Obama Responds To Hillary Claim That He's "Frustrated"

Comments (119)

Dave C wrote on January 22, 2008 12:07 PM:

"Relatedly, Camp Hillary's repeated and very conscious use of the word "frustrated" -- rather than more ordinary slurs such as "angry" and "desperate" -- seems suggestive. It seems designed to subtly imply a mental fragility, an inability to remain cool under pressure -- an implication that dovetails with the Hillary campaign's larger message that she's tested and ready for the presidency in a way he isn't."

Really, was that absolutely neccessary?

marcos wrote on January 22, 2008 12:08 PM:

Yep yep, spot on.

Now the chips fall where they may, and I guess it is up to the voters to decide whether they support a change in politics, or if they are naive enough to buy into lies and the very worst of business as usual.

Lookingforhome wrote on January 22, 2008 12:10 PM:

Based on the recent posted video, the Senator needs to be careful regarding who it is that doesn't have their facts straight. His inconvenient mis-recollection on his former single payer health care position makes one wonder how many of his protestations are real and how much this is all just a calculated political attack.

At some point the world might actually realize that this man too is a politician, saying what he needs to to get elected.

Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 12:10 PM:

Urgh, I'm so sorry to see his response be so "Kerry". What did she say that was wrong, spell it out!

RaymondA wrote on January 22, 2008 12:10 PM:

Let's replay the tape here. She's the one whose eyes bulged out and blew a gasket at the last NH debate, and she's the one who cried when things looked tough for her. And he's the guy who doesn't have the temperament for the presidency? Give me a break.

wwjb wrote on January 22, 2008 12:11 PM:

And once again, how can she call him frustrated when she is about ready to freak out at every debate? Listen to Bill, does he not sound angry and frustrated, as an understatement? The Clinton campaign is in a frenzy waging trench warfare here, and Obama is the frustrated one? Typical hypocrisy. Attacking opponents on your own weak spots (ie "experience", ethics, now demeanor) is a damn foolish move.

Greg wrote on January 22, 2008 12:13 PM:

Dave C. -- I'm not endorsing Hillary's claim that Obama's frustrated, just observing what I think is the strategy behind the repeated use of the word. That should be clear.

Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 12:13 PM:

We are all frustrated when we have to put up with Hillbot's behavior.

Gregwatch wrote on January 22, 2008 12:13 PM:

Greg, you do realize that you threw in a whole extra gratuitous paragraph where you summarize and extend clinton's comments. Does the campaign have to pay for that?

Also, Obama's message seems to me to be much more focussed on trustworthiness and the truth (or lack thereof) than "alleged mendacity." This is precisely the issue that will make Clinton a horrible candidate to go up against McCain, even if she thinks her Iraq war vote makes her so strong and untouchable.

Lee Stranahan wrote on January 22, 2008 12:15 PM:

It's interesting choice of word, in part because of Obama's general demeanor and manner of speech....he often pauses for a moment in thought before responding to thing, looks down, etc...you can't call him 'angry', really but frustrated seems plausible.

So - why not say "Yeah, I frustrated - you keep lying about me. It confirms the worst things that your critics say about both you and former President Clinton - that you'll do anything, including lie or get in bed with corporate lobbyists, to win. Frankly it's beneath both of you and it's frustrating when people who could do so much good resort to such desperate tactics."

Speechwriting over. I'll go back to making my stupid videos now.

Republican Attack Machine wrote on January 22, 2008 12:16 PM:

"Relatedly, Camp Hillary's repeated and very conscious use of the word "frustrated" -- rather than more ordinary slurs such as "angry" and "desperate" -- seems suggestive. It seems designed to subtly imply a mental fragility, an inability to remain cool under pressure -- an implication that dovetails with the Hillary campaign's larger message that she's tested and ready for the presidency in a way he isn't."

Hillary wants nothing more than to portray Barack as an angry black man.

Keith wrote on January 22, 2008 12:16 PM:

Clinton is acting like a child that was caught lying--they continue to lie even when the evidence is her face. She's literally boxed herself into this corner and she's going to say or do whatever she has to do to keep the water muddy--especially for the low information voters in the February 5th states. Here's where the media needs to do its job. If she's right in her claims, point that out. If she's wrong, then point that out. Low information voters are only low information voters because the media fails to do its job of getting the facts out there (as opposed to the candidates spin).

And Greg, a quick criticism: if you are going to offer your analysis on Clinton's strategy, as it were, then you should balance with the weaknesses of the strategy or debunking the statements she's making that Obama is rejecting to. Otherwise folks are going to accuse you of being partial to the Clintons (which I don't think is the case). Just a thought.

Dave C wrote on January 22, 2008 12:17 PM:

Greg - Your extra paragraph seemed--to use a word from the comment above--gratuitous.

Genghis wrote on January 22, 2008 12:17 PM:

I posted in the previous thread, I think that this is a weak attack. Say what you will about Obama in the last debate, he appeared no more "mentally fragile" then Clinton. Moreover, it was quite apparent that Obama was frustrated, not by the NV & NH primary results, but by Clinton's tactics, which sets him up about to talk about her distortions, as he has just done. I predict that Clinton will drop this line of attack very quickly.

denis wrote on January 22, 2008 12:18 PM:

It would seem the Obama campaign needs to turn the tables on the Clinton charade. If you understand the process we are going through at this time is selection of a candidate to stand for the Democratic Party in the upcoming election for President you understand the only measure of success at this time is delegate selection for the national convention. If you only take those delegates elected at this time Hillary has to be the one that is frustrated, as she has not been able to generate delegates from the electoral process. If she wants to maintain the super delegates she has to project the Obama campaign as a loser. She can not afford to allow people to take a break long enough to think about what has happened and the fact that she is in fact the loser (or more correctly less successful than Senator Obama).

RaymondA wrote on January 22, 2008 12:18 PM:

Isn't it obnoxious that the day after a debate in which even the most pro-Hillary view expressed among the pundits was that she and Obama both brought down the party's reputation as a whole, she is acting gleeful solely because she thinks she brought Obama off of his highminded pedestal?

I continue to underestimate how truly awful a human being she is. She continues to surprise me and always for the worse.

PeterB wrote on January 22, 2008 12:18 PM:

Hillary is anything but cool. Just look at her freak out in NH when using that terrible euphemism agent of change. This woman reeks of shrill in every debate and she has the gall to claim obama is frustrated.

Lookingforhome wrote on January 22, 2008 12:18 PM:

"Frustrated Obama responds To Hillary Claim That He's Frustrated"

Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 12:19 PM:

Polling Prowess: In California, a new Field Poll has Hillary leading Sen. Obama by 12, 39 to 27 percent. In Connecticut, a new Hartford Courant poll shows Hillary up by 14. She leads Sen. Obama 41 to 27 percent. In New York, four new polls have Hillary significantly ahead of Sen. Obama. Siena College shows her leading by 25, Zogby and Rasmussen have her up by 21 and Marist has her 16 ahead.

Endorsement Watch: In California, Assemblymember Felipe Fuentes and State Sen. Alex Padilla, both former supporters of Governor Bill Richardson, endorsed Hillary. In Indiana, former Governor Joe Kernan and First Lady Maggie Kernan joined the campaign. In Nebraska, Public Service Commission Chairwoman Anne Boyle endorsed Hillary.

