Yes, you need to realize that Hillary can run on Bill's presidency, on bringing back the "good ol' days" of the 90s, on her 8 years experience being First Lady, and her years of experience as First Lady in Arkansas, but if you bring up something that was bad in the 90s, it wasn't her fault. If it was good, then sure, she was a HUGE part of it, lol. Damn she loves having that cake and eating it too!

And um, Hillary, it wasn't a surprise that NAFTA was a bad deal from the beginning, if you and Bill had really considered the implications that would have been obvious. But hey, you and Bill loved conservative policies, so cheers to corporate profits! Weee!

Negative hyperbole in a campaign?

What are the odds?

steve

And Billary is exactly what - "New and fresh"????

cmon

Obama is right. Hillary did support NAFTA.

His factcheck here points out numerous articles that corroborate what Newsday said:
http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/20/fact_check_hillary_clinton_on.php

Hillary herself has never explicitly denied supporting NAFTA or claimed opposition to it.

Edwards has also hit Hillary on this point and when she was asked about it in the debate, she just laughed and ignored the question.

She should clearly state where she stood. My guess is that she avoids this question because she knows the facts are that she supported it.

I think he looks hot in the pictures, he may not be the strongest candidate ever but he is absolutely the foxiest.

I agree with the other Obamans, this is a crappy piece. Terrible pictures.

On the brighter side, this post has been up for a full 6 minutes and not one "whatever happened to the politics of hope." Yet.

Disregarding the merits of either side, something should be noted:

"...a new mailer in North Dakota..."

Now I like the North Dakotans I've met just fine but there really aren't enough of them to have an effect on the election.

Point is, the Obamabots have bought into a false bill of goods. All well-intentioned, but they got all gauzy and glassy-eyed thinking the Messiah had personally touched down and entered the Democratic race. Sorry, folks, but you just have another politician on your hands (one without much tact, experience or skills beyond speeches in front of large crowds). You've projected all of your hopes and dreams onto one human being. No person could possibly live up to them, let alone someone so devoid of substance and experience and original ideas. Just a bunch of recycled rhetoric from just another politician.

This reminds me of an old LBJ story.

He was about to put out an ad that wasn't quite true about his opponent, and one of his aides said to him, "Mr. President, this isn't exactly true."

LBJ responded, "I know. I want to see him deny it."

"Just another politician," sure, but wow... what a politician!

Obama still has my vote.

i dont see how this is "negative". it just uses the facts that are on the record to criticize hillary for her position on the issue.

thats not "negative". thats campaigning.

NegaTIve is going personal, for example, when billary's hacks said barack was a coke dealer. THAT was negative.

but whatever. i honestly dont understand why EC has to charachterize everything. They cant just say, "Obama Mailer hits hillary on nafta"?

No...it has to be a "negative mailer".

ugh.

North Dakota has 13 pledged delegates and 8 superdelegates and several of the latter are up for bids. Every bit helps. It's definitely worth a few grand for a mailer.

I suspect one that looked too slick or too Madison Avenue would be grating and would turn off the average North Dakaotan. Ditto one that used a bad picture of her.

Btw, is there a definition of "negative ad" in the TPM Style Book? Seriously, do all of you guys use that term the same way and/or have an explicit understanding of what it means? Not doing the Bias War Dance or anything, just curious.

You call this negative?

It isn't even a lie, unlike Hillary's mailer that attacked Obama's pro-choice record.

It even gives links to the claims it makes about Hillary...

This isn't a negative mailer. THis draws distinctions between the candidates, there is nothing wrong with that.

"Mike wrote on January 29, 2008 5:08 PM:
Obama is right. Hillary did support NAFTA.

His factcheck here points out numerous articles that corroborate what Newsday said:
http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/20/fact_check_hillary_clinton_on.php"

The first "fact check" on obama's site:
"Clinton thinks NAFTA has been a boon to the economy." [New York Newsday, 9/11/06]

That's what a reporter wrote. That is not a Clinton quote. Does that matter to you?

And the rest of obama's fact check is so poor it looks like he had a kindergarten class work on it for him. Pathetic.

I agree with others -- Sure, it's negative, but only in the sense it's attempting to draw distinctions.

It's not "slash and burn politics".

Gimme that old time campaigning
Gimme that old time campaigning
Gimme that old time campaigning
It's good enough for me.

