Hillary: "Shame On You, Barack Obama"
Hillary Clinton is hitting back at Barack Obama over campaign mailers that attack her stances on health care and free trade. "Shame on you, Barack Obama," she bluntly told reporters today in Ohio.
The mailers in question say that her health plan would force people to spend money on health coverage even if they can't afford it, and also that she considers NAFTA to be a "boon" to the economy. Recent reports have argued that Hillary actually opposed NAFTA at the time, but could not publicly disagree with her husband's policies.
As for the health care issue, Hillary said the Obama camp were being bad Democrats: "It is blatantly false and yet he continues to spend millions of dollars perpetuating falsehoods. It is not hopeful. It is destructive, particularly for a Democrat to be discrediting universal health care."
Obama spokesman Bill Burton did not give an inch. "Everything in those mailers is completely accurate," Burton said in a statement, "unlike the discredited attacks from Hillary Clinton's negative campaign that have been rejected in South Carolina, Wisconsin, and across America."
Late Update: Here's some video from Hillary's press conference:
this is EXCELLENT NEWS!! for Hillary!
February 23, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see how this could be seen as good news for Hillary. She comes off as angry and desperate whereas Obama looks cool and confident.
She's feigning outrage over some mailers that were released and discussed weeks ago and are completely truthful and no more misleading than the mailers she's been sending out. So this is just a desperate last-gasp tactic to hold onto Ohio and Texas.
February 23, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a joke, bro...he does it on every thread...even if Hillary loses the nomination it will appear in the comments. Kind of a sarcastic response to her campaign's spin and over the top rhetoric.
February 23, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
video now posted on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9CRgFO2mnM
she is insane.
February 23, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Insane isn't the word - I couldn't beleive how she was screaming. The poor man behind her - was it Strickland - he had this uncomfortable look on his face. Like he was thinking "there goes the campaign." I've seen that look before - remember when Howard Dean had that scream fest after loosing in 04 - everyone behind him had that exact look on their face. Watching a candidate go into meltdown isn't pretty. Yikes.
February 23, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure. She seems pretty confrontational and she not being honest on the issue.
She was the one who told ABC's "This Week" that she thought that "I think there are a number of mechanisms" to handle her mandates, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment".
See http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4235304
Mandated healthcare means mandates... and mandates mean forcing people to pay for healthcare. Even Barack Obama -- in a surprisingly direct manner -- admitted that his plan would require that parents pay for their children to be fully insured in the last debate.
Hillary says that her mandated healthcare will cover everyone.
Hillary also attacks Barack Obama for saying that her plan won't force people to pay who might otherwise choose not to.
And yet, when forced, she admitted that she will go after people's wages, either on their paycheck, or automatically through their place of work.
It sure would be nice if *SHE* clearly stated her position on healthcare, rather than attacking Obama for daring to call her plan into question.
February 23, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
She has clearly stated her position on health care. Read Paul Krugman. Go to Hillary's web site. Do a google search to find the first summaries of her plan, like the Washington Post's. You'll see the details right there. The charge she makes that Obama's plan will leave out 15 million is a bit on the low side; it's more like 22 million. And those "drop outs," willingly or unwillingly, have the effect of making the rest of us pay more for our health care.
Yes, there are mandates, as there are in any other universal plan. Don't pay your taxes, and see what happens. Don't pay your parking fines, and see what happens. She hasn't spelled out the punishment of course. She was asked by a reporter if "you're going to attach salaries," and she said that might be a possibility.
In case you think that this means a subsidy to private insurers, first of all, they will not be allowed to reject people for "pre-existing conditions." And you will also have the choice of choosing an expanded medicare program, too.
Instead, we have the weak-sister program put forward by Obama that would have no mandates, thus no hope of universality, and therefore it would cost more. Aside from that, it's a plan that a Republican could learn to love. Which is, I think, the point of all that "bipartisanship."
February 25, 2008 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
If she supported NAFTA publicly but opposed it privately, which one matters most?