Talk vs. Action: Yesterday, Sen. Obama broke his pledge not to campaign in states that do not adhere to the Democratic National Committee calendar. His new ad is running in Florida, in direct violation of the pledge's prohibition of electronic advertising. "Words matter, promises matter and pledges matter. It calls into question the promises and pledges he's made on the campaign trail," said former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack.

Not sure why he is running ad's in florida because there are no delegate seats being given out.... also clinton is going to win that state....he should not wait money.

Go Hillary!!!

Greg wrote on January 22, 2008 12:20 PM:

Guys --

How on earth is it favorable to HRC to point out that the HRC campaign is trying to undermine confidence in Obama in this way?

That's hardly favorable. Come on.

And meanwhile, why NOT try to understand why the campaigns are saying what they're saying?

mperloe wrote on January 22, 2008 12:20 PM:

Lee, He already has my vote, but I am certain he would impress many if he had chosen to respond in the fashion you have stated.

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

"Keith wrote on January 22, 2008 12:16 PM:
Clinton is acting like a child that was caught lying--they continue to lie even when the evidence is her face."

No, it's the right-wing conspiracy agains her. Or the left-wing conspiracy. Or the American conspiracy.Or th Martian conspiracy.

john mccutchen wrote on January 22, 2008 12:23 PM:

Relatedly, Camp Hillary's repeated and very conscious use of the word "frustrated" -- rather than more ordinary slurs such as "angry" and "desperate" -- seems suggestive. It seems designed to subtly imply a mental fragility, an inability to remain cool under pressure -- an implication that dovetails with the Hillary campaign's larger message that she's tested and ready for the presidency in a way he isn't.

Whores charge 20 bucks

Escorts 2000

Sargent's got a blue light special going this week - 19.95

wglad wrote on January 22, 2008 12:24 PM:

Somebody around here does more than cut and paste all day by adding some analysis and opinion, and the Obama crowd takes him to task for it. If you don't want to know what he thinks, skim the news reports yourself or subscribe to a clippings service. Come to your own conclusions, but don't try to stifle Greg's comments.

Interloper wrote on January 22, 2008 12:25 PM:

Yo Hillbots, get used to this reference. I'm going to post it every time i see the word "electability".

Why Republicans Fear Obama

By Byron York

Columbia, South Carolina — I went to Barack Obama’s rally here, on Sunday night, with a Republican friend who had never seen the Illinois senator in action before. Watching the crowd of more than 3,000 fill up the convention center, watching the people send up waves of energy to Obama, and watching him play off that energy in a speech that was one of the best political performances anyone has seen this year, my Republican friend said, simply, “Oh, s—t.” He recalled the scene from Jaws, in which the small seaside town’s sheriff realizes how big the shark he’s tracking truly is, and says, “We’re gonna need a bigger boat.” What my friend didn’t have to say was that he was deeply worried that Republicans just don’t have a bigger boat.

Keith wrote on January 22, 2008 12:26 PM:

Greg:

We do understand what they are trying to say. Your paragraph seems out of place here, though because of its placement, it seems you are either endorsing or otherwise enforcing the Clintons claims. Maybe move it over to the Hillary post where she's lobbing the charge. Or, as I suggested above, point out where she's playing loose and fast with the facts.

Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 12:27 PM:

this is surely going to backfire on Hil. what has won her votes is when she appears human, fragile and people empathize with her. they relate. no one empathizes with a bully. today she looks like one.

noexpert wrote on January 22, 2008 12:27 PM:

The Clintons have same cynical view of voters that repubs have. Say anything because reporters will just scribe competeing statements from the campaigns, without putting the effort in to report actual facts. Hillary raises phoney issues such as those present votes Obama made as Illinois Senator, or an inconsequential vote on one amendment of bankruptcy bill. Reporters should do a better job keeping campaigns focused on legitimate differences between them and call her on it when she distorts Obama's record. Obamas more idealistic campaign would benefit from MSM stepping up and reporting more on accuracy of competing statements

TheraP wrote on January 22, 2008 12:27 PM:

Hillary has found her "voice" - and it is an attack voice and she "enjoys" this.

Exceedingly discouraging for the voters to see her going down such a road.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 22, 2008 12:29 PM:

Not sure why he is running ad's in florida because there are no delegate seats being given out.... also clinton is going to win that state....he should not wait money.

If I understand correctly (and it might be that I do not) he is not really running commercials in FL so much as he is simply running commercials on nationwide networks and Floridians received those networks. In other words, he is not buying ad time on local FL network affiliates, but if he buys time on CNN then he gets his ads run in FL at the same time whether he likes it or not. As such, he is not wasting money on ad buys in Florida - he is just getting Florida ads as part of the package deal when he buys nationwide air time.

Greg wrote on January 22, 2008 12:29 PM:

Keith,

The placement has nothing to do with it. It is simply not favorable to, nor an endorsement of, the Hillary camp's message to say that this is what its tacit goal is. This is plainly obvious.

Lookingforhome wrote on January 22, 2008 12:31 PM:

Greg clearly needs to learn that if he's going to be seen as fair he has to be partial in favor of the Obama supporters. That's the only kind of fair they understand.

I agree, his comment was a thoughtful, spot-on and informative analysis of their messaging. Interesting and informative and what we need more of here not less. What was missing was simply a line at the end to eliminate any doubt: "I continue to be amazed at what an evil person Hillary is - and this manipulative use of language is a perfect example of it."

Come on Greg, get with the game plan will ya?!

Chris wrote on January 22, 2008 12:34 PM:

Let's get real. The "repeated and very conscious use of the word 'frustrated'" is because the Clinton camp wants to call him an angry black man without actually having to say it.

Kenny wrote on January 22, 2008 12:36 PM:

Hilary engages in this strategy at her own peril. Trading the optimism the Democratic party has received for her own gain will completely change the dynamic of the general election. You're looking at an election without the youth vote and the African-American vote. Is that good for the party?

Aaron M wrote on January 22, 2008 12:37 PM:

Greg,

I understand that you need to be objective in how you report these back and forths between the Obama and Clinton campaigns; and I think that over the past year you have generally done good job.

However, at what point does simply reporting these exchanges as he said/she said become misleading in their own right?

Even Josh last night admitted that Sen. Clinton was being dishonest in her attacks on Obama (in regards to his comments about Reagan, Republican ideas, and the "present" votes); and add to that her continued dishonesty today quoting Obama out of context AGAIN regarding his statement in 2004 regarding the conduct of the Iraq War.

Obviously her statement that he is "frustrated" has no basis in fact (as she cannot know how he feels- though I'd imagine any normal person would get frustrated when your rival repeatedly distorts you record).

However, Obama is correct to say that when people see politicians lying and distorting, and especially when public sees that those attacks work- it DOES increase cynicism.

The truth is, the main reason that dishonesty and being disingenuos work in campaigns is that the media repeatedly fails to hold candidates accountable for these tactics; preferring instead to reward them for their results.

John Y. wrote on January 22, 2008 12:39 PM:

I'm a liberal Democrat, but I would vote for McCain before ever voting for the Clintons. The only way they'd get my vote would be for Giuliani to be the GOP nominee.

