New Negative Hillary Ad In South Carolina Hits Obama For Calling GOP "Party Of Ideas"

Comments (364)

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 11:39 AM:

If Bill Clinton has to trash his legacy to protect his legacy, so be it. If he has to put a dagger through the heart of hope to give Hillary hope, so be it.

Two for One
MoDo
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/opinion/23dowd.html?hp

John McCutchen wrote on January 23, 2008 11:41 AM:

Those who think that the millions of Obama supporters and the tens of thousands of Obama grassroots activists would support the Clintons if they are the nominees, would do well to stop attempting thought

Mike wrote on January 23, 2008 11:41 AM:

So after lying about what he said for a week, they finally go ahead and use his actual words, but still pretend he said what they wrongly accused him of previously. Did they think no one would notice?

nisleib wrote on January 23, 2008 11:41 AM:

Great, another misleading bs attack by the Clintons.

I must say, the Clintons have done the impossible: they've made Baghdad Bob seem credible in comparison.

The Clintons; because lieing is way of life.

Anon wrote on January 23, 2008 11:42 AM:

I know there will be a great deal of keyboard gnashing by the Obamites, but Obama's statement is fair game. He was sucking up to some right wing editorial writers and trimmed his language.

I don't think Obama is any closet Republican, but his habit of adopting right talking points or concilliating to them is problematic.

Jeremy wrote on January 23, 2008 11:43 AM:

Fear and lies. Hillary seems to think that Rove had some pretty good ideas.

katie wrote on January 23, 2008 11:43 AM:

John-
You are an idiot. I know plenty of Obama supporters who haven't gone off the deep end who will happily support Hillary in the general.

Though its fun watching you speak for millions of people.

Maybe its time to take a step back and take a deep breath sometimes.

Also in the future, speak for yourself.

Anon wrote on January 23, 2008 11:44 AM:

Oh, and can we please agree to ignore Maureen Dowd? I am sure you won't be linking to her next 'Obambi' hit.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 23, 2008 11:44 AM:

I guess we will see how well this works for her. I had thought that this approach would backfire in NV (where Reagan is well-thought-of) but I was wrong. Perhaps it will also work for her in SC, or perhaps Obama has had enough time by now to set the record straight, such that this will just come across to the voters as insulting and desperate. Hard to know until the votes are counted.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 11:45 AM:

But for Mr. Clinton, more is at stake in 2008 than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's political future. Mr. Obama is also a threat to Mr. Clinton's presidential legacy and to the Clinton machine's lording over the national Democratic Party.

Take back our Party Democrats. It doesn't belong to the Clintons

Stirling McLaughlin wrote on January 23, 2008 11:45 AM:

We need a new word. Clintonboating? SwiftClintoning? Help me out here.

katie wrote on January 23, 2008 11:46 AM:

True..the party belongs to the people, who unfortunately for Obama supporters have seen through his whole act and are voting for Hillary.

Go Dem's in 2008!

Mike wrote on January 23, 2008 11:47 AM:

Anon,

It's a lie to say Obama was speaking to "right wing editorial writers". That board endorsed Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000. What right wing board would have done that?

John McCutchen wrote on January 23, 2008 11:47 AM:

Katie...I am sure you know plenty of Obama supporters.

I can only speak for the ones I've been working with here in NoCali actively 20-25 hours a week for 6 months

Glad you find me so amusing. You'll be hearing a lot more

rssrai wrote on January 23, 2008 11:48 AM:

After Obama praised Reagan to a repug newspaper to get repug votes, I was done with Obama. Also, Obama's ad asking repugs to caucus for him in Nevada against Hillary to me was so undemocratic that the only word that comes to mind is TRAITOR.

John McCutchen wrote on January 23, 2008 11:48 AM:

and Katie knows "plenty of Obama supporters"

Probably calls them fools and dupes to their faces eh Katie

What a crock

John McCutchen wrote on January 23, 2008 11:49 AM:

Why some of Katie's best friends are Obama supporters.

Still laughing are you

Dan wrote on January 23, 2008 11:49 AM:

No one is really covering down-the-ballot news anymore, but for those of you who are interested in the House, here's some good news for Democrats who got a very competitive candidate in FL-21, a Miami-area district that will now be a top battle.

LJ wrote on January 23, 2008 11:50 AM:

The Hillary ad implies... that Obama said he favored specific GOP ideas, which he didn't really do...

So are Clinton supporters proud of these distortions from the Clinton slime machine?

katie wrote on January 23, 2008 11:50 AM:

Well im sure the people campaigning for him are a little more biased than the regular people of the democratic party, who are a little less dictatorial in their style.

I think its a fatal flaw, and shows the sheer audacity of both Obama and his supporters to assume that they know/ or can tell people how to vote in the general.

Luckily, I wont have to hear much after Feb 5th.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 23, 2008 11:50 AM:

I know plenty of Obama supporters who haven't gone off the deep end who will happily support Hillary in the general.

Do you really? Good, glad to hear it. Could you please think of them next time you feel tempted to post a tirade against the childish, cult-like behavior of all Obama supporters? Would you say to the faces of all of the Obama supporters in your acquaintance "I think the Obama supporters need a time-out, and maybe a nap..or a bottle..or their diapers changed" as you said to us on Jan 19 at 17h31?

Dan wrote on January 23, 2008 11:51 AM:

First, clearly Obama's original statement was a gaffe and it would have been better had he not made it.

Second, GOD she's vicious with this. She knows full well she's misrepresenting his statement. There's a little part of me that says, "At least she'd be this rough with Republicans too," but that part is far outweighed by the disgust I feel.

John McCutchen wrote on January 23, 2008 11:51 AM:

After Obama praised Reagan to a repug newspaper to get repug votes

And we wonder how Bush managed to tell 435 lies to lead us into war, and Hillary embraced every one.

The Clintons will tell any lie, any time.

But it does them no good unless there are naifs who'll believe them.

THAT IS A LIE

NCSteve wrote on January 23, 2008 11:52 AM:

Damn, MoDo is actually pissed.

I have a love/hate thing about Dowd, kind of like with Brittany Spears gossip before it got too sad to bear. I hate myself for reading it, but I can't seem to stop myself.

Usually, reading one of her columns is like using chopsticks to try to pluck a few pearls of wisdom out of a bubbling, oozy pot of hot green poison. But today she actually seems too pissed about the way the Clintons are running to engage in her usual "oh-so-jaded-and-entertained-by-it-all" toxic banter. Actual passion. I'm kind of taken aback.

John P. wrote on January 23, 2008 11:53 AM:

The Clinton attacks are brilliant tactical maneuvers. Not because they paint Obama as a closet Republican, but because Obama has to spend so much of his media coverage refuting these charges rather than staying with his message of "hope" and "change."

The Clinton camp realized at some point that they couldn't raise the tenor of their campaign to Obama's. So they found a way to bring him down into the mud where, apparently, all politicians belong.

katie wrote on January 23, 2008 11:53 AM:

Do you know all the Obama supporters in America?

Do you think that the rest of America runs around in cliques and only associates with people who agree on which candidate they are supporting in the primary?

You need a life.

We actually have civilized conversations about it, unfortunately when it comes to Hillary, online Obama supporters lost the ability to be civil right after he lost NH.

Angry Vet wrote on January 23, 2008 11:53 AM:

DAMN IT! STOP PUTTING ME IN A BOX ALREADY!

JM- Speak for yourself, not al Obama supporters. I'd plug my nose and vote for HRC in GE no matter who the Repug nominee (or Bloomberg) was. Unless she did something completely outrageous (along with any possible candidate for the GE).

Katie- Your lumping me in a box doesn't help my opinion of your candidate.

Greg D- Yeah, this ad is disgusting. It might be considered "fair game" as another pointed out above (and everything is really fair game in politics), but that doesn't mean I can't be disgusted.

But will it work?

Would African-Americans (BO's key support in SC) cross the line for HRC upon hearing this? Or, could it backfire like (presumed) in NV, sending white Dems over to Obama. Presumably, they are going to be a rather conservative lot, right?

See Politico's coverage of Rep. Spratt's non-endorsement "policy:"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/8049.html

Michael A wrote on January 23, 2008 11:53 AM:

How about clintonism or clintonian or how about trailer trashing?

John McCutchen wrote on January 23, 2008 11:53 AM:

NCSteve...Don't be too hard on yourself. After all, we both read MoDo and Greg Sargent

hadenough wrote on January 23, 2008 11:54 AM:

obama stepped in it. He was pandering to a conservative ed board and said what he thought they wanted to hear. Now he gets to walk around with reagan stuck on his shoe.

stlounick wrote on January 23, 2008 11:54 AM:

Negative ads are effective. That has been proven over and over and over. Hillary and Bill are perhaps going to entice a 527 Democratic group into making negative ads on things like cattle futures and Bill's on-camera lies to the public. The Clintons are banking on the other two candidates not indulging in this sort of thing.

The Clintons are going to give the new Truth Squad a lot of work. Let's hope we can have a serious of ads from this squad called maybe "Setting it Straight" that are short, pithy and humorous refuting these sorts of things.

I would like folks laughing at the Clintons. That strikes me as the best approach.

CT Voter wrote on January 23, 2008 11:55 AM:

Most Democrats I know are excited about Obama, but also say "I'll hold my nose and vote for Hillary if she's the nominee".

So yeah, katie, people will vote for Hillary. They won't be excited about it, they won't campaign for her, they won't do much except vote. And many people will just stay home. But hey, people will vote for her, the same way they voted for John Kerry...

Heckuva campaign, Bill and Hill!

Is Bill going to be Veep, btw?

Kristi wrote on January 23, 2008 11:56 AM:

The way the Clinton's act reminds me of BushCo when they didn't actually say Iraq was part of 9/11, just mention them in close enough proximity that anyone not very informed comes away with an incorrect assumption of happened.

Divide, polarize, and use the southern strategy.

On Stephanie Miller, someone who caucused in Nevada called in to say that the Clinton group started chanting "Osama, Obama" at them during the Caucus. He said he thought there was going to be a riot.

The Clinton's will have a divided Democratic Party if they manage to win the nomination. They are using Republican-Rovian tactics against fellow Democrats.

It wont be forgotten.

John McCutchen wrote on January 23, 2008 11:56 AM:

Yea Katie I know all the Obama supporters in America ..on a first name basis

Except for the "plenty of Obama supporters" you know who'd just love to elect Mrs. Bill

Mike wrote on January 23, 2008 11:57 AM:

Hey Greg,

Could you write something on this lie being spread about the Reno Gazette-Journal being a Republican or right-wing board?

I've seen it said by many Clinton supporters here in multiple threads on this topic. They seem to be citing the recent Krugman editorial where he states "I think he was trying to curry favor with a conservative editorial board, which did in fact endorse him." Of course, he provides no evidence. The facts are that this same board endorsed Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000. I don't know of any conservative editorial boards that did that.

John McCutchen wrote on January 23, 2008 11:58 AM:

You need a life.
We actually have civilized conversations about it, unfortunately when it comes to Hillary, online Obama supporters lost the ability to be civil right after he lost NH.

Looks like Katie's no longer "amused"

Don't go away mad

frankly0 wrote on January 23, 2008 11:58 AM:

Kinda funny how bent out of shape so many people get when actual politics starts up.

It's of course rather delicious that all the ad has to do is show Obama speaking in his own words to do the damage. Let Obama try to get in front of a blackboard with some tensor calculus and explain to the American voter how he was merely depicting objectively movements in the American political scene.

Great politician, that Obama. Just don't let him talk without a script.

katie wrote on January 23, 2008 11:58 AM:

I think its sad to discount all of the loyal Hillary supporters who are also giving their time and energy to a candidate THEY believe in. In particular women. My grandmother and mother are both very galvanized by a Hillary campaign.

Just because you don't agree with them, doesn't mean you should go around pretending that there aren't a ton of people who would be thrilled to have her as the democratic candidate.

I mean she is getting the votes, and leading in the overwhelming majority of Feb 5th polls, and also in FL.

You may not agree with it, but some people actually like (gasp!) Hillary.

wwjb wrote on January 23, 2008 11:59 AM:

Wow, could the Clintons try any harder to take his words out of context and try to deliberately misinform the public to boost their agenda? This is pretty disgusting, especially when pretty much all reasonable observers have agreed that this is obviously NOT what Obama was saying, and that the Clintons are purposefully lying to the voters about this. It just pisses me off, and this is why I can't stand the Clintons anymore, and this is why I will never cast a vote in support of Hillary, ever.

Not to mention this is coming from the same Hillary who is on record as saying that Reagan (and Papa Bush) are on her list of favorite presidents:

"But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks."

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674

Yes, it also demonstrates what kind of lying hypocrites the Clintons are.

Oh, and then there is always this coming from Bill and Hillary:

"Hillary and I will always remember President Ronald Reagan for the way he personified the indomitable optimism of the American people, and for keeping America at the forefront of the fight for freedom for people everywhere...

We will always remember his tremendous capacity to inspire and comfort us in times of tragedy..."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/05/reagan.health/index.html

Wow, that's interesting. So when the Clintons praise Reagan's policies and optimism, and name them as one of their favorite presidents, it is okay, but when Obama makes an entirely correct historical observation about Reagan's impact on political history in the United States, which in no way praises Reagan's policies, he is viciously and repeatedly attacked by the Clintons (not to mention their lapdog Krugman, and even Edwards). What a sad and pathetic time for the Democratic party. I'm disgusted to be in any way associated with the Clintons.

Bupalos wrote on January 23, 2008 12:01 PM:

Greg, seriously dude. Work harder. The problem isn't that she is implying "that Obama said he favored specific GOP ideas, which he didn't really do." The problem is that she and you imply he stated he favored ANY of those ideas, which he didn't do. In fact, he was quite dismissive, saying they were "played out."

You are making it sound like Obama favored the ideas in general, but that she's wrong in extending that to specific ones.

Greg, can you answer this: Are you planning on voting for Clinton or Obama.

Maybe instead of encouraging to work harder, I should encourage you to take it easy, since I'm not entirely sure just what your job description is.

stemper wrote on January 23, 2008 12:02 PM:

Don't have a good Clinton version of the swiftboating verb yet, but the question reminded of John Oliver's statement on a recent Daily Show:

"In order to keep his wife from being publicly humiliated, Bill Clinton sticks the cigar of truth into the vagina of false rumors."

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=148078&title=bill-supports-hillary

Keith wrote on January 23, 2008 12:02 PM:

I'm sure the Clinton supporters are proud.

What will be interesting is if the media call her out on this, or if like TPM, them soft-pedal it in the sense that suggest that there may be a kernel of truth to what Clinton is saying (e.g., "though he did say that the GOP's ideas ran counter to "conventional wisdom.").

Remember, this is a direct indication of how she will govern.

Coonsey wrote on January 23, 2008 12:03 PM:

So....where are the FACTS printed at? You tell only half the truth here. Obma did not say those IDEAS were GOOD ones. If you are going to report something, please report the whole story.

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

M Miller wrote on January 23, 2008 12:03 PM:

Rove'ing Clinton swiftboating. Repeating the same lies. I don't care who gets pissed about this but its the same thing as the NSDAP did in Germany to support their war and the same thing Rove and the Republicans did/do to support their war.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over"

I had a hard time time coming to terms that I may have to vote for Clinton in the general just a year ago but now I've decided not to vote at all in the general. All I'm going to do is help take out the Republican trash that's our governor here.

This disingenuous trashing of Obama went too far and Obama isn't even the Democratic candidate I support.

BluePuppy wrote on January 23, 2008 12:06 PM:

Brilliant. Use his own pandering, right-wing talking points against him.

td wrote on January 23, 2008 12:06 PM:

Every time Clinton (either one) bashes another democrat, I'm sending $5 to the opposing candidate along with an email to Clinton's campaign explaining why. I was going to start out with $25, but I figured I'd run up against the limit pretty quick.

John McCutchen wrote on January 23, 2008 12:07 PM:

New York Observer Endorses Obama

His relationship to truth and plain speaking and public transparency is the first step toward reviving democracy in the United States of America.
Barack Obama of Illinois is the future. New York’s Democrats should embrace him.

PLUS..CNN reports that my best friend's brother-in-law former IN congressman/911 Commissioner TIM ROEMER just endorsed Obama

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/sarahramey/CG5CS

frankly0 wrote on January 23, 2008 12:07 PM:

Remember, this is a direct indication of how she will govern.

You mean, effectively?

stlounick wrote on January 23, 2008 12:07 PM:

Lighten up, folks. As someone else wrote, this is politics. Now Obama has to respond quickly and with humor--perhaps quoting from the still to be released Brokaw books.

Obama can do humor with devastating accuracy. Let's see more of that response--pithy, brief and humorous in dealing with the mud and ending with a brief and uplifting message.

That will skewer the message quite nicely.

ChrisNBama wrote on January 23, 2008 12:09 PM:

This ad is very effective. It ties Obama to Reagan, which is like putting a millstone around the neck of any democratic candidate.

Now, after saying what I just said, does one interpret my comment as approval,on my part, of the ad? If you do, then you probably misinterpreted Obama's initial Reagan comments as well. The fact is, I don't approve of the ad: It's out of context, and a mischaracterization of what Obama actually said. I find it particularly brazen considering that Obama spent a fair amount of time sparring with Clinton in the SC debate on what he was saying during that interview.

Alas, it isn't surprising. The Clinton's are losing SC, and this is a "Hail Mary".

katie wrote on January 23, 2008 12:10 PM:

Yes..nothing says effective president like a good sense of humor. Phew..I'm glad we got all those tough standards out of the way.

Are you sure you don't wanna vote for Huckabee? I hear he's HILARIOUS.

NCSteve wrote on January 23, 2008 12:10 PM:

BluePuppy, I just have to ask.

Has Bill or Hill ever done anything in this campaign, or since she started running in 2006, that you thought was a bad idea, ill-advised, ethically questionable, less than admirable, or in any way tactically or strategically suboptimal?

Don't you understand that its my side that's supposed to have the monopoly on cultish behavior in this race?

grover_rover wrote on January 23, 2008 12:10 PM:

Dan, I don't agree that the original Obama comment was a gaffe. If you listen to the entire thing his reasoning is completely sound. It is an academic argument, conceptual, intelligent, definitely NOT what the American public and the media is used to (which is disappointing). He was completely spot on with his argument, and it drove home his larger point which is that he, not the Clintons, are the best agent of change.

Now, having said that, he did make ONE mistake, and that was not laying out his argument in the dumbed down, simplistic, black/white, spoon-fed, soundbite package that is the trademark of Bush-style politics. He gave the American public way too much credit for their ability to understand complex (okay, not even complex, it was a fairly basic, simple to understand argument) conceptual arguments.

He also erred by giving Clintons and their supporters too much credit for being above distorting his words and launching a lying smear campaign against him for the comments. Unfortunately no matter how many times he explains what he really said, and no matter how many times he calls the Clintons out on their lies, we are dealing with "simple-minded dumbed down politics" vs rationality, and as we saw in 2004, that rarely wins with the American public. Sadly enough, I also gave the Democratic electorate too much credit, because I thought they would at least be above being a) so ignorant and b) for the Clintons and their supporters, so low that they would lie and distort his words to serve their politics agenda.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 23, 2008 12:12 PM:

So yeah, katie, people will vote for Hillary. They won't be excited about it, they won't campaign for her, they won't do much except vote. And many people will just stay home. But hey, people will vote for her, the same way they voted for John Kerry...

Precisely. I started this campaign thinking that there was no way in heaven or on earth that Clinton could win the general election (negatives too high, she is red-meat for the Republican base, etc). As I watched her on the campaign trail, I became successively more and more impressed, such that a lot of my misgivings began to dissolve.

Then a few weeks ago her people started playing the "can't-you-see-he's-black!" meme. The result has been to turn black voters strongly against her and strongly towards Obama.

In MI, where she was running essentially unopposed, more than 7 out of 10 black voters turned out to vote for "uncommitted" against her. This is not good news. MI is a swing state that went for Kerry last time. Black voters in Detroit are a critical democratic voting group in MI, and if we are to keep that state (which loves McCain and Romney both) in the democratic column in Nov, we will need to count on a big turnout in Detroit. Can we count on such a turnout? I would not count on it.

The same dynamic played out in NV and we are now watching it in SC. Multiply that same phenomenon around the rest of the country in swing states like Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania and you could easily see a scenario wherein Clinton is steamrolled by the Republican, not because Democrats vote for McCain, but simply because they do not turn out.

Boar D Laze wrote on January 23, 2008 12:12 PM:

Just to get the personal "bias" stuff out of the way. I prefer Edwards over Clinton or Obama. I'll enthusiastically support whichever of the three is the eventual nominee. I have more reservations over Clinton than Obama, but Obama's are deeper.

That having been said, no matter what he meant by what he said about Reagan and the GOP and ideas -- he shouldn't have said it. At best, they were dumb remarks.

It's the nature of American political campaigns that your opponent uses your gaffes against you. It is not dirty politics to make them seem a bit worse than they actually were. It is simply politics.

Although none of the Democratic candidates is perfect -- they are all pretty good. Their policy proposals are basically similar. Once modified by the legislative process would probably end a lot more similar -- if not identical. Before screaming about the perfidy of the Clintons or Obama's thin skin, try to remember that the choice in the coming general election will be between some Democratic candidate with a handle on reality and some GOP candidate who deals solely in fantasy.

Try and keep a sense of prespective and get with the program. Umnokay?

Michael A wrote on January 23, 2008 12:13 PM:

Ah, here comes the clinton calvary. They finally found a post that they can sink their teeth into. I really find it amusing that clinton people always claim that obama posters are so "mean" or "nasty." Look at these posts from clinton people in virtual succession no less. I guess they got the e-mail from campaign HQ to jump on this thread. Too funny.

roo_P wrote on January 23, 2008 12:14 PM:

Greg,

Your italics are wrong. It should be "that Obama said he favored specific GOP ideas, ..."

I really have nothing else to say at this point but that I am incredibly, incredibly disappointed.

Clinton does not learn from past mistakes. She refuses to acknowledge and examine her own and her side's problems to improve herself. She prefers to live in a cartoon world where good is good and evil is evil, where she battles the villains and their legions of minions in sinister costumes and the only improvement that is needed is adding more turrets to the fortifications or cleverly using the villain's captured superweapon against him and where nothing changes until next week's episode where another evil plan has to be thwarted.

The trait the world's truly best leaders have shared is the capability to understand that one's imperfections and shortcomings are not things to ignore or hide from.

Hillary Clinton is Ready from Day One because, to her, it is just next week's episode.

katie wrote on January 23, 2008 12:15 PM:

Grover- You should never give the electorate credit for anything..the electorate gave us Bush for two terms.

This is the fundamental flaw of the Obama campaign. He's running like someone's history professor, but teaching to a class of 4 years olds. It sucks, but its the reality of the situation.

Which is why he'd get demolished by republicans in the general. I'm sure they were thrilled to hear that Obama called them the party of ideas.

Who needs the democrats!! Even the other party agrees that we're better!

Sure it made sense if you listened to the full 15 minutes, but it doesn't happen anymore.

Obama isn't a very good politician...and its better we realize it now.

It would be GREAT if his vision worked, but it doesn't work in the context of the political climate, and current media craziness.

John McCutchen wrote on January 23, 2008 12:16 PM:

Those Clintons' supporters around here who endlessly spew about Obama's right wing appeal - they are right! Tim Roemer isn't exactly a model of the far left

But then neither is the New York Observer widely read among the Limbaugh crowd. Further left than that, the SF Bay Guardian, probably the most left wing newspaper in the country, certainly second to none

That's what Obama's about.

