?@#! beat out of him from two directions.
I agree with the broad substance of what you are saying. It is fatuous to whine about distortions, because it is simply the nature of the game for one's political opponents to distort your record, and the onus is on you either to set the record straight or move the conversation to some other issue. The politician who can only grouse about the unfairness of it all (however just his complaints might be) will lose and will have deserved the loss.
That said, I cannot agree with the perception that Sen Obama comes across as a dear in headlights, either last night or in general. To my mind, he has been reasonably successful in clearing the air each time Sen Clinton attempts a new line of attack-by-distortion. Hence why she keeps trying new approaches. She is at least as frustrated as he is, and will be even more so when he wins handily in SC this Sat and marches on towards Feb 5 with the most recent wind at his back.
Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 11:41 AM:"I certainly hope that Hillary is the candidate. I hope she's the candidate because nothing will energize my (constituency) like Hillary Clinton. If Lucifer ran, he wouldn't." - Jerry Fallwell, 2006
Matt wrote on January 22, 2008 11:42 AM:It seems like the commenters are breaking down into two groups: those who see politics from a gamesmanship/competitive perspective and those who are looking at a politician as a non-rhetorical agent of change.
For the gamesman types, congratulations. You got to watch a good man get bloodied up last night by a series of tested and planned one-liners, manipulated facts, and exagerations. Hillary might have won the debate last night. Heck...she might have won the nomination. But she lost the vote of this lifelong dem.
To the rest, I'm sorry.
Matthew wrote on January 22, 2008 11:46 AM:Greg, win or lose is not a critical issue for Clinton as it is for Obama and, to a lesser extent, Edwards. No one expects Clinton to win in SC and EVERYONE expects Obama to win. IF Obama does not win, he's toast. IF Clinton takes 3rd, she's in trouble. Short of those last two scenarios, I think SC is of very marginal importance in the big picture.
Wowsas wrote on January 22, 2008 11:48 AM:Mari:
I find your comments amusing. I'm an Edwards person. I've only donated money to him, and only supported him so far. I was also one of the people who didn't want Hillary *at all* up until about a month ago.
But what is this hypocrisy you speak of? What is this slime?
I was once very enamored of Obama. But it bothered me that he never talked specifics. Furthermore, it bothered me that his supporters all seemed taken in by his cult of personality, but not able to point out specifics on why they thought Obama would be a good President (unless you believe that "he can unify the parties" or "he'll effect real change" without any specifics on how he would transcend partisanship or what specific change he would bring are specifics).
We all have different reasons for supporting our candidates. Mine are based in policy- primarily in domestic policy. I like to think I know a little bit about this area. And frankly, I thought Obama was engaging in half-truths and lies last night about the nature of his plans and votes, whereas HRC was making tough, but accurate, criticisms.
Now there may be plenty of reasons to like Obama, or dislike HRC (I'm well aware of the latter), but to call HRC supporters hypocrites a day after Obama was basically lying his teeth off, all as Obama supporters accuse Hillary of being slimy, etc., seems to me, as a policy-oriented Edwards guy, to be a bit retarded.
But perhaps I'm confused. Please point me to the areas where you think HRC lied. Or engaged in slime. I've pointed out two examples of BHO's misreps that I thought were important.
bunny wrote on January 22, 2008 11:49 AM:I can't believe some of these posts. First of all Obama attacks Hillary and people here are getting mad because she gives it right back to him. I don't think it is fair to "teflon him" I was glad to see her give him a little training. I think that he is not going to go very far if he can't handle these debates, how is he going to deal with the GOP machine. I don't think he would be able to handle it. He is whining so much now its pathetic. He clearly is an amatuer and not a progressive. I find him all fluff and a big whimp. Obama can't lead a country on idealistic speeches a 26 year old wrote for him. The Chicago papers have covered Obama's association with the "slum landlord" and it s not made up, they have been connected for a long time. His hands are dirty. Get over it Obama supporters, take off your rose colored glasses. We will be in a lot of trouble if a light weight such as this guy got in on such fluffy language.
Michael A wrote on January 22, 2008 11:50 AM:Wowsas said at 11:39 a.m.
On the other hand, Edwards's and Hillary's plans force everyone to participate.
Game, set and match. How do you spell corporate welfare? M-A-N-D-A-T-E Ignorant, I would suggest that you look in the mirror.