Cynic wrote on January 22, 2008 12:41 PM:

This is the wrong approach for Obama. You can't sway reporters by arguing that they're being spun or that they're being unfair - you have to give them an alternative narrative to embrace.

If I were running the Obama campaign, I'd take a page from the Rove/Clinton playbook, and attack Hillary's perceived strength - experience. The attack would sound something like this:

In 1992, Democrats controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress for the first time in more than a decade. It was a golden opportunity for real change. Hillary Clinton led the effort to deliver that change, promising to reform our broken health care system. But instead of building a broad base of support, she tried to ram her plan through Congress. Her narrow, partisan approach led to a devastating defeat. The plan collapsed. Republicans swept the 1994 elections, taking control of Congress for the first time in fifty years. And the very idea of health care reform was so thoroughly discredited that, fifteen years later, we're no closer to a solution than we were back then.

Now, Hillary is asking us to give her a second chance to reform health care. She says she has the experience to lead. But she's still as partisan as ever, still fighting the same losing battle. What she's got is the experience of failure - and that's the wrong sort of experience.

Barack Obama passed comprehensive health care reform in the Illinois State Senate, forging a broad, bipartisan coalition. He knows what it takes to turn ideas into reality. And he's prepared to move us forward.

Obama. Change we can believe in.

Kathy Sammons wrote on January 22, 2008 12:42 PM:

Looking, I agree. I have been reading this blog for a while now and it is shocking how easily Obama supporters read anything even remotely positive about Hillary as biased. Obama himself admitted last night that "all of our hands are dirty" and that they were "all politicians." You don't get to that level without having some skeletons. And, yes, he denouncing dirty politics, but only after it's played out a few days and done the damage, then he makes a statement about "rising above" it.

All of y'all who insist that Obama will do so well in the general election need to look at the republican playbook against him: racist church, cocaine use, Rezko, Muslim.

I know that some of it is conflated (the Rezko stuff goes a lot deeper than his "factchecks" allow) but the republican machine is very good at bullet pointing their attacks. If Obama can't handle Bill and Hillary, what do you think he's going to do against the republicans?

And if McCain gets the nom, Obama is no longer going to be the media darling.

Keith wrote on January 22, 2008 12:42 PM:

Greg:

No need to get defensive, I was just making a suggestion. If it was plainly obvious, folks wouldn't be making the suggestions. But I digress. Thanks for being responsive.

Greg D:

You are correct. It was a national ad.

Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 12:43 PM:

Ironically, a lot of Obama's complaints are actually unsupported by the facts. Last night, Dan Abrams (of MSNBC) actually went through the exchanges. He and his panel fact checked the Clintons's criticisms and Obama's responses.

Turned out that the Clintons had the facts on their side more often than Obama did.

willyjsimmons wrote on January 22, 2008 12:43 PM:

Greg...

Let me make this simple for you.

ANYTHING you do is going to be criticized by the anti-hillary crowd.

I said it.

halffull wrote on January 22, 2008 12:45 PM:

Golly, isn't frustrated a really safe observation, pretty common emotion in politics.

How can one avoid being frustrated, well for starters he/she can simply act like a tyrant and do stuff secretly ignoring the checks and balances our founding fathers
intended this government to operate with. Like phone taps. Has this issue been cleared up

Just think of all the frustration these Presidential candidates would avoid if we would only give them unlimited power.

Genghis wrote on January 22, 2008 12:46 PM:

To John Y. and all the people who come on here to write "I would vote for a Republican before [insert candidate's name here]"

SHUT THE HELL UP!

Sorry about the caps. I felt that they were appropriate. Really, no one cares who you vote for. If you have some interesting insight, please share, but if you only want to tell people who you like or don't like, I'm sure that there are hundreds of pollsters who would be happy to speak to you.

George wrote on January 22, 2008 12:47 PM:

For the first time I'm starting to question whether or not I actually will support the eventual nominee. Have been saying that I would get behind Clinton or Edwards if they won. I'd still get behind Edwards (not that he'll win, but he should stay in), not so sure about Clinton.
She has just learned a little too much from the republican attack machine and when she starts pulling from their playbook (attacking Obama for spending money on foreign aid!) and sounding as nasty as they do I start losing my desire to support her.
Here's to a third party candidate! The reason I supported Obama from the beginning was because I thought she would encourage a third party candidate to run by being the nominee and/or bring out so much hate on the part of Republicans that they turn out record numbers. Never thought I'd be one thinking about a third party candidate or feeling like not voting with the party. Well done, Hillary. We just might lose the White House again.

paDem wrote on January 22, 2008 12:47 PM:

I am picturing a possible (not likely, but still ...) campaign between the angry old man and the angry woman. Man, will the flying spittle and withering looks and pulsing neck veins be fun to watch! More fighting and anger and invective and lies.

It'll be like an episode of "Cops".

Ohhhh, baby. Can't wait.

Can you see it? Hillary pulls the same crap on McCain and he hops over to her podium and gives her a dope slap. Then Bill leaps onto the stage and beats the crap out of the old guy until the cops pull him off and cuff him. Then Hillary shrieks at the cops to let go of her man and starts kicking McCain where he lies on the stage. Meanwhile, Wolf Blitzer is having an orgasm imagining what this will do for his ratings.

It would make good television, though.

Mark wrote on January 22, 2008 12:53 PM:

I don't see anything wrong with Greg's analysis. It's definetely accurate in so far as what the Clinton's are trying to do. Whether it works or not is open for debate, however.

Pepp wrote on January 22, 2008 12:54 PM:

BOO HOO this just can not be taken seriously any more, but the Dem party is at great risk of becoming a myopic focused party not capable of moving beyond poor Obama for President.. yeah everyone not supportive must be a lying divisive racist right? Silly kind like how Repugs act.

jim wrote on January 22, 2008 12:55 PM:

her alleged mendacity

What is "alleged" about it? How about her actual mendacity? It isn't "biased" to report the facts. Although I realize that the American media is mainly concerned with stenography and he said/she said "objectivity." Not sure why you are continuing this practice.

Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 12:57 PM:

Have any of you bothered to notice that Obama has done pretty much exactly what he's complained about the Clintons for doing?

Hillary called Barack frustrated. True.

But just before the New Hampshire primary, Barack snarkily noted of Bill Clinton, "I understand he's feeling a little frustrated right now."

So why is Hillary being treated like a monster for doing the same thing Barack did? If you're going to cite Hillary's statement as a manifestation of her evil, shouldn't you do the same to Barack?

anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 12:58 PM:

For those of you thinking you'd vote for McCain before Clinton, think about this question: Who do you want on the Supreme Court? We have already have Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito in the *majority*. Do you want McCain, or any of the Republican candidates, further strengthening the hand of this bunch of appointees? I'm frustrated by how the Clinton team is campaigning, but you can be certain that Hillary will make good choices for the bench. I far rather have Hillary making those appointments than any of my choices on the Republican side.

paddy joe wrote on January 22, 2008 12:59 PM:

Obama seems to be more human than the other candidates. Hillary is obviously a robot, but on a more serious note Obama seems to have lived his early life as an average American, with flaws, problems, and vices. It is apperent that Hillary and Edwards were not privelaged, but it did not take them long become privelaged through lots of hard work and determination. They are a different breed than most of us and therefore they seem to have trouble understanding why we have the troubles we face. Almost anyone can do anything they put their mind to, but you have to sacrifice a lot to realize these dreams. Obama has followed suit, but I enjoy that he has some very early experience as a normal person with normal problems, and we could finally have a president that understands to a greater extent where we are coming from.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 22, 2008 1:02 PM:

For what little my (Obama supporting) opinion is worth, I do not see what all this talk about Greg Sargent's bias is about. The above post is fine and accurate, and I dare say that if Mr Sargent left out paragraphs like the concluding one for fear that someone out there somewhere might possibly perceive them as biased, the result would be a blog so insipidly anodyne that none of us would care to read it.