The Clintons divided the country and now they're attempting the same thing to the Democratic Party

Peter wrote on January 23, 2008 12:17 PM:

Halperin's The Page has a point-by-point dissection of Clintons' lies on Obama's statements on Reagan.
http://thepage.time.com/response-and-backup-from-obama-campaign/

John McCutchen wrote on January 23, 2008 12:18 PM:

Obama isn't a very good politician...and its better we realize it now.

Oh I think that bit of tripe tells us everything we need to know about Katie

Keith wrote on January 23, 2008 12:19 PM:

Frankly0:

If this is what you call effective, then sure. Effective as the current Bush Administration.

Integrity matters. When you don't conduct yourself with integrity when it matters least, you certainly won't do so when it matters most.

Matthew wrote on January 23, 2008 12:19 PM:

Simply brilliant. This is the best type of 'negative' add out there. I'm not sure I'd call it negative as it is really pointing out obvious or preceived policy differences.

Obama is going to have a really hard time getting out of this. Much better ad than his blantant lie about his single-payer healthcare statement. And the more he complains and responds, the longer these stay in the forefront of everyone's mind. As someone who remembers the disaster of Reagan and subsequent Republican ideas, I think there is some very long and deep traction to this ad.

I truly look forward to more of these each time he opens his mouth and says something stupid. And, yes, two can play at this, just the Republican's will in the fall. I'm sure Hillary is quite adept at handling herself and won't find herself embarrassed by comments she makes.

chinshihtang wrote on January 23, 2008 12:19 PM:

Someone was asking for a phrase for the Clinton style of Swiftboating.

...How about Whitewater Rafting?

stlounick wrote on January 23, 2008 12:20 PM:

katie, stop with the elitism. That belongs with the Republicans and not with the Democrats. Unless....

Angry Vet wrote on January 23, 2008 12:20 PM:

Sadly, this IS an effective ad.

However, it is also a willful distortion of the truth.

So, from this episode, we can denote that HRC will willfully distort the truth in order to be effective.

Sounds to me rather paternalistic, in a way. "I may not tell the truth, but I'll do what's good for you."

Oh well, these are probably just too many logical leaps for the kind of discourse being held here nowadays.

John McCutchen wrote on January 23, 2008 12:20 PM:

Of course today these Hill hucksters carp about Obama's right wing cred then the same people will turn around tomorrow and complain that we are all left wing naderite killjoys

How very Clintonian of them

Bupalos wrote on January 23, 2008 12:21 PM:

Katie, more power to you, if you are genuinely enthused by Hillary. I do know three very fervent supporters. I don't know any that don't share Hillary's gender, and who don't speak most passionately on that issue.

One has allowed that passion to turn into a correspondingly passionate distrust of Obama on lines that I find shockingly racial. She actually said she doesn't trust him because she "read something on his website" that suggested to her that he "favored deadbeat fathers" which made her think he was "much an agent of the black agenda." This woman is a liberal clergy person.

Just check the record and you will see that this is absolutely 100% upside down. Barack challenged his own community in sponsoring a bill that cracked down on evaders of child support. In the resulting controversy, people take their racial prejudice, see his skin color, and absolutely turn the facts on their head to fit their assumptions about black men. It's completely demoralizing to me, and I won't be a party to it in any form.

Just don't let your enthusiasm go there, and Hillary won't pay too high a price in November if she is the nominee. But the more I feel that your side is tossing a historic chance for our party out the window on hard gender and soft racial grounds, the more I think that there are more important principles at stake than simply putting a nominal (D) in the white house. The Clintons are running as the Clintons. It's a restoration. It's not a great leap forward for women in my mind or the minds of the majority. Add to that the fact that most western nations have had a female head (and often a hawk, I might add), while none have had a black, and I think you may want to reevaluate your statement that putting Hillary back in the white house represents a great social change. It's an incremental change for the U.S. It's a total yawner for the world.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 12:22 PM:

News for the Obama Network here....Your man didn't do so well today on the Today Show this morning. Looked kinda tired looked kinda flipfloppy on an issue of single payer. The press maybe finally doing their jobs. That is all.You can go back to singing songs about Obama.

Orwell's Intuition wrote on January 23, 2008 12:22 PM:

Why doesn't the HRC campaign run an ad explaining what the real problem with Obama is? And that is, no one is ever really sure exactly what he's saying because he's so nuanced and ambiguous with his comments. The fact is, he brought up Reagan in a favorable light and failed to mention how disastrous Reagan was. Harp all you want about whether the Clintons distorted his words. They sure aren't distorting what's written between the lies of his praise. Obama brought this on himself.

DonnaG wrote on January 23, 2008 12:23 PM:

I do notice that the Hillary apologists/dissemblers stick to the lies, just like Hillary is doing. Not one of the usual lie-repeating ones on this thread acknowledges that the editorial board is not a 'conservative board' who also endorsed Kerry and Gore.

For a slogan, I offer:
Swiftboating Upgraded by HillHell
The Devil Loves Lying

Orwell's Intuition wrote on January 23, 2008 12:24 PM:

I meant to write "between the lines."

Jackin Atlanta wrote on January 23, 2008 12:24 PM:

Katie, I am a life-long Democrat, who before Barack stepped in the race, supported Hillary. If he had lost a fair fight, I would have supported Hillary. But not, I like many Republicans, am unable to believe that anything credible comes out the mouths of Bill or Hillary. Just so that you know, this morning I called my congressman, John Lewis, and informed him that if he continues to support Hillary, and her antics, I was leaving this party, and taking as many disgruntled Democrats, who dispise the racial leverging launched by the Clintons to force Obama in the category of the "black president." This liberal white tactic does not work with younger African Americans, just look at the polls. Bill and Hillary have created some injuries that the media haven't reported. Go to your local black barbershop or beauty salon, you will here that many Blacks are ready to leave the plantation, and head to the Independant party.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 12:24 PM:

so i dont see any Obama ads.

I see one hitpiece on obama and two more hillary ads below.

hmmmm....

curious

Long Time Democrat wrote on January 23, 2008 12:25 PM:

I saw that video by Obama. I have an honest question for the Obama supporters here. What do you think Obama implied when he said that the Republican party was a party of ideas over the last 15 years in the sense of being against conventional wisdom?

Please give me your interpretation.

At a minimum isn't he saying that the Democratic party was not a party of ideas? Did he really have to say that? Do you agree with him on this?

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 23, 2008 12:25 PM:

I mean she is getting the votes, and leading in the overwhelming majority of Feb 5th polls, and also in FL.

You may not agree with it, but some people actually like (gasp!) Hillary.

Sure, a worthy point that. There is a large context which we will do well to keep in mind.

Jessica wrote on January 23, 2008 12:26 PM:

This is so ridiculous. Hillary Clinton obviously doesn't want votes from anyone other than die-hard democrats. And I think she'll find that pool isn't large enough to elect her.

Obama a big mistake for U.S. wrote on January 23, 2008 12:26 PM:

Obamas constantly talking about color. With blacks, they should vote for him because he is black. Anything they don't like is racist against him. "
Obama's racial warriors and wife tried to suggest the attack on Obama's Iraq inaction was an attack on his entire campaign. Obama was weak when it comes to actually opposing the war. He keeps talking about what he did in 2002, and does not address what he has done since being elected to the U. S. Senate in 2004. Can anyone point me to a TV ad Obama ran in 2004, during his senate race, opposing the war? So far as I am aware, there is no such ad. Obama was in full weasel-mode in 2004 after he won the senate nomination comparing himself to George Bush, and said he kept quiet on Iraq to help Senator John Kerry. Well. Since taking the oath of office in 2005, Obama has been pretty quiet on Iraq, limiting himself to proposing pie-in-the-sky solutions that have no chance of passage, He has done nothing to "unite us." And so Bill Clinton was 100% correct when he called Obama's "opposition" to the war a complete fairy tale. I would go one step further and call it a fabrication. Obama has always been careful to be the African-American candidate of "white America, although a majority of voters are NOT going to nominate a candidate that seeks to racialize every campaign dispute. Obambi's record of actually fighting against Iraq policy is poor, and certainly nowhere near as strong as John McCain's criticism both of the old policy and support for the surge. Obama's one speech six years ago is an insufficient foundation for his flatulent rhetoric today. He hasn't done anything. Criticizing Obama for talking the talk but not walking the walk is fair comment.

Barack Obama is a member of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan. maybe for Wright and some others, Farrakhan "epitomized greatness." For Americans, Farrakhan epitomizes racism, particularly in the form of anti-Semitism. Over the years, he has compiled an awesome record of offensive statements, even denigrating the Holocaust by falsely attributing it to Jewish cooperation with Hitler -- "They helped him get the Third Reich on the road." His history is a rancid stew of lies.
Any praise of Farrakhan heightens the prestige of the leader of the Nation of Islam. His anti-Semitism and particularly his false insistence that Jews have played an inordinate role in victimizing African Americans.
Farrakhan's dream has vilified whites and singled out Jews to blame for crimes large and small, either committed by others as well or not at all. (A dominant role in the slave trade, for instance.) He has talked of Jewish conspiracies to set a media line for the whole nation. He has reviled Jews in a manner that brings Hitler to mind. And yet Wright heaped praise on Farrakhan. According to Trumpet, he applauded his "depth of analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation." He praised "his integrity and honesty." He called him "an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose." These are the words of a man who prayed with Obama just before the Illinois senator announced his run for the presidency. Will he pray with him just before his inaugural?
The New York Times recently reported on Obama's penchant while serving in the Illinois legislature for merely voting "present" when faced with some tough issues. Farrakhan, in a strictly political sense, may be a tough issue for him. This time, though, "present" will not do.

Common Sense wrote on January 23, 2008 12:27 PM:

Who needs the democrats!! Even the other party agrees that we're better!

Sure it made sense if you listened to the full 15 minutes, but it doesn't happen anymore.

In political parlance, what katie just did was commit a gaffe. She acknowledge that Clinton is distorting his comments. Now she'll argue furiously that Clinton was right to do so, or some other crap, but her plain admission her underscores a great deal of the frustration Obama supporters feel toward Clinton supporters. Glad to know that it's mostly just a partisan rouse and not a reflection of their reading comprehension skills.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 12:27 PM:

John McCutchen.....that and a nickle can't buy you a paper.

Long Time Democrat wrote on January 23, 2008 12:28 PM:

Angry Vet:

you said that this ad is a willful distortion of truth. Can you explain what the truth of Obama's remarks is? And why this is a willful distortion of truth?

I am not being snarky. I am genuinely trying to understand a benign interpretation of his comments.

downwithclinton wrote on January 23, 2008 12:29 PM:

Roll out the monica, travelgate, health care debacle, whitewater, etc...etc ads.
Time to send this bitch packin!

ChrisNBama wrote on January 23, 2008 12:29 PM:

Katie,

At least you are honest. You are strategically supporting Hillary because you think she can win since she's the better politician. Better apparently, because she can sink in the mud with the best of the republicans.

Moreover, you admit that Obama didn't say what the Clinton campaign is saying he said: kudo's!

That said, Hillary isn't THAT good of a politician. She doesn't inspire, she isn't charismatic, and she takes any politically expedient position. The last, I'm sure you see as a plus due to your reverence for politics as usual, but I see (and many people, I might add) as unprincipled.

Hillary is a cool operative. I have to admire her skill. When she's on the podium debating, I can see the machinations at play, and foresee precisely how she is going to frame her responses to questions and answers provided by her opponents. She's wonderful at staying on message and telegraphing her responses to female and latino voters. Even as she's debating in SC, she's aiming herself at California and Arizona. It is quite breathtaking, really. I have seen much, much better politicians, though. Bill comes to mind. Who else can successfully partition what the meaning of is is?

That said, I'm sick of politics as usual. I'm sick of the Karl Rove tactics. I'm sick of distortions, mischaracterizations, robo-calls, misleading mailers, appealing to bigotry (Barack Hussein Obama), creating racial tensions, etc., that have characterized the Hill/Bill Clinton campaign.

Barack may not be the politician that Hillary is, but I see it as strength not weakness, virtue not vice, and he has my support, right up to the convention when the delegate battle begins.

Bret wrote on January 23, 2008 12:29 PM:

Hillary has a lot of supporters also. Why are Obama supporters so hateful towards Hillary. I thought we were all in the same party. What if all of Hillary's supporters didn't vote for Obama? I mean that is childish to sit and act like a kid, because your guy didn't get the nomination. We have to come together as democrats to support whoever gets the nomination. We have more in common than not.

zach wrote on January 23, 2008 12:29 PM:

you know, there might be quite a few supporters of obama (particularly independents) who don't really mind democratic candidates talking about Reagan. Shoot, if I had been 20 instead of 2 in 1979, I might have voted for the gipper....

Additionally, as a fiercely independent voter, I am one who would have a hard time deciding who to vote for, if it turns out to be McCain vs the Clintons. These kinds of distortions are exactly why I can't stand Bush or Hillary.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 12:30 PM:

gruesome twosome... on the loose'um

tlefty wrote on January 23, 2008 12:31 PM:

Look, Obama has a had a clear strategy of getting Republicans to come to open primaries and caucuses to support him. There is nothing wrong with that. He ran an ad in predominantly Republican Northern Nevada targeting Republicans and letting them know they could switch their registration for a day to participate. Again, I have no problem with that. The issue I have with Obama is the way he did it. In the Reno Editorial Board Meeting, he basically said that people were ready for Reagan because they grew tired of the excesses of the 60's and 70's and the overgrowth of government that was stifling the entreprenurial spirit. I think this is a poor choice of words because it basically appropriates Right-wing talking points.

In October 1980, opinion polls showed that voters had negative opinions of both Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. They didn't like Jimmy Carter because of what was going on in Iran and the poor economy, but they didn't exactly trust Ronald Reagan with his voodoo economics. John Anderson was a legitimate third party option that year who did quite well for some time, but saw his standing crater after some poor debate performances with Ronald Reagan. Polls going into the last week of the election showed the race was close with President Carter holding a slight lead. After months of dodging, President Carter finally agreed to debate Ronald Reagan when both sides agreed John Anderson would not participate. I believe it was the most watched debate in history, and Ronald Reagan ended the debate with a simple question: Are you better off today than you were four years ago? It was a devastating question to say the least, but Jimmy Carter added to his woes when he said during the debate that he spoke to his daughter when it came to nuclear issues. He was widely ridiculed by late night comedians and media pundits for that comment, and by election day, Jimmy Carter's slight lead became a Reagan landslide.

So I believe Obama is wrong because the country wasn't necessarily ready for Reagan and tired of the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s. If that was the case, Reagan would have led by wide margins throughout the campaign. It was President Carter's poor debate performance days before the election that led to the landslide.

PeterB wrote on January 23, 2008 12:31 PM:

I will NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton. No f-ing way will I vote for these slimebags. I will vote for McCain before Clinton, mainly because the man has a shred of integrity even if his ideas are lousy.

KyleXY wrote on January 23, 2008 12:34 PM:

I wouldn't vote for Obama for dog-catcher the way he runs his sloppy campaign. Sucking up to the anti-gay bigots and coddling Ronald Reagan.

Obama is not ready for prime time. He was an angry mess at the debate (not an appealing look for him) and he's finally been exposed for what he is; a man with a good speech and no experience, no political skill to handle attacks, and a shady past peppered with "present" votes and slum lord clients/bundlers.

If he can't handle Bill, how will he handle the Republicans?

The man is a mess.

Martin X. wrote on January 23, 2008 12:34 PM:

What is particularly loathsome about this blatantly false characterization of Obama's statement is that what he said (the full quote) was actually true.

Republicans have been the party of ideas. Bad ideas, yes, but ideas nonetheless. They pumped money into their think tanks and dreamed up ways to change the tax code in favor of the wealthy, end welfare, "free" trade and privatize everything from schools to utilities to the armed services. These "ideas" were then ceaselessly flacked by Republican footsoldiers.

What did the Democrats do? Did they counter with their own radical ideas? No. They simply capitulated. In particular one Bill Clinton, who sold out the values of our party for eight years.

And now Obama is pandering to the right wing because the Clinton machine says so? When they presided over the freaking "Republican Revolution" themselves? It makes me sick. You Clinton lovers have a more twisted sense of reality than your candidates.

Bret wrote on January 23, 2008 12:35 PM:

Obama looked so bad in that debate the other night. He could not get his thoughts out. I felt bad for him, because everytime he talked it took forever to get to the point. Clinton and Edwards were far more prepared and knew what they were talking about. He just did not impress me at all. Everyone says he is such a great speaker, but I did not see it. He never gave any details on any question, he just keep saying we have to bring people together. I honestly think he needs more time in the senate to sharpen his skills. The republicans will have a field day with him, and he can't complaine saying they are picking on him or it's two against one. He needs to stand up like a man and fight back. Stop whinning so much.

wglad wrote on January 23, 2008 12:35 PM:

I think the continuing comments about so-called Democrats not voting for Hillary are pretty funny. Sound like desperation scare tactics as Feb 5 draws near. But that's okay. There are plenty of people who won't vote -- in addition to the 50% or so of the eligible voters who don't vote no matter who the candidates are. So maybe the people who hate Hillary will stay home and the people who hate John McCain will stay home, and the blacks who get depressed if Obama doesn't get the nomination stay home, and the religious nuts who get depressed if Huckabee doesn't get the nomination stay home, and the rest of us elect the President. Sign me up.

Brighid wrote on January 23, 2008 12:35 PM:

Obama deserves this. He has engaged in Republican framing on issues like Social Security, health care, and Reagan.

Barack Obama dismissed outright the first two-term Democratic President (who's popularity rating is still higher than 75%) since FDR, a Democrat whose two terms were clearly successful and during which Americans prospered economically.

By denigrating Bill Clinton, Obama lit a fuse, and he deserves the backlash from his own hubris and pandering to Republican narratives.

Republican Attack Machine wrote on January 23, 2008 12:35 PM:

Pretty Rovian.

Just wait, Billary supporters are going to start calling people up to tell them that Barack has a black baby.

CIndy wrote on January 23, 2008 12:35 PM:

Someone was asking for a phrase for the Clinton style of Swiftboating.

...How about Whitewater Rafting?

LOL

And, speaking for myself, this lifetime Democrat and Obama supporter will never vote for the Clintons. Their behavior over the last few weeks has ensured that.

Go McCain!

ScanDroid wrote on January 23, 2008 12:36 PM:

Effective ad. Using his own recorded words against him. Thats gotta hurt.

It goes to the issue that Obama has been whining about lately. That is..."those mean people keep lying about me". Their response is....here are his very words: Judge for yourself.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 12:36 PM:

katie wrote on January 23, 2008 12:15 PM: Grover- You should never give the electorate credit for anything..the electorate gave us Bush for two terms.

This is the fundamental flaw of the Obama campaign. He's running like someone's history professor, but teaching to a class of 4 years olds. It sucks, but its the reality of the situation.

Which is why he'd get demolished by republicans in the general. I'm sure they were thrilled to hear that Obama called them the party of ideas.

Who needs the democrats!! Even the other party agrees that we're better!

Sure it made sense if you listened to the full 15 minutes, but it doesn't happen anymore.

Obama isn't a very good politician...and its better we realize it now.

It would be GREAT if his vision worked, but it doesn't work in the context of the political climate, and current media craziness.

And there you have it in a nutshell. A Clinton supporter who has fully assimilated the boundless cynicism and contempt for the electorate that is at the Rovian heart of the Clinton '08 campaign.

Never mind whether anything has changed politically since 2004. Never mind that Bush lost in 2000 and only came close enough to steal it because a lot of the independents were sick and frikkin tired of the Clintons and the mendacity and the divisiveness,. Bush's presidency just goes to show that the people are just a bunch of stupid, mindless sheep and the Way to Win is to treat them as contemptously as the Republicans did before. And why not, it worked out great for them in 2006, didn't it?

Irishamerican wrote on January 23, 2008 12:37 PM:

A lot of people here seem to be missing the point.
The Clinton "Campaign" doesn't care if it is factual or misleading.
Truth has nothing to do with it.
They don't care if it gains them votes in freaking SC.
The point is just to attack.
Period.
The Idea is to keep poking him with a sharp stick.
The point is to force him to react.
This is just one lousy radio add in SC, a state where Barack leads by double digits.
They aren't trying to win SC.
They want to drag him down into the mud.
They want him to react.
They want to keep him on the defensive, while Billary just keeps smiling.
Any response from Obama will be portrayed in the stupid ass media as just more "bickering" between the two campaigns.
The media will not portray it as the Clintons lying.
The only solution for Obama is to make his message LOUDER.
He has to overtake the narrative.
By watching the morning news shows today, and looking at the papers nationwide, it appears that the media has decided to go all in with the Clinton Oppo team for a time.
It's on Obama to deal with it.

The narrative nationwide today is:
"Bill is in Obama's head".....
"Obama is frustrated"......
"Obama isn't honest, lookie over here at this Rezko guy"....
"Oh, and by the way, he's the 'Black' candidate"....
"Were not really sure, but SOME PEOPLE SAY Obama was RAISED a muslim".....

The Clintons are going all in with this RIGHT NOW because nationaly, he is not known very much. They want to plant doubt before he spends $50 million on his national campaign, and defines himself.

The Obama campaign is in a little bit of a fix because they can't afford the first Impression of him by the people in the Feb 5th to be Obama being defensive, and trying to hide connections with endicted azzwholes like Rezko.

I am a STAUNCH Obama supporter. But the Campaign is looking shaky and amatuerish right now. They are looking like they have been caught flat-footed.

The challenge is that now, because they have been so passive the last two months, is that first they have to defend these lies, and then go on offense.

Like I said, I love Barack Obama.
I want him to be my President.
But he is looking like a corrupt rookie right now because he didn't get out in front of this Rezko crap before the Clintons Dumped it nationaly.

patchwork wrote on January 23, 2008 12:37 PM:

The Clintons are destroying more of this country and it's prides and processes.

A good follow up to the methods of Bush which after seven years of secrecy and lies, the people are sick and tired of.

They are bullies, and they are despicable. this is what she and he are spending her millions of dollars on? Smears?

I will never vote for a Clinton, both of them, who are obviously running for next president.

Joseph Riedel wrote on January 23, 2008 12:39 PM:

I've campaign in South Carolina, Iowa, Virgina, Maryland, and Texas for Obama. Every supporter I know, or have talked to has unequivocally stated that they will not support HRC if she gets the nomination due to the methods her camp has used in this campaign. They are trashing a fellow Democrat as if he were the Republican nominee, trying not only to win the contest, but also to personally destroy Obama, which is incredibly off putting to many Dems. If she does in fact get the nomination, what we will see is a low turnout from Dems due to Obama supporters staying home. With half the country already firmly against HRC, coupled with Obama supporters who will not support HRC, you have a cakewalk if McCain is the nominee.

I would like to see an Obama/Bloomberg ticket. It won't happen, but it would be nice to see.

Keith wrote on January 23, 2008 12:40 PM:

Long Term Democrat:

I'll be happy to explain it to you, but here's the rub: what's the point? My guess is you are fairly well educated person, with average or above average reading comprehension skills who would be classified as a high information voter (that is, you are plugged into the back-and-forth that goes on in these threads). Given all of that, it seems perfectly reasonable that you in fact already KNOW what he meant from the context of his statements.

So unless something I said is untrue (e.g., you have below average reading skills or in fact a low information voter), you're inviting folks to engage in an exercise of futility: explain to you something you already know, but will, for partisan reasons, never acknowledge.

Ian Tepoot wrote on January 23, 2008 12:40 PM:

John,

I'm an Obama supporter, but I think your dismissal of Katie is a little unreasonable. And as Obama supporters, I think we should hold ourselves to a standard of conduct so as not to reflect poorly on our candidate.