February 23, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read the article, Brett.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/14/did-hillary-clinton-reall_n_86674.html?view=print
It doesn't say she supported it in public. She opposed it in private and fought for health insurance. Try not to squirm. It won't help.
February 23, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alternately, read this article:
http://action.credomobile.com/commentary/2008/02/a_trade_transformation.html
Or a recap, if it has to be on the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/the-issue-that-could-deci_b_88034.html
So, we have your article which explains Clinton opposed NAFTA privately, and other articles giving examples where Clinton supported NAFTA publicly. Which returns us to DavidS' question, if she supported NAFTA publicly but opposed it privately, which one matters most...?
February 23, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
She opposed it in private, but supports the same kind of trade policies in public:
Clinton Announces Support for NAFTA Expansion
February 23, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/breaking-obama-says-he-w_b_67780.html
February 24, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton on the record support of NAFTA. see below.
On November 1, 1996, United Press International reported that on a trip to Brownsville, Texas, Clinton “touted the president’s support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it would reap widespread benefits in the region.”
The Associated Press followed up the next day noting that Hillary Clinton touted the fact that “the president would continue to support economic growth in South Texas through initiatives such as the North American Free Trade Agreement.”
In her memoir, Clinton wrote, “Senator Dole was genuinely interested in health care reform but wanted to run for president in 1996. He couldn’t hand incumbent Bill Clinton any more legislative victories, particularly after Bill’s successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA.”
February 23, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
well, even if you aren't saying it, I am. she praises it in 'Living History' and has made literally dozens of comments in public about her support for it. I don't care what she did about it 'privately', as if there was some crew of people keeping track of her off the record statements about NAFTA back in the mid-nineies! get real.
February 23, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You, sir, are on point. I opposed it privately before I supported it publicly anyone?
February 23, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you, sir, should read it again.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/14/did-hillary-clinton-reall_n_86674.html?view=print
Regards,
Thulsa Doom
February 23, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
As quoted in your article '"NAFTA was a mistake to the extent that it did not deliver on what we had hoped it would."
If that is not double speak, I don't know what is. Hillary can not have it both ways, shoudl shoudl come out and publicly states where she stands on NAFTA now. Short of that, I think she deserve all criticism by sitting on the fence and remaining quiet on her position other than saying she had reservations.
February 23, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is like saying "too the extent that I got caught, robbing that bank was a error." It is failing to take any resposibility or even admitting failure, except to the extent that it cannot possibly be avoided. Sometimes you just have to admit that you screwed up - if she could just do that, she could hold on to her credibility.
February 23, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
In her book, Hilary called NAFTA one of the great accomplishments of the Clinton Administration. There are quotes all over the place on Hillary's supportive words on NAFTA. Even now, she is wishy-washy when talking about it - she won't admit that its destroyed the American rust belt, she just says it needs tweaking. This report is just an attempt to change the history. If Hillary wants to claim the time she spent in the White House as "experience," she needs to take responsibility for the bad as well as credit for the good. And she was screaming like a shrew - God, how humiliating.
February 23, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
And this is going to kill her in Texas as they're all up in arms about the NAFTA highway and eminent domain.
February 24, 2008 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
But the gnomes on the intarwebs have found numerous examples of her praising it publicly...
February 23, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's moot, isn't it? This race is over.
February 23, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not over until the fat lad..
Um. It's not over yet.
February 23, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is all over except for the crying.
February 23, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can keep posting that HP article, it won't change Hillary's record.
So her aides and biographers say she didn't really support it? That settles it.
Since you like HP, here's David Sirota:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/the-desperation-of-hillar_b_88142.html
Love,
The Four Winds
February 24, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
And Obama supported NAFTA publically. Bu, i guess he forgot that.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/breaking-obama-says-he-w_b_67780.html
February 24, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
At long last Senator Clinton, have you no senses of decency left!
Now you are bogged down in your Political Shrillary Season.
February 23, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
IT was a total melt down. Completey un-presidential.
This will be remembered as her "Howard Dean" moment.