Be careful what you wish for - you might just get it.

halffull wrote on January 22, 2008 1:02 PM:

Frustrated, is a very common emotion in our country's politics.

How can one avoid frustration, he or she can ignore the rule of law and simply do thing secretly, like phone taps and other electronically surveillance. Look, you need to get a lot of people to agree with you, to legally pass your good ideas. Wouldn't it be less frustrating to have unlimited executive power, sort of like a tyrant, a content tyrant.

one wrote on January 22, 2008 1:02 PM:

In another blog!!!!
one wrote on January 22, 2008 12:55 PM:

Too much baggage tagged yesterday folks!

I attended a Clinton rally on the West Coast in the fall, was mildly impressed with her speech and given what I knew at the time felt she was ready. Events of the past weeks have totally changed my view; note I did say mildly impressed. Bill & Hilliary Clinton remain creatures of Bill's pass, the good and bad. I believe the good as well as bad is not what is claimed by themselves, friends and foes; the assumption that all will remember and accept the Clinton's narrative, spin and meme is truly bankrupt.
The reflexive attacks on Obama were misplaced, largely because they had little meaning in and of themselves; among his responses he did raises Bill's role in the campaign and did draw clear distinctions in vision and style between himself and the Clintons. In short the underlying trite approach she chose and Bill's Big Dawg's footprint hurt her more than whatever points she may have scored against Obama. As a friend noted, he though she was better; I suspect many more have this view. This high wire baggage act will not hunt well which leaves the Clinton's with "the devil made me do it" routine. Given the pass sixteen years of the Bill & Hill Drama, Bush & Co's Dumb Dreams, and generational shifts, the public has had enough. Candidates fears have not won too many elections.

paddy joe wrote on January 22, 2008 1:04 PM:

I do enjoy the life time appointment of SCJ's as they at least do what they think is right instead of trying to buy votes.

Dawn wrote on January 22, 2008 1:05 PM:

What is wrong with being frustrated? If I thought an ex-president was lying about me on national TV, and in fact felt so strongly about it that I brought it up myself on national TV, and no one was making him stop, I'd be frustrated too. It is a natural reaction.

Matthew wrote on January 22, 2008 1:06 PM:

I think Clinton, and Edwards, were both successfully all over Obama. He came across bad, everything I've read this morning suggests the same (except of course those with preset views to support Obama regardless and all of the in-the-weeds details really don't matter beyond those intently watching/writing--Joe Six Pack won't care about the details.). Now I wonder where he goes? He will likely win SC (I haven't seen anyone suggest otherwise). But I suspect that Clinton and Edwards may cut into this. Even with his "indirect" campaigning in Flordia I serious doubt he will be competitive there. Come February 5, Obama's "frustration" really comes to fore. Does anyone think he can win any of the bigger states? Say California and New York? State-by-state, he's got an uphill battle at best.

eatbees wrote on January 22, 2008 1:06 PM:

I will gladly vote for Hillary in November over McCain, Bloomberg or any non-Democrat. Hillary is winning the primaries because she is convincing people to vote for her. It's as simple as that. That's how it's done, it's called winning elections.

I actually like her when she shows her tough-as-nails side as she did last night. I think one of the things she is trying to accomplish, is to show that Obama is too noble or inexperienced to give as good as he gets when he's hit by the Republican attack machine. Do we really need another ineffectual whiner, a Mondale, Dukakis, Gore or Kerry, or do we want someone who can handle herself in a knife fight and tear off McCain's balls with her teeth?

Michael wrote on January 22, 2008 1:06 PM:

In defense of Greg, as a diehard Obama donor and volunteer and vocal supporter in these pages, I appreciated his editorializing at the end.

I'd also point out that in the post about Clinton's take on the debate, I predicted Obama would push the "dishonesty" narrative in his post-debate interviews.

Clinton is going to try to portray Obama as any old pol who will get angry and lash out when "behind" (he's actually ahead in pledged delegates, lol). Obama is going to continue to try to portray Clinton as too dishonest and untrustworthy to be given the highest office in the world.

The interesting thing is the opposing tactics here: Obama's popularity in large part is due to the perception that he's not any old pol, that he's spent his life turning down money or high-status opportunities in the pursuit of public service, that he hasn't been corrupted, etc. They're going at him on his strength.

Obama, conversely, is hitting Hillary at her weakest. Voters already have concerns about her being dishonest and (to a lesser extent) corrupt, and hitting her on those issues re-enforces those negatives.

And those differing strategies should tell us more about their overall goals, IMO. For one, it sounds like Obama is trying to convince undecided voters that Hillary is an unacceptable choice. This is interesting in that it was originally Hillary's strategy back when she was the front-runner. Hillary, conversely, seems to be trying to drive support Obama already has away from him, or at least, his soft support. Perhaps I'm reading this wrong though; maybe Obama has already successfully built up an image of "not your average pol" even among undecideds, and Hillary is trying to dissuade them. But it seems more likely to me that she's going after voters that maybe jumped on the Obama bandwagon after Iowa and aren't as committed as his hard supporters from all last year.

I dunno.

wj wrote on January 22, 2008 1:07 PM:

Anonymous,

You have learned from your superiors in omitting any mention of the context in which Obama made that statement. He was being asked to respond to a direct *attack* on himself that Clinton had let loose the day earlier, and rather than attack back he offered a plausible excuse for Clinton's actions. Moreover, if you listen to the quote, it's clear that Obama is trying to *excuse* Clinton, not criticize him.

Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 1:08 PM:

Hillary and Bill will do anything to win. They represent the WORST in America and for those supporting her, esp. Women -- take a hard look at your candidate. Can't we move on from the Bush and Clinton dynasties?

Dem-agogue wrote on January 22, 2008 1:09 PM:

Is anyone thinking about how this kind of bickering is going to play out when one of these kids makes it to the general election? Hillary is shrill, Barack is angry, and McCain... well McCain looks like an in-control military man, the kind of man who can lead us out of a war and out of a recession, while the screaming idiot liberals look like just that: screaming idiots. Of course, I don't agree with this, and I think a McCain presidency will be a nightmare, but I'm afraid that's how this will all be interpreted.

geoff wrote on January 22, 2008 1:11 PM:

I'm angry, frustrated, and unable to keep my cool because Hillary is incapable of running a positive campaign. Seriously, "this is the fun part" and "we're just warmning up" are telling statements. I would like to see her campaign try just one week without Bill blowing his lid and putting his finger in the face of reporters and her not getting all shrill and condescending.