Although I disagree with her conclusion, her points do merit consideration. He does give the American people a lot of credit. It's what makes me support him, it's his strength... and his weakness.

The question he needs to confront is how to maintain this strength without stepping into it.

Katie,

Regarding his quality as a politician specifically. I think he's shown himself to be quite strong. Think about it, he's battling not only the Clinton Machine, but the DNC machine itself, which always favors the establishment, not insurgent, candidate.

From very little national recognition, he's managed to pull virtually even and maybe even fight them to a stand-off. That doesn't scream "inept politically" to me.

tlefty wrote on January 23, 2008 12:40 PM:

Look, Obama has a had a clear strategy of getting Republicans to come to open primaries and caucuses to support him. There is nothing wrong with that. He ran an ad in predominantly Republican Northern Nevada targeting Republicans and letting them know they could switch their registration for a day to participate. Again, I have no problem with that. The issue I have with Obama is the way he did it. In the Reno Editorial Board Meeting, he basically said that people were ready for Reagan because they grew tired of the excesses of the 60's and 70's and the overgrowth of government that was stifling the entreprenurial spirit. I think this is a poor choice of words because it basically appropriates Right-wing talking points.

While that might attract Republicans to vote you for a day, it does not attract Republicans to the Democratic Party over the long term. The correct way to attract Republicans would have been to talk about accountability and balanced budgets, and how there was no transparency or accountability with our foreign policy because both the Iraqi Government and the Musharraf Dictatorship had been given a blank check to restore Democracy and fight Al-Qaeda. There is ample evidence that establishes that our tax dollars have been wasted in both Iraq and Pakistan, which bothers all Americans, not just Republicans.

However, when you start talking about overgrowth of government, stifling entreprenurial spirit, and the excesses of the 60's and 70's, you are not making an effective progressive case for Republicans to vote for a Democrat. You are making a case for your own personal gain at expense of the party because you are appropriating right-wing talking points.

mari wrote on January 23, 2008 12:40 PM:

I cannot believe anyone could claim that Obama is not a great politician (not in the negative connotation either). His ability to speak directly to people, to energize them, inspire them, fill them with hope that we can do better, that is something that NO other Democrats have been able to do, at least since JFK, RFK and MLK. He has more leader and potential in his little finger than the Clintons have between the two of them and their daughter combined. For this reason he is an amazing politician, just not the kind of conventional wisdom "politician" (think Nixon style slime politics) that the Clintons and the GOP represent perfectly.

It is like going to a boxing match, and in one corner you have an amazingly polished and able Olympic gold medalist boxer, and then in the other corner you have a street fighter, a brawler, someone who will fight dirty, cheat, do anything to win. The brawler (actually there are two of them, as it were, and they fight 2 against 1) fights with nails in their gloves. Oh, and it turns out that judges either don't care about the rules or don't pay attention to what is going on. Now you can't tell me the fair-fighting Olympian, who came from nothing and is fighting a competitive fight against not one, but two formidable and slimy opponents, who had EVERYTHING going for them at the beginning of the match, is NOT a great boxer. Just because he came in expecting a respectable and civil sporting event, and it turned into a street fight, doesn't mean he hasn't done an amazing job, it doesn't mean that, no matter the outcome, he didn't deserve to win and that he wasn't the best fighter in the ring, and it certainly doesn't mean that if he progresses to the next round against a single old wrinkly white man, he isn't going to be able to pound the shit out of him.

Anyway, that is how I like to think of this, although the analogy can obviously only go so far. My point is, he is an amazing politician, and has more talent and substance and integrity on his absolute worst day, than both of the Clintons combined have on their best days. He deserves to win, and if he doesn't win this round, it won't be because the better person (people) won.

Oh, and that old wrinkly white man is favored 51%-31% to destroy the two brawlers if they progress to the next match, so what goes around comes around. I just hope the judges wake the hell up before the first match is over.

WWNPHD wrote on January 23, 2008 12:42 PM:

A new low for the Clintons.

Heretic wrote on January 23, 2008 12:42 PM:

This ad definitely distorts Obama's words to a certain degree. Though my guess would be that he is perfectly comfortable with certain aspects of Reagan's agenda. Particularly, the introduction of religion and so-called family values into politics. I don't think Obama would have taken the direction Reagan did in this area, but I have no doubt that he believes the secular bent of the Democratic party is a problem and that Repugs have dominated the executive branch for so long because of their embrace of faith. This is what I can't stand about Obama. I don't care if his faith is genuine. (In fact, that almost scares more than if it was just self-serving.) Faith is for idiots and children. I don't ever want a president again who makes a fuss about his faith.

Angry Vet wrote on January 23, 2008 12:42 PM:

LTD-

Definitely, I'll take the bait.

It's a willful distortion of the facts because the ad leaves the impression that Obama believes that Republican ideas are good ones, even though it only states Obama said: "The republicans, over the last 10, 15 years, have been the party of ideas."

Actually, I think this statement by Obama is pretty much true. Is welfare reform a Democratic idea? NAFTA/free trade (as opposed to fair trade)? DOMA? Who's administration were these policies passed by, and from whom did the ideas come?

However, the tenor of the radio ad, by illustrating BO's comment including "Republican ideas," says the ideas were bad ones. Though, on paper, that looks like straight truth and almost not even an attack ad. However, when you listen to it, the close proximity of the two ideas (Obama said Republican Party of ideas; HRC says those were bad ideas) connotes in the viewer the incorrect distortion that Obama SUPPORTS those ideas.

As you can read from both his Senate record, his record in Illinois (check his website, too busy to link) and the actual interview (http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026) as long as you watch the ENTIRE THING, Obama actively opposes most Republican ideas.

Hence, the willful distortion. The ad leaves the impression on listeners that Obama supports Republican ideas, when he obviously doesn't.

Is that clear, LTD?

Dottie wrote on January 23, 2008 12:42 PM:

First, clearly Obama's original statement was a gaffe and it would have been better had he not made it.

Funny, I don't recall anyone giving HRC the same break on the MLK statement. I remember Obama supporter's jumping on the bandwangon to accuss her of putting down MLK. I guess for saint Obama turn about isn't fair play. I listened to this whole thing in full context and it disguted me. It showed your saint as just another politician willing to marginalize someone else just to score his own points. Bringing together parties doesnt matter a hill of beans it it is being down in an effort to distroy us. Many of you want to harp how the Clintons are polarizing but you often dont make freinds by challenging the coventional wisdom. You draw political fire. The reason why Obama has been on pedestal is because his idea change is nothing but rhetoric. If he had ever stook a real stand he would have the scars to show for it. My question to Obama is if he is really in this race for this country or is this really about himself and him wanting to be the first black president. You guys like to accuse the Clintons of EGO but i have observed politics alot of years and every politician has an ego but I have yet to see one as caught up in his press as OBAMA. For crying out loud we are talking about the US presidency. THis is more than the largest soap box. It is the highest eecutive office withvast responsibilty and we need someone who can do more than deliver a good speach.

roo_P wrote on January 23, 2008 12:43 PM:

Anon,

Obama is totally going down. What is he thinking using right-wing talking points like single-payer healthcare? He has that terrible conservative trait of intellect and nuance he cannot hide and he just keeps learning all this new stuff and changing how he does things because of it ! I mean seriously, who would want a leader like that?

He should just stick to liberal cornerstones like trade agreements, welfare reform, bankruptcy reform, abolishing process transparency, idiotic wars, never changing his opinion, wanting to live in the past, lying and mischaracterisation.

BluePuppy wrote on January 23, 2008 12:43 PM:

I think there were three strategically suboptimal mistakes Hillary has made. One was letting Obama get away with his political double speak when he got tripped up on driver's licenses for illegal aliens. She got hammered on that and he got a pass, but both were equally bad answers. Secondly, the Obama team played the race card and that badly hurt Hillary in South Carolina. I think that was dirty politics at its very worst. A truly shameful smear campaign against the Clintons. I suspect it cost Obama his chance to be VP, and his long-term prospects for a national political career. Think Gary Hart with senate seat. Lastly, I think she allowed him to attack her for months and months without responding. She only finally has escalated her rhetoric to match his . And she's rightly pointing out that he is highly political, capable of pandering to his audience of choice, is incapable of taking criticism or responsibility.

Bupalos wrote on January 23, 2008 12:43 PM:

>>>What do you think Obama implied when he said that the Republican party was a party of ideas over the last 15 years in the sense of being against conventional wisdom?

Please give me your interpretation.

At a minimum isn't he saying that the Democratic party was not a party of ideas? Did he really have to say that? Do you agree with him on this?>>>>

He implied that they kicked our asses up and down the aisle. He implied that Bill Clinton was steamrolled by the republicans congress, that when they tried to do healthcare they got crushed and the party fell apart, that he moved the party to the right on Republican bidding, that he did their welfare reform, their budget, their financial reform, their agenda-- and still caused Bush to win and the whole cycle to continue on crack for the last 8. And he is right to imply this.

What he means by the democrats not being the party of ideas is that they didn't stand up and offer anything to counter, they just limply went along. They still do. Our frontrunner can't define torture any better than Bush.

WAKE UP! The DLC is not a democratic idea.

wglad wrote on January 23, 2008 12:44 PM:

Gore lost because people were sick of Clinton? Sounds like a lame Freeper talking point to me. Gore lost because he disassociated himself from Clinton. My guess is Obama is like Gore and Kerry, a couple of guys who would rather be right than be President. Nothing wrong with that, if you like a conservative Supreme Court, the Iraq occupation, and want to hear Barbara Ann played at the inauguration.

Long Time Democrat wrote on January 23, 2008 12:45 PM:

Keith,

I am not that partisan to begin with! I will gladly vote for any of our Democratic candidates in November. Yes, I would consider myself a high information voter.

Please indulge me. Because, I did think he was needlessly pandering to that editorial board. In my view, he was sort of triangulating. What other interpretation is there? Is there any other interpretation than that he was praising the Republican party?

Since you are also a well educated and a high information voter, can you see that this is the only possible interpretation of what Obama said in that video, which in your own words you will "for partisan rasons, never acknowledge."

Joseph Riedel wrote on January 23, 2008 12:47 PM:

What's low about the ad is that HRC got caught on their distortion of his comments at the debate Monday, and she's still pushing this false information.

Angry Vet wrote on January 23, 2008 12:47 PM:

BP-

Huh? You cite errors of omission by HRC, but not actually any errors of commission. Pretty weak argument.

I'm also interested that you say Obama played the race card. What? When? Where? (and we are talking Obama, specifically)

jbentley wrote on January 23, 2008 12:47 PM:

This ad is so intellectually dishonest and is clearly designed to twist Obama's words to score cheap political points. The funny thing is, both Bill and Hillary have offered far more glowing of Reagan and the older Bush than anything Obama says in the quote at hand.

Finally, just one question for Hillary and her people. If Obama is such a dedicated Reaganite, why isn't he running as a Republican?

TedL wrote on January 23, 2008 12:48 PM:

Folks, the sole purpose of this ad is to pull a quote out of context and to deceive people who don't pay close attention to the race.

There is simply no credible argument that Obama prefers Republican ideas to Democratic ones, or even that that was what he was trying to say here. His point (which I'll admit was badly put), was that the GOP campaigned on big ideas (however wrong) while the Dems campaigned on lots of little issues.

And, Clinton supporters, I won't make any bold predictions about how voters will react. But to see this kind of smear tried against your candidate is infuriating - it's an "up is down" kind of argument - along the same lines as Hillary's smear that Obama does not support choice because he voted present.

I sincerely hope that this kind of BS will backfire.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 12:50 PM:

Clintons = Gladiators

They like to fight. Is this the America you want?

Gnopple wrote on January 23, 2008 12:50 PM:

Wow.

You know, Hillary did learn a lot from from her years as a target of the Republicans. Not just "how to fight back." Instead, she learned how to lie...she learned the fine art of telling a lie with a straight face until enough people believe it to become a truth.

I have already mentioned on this site that I cannot support her for President in the General Election. I repeat that today. I will volunteer for Old Man McCain's campaign if it comes down to a Hillary-McCain fight. At least the man would have an honest and transparent government.

roo_P wrote on January 23, 2008 12:52 PM:

katie,

I am glad you at least admit that Clinton is lying for the sake of political expediency. If that is what you think is needed to win and that only winning matters, that is perfectly acceptable to me. I disagree, but I respect you being truthful.

frankly0 wrote on January 23, 2008 12:52 PM:

One thing that's worth noting about the ad is that it never asserts that Obama claimed that the Republican ideas were actually good ideas. The claim that the ad is a "lie" is itself a lie.

The beauty of the ad is that it really relies only on the idea that Obama was, at best, neutral in his description of the ideas. It seizes on the inescapable fact that Obama did not, in that context, repudiate those ideas.

I think Democratic voters have every right to wonder what sort of President Obama might make if he's not, when he talks about the ideas of the Republican Party, vehement and consistent in his disapproval of them.

Bret wrote on January 23, 2008 12:52 PM:

Obama's people twisted Hillary's words on MLK. They knew they had to get black support away from Hillary. It worked, but he can't just win with black support. After SC he will be seen as only being able to win the black vote. Hispanicas will not vote for him. California, Texas, Colorado, Arizona, New York, Florida, Pennsyvania, etc. He can hang it up. He sold his soul for SC, but will lose much more. Why is it ok for them to interpret Hillary's words, but we can't interpret his. What is he praising the republicans for anyway? Bill was the most successful democratic pres in the last 70 yrs or so. Why couldn't he give Bill a compliment? He was trying to get republicans in Nevada to help him beat Hillary and it backfired. He was pandering in Nevada just like he pandered in SC. He is not an agent of hope, but a politician trying to win an election.

wglad wrote on January 23, 2008 12:53 PM:

The truth is, we'll never know what Obama meant by his remarks. It would have been easy to add something like "they were bad ideas," or "I don't agree with those ideas," or "those ideas were bad for America, particularly for black America," but he didn't. So we'll never know what he meant, and Clinton is just as free as we are to guess what he meant. The Republicans certainly will.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 23, 2008 12:53 PM:

Obama isn't a very good politician...and its better we realize it now.

Be serious, do. If Obama were half so-poor a politician as you claim he would not have the Clintons fighting for their political lives against him. It might be that he is less able a politician than Clinton, but there can be no doubt that he is a worthy adversary to her. He might be the Tennessee Williams to her Arthur Miller but "not a very good politician"?!? Hardly...

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 12:55 PM:

tlefty wrote: "he basically said that people were ready for Reagan because they grew tired of the excesses of the 60's and 70's and the overgrowth of government that was stifling the entreprenurial spirit. I think this is a poor choice of words because it basically appropriates Right-wing talking points."

It may be "right-wing talking points" but it's the truth! Are you old enough to remember LBJ's Model Cities Program? Or don't you have any idea what you're talking about?

martin X. wrote on January 23, 2008 12:56 PM:

According to the Clinton campaign Obama is a madrassa educated Islamic black cocaine dealer and now, even worse, a closet Republican.

Yeah, I want 8 years more of this kind of crap.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 12:57 PM:

lame ad. it's bitter and tired. not unlike the candidate herself.

Joe Lisboa wrote on January 23, 2008 12:59 PM:

ARRRRGGHHH!

When does the bullshit end, folks?

Keith wrote on January 23, 2008 12:59 PM:

Long Term Democrat:

Please indulge me. Because, I did think he was needlessly pandering to that editorial board. In my view, he was sort of triangulating. What other interpretation is there? Is there any other interpretation than that he was praising the Republican party?

Here's why I find you completely disingenuous: What words of praise are included above? None that I can see. Only if you are pre-disposed or otherwise have an interest to misread his words can you conclude that he was praising Republicans. Here's the full quote:

I think Kennedy, twenty years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times. I think we're in one of those times right now. Where people feel like things as they are going aren't working. We're bogged down in the same arguments that we've been having, and they're not useful. And, you know, the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out. I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you've heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they're being debated among the Presidential candidates and it's all tax cuts. Well, you know, we've done that, we tried it. That's not really going to solve our energy problems, for example.

Now, here's your chance to prove me wrong. Explain to me how he's PRAISING Republican ideas or the Republican party.

nate wrote on January 23, 2008 12:59 PM:

John is absolutely right. I will never vote for HRC, although I will support all Dems down the ticket.

Joyce wrote on January 23, 2008 12:59 PM:

The Clinton's began this attack when Hillary lost Iowa. Now, Bill and Hillary are using the very tactics they whinned about during their tenure in the White House.

It's interesting, and obvious, listening to these two because what is clear, these two are more Republican than the Republicans. The Clintons are demonstrating their true selves and people are paying attention, especially women.

anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 1:00 PM:

Hill & Bill--back to what they love to do best. Trashing Democrats!

Jan wrote on January 23, 2008 1:00 PM:

Personally, I hope every single Obama supporter who promises they will vote for a Republican if Hillary gets the nomination actually goes and friggin' votes for a Republican!

Who cares??!!??

Obama is running on the promise that he can bring us together. Obviously he can't. No wonder the rest of us don't take him or his supporters seriously.

Go vote Republican, Obamamanics.
Democrats don't need your candidate's failed "leadership" abilities to beat the Republicans in November.

Keith wrote on January 23, 2008 1:00 PM:

Frankly0:

Only because of selective editing on the parts of the Clintons. I've posted a more full account of what he said, which demonstrates that even your suggestion that he was "neutral" is false.

willyd wrote on January 23, 2008 1:01 PM:

It wasn't a gaffe, it was an intelligent observation, the fault here lies with Americans who are too stupid to understand what he is saying, too lazy to listen to the interview themselves, and so dishonest that they would distort his words and lie to the American public to eke out a "win".

Don't say it was a gaffe though, because he was completely right, and intelligent people had absolutely no problem understanding exactly what he was saying...the ignorance and disingenuousness of others is the problem here.

PeterB wrote on January 23, 2008 1:01 PM:

Its sad to say, but she is controlling the conversation just as her husband was able to do in his campaigns. Reality is hitting us and we can all go back to being cynical citizens of a pathetic country that can only vote for a choice between the lesser of two evils. This sucks!

Jay wrote on January 23, 2008 1:01 PM:

"Personally, I hope every single Obama supporter who promises they will vote for a Republican if Hillary gets the nomination actually goes and friggin' votes for a Republican! Who cares??!!??"

You will care, especially if we have a president Mitt Romney - numbnuts..

LOng Time Democrat wrote on January 23, 2008 1:01 PM:

Angry Vet,

Thanks for that explnation! I totally grant to you that Obama does not support the Republican ideas and that he is a progressive.

But, what he was doing there in that video was pandering and taking a cheap shot which he tends to do a lot in his "quest to attract the so called independent and Republican voters."

I think you are giving too much credit to Republicans and too little credit to Democratic ideas and initiatives passed in the 1990s.

Let me point out a few Democratic ideas that were passed during the Clinton years:

a) Americorps (national Service)
b) Family amd medical leave act
c) Assualt weapons ban (Brady bill).
d) Earned Income Tax Credit.
e) Federal budget surplus.
f) Direct student loan program
g) Violence against woman act
h) Economic empowerment zones
i) S-CHIP (State children's health insurance program)
j) Motor votor bill
k) More than 22 million new jobs by 2000
l) Increased federal funding for child care and early childhood programs
m) Increase in minimum wage
n) HOPE scholarships and Lifetime Learning tax credits

Does this mean we achieved everything we could have? I don't think so. But, we did do a lot and it made a real impact in the lives of real people.

We see now what happened in the last 7 years where we have gone back on all these issues.

Be a supporters of Obama but give some credit to those who fought the battles and achieved important things!

Wayne wrote on January 23, 2008 1:02 PM:

Sorry. Im an Obama supporter and I cannot support Clinton whether it be in a primary or general election.

The more this campaign goes on the more I despise the Clintons. I actually understand now what the GOP was talking about. The Clintons wont let things like truth and fact get in the way of their ambitions for power. THey lack honor and integrity.

Hillary better hope I just abstain from the general if she is the nominee. Right now Im planning on voting against her. THere is still hope. Obama has a 20 point lead in SC. Delegates, delegates delegates. Plus..he will win MS, AL, TN and other southern and midwestern states.

wes2 wrote on January 23, 2008 1:03 PM:

Help! We clearly need another form of catharsis for venting our frustration with the Clintons. I understand the sentiment, but all this posturing about not voting in the general is ludicrously short-sighted.

Maybe some of you don't care about the SC, but it's not just the SC. It's the entire federal judiciary and the federal regulatory apparatus. If you care AT ALL about Congress's ability to pass laws affecting the states, if you care about civil rights, if you care about environmental standards, you've GOT to vote Democratic. I will, no matter how disgusted I am by our nominee.

Is there something else we can do to demonstrate our annoyance at the Clinton's without putting ourselves in this rhetorical straightjacket? I like TD's suggestion of donating to other campaigns, and notifying Hillary.com everytime he or she does so, but I'm afraid I'd run out of money quite rapidly. Any causes we can support that will irritate them? Stories we can push? (Free Norman T-shirts? lawn signs?)

PS My vote is for "trailer-trashing".

roo_P wrote on January 23, 2008 1:04 PM:

Long Time Democrat,

What do you think Obama implied when he said that the Republican party was a party of ideas over the last 15 years in the sense of being against conventional wisdom? ... At a minimum isn't he saying that the Democratic party was not a party of ideas? Did he really have to say that? Do you agree with him on this?

Yes. And he was exactly right. And someone has to say it.

Reagan and the Republicans were able to press through their agenda (bad agenda) because the Democratic establishment had become intellectually lazy, elitist and top-down. At best, Clinton's presidency was a losing battle to avoid passing Republican legislation with most bills watered down but more realistically it was succumbing to the prevailing winds.

The "counter-ideas" of the Democrats were the DLC and the "era of big government being over," not exactly hallmark progressive thought.

Not acknowledging this is not learning from your mistakes. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.

JTinSoCal wrote on January 23, 2008 1:06 PM:

Bill Bradley's on MSNBC right now attacking the Clinton's for the ad. He calls it slime. Says the Clinton's gave us Newt Gingrich.

Robert Campbell wrote on January 23, 2008 1:06 PM:

The witch is back !

PeterB wrote on January 23, 2008 1:06 PM:

New Barack Ad:

Hillary will say anything to be elected

When she was afraid to be seen as unpatriotic, she voted for the war without reading the NIE. Then in 2006 she opposed the war when the political winds changed again.

She supported NAFTA and China free trade agreements through the nineties and up until last year, when surprise surprise it was not popular to be a free trade democrat anymore.

Flip-Flopping Fool!

Common Sense wrote on January 23, 2008 1:08 PM:

JTinSoCal:

That's exactly what Obama has to do: have high profile surrogates call the Clintons out on this crap.

Bret wrote on January 23, 2008 1:08 PM:

These Obama supporters are something else. They sound so much like republicans. Are you all even deomocrats? You would prefer decades more of war, economy in the gutter, no resolve to the illegal immigration problem, sky rocketing healthcare costs, more and more people not able to afford healthcare, more and more people with healthcare not covered for many procedures, people losing their homes to foreclosure, etc. You are very very hateful towards the Clintons. They only ran the most successfull democratic whitehouse since FDR. If you feel that much hate towards the Clintons go ahead and vote republican. We don't need or want your support. Hillary will be fine. She is a fighter, something Obama clearly is not. He whines about everything like a baby. No one is going to want to listen to his excuses if he becomes president. The Clintons have never been lied on, they have never been taken out of contex, never mischaracterized, etc. It comes with the territory, but you have to know how to overcome it. Whinning about it won't work.