Wowsas wrote on January 22, 2008 11:52 AM:Matt @ 11:42:
Why do you think Obama is the "non-rhetorical agent of change"? From where I was watching, it seemed to me like Obama said very little of substance, and when he did talk specifics, he was proposing by far the most conservative plans (health care, Iraq withdrawal, etc.) and defending them from a conservative position (e.g., mandates).
Obama talks about change a lot, but to my ears, that sounds tired unless he comes up with specifics. And the few specifics I'm hearing are definitely more Reagan than FDR.
timbnyc wrote on January 22, 2008 11:56 AM:I'd say Bill is the one looking frustrated - when he isn't sleeping during church services in rememberance of MLK.
Wowsas wrote on January 22, 2008 11:57 AM:Michael A:
You obviously don't know much about health care. Did you even try to read my post?
How does a mandate = corporate welfare? That doesn't even begin to make sense.
Read it again. If you're gonna just be like "Obama = progressive, so "corporate welfare", then i guess I understand why you're an Obama supporter.
Or to wit, if you're really gonna claim that Obama's plan is better than JRE and HRC plans, against every economist in this country outside of the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute, AND you're gonna claim that JRE/HRC plan is "corporate welfare", then I have to conclude you're retarded.
Matt wrote at 11:42 AM "For the gamesman types, congratulations. You got to watch a good man get bloodied up last night by a series of tested and planned one-liners, manipulated facts, and exagerations. Hillary might have won the debate last night. Heck...she might have won the nomination. But she lost the vote of this lifelong dem.
To the rest, I'm sorry."
Thanks, you are saying what I am feeling!
To posters on this website like David, Steve (not NCSteve), Heretic, I am scared of people like you. It seems that you glorify exploitation, you embrace distortion, you like to battle, maybe I am wrong but it seems that the focus has turned into what did Hillary, or Bill Clinton say about Obama today. This does ot get any voter closer to any issue other than who do we like more! I for one am not voting for a popularity contest but rather on someone I see can change this country fundamentally while at the same time bringing us closer together!
Gotta Go, Stay solid!
Further, he was claiming that he was in favor of single payer if possible. Bullshit. His plan's non-mandate effectively kills any possibility of single payer, or any truly universal health care, and he knows it.
Huh? I will happily agree with you that Sen Edwards' plan is the better of the two (I say "two" because Sen Clinton really does not have her own plan, she just has Sen Edwards' plan) if by "better" you mean "closer to the ideal arrangement." On the other hand, however, these plans are all just empty words if they are not passed into law, and I dare say that passing a plan with a mandate is going to be much harder (especially for Clinton) than a plan without a mandate, so there is an equally meaningful sense in which Sen Obama's plan is better. The half-loaf which is baked is better than the mere recipe for two whole loaves whose dough is never even mixed.
In response to the specific criticism which you voiced above, however, I am really at a loss to understand how you possibly arrive at that conclusion. I am sure you remember what happened last time a genuine reform of the health insurance system was attempted - industry P.R. people ran a very successful media campaign to scare people into believing that any and all government involvement in health care was a very, very bad thing. For better or worse, this is an idea still very much integrated in the minds of many voters. It seems to me that the only way we will get past this is to bring folks gradually into the single payer system a few dozen thousand at a time, so that people can see their neighbors living with socialized health care and see that it is not so bad. As such, all three candidates are proposing systems that would move us in the right direction, and thus help in journey towards the ultimate goal, which should be a single-payer system. Sen Obama does not propose to move as far down that road as Sens Edwards and Clinton, but on the other hand if Obama can move us some distance at all and Clinton cannot (however far she talks about moving) then his is still the more progressive plan in the most meaningful sense of the word.
wj wrote on January 22, 2008 12:02 PM:If Hillary wins the nomination, she will lose the general election, especially against McCain, and for two reasons:
1. Indepenents
2. The Sexual Exploits of Bill in the 90s.
People are saying that Obama should get used to Rove-style politicking if we expect him to win the general election; but it is HILLARY who has never been exposed to the kind of negative campaigning that will surely be directed at her. Does no one see this?
Hillary was right this morning. Obama had last night's answers rehearsed. She said nothing about Reagan and he came back with some canned speech about her distorting his words on Reagan. He cannot think on his feet. He's the pretty face that can read a teleprompter with passion. I just wonder who is really pulling his strings.