I don't see how that helps grow the Democratic party and improve her chances of getting elected in the general election.

Go John or Obama!

paddy joe wrote on January 22, 2008 1:18 PM:

Hillary told us in the debate that her opposition and her were running for the most important job in the world. I think we need to stop seeing ourselves as the only ones on the planet, as Bush will openly declare, and start realizing that other countries are more concerned with their own issues. I think Obama or Edwards will be a necessity in ensuring our children's futures, so they will no longer have to live in a country that continuously demands respect, but instead earns and recieves it.

Lyn wrote on January 22, 2008 1:18 PM:

I have to take Josh's position that Obama has to do a better job of defending himself and hurt Clinton for her tactics rather than complain about them. If he had said something like this about his position on the war, I think it might have made the point:

Hillary, you're smart and you're supposed to be experienced, so I would think, of all people, you would be capable of understanding the difference between not invading a country and not starting a war in the first place versus cold-turkey cutting off funding for a war already in progress, with a president, the commander-in-chief, who may very well be irresponsible enough to use that defunding to score political points, which could ultimately have the effect of putting our troops in greater jeopardy. When you fail to acknowledge that distinction, you either demonstrate your inability to assess important policy distinctions or you are being intellectually dishonest with the American people.

Gabriel wrote on January 22, 2008 1:20 PM:

"Finally, there's always the prospect that Democrats just might do the energizing for the Republicans. Republican pollster and consultant Neil Newhouse notes that one path toward greater intensity is "running against a Democrat in the general election who generates real negative passion among Republicans." He adds: "Luckily, such a candidate exists: Hillary Clinton." She registers a whopping 87% unfavorable rating among the party faithful, he notes.

At the same time, a drawn-out and divisive primary fight between Sen. Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama still has the potential to disillusion and discourage some Democrats about their ultimate choice. "There's only one direction that Democratic enthusiasm can go, and that's down," Mr. Newhouse says."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120095622616304835.html

Michael wrote on January 22, 2008 1:20 PM:

Backing Hillary:
I live in a "blue" state, so I will withhold support from Hillary for her behavior. Anyone in a competitve state I urge to vote Dem.

However, if Obama is the nominee, I can get behind and push. I believe the story going in the media is unfair, in that it's making Hillary and Obama sound the same. Obama "started it" at the debate because he was asked to respond to a scurrilous attack from the Clinton campaign. Obama continues to avoid using Clinton's name in this stump speech. Clinton squared shares no such compunction. Their stump speech is "Obama this" and "Obama that." It's disgusting. They seem OBSESSED with snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in 2008.

Mark F wrote on January 22, 2008 1:20 PM:

gregwatch: I've come to the conclusion that this blog is carrying water (and not so subtly either) for the Clinton campaign. Why else would they feel it's important to publish a link on the front page of TPM every single time some online rag rehashes the Rezko story?

There's a very clear bias here.

sf wrote on January 22, 2008 1:22 PM:

"her alleged mendacity" Do you mean her lies?

They are certainly frustrating me. It has a lot to do with the damage her husband did to the Democratic Party in the '90's. If she prevails using this tactic the Democratic revival will be short lived.

Obama has greatness in him. Hilary has mendacity in her. That is our choice.

example wrote on January 22, 2008 1:27 PM:

SHUT THE HELL UP!

Sorry about the caps. I felt that they were appropriate. Really, no one cares who you vote for. If you have some interesting insight, please share, but if you only want to tell people who you like or don't like

Whatever, I like to hear it. This is a political blog, right?

You Hillbots just can't stand the fact that your Negative Nancy won't win in November, after alienating Obama supporters. You don't like to hear it, but I do :)

paDem wrote on January 22, 2008 1:28 PM:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/14/AR2008011402082.html

Eugene Robinson had a good take on Jan 15 on what's going on between the Clintons and Obama. This was a week or so ago, but in hindsight he seems to have nailed it:

"...Race is just one of the fights that the Clinton campaign is pressing with Obama; the other is an attempt to discredit Obama's opposition to the war. It could be that the idea is to engage Obama in so much tit-for-tat combat that his image as a new, post-partisan kind of politician is tarnished.

Or the strategy could be more subtle. I can't help but recall a certain piece of history.

In 1992, when Bill Clinton was running for president, a controversial hip-hop artist named Sister Souljah made an ugly comment about the Los Angeles riots: "If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?" Candidate Clinton highlighted the remark in a speech to the Rev. Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition, comparing Souljah to Ku Klux Klan member David Duke. The episode demonstrated that Clinton was not only tough on lawlessness but also willing to challenge "special interests" -- in this case, black activists.

The Clintons are reading the polls, too; they might well be resigned to the possibility that most black Democrats will vote for Obama. This would mean that South Carolina is probably already lost and that the campaign's focus now has to be on Florida and the many states whose delegates are up for grabs on "Tsunami Tuesday."

Is it possible that accusing Obama and his campaign of playing the race card might create doubt in the minds of the moderate, independent white voters who now seem so enamored of the young, black senator? Might that be the idea?

Yes, that's a cynical view. But history is history. ..."

I believe, as Robinson asserts today, that Bill is so angry with the uppity black boy because the kid has the temerity to insinuate that Bill's presidency wasn't one of the greatest, ever, and that he, Obama, thinks he can do a better job.

Pure ego. Typical Bill Clinton. I think Obama ought to keep jabbing the Clintons on this underlying motivation. They don't seem to take criticisms very well.

paddy joe wrote on January 22, 2008 1:28 PM:

Mark F, sounds like your a lil too bias, and no one cares if u r, why do u? This is a place to debate political opinions no to debate political opinion forums.

Liam wrote on January 22, 2008 1:33 PM:

Isn't it quite risky for someone who's husband has always banged Bimbos, to avoid banging her, be tossing around the word "frustrated" about another person!

brewmn wrote on January 22, 2008 1:34 PM:

"Ironically, a lot of Obama's complaints are actually unsupported by the facts. Last night, Dan Abrams (of MSNBC) actually went through the exchanges. He and his panel fact checked the Clintons's criticisms and Obama's responses.

Turned out that the Clintons had the facts on their side more often than Obama did."

Dan Abrams basically shut everybody up when they said "No, Obama has a point." And he counted every response according to what he had already decided, whether the panel agreed with him or not. I thought Bill O'Reilly was conducting that "analysis."

Lyn, one minor correction:

"Hillary, you're smart and you're supposed to be experienced, so I would think, of all people, you would be capable of understanding the difference between not invading a country and not starting a war in the first place versus cold-turkey cutting off funding for a war THAT YOU HELPED START,"

cromacho wrote on January 22, 2008 1:41 PM:

the impending obama triumph in SC will be a pyrrhic victory. it will recast him as the Black candidate, peeling off the veneer of the "change and unity" candidate. from then on, the Tom Bradley Syndrome will be more manifest, rendering polling unreliable least, and impossible at most. whites' responses to pollsters will be at a wider variance with how they will vote in the privacy of the voting booth. as we get closer to california, texas, florida and new york, the fault lines between the black and latino communities -- blurred from view in iowa and new hampshire (we got a glimpse of it in nevada, to the surprise of barack's handlers,) -- will surface. latinos see blacks as frontliners in immigrant-bashing, and blacks see latinos as unfair competition for jobs. and to their utter discredit, democratic leaders from both communities have not addressed these issues head-on. i have felt from the start that with his inability to be specific and propensity for broad soaring rhetoric, the republicans will rip obama to shreds. i can already see the echo machine of rush, heil hannity, laura and dr. laura, savage, medved, levine, o'reilly, repeating the words B. Hussein Obama to get people to vote their fears. may not click on the coasts, but in the heartland, don't bet against this karl rovian scheme. by the summer of 2009, barack could be the new julian bond. if he's lucky, he could be president clinton's vice president.