February 23, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Senator Obama knows it is not true that my plan forces people to buy insurance even if they can't afford it," said Clinton
Isnt that what a mandate is? I don't see what's wrong here...
February 23, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her plan offers a sliding scale subsidy for everyone who can't afford it. If you don't think that universal health care is necessary, then of course you can frame it as forcing people to buy insurance.
Another way of looking at it is that it provides a human right, adequate health care, to all, and it uses a progressive tax to support it.
February 23, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or you could look at it, as I'm sure a majority of Americans do, as a socialist commie pinko nanny-state plan to take away the hard-earned dollars of American taxpayers. Certainly an unfair accusation of the situation, but if you don't understand that Americans don't take kindly to forced government intervention and garnished wages, then you probably shouldn't be running for office.
February 23, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess if you travel far enough West you just come around to arriving from the East. Who would have thought that an opportunistic Progressive candidate would make a Reagan argument against universal health care. Guess if you live long enough, you'll see everything.
February 23, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her health care plan sucks. If she wants universal health care, she should grow a spine and stand up for single-payer. This garbage she's pushing is a disaster in the making.
February 23, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is indestinguisable from Sen Obama's plan. She has said she is going to mandate coverage but that their will be no penalty for not getting coverage. A mandate with no enforcement mechinism is not a mandate.
February 23, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
If that were really true, she would have no grounds whatsoever for accusing him of promoting a 'non-universal' plan. I think you're mistaken.
February 25, 2008 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since she's advocated not only mandatory purchase of private health insurance, but attaching people's wages in order to compel it, wouldn't you call it welfare for the health insurance industry?
I sure do.
February 23, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is a mandate necessary then? Why are there wage garnishments for those who don't follow the mandates? Isn't this the same program Romney built in Massachusetts which is more expensive and cumbersome than first thought?
A few questions to chew over...oh, and universal coverage isn't the same as universal health care. You will be required to pay insurance companies for coverage and I suppose it will require price controls on those companies...but this isn't the point of what Clinton is trying to do here.
IMO she went all gushy and nice to Obama's face at the debates when he could defend himself(except for the failed Xerox comment) and when he was out of sight she started shanking him in the press. These ads have been out forever and she's acting like she just saw this...Low class IMO. Well, I guess so much for thinking the Clintons aren't willing to destroy the party to get the nomination.
February 23, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Garnishing" is in the same class as the "death tax." It's a Republican argument against a liberal concept -- all in a convenient phrase that brooks no contradiction.
Who wants to be forced to pay for things that the government makes them use like the police, the courts, the highway system, Social Security and Medicare. Not to mention tax breaks for businesses, government contracts, oil leases, timber, mining and grazing on government land, use of our space for power production and communications transmission, ports, river and canal systems, clean water and air, and so forth.
Unlike a lot of those things, civilized countries have determined that access to health care is a human right. Insurance companies' only function is to assure that health care providers get paid. The government has already proven that it does the job competently and at a much lower cost (Medicare and the VA). Insurance adds no value to our health care system, they just pay, or avoid paying, the bills. Obama's plan will perpetuate the current system. Medicare, Social Security and the VA are not insurance. If universal health care has to be framed that way, as it has, then the Edwards/Clinton plan uses the market to make the system efficient. You should read it. Private companies either compete or get out.
Barack and some here use Luntzian framing. If you are a Bushite Republican and/or libertarian, fine, go in peace. If you are a Democrat and/or progressive, what do you stand or?
February 23, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If you are a Democrat and/or progressive, what do you stand for?"
How about the realism to understand that there is no over-arching political will in this country right now to create a huge new entitlement program ala social security or medicare? I'd love to see a single payer system in the US, but after 20 years of right wing governance and 8 years of DLC triangulation it's going to take some time to get the electorate back to a point where they can see the reason behind universal health care as an entitlement.
Neither O nor HRC is proposing true universal health care, but HRC's focus on mandated insurance plays to the right's abhorrence for government-dictated solutions. There's a big difference between establishing a tax levy on all Americans to fund 100% access to health care, and requiring Americans to pay for privately issued insurance policies out of their pocket. No question, O's plan perpetuates the participation of the insurance industry with his plan, but the lack of mandate makes it a lot easier to enact a plan that substantially increases access to care while not alienating the right.