KW wrote on January 22, 2008 12:04 PM:Why does Billary always scream foul when Obama challenges them? She and Bill blame the Media. It’s a right-wing conspiracy, and then it is Obama’s fault. It is never Hillary’s fault. When are they (Bill and Hillary) going to take responsibility for what they do and say? This is not what a leader should be doing. Obama has the right to respond to attacks and He has the right point out Her weaknesses
keith wrote on January 22, 2008 12:05 PM:What precisely did folks think she would say? She got called out for lying in a very public forum. She can't EVER admit that they were playing loose and fast with his words. No matter how silly she looks insisting that his plain words means what They say they do. So she says he's frustrated. We already know she's a liar, so you should judge the statement with that in mind.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 22, 2008 12:06 PM:Greg, win or lose is not a critical issue for Clinton as it is for Obama and, to a lesser extent, Edwards. No one expects Clinton to win in SC and EVERYONE expects Obama to win. IF Obama does not win, he's toast. IF Clinton takes 3rd, she's in trouble. Short of those last two scenarios, I think SC is of very marginal importance in the big picture.
For what little it is worth, I tend to agree with the above. It will hardly prove fatal to Sen Clinton when she loses SC. That said, I think that it will amount to a bit of a boost for Obama vis-a-vis the media narrative when he wins SC. Only a bit, mind you, but not nothing.
Elizabeth wrote on January 22, 2008 12:11 PM:>>When Obama calls Republicans the party of ideas for the last 15 years, what does that say about Democrats in the last 15 years? And wasn't Universal Health care--something he now somewhat supports-- a Democratic idea from that time period? Please discuss.
Er, well, .... actually, there's not a real tactful way to say this ...... but I think he was talking about "successful" ideas. :-)
His point, as I understood it (from watching the whole interview a couple of times) was that during that time period it was the Republicans' ideas that captured the country's prevailing spirit and, not coincidentally, got lots and lots and lots of votes for their candidates and got lots and lots of laws passed that furthered their agenda. But .... and this, I believe, was Obama's main message ... the spirit of the country is different now. He believes there's a real hunger for honesty, for progressive solutions, for unification not division -- so now is or at least could be *our* time to change the trajectory! in the direction we would like the country to go. --- IF we have the right candidate (and he believes he's the one, that's why he's running now) to tap into this hunger, to bring in others beyond the base and form a new coalition (like Reagan did), then WE have the chance to control the direction, and, in contrast to the last 10 or 15 years, have progressive, humane ideas succeed, get progressive candidates elected and progressive laws passed.
You know, the very saddest part about this whole thing? Instead of grabbing that rather important, largely accurate, and hopeful viewpoint and then arguing "you're right, but I would be the best candidate to achieve that" maybe adding "and how would you and your good ideas like to be VP?)" Clinton totally ignored (didn't see) the intelligent thought behind his comments (as well as all the other very substantive ideas he touched on in that interview) and used the whole thing only for one crass, not to mention inaccurate, "Gotcha!" moment.
There's an underlying assumption, I think, that his words didn't mean anything (because the Clinton's words don't really *mean* anything - they just affect outcomes). And even if there was meaning behind his words, they assume no one will bother to put in the effort to understand. I firmly believe that that George W. Bush, Fox News and Bill and Hillary Clinton all treat the American public as if we are rather idiotic simpletons who just want a "good show" (bread and circuses) and think they should leave the important decisions for *them* to make behind closed doors. I see little difference, policy positions aside.
One other radical thought -- I'm white but grew up in the South and know many blacks .. and I know how they rightly cherish and are serious about the right to vote and participate that they fought so hard - and died! - to get. I've been wondering if the massive switch of the black vote from Clinton to Obama might not be less 'supporting one of our own' but a sign they, more than the rest of us who never had to fight so hard, still pay enough attention to realize that they are being patronized and offered rotten meat.
I guess I'm retarded then wowsas. I'll add that to the list next time. I'm sexist and uninformed and a naderite and a left-wing loonie and a hillary-hater and a commie and a pinko and a wacko and a . . . . Oh, I can't remember all the names that I have been called by clinton people. It just goes with the turf. Ignore the point and name call. I just hope america wakes up and does not vote for perpetration of the lying and distorting and screw everybody but the wealthy bush/clinton dynasty. Who next? Laura?
Wowsas wrote on January 22, 2008 12:13 PM:Hey Greg D:
My basic assumption is that major health care reform has the momentum to pass. This is the common belief on Capitol Hill and K Street. That the next Dem president with a Dem majority will have a huge mandate to accomplish enormous HC reform.