E. wrote on January 22, 2008 1:43 PM:

Thank God the Clintons don't believe in the "politics of personal destruction" or else they'd literally go after Obama with a baseball bat.

Fortunately they only believe in figurative politics of personal destruction. Oh yeah, and party destruction, but that part's obvious.

Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 1:44 PM:

noexpert wrote on January 22, 2008 12:27 PM:
"The Clintons have same cynical view of voters that repubs have. Say anything because reporters will just scribe competeing statements from the campaigns, without putting the effort in to report actual facts. Hillary raises phoney issues such as those present votes Obama made as Illinois Senator".

She's smart enough to know the reason for the "present" votes - and she knows Obama can't explain in 30 seconds. But, bottom line is that Hillary is lying. Yes, you may agree these are necessary tactics to win, but don't pretend she isn't lying. The people in New Hampshire who were tricked by her campaign into signing the abortion mailer seem pretty pissed. And, please don't argue that they were dumb to sign something without finding the facts first. They trusted Hillary to be honest with them, and she wasn't.

Liam wrote on January 22, 2008 1:45 PM:

Isn't the one who is married to a guy who bangs every Bimbo in creation, to avoid banging her, the one that is truly frustrated!

Hillary is the expert. She has been deeply frustrated for 35 years, and will be able to apply her long frustration experience from day one.

brad wrote on January 22, 2008 1:49 PM:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/obama-v-clinton.html

JR wrote on January 22, 2008 1:52 PM:

"ALLEGED mendacity"??? Last night, to give only one example she completely misstated his statement on Reagan - not once but twice.

Clearly, the Clintons' strategy is to seriously distort Obama's words, then continually repeat them so their misrepresentation appears as truth.

What's telling about Obama's visible anger last night is that he is not a man prone to anger. His calm, cool head has long been one of his strengths. It takes a LOT to tee him off but the Clintons have found the button - to impugn his integrity with distortions and flat-out lies.

Billy Twohorses wrote on January 22, 2008 1:53 PM:

I've never, never, never voted for a Republican. For any office.
I will not vote for Hillary. I thought that I could, but reliving the Clinton Dramas from the 90's is just too much. Please keep in mind that the Clintons damn near destroyed the Democratic Party.
And I hate, just hate the idea of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, what are we? Pakistan, India?

lyn wrote on January 22, 2008 1:56 PM:

brewmn, absolutely! If I weren't trying to keep the response short, I would have embellished much more.

Tapper wrote on January 22, 2008 2:00 PM:

Here we go with the Obaidiots and their WAH WAH WAH!
Saying that Obama is "frustrated" is the politics of personal destruction? Is Obama insane? Or just his painfully wimpy little Obamaniacs?
Tell me, is "frustrated" now a racial slur?
Geez, Obama better get his wife back on the trail, someone with backbone...

And how's that new Hillary ad working for you?
Obama: "I never advocated for single payer... "
OOOPS!
Guess it all depends on the meaning of NEVER...

What LIARS Obama and his Obaidiots are...
But actually it's not Obama's lies that offend, as bad as they are, it is his transparent stupidity and transcendent wimpyness.

Wii wrote on January 22, 2008 2:02 PM:

WOW, Tapper. Nice hissy fit.

Sidney Condorcet wrote on January 22, 2008 2:04 PM:

Bill Clinton, as he did while in office, consistently demeans the Office of the President. It is customary for a former President to embrace the role of party elder and eminence gris and stay on the sidelines of these campaigns. Hillary explains that he's just coming to her defense. Well, if she needs to rely on his legacy as tantamount to experience of her own, as a sin qua non of her candidacy, and if she requires him to be her attack dog and protect her during the campaign, then what can we expect from a Hillary presidency? What role will Bill Clinton play then? Can she control him once he breaks free of his leash? Bill Clinton is effectively running for his third term and is attempting to tear down and smear a fellow Democrat, and he has forfeited his role as party elder. Did the elder Bush act as attack dog against McCain or even Al Gore in 2000? Not at all. If GWB didn't need poppy bush to protect him in 2000, why does Hillary over-rely on Bill? Yet again, Bill's conduct is unbecoming of the office of the Presidency. For once, Hillary should be forced to do something on her own. This is dynasticism and nepotism at its worst, and embodies an anti-feminist sentiment that should be troubling for the Gloria Steinem's of the world. And ladies, I am an equal opportunity voter. Give me a Barbara Boxer or Diane Fienstein, and I'd vote twice if I could.

Coonsey wrote on January 22, 2008 2:04 PM:

It sounds to me like Hillary and Bill are the frustrated ones. Obama is currently WAY BEHIND Hillary in the National Polls. Why are they even bothering talking about Obama? If you believe the polls we are seeing, she is WAY AHEAD and that nobody can beat her.

perhaps they are seeing their OWN polls that show Obama has a VERY GOOD chance of out manuevering THEM. So far, each State's he's gone to, initially had him 10-20 pts behind Hillary. By the time he actually visited the State - he was within the margin of error.

THEY are the ones FRUSTRATED!

Stephen Johnson wrote on January 22, 2008 2:04 PM:

It may be personal taste but to me frustrated is a pretty passive word as compared to angry or desperate. I find either of those words much more agressive. Frankly, who would not be frustrated with the primary and caucus results. I am sure Hillary was frustrated after the Iowa results. It is also her opinion. I think this is someone trying to make a mountain out of a very samll mole hill. If you can not handle a word like frustrated, how would you respond if someone called you a murder or a dyke or calculating and all the other words the right has tried to use against Hillary Clinton. Obama needs to increase the thickness of his skin. Also, he invites some of this with his comments and reactions.

cromacho wrote on January 22, 2008 2:08 PM:

well, billy twohorses, if that's your mindset, resign yourself to bush part 3 under mccain. tell me something, which state that kerry won would hillary lose? i think you've imbibed too much of richard mellon scaife's kool aid. clinton dramas? boy i'd like to have a reprise of hillary's $1,000 cattle futures bet instead of cheney's $30 mil-and-counting halliburton parachute; the not-a-single-
person-indicted whitewater instead of $5 bil in no-bid contracts for blackwater. and you know, this months-long missing white house emails covering the outing of a covert agent makes me yearn for that dan burton subpoena of the clinton's christmas card mailing list. and frankly, i kinda prefer the president getting a blowjob rather than him screwing 300 mil americans and our credibility before the whole world.

RonK, Seattle wrote on January 22, 2008 2:13 PM:

Anonymous nails it, upthread. "Frustrated" is the Clinton campaign's way of needling Obama by throwing his own prematurely triumphant words back at him.