JTinSoCal wrote on January 23, 2008 1:09 PM:

Bret,

So Hispanics aren't voting for Obama due to the MLK spin? gmafb

jarms wrote on January 23, 2008 1:10 PM:

I find it all so appalling like most of the other posts. The Clintons are disgusting and no I will never vote for HRC. They want Obama to sling dirt back and he has not done this yet. If he does, they reduce him in stature and he becomes one of them---and then they can compare themselves on level ground. That's why Bill says he "likes it when the they fight."

Why don't we start collecting Clunton trash for Obama and post it here, i.e. catalog it all:

1. Norman Hsu
2. Bill's recently disclosed $20 mm do-nothing job (he sold access and wnats to sell more if HRC is elected)
3. The NY Times pice two weeks ago about how fund-raising between his foundation and the campaign is conflated (around Terry McAulliffe)
4. Terry McAulliffe himself

I could go on but I'd like to make this a collaborative effort...if we get to 100 we'll get some off-site coverage.

Long Term Democrat wrote on January 23, 2008 1:11 PM:

Keith,

I will take up the challenge (and I won't accuse you of being disingenuous).

Let us take this sentence:

"I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."

When you say a political party is a party of ideas without suggesting that they were bad ideas and then you add the qualifier that they were challenging conventional wisdom what can that mean?

What does the construction "ideas challenging conventional wisdom" imply other than that the conventional wisdom was wrong and they were challenging conventional wisdom? What conventional wisdom Obama is referring to? Whose conventional wisdom is he referring to?
Republican or Democratic? It seems to me he is referring to Democratic conventional wisdom.

So is he praising Republicans challenginf Democratic conventional wisdom? Why didn't he clearly say that the Republican ideas were wrong?

Now, if I am wrong, can you tell me what the alternate interpretation of this construction is? As a fair observer and not as a partisan.

If Hilalry Clinton had said the same thing would you give her a pass like you are giving Obama?

freaktown wrote on January 23, 2008 1:11 PM:

"If he can't handle Bill, how will he handle the Republicans"

So Bill and Hillary's justification for flat out lying is that the Republicans will do it?

I think this whole, "the republicans will be worse on him" therefore hillary is doing him a favor by distorting his record and lying. You know, to toughen him up.

BS.

We expect it from republicans. WE dont expect fellow democrats to use rovian tactics against their own.

But if this is how hillary and bill wanna play it, fine.

Obama is a big boy. He can handle it. And hillary will just alienate more and more Obama supporters by resorting to these tactics, resulting in a divided party if she wins the nom. And all those voters she alienated will stay home or actually vote AGAINST her.

And when already half the country says they wont vote for her no matter what does she really want to alienate MORE voters?

frankly0 wrote on January 23, 2008 1:11 PM:

Keith,

The only "negative" think Obama says about the Republican ideas is that they are "played out", and that "we've done that, we've tried that".

Even unto itself that is, for a progressive, an absurdly misguided way to characterize Republican ideas. When your major criticism of an idea is that it is now "played out", the clear implication is that it was a good idea to pursue for the time.

But does any progressive think that refusing to raise the minimum wage or implementing a huge tax break for the rich or running up a huge debt were good ideas to pursue at the time? No: they were disasters then and they are disasters now.

And beyond that, Obama suggests that the ideas were "challenging conventional wisdom". Well, when is the last time you ever heard a politician describe an idea as "challenging conventional wisdom" without the very strong implication that that idea was important to pursue? Everyone knows that "conventional wisdom" is political speak (and corporate speak) for obsolete ideas that must be rejected.

How you can pretend that Obama was somehow indicating that the ideas were bad ideas to pursue at the time is beyond me.

BluePuppy wrote on January 23, 2008 1:11 PM:

We KNOW what Obama was saying. He was critizing Clinton to a right-wing newspaper. So what was happening 10 years ago? Clinton was trying to save his presidency from the Lewinsky scandal and he gave a state of union address:

"We have more than 14 million new jobs, the lowest unemployment in twenty-four years, the lowest core inflation in thirty years. Incomes are rising, and we have the highest home ownership in history. Crime has dropped for a record of five years in a row, and the welfare rolls are at their lowest level in twenty-seven years. Our leadership in the world is unrivaled. Ladies and gentlemen, the state of our union is strong."

Obama was wrong historically and politically to make that remark. Clinton had huge successes despite being attacked from all sides. The Republicans were not the party of ideas. Clinton's approval rating was 67% at this point and the Democrats won seats in an off-year election. Obama was wrong, pure and simple and he's paying for it now, and rightly so.

JTinSoCal wrote on January 23, 2008 1:13 PM:

Common,

Obama needs Kerry out there. Bill has said he'd campaign vigorously for Hillary, even if she wasn't his wife. I don't recall Bill doing much in 2004 for Kerry.

wwjb wrote on January 23, 2008 1:13 PM:

Once again, a reality check: Disgusted Democrats who refuse to vote for Hillary in the general election aren't the ones who will lose this election for us, it is the naive Hillary supporters who are going to send Hillary against McCain who are going to lose this election for us! Wake up, think about it, the last poll showed her getting stomped by him in the general by 51% to 31%!

It isn't going to be our fault when the Democratic candidate gets stomped, we were the ones who tried to bring an electable candidate into the general election, you idiots brought damaged goods against someone who is favored by all accounts to destroy her. Idiots..

Jack Frost wrote on January 23, 2008 1:14 PM:

I think this is the biggest double standard that Obama supporters have charged against Hillary so far in this campaign.
If Hillary had said that the Republicans were the "party of ideas" for the last 10- 15 years I think its pretty clear that they would jump on her for that like vampires to blood- Its dishonest and insulting to pretend now that oh-he-didnt-say-they-were-good-ideas is defensible.

DOUBLE STANDARD

twc wrote on January 23, 2008 1:15 PM:

Nice fake southern accent on the voice-over, Hillary.

BluePuppy wrote on January 23, 2008 1:17 PM:

"Obama needs Kerry out there"

Yeah, and McGovern, Carter, Modale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry can advise him how to win.

I'm sticking with Clinton.

JTinSoCal wrote on January 23, 2008 1:17 PM:

Bill Clinton did a great job balancing the budget, and getting the EITC, but business cycles are the largest factor in jobs. Bill didn't create the tech boom.. Lets be honest and not give him too much credit.

Tim wrote on January 23, 2008 1:17 PM:

I have not decided on who to support,
or at least had not up till now.

But the way the Clintons are acting is just turning me off - big time.

I just don't want to put up this anymore,
at the very least she won't be able to get anything done - at it's worst the whole country will turn against the Clintons because they are political monsters.

Daniel A. Greenbaum wrote on January 23, 2008 1:19 PM:

The Reno Paper what endorsed Obama is apparently
conservative. It did not hurt Obama with their
editorial board to talk of Reagan or "Republcan"
ideas. The claim that the "Republicans were the party
of ideas" was the mantra of Republicans going back to Reagan.
Obama was trying to be clever. Praising Reagan
and Republicans to an audience that would appreciate it
and then trying to slide away from it.

What is more puzzling is the effort by Obama supporters
to continually denounce the Clintons who what Obama says.
If you think that is viscious or dirty politicals you are going to
have a very long 2008.

Long Time Democrat wrote on January 23, 2008 1:19 PM:

One more thing I want to add. In all these blogs, I hear all the Obama supporters saying that they won't vote for Hillary if she is the nominee.

Two can play this game. There are more Hillary supporters in the Democratic party than Obama supporters now. If we all stayed home, if Obama is the nominee then he certainly will not win.

I will be careful with these kinds of threats!

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 23, 2008 1:19 PM:

Obama needs Kerry out there.

Actually, it is funny that you should say that, because I was thinking to myself this morning that it is funny that TPM has not made any mention of the campaigning that John Kerry is doing right now for Obama. I got a mass e-mail from John Kerry last night decrying the "swiftboating" (the precise word he used) of Sen Obama. In other words, the Obama campaign is running with exactly the idea you were suggesting. I am wondering how much attention this will get.

Laura wrote on January 23, 2008 1:19 PM:

Where is this radio spot being played? I'm just wondering if the Clintons' strategy is very strong here.

Sure, it's red meat for folks who have already decided to support HRC, but what about the genuinely undecided and independent voters? A quick listen to ALL of the Democratic candidates (in a debate or on radio ads) reveals pretty consistently progressive policy proposals, though the details may differ. I just don't think anybody will seriously believe ANY Democratic candidate *endorses* Republican policies.

Also: The tactic of taking a single phrase or two from your opponent and creating a distorted narrative around it is old hat...it ALWAYS makes me skeptical. This tactic may actually turn OFF some undecideds and independents -- it certainly turns my husband and me off.

I confess that I am a bit naive about the effectiveness of the "dark arts" of political spin and deception. I just find it INSULTING when politicians are manipulative and deceptive. But I believe that a LOT of people feel the same way about politics and are just dog tired of it. Ughh.

merryll wrote on January 23, 2008 1:20 PM:

Both Clinton and Obama have skeletons in the closet. Otherwise the Republicans wouldn't have donated to them so heavily.

Lisa wrote on January 23, 2008 1:20 PM:

I agree

The Clintons are turning into
political monsters.

It's turning me off as well.
And I was supporting Hillary,
but no more.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 23, 2008 1:20 PM:

The text of the John Kerry e-mail is online here.

Wilmac wrote on January 23, 2008 1:21 PM:

Bill Clinton and the DLC crowd began dismantling the Democratic Party before he ever became President. Once in office, he severely crippled the Party with his loose morals and lies. Now he and Hillary, propelled by enormous egos and a lust for power, are on the verge of administering the coup de grace. What a sorry sight to behold. How anyone can believe that nearly thirty years of nothing but Bushes and Clintons in the White House can be good for this country is beyond me.

BluePuppy wrote on January 23, 2008 1:22 PM:

"I don't recall Bill doing much in 2004 for Kerry."

He had an emergency by-pass surgery and nearly died, and still advised Kerry from his hospital bed and campaigned for him in Penn at a HUGE rally.

Keith wrote on January 23, 2008 1:22 PM:

Frankly0:

In order for your faux outrage to have any currency, you have to inject into Obama's statements far more than he said or was referring to, as demonstrated by his fuller comments. And obviously, you are very committed to the idea of demonstrating that Obama is something that he is not. So attempting to dissuade you by use of logic and reason is an exercise in futility.

And certainly trying to argue you with on the premises you've laid is also pointless, since it gives credence to the tortured reading you've given to his words. In other words, another exercise in futility.

Now any time you want to approach this or any other political topic with the intellectual honesty that is necessary to advance the debate on the issues or the candidates, I'm game. But I'll politely decline your (and other HRC supporters) invitation to engage in mental masturbation on this or any other point.

Say no to Whitewater Rafting.

tony, boston wrote on January 23, 2008 1:23 PM:

Personally, I hope every single Obama supporter who promises they will vote for a Republican if Hillary gets the nomination actually goes and friggin' votes for a Republican!

Who cares??!!??

*****************************************

Um, actually we DO need their votes to win. Part of the reason George Bush couldn't accomplish any significant legislation while in office was because he won his elections by such slim margins (ie, 51-49). And this was even with a small Republican majority initially. For a progressive like me, it's good he didn't get anything done but if we aren't careful the shoe could be on the other foot soon. In our democracy the only way to get things done is to have a supermajority and to get that you have to have not only a united Democratic party, but some independents on board as well. Obama's message, for whatever reason, is appealing to some Dems AND independents as well. Not true of Hillary.

Those people on this comments board saying we don't need Obama Democrats or independents are idiots and employing the exact same 50%+1 strategy that proved so ineffective for Dubya. We DO need them. And the Clintons should stop being so rough and distortionary with Obama not because he should skate (he shouldn't and his dirty laundry needs to be aired and addressed) but beacause we're going to need to bring other people into a new progressive coalition if we want to change things.

Obama was right---Reagan did fundamentally alter the landscape of the American electoral map forever. Obama is a progressive and so disagrees with what Reagan did---but Obama's aim is to CREATE A NEW PROGRESSIVE MAJORITY. A vibrant left wing conspiracy, if you will. He believes that Reagan's model can work for our team. That remains to be seen.

But what is obvious is that these attacks by the Clintons are as over the top as they are dishonest. They need to stop dividing the party---even if our unity means their defeat. Because if they divide us too much then the party will not heal itself by November---not even to stave off a McCain presidency.

I really like the Clintons and have never understood why the Repugs hated them so much. Now I'm starting to understand a little bit---they aren't honest and they exude an air of entitlement. And what pisses me off is the idea that these right wing nuts weren't as irrational as I once thought when it came to the Clintons. I NEED to believe they were just Clinton or woman-haters.

Clinton can't assemble a new progressive majority because independents and centrists Republicans won't even listen to what she has to say. But Obama has a shot with these, and the Clintons shouldn't divide our party and destroy our opportunity to create a new liberal coalition just to effect a Clinton Restoration. If they do this I might just stay home this November.

The bottom line is that we need EVERYBODY---Clinton Democrats, Obama Democrats, independents and yes, even a few Republicans if we're going to create a new supermajority for progressive change. Our nominee should be the ones who bring all those disparate entities together. The candidates who can't do this shouldn't exacaberate tensions within our party just to eke out a 50%+1 victory. Too much is at stake at this moment in history.

Just sayin.

roo_P wrote on January 23, 2008 1:23 PM:

frankly0:

The beauty of the ad is that it really relies only on the idea that Obama was, at best, neutral in his description of the ideas. It seizes on the inescapable fact that Obama did not, in that context, repudiate those ideas.

Words fail me. The ad specifically does not give any of the context.

Many Clinton supporters here have well-reasoned arguments and can logically back them up even if I do not agree. Some even make their distortions very logically sound. But frankly0, you are the single most illogical one of all the regular Obama bashers. You manage to completely contradict yourself within three words.

freaktown wrote on January 23, 2008 1:23 PM:

"I will be careful with these kinds of threats!"

Its not a threat. Its a promise. At least, in my case it is.

How you run your campaign is how you're going to govern. Hillary has done nothing but lie, distort, and mislead in this campaign.

We dont need more of that kind of stuff. I mean, we just had a president who governed that way for 8 years. WE know that doesn't work.

Long Time Democrat wrote on January 23, 2008 1:24 PM:

Keith, I took you seriously and tried to get you to explain what exactly Obama meant! Big mistake on my part! You are more interested in insulting people who disagree with you!

Jack Frost wrote on January 23, 2008 1:24 PM:

Daniel A. Greenbaum wrote on January 23, 2008 1:19 PM:
The Reno Paper what endorsed Obama is apparently
conservative. It did not hurt Obama with their
editorial board to talk of Reagan or "Republcan"
ideas. The claim that the "Republicans were the party
of ideas" was the mantra of Republicans going back to Reagan.
Obama was trying to be clever. Praising Reagan
and Republicans to an audience that would appreciate it
and then trying to slide away from it.

What is more puzzling is the effort by Obama supporters
to continually denounce the Clintons who what Obama says.
If you think that is viscious or dirty politicals you are going to
have a very long 2008.

TOTALLY AGREE!!!

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 1:25 PM:

FranklyO

"Obama did not, in that context, repudiate those ideas."

Except that, YES HE DID!!!!!

He called them "played out" and said "we've tried that and it failed".

What the hell is wrong with you? Can you not read?

Long Time Democrat wrote on January 23, 2008 1:25 PM:

freaktown,

Your promise received and returned. Then, don't expect us Hillary supporters to support your candidate in the GE if he were to be the nominee.

freaktown wrote on January 23, 2008 1:27 PM:

Longtimedemocrat:

oh i'm so worried. Whatever obama loses to the spiteful hillary supporters he'will more than make up in Independents and probably republicans.

Hillary cant do that.

Jack Frost wrote on January 23, 2008 1:28 PM:

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 1:25 PM:
FranklyO

"Obama did not, in that context, repudiate those ideas."

Except that, YES HE DID!!!!!

He called them "played out" and said "we've tried that and it failed".

What the hell is wrong with you? Can you not read?

--------

Anonymous, but also you are conveniently leaving out that Obama also said that Reagan had transformed the country in a way that Bill Clinton did not- why would he say that?? hmmmm... maybe because he was looking for a fight? maybe because he didn't think well of Bill Clinton's ideas ?? either way he asked (begged) for a reaction

Tapper wrote on January 23, 2008 1:28 PM:

This is all too good!
Once again the Obaidiots are left to sputter and wah wah wah "that's not what he meant!".
But it is what he said.
His words, the fool. And his problem.

Let Hussein try selling his "But I didn't say they were good ideas" bullcrap again.
Doesn't pass the smell test unless like all good Obabots your head is so far up the GreatBlackOne's ass that you mistake his farts for fresh air.

This is just like his "I never was for single payer but then when I said I was it's not what I meant and oh by the way Fairy Tale is a racial slur and Hillary took all my ideas and Wah Wah Wah Wah Wah I invented Cha Cha CHANGE! Now I'm taking by ball and goin home!"
What an EMPTY LOSER Hussein is.

BluePuppy wrote on January 23, 2008 1:29 PM:

"Lets be honest and not give him too much credit."

I know. Blame the Clinton for anyting bad but don't give them any credit. Actually, it was Clinton's '93 budget which brought down interest rates, paid off debt, and lead to economic recovery.

But you didn't respond to my point. The Republicans didn't have ideas and the country had stopped listening to them. Obama was wrong, and he was pandering to a right-wing paper. That's the truth. Just admit it.

Long Time Democrat wrote on January 23, 2008 1:30 PM:

freaktown,

Thanks for your honesty! You expect to lose majority of the Democrats and make it up with independents and Republicans!
Good luck to you and to your candidate.

to wrote on January 23, 2008 1:30 PM:

How sad that the Clintons persist with this deceit. They seem to be trying to demonstrate that they can out-lie the Republicans. That won't win my vote.

Keith wrote on January 23, 2008 1:30 PM:

LTD:

Again, I assume you have basic reading comprehension skills. I even bolded the text for you and assumed that it was pretty self explanatory. What was confusing about what he said? I don't see anywhere in what he said where one can imply that (1) Democrats had "bad" or "no" ideas or (2) Republicans had "good" or "all of the" ideas. Ideas aren't a zero sum game. Just because I recognize that you have an idea doesn't mean that no one has another idea or different idea on the same subject.

So again, after reading what he said, where are you getting confused?

freaktown wrote on January 23, 2008 1:35 PM:

longtimedemocrat:

"You expect to lose majority of the Democrats"

No, actually I dont.

I'm just saying whatever small % stay home cause he's not BIllary, he'll make that up among the Republicans and Independents.

And so what if he gets republicans and indys to vote for him. You make that sound like its a bad thing. Yeah, godforbid we UNIFY this country and build a working MAJORITY to get things done. Because we all know we only need DEMOCRATIC voters to win elections. that strategy worked so well in 2000 and 2004.

tinisoli wrote on January 23, 2008 1:37 PM:

Remarking that Reagan's presidency came at a time when the nation was hungry for change and yearning for a more optimistic tone is an understatement, and hardly a gaffe. Obama's point was not that Reagan was a great leader, but that the country identified him as such and that that conception of him was extremely powerful——and it still is today, hence the insane canonization of a president who was crooked, bigoted, and senile. It is also true that the GOP has indeed been the party of ideas in recent years, because they are so ideologically driven and so adept at getting people elected based on "moral values" and the like. These are simply facts. People seem to be confusing Obama's objective, academic analysis of recent history with some sort of approval or blessing.

There are two things that are extremely depressing about this new ad from Hillary and her "I didn't mention Reagan" bullshit from the other night. The first thing is that the Clintons think so little of us that they knowingly lie and distort in order to hurt their opponent. The Clintons need us to be stupid and gullible and fearful. The second depressing thing is that this shit actually works, and we do indeed seem to be so stupid that we can't see the distinction between a Democrat remarking on the political power of the GOP in the last three decades and a Democrat actually praising or approving of the GOP.

At best, a Clinton nomination will be just another example of dumbass America getting exactly what its dumb ass deserves.

roo_P wrote on January 23, 2008 1:38 PM:

Long Time Democrat,

I pointed out the flaws in the bills you mentioned in an earlier thread (for example FMLA not being paid, only being available at 50+ employee shops) but that is not really the point.

Do not mistake me saying that Clinton did nothing. He did get some good stuff passed, too, but it was watered down for the most part and the progressive ones were not in any way novel. It was stuff Democrats had been pushing since the 70's. The only really "new" ideas were the DLC-type proposals.

Like Obama said, Clinton only achieved incremental change rather than the sweeping, radical changes (bad changes) that Reagan managed.

charlie wrote on January 23, 2008 1:39 PM:

Bret's ignorant comments show exactly what I hate about Hillary supporters. They live in their own reality, it is amazing.

Every day that goes by that I have to listen to dumbass Hillbots talking out their asses and lowering politics to the lowest possible denominator I become a bit more excited about the prospect of watching John McCain stomp the shit out of her in the general election. I still hope Democrats will wake up before it is too late and realize that she is destined to lose this race if we nominate her, but if she does get nominated, I'm not going to lie, it will be some karmic justice when McCain steamrolls her in the general. I hate McCain just as I hate all Republicans, but when it comes to a matchup of personalities, him versus Clinton, I'd say he is the better human being, and I absolutely never thought I'd say that about a Republican, but after witnessing the blatant lies and dirty tactics from the Clintons, anyone who talks with even a glimmer of integrity is more deserving than them. Americans will not leave this primary election without noting that the Clintons are lying and despicable, and when McCain comes in with MUCH MORE experience and "straight talk", he is going to send the Clintons to meet their maker. Granted, having another Republican president will be hell, but I will still enjoy seeing the Clintons getting what they deserve.

Chris wrote on January 23, 2008 1:39 PM:

I encourage all of you that have even the slightest interest in the truth to watch the entire video of Obama speaking to that editorial board. You'll be blown off your feet. This is a man with a powerful command of the issues and a great plan on actually turning his ideas into actual legislation that will actually pass.

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026&oaso=news.rgj.com/breakingnews

peterb wrote on January 23, 2008 1:39 PM:

Ya know, I think most democrats agree with obama on this one. After all, we lost election after election because we did not present any new ideas. Instead we just opposed everything. I completely agree with obama on this one.

BluePuppy wrote on January 23, 2008 1:39 PM:

Why DID Obama say it when his own party was trying to use the surplus to save social security, expand child care & Head Start, end a genocide in Kosovo, protect the Dept. of Education,expanding health care to children, stopping the Republicans from shutting down government, targeting Bin Laden,advancing civil rights & having a strong EEOC, appointing progressive judges, appointing women to high office,starting a national dialog on race, protecting natural resources, fighting to raise the minimum wage (twice), and many other noble projects? The energy, the national narrative, the country was with the Democrats despite incredible attacks.....why did he say it?

Brandon wrote on January 23, 2008 1:40 PM:

Heres the thing. Whether you like Obama or not, this is a Republican talking point for sure. Remember when the Republicans used to call Democrats "Intellectually Bankrupt?"

There has long been a tradition of accusing Dems of lacking any new ideas. Thats how they got us with the Iraq debates over the past few year. "Sure you want out, but you have no ideas on how."

It is kind of a slap in the face when the man running for your party's leadership says the same thing as the Republicans. I think thats why it stings the most. It also doesn't help that he says it like he doesn't know the historic implications, like he is the first to think of it.

I think there is a message here. The Republicans were not the party of ideas. They were the party of rehashed tricks, lies and games. Calling any of the suggestions from Republicans over the past 10 years "ideas" gives them more credibility then they deserve.

Dems had ideas over the past ten years. The ideas of balancing our federal budget, creating a national health care system, conserving more natural resources and reforming the welfare system were noble and good.

I like Obama to a point, but saying things like this really makes me feel like he is more interested in pleasing our Republican friends more then improving the image of the Democratic Party.