That assumption may be wrong, and if so, then your post (as always) is very logical.
But what I'm hearing is that the health insurance folks, to the extent they want any Dem president, vastly prefer Obama's plan.
(Also, regardless, there's the argument that you should move the goalposts out further, and that way when/if you compromise, you can find a middle ground that's more to your liking-- see, e.g., GWB's tax cut posturing).
As to why I think Obama's plan kills the possibility of single payer, as I think you know, single payer can't happen without a mandate. If you have a mixed system, where healthy people opt into private health care, and everyone else is shuttled into the government system, then what I'm pretty sure you end up with, when the dust settles, is an expanded version of Medicaid, except that it's reliant on private HMOs and not run by the govt. I just don't believe that such a system will be very effective; and the fact that it entrenches the private system for the upper middle class will likely, imo, kill any future possibility of serious reform.
Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 12:13 PM:Edwards won. The corporations are more scared of him than the other two.
Maybe we should ask ourselves why that might be?
Wowsas: When I refer to Obama as a non-rhetorical agent of change, I mean that in a non-partisan manner. You might think his health care and Iraw withdrawal positions are less progressive than Clinton's, but I'm positing that he is more likely, if elected, to fundamentally shift the manner in which change in Washington gets effected. I attribute this mostly to his (relative) youth and learning his politics in the best city in the nation (Chicago).
Wowsas wrote on January 22, 2008 12:16 PM:Michael A:
What is your point that you discuss? I see a lot of random talking. I tried to write a substantive post, expressing the reasons I thought that Obama's health care plan was the worst of the three, by far (a point that's backed up by every economist who's not employed by the Administration or a conservative thinktank). You then responded that a mandate was corporate welfare?
What does that even mean? Am I name calling to call you retarded for not making any substantive response, and instead calling something "corporate welfare" without any basis?
Fwiw, i would never call you left-wing or a commie or a pinko. I'd call you "bamboozled by a Wall Street-backed politician with left-wing rhetoric and right-wing policies".
And i think your posts pretty much back that up.
Michael's Mom wrote on January 22, 2008 12:17 PM:I learned one thing last night: Hillary Clinton will never be the President of the United States.
If she loses the Democratic primary, she won't be in the general; if she wins the Democratic primary, she'll lose in the general.
Here's why: the bitch came back, and I'd missed her. What Americans saw last night was the Hillary they always knew they didn't like. They also saw an Obama stand up to the person they already know they don't like. Two good points for Obama.
The Clinton campaign clearly think they have a winner with the "frustrated" meme; I would note to them that word is EXACTLY the one used by Obama in NH in response to their frenzied, throw-everything-at-him reaction to the Iowa loss. It didn't work out for Obama then, and I suspect that same sense of "I've got this thing won"-ness that the Clinton campaign is displaying by deploying it now will be disputed by the results come Feb. 5.
Finally, Hillary Clinton will never again, not even in NY, enjoy the kind of uniform allegiance of minority voters to her or the party after this campaign. They have said, and they mean it, that minorities exist to vote for them, period; otherwise, they have no gifts to give, no uses. That is a long-term losing strategy. The number of people, myself included, who will vote for Bloomberg in the general should serve as a wakeup call to the Democratic party. It should, but I know it won't.
jay wrote on January 22, 2008 12:18 PM:It is a real shame. All I see posting is people "singin' songs and caryin' signs, mostly say hooray for our side".
I for one have taken a look at the candidates' ideas for the future, and I tend to agree most with Barack Obama.
(BTW, stop refering to these people by their first names. It is really comes off as sycophantic). Hillary Clinton has good ideas as well, but she comes off as being the type of Democratic polititian that all of you people were so quick to bash for being weak and indecisive. It is a testament to her skills as a polititian that she has survived in washington for so long, but at the same time, how many deals has she made to stay alive? how many arms has she twisted and how many times has her arm been twisted? When I look at Hillary Clinton, I don't see someone who is ready to look at the establishment in the face and say "f@#% you". I see someone who is going to play ball. Go along to get along. Barack has his weak points as well, but his relative ignorancy of the way things "work" in washington is what I think would allow him to be a more effective president. It is okay to admit you democrats are afraid of losing, but do you really want to win with a candidate who is exhibiting the same qualities that you have been railing against for 7 years? do you really want so badly to win that you would become your enemy in order to defeat them?