February 23, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Universal health care can be achieved in all kinds of ways. The Edwards/Clinton plan forces the insurance companies to show that they can do a better job than a single-payer system. Yes, it's a universal plan. Obama's plan is not. Yes, getting universal health care passed is more than a long shot. It will probably take a generation or more. FDR and LBJ had the depression and the Kennedy assassination. A candidate would have to be self-destructive to propose a single-payer system. It will take a perfect storm to bring about a single-payer health care system, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to change the context of the debate to favor one.
Obama is saying that the Reagan-through-Rove talking points are legitimate. She makes it clear in the video that his talking points are destructive. Think Medicare part D, which puts the insurance and drug companies in charge of pricing and paying for prescriptions with our money. We can't afford to support sick people and the insurers at the same time.
February 23, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a completely specious argument. If Hillary wants to provide public services, paid for by raising taxes, fine. She should add 500 bucks onto everyone's monthly tax bill and fight for single-payer. Let's see how far THAT goes. But to claim that this is in the same category as infrastructure services like a police force and a fire department is ridiculous.
Her plan is a poorly conceived mess. It will never become law, and she knows it.
February 23, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The danger is that Obama will get his plan passed and the insurance companies will have another twenty or forty years to convince us that free enterprise is what we need, not single payer. Meanwhile we are paying them to do what we (our government) can do better for free. Bush and company did that with Medicare part D and it was a brilliant preemptive move.
This Republican talking points argument seems to have hit a nerve with some people. Remember Thatcher's description of Gorbachev as someone we can do business with, where's he now? I hope that Obama isn't someone that the reactionary zero-sum exterminator wing of the other party can do business with.
February 24, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I get it...once again, I'm not a "real" Democrat. Whatever. Same old argument over and over from the Clinton campaign. And, by the way, unless the Republicans held a gun to her head as she said garnishing wages might be a way to enforce mandates, it isn't a Republican talking point.
But it's very interesting how you immediately went that route.
February 23, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I get it...once again, I'm not a "real" Democrat. Whatever. Same old argument over and over from the Clinton campaign. And, by the way, unless the Republicans held a gun to her head as she said garnishing wages might be a way to enforce mandates, it isn't a Republican talking point.
But it's very interesting how you immediately went that route.
February 23, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
True. I'm positive this nation is headed for that...eventually.
What I think Obama (correctly, in my opinion) realizes is that the U.S. is still a more conservative nation (relative to other industrialized countries) and there will be a psychological resistance to mandates among VOTERS (important to distinguish between conservative sensibilities in VOTERS and conservative interests of politically powerful DC insiders). It's his judgment that this would likely be the most powerful resistance (among the ELECTORATE) that the Republicans may be able to successfully exploit to derail progress toward UHC, and he removes this potential by reassuring more conservative voters that, "hey, you still have a CHOICE." Fear of mandates, fear of wage garnishment--gone.
I believe this underpins the difference between Sen. Clinton's and Sen. Obama's approaches--it's simply a judgment call on reading public mood and sensibilities.
Obama judges the public mood as sufficiently conservative to enable the Republican noise machine to exploit public fear of "socialist" policy. He says he doesn't want to blow our chance to move toward UHC by going too liberal and undermining political will among VOTERS.
On the other hand, Clinton judges the public mood as sufficiently progressive to make demanding full, mandated healthcare the safest bet. She thinks the most dangerous potential obstacle to movement toward UHC is not public mood and voters' political will; it's failing to start negotiations with the politically powerful DC interests from a position of demanding the whole enchilada. She says it's important to set the price high and negotiate down, and setting the price lower before negotiations is a mistake.
Both have compelling reasons for their differing approaches. But I believe they're based on trying to intuit public mood and predict how the future political battle over healthcare will play out.