Bret wrote on January 23, 2008 1:41 PM:

If the republicans had all of the ideas and Bill did not, why were we at disaster when Bill took office,and much better off when he left? Why are we at disaster now, with 7yrs of Bush Jr? He didn't see anything great about Bill's presidency? The republicans have been a disaster the last 10-15yrs, not the democrats. He only said that to pander to republicans in Nevada. If he is such a great leader, why did he leave Nevada with out declaring his victory in a speech? Why didn't he thank his supporters or the culinary union for their support? Hillay would have congratulated Barack publicly had she lost. She would have thanked her supporters. She is a leader in victory or defeat. He ran back to Illinois and then said he really won Nevada. What a sore loser. He is not a leader.

Tapper wrote on January 23, 2008 1:42 PM:

As most of you know I do not like Obama.
I'm a mamas boy and always have been.
What ever Hillary wants me to do I will do it in a heartbeat.
I cannot stand up without holding on to her skirt.
I found her blubering quite touching.

Publicus wrote on January 23, 2008 1:43 PM:

Blue Puppy:

Even an ardent HRC supporter knows that the following statement you wrote is patently false:

The Republicans didn't have ideas and the country had stopped listening to them. Obama was wrong, and he was pandering to a right-wing paper. That's the truth. Just admit it.

Contract for America ring a bell? Tax cuts as the great elixir? Supply-side economics? Getting voters to vote against their economic interests?

ALL of those things are typically Republican ideas. Where ever you come down on their merits (I personally think they were screwy ideas), they are undeniably IDEAS.

And finally, when did the country stop listening to them? I recall that they took control of the House and Senate under the Clinton years. And that we didn't regain control until 2006. So for 12 years, at least, the country was in fact listening to them. Or will you tell me this historical fact is somehow partisan spin?

another reader wrote on January 23, 2008 1:44 PM:

Keith,

I've read and listened to the entire quote several times and I still come away with the impression that he was praising the Republicans to a degree. It is implicit to me in the statement that the "Republicans were the party of ideas" that the Democrats had no ideas or substandard ideas. Additionally, one of "his" big ideas is Universal Health Care which Hillary was fighting for 15 years ago...

roo_P wrote on January 23, 2008 1:45 PM:

Bret

If the republicans had all of the ideas and Bill did not, why were we at disaster when Bill took office,and much better off when he left?

Because the Republicans had BAD ideas but they nevertheless got them implemented exactly for the reasons Obama counted.

For crying out loud, is this not abundantly clear by now?

Jack Frost wrote on January 23, 2008 1:45 PM:

Keith,

You or anybody else on this blog or elsewhere have not been able to honestly respond to this:

For Obama to say that the republicans had all the ideas for the last 10-15 years and then go and say that Reagan had transformed the country in a way that Bill Clinton did not is not exactly what democrats want to hear- he thought he was being clever- and the Bill Clinton insertion was begging for a reaction.
First, it was an attempt to test his unifying skills and it failed.
Secondly, when it went badly he dishonestly claims "i didnt say they were good ideas" (which he may well think they are not good ideas but he knew very well what it sounded like- he basically was trying to play both sides and was caught and you guys don't like it!)
Thirdly, If Hillary had said what he said you Obama supporters would have destroyed her for it- and especially if she went back afterwards and said thats not what she meant- you Obama supporters would have charged that she was "parsing" or some anti- Clinton thing like that!

You guys have double standards and Obama can do no wrong- while Hillary can only do wrong-
Its intellectually dishonest.

Thomas McDonald, New York, NY wrote on January 23, 2008 1:47 PM:

On the one hand, there is something smart about taking up an argument at the philosophical level against Republican ideas, however it makes me sick that the Clintons are outright manipulating Obama's comment in this regard. Bill Clinton himself 'ended welfare as we know it' and announced that 'the era of big government is over' - and the Clintons know damn well that if Obama meant anything positive about Republican ideas it was only in the same sense as Bill Clinton did - recognizing some weaknesses in old orthodoxies on one's own side of an argument.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 1:48 PM:

Clinton was relected in 1996 and Democrats won senate and house seats in 1998, as I said before. Clinton's approval rating was 67% in 1998. The Contract with America was discredited in less than 2 years. Obama was wrong, but he knew what he was doing. He was using right-wing talking points against our progressive president. Excuse me while I vomit.

Laura wrote on January 23, 2008 1:50 PM:

Long Time Democrat,

"freaktown,

Thanks for your honesty! You expect to lose majority of the Democrats and make it up with independents and Republicans!
Good luck to you and to your candidate."

First, I would say the argument the two of you are having is...well...silly. I'm sorry if that insults the two of you, but really -- neither of you can predict how Obama supporters or Hillary supporters would respond if their opposition candidate wins.

That said, I'd like to ask you to clarify an impresssion I got from your statement about Independents and Republicans. Do you resent the inclusion of these folks or am I misreading your feeling about this? If you do resent it, would you mind explaining your reasons? I've encountered this sentiment before and I sincerely don't understand it. Really. Help me out -- what's this about?

tinisoli wrote on January 23, 2008 1:50 PM:

Bret,
Nobody has said that Democrats or Bill Clinton "did not have ideas". What Obama said was that the GOP was the Party of Ideas, in other words, they were the party that was powered by their base's deep passion for specific policy ideas, whether or not those ideas ever saw the light of day or reached the floor of the Senate. Anti-abortion, anti-tax, anti- gun control, pro-war, anti-immigration, etc. It is simply a fact that the GOP's ideology and its ideas are more well-defined than the Democrats'. THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY A GOOD THING, as Obama would be the first to tell you. But it is a powerful thing, hence Obama's point about Reagan's arrival on the political scene and the passion voters had for him as a transformational political figure.

Can you not see the distinction being made here? Someone could also point out that "Hitler was a very important political figure in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s" and it would not imply approval of Hitler as a leader. Get it?

B wrote on January 23, 2008 1:53 PM:

Bill Clinton is tearing down his legacy and adding so much to the idea that he bends the truth over and over.

First it was lying about sex and we seemed to get over it.

Now he he is lying about Barack Obama is sad, petty ways.

Bill stop now.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 1:53 PM:

Charlie I am not a hillbot or whatever you call Hillary's supporters. I am actually a black man, with enough sense to see through Obama's hype machine. I have watched every debate and he never answers with details or knowledge of the question. He just jumps back to his spill about bringing people together. He has had all of the media, republicans and Edwards helping him attack Hillary, and she still makes him look like he's in the little league. His stumbling and horrible performance the other night further sealed my support for Hillary.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 1:53 PM:

Yay, more lies from Hillary!

But Clinton supporters *like* being lied to.

Jan wrote on January 23, 2008 1:54 PM:

Hey, Jay, I WON'T care if Mitt Romney is President by YOU voting for a Republican, because I'm not the one threatening to vote for a Republican if I don't get my way.

There's never been a time when I've EVER posted that I would vote for a Republican if Hillary Clinton didn't the nomination. That's what OBAMA supporters say.

So much for "bringing us all together."

So... for all the Obamamanics who keep typing crap about Clinton and how she's not representative of the Democratic Party...
Maybe you should go to your room and ponder REALITY for a moment or two, just so you get the loud and clear message that Hillary Clinton represents the core of the Democratic Party far more than Obama does.

You keep embarassing yourselves with all your "Obama is the only god who can bring us all together" bs.

CALIFORNIA:
Clinton's lead is largest among women, Latinos, lower income voters, non-college graduates, and seniors.

Conversely, Obama is preferred among blacks, college graduates, and Democratic primary voters with household incomes of $80,000 or more.

Clinton and Obama run about even among men, liberals, and white non-Hispanics.

another reader wrote on January 23, 2008 1:55 PM:

tinisoli wrote:

Can you not see the distinction being made here? Someone could also point out that "Hitler was a very important political figure in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s" and it would not imply approval of Hitler as a leader. Get it?

Are you comparing Ronald Raegan to Hitler?! No, it would not imply that about Hitler because in most circles he is uniformly hated. Not true for Ronald Raegan, not even close. So Obama had to be a lot more clear on this one, which he failed to do. He used Republican talking points against his own party. He didn't mention Bill Clinton in that context on accident. He knew what he was doing.

shoes4industry wrote on January 23, 2008 1:56 PM:

Clinton is a huge piece of shit who should leave the stage. Period.

Jazzylady wrote on January 23, 2008 1:56 PM:

Bamas, get a grip, get a life. This is not kinderkare or nursery school, this is politics of the 400 series. Unfortunately, Obama needs 101, in which his hand is held, his ego stroked, his boo-boos kissed, his scrapes tended. Welllllllllllll, wake up, Bamas, this is the real world and your boy is in it. You cannot sling mud and not have mud splash you back, right? Perhaps your boy had best come back when he grows up and can play in the adult world.

Bret wrote on January 23, 2008 1:59 PM:

All of you Obama supporters. Why weren't you this passionate when Hillary and Bill were painted as racists for their comments on Dr. King and Fairy Tales? Everyone knows they are not racists and neither statement was racists. Obama waited all of that time to finally say the truth, but the damage had already been done. He is not this innocent guy, but a politician playing the same games that they all play.

Tapper wrote on January 23, 2008 1:59 PM:

I get excited when Bill Clinton lies to me.

I

Thomas McDonald, New York, NY wrote on January 23, 2008 2:00 PM:

On the one hand, there is something smart about taking up an argument at the philosophical level against Republican ideas, however it makes me sick that the Clintons are outright manipulating Obama's comment in this regard. Bill Clinton himself 'ended welfare as we know it' and announced that 'the era of big government is over' - and the Clintons know damn well that if Obama meant anything positive about Republican ideas it was only in the same sense as Bill Clinton did - recognizing some weaknesses in old orthodoxies on one's own side of an argument.

onceler wrote on January 23, 2008 2:01 PM:

LIAR!!! I know people who follow politics don't define "lies" as such, usually, because most of them have lost their minds. But this is a lie on Hillary Clinton's part, she is lying, she knows it. Liar.

Wow, Bret above me sure is a regular Stephen Hawking, isn't he?

wglad wrote on January 23, 2008 2:02 PM:

This ad is an incredible body blow. The same people who rushed out after she smacked Obama down in New Hampshire are scurrying out to decry this ad. Wait until the Clinton campaign works it into a TV ad. Just out of curiosity. Does anyone here respect Kerry any more? Sure, he's invested in the Obama phenom. He kicked it off in 2004. But the more he rises to Obama's defense, the more he makes it look like the connection between Obama and him is more than a shared agenda. All politics is national now. The Clinton campaign ran the add in SC, but they knew it would go national in 10 secs. Kerry is doing his part to make sure the story has legs. His support is the kiss of death. Think about it. What did it take to lose to Bush in 2000 and 2004? Do we really want more of the same?

JTinSoCal wrote on January 23, 2008 2:03 PM:

Blue,

Jfc, I gave Bill credit for the balanced budgets and the EITC... Yes, he played a role in the economy, but not as large as some partisans think. Go read what Joseph Stiglitz, Clinton's chair of the Council of Economic Advisors from 95-97, had to say about the 90's.

As for ideas, the Republicans have framed the debate for over 25 years. Democrats have mostly reacted.

rob wrote on January 23, 2008 2:03 PM:

Do any Obama supporters honestly think Obama would characterize himself as a "transformational" candidate "like Kennedy and Reagan" and not think those Presidents had a positive transformational effect on America?How can he now say he worked AGAINST those "transformational"changes without being a complete hypocrite?

freaktown wrote on January 23, 2008 2:04 PM:

BRET: "Why weren't you this passionate when Hillary and Bill were painted as racists for their comments on Dr. King and Fairy Tales"

Bret...i dont believe anyone actually thinks Billary is racist.

However, that doesn't mean Billary didn't purposely try to make race an issue through those comments and others like it from their campaign.

It doesnt make billary racist. Just makes it incredibly cynical and willing to do anything to win. Even if it means going against your own principles.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 2:05 PM:

Wow, this is a great ad!
Obama's campaign is going to be pushing up "Daisies" because of it.

to wrote on January 23, 2008 2:07 PM:

Bret - Obama did not stand up and deliberately and repeatedly misrepresent what the Clintons said. Other black leaders took issue with the statements because they believed the remarks belittled King's role in the Civil Rights movement. Obama gave the Clintons the benefit of the doubt on that one.

In the case of the Reagan comment, the Clintons are deliberately distorting what was said. That is dishonest.

BBpd wrote on January 23, 2008 2:08 PM:

The more I see how Hillary plans to do this thing, the more I think we could lose the general election afterall. McCain could beat her. Maybe even Romney.

I'm an independent who votes for Demos. Wonder if that might not change over the next few election cycles.

You Hillary backers are allowed your passion for your candidate, but don't underestimate how she comes across to people who are less committed. The point is to get Demos in the WH and Congress in '08.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 2:08 PM:

freaktown:

I know "Billary" is so big and bad and cynical. Unless, of course, it's cynical to believe that they were the ones pushing the race card when Obama's campaign put together a list of those supposed racist remarks.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 2:08 PM:

The people who defend Obama over this statement show themselves to be nothing buyt a bunch of bias partisan idiots.

It is clearly a compliment to call someone the party of ideas. It is also a slap in the face of the Democrats because the implication is that they offered NOTHING during this time period. This was a TERRIBLE choice of words by Obama. He should have made very clear that the Republicans were the party of bad ideas for many years, but at least they offered something new, something that went against the conventional wisdom. If he had said that this would not be an issue. He decided to word it the way it did, and he did so at a time when he was running on a strategy of moblizing Republican and Republican leaning voters to come out and vote for him in rural Nevada. Are we to believe that his choice to express himself in a way that could be interpreted as painting Reagan in a positive light had nothing to do with trying to get those voters out for him.

I am sick and tired of the brainwashed Obama brigade clinging to the ridiculous myth that their man walks on fucking water and that the Clintons are evil for being political. Obama played dirty politics to kick people off the ballot to get into the state senate, he used his ties to Rezko to fund his political career and to help him buy a home he couldn't have otherwise afforded. He has continually shifted his positions on a variety of issues to make himself more electable. I don't have any problem with any of this in and of itself. But when he premises his campaign on the idea he doesn't do these things and that those who do are evil it is enough to make me vomitt. I will never vote for this man because I refuse to be associated with his ignorant cult of followers who are as detached from reality as the idiots who supported George W Bush.

jhv wrote on January 23, 2008 2:08 PM:

I will leave the democratic party if the clintons get this nomination.

i would never have said that two weeks ago.

i'm done with them.

onceler wrote on January 23, 2008 2:08 PM:

as a resident of a safe blue state, for the '08 election, I can and will withhold a vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election. there will be no voting for McCain or Bloomberg or whoever for me, if HRC is the nominee I just won't be pulling the lever for Pres. at this point, morally, I can't justify supporting her. if I lived in a swing state it would be a different matter, but there it is.

JTinSoCal wrote on January 23, 2008 2:08 PM:

Obama said the ideas were bad. Apparently, bad = good, tho. Course the Clinton's may be confused since Obama's a brotha, and bad can mean good in brotha talk.

tinisoli wrote on January 23, 2008 2:09 PM:

"Are you comparing Ronald Raegan [sic] to Hitler?! "

The point, Einstein, is that it would be really stupid to hear someone say "Hitler was an important figure in Europe" and then leap to the conclusion that that person was in fact PRAISING Hitler... just as it is really stupid to listen to Obama's interview and come away thinking that he was praising Ronald Reagan.

Keith wrote on January 23, 2008 2:09 PM:

I'll try to address both "another reader" and "jack frost" in one post, because there seems to be a common theme in their posts. As a practical matter, anyone advancing an alternative interpretation of the plain meaning of Obama's words has the obligation to establish that there intepretation (or spin, in less flattering terms) is more reasonable than the plain meaning. In that regard, I've not been persuade by either of your posts to demonstrate why his plain words mean what you suggest.

So for example, Jack Frost, much of your post asks me to defend YOUR interpretation of his words. With respect to your first point, actually he talked about Reagan transforming thte political landscape before the "party of ideas" but that's neither here nor there. What seems to be at issue here is that it is not something Democrats would want to here. That's probably true. But then kids don't want to hear that Santa Claus isn't real. Or that they won't live forever. Unless or until one is willing to acknowledge reality, no matter how unpalatable, it's hard to really grapple with change. Pretending that Reagan wasn't able to pull over a significant number of Democrats with his rhetoric and political skills, all the while implementing a conservative agenda that was harmful to much of America is just self-delusion. It is what it is. Obama saying so (or not saying so) doesn't change that fact. But again, I appreciate your point.

As to your second point, he certainly was outlining the importance of broaden the appeal of the Democratic base to push through a progressive agenda, hence his reference to Reagan and Kennedy. As to your third point, the transcript demonstrates that he's correct. No reasonable reading of his words supports your claim that he said "good ideas". Anyone arguing otherwise is doing so disingenously and demonstrates an intellectual dishonesty I've only seen in the Bush Administration.
Fourth, not sure how to demonstrate the falsity of your point other than to say, that's not the case. I'd like to believe that I have the intellectual honesty to recognize where I'm allowing my partisanship to get in the way of my ability to recognize the truth of the matter presented. But luckily, Obama hasn't engaged in these types of willful distortion of Senator Clinton's statements to test that hypothesis. When and if he does, we can revisit the question.

Finally another reader, the fact of the matter, ideas is not a zero sum game. By recognizing that Republicans were pushing conventional wisdom with their ideas (seriously getting folks to vote AGAINST their economic interest is pretty damn good trick) doesn't and shouldn't imply that Democrats didn't have ideas. The reality is that during the period to which Obama is referring (roughly 1994 to the present), Democrats did not control the agenda in Washington. Or have folks forgotten that Democrats lost control of Congress during Clinton's presidency?

Hopefully, that's a little clearer--though I suspect it won't.

freaktown wrote on January 23, 2008 2:10 PM:

"Obama's campaign put together a list of those supposed racist remarks."

well you have to know what your opponent is saying about you if you're going to defend yourself against it.

and obama himself said that shouldnt happened so your criticism on this point is not valid.

roo_P wrote on January 23, 2008 2:11 PM:

Brandon said (very reasonably, I feel I must point out):

Heres the thing. Whether you like Obama or not, this is a Republican talking point for sure. Remember when the Republicans used to call Democrats "Intellectually Bankrupt?"

Brandon, I appreciate a real, sensible question and it may be that we will not see eye to eye on this but here is my take, I would like to hear what you think.

The "intellectual bankruptcy" is most definitely something the Republicans said of the Democrats. Absolutely.

I argue that the Democratic establishment, in particular, was intellectually lazy (and still continues to be.) There are some qualifications to this, however:

1. This applies to the advancement of progressive ideas and causes only: there have been some extraordinarily clever ways of making the Democratic party more like the Republican party.

2. The public is also, broadly, extraordinarily lazy and incurious, intellectually. Many are so accustomed to being fed information or misinformation that they do not bother to question anything or research anything.

3. It is not the sole reason for Republican successes and excesses. The historical and demographical undercurrents are a huge part of this*.

4. The netroots and the revibrance of the grass-roots, bottom-up approach were the first signs of new, progressive ideas.

5. The current generation of Democratic establishment is still more reactionary than active, as demonstrated by the Democratic "leadership" in Congress.

6. The "national discussion" is a huge part of this. Even today, although there are dents in the armour, most political discussions take place in a distinctly right-wing alternate reality. For example, we have not been able to make the case that being serious about national security does not mean counting who killed the most brown-skinned people.

7. You must differentiate between the "elite" or "establishment" in both parties. Just like everyday D-identifying people often feel that their elected officials and party regulars do not work in their best interest, there are Is and Rs feeling the exact same way.

8. Generally, the more you push, the more people resist and withdraw. Perhaps the worst legacy of the 90's is the unraveling of what could have become an open discussion between different views.

* For example, the rise of the evangelical movement to where it is now can partially be explained as a counter-cultural reaction to the perceived excesses of the 80's. Ironically, the strongest Republican faction today was really forged in the fire of opposition to the Republican influence of that time.

mostest wrote on January 23, 2008 2:12 PM:

Obama is whining about this ad? Please. How is he going to win the general against the repubs? Ask yourself, what kind of boxer goes into a prize fight without having a
few sparring matches?

Obama is the "look but do not touch" candidate.

freaktown wrote on January 23, 2008 2:14 PM:

"Remember when the Republicans used to call Democrats "Intellectually Bankrupt"

and this relates to Obama how?

Oh. i see. Obama said republicans had ideas, so that means he was callign democrats "intellectually bankrupt".

Yeah. thats not a leap, or a stretch at all...

Now you're claiming obama said things the REPUBLICANS actually said.

Are you working for the clinton campaign by any chance?

stop it wrote on January 23, 2008 2:14 PM:

As a lifelong dem and fem I implore all
of you to please stop. We must support Hillary for the sake of all women nationwide - worlwide. Why would you turn your back on a feminist who really really cares about all of you. If Hillary is not elected it will set us back years. She if the only choice for committed feminists. I realize she herslf set the cause back when she let Bill cheat on her, but we need to reach out to our lord Jesus to forgive Bill.
And when we are all able to do that we will come to Jesus and support Hillary.

Cathy wrote on January 23, 2008 2:15 PM:

Not lies. Not dirty tricks. Obama was not merely pontificating about the history of partisan politics. He was courting a conservative newspaper, reaching republicans, praising their savior, and making a dig at the Clinton presidency while running against his wife. Innocent? No. He stepped in it.

When Clinton ran against his party that's what the active and vibrant left called it: running against his party. When Obama does it, it's some new thinking that will make us popular to republicans.

Hello? This is only slightly different than Bill Clinton '92. We can't expect to "tap into" any fevered rejection of conservatism, we must create it. Create the rejection as Reagan did by condemning government and democratic policies. Hit the philosophy if not practiioners, advocates, or members of the republican party or uncomitted democrats.

Laura wrote on January 23, 2008 2:15 PM:

Long time and Roo P,

Here's the thing: I DO support Obama but I also understand why so many Democrats and Bill/Hillary supporters were offended, not so much by what was said in Obama's interview, but by what some felt was *implied* by Obama's statements.

Bill Clinton's presidency was indeed an "incremental change" presidency, but his accomplishments under the conditions of that time should not be diminished. As with any presidency, the President has to work within the context of prevailing public mood, as well as a huge and complex set of other variables. Bill Clinton did a REMARKABLE job of accomplishing his (admittedly much-adjusted) policy agenda. Seriously. I mean, look at what he was able to accomplish with all the obstacles thrown up by the Gingrich "movement," the ridiculous, relentless special prosecutor fishing expeditions, the right-wing smear-for-entertainment industry (Rush Limbaugh et al) His energy and accomplishments in this atmosphere are nothing short of MIRACULOUS.

I confess I'm not a big fan of Bill Clinton, but his achievements despite the odds deserve admiration, and, dare I say it?--gratitude. His presidency wasn't "transformational," but I see that more as a function of TIMING, not due to Clinton's lack of skill or vision.

Now. I happen to believe Obama meant no offense to Bill Clinton or his supporters, but I think it would be helpful if he would clarify what he DID NOT mean (instead of simply what he did mean) by his remarks. (I know that sounds crazy, but I hope you understand my point.) I think it would go a long way to soothing a lot of wounded Democrats.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 2:16 PM:

freaktown:

"and obama himself said that shouldnt happened so your criticism on this point is not valid."

but before:

"However, that doesn't mean Billary didn't purposely try to make race an issue through those comments and others like it from their campaign."

You say this on no proof, and she said her comments were not racist, so I guess your criticism is not valid either

JTinSoCal wrote on January 23, 2008 2:18 PM:

The counter ad should show Obama saying he rejected those ideas, and Hillary then claiming he said they're good...