If this a popularity contest for some of you dummies, I am sure the websites for US weekly and People Magazine have some polls you can take part in. If you are not going to stick to real issues are motivated because Clinton is a "bitch" or because Obama is "inexperienced", stay home and don't polute the system. Also, tell your kids not to vote, because they are probably dummies just like you. To those of you who want a substantive and real debate on the issues, keep posting and don't get baited into the starf*&^%#s cult. We waited 7 years to talk about the issues, and most of the people of this country is probably ready for nuance. Part of the Bush/Republican legacy is demagogary and a childish understanding of the issues. We don't need a return to that by either candidate. We need to offer a difference from what the eventual republican candidate will inevitably offer.
Matt:
That's fair enough. Thanks for your response.
As an aside, my own observation (which I'm sure is highly contestable) is that whether a person is pro-Obama or anti-Obama is highly correlated with whether that person believes that Bill Clinton brought scandal onto himself, or that he was douched by a right-wing machine that is still in place.
I am of the latter opinion, and I personally think that the VRWC is licking its chops waiting for Obama. I don't think you can transcend partisanship in a town run by folks like Grover Norquist and Mitch McConnell. But obviously, that point is very much up for debate.
example wrote on January 22, 2008 12:21 PM:Politics isn't kindergarten folks. I'll take the "unfair" "lying" "smearing" tag team, and you take your pure saint and we'll see who's ass is sore in the morning.
Yeah, we'll see who's ass is sore in the morning when Hillary loses in November after alienating Obama's supporters. You might like this crap, but the average voter is disgusted by it.
wj wrote on January 22, 2008 12:26 PM:It is truly amazing to see Clinton supporters--the very people who spent the majority of the nineties and the early part of this century decrying the tactics of right-wing political machines--willingly defending Clinton's obvious falsifications of and attacks on Obama's positions on the basis that "politics isn't kindergarten." These will no doubt be the same people which will complain when Clinton is subjected to the very thing which she is now leveling at Obama. It is the political mindset of the 51/49 split; it is precisely what we need to work past.
Michael A wrote on January 22, 2008 12:33 PM:wowsas, how can you not understand how a mandate is corporate welfare? Hello, let me see if I can explain this for you, which based on your posts I am sure that you are not interested in. A mandate to get health insurance requires individuals to purchase insurance, right. And an insurance company doesn't do anything for free, so there is a profit element to the insurance purchased. If the government is sending out the g-men to make sure that people are buying insurance, then they are doing the work for the carriers to realize their profits. If the pool is "greatly expanded" to include the 45 million or so uninsured, then the profits of course will go up based on that expansion. I call that corporate welfare, just like the perscription drug "benefit" that was just passed. That was for the benefit of carriers, not people. Hopefully, that explains corporate welfare to you, but probably not because you really don't care about facts, just distortions.
Obama has "right-wing" policies? You clinton lovers are way too funny. The only right-winger in this race is your candidate. I really wish she was running in the republican primary where she belongs.
merryll wrote on January 22, 2008 12:40 PM:The wealthy Republicans that bankrolled Clinton and Obama have almost bought another election. It's not too late. Edwards and Kucinich are still in it, even if the press says they aren't. Wake up.
foxx wrote on January 22, 2008 12:40 PM:I very much want Hillary to be president. However, if Obama wins the nomination, as personally painful as it will be to pull the lever for him, I will very much want him to win the presidency. The Supreme Court and my legal personhood are on the line.
Obama has blown it big time. Rev. Wright is his biggest problem, and he created it himself. As soon as Wright made a supportive comment about Farrakhan, Obama should have resigned from the church with a public statement. He might be able to survive the disinformation that he is a Muslim, but he can't survive Wright because the association is true and it's a close association. Very poor judgment.
Absolutely the Republicans want to run against Obama rather than Clinton. They are salivating in the wings.
He has other serious problems. His recent big national ad makes him look like he's running for state senate again. (There are many voters who have done "community organizing" and know they aren't qualified to be president.) The Rezko (sp?) association is much more serious than any of Clinton's similar issues because Obama had close connections with him over time and legally represented him while Rezko was ripping off the poor Chicagoans Obama was supposedly "organizing."
And overriding this and other issues I don't have the space for, is the impression he made last night and is increasingly making nationally that he is confused, with a poor grasp of policy issues. That he sees himself as St. Obama, but gets himself just as dirty as the rest of them.
None of this makes me happy. I would MUCH rather have a strong backup to Clinton. But it is time to fact up to the facts.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 22, 2008 12:45 PM:I thought that Obama's health care plan was the worst of the three, by far (a point that's backed up by every economist who's not employed by the Administration or a conservative thinktank).