Jan 8 2008:
A day after President Clinton called press coverage of Senator Obama's Iraq War position "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen," Mr. Obama dismissed the criticism as a sign that Senator Clinton's presidential bid was on the ropes. "I understand he's feeling a little frustrated right now," Mr. Obama told reporters at a Dunkin' Donuts store in Manchester, N.H.
http://www.nysun.com/article/69161

Obama for President wrote on January 22, 2008 2:14 PM:

Did anyone see the Daily Show last night? Jon Stewart basically accused Bill of lying about "overhearing" Obama illegal tactics while walking through a casino.

I'm an ardent, longtime Democrat. But the Clintons are lying again. Lying. They don't deserve the presidency again.

Donald from Hawaii wrote on January 22, 2008 2:15 PM:

Billy Twohorses: "I will not vote for Hillary. I thought that I could, but reliving the Clinton Dramas from the 90's is just too much. Please keep in mind that the Clintons damn near destroyed the Democratic Party."

Geez. Talk about your drama ...

Liam wrote on January 22, 2008 2:19 PM:

The Clintons lost both the House and Senate to the Republicans, and that led to the Republicans being able to stack the Supreme Court with Far Right Christo Fascists. That is not drama, but the cold brutal truth.

wglad wrote on January 22, 2008 2:32 PM:

Where does Obama go after he wins SC? Question is not just if he wins, but also how he wins. When he used her LBJ v. MLK comment to bring race into the campaign instead of using it to put her away on the war, he put himself in a no win situation in SC. If Bill Clinton can make him look weak with Black voters there, he's finished. If he wins big with Black voters, but loses with Hispanics and Whites as he did in Nevada, he suddenly becomes a polarizing candidate. It's tragic that the Obama campaign didn't see that HRC gave them an opening to finish her off on the war by picking up on her comparison of herself to LBJ. Maybe they were just too pre-occupied with race, because SC was coming up. Either way, after SC Obama may be holding on by his fingertips. Did you notice Edwards is starting to pound him now? Clinton's AG?

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 22, 2008 2:39 PM:

tell me something, which state that kerry won would hillary lose?

This is an odd question to ask, given that Kerry lost, but right off the top of my head I would have to say that MN, WI and MI are all three up for grabs and (MI especially) could easily go to McCain if it is him vs Clinton. That said, the more important question is "which states that Kerry lost do you imagine that Clinton will win?" I look at the map and I cannot see an answer to that question that does not make me feel thoroughly uneasy.

DancingBear wrote on January 22, 2008 2:45 PM:

Greg, how come you have time to defend yourself multiple times in this thread, but not enough time to correct the innaccuracies in your concluding paragraph in the "Bill says Obama is running against me" thread?

loki wrote on January 22, 2008 2:57 PM:

Unhinged Obama Supporters Unite!

If it wasn't obvious before these attacks by Keith and others of Greg S. should pretty much solidify it.

Talk about "frustrated."

Insanely irrational.

Bupalos wrote on January 22, 2008 3:01 PM:

"which state that kerry won would hillary lose?"

If you're talking McCain, I think Oregon and Washington would not be safe, nor Wisconsin. I could definitely see PA falling to the straight talk express, too. The problem for Hillary v. McCain is going to be credibility, and her "experience" thing that is working right now goes way out the window.

But isn't the real question what state that Kerry lost will Clinton win? Last time I checked, Bush was the president. So why don't you give us your 50+1 scenario, because Kerry was 50-1. IMO Clinton will need both Ohio and Florida. I live in Ohio. It won't be a cakewalk. I think McCain would take both Florida and Ohio from Clinton. I think Obama would get OH, MO, IA, and maybe WV or KY.

And all that abstracts from the point that there are a lot of congressional races where Clinton will be absolute poison on the downticket. Dems have been winning in red states. I don't think that will happen with Hill on the ticket. Even if we take the presidency, I can imagine we will be in a worse position than we are now. Why do you think the majority of endorsers from tight race states have gone Obama? Why is he the most requested campaigner?

IMO, We need to get over our centrist Bill worship, stop being afraid of these Republicans, and nominate someone who can WIN instead of someone who is our "best chance to avoid losing," our pre-damaged, "vetted" hawk-light candidate. That is such a losing mentality.

wglad wrote on January 22, 2008 3:03 PM:

Wisconsin? Nah. That's Feingold country. I was there for the Kerry thing, and, if we held it for Kerry, they can hold it for Clinton. I'm in Michigan now. Hard to tell about Michigan. Might be hard for McCain to run on Bush's economic record here. I don't know. Ditto Minnesota. I haven't a clue. But where might she win that Kerry lost? Ohio?

Joe wrote on January 22, 2008 3:07 PM:

"Relatedly, Camp Hillary's repeated and very conscious use of the word "frustrated" -- rather than more ordinary slurs such as "angry" and "desperate" -- seems suggestive. It seems designed to subtly imply a mental fragility, an inability to remain cool under pressure -- an implication that dovetails with the Hillary campaign's larger message that she's tested and ready for the presidency in a way he isn't."

I really love spin masters!
The man start barely a year ago, build and run a movement that gives the devious Clinton machine a ride for their money then you underestimate his potential?

marcusd wrote on January 22, 2008 3:08 PM:

i am an obama supporter but i feel he is toast right now. i don't think he or anyone is his campaign knew what they would be up against.

i think that people will soon drift to hillary not out of true support but out of the realization that the clintons narrow view of politics may be how the game is really played and the fault lies in obama for trying to elevate us beyond our baser selves. obama will remind them of something in themselves they would like to forget. that deep down, we get the politics we deserve. hillary will because she understands that we do not need false hopes. that we prefer the pigs to the angels in politics and that any protestation to the contrary is wishful thinking.

the clinton lies are for our benefit. we need something firm to hang our collective cynicism on. the clintons give us the lie to believe so we needn't make the uncomfortable realization that the muck we so often complain of was really just deep. the lie was way more believable than the truth. it allows the fiction of our desire for something better to continue.

willyjsimmons wrote on January 22, 2008 3:13 PM:

'We need to get over our centrist Bill worship'

Anyone else picking up on the irony of this statement...

*ahem*

Isn't Obama running AS a centrist?

'nominate someone who can WIN instead of someone who is our "best chance to avoid losing,'

Nevermind he just said:

'And all that abstracts from the point that there are a lot of congressional races where Clinton will be absolute poison on the downticket.'

Cognitive Dissonance Abounds!

wglad wrote on January 22, 2008 3:16 PM:

Also selective perception and retentiion.

willyjsimmons wrote on January 22, 2008 3:25 PM:

IMO, the only 'surprises' will be red states flipping blue.

Which states those will be, is anyone's guess right now.

Hard to predict this early in the game.

Outside of that, it will come down to Ohio and Florida, which will be about minorities turning out (black and hispanic), and NOT voting against their interests. Read: not republican.

Blacks were duped in Ohio (and other parts of the south) over gay marriage.

Hispanics have been duped repeatedly in Florida over Cuba.

The democratic party as a whole, independent of who the nominee is, must get a grip on those voting blocks.

Hispanics in general loom large in the with immigration being a major issue.