It was good enough for Teddy
It was good enough for Teddy
If it was good enough for Teddy,
It's good enough for me.

I swear to god, I thought Teddy looked just like a proud papa last night. Mr. Obama is going to have to attack Mrs. Clinton real savage like Thursday night to prove his manhood. Watch for the same pattern as last debate. He answers his question, then end the answer with swift attack on Mrs. Clinton.

To Anonymous who wrote on January 29, 2008 5:22 PM:

You obviously haven't read "Dreams of My Father."

marcus wrote on January 29, 2008 5:01 PM:

Yes, you need to realize that Hillary can run on Bill's presidency, on bringing back the "good ol' days" of the 90s, on her 8 years experience being First Lady, and her years of experience as First Lady in Arkansas, but if you bring up something that was bad in the 90s, it wasn't her fault. If it was good, then sure, she was a HUGE part of it, lol. Damn she loves having that cake and eating it too!

Right on! What exactly is all of this "experience" HRC loves to trumpet if not her years as first lady (even though she says "35 years" of experience, whatever that means).

HRC needs to be held to account on this experience claim. Does it mean anything at all if she won't release relevant documents (er, Bill won't) and does it mean anything when she can claim she supported this or that during her time in the White House without proof or accountability?

This won't matter.

As soon as the general public in the red states finds out that Obama supports drivers' licenses for illegal aliens, they'll desert him.

As soon as they find out he helped Ted Kennedy write the comprehensive immigration reform legislation that was pushed by the Bush administration----same legislation the general public in the red states considers amnesty---they'll desert him.

He's also on record as SUPPORTING all the free trade agreements with Peru and central America Bush is still pushing for.

It appears that Obama is not focusing on the "future," like he brags that he is.

That "future" means he SUPPORTS more free trade agreements.

He can't have it both ways, even if he thinks he can.

He's already tagged himself as Teddy Kennedy's protege, and in the red states, that's not a good thing.

Another day, another Greg Sargent hit piece to rally the nasty Clintonites.

Well TMPdon't seem to have much to say, when the shoe is on the other foot, we know that smears coming from the Clinton camp saying Obama is a radical Muslim,but TMP seem to be very close mouth,but what the hell, the divide is becoming so wide the Republican will win again, so thank TPM.

hadenough,

So you're saying this is some huge media conspiracy where a bunch of reporters make things up about what Hillary said?

If it was just one, I could buy that, but we also have the UPI report from 1996 saying that she "touted the president's support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it would reap widespread benefits in the region."

And I found this direct quote from the Daily News Record of Hillary touting NAFTA:
"The American worker - these women you see here -- is as good as any worker in the world, and if allowed to compete fairly, they will outdistance any competition, and that's what free and open and fair trade like NAFTA is all about."

"i honestly dont understand why EC has to charachterize everything. They cant just say, "Obama Mailer hits hillary on nafta"?"

Oh, come on. Greg clipped it. He gets to characterize it. If you don't like his characterizations, go clip your own news.

I agree with the Anonymous-5:19 p.m. post. This is hardly a personal or entirely unjustified mailer. I also agree that the comments about Obama's past and insignificant drug use was a low blow. It should be stated, however, that Hillary disavowed those comments and the supporter who made them is no longer playing a role in her campaign.

Mark F and others, however, then twist the facts. In South Carolina, Hillary did not criticize Obama on anything other than his record and his statements. There were no personal attacks (except for the Wal-Mart - Rezko exchange in the debate, but that was tit-for-tat and didn't work in either candidate's favor).

I agree that this mailer is good news for Obama. He needs to be willing to fight for the presidency, especially if he is the nominee. We need to do better than Kerry, and I hope Kerry is advising Obama to learn the lessons Kerry learned the hard way. For this reason, I believe Hillary's aggressive pursuit of Obama's record is justified. It is unfair for Obama supporters to criticize Hillary and then have cry foul or "politics of old" when their candidate is criticized.

NCSteve said:Will he live up to my expectations? Almost certainly not. But an Obama presidency that fails to to meet the most stratospherically high expectations of his supporters is infinately better than Hillary fulfilling all my frankly dismal expectations for what her presidency would be like.

That's what most of us have come to expect from people like you NCSteve...insanely high expectations of an ordinary human being. We're right. You people live in a fantasy world and you just proved it.