Come now, that is simply not true and I am sure that a person as clearly well-read as yourself knows that. Robert Reich is not 1) employed by the administration, 2) or a conservative think-tank, or 3) convinced that Obama's health plan is the worst of the three. Indeed, as I wander around the net reading reviews (from many sources, including left-wing think tanks) I find a huge diversity of opinion which leaves me with a sort of she-said-he-said impression about the details of this particular dispute. Near as I can tell, the point that is clear is that the Republicans all have worse plans than the Democrats, but I think that one would be hard pressed to identify a consensus of economists that Obama's is the worst of the democrats'.
Incidentally, I happen to prefer Edwards' plan myself, so I do not say this to defend Obama's. I would rather live in a country with Edwards' plan in place than a country with Obama's. I am simply responding to the idea that it is widely agreed among economists that Obama's is worse.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 22, 2008 12:51 PM:As to why I think Obama's plan kills the possibility of single payer, as I think you know, single payer can't happen without a mandate.
Er, no, I "know" no such thing. I am obliged to you for clarifying the chain of reasoning by which you arrive at your conclusion, but I would have to say that I find the above premise thoroughly unconvincing (for whatever little my own impressions are worth). In any event, I can see now why we disagree on this point and I thank you for the clarification.
Anonymous Dem wrote on January 22, 2008 12:52 PM:It is quite amazing how much my feelings about Hillary and now Bill have changed over the past 6 months. I used to see Hillary, despite many attacks on her, as a woman of moral integrity and character. Bill Clinton was my liberal icon.
Today, after all the slime and lies coming out of the couple I am wondering: "Perhaps Republicans were right about the two all along?"
For my entire life I have been a "solid Democrat." I went to Bill Clinton's speeches twice. I gave money to Kerry 4 years ago once won both Iowa and New Hampshire. I did have some problems with my party. Yet, every time I criticized them my friends would reasonably say: "They don't need to address these concerns. They already have you." My friends were right.
If 4 years ago anyone were to claim that I would not support the Democratic nominee in 2008, I would have laughed in their face.
Now things have changed. If Hillary is nominated I will switch my registration to Independent. If Republicans nominate McCain I will vote for him. If they chose someone else I will stay home. I do not see myself ever voting for Hillary.
The decision was very difficult. I feel a strong emotional connection to Democratic Party. I nevertheless cannot associate myself with a party that choses someone like Hillary as their leader.
one wrote on January 22, 2008 12:55 PM:Too much baggage tagged yesterday folks!
I attended a Clinton rally on the West Coast in the fall, was mildly impressed with her speech and given what I knew at the time felt she was ready. Events of the past weeks have totally changed my view; note I did say mildly impressed. Bill & Hilliary Clinton remain creatures of Bill's pass, the good and bad. I believe the good as well as bad is not what is claimed by themselves, friends and foes; the assumption that all will remember and accept the Clinton's narrative, spin and meme is truly bankrupt.
The reflexive attacks on Obama were misplaced, largely because they had little meaning in and of themselves; among his responses he did raises Bill's role in the campaign and did draw clear distinctions in vision and style between himself and the Clintons. In short the underlying trite approach she chose and Bill's Big Dawg's footprint hurt her more than whatever points she may have scored against Obama. As a friend noted, he though she was better; I suspect many more have this view. This high wire baggage act will not hunt well which leaves the Clinton's with "the devil made me do it" routine. Given the pass sixteen years of the Bill & Hill Drama, Bush & Co's Dumb Dreams, and generational shifts, the public has had enough. Candidates fears have not won too many elections.
WHAT WAS HER POINT? (SHE MADE THE STATEMENT, SO IT IS FAIR TO ASK)
On the King remarks, a controversy blew up after Clinton told Fox News: “Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done.”
1. Why in the world would she bring up such a statement? So what’s her point, and why bring that up in a mostly white state? The comment is not one that a person who wants to be the choice of the Dems for president of the United States should make.
2. Why: Because it is divisive
People say that is just the facts. It is a fact that a male president, and mostly male congress and senate gave women equal rights. So what!
Lyndon Johnson made some good decisions, and a lot of bad ones, like getting us heavily into a war in Viet Nam. Example: Simultaneously, he escalated the American involvement in the Vietnam War, from 16,000 American soldiers in 1963 to 550,000 in early 1968. Does this sound familiar?