Frame Hillary as the liar, she is. People still vividly remember "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," and the finger wagging.

Cathy wrote on January 23, 2008 2:18 PM:

And what is this pathetic strategy the Obama camp is employing? Tattling to reporters about the Clintons?

That's really gotten them somewhere the last few days?

When you know the context of what Obama said in that editorial interview, the meaning becomes clearer.

rgo wrote on January 23, 2008 2:19 PM:

why doesn't ombama just speak in clear language that basically anyone can understand

Bret wrote on January 23, 2008 2:20 PM:

Obama's people pushed the Clintons are racists story. Stop lying for him. They circulated a memo with a list of things they felt would upset the black comminity. Jesse Jackson Jr., who is the co-chair of the Obama campaign, went on tv saying Hillary didn't cry for Katrina, implying she doesn't care about black people. Monday mayor of Atlanta Shirley Franklin repeated the Fairy Tale comment at the MLK address. They are deliberately trying to tell black people not to support Hillary. Stop trying to portray this guy as the second coming. He is a politician just like Hillary. He lied at the debate about Rezko. He has been good friends with this man for over 15yrs. They have had numerous dealings and he said he only did 5hrs of work for him. He blatantly lied.

Mary wrote on January 23, 2008 2:20 PM:

Hillary just turns me off now.

I use to support her but now realize she will never have enough support to govern.

Done with the Clinton machine!!!

adjacent wrote on January 23, 2008 2:21 PM:

http://www.observer.com/2008/hillary-had-reactionary-role-model-too
For those who are scandalized because Obama made a positive comment about R. Reagan, read that link.
Apparently she admires M. Tatcher too. Not that it is anathema for me, I think it is a good thing to learn from your adversaries, but fair is fair.

freaktown wrote on January 23, 2008 2:21 PM:

"You say this on no proof"

"secular madrassa" bob kerrey
"he's a drug dealer" shaheen
"he sold cocaine" mark penn
"MLK wasn't anything without LBJ" hillary
Obama is a "fairy tale" bill

Uh huh...i don't have any proof whatsoever...

Publicus wrote on January 23, 2008 2:21 PM:

Cathy:

Exposing the Clintons as liars, seems like the actual strategy. Not sure how effective it will be with low information voters, but I think the goal is to reach the February 5th audience rather than South Carolinians.

Whatever wrote on January 23, 2008 2:22 PM:

See, Greg, this is where you get in trouble. In an effort to be fair, it appears that you have felt the need to include the following caveat:

"The Hillary ad implies -- without quite stating outright -- that Obama said he favored specific GOP ideas, which he didn't really do, though he did say that the GOP's ideas ran counter to "conventional wisdom." Stay tuned for audio."

Really? So is it fair to hold one Democratic candidate to one standard and another to Democratic candidate to a different standard in the SAME article?

Obama may not have said that the Repbulicans' ideas were good, but he certainly "implied" exactly that to the Right leaning editorial board who ended up endorsing him. He got caught on tape and now he's left with the soundbites out there. Rookie mistake? Sure, but you learn from it and go on. By compounding the mistake by trying to talk around it, he leaves himself open to these kinds of attacks.

Moreover...I wonder what he told the Right Wing editorial board of the SC newsapaper that endorsed him? Hmmm...I wonder if he "implied" anything "off the record" about his opponent? What does this say to fair minded people about Obama as a candidate? Why am I even able to bring up the question about his character? Because he's shown that he's got a remarkable talent for saying the exact thing that a particular group wants to hear...even if he didn't really say it at ... only "implied" it. Sheesh!

In any case, I expect attacks against our candidates from news sources on the right, I expect better from the Left Leaning sites that I frequent. I fail to see where it strengthens the voice of the Left to give Democrats the same treatment that we give Republicans.

If you're gonna hold Hillary to the ridiculous standard of defending her implications, then you should do as much for her opponents. Otherwise, "just the facts, ma'am" is a better policy. Let the kooks fight it out in the comment section, you know we will. You do yourself a disservice by trying to appease the h8ers, because they'll alwasy h8 you. Just do your job and don't start worrying about what someone "implies" stick to reporting what they "said."

JTinSoCal wrote on January 23, 2008 2:24 PM:

Publicus,

Since they're running as a package deal, that's a good strategy. Many people still remember Bill's baggage...

Joe Taylor wrote on January 23, 2008 2:24 PM:

'Swift Boat Willie' and company are doing what they do best; divide and conquer. It is all about them, not about us, and certainly not about America.

michael wrote on January 23, 2008 2:25 PM:

I'm really turned off by Obama and his followers attitude that he is immune from any sort of criticism. This holier-than-thou stance doesn't stand up to scrutiny and really makes me wonder if he might wilt when going up against the Republicans. He's accountable for his words and actions.

Let's face it, he was pandering to the right wing in Nevada, in hopes of getting an endorsement from the Reno Gazette. That's all well and good, that's how you play the game. He got the endorsement and it came back to bite him. I get the feeling that when it comes to campaigning he's got a glass jaw. He should stop the Bob Dole '88 "stop lying about my record" schtick and start thinking about Feb. 5.

Mike wrote on January 23, 2008 2:26 PM:

It will be impossibe to counter the Clintons lies. There are too many of them.

Hell I'm a democrat but I hated it when Bill wagged his finger in my face and lied to me on national tv.

Slimy to the max.

Matthew wrote on January 23, 2008 2:26 PM:

I think this video -- and some of the discussions -- highlight why Obama will fail to get the nomination. Consider a few simple points: (1) He has alienated the 60-70% people who support and believe in Bill Clinton, even while he was being impeached, (2) Even worse, he has gotten tarred with saying Republicans were the party of ideas and that Reagan was good, (3) While he may pull in a high majority of Black voters in the primary, this is of limited long-term value as they will vote Democrat regardless of the who is the candidate (Especially if it is a Clinton who has a long successful history with the Black community), (4) He has potential corruption issues with Rezko, indirect association with Farrakhan, and who knows what else will come out, (5) He has a reputation, however fair or not, of making Present votes rather than defendable Yes/No votes, and (6) Just got caught lying about his health care position. And the list could go on.

Now, it may be very true from the many posts here and elsewhere that the bloggers won't vote for Hillary but give us a break, you count in the thousands and are far more vocal than your numbers will ever mean at the ballot box. This is why the polls are so screwed up this year as perspective is lost. What about the other 99% of the country? Even now in South Carolina, the focus is on Black voters. What about the other 50% of the Democratic party in the state? Granted this is not necessarily Obama's doing, but what does it say if he wins with a bare majority?

Anyway, as I noted earlier and as many folks are already recognizing, this video is incredibly damaging to Obama. If not in South Carolina, then definitely in the rest of the country, especially Super Tuesday.

Personally, I see more of these coming out and everyone's extreme reactions won't change it, nor make them less valid and impacting. Hillary, as with any serious candidate, will use this to drive a stake through her opponent. Sadly for many of you, its Obama.

jenniestarrish wrote on January 23, 2008 2:27 PM:

OH Geez....why doesn't TPM print the whole sentence at least?????
This is not much better than Hillary's intentional misrepresentations of Obama's remarks. I am so disapoointed with TPM. I have read Josh almost from the very beginning, since the Florida debacle. His site is changing too much.

Obama's whole sentence:
(Is that too much to ask????)

I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10-15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom.

Common Sense wrote on January 23, 2008 2:27 PM:

rgo:

the only people that seem to misunderstand him are supporters of his political rivals. Go and figure.

MO Blue wrote on January 23, 2008 2:29 PM:

I think Obama's best response to this tactic would be to show a clip in the actual interview where he stated that the Republican's ideas were bad ideas that were harmful to the country.

That would stop tactics like these immediately.

another reader wrote on January 23, 2008 2:30 PM:

freaktown:

I'll respond to the only two I think need any clarification:

"MLK wasn't anything without LBJ" hillary

She apologized and clarified just like Obama should do about these statements instead of whining to the press.

Obama is a "fairy tale" bill

His war opposition in the Senate was the fairy tale. Explained a million times by the Clintons. But, of course, twist the words to mean what you want just like you complain Hillary is doing in this ad. Nice. Are all Obama supporters hypocrites or just you?

DemUnity08 wrote on January 23, 2008 2:31 PM:

To those of you who don't think that Obama's Reagan comments were a gaffe, I would ask you:

How would Republicans have responded if one of their own, on the eve of the South Carolina primary, had announced that "Bill Clinton was a transformational leader ... the Democrats have been the party of ideas for the past 10-15 years" or some such. They would have eaten him alive.

Obama shouldn't be giving polysci lectures on subtle aspects of political history in the midst of a fierce primary campaign in which he is trying to win the votes of Democrats. He needs to learn message discipline quick.

N.S. wrote on January 23, 2008 2:33 PM:

I was in for Clinton 100%.

But their "style" of winning is leaving me cold.

I have decided to switch my vote
to Obama

He will be able to move the country forward, while the Clintons would only be able to fight with their past.

For the Clintons it's only about them.
For Obama it's about the country.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 2:34 PM:

"His war opposition in the Senate was the fairy tale"

yeah...beign against the wr from before it began is a real fairy tale.

and because he voted to fund our troops in harms way, he's somehow pro-war? well hillary voted the exact same way so where does she get off criticizing him for funding the war?

talk about hypocritical...

JTinSoCal wrote on January 23, 2008 2:34 PM:

MO,

That seems to be the trap. The Clinton's biggest drawback were the lies.. Obama has to take on Bill at some point. There's no way around it and Bill has pushed the fight. Ironic how Clinton supporters say they want a fighter, and then when Obama fights back they call him a whiner. Talk about a double standard.

Rebecca wrote on January 23, 2008 2:34 PM:

I am also swithing to Obama.

dynasysman wrote on January 23, 2008 2:34 PM:

Billary '08...she cries, he whines, they both lie...

Given how fast and lose they are playing with truth and decency now, can anyone believe anything they say about their Presidency?

tinisoli wrote on January 23, 2008 2:36 PM:

BTW, here's a nice rundown over the "Obama lie" about his stance on single-payer health insurance:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/mochila.php?articleId=12039845&channelId=76&buyerId=talkingpointsmemo_com400732&buid=866

anyonecandothis wrote on January 23, 2008 2:37 PM:

I think I'll just post a bunch of times something along the lines of:

"I'm switching to Hillary"

or,

"If Obama, gets the nomination, I'm voting Rebpublican"

If you can't debate, whine! Go Obama, right!?

roo_P wrote on January 23, 2008 2:38 PM:

Cathy et al.,

The Reno Gazette-Journal is not a "conservative" paper. Obvious falsehoods do your argument no good.

Publicus wrote on January 23, 2008 2:39 PM:

Another Reader:

Unless I missed something, actually Clinton never apologized for the confusion of the MLK/LBJ flap. She just changed the statement at the next campaign event and then blamed Obama for distorting her words.

On the fairy tale, Obama never made an argument about or even acknowledged the comment. What you are referring to are comments from folks like Donna Brazille and James Clyburn. And frankly, the Clintons were lying about that as well, but I'm sure that's neither here nor there to you.

trenton wrote on January 23, 2008 2:40 PM:

This is ridiculous, if Democrats nominate Hillary and give us a McCain presidency then you get what you deserve I guess. Americans in general get what they deserve for being so goddamn ignorant about the issues and about their potential candidates. It is just unfortunate that the intelligent Democrats and the whole rest of the world have to suffer because there are so many stupid people, on both sides of the aisle, in this country.

If Hillary wins the nomination I'm going to switch to Independent before the first general election ad flies, I won't be associated with such liars and fools.

JTinSoCal wrote on January 23, 2008 2:42 PM:

Hillary's running on lies and false hope.

another reader wrote on January 23, 2008 2:44 PM:

"On the fairy tale, Obama never made an argument about or even acknowledged the comment."

I was responding to the quote because of an accusation that the Clintons were pushing the race card. I didn't say Obama had anything to do with it, just his supporters.

"And frankly, the Clintons were lying about that as well, but I'm sure that's neither here nor there to you."

and I'm sure you have proof of that...

Long Time Democrat wrote on January 23, 2008 2:46 PM:

Clinton Radio Ad On Obama's "GOP Party Of Ideas" Remark
By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:01:43 PM EST
Tags: (all tags) Share This:

TPM again distorts this critique of Obama. Here is the text of the ad:
VOICE-OVER: “Listen to Barack Obama last week talking about Republicans.

BARACK OBAMA: “The Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years.”

VO: “Really? Aren’t those the ideas that got us into the economic mess we’re in today? Ideas like special tax breaks for Wall Street. Running up a $9 trillion debt. Refusing to raise the minimum wage or deal with the housing crisis. Are those the ideas Barack Obama’s talking about?”

BO: “The Republicans were the party of ideas.”

VO: Hillary Clinton thinks this election is about replacing disastrous Republican ideas with new ones, like jump-starting the economy. Putting an immediate freeze on foreclosures and mortgages. Cutting taxes for the middle class. And creating millions of new jobs. With the economy in crisis, we need a president with the ideas, the solutions that get our economy working for all of us. Hillary Clinton. Solutions for America.

TPM says Clinton implies Obama supported these GOP policies. TPM is wrong. The ad properly points out that Obama did not express any criticism of the GOP ideas. That is the problem. Obama's failure to speak out against these ideas. And this is not new. Obama has been a unity schtick candidate the entire campaign. The reason this ad works is precisely because Obama's has not been a partisan Dem campaign. Will he speak out now? Yes, because the Clintons are scoring points on him. That, my friends, is politics. TPM continues to distort this issue.

http://www.talkleft.com/

Jack Frost wrote on January 23, 2008 2:47 PM:

Ok, thanks for your response- but I guess we (unlike many of the other posters) disagree on an honest basis rather than vitriolic hatred of a candidate...

I see your point on Obama saying what was the case "that reagan had transformed the political landscape" and whatnot( according to him) eventhough he may ( or may not ) have known thats not what democrats would like to hear in a primary season. I can only agree with that if I really and truly believed he was harmlessly stating what he thought was "history" rather than purposefully inserting something about Bill Clinton in there... the Bill Clinton remark wasn't necessary. If he had not mentioned the Clintons then I think his argument would be only refutable on the grounds of whether you believe in his view or not.

Secondly, I never claimed that he said "good" ideas.. other people have- I know, i know he said "ideas" only- but in the context of everything (Bill Clinton insertion included) it sounds as though he was seeking a reaction from the Clinton camp. AND it whether or not it is an accurate depiction of history the last 10-15 years its a strange time to give republicans credit for even having "ideas"- You see, democrats would and could argue that Bill Clinton DID have ideas and they were better... but we'll just disagree on that

and lastly, I still hold that if Hillary had said this Obama supporters would have destroyed her for it which is not a Republican thing to do but a politician thing to do.

Jan wrote on January 23, 2008 2:47 PM:

To piggyback on this comment by Bret:
"Why weren't you this passionate when Hillary and Bill were painted as racists for their comments on Dr. King and Fairy Tales?"

Yes, why?
The Clintons were painted as racists by the OBAMA campaign: "Some people" thought the comments were misguided and unfortunate.

MLK = Inspiration
LBJ = Legislation
THAT's "misguided" and "unfortunate"?
Gag.

The very first racist comment I heard in this campaign was from Chris Rock, with Obama standing next to him.

CR said that, before blacks vote, they should think about waking up the day after the election asking themselves, "Why did I vote for The White Woman when I could have voted for The Black Guy?"

Starting with The White Women in New Hampshire, The White Women have now been asking themselves, "Why should I vote for The Black Guy when I can vote for The White Woman?"

Obama has been divisive.

And, again, if Obama's campaign is based on a PROMISE to bring us all together, why is HE the one being divisive?

Because he obviously does NOT have the leadership skills to bring this country together, as promised. Therefore, the entire premise of his campaign is a sham.

Clinton never promised to bring us together.
She promised to be ready to be President on Day 1.
It appears that quite a number of people actually believe she can keep HER campaign promise, including Clinton Haters.

Obama should learn not to promise what he cannot deliver.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 2:49 PM:

LongTimeDemocrat:

talk left is a hillary backing blog so you can't take what they say there credibly.

you wouldnt take something off a pro-obama blog and expect it to be treated as objective would you?

Jack Frost wrote on January 23, 2008 2:50 PM:

Keith,

(sorry for double posting)

Jack Frost wrote on January 23, 2008 2:47 PM:
Ok, thanks for your response- but I guess we (unlike many of the other posters) disagree on an honest basis rather than vitriolic hatred of a candidate...

I see your point on Obama saying what was the case "that reagan had transformed the political landscape" and whatnot( according to him) eventhough he may ( or may not ) have known thats not what democrats would like to hear in a primary season. I can only agree with that if I really and truly believed he was harmlessly stating what he thought was "history" rather than purposefully inserting something about Bill Clinton in there... the Bill Clinton remark wasn't necessary. If he had not mentioned the Clintons then I think his argument would be only refutable on the grounds of whether you believe in his view or not.

Secondly, I never claimed that he said "good" ideas.. other people have- I know, i know he said "ideas" only- but in the context of everything (Bill Clinton insertion included) it sounds as though he was seeking a reaction from the Clinton camp. AND it whether or not it is an accurate depiction of history the last 10-15 years its a strange time to give republicans credit for even having "ideas"- You see, democrats would and could argue that Bill Clinton DID have ideas and they were better... but we'll just disagree on that

and lastly, I still hold that if Hillary had said this Obama supporters would have destroyed her for it which is not a Republican thing to do but a politician thing to do.

onceler wrote on January 23, 2008 2:51 PM:

wow, no shortage of historical revisionists here, either. no, dumb-asses, the Obama camp did not make complaints about race post-Hillary's unfortunate comments about MLK, JFK and LBJ, that was James Clyburn, the Houses's most powerful/senoir African American, and a hero of the civil rights movement. he said the Clintons needed to be careful, and as soon as he said it, a LOT of people who had been holding their breath waiting to comment about it, let her have it for saying something speicifically designed to ignite a racially-tinged argument. that's how it happened, you don't get to choose your own facts.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 2:52 PM:

longtimedemocrat:

and talkleft also claimed that the not-so-testy exchange with the reporter, was in fact, testy.

and they did that while having the same video that they have here that disproves that claim.

clearly not credible.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 2:56 PM:

"something speicifically designed to ignite a racially-tinged argument"

so you get to choose your own facts?

freeman wrote on January 23, 2008 2:59 PM:

Amazing that in a triumphant primary, that could be a referendum on the Bush failures and a welcoming of a new time in American politics (in any number of ways) the Clintons can't help but throw mud and treat Barack Obama like an enemy.

It seems that questioning the Clintons is, in their eyes, all it takes to sound like a Republican.

Ironic that the Clintons were the poster children for governing as centrists. Her way to keep the spotlight off of her own record is to lie and misrepresent Obama's words.

It's embarrassing for the Democratic Party. If there was any further evidence that the GOP Attack Machine is a myth, this is it. They haven't beaten us... we've beaten ourselves. Just. Like. This.

lifelongvoter wrote on January 23, 2008 3:00 PM:

THIS IS IT!!! THE CLINTONS ARE DESPICABLE. I DO NOT HOW A CAMPAIGN COULD RESPOND TO THIS EXCEPT TO REPEAT AS OFTEN AS ANYONE WILL LISTEN, "THE CLILNTONS LIE. THEY LIED TROUGHOUT THE 90'S and they are lying to you now. They will lie in the future. They are not honorable. They are not trustworthy. They will campaign one way and govern another. Please some pictures of Hillary and Bush, BC and papa Bush. I know that may D's have said they will tow the party line and vote for H if she is the nominee. I wonder if these folks are younger than me, I am in my 50's. I have watched the D's do this to themselves time and time again. Every Dem should publicly denounce this campaign of misinformation. If she uses such misinformation now imagine if she really wanted something, like a war for starters. Know that I was a major BC supporter until about 2003 when their behavior in the primary was also despicable. My reaction to H is visceral...I cannot stand her. Sad part is I cannot even get excited about local D. A party that stands by while this campaign of misinformation is being waged is no party for me.

Laura wrote on January 23, 2008 3:01 PM:

Keith,

I apreciate all the work you put into your post @2:09 pm addressing "anotherreader" and "jackfrost." You make some good points, but may I offer something a completely different?

As with Clinton's MLK/LJB arguments, I similarly keep reading aguments as to "WHO IS RIGHT?" and the picking over and discussion of what was said versus the intent.

I end up wondering if we're missing the point (both Clinton and Obama camps). I'm not as concerned about proving who is right as I am about understanding why folks are offended.

Now, I have to admit that I firmly believe the offense people have taken in both instances is sincere, not manufactured. Based on that belief, I think it's far more constructive to try to understand where that offense comes from and try to speak to it.

I believe many Democrats and Bill/Hillary supporters were offended, not so much by what was said in Obama's interview, but by what some felt was *implied* by Obama's statements. In all honesty, if I were a Clinton supporter, I probably would have been offended too.

As I said in an earlier post (see 2:15 pm), I confess I'm not a big fan of Bill Clinton, but his achievements despite the odds (Gingrich, Ken Starr, Limbaugh, et al) deserve admiration, and, dare I say it?--gratitude. His presidency wasn't "transformational," but I see that more as a function of TIMING, not due to Clinton's lack of skill or vision.

If Obama (and his supporters) show some respect for where this offense comes from, I think it would go a long way toward soothing a lot of this in-fighting.

Likewise, with the MLK/LBJ fight, I think if Clintons and their supporters would have focused less on trying to prove why the opposition was "wrong" for being offended and more on trying to understand and speak to WHY people were offended, I think it would have been a lot more effective, and I think we would have avoided some of the continued grudge-holding.

Usually, we ALL want our views to be RESPECTED...whether people agree with our views or not, don't we? We don't need or want people telling us why we don't have a "right" to feel offended. That's not useful. It really accomplishes nothing, unless your real goal is to always be right. Seems like it diminishes all of us, too.

Then again, maybe I should change my name to Pollyanna and go back to ignoring politics.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 3:02 PM:

onceler So are you saying that Hillary said that on purpose? She wanted people to call her racist and lose her black support? I think your are the one revisiting history. She was saying, rightly so, that you have to have the right president at the right time to help bring about real change. She didn't take anything away from MLK.

Brandon wrote on January 23, 2008 3:03 PM:

roo-P:

Thanks for responding.

As a totally frustrated Democrat, I see where you are coming from. I threw a fit when I saw the Dems' 2007 Energy Bill and just how watered down it was in the final version. That was a huge disappointment.

To be honest, I'm not sure there is a member of either political party who is ever really satisfied with the progress their elected officials are making. Right now, the Republicans seem more frustrated than ever and I'd argue they were actually very successful in stopping a lot of progressive policies last year.

But to respond to your idea that, indeed, the Democrats did lack ideas, I think there is more to it. You were saying that Democrats were a lot more focused on how to triangulate and look like Republicans to gain votes. You also point out that the recent surge in real progressive ideas is the result of a liberal grassroots movement. Finally, you say that the current Dems in Congress are too reactionary to propose new ideas.

I still think Dems had some great ideas over the past 10 years, I think you've proven why we don't hear much about them. Dems suffer from a complete inability to market their policies. Marketing the triangulation was easy because Republicans had written the playbook for us. Grassroots progressives are using the Internet and new media to market ideas in a way politicians STILL don't fully understand. And current Congressional Dems are actually the same Dems from 10 years ago, so they still lack the tools to market their policies, they just react to Republican ideas instead.

Think of all the progressive efforts that Democrats have attempted in the past and how they have failed miserably in out-marketing the Republicans on these efforts: Hillary's first health care reform, allowing openly gay people to join the military, changing environmental laws to emphasize ecosystems over individual resources, curtailing gun ownership, etc.