For me, it boils down to deciding which candidate has the better political intuition. Though Sen. Clinton is a skilled and competent politician, based on everything I've seen in her admittedly impressive career, I have more confidence in Obama's political intuition than in hers. His career accomplishments (and this primary season) give me reason to believe he has very keen political intuition, in addition to skill and intellect.
February 23, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post! Thanks for the insight...
February 23, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
So let me see if I've got this straight. Obama's not supporting the plan that he thinks is best, he's supporting the one that will be most politically acceptable.
Now tell me with a straight face that if the roles were reversed, we wouldn't be hearing from every Obama supporter how Hillary was only cynically going for votes, being devoid of principle and all. The excuses you guys make for Obama are really annoying. He never voted present for political expediency, he missed the Kyl-Lieberman vote because he wasn't told about it (despite the fact that 98 Senators somehow showed up), he said he didn't know how he would have voted on the AUMF if he'd been in the Senate because he was being "loyal" (it couldn't possibly have to do with not wanting to endanger his keynote, the biggest event in his political career). Hey, the guy's not perfect. He's a politician. None of the above disqualifies him. Buy you guys continue to insist that he's never done anything wrong, that every questionable move can be brushed off (because of course every single negative fact is being planted in the press by the Clintons). Assuming Obama's the nominee, he'll probably be elected because the Republicans are in such a down cycle. Lucky for him, because in a real race he wouldn't be able to just walk away from every criticism. And people wouldn't be able to brush off the comments from his unlikable wife.
February 23, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You said it yourself, the man's a politician, and politicians, least of all US presidents, don't dictate policy, they arrive at it incrementally and through consensus. Strategically it's a better plan to move toward universal health care incrementally given how polarized the parties have become.
Have we learned nothing from HRC's failed 93/94 attempt to move directly to universal health care? Obama is on record as saying he would support a single payer system if we could start from scratch. But we can't start from scratch, so let's get there one step at a time. What's hard to understand about that?
February 23, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
ChrisO,
Your mistake here is in assuming I care about "if tables were turned," etc. You have to be careful about lumping people into groups and then forming broad, generalized conclusions about them.
"The excuses you guys make for Obama are really annoying." Here you assume that (1) I'm a member of some group that has members who hold identical thoughts and opinions, and (2) that I am "making excuses" for Obama. Neither of those assumptions is true.
I explain how I arrived at my own decision and I don't presume that anyone else will agree with my own analysis. I'm just throwing it out there for interested and thoughtful readers to consider. Perhaps a few of them will find the points supporting my opinion persuasive; perhaps not.
I don't feel the need to "make excuses" for either candidate--both have their own talents to offer and our job is to make our own evaluations and make a judgment as to which one we think will be the best candidate. That's all I mean to imply here. I think anything else you infer from my post must be the result of your own projections.
February 23, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
In one of my comments, I praised your reasoning.
February 23, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it would be the same in reverse. It demonstrates their different approaches.
Idealist vs. Pragmatist
"My way or the highway" vs. "Let's compromise to achieve the goal"
HillaryCare93 vs. ObamaCare08
Universal health care won't be achieved all at once, it will take incremental steps. And blanket mandates which she insists on will be a huge obstacle for her plan.
February 23, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an incredibly astute analysis and it goes right to the heart of why the Obama campaign is doing so well. They have read the political landscape very accurately.
February 24, 2008 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
how deftly you move from praising obama for being driven by principles to praising him for being driven by polls, depending on the issue at hand.
stand for nothing. stand for anything. vote for obama.
February 24, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or you could look at it as universal Health Insurance.
But IMO the fact that it is not universal Health Care is not the biggest problem. The problem is mandates against ordinary people is a general election loser...political suicide IMO. Not only republicans but Dems and Indies of the libertarian bent will not vote for federal mandates.
Obama's plan to have mandates against insurance companies to lower costs and make insurance available to all does not turn people off like the m-word.
February 23, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's plan also offers subsidies to those who cannot afford it.
The big difference is that she forces people to join, where he allows them to opt out.