If the dems can't count on the black and hispanic turnout, it's all moot.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 22, 2008 3:33 PM:

Wisconsin? Nah. That's Feingold country.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but it is also Tommy Thompson country. Meanwhile, Feingold and McCain are not exactly polar-opposites (e.g. McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform). I would not count WI as safely within the democratic fold, especially if it is a McCain vs Clinton match-up. Likewise, Clinton needs to turn out a lot of folks in Detroit if she is going to win MI. The exit-polls in MI show that this is a far-from-certain prospect. With regard to OH, I am no prophet, but I just cannot see the Buckeye state choosing Clinton over McCain. Mind you, I would be thrilled if they did, but I just do not see it happening. I just cannot see any plausible scenario in which Clinton would no lose both OH and FL.

DonnaG wrote on January 22, 2008 3:58 PM:

For years the American voters have been more than frustrated with their own lack of power in the face of special interests locking up the outcomes of government actions. The result of that frustration is to settle into cynicism and apathy.

Along comes a fellow who sees that frustration and that cynicism and decides to lead a movement to wrest control of government back for the citizens. He is far-thinking, charismatic and damn brilliant, so the movement grows and gives a renewal of hope and focus for thousands and millions of frustrated citizens.

Along comes an ex-president's wife who has made peace with and lots of money through the status quo and she too offers change. She offers to change all that frustrates by, er, breaking a glass ceiling, or in her own words, "I embody change. I happen to think that having a woman president would be a huge change." [NH debate]

The clash of these two messages about change is pretty stark.

Desider wrote on January 22, 2008 4:30 PM:

If Obama had any humor, he'd say, "Of course I'm frustrated - my wife's living a thousand miles away and I don't have my own oval office with paid intern yet."

Actually surprised he didn't pull that out between the slumlord/Rezco bits.

wglad wrote on January 22, 2008 4:43 PM:

Has anyone else heard the msn speculating on whether or not the acrimony between Obama and the Clintons will make it impossible for her to get him on her ticket as VP?

cythera4 wrote on January 22, 2008 4:47 PM:

I love you, Barack! You are so sweet and smart and beautiful, and a total genius, and Hillary is the DEVIL, she drinks children's blood, but you are PURE, and I LOVE you, you make me weak with joy, please WIN WIN WIN and stop the EVIL Clintons! She picked on you last night but you sure showed her with your calm courage and dignity and did I mention total genius and sweetness and BEAUTIFULNESS!

Don't pay any attention to all that stuff about how your health care plan leaves 15 million people out, or how you voted present 130 times and now attack your rivals for their up-or-down votes, or how you had a cozy decades-long relationship with a sketchy Chicago real estate mogul now under indictment, or how you're just a freshman Senator whose only competitive election was beating Alan Keyes in 2004 and a mannequin in a clown suit could have beaten Alan Keyes. Those are just sour grapes from cruel EVIL blood-drinking Hillbots who worship the devil and secretly envy Bill O'Reilly's Loofah.

You, Barack, are a GOD, you stride across the landscape like a titan, mere mortals fall before you. Oh Barack, you're really really CUTE!!!!! Please send me a facebook poke. :))

j-man wrote on January 22, 2008 4:49 PM:

Why would Obama be frustrated? Last time I checked he was WINNING the election in delegates.

Hillary is she-Bush. Anyone who buys into this woman must either be on drugs or have a secret love affair with neocons and their slime ball campaign tactics. If Hillary cared about this country she would drop out of the race.

Desider wrote on January 22, 2008 5:23 PM:

j-man,

Obviously whoever you're checking with must also be on drugs or having a secret love affair with neocons, as Hillary is currently up around 86 delegates including the more numerous superdelegates.

But don't take my drug-addled mind for it - see for yourself:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

wglad wrote on January 22, 2008 5:26 PM:

I've been thinking about this Clinton/McCain match-up, and I see two scenarios.

The first scenario is that the Dems who hate Hillary and the Republicans who hate McCain stay home. The religious right and the blacks who get depressed when Obama doesn't get to run for President stay home. The rest of us elect a President.

The second scenario is that Hillary balances her ticket with someone who can help her unite the base and compete for the Independents, and we let the good times roll.

loki wrote on January 22, 2008 5:26 PM:

Uh...j-man. Last time you checked must have been right after Iowa.

Currently, it's 210 to 123...

That's Clinton with 210 and Obama with 123.

wglad wrote on January 22, 2008 5:34 PM:

By the way, anybody know if in the Illinois state legislature you actually have to be present to vote "present?"

cromacho wrote on January 22, 2008 7:19 PM:

it's curious that the prognostications above regarding the general election match-ups seem to assume that all hands would still be on deck. whether it's mccain, romney, hillary or obama, the contest will be republican vs. democrat. when the ticket forms, everybody else is eliminated from the menu. there will be variances in the margins, but it will essentially be red against blue. against this backdrop, i'm a lot more optimistic about ohio flipping over to the dems after the buyer's remorse over bush, the popular democratic guv, the gay marriage issue lapsing beyond its sell-by date as an election trick. in the other states mentioned, e.g. MN, MI -- war fatigue will tip the balance to the dems, particularly if mccain is the top of the ticket. and the cliff-hanger states such as NM, AZ, NV and even CO -- my bold prediction is there is a subset of the democratic constituency that is even more motivated to vote than the democratic camp as a whole -- latinos will turn out in unprecedented numbers, in anger over the cumulative tone of the immigration issue particularly among the republican candidates. obama will not turn out latinos as much. if hillary holds kerry's states, FL is not even a must-win for her. bottomline, '08 will be as good a time to run for president as a democrat as any since watergate.

nothing to see wrote on January 23, 2008 4:55 AM:

Camp Clinton has to use frustrated because it and Team Obama already used up angry on Edwards. I believe Obama/Edwards decided Clinton was calculating and Clinton/Edwards once thought Obama was naive.

Each campaign has used an adjective to dig the other campaigns throughout the race.

Lisa wrote on January 23, 2008 12:05 PM:

"Tested and Ready" Isn't that Rudy's campaign slogan?

Michael Lippner wrote on January 23, 2008 7:00 PM:

Hi Greg,

Your article certainly is clear and I agree very much with the critique of it.

Now your gratuitious final paragraph does not overtly support the supposed "suggestion" of the word frustrated.

However, it does present the use of "suggestion" without question, thereby indeed validating it.

Considering your article is about a rather contentious topic, to present the Clinton campaign as using a sophisticated communications technique such as "suggestion" without presenting any similar communications technique coming from the Obama campaign reveals your bias.

Here's an even clearer example:

Tom called Greg a Gerk. Greg's mom responded saying her son's a nice man.

Gre's mom, proven by scientiests, exhibited a biologically driven tie to her son in a direct effort to ward off attacks on her son.

Thanks greg.

jrcjr wrote on January 24, 2008 12:59 PM:

seems the clintons may just succeed in damping down democratic enthusiasm just enough for a mcCain victory in november...

Asp wrote on January 24, 2008 9:16 PM:

Not only is Obama successfully (if rather delicately) making the case that the Clintons are not trustworthy, he's also grafting this charge onto his prior claim that he is better equipped than Hillary to build the "working mandate" that Bill never had (or lost early), which a president needs to be 'transformational.' He's been saying in effect that Bill Clinton lost that mandate and Hillary may not get it because they undermine the trust that underpins broad support from the electorate.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)