We did win some big victories over the period that Obama said Dem's had no ideas. The Americans With Disabilities Act, Title VII, the revised Clean Air Act, the Roadless Rule, and a tax policy emphasizing middle class wealth rather than top-down economics.

I think the Dem's had good ideas over the past 10-12 years. They just didn't package them as well as the Republicans (i.e. no "Contract With America"). When Obama suggests there weren't good ideas, it insults the hard work and initiative of a lot of great people in the Democratic party who believed deeply in making change.

I think he should speak better of his own party. You can say that Dems need to better market their ideas, but to suggest they just didn't have any is wrong. It is discouraging to me that people on this comment board, roo-P excluded, are taking the side of their respective choice for the nomination, rather than having some perspective on this. Whether someone likes Obama or not, I think its reasonable to say he made a comment that was misleading and its only natural that his opponent would seize on that opportunity.

But we were successful with some

Pdiddy wrote on January 23, 2008 3:08 PM:

Poll shows Obama leading in SC, but -

"[Zogby] said the race in South Carolina still showed some fluidity. About 14 percent of voters in the state are undecided, and about 20 percent of voters backing a candidate say they could still change their mind"

Shades of New Hampshire?
Bradley effect?

Stevie forte wrote on January 23, 2008 3:08 PM:

This is pure hypocrisy. The Clintons are the embodiment of stolen GOP ideas a la St. Ronnie with exception of not speaking ill of fellow party members.

She'll get in and triangulate till the cows come home. Hillary is just a DLC hack.

sadie wrote on January 23, 2008 3:11 PM:

I'm a Democratic Party Activist who has worked hard to get Democrats elected to all levels of office. And I agree 100% with Obama. Would those, like Hillary who rely on funds from corporate elites to get elected like to tell all of us who worked tirelessly to turn our state true Blue in Oregon in 2006, and who worked tirelessly across the country to turn Congress blue through grass roots organization that we have NOT been fighting against the Replublican ideas for all of these years?

Obama's point was that we need to stop thinking like an Elephant and start possitioning our main stream progressive values and our party as the right ideas to vote for. Of course Hillary hates that message because it is true and it hurts her campaign to admit that her experience has been as a horse trader.

How can one argue that people have been voting against their own best interests and instead for the Republican ideas? In 2004, everybody who voted for Bush was voting for Republican ideas and against their best interests. During the Reagan years, Reagan won all but 13 of the possible electoral votes in his re-election bid because overwhelmingly, people were voting against their best interests and for the Republican ideas.

You cannot win just because your ideas are the right ideas! If simply being right was enough we wouldn't have the inequalities we do in this nation. Unless we can effectively inspire the people to vote for the right ideas and for their best interests, we will not be able to pass a progressive agenda.

The Clinton campaign is flat out misrepresenting the point of what Obama has said because if they allow us folks who make up the electorate of the Democratic Party to ask ourselves how will we bring about change - through horse trading that brings us NAFTA, DOMA, and DADT, along with media consolidation and other horrifying policies that are contrary to our progressive values? Or through expanding our base, and being the party of ideas that the people are voting for?

The Clintons effectively made liberal a bad word to the electorate - Obama promises not to make the same mistakes with the word and ideas behind progressivism.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 3:23 PM:

the truth of the matter is Oblapie uttered the words, much to his chagrin he handed Hilliary the carpet beater to dust his ass with.
I'd be mad too if I were that stupid, but then again when your that ignorant you deserve what you get and right now he would give anything not to have uttered those words.

I wonder what he was thinking as he uttered those words. Oh Boy did I just win the repukeagain primary all on my own??

Its going to be murder at the Mason Dixon Line folks and unfortunately Hilliary will be blamed for the Asterix after Oblapies name.

Oblapie Poster child of the Month. How to insert foot using both hands

Lyn wrote on January 23, 2008 3:23 PM:

Obama responds:

I'm Barack Obama.

During the course of the 2008 presidential campaign, you will hear some of my opponents try to misrepresent and mis-characterize my record and my words. This is the tried and true tactic used by politicians who are afraid to run on the merits of their own records and ideas. This is what brought us eight years of George W. Bush and is responsible for much of the rancor that makes it impossible to get anything done in Washington. If you want to know how a candidate will perform in office, take a look at how they run their campaign. A candidate who is willing to play fast and loose with the truth during a campaign isn't likely to stop when they attain high office.

This year we have a rare opportunity to change politics as usual. We have the opportunity to move away from the deceitful politics of division we are used to, toward a new politics focused on strengthening America by recognizing our common bonds and working together to address the serious problems that face us in the coming months and years. If you want real change - not more of the same wrapped in a pretty new package - vote for me, Barack Obama, for president in 2008. I approved this message.

Robert Michelson wrote on January 23, 2008 3:26 PM:

I agree with John McC near the top of this comment list: I used to say I'd vote for Clinton if she ended up as the party's nominee. No longer. I will NOT vote for this lying sliming smearing do-anything-to-get-elected individual. If she's the nominee I will relish her loss in the general.

ralph wrote on January 23, 2008 3:27 PM:

This does a pretty good job at exposing Clinton-style hypocrisy:

http://donklephant.com/2008/01/20/the-hill-bill-show-gets-exposed-on-meet-the-press/

Robin wrote on January 23, 2008 3:31 PM:

From factcheck.org, here's what Obama said:
"Obama (Jan. 14, 2008): The Republican approach has played itself out. I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you've heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they're being debated among the presidential candidates, it's all tax cuts. Well, we know, we've done that; we've tried it. That's not really going to solve our energy problems, for example."

Each and every day I'm becoming more and more sorry I ever voted for Bill Clinton. I'm feeling the fool for voting for him twice and defending him during impeachment.

Hillary's hiding behind his.....his....necktie? What, she can't defend herself? She has to send her husband out to smear dirt so she can claim to be clean?

It's disgraceful. Lies and distortions.

The Clintons don't own the Democratic Party. The Clintons have no God-given right to the White House.

I'm disgusted by both Bill and Hillary Clinton.

laughingallthewaytofeb5 wrote on January 23, 2008 3:32 PM:

"A candidate who is willing to play fast and loose with the truth during a campaign isn't likely to stop when they attain high office."

Just like he did when questioned on Rezko. Just like he did when he said he never supported single payer health care? Hahahaha. His entire candidacy has proven to be a sham.

Independent wrote on January 23, 2008 3:35 PM:

Brandon,

Good post. I'm sure there have been some good Democratic ideas, but the Democrats have had a lot of trouble making them mainstream or getting Americans excited about them. Even in 2006, it can be argued that Democrats won not because of their ideas, but because they were the only real alternative to Republicans.

You have a great point about marketing, and I think that's what Obama was getting at. For the first time in a generation, there is a Democrat who has the ability to get Americans excited about progressive ideas.

The Clintons know this, and they know they can't compete on this front (although I'm sure Bill wishes he could). So rather than say "we'd like to sell progressive ideas too!" they point their fingers and yell "repuglican!"

gcs wrote on January 23, 2008 3:36 PM:

There is no way in bloody hell this independent will ever vote for you, not holding my nose, not to keep a Republican out of the White House, not for any reason whatsoever
COPY OF EMAIL I JUST SENT TO THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN. NOT THAT ANYONE WILL READ IT, OR EVEN CARE -

Your despicable, sickening, politics as usual BS you're pulling on Obama in South Carolina makes my skin crawl. You know absolutely that Obama was not praising Reagan when he made his comments, but you've got nothing else do you? No ideas, nothing but the same old lies and distortions, right? Hell, you've been in politics so long I bet you can't tell the truth from a lie anyway.

You cannot and will not beat John McCain. Rove doesn't even have to make up new charges against you - just recycle the same ones from '92, with the added bonus of being able to say, "There must be something to these charges, after all they've been around for 16 years."

Realpolitiker wrote on January 23, 2008 3:40 PM:

Every politician who has ever lived has lied and distorted to maintain power and to implement policy. The only thing to do is vote for the politician who can best implement the policies you want. If Hillary needs to lie and twist arms to get us a healthcare plan that works, I am fine with that.

Those who are overly concerned with getting someone NICE in office are children. Who cares if our leaders are nice? I just want them to get good stuff done.

Would you rather your politician be nice or effective?

Unfortunately in a world of high-stakes, high-power, high-money politics, these two things are mutually exclusive.

UpFromTheSkies wrote on January 23, 2008 3:41 PM:

The Clintons are and have always been for the Clintons. They are out for themselves and their own power. They are wonderful politicians and political maneuverers and strategists. But they are not progressives. I'm beginning to question whether they are even true Democrats or whether they want a party of their own. I don't remember the level of nastiness and mud slung by one candidate against another the way I have seen Hillary and Bill Clinton sling against Obama, day-after-day. And I'm not even an Obama supporter. I would have liked to have seen someone like Kucinich win the nomination or Edwards. But the Clintons have completely turned me off, now and forever. Hillary could do handstands and somersaults in the General Election but I will not give her an ounce of support. Instead, I'll do what I can to get liberal candidates voted in to the Senate and House.

leftdcin72 wrote on January 23, 2008 3:45 PM:

It's a shame that Obama has not summed up his Reagan statements by asserting that Reagan had bad ideas and the point is that the Clintons have no ideas except ideas which advance their petty and personal careerist ambitions. That is the point is it not? The social utility quotient of the Clintons is negative and that is what joins the Clintons with Reagan at the hip.

frankly0 wrote on January 23, 2008 3:48 PM:

"Obama did not, in that context, repudiate those ideas."

Except that, YES HE DID!!!!!

He called them "played out" and said "we've tried that and it failed".

Did you not read what I had argued? Saying that ideas are "played out" is NOT the same as they were bad at the time they were actually implemented. In this key sense, he is NOT repudiating the ideas as inherently bad, bad even at the time in which they were implemented -- and yet that is what any reasonable progressive actually believes.

And Obama did not even bring himself to say something as direct and confrontative as "we've tried that and it failed". He said merely that "we've done that, we tried it." The only specific problem he mentioned that the Republican approach wasn't going to "solve" was the energy problem. And in any case he most certainly did not say anything to the effect that they were obviously bad ideas from the get-go, as any progressive believes.

liz wrote on January 23, 2008 3:51 PM:

Fake southern accent included. PresiDENT Cuttin taxes... I hear it and most of the people in South Carolina don't talk like that.

Matthew wrote on January 23, 2008 3:56 PM:

Pdiddy, it won't be a "Bradley effect" that does in Obama. It will be his own inexperience, especially against a grown-up like Clinton. As we are already see, Obama is simply outclassed in the campaign. And, if you think this is bad, just wait until the GE.

Independent wrote on January 23, 2008 3:56 PM:

Realpolitiker:

We've seen what happens when you have a president who can't make a case without using half-truths and lies. I'm sick of being lied to by my president, and I'd rather not have another four years of it.

ralph:

Good post. From the link in your post:

The Democrats have to have ideas to win. We are MIA, missing in action on national security and have no positive plan for America’s domestic future.

- Bill Clinton, 2002

Can we put this to rest now?

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 3:58 PM:

Apparently Hillary Clinton just LOVED some of those Republican ideas during the last 10 or 15 years. She voted to give George Bush a blank check on the Iraq war, saying she would "take the President at his word" in her speech on the Senate floor while other TRUE Democrats like Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer were saying that we cannot trust the Bush Administration on their attempted justifications for the war in Iraq. Hillary Clinton loved Joseph Lieberman's bill to declare the Iranian Republican Guard a terrorist organization. In an earlier bill, Senate bill S 970, which Hillary co-sponsored (and Obama also co-sponsored) there was language prohibiting the President from using the declaration that the Republican Guard are a terrorist organization as a pretext to use military action in Iran. There was NO SUCH LANGUAGE in the later bill authored by Joseph Lieberman tying the President's hands. And Hillary glady voted for it, compounding her mistake on the IWR, because the IWR also mentioned fighting an international war on terrorism as its focus. I think Hillary has just adored many Republican ideas.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 3:59 PM:

Okay, big party of ideas, big candidates full of ideas - here's a great idea.

Quit debating MLK and Reagan and get back to Washington and filibuster FISA.

http://act.credomobile.com/campaign/wiretapping08

And fire Harry Reid - Nevada's over, you don't need him anymore, and he looks terrible in that Republican-shaded apron.

Bipartisanship? These MFers are about to ram retroactive immunity up our asses just to say they could. Neither experience or hope will make that any less painful or embarrassing.

Laura wrote on January 23, 2008 4:00 PM:

Realpolitiker,

You're betting that Hillary will be best at implementing policy? Why?

JR wrote on January 23, 2008 4:01 PM:

No disrespect to Sen. Kerry but if there's any chance Al Gore will endorse Obama, please do it NOW. Even better if he'd do a little campaigning. It could mean a tremendous deal in 2/5 states like California and, yes, New York. Al Gore certainly surpasses Bill Clinton in moral stature.

I'm increasingly worried that the Clintons are ripping their party apart. There are too many of us - good liberals - whose consciences simply don't allow us to hand the White House back to the Clintons, especially with their present method of campaigning. Al Gore may not step in to run, but he could help hold the party together.

Desider wrote on January 23, 2008 4:01 PM:

Yeah, that was me

Zugernaut wrote on January 23, 2008 4:07 PM:

No way am I voting for Hillary Clinton. I sure as hell won't Republican, so I guess I won't vote at all. And I know a lot of other people who feel the same way.

It pains me to not vote Democrat, especially given what a disaster Chimpy has been for this country, but we have to be rid of these people, both the Bushes and the Clintons.

Castigate me all you want, but I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. Please give me a Democrat I can support.

Matthew wrote on January 23, 2008 4:11 PM:

Okay Zugernaut: "I guess I won't vote at all." Fine, you and your like-minded friends here all stay home and fume while thre other 99.9% of the Democratic party votes for the next president.

Desider wrote on January 23, 2008 4:11 PM:

Zugernaut,

You can support Chris Dodd and his filibuster -

http://act.credomobile.com/campaign/wiretapping08

If all the candidates are this good at blabbing on and on, they can each spare 8 hours to repeat their campaign pitches in an empty hall for a good purpose. Back to Washington, the lot of you.

dolphingirl wrote on January 23, 2008 4:14 PM:

I am a black woman who is an Obama supporter. At the beginning of the primaries I felt that no matter who won, I would support the nominee in the general election. However, now I am beginning to really dislike Hillary Clinton and do not see myself supporting her if she is the nominee. I believe that they (the Clinton's) are tearing the Democratic party apart right now and it may not be repaired in time for the general election. It's not that they are challenging Obama's record, it's their tone, it's getting very nasty. She may win the nomination, but can she win the general election without the support of people like me? No, I do not want another Republican in office, but damn she's making it harder and harder for me to vote for her.

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

Realpolitiker,

Again, why do you suppose Hillary will be the best at implementing policy.

All you seem to be doing is setting up a false assumption that a politician is EITHER "nice" OR "effective."

I keep seeing variations of this theme repeated by Clinton supporters. It just doesn't make sense. At all.

The person who will be most effective in implementing policy agendas would logically be the person who can build large majority coalitions.

ILLOGICAL: the candidate with the highest negatives, even within her own party, is the effective one because she's the scrappy, savvy, lying politician

ILLOGICAL: the candidate who tries to act nice and invite the others (the horrible, hated enemies) to join a progressive movement is just too NICE to be effective. Nice is bad. We must stay invested in our ANGER, DAMMIT!!!! We need someone who will continue and pay service to our beloved grudge.

Zugernaut wrote on January 23, 2008 4:18 PM:

Matthew,

Keep dreaming.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 4:23 PM:

Illogical: to chose the candidate who waxes poetic about hope and a new day in politics, but shows through lies about rezko and single payer health insurance, that there is no new day, only an extended day of the same 'ol politics.

Desider wrote on January 23, 2008 4:26 PM:

Laura, while you're opening your arms to "the others (the horrible, hated enemies)" we're about to pass FISA unreformed with retroactive immunity thrown in for free.

What is your solution? Roll over? Beg? Pray? Hope? Oh wait, let me check what I'm wearing to see if I deserved it.

The candidates with the highest negatives are the Republicans, and we're letting them win time and time again without even a fight. And we're worried people might think we're too partisan? Isn't this the most asinine thing in the world? Shouldn't we at least call a shrink?

You know, Genghis Khan was at the gates today, and I was thinking we really should be more open to his ideas, after all, he's taken most of Asia, so he must be doing something right.

ScanDroid wrote on January 23, 2008 4:28 PM:

I'm sorry, but I've never seen a bigger group of whining pansies in my life!

Apparently Obama's whining at the debate is a craze sweeping the nation.

Apparently, a lot of us are too young to remember what a tough democratic primary looks like. Well, here it is. "Oh my heavens, Hillary is using Barack's own words against him to question how progressive his ideas are! Beyond the pale! Burn the witch!"

Puh-lease. Where were you guys when Obama's campaign was passing around talking points in SC pushing that racial crap? Where were you when his co-chair went on national tv and asked why Hillary didn't cry over Katrina? Where were you when the union backing Obama in NV did the "Hillary does not respect the Latino people" ad? (Btw, both Clinton and Edwards demanded he renounce this travesty of an ad, and there was silence.)

God people, get your heads out of the Obama-sand and realize that no one's running a squeeky-clean, sunshine and rainbows campaign! Its rough all round.

Zugernaut wrote on January 23, 2008 4:28 PM:

With Hillary's negatives, she has zero margin for error in the fall. But she's now turned off so many Democrats that even a few percentage points of them stay at home she could well lose.

Yeah, most of those complaining now will return to the fold, but how many (like me) will not? I can't bear the thought of the Republicans in charge yet again, but I can't see how she's any better.

And this dynastic insanity has to stop. This is not Alabama. This is not a banana republic. This is not the Roman Empire. This is the United States, and we should despise dynasties.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 4:38 PM:

This dynasty argument is so tired. The Bushs and Clintons are basically opposites. So taking the Bushs out of the equation, if Hillary won, I guess you could say it would begin a Clinton dynasty, but I certainly don't see where that would continue...

Should we never elect two members of the same family? Should Robert Kennedy not have run? No FDR either?

From Europe wrote on January 23, 2008 4:39 PM:

The economy is going down the tube, poeple are dying in Iraq, your healthcare system is the most expensive and least effective amongst developed countries, and you are debating whether a presidential candidate spoke well of a former President.

Are you guys insane???

Are you just trained to respond to Pavlovian soundbites..Democrats get ready to hiss and snarl because the dirty 'R' word is mentioned...

Well, while you are engaged in this critical debate, we will continue with unifying Europe, strengthening the euro and working on healthcare innovations

LOL - sometimes you guys are unreal...

Laura wrote on January 23, 2008 4:54 PM:

Desider,

Hey, you get absolutely no argument from me that we should fight against retroactive immunity in FISA.

And you get no argument from me that we should be ready to fight against stupid legislation. I don't worry about appearing "too partisan" when the reality is we're fighting for the right reasons.

I want to clarify something, because I think your insinuations are unfair: Obama and his supporters want to appeal to VOTERS -- *including* independent and Republican VOTERS -- who have been frustrated by the distraction of hyper-partisan RHETORIC which serves no useful purpose. Often, it seems like all it accomplishes is reducing EVERYONE and EVERY ISSUE into two-dimensional cartoons.

Obama isn't trying to be nice to court Republican POLITICIANS. No, he wants there to be a groundswell of VOTERS in a progressive movement that will FORCE politicians to be responsive. THIS IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING.

Les wrote on January 23, 2008 4:58 PM:

From Europe

Agreed -
I am an American,
but I see that we are really becoming if not the laughing stock, at the least
irrelevant on the world stage of Ideas.
But many Americans would have you believe that George Bushes Home ownership society "Idea" was an intellectual rather then just a business as usual thing.
Americans just don't know what an Idea is any more.
The bright light is mistaken and confused for the almighty dollar sign for Americans.
Well lets face it -
Americans are broke.
Thanks to Clinton and Bush.

The only person with leadership imagination and ingenuity is Barack Obama.

Zugernaut wrote on January 23, 2008 4:59 PM:

Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt were fifth cousins. And no, to be honest, I don't care for the Kennedy dynasty. I abhor dynasties. I like JFK okay, Ted’s certainly done good things, but I abhor dynasties. I grew up in Alabama, and I still remember learning about how that state had actually elected Lurleen Wallace governor, and thinking, "What a backwards place this is." I look on people who would vote for a son or a spouse of a president like they’re Neanderthals, primitives who would submit to a hereditary monarchy. It’s tantamount to the way I regard creationists. Dynasties are exactly the opposite of everything this country was founded to oppose. I was deeply appalled when we elected this chimp son of a president, and I will be appalled if we now elect a president's spouse. Like I said, castigate me if you will, but I can't go along with it.

Desider wrote on January 23, 2008 5:05 PM:

Laura,

So write Obama and tell him to get back to Washington to stand up against the extreme elements.

Have Obama or you do it too - tell your easy-going reasonable Republican friends that now it's time to pull together for what's good for the country and rights to privacy - join you in sending out letters to their representatives to join Dodd in the filibuster.

Nothing like a good practical test of reasonableness. Trust, but verify, eh?

http://act.credomobile.com/campaign/wiretapping08

DonnaG wrote on January 23, 2008 5:09 PM:

Just listened to the twist into intentional distortion in that radio recording.

The most important sentence of all was the last one:
"I'm Hillary Clinton and I approve this message."

Tells me all I need to know about her lack of integrity. This woman does not deserve to sit in the highest office in our country any more than Bush-lied-us-into-war deserved the office. Same lying and hoodwinking, different brand name. I am ashamed that she calls herself a Democrat.

Desider wrote on January 23, 2008 5:11 PM:

Zugernaut,

For God's sake, can you stop already?

If this were a banana republic, we wouldn't need an election, Hillary wouldn't need to change strategies, she'd just buy the vote. Oh yeah, we get the "Bradly Effect" and the "Diebold Effect".

She's out their campaigning, she's standing toe-to-toe with your candidate. If he doesn't like it, he can do something about it - LIKE BE MORE CONVINCING. You got youth, check, blacks, check, Republican crossover, check, okay, pick another demographic until you get enough for a majority, and quit bitching about "dynasty". (Were you so upset about dynasty to see Obama being supported by Martin Luther King VIII?)

It's a campaign. Can't stand the heat, get out of the ashtray.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 5:15 PM:

"Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt were fifth cousins."

So? Still in the same family = dynasty. Unless there's some fifth cousin rule I wasn't aware of.

"I look on people who would vote for a son or a spouse of a president like they’re Neanderthals, primitives who would submit to a hereditary monarchy."

Just as someone should not vote for a candidate simply because they are from the same family of a former president, someone should not vote against someone for the same reason. We should judge each candidate on their individual qualifications. I know, I know--Hillary should sideline Bill then. Ok. I think that's fair. But since she won't, we should look at her qualifications anyway and just ignore him.

Zugernaut wrote on January 23, 2008 5:17 PM:

Desider,

I can stand the heat. I supported Tsongas before voting for Bill. I supported Bradley before voting for Gore.

But I'm not voting for a president's wife. She sickens me anyway, but if she wasn't a president's spouse I'd probably hold my nose and vote for her. But I just can't do it, and I think it's insane if anyone else does.

Zugernaut wrote on January 23, 2008 5:23 PM:

That's just absurd--practically everyone is a fifth cousin to everyone else.

And I think your reasoning is completely wrong. We in fact SHOULD oppose a candidate because they're from the same family. There shouldn't be a law against it; we should just regard it as unacceptable. Why? Because this is the United States of America, which was founded in opposition to dynastic rule. Our elections are not supposed to be some modern-day War of the Roses between the House of Bush and the House of Clinton.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 5:28 PM:

"That's just absurd--practically everyone is a fifth cousin to everyone else."