February 23, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has tried to sell her plan as universal, but it's not. Don't get me wrong, Obama's doesn't either. The problem is that this leaves very little difference between the two plans aside from the very wonky details of mandates and income brackets.
It won't be universal until it's "single payer" comparable to Canada or the UK. This involves telling the insurance industry they are out of business as was done in Canada. Neither candidate has a plan that does this. Instead, they try to position expanded version of the existing Medicare and Congressional health care systems as a bulwark against insurance industry exploitation.
Hillary is struggling because she lives in a glass house and thinks she can win by throwing stones. She indicts experience where she has little more to speak of. She indicts the appropriation of rhetoric and then commits the same act. She criticizes Obama's plan for not being universal, but hers isn't either.
She needs to figure out how to tell voters why she's the better candidate. If she can't, they will be forced to conclude that she's not.
February 24, 2008 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Except there would be a pretty low cap. Most people would pay full price, and so it would actually be a regressive tax. The more money you make, the lower the percentage of your wages you have to pay.
February 25, 2008 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
First audacity and then arrogance. It's yours to lose, Obama campaign.
February 23, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. She is audaciously arrogant.
And the election is ours to win. In fact, I'm going to donate to Obama again today!
Everyone else is welcome, too. We only need about another 34,000 donations to reach the million contributors mark, so let's see whether we can give that to Obama to use as good news for March 1st, before the elections in Texas and Ohio.
Yes, we can!
February 23, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bad">http://blog.hillaryclinton.com/blog/main/2008/02/22/143137">Bad Democrats
In Case You Missed It
Recent reports suggesting that Hillary actually opposed NAFTA at the time, have been determined to be, at this time, totally bogus. Not sure why that line of bunk is getting repeated here as if it hadn't already been totally debunked.
February 23, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chino Blanco,
The link you posted is not accesible. Do you have another one?
Thanks
February 23, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Somewhere up his ass. He'll put on his miner's lamp and look for it.
February 23, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the intended link I believe. I cut an pasted his into textpad and removed every thing except the URL
http://blog.hillaryclinton.com/blog/main/2008/02/22/143137
February 23, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait, I thought she was a fighter. I thought she was tough. I thought she's been vetted. I thought he was weak. I thought he was too pie-in-the-sky. I thought he didn't know how to get rough.
Shame on you.
Yeah, that doesn't sound school-marmy.
Go after it, Barack. Keep showing your teeth.
February 23, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only did she "not publicly disagree" with NAFTA, but she also personally congratulated business leaders at Davos in 1998 for "a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA."
February 23, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
These mailers have been out for weeks. Why bring them up now?
It probably means that her internals are getting troubling, and that she's getting hammered on her support for NAFTA.
Guess that Hillary from the end of the last debate was just an act after all. If anything, this attack probably hurts her more than helps her if it distracts away from that faux-positive attitude she displayed.
February 23, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's trying out anger to see if that works. It's a manufactured crisis.
February 23, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You would have thought they would have learned their lesson. Going negative hasn't worked for her for about a month or more now, while going positive and showing some tenderness is what won her New Hampshire.
When your candidate has higher negatives than positives, it's probably not a good idea to go on the attack to drive up your negatives. Just some basic campaign logic.
February 23, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's out of money and needs exposure.
February 23, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just DONATED $50.08 to Barack Obama. Thx Hillary!
From The Campaign:
Donate Now and Double Your Impact
We are within striking distance of something historic: one million people donating to this campaign.
This unprecedented foundation of support has built a campaign that has shaken the status quo and proven that ordinary people can compete in a political process too often dominated by special interests.
But it's going to take an incredible organizing effort to bring in 100,000 new donors before March 4th.
Be a part of this historic drive.
Please donate now and double your impact.
Matching donations!!
https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/decmatch?match_campaign_id=5&source=feature_million
February 23, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's a fucking hypocrite.
With all the mailers she sends out the night before or day before most of the previous swing stated primaries or caucuses and this one, which has been out for a week, she acts like it's the first time she's seen it and that's the tactic is Rovian?