Yeah yeah, Obama tried Coke, Bill smoked pot, and now, apparently, Bush was an alcoholic. I've sure experimented and I have a great life, good job, and make good decisions. I don't see why it comes up at all, nearly everyone experiments as a kid. You even hear it on TV constantly, "There is a time and place for everything and it's called college". Now if Obama was snorting coke in the whitehouse or Bill's lighting up in the ladies room, that's something that would affect my vote....but 30 years ago? Really? Irrelvant...

Isn't it part of her vast experience as first lady? She claimed this experience and now disclaims her experience?

Looks to me like Hillary and Bill are over a barrel and without a compass at this point.

Let's ask her about the brual sanctions imnposed on Iraqi children and women and elderly people for ten years, causing the deaths of some more hundreds of thosands due to disease and lack of medical attention. From Hillary--crickets. From Madeline Albrigt--it was worth it. How about that Hillary? Not a word out of you, the champion of women's right and the champion of children.

Wow, there is some serious bickering going on here. I usually don't read through the comments because I have to sift through so much BS, but I guess today I got bored. I have to agree with the "negative" complaint. When the Bush campaign portrayed McCain as having an illegitimate black kid, that was dirty and negative. Implying Obama has a shady pro choice record is negative. This is pointing out a policy issue. I'm not saying the Obama camp isn't above negative campaigning, I'm just saying that this isn't it.

Also, it is pretty sad to see the petty fighting between lefties. And I know that I'm not above it. I have no intentions of voting for Hillary even in the general election. 24 years of two warring families in the White House just sounds too much like back pedaling for democracy. It is just really crazy to think that the Dems may once again implode and give over an easy win to the Republicans.

Yes, once again, the difference between Obama's mailers and Hillary's mailers, hers are disingenuous or flat out lies, and his, she can't deny any of it, she just goes for the Clinton shuffle to try to get around it.

Which way are you going to go Hill? You and slick Willy gave us NAFTA, you were both BFF with corporations, mrs wal-mart board member, what about all that super duper media deregulation? That was pretty fun huh? Yeah, make up your mind, were you the co-president in the 90s or weren't you?

She is definitely trying to claim the best of both worlds, she takes credit for everything Bill ever did, except when someone calls him on something bad, and then all the sudden "oh, that wasn't me!"

Slippery..

He's definitely really foxy in the pics, but he better not get caught in a lie. If you're a politician, posing under the word 'honest' makes you look the opposite.

Josh said: Also, it is pretty sad to see the petty fighting between lefties.

and...

I have no intentions of voting for Hillary even in the general election.

and...

It is just really crazy to think that the Dems may once again implode and give over an easy win to the Republicans.

So much unintended irony...it hurts!

Dontcha just love Obama's new " politics of hope"?
Warm Fuzzies for everyone!
Obama's real different from all those nasty politicians. He's better then them!

Actually though, Obama has learned a great deal from George W. Bush.
All he has to do is go campaign and tell people what they want to hear. Act like everyone's best friend and then have everyone else do your dirty work for you.

That Axelrod is a real sleaze. You can tell just by looking at him.

YOu are misinterpreting what I said, Loki. My point was that he is, in fact, a human being, and thus certain to disappoint, but, by and large I expect him to do the right thing and do it well. But whatever disappointments he serves up, I believe that it will be better than four or eight more years under Hillary.

Will she run the bureaucracy competently? I'm sure she will. But she will also keep a Republican coalition that's on the brink of disintagration united in fanatical opposition and keep the country mired a a further continuation of the petty political point scoring and scandal mongering that's been eating away at the morale of he country for the last sixteen years.

I am also very worried about her rather arrogant belief that she already knows all she needs to know about how to be president and upon her continued reliance upon the same tight, and anynomous, little circle of advisors she's had around her since her first lady days. I likewise view her increasingly Nixonian tendencies toward secretiveness and vindictiveness to be disturbing.

Above all, however, the most disquieting thing about Hillary is that, again and again throughout her life, from the cases she handled while she was at the Rose firm and through her decision to support this war to show how tough she was, to breaking her promise not to campain in Florida beginning about fifteen minutes after the S.C. vote was in, she's shown again and again that there is no principle she won't compromise in furtherance of her own advancement.

Historically, giving people like that more power does not make them better human beings.