This is your rule not mine.

"We in fact SHOULD oppose a candidate because they're from the same family. There shouldn't be a law against it"

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Family name based discrimination isn't something I think should be on our law books. It's ridiculous to assert that two people from the same family couldn't both serve as great presidents.

From Europe wrote on January 23, 2008 5:28 PM:

Les,

Agreed - many Europeans are amused and bemused by the elections in the US...

Honestly, people here cannot understand why you would support a Clinton dynasty...isn't the Bush dynasty enough?

Having HRC as the first female President, is akin to Pakistan trumpeting Benazir as very exciting and pathbreaking for women's rights...indeed (not!)

Zugernaut wrote on January 23, 2008 5:32 PM:

Anonymous,

If you'll look more carefully at the words of mine you quoted, you'll see that I say I don't think it should be illegal. I just think it should be something we in this country find acceptable, something that just isn't done, like crapping in public.

Zugernaut wrote on January 23, 2008 5:34 PM:

"unacceptable," that is

Brett Rothschild wrote on January 23, 2008 5:45 PM:

The rationalizations from the Clinton camp are sickening. Does being honest really not matter to you?

I'm a parent. Should I stop telling my kids to tell the truth? Or do you believe that eight and eleven year-olds should be held to higher ethical standards than the leader of the free world?

I'm furious. And, Katie, I'm not voting for Hillary, come hell or high water.

Laura wrote on January 23, 2008 5:52 PM:

Brad,

Good post. I AM an Obama supporter, and I agree with the conclusion you make that, for many Democrats, "When Obama suggests there weren't good ideas, it insults the hard work and initiative of a lot of great people in the Democratic party who believed deeply in making change." I think Obama should acknowledge the offense some people have taken and speak to that (please see my posts at 2:15 and 3:01). I make my case from a more emotional (maybe feminine?) perspective.

I appreciate your ability to discuss this in a fair way. It gets discouraging to see the endless knee-jerk ad-hominem attacking from both sides.

Laura wrote on January 23, 2008 5:54 PM:

Oh crap!! I meant BRANDON, not BRAD. Dangit!

Laura wrote on January 23, 2008 6:08 PM:

Desider,

"...your easy-going reasonable Republican friends"

Yeah, okay, I'll go to the website and do what you ask. But I have to point out that your sarcastic, condescending remarks are exactly what does harm to your goal (that is, assuming your goal is to get the right thing accomplished, or is your goal also to prove that you're right and I'm either naive or stupid?) Insulting and alienating people you perceive to be your enemies (and you should know that I am NOT your enemy) just perpetuates a fight that contributes nothing to the actual issues at hand.

Think about it, Desider. This is exactly what Obama's campaign speaks to. In the end, just how USEFUL is that kind of attitude and talk?

hrabal wrote on January 23, 2008 8:17 PM:

I agree with those how say that Obama made a tactical error by praising republicans, or even seeming to, during the democratic primary. He can say that kind of thing during the general election. He left the door open to an easy attack and the Clintons called him on it. They also walked through with some of Paul Krugman's talking points. Nice move by the Clintons. Rookie mistake by Obama. We don't want such mistakes made by Democrats during the general election.

jackohearts wrote on January 23, 2008 8:52 PM:

Obama should not pander to all the lost souls who want to make Reagan into something he was not: a great President or a transformational President.

Reagan was a divider, not what Obama aspires to be. Ninety percent of African Americans voted against Reagan, an unprecedented number. Reagan took us backwards, riding White backlash against Civil Rights.

The ad by Clinton is negative and unfair. But Clinton will not fail to respond when the Obama campaign goes into South Carolina specifically asking African Americans to consider the fact that Hillary had no tears for Katrina. And they jumped all over an ambiguous statement about MLK.

That's called deliberately and directly injecting race into the South Carolina primary all the while implying that Clinton was doing it.

Don't expect fairness after that.

pacc wrote on January 23, 2008 9:37 PM:

It's so gratifying to finally see his fraudulency O-Bomb-A being called out for what he is. His days are numbered. Good riddance.

NCSteve wrote on January 23, 2008 9:47 PM:

Here is what has me pounding my head against the wall: Reagan was a transformative president. He pulled off a realignment, i.e. a basic change in the "default" voting mode of a majority of voters and a fundemental change in the basic policy assumptions. The previous realignments in U.S. political history occurred under FDR, Lincoln, Jackson, and Jefferson.

Usually, when a party can't face facts, and wallows in denial and dogmatic fantasy, it means it is either the loser of the last realignment and is still reeling, i.e. the Democrats from 1980 until, possibly, 2006, or is about to lose the next one, i.e. the Republicans since 2005.

If you guys want to keep wallowing in your illusions, have at it. But I'd appreciate it if you'd maybe not hold the rest of us down.

Laura wrote on January 23, 2008 10:17 PM:

NCSteve,

Yeah. I am endlessly amazed at how the opportunity we have here is completely overlooked or sourly dismissed.

I dunno. I try to be fair, but it sure seems like it's in service to a lot of grudge nursing and self-defeating adherence to ideological purity. What good does it do the Democratic Party when it prevents us from achieving a broad voter mandate to advance policy agendas that are more progressive than anything dared in decades?

(If you're interested, see some of my previous postings.)

Roadkill Refugee wrote on January 23, 2008 10:40 PM:

NC Steve,

Sorry about your head. Reagan lost seats in the House and Senate while president. He was very unpopular initially, until the assassination attempt triggered a great rush of sympathy (similar to W's unpopularity before 9/11 caused a huge uptick). He ran against a pathetic opponent in 1984. But after the steady drip of indicted cabinet officials and other appointees and various scandals, his approval ratings dropped significantly by the end of his second term. Indeed, Bush 41 did NOT run a "third Reagan term" type of campaign because he knew that wouldn't work. As a testament to the country's readiness for change, Dukakis had a 17% poll advantage coming out of the Democratic convention in 1988, only to collapse in the face of the Lee Atwater "Willie Horton" onslaught. Bill Clinton, by contrast, is the only president since Nixon, when Gallup began polling for whether the country is on the right track, to garner a majority of Americans believing the country is on the right track. Clinton also had by far the most diverse cabinet and political appointees in American history.

Reagan was a self-professed reactionary, trying to turn back the clock on the social and political progress of the sixties and seventies (what Obama called "excesses"). He was against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and even the MLK federal holiday, but Obama chooses the eve of the holiday weekend to praise Reagan as having a superior "trajectory" to President Clinton. Perhaps he's running for the wrong party's nomination.

Desider wrote on January 23, 2008 11:29 PM:

Laura,

everyone at TPM is cynical now when Leahy or Waxman send out subpoenas for Bush members to show up and testify, as just one example. TPM Muckraker is chock full of reasons to be skeptical and cynical from the last 7 years.

The only ones I see really being bipartisan are the BlueDog Dems who keep lining up with Bush to pass his unreasonable demands.

So until someone describes in some detail how this new Obama-inspired bipartisanship will unfold and what it will look like, I'll maintain my snarky skepticism. Go back to the Clinton impeachment hearings and feel the bipartisanship. Explain which of those politicians will be different with Obama.

For that matter, show me the race in 2006 that showed the public was really pushing to give Democrats a majority because they were sick and tired of it all. Instead we got a marginal tie leaving us dealing with Lieberman. For all the talk about what the public wants, I continue to feel the public has condoned this exact mess the last 7 years, and have been waiting for reasonable Republicans to stand up and complain the whole time. Instead, Bloomberg finds his oratory abilities only for Hillary.

chris wrote on January 23, 2008 11:30 PM:

Hillary doesn't have a chance in the general election...Hillary lovers. Swift Boating won't work with an Obama/Bloomberg ticket. They have already talked.

greensky wrote on January 23, 2008 11:51 PM:

obama used the reagan talk to try to attract independents now its coming back and biting him in the rear end

mike2 wrote on January 24, 2008 12:02 AM:

Of course Obama wasn't praising Reagan, and of course Clinton is distorting Obama, and of course that is more evidence of her lack of character and unsuitability to be President...

BUT BUT BUT

Who has got the news cycle? Who is in the headline? Hillary.

Who is not in the headline? Who is not responding? Obama.

Uh oh.

Dominating the news cycle is an art... absolutely requirement that it be mastered by a winning candidate. Where is Obama, whom I prefer to Clinton?

He's RIGHT about this, but he's LOSING this argument, and this isn't the first time.

Oops. Doesn't look good for my guy.

Laura wrote on January 24, 2008 12:08 AM:

Desider,

Believe it or not, I completely sympathize with your cynicism. I read TPM Muckraker too, and am appalled that, for instance, Congressional Democrats are so timid they won't proceed with contempt citations which the HJC has approved and are READY TO GO, because they're afraid it might jeopardize bi-partisan efforts to pass an economic stimulus package. PHOOEY. If they had any balls, they'd realize they're HOLDING ALL THE CARDS RIGHT NOW. The Republicans had BETTER cooperate, and they'd better do it FAST, because their self-proclaimed reputation for being the BRINGERS OF AMERICA'S AWESOME ECONOMY is about to go up in smoke.

Back to Obama: I can't guarantee you he will be any different or better than these so-called "bipartisan" Dems who've disappointed or betrayed us in the past.

What I am encouraged by is the NUMBER of new voters Obama seems to be reaching. I think he has hit a "sweet spot" in reaching that vast majority of centrist voters who often feel ignored and dismissed by the hyper-partisan bases of both the Republican and Democratic Parties. It just seems like we're looking at a rare opportunity to take advantage of HUGE numbers of disaffected Americans who just might be willing to help form a broad, grassroots mandate for progressive policies.

Please make this distinction: Obama's target is the VOTERS...the grassroots level, not other politicians. He says WE can motivate the progressive changes by rallying together in great numbers to demand them. Let's face it, in today's atmosphere of polarized political discourse, it's remarkable that he's successfully attracting a wide variety of voters with widely differing viewpoints. And in a PRIMARY election at that.

One last thing: I understand and even encourage your skepticism. But I respectfully ask you to remove the snarky part of it. I think we encourage a lot more thoughtful discussion if we're respectful to each other. George Bush, John Cornyn, James Inhofe, etc.--they're your enemies, not fellow progressives on a political blog.

Peace.

Troy wrote on January 24, 2008 12:09 AM:

The Clintons are trying to play the American people! We are not stupid!

Laura wrote on January 24, 2008 12:16 AM:

Desider,

Oh, and by the way, I DID go to the CREDO website and send a copy of that letter to McCain, Clinton and Obama.

:-)

greensky wrote on January 24, 2008 12:28 AM:

come on obama went to the republican editorial board in nevada to get their newspapers endorsement reagan was in his talking points now it backfired this was no offhand remark obama has a very experianced staff that include tom dascheles people that lost their jobs when daschele lost his senate seat these people are used to running in a republican state and they know throwing around reagans name helps

anon wrote on January 24, 2008 12:46 AM:

Katie: I wouldnt vote for hillary if she was the last person standing, She and her husband both are liars. They've had over 35 yrs. Bill is nothing but a womanizer. He was going to divorce hillary because he fell in love with a co worker when he was governor. Hillary had an office alongside Bills to tell him what to do. She told him she wanted a woman as attorney gen'l and so he put in Janet Reno, she wanted and got Sec. of state Madeleine Albright. In may 1993 she dismissed the WH Travel Office because she was dissatisfied and then lie under oath during an Independent Counsel hearing. Her statement was found factually false, she showed up at West Wing meetingsand was very confrontational. she had NO official position but was so involved in decision making. So that shows she was PRESIDENT #2. That is why Bill is foaming at the mouth. He wants back in that WH SOOOOO bad, he is doing whatever he can do to get back in there. Just imagine all those nice looking legs for him to get at. He had plenty of affairs while governor. She is a coniving cold bitch who at the beginning was whining "oh I am always being picked on" Give me a break. Just like her FAKE talk where she almost broke into tears. She didn't fool me one bit.If you can't take it what will you do when you are president. COmplain that everyone is picking on you. Get a life, but not in the WH. They both are afraid that Obama will beat their butts and I HOPE they do get beat. to you RSSRAI, what Obama said about Regan is true, as he had the Dems make changes. Clinton ruined this country with NAFTA. All our industry left this country for cheaper wages in China, Mexico, Pakistan, and other 3rd world countries. She has Lobbyist supporting her, Rupert Murdock from FOX News supports her and he had all his lawyers give her the maximum for a donation. So who will she be working for. CORPORATE COMPANIES. The hell with the poor and middle class. I will NOT vote for hillary. If she is the candidate I will either vote republican or not vote at all. I will tell all my family and friends to do the same.

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 1:09 AM:

People are missing a point here. It's not that most Democrats won't vote for Hillary although some who dislike her and don't want a rerun of the Clinton soap opera won't vote. The key point is that most independents won't vote for her. If McCain runs, many of these independents will vote for him. Without a majority of independents, Hillary loses Game, Set, Match to the Republicans

Let's Turn The Page America wrote on January 24, 2008 1:29 AM:

I watched the whole interview...Hillary is lying but what else is new?

Watch!: http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026

claire wrote on January 24, 2008 1:34 AM:

the clitons are both supid. no more whitehouse for mr. cliton to go fool around with women under the table. it would be of great disfavor to mrs cliton if you send bill again to the whitehouse. america hilary can not run this country with bill by her side. that guy likes women. what part of that does his wife doesn't understand? pls give me a break. their time is over. it is not a beach-house for the clitons and bushes to be taking turn each time. wake up you all and vote for a new leader. YOU KNOW WHOI'M TALKING ABOUT, IT'S O B A MA.
GOD BLESS YOU. HE IS A CHRISTAIN.

Tomas Gordon wrote on January 24, 2008 2:00 AM:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article

If anyone is interested in some follow-up after Monday's South Carolina Democratic debate, the above link to a November 5, 2006 article on the Chicago Sun Times web site - titled "Obama on Rezko deal: It was a mistake" - is pretty revealing. The reporters' second direct question to Barama asks him whether he or his wife ever did any legal work for Antoin "Tony" Rezko, the Chicago slumlord with whom Barama did a sweetheart real estate deal that resulted in a $1.65 million Georgian revival mansion for the junior senator from Illinois. Barama answered "no" at the time, but didn't he actually confirm that he had billed Rezko for five hours of his professional time during Monday's debate? Maybe Barama's South Carolina "Truth Squad" will clear up the discrepancy, but then again....

Charlie Pedersen wrote on January 24, 2008 2:37 AM:

Bill Clinton has said that the person who wins an election is the one who projects a positive view and direction for the American people (paraphrased)
If you recall at the time of the Reagon election over Jimmy Carter, the US was upset over the Iranian hostage mess, still had lingering pain from Vietnam, and yes the economy. What Barak Obama was referring to was Reagan's ability to project the image of new ideas and pride in America based on the US as a beacon of hope and strength. He projected belief in America and that he could lead us out of the abyss with new/fresh ideas.
I fully believe that was what Barak Obama is talking about visa vi Reagan's new ideas. America again feels in an abyss in many ways, lead by a Republican. Obama has the vision and charisma to again find that beacon on a hill and ,in a shrinking global multi ethnic world, is uniquely qualified to become a hold America's torch leading both our people and the world.

Laura wrote on January 24, 2008 2:38 AM:

Tomas,

Actually, I think Obama actually said he did five hours of professional services for a church group that had partnered with Rezko on a project for low-income housing.

When I heard about the Rezko deal, I was concerned because I'm an Obama supporter, and I certainly don't want to put my support behind a crook. So I read the very same article you referred to. I found out that Obama's not perfect, but he's not a crook either. And I found his ready and open candor about his lapse in judgment refreshing.

Consider this Q & A exchange:

Q: "Does it display a lack of judgment on your part to be engaging in real estate deals with Tony Rezko at a point his connections to state government had been reported to be under federal investigation?"

A: "I've always held myself to the highest ethical standards. During the ten years I have been in public office, I believe I have met those standards and I know that is what people expect of me. I have also understood the importance of appearances.

"With respect to the purchase of my home, I am confident that everything was handled ethically and above board.

"But I regret that while I tried to pay close attention to the specific requirements of ethical conduct, I misgauged the appearance presented by my purchase of the additional land from Mr. Rezko. It was simply not good enough that I paid above the appraised value for the strip of land that he sold me. It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else, to believe that he had done me a favor. For that reason, I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it.

"Throughout my life, I have put faith in confronting experiences honestly and learning from them. And that is what I will do with this experience as well.

Tomas, I notice you repeatedly use a dirisive nickname "Barama" in your post. It makes me question your intent: are you really trying to inform folks, or are you hoping to just sow seeds of doubt among Obama supporters. If so, I encourage Obama supporters to go ahead and actually read the article all the way through.

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 3:01 AM:

I use to have respect for Clintons but after all this lies , I have lost respect for them. If Obama lose I will never vote for Hillary. I rather don,t vote at all.

Andrew L. in Des Moines wrote on January 24, 2008 7:02 AM:

katie - 100's of posts previous.

You claim John would be going "off the deep end" as he states Obama supporters would not support Hillary, were she the Dem nominee. You're wrong on that, IMO, and not just a little wrong. Millions of Dems, Indies, Repubs would gladly cast a vote for an Obama/Bloomberg independent ticket.

The only reason we even know the name Hillary today is because of one Ross Perot, who got 19,741,657 votes (18.9%) but no electoral votes. Bill was a good President, but the longer he stumps for Hillary, the worse she will do in the general, maybe even the Primary.

HRC against John McCain, and less so Mitt Romney, Dems need to wake up and not believe those polls -- HRC would lose and it would not be pretty. I know lots of committed Bluedogs who will not vote for her.

Kalee wrote on January 24, 2008 7:40 AM:

If Hillary's lies offend anyone, email her and let her know. I did, telling her that I was previously undecided but, after her purposely misleading comments I have joined a group to elect Obama. I don't want another liar in the whitehouse. Let her know:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/help/contact/

andy wrote on January 24, 2008 7:57 AM:

hillary's platform. i may be covered in poop but look, obama has poop on his shoe. clearly i am more experienced.

jack blair wrote on January 24, 2008 8:01 AM:

I am not opposed to watching a good boxing match. Fighters work hard to do well. I am opposed to watching one repeatedly hitting the other with ........
"blows below the belt"
"rabbit punches"
"hitting a person when he's down"

Hillary and Bill INTENTIONALLY employ these foul tactics.

It reveals a window into their soul. Not a pretty sight.

Hillary you have just turned off one neutral Democrat in me !!!!!!!!!

Now that i know how you will FIGHT for me in Washington and how you disrespect others. I have the opportunity to vigorously campaign against you.

If you should happen to win and be the Democratic candidate.

I now have no problem to go to a person like McCain, who has more character in his little finger than you have in your entire misguided "intelligent", big experienced ass.

Ken wrote on January 24, 2008 8:38 AM:

Hi, Republican here for Obama. Hill and Bill have always been dishonest. His true legacy as Pres was to make it ok for young girls to engage in oral sex. She divides the country but I thank her for making me look at her competition, and thats where my $ goes. Stay honest, stay open, and clear on his positions, and he will win. All Americans want and need that type of leadership.

Nick wrote on January 24, 2008 9:46 AM:

I believe that Howard Dean should talk to Obama’s campaign. Obama is trying to make the electors believe that Hillary must not be trusted, “she will say anything to be elected”, “she is using dirty tactics”, ”she is not trustworthy” and so on. He made some silly comments about Regan and the republicans, and now he defends himself by attacking Hillary’s character. Have we not heard from the republicans that the Clintons are not trustworthy? These tactics are completely irresponsible personal attacks which actually will hurt Obama and hurt the Democratic Party.
If Obama wins or loses doesn’t matter, all this mistrust that he tried to cultivate during the last year will affect negatively the Democratic Party, by giving the Republican machine a clear advantage. Their strategy against the Democratic Party will be DEMOCRATS CAN NOT BE TRUSTED. And they will say : “it is not only us, the Republicans, that say that, but also millions of Democrats”. They will say that Democrats do not trust themselves, so why should anyone elect a Democrat. They will tell the electors that even if they made mistakes in the last 8 years, they are at least trustworthy.
Watch how CNN, MSNBC and FOX are presenting the democrats like irresponsible freaks that are squabbling every day. However, when it comes to republicans they present them as good candidates, responsible people that are good for our country.
It is so disappointing that Howard Dean is not taking both campaigns and instruct about this kind of fight. We must fight based on issues and try to convince our electors that we are the responsible party, the party that have good ideas, the party that cares about the future of America. We cannot project an image that we are nothing but a bunch of idiots, that cannot understand what is at stake and what are the effects of this kind of squabbling.
If nothing happened fast we will lose the elections like a bunch of IDIOTS.

Y. Parker wrote on January 24, 2008 12:40 PM:

As a white Republican and supporter of Obama, the Democrats should "Thank God" for sending Obama, because "Madam Hillary, once the front runner of the Democratic party, would never win against a Republican nominee because too many people know all about her, "The Real Hillary," to vote for a woman they dislike and distrust. What we need more than anything else...is a president who will unite all Americans and make the changes we all need, and there is only one of the Democrat contenders who can do that...Barack Obama! There is a "Spirit" in Obama that manifests itself in the words he speaks; A "Spirit" of truth, wisdom, love and trust that can break all barriers and divisions that divide and separate us and unite us all. After all, we are all brothers and sisters of God our Creator and heavenly Father.

I believe that God is "Smiling" on Obama, and is definitely frowning on the Clintons! They could never bring about the changes and good things that Obama can...because their hearts are on the "World," and the rich and powerful. Obama's heart is on the things of God.

Go Obama! This is your moment!

Zafir wrote on January 24, 2008 1:05 PM:

Clintons are lier all their life. They will do anything , say anything to get nomination. Republicans dont like them, independents dont like them and now half of the democrates start dislike them. I dont see a democrate win the white house in 2008 if Clinton win nomination.

Debra wrote on January 24, 2008 2:38 PM:

Americans have not forgotten the Clinton years: Monica, Whitewater, Naval Conspiracy, Mysterious death of their attorney, bombing 40,000 innocent African, Sexual Harrassment claims, carrying out Bush's idea on Iraq.

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 5:31 PM:

Everyone don't forget about Bill's famous "I did not have sexual relations with..." Later "Indead I did have sexual relations with..." I agree they have both been caught lying over and over, and yet there are some die hard lovers of the Clintons out there. I am afraid that manny people just want to see a women in office. I hope people don't make that mistake.

Obama is different. He is the one president that I feel can actually make change come true. He knows how to work with both Democrates and Republicans, not to split them, but to have them work together and get things done. Hillary doesn't have the patience or the cander to get people working together. It will take both republicans and democrates working together to get things passed in Congress or the Senate. Obama said it best "We are not a Red State or a Blue State we are THE UNITED STATES."

rg10969 wrote on January 24, 2008 5:39 PM:

Y. Parker,
I couldn't agree with you more!!! I also am a white male middle class person. And I have no problems voting for a women to be the president. But I do not trust either Clinton. I think they have become to arrogant and powerfull to truely care about anyone but themselves. Obama seems real and for the first time in my life (38 years old) I really belive in this candidate that my best interest is being looked after also by Obama.
I just want to that Barak Obama for giving me someone to believe in and restoring my HOPE again.
Thank you MR. Barak Obama

Ron wrote on January 24, 2008 5:44 PM:

I want to clarify my statement, I didn't mean I don't want a women as president, I would welcome any Man or Woman that I felt was looking out for the people and not after their personal gain. I just don't want to see the Clintons back in office.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)