He was elected President in his own right in a landslide victory in 1964, but his popularity steadily declined after 1966 and his reelection bid in 1968 collapsed as a result of turmoil in his party. A Republican (Nixon) was elected.
3. We don’t need things that create turmoil. We need things that create Unity. We need a change.
4. I believe that Martin Luther King or Barack Obama can be a better President than Lyndon Johnson.
5. The point is we now have the chance to elect someone who happens to be of African and white heritage (The content of his character means more) who will make a great President. Male or female, no matter the race, I believe character is the most important issue.
Now that you have a bit more info on the subject, somebody please tell me,WHY DID SHE MAKE THE STATEMENT? WHAT WAS HER PIONT. I don’t think (being of African American decent) I need her or anyone else to tell me that.
She has yet to give me a suitable answer as to why she made the statement.
foxx wrote on January 22, 2008 1:02 PM:I would add, about the Republicans, that they are holding their fire hoping Obama will win the nomination.
A lot of that "wide state support" he got in Nevada was from Republicans who switched to Dem for the day and will switch back and vote against him for president. They don't want to run against Hillary.
Gabriel wrote on January 22, 2008 1:19 PM:"Finally, there's always the prospect that Democrats just might do the energizing for the Republicans. Republican pollster and consultant Neil Newhouse notes that one path toward greater intensity is "running against a Democrat in the general election who generates real negative passion among Republicans." He adds: "Luckily, such a candidate exists: Hillary Clinton." She registers a whopping 87% unfavorable rating among the party faithful, he notes.
At the same time, a drawn-out and divisive primary fight between Sen. Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama still has the potential to disillusion and discourage some Democrats about their ultimate choice. "There's only one direction that Democratic enthusiasm can go, and that's down," Mr. Newhouse says."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120095622616304835.html
Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 1:20 PM:A lot of that "wide state support" he got in Nevada was from Republicans who switched to Dem for the day and will switch back and vote against him for president. They don't want to run against Hillary.
"This is a conversation I've heard in South Carolina, talking to Republicans, how much they really want a Hillary Clinton victory. They'll talk openly about it and how they want to bring Barack Obama down a notch because they want to run against Hillary." Michelle Norris, Jan 20 2008
"I certainly hope that Hillary is the candidate. I hope she's the candidate because nothing will energize my (constituency) like Hillary Clinton. If Lucifer ran, he wouldn't." - Jerry Fallwell, Sept 22 2006
brad wrote on January 22, 2008 1:23 PM:Who is telling the truth?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/obama-v-clinton.html
KW wrote on January 22, 2008 1:30 PM:Let's Talk Health Care?
Do you not know that forcing (mandates)can be looked at as socialized health care? Hillary's plan for health care in th 90's failed because it was socialized mandated health care. Although her plan may be somewhat different today, when you try to force something down our throats, we will generally reject it.
The Republicans will mount a massive attack: "Hillary wants a socialistic form of Government"
Obama's plan for health care reform is as it should be: Make sure the children are taken care of and make it very affordable.
Be realistic, mandates will be very hard to pass. Don't buy the rainbow thinking there is a pot of gold at the end.
Matthew wrote on January 22, 2008 1:51 PM:Who cares if you place the "socialized" label on it. Mandatory health care is a must. Even Romney is pushing it on the Republican side. Time to figure out best way to get everyone basic coverage without bankrupting us, compromising quality, or unduly constraining access.
I think Obama is on wrong side of this with a voluntary system. This only leaves us with the same problem of folks choosing to spend the money elsewhere then coming to the taxpayer to pay when they get sick. It is not working now and nothing Obama has said suggests his voluntary system would fix this.
Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 1:54 PM:For wowsas and others:
Do you think any healthcare reform is going to be done in a vacuum? Yeah, that was tried once, about 13 years ago--ooh, by a presidential candidate even. How'd that work out?
I can understand your longing for policy specifics and details, but at the end of the day, all of these plans are going to go out the window, especially in a Congress that doesn't have any wiggle room to play with.
You all seem to be under some delusion that, as President, if Hillary (or Edwards or Obama for that matter) writes it, Congress will just pass it lock, stock and barrel--game over. Well, it doesn't work that way. As Hillary found out in 1994. And what exactly did that experience do for healthcare reform?
Perhaps Obama's lack of enough specificity for your tastes is a tacit recognition of how thinks work--something you seem to be willing to ignore.
KW wrote on January 22, 2008 2:12 PM:Health Care/Iraq
I'm going to get everyone health care insurance. It's all promises. Why do we believe everything the candidates say?
I will start withdrawing troops in 60 days or they will be home in a year.
Is that a good idea? Think people, our safety as a nation is at stake. As soon as we withdraw as Edwards suggest, we may have to go and kickout Iran or some other nation. Just look at the situation in a reasonable manner. Obama said he would begin to withdraw troops immediatly but that it would be in relation to our safety as a nation.That makes sense! That is what a President us supposed to do.
He is assessing the risk.
Obama is realistic on healthcare and on Iraq. Hopefully we wil not allow our vote to be bought by selling us a pie in the sky.
Are we ready to give the smooth-talking stranger anything he wants even if
it means throwing some old friends under the bus. That makes no sense to me.
People see themselves in Obama, they love him, they need him, they can't
live without him but they can't explain why - they just want somebody to love.
Is there any room for logic here?
We're about to give someone unlimited power - should it be an unknown?
Besides his claim that he's always been against the war, who is Obama?
Why did Obama get your vote and not Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards,
two people about whom we know so much more than the new guy?
I have nothing against Obama - how could I? I don't know him.
Ian Tepoot wrote on January 22, 2008 4:06 PM:Quote: "I don't know about other women or women who are of a different generation..."
In general, on a board like this generations and gender matter somewhat less than the digital divide. I am an Obama supporter. I became an Obama supporter because I liked what he had to say... then I researched him. This solidified his relative consistency. Yes, even over Edwards (whom I like).
The internet discussions have been competitive, but with Obama a slightly higher proportion, and not as demographically separated. However, is this due to the fact that (a) if you are posting at TPM and the like you are more engaged and (b) you are looking up things on the net?
Thus, someone may be part of Hillary (or Obama's)
"target demo" yet not quite as uniform as those who are wholly relying on the traditional newspaper/tv media mix... and ads... to form their opinions.
I feel this also accounts for the income strata, as they are less likely to have regular, habitual use of the internet as, say, "information workers". Thus, the somewhat better Obama support.
Will:
Regarding Edwards, he voted for it. So his record is much worse on that. In fact, while I respect John Edwards, and could definitely pull the lever for him come November, if you look at his record the disconnect between his rhetoric and legislative record is arguably more glaring than either Obama or Clinton.
Kucinich -- I totally believe his sincerity. However, at this point he has no chance of winning. This not only speaks to general electability, but his power of persuasion. Contrary to Bush's view, being President is more than just being "The Decider"... it's also being "The Persuader". This means the American people, Congress, foreign powers, etc.
I personally support Obama because I believe he has been willing to say things that are not simply calculated popularity ploys, and he has a pretty progressive record. But also, I believe that he has the vision and (yes) the ability to inspire and convince people to follow his lead. Kucinich very much lacks that, sadly.
Also, regarding Obama (and Clinton's) continued funding of the ground troops. Its a big difference between AUTHORIZING a war that is not yet in effect, thereby putting our people and the Iraqis in harm's way, and logistically supporting the people who are already in harm's way. Unless the troops are planning to hitch-hike back home a beg for food while unarmored, I'd argue that isn't that good of a plan.
Ideological purity is only as good as it is doable. No matter how hard you wish, troops can only be pulled out so fast. This is another area where ideological purity is not necessarily the best indicator of a President's benefits. Both Carter and Bush were ideologically pure. One was a great man but ineffective president. The other is neither a great man nor a great president... the worst of the modern era, I might argue.
I'm not sure I'm going to be able to vote for Hillary. I'm a 110% Bush-hater who has never voted for a Republican. But I'm finding the Clinton/Obama face-off unseemly.
And I'm really un-nerved by the prospect of having Bill Clinton this involved if his wife becomes President. Just a bunch of bad 90's partisan politics. I don't know why we're so eager to go back there. If there was something concrete that having the Clintons back would accomplish, I might be open to reopening that can - but right now, I don't see what we gain from it.
And if a lefty like me feels that way, you can bet a of the independents who will decide this election will feel that way too.
Miles wrote on January 22, 2008 6:26 PM:Obama should ask ,what Clintons relationship to Burkle, Sheik Mohammed of Dubai and the Dubai Investment Group. I bet that take her voice. The Republicans going to feast of her and Bill. Everybody have skeletons in their closet. Barney N Clyde have grave yard in their.