She looked deranged.
She' done.
February 23, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
She waits till NOW to go angry and crazy??!! Mailers like this have been going out since before Super Tuesday.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120234937353949449.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
And it's not like she never sent out questionable attack mailers before...
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/02/08/veritas-clinton-mailer-harolds-dirty-war/
February 23, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
i just saw BO response on CNN to HRC claims...but i also HRC address to the media on CNN as well and I have to agree with Obama that HRC actions today seems "tactical."
She is preparing to make her last stand folks...If she loses Tex or Ohio its over...
February 23, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow.... Here's hoping there's an Obama ad with the handshake and the "I'm so glad to be here..." quote and then this clip right afterward. I don't know how they can keep so many seperate realities going at the same time and expect nobody to notice...
February 23, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/23/clinton.mailings/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
this is where you can see the video
I promise you the sound bites are nothing without the video
the lady has some obvious anger management issues
February 23, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dang. This is getting more painful to watch by the day. I wish she had better options at this point...but I guess she doesn't. Crap.
Her campaign strategists suck hard. Goddamit this is humiliating.
February 23, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
M. Penn at 7 a.m.:
"Ready? Okay here's the plan: You get right out there and scream at Obama. I mean really shriek at him. Daggers darting from your eyes, the whole nine yards. It'll totally work. People will see that real scarey rage and say, 'Damn I wanna vote for that.' Take my word for it.
"That'll be $876,448.62, please."
February 23, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, she is really ticked off. Keep in mind Obama campaign has been saying this for over two weeks when the fliers first went out. As Obama just said, maybe she just saw the fliers today??? If so, shame on her, for continuing to be inept at running a campaign.
The NAFTA mailer is not good for Obama because of the "boon" comment that leads one to believe she said that, but she didn't. He says mailer went out prior to clarification of that by Newsday. That one is a little questionable. Hope they change the flier.
As for the healthcare garnishment of wages, link below.
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=4235448&page=1
Give me a break.. SHE SAID IT.... where is the dishonesty? I am getting very confused. Clinton seem desparate.
February 23, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your link is not working.
February 23, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the end of Hillary's address to the media she said to BO, "See you in Ohio." There could be fireworks in this debate on tuesday...She may well do in this debate what she should have done in the last one, attack, attack, attack...
This could get nasty before its over...for those of us who thought this was going to end quietly, well, think again...
February 23, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, it's one of the few times Wolfie has been able to do what he was hired to do: be the bad cop. The Clinton Campaign is paying him lots of money to be the tough guy who stands up to the Attack Machine, but instead he been stuck having to complaining that David Geffen said mean things about Hillary, Obama won't debate, and that Obama uses words and phases either too well or that his words weren't directly drawn from God in Heaven.
It's one of the few time Wolfie gets to play the indignant, "That's-it-we-are-not-taking-anymore-of-this-crap!" spokesman he was hired to be. Don't begrudge him.
February 23, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see her be tough. I love it. Obama has already successfully framed the narrative in this race. If she goes negative, it reinforces his entire narrative - petty politics, cheap shots and senseless bickering at the expense of talking about the issues. How does the Clinton camp CONTINUE to fall for it? It's like he's baiting them.
Did the Clinton camp not watch the debate on Thursday? Surely somebody must have seen it. The one time Hillary went truly negative, she got BOOED. The one time she showed grace and humility, she was APPLAUDED.
What idiots are running her campaign? Oh, right. Those guys.
February 23, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
But the debate was, at best, a toss-up for HRC. Several gasbags (esp. David Gergen) said afterword that Hillary needed to come out like a fighter. That's what she's doing. It's the only angle she hasn't tried, so why not? Obama was nevertheless unflappable in his response. He's a smart guy, he can handle it.
February 23, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not about falling for anything, it's about having a limited range of options to cut him down. It's the nature of a campaign. If you're up, you never attack downward, in fact you don't attack, and maintain that appearance of civility. OTOH, when you're behind, sometimes going negative and attacking is your only option, even if it puts you in a bad light, and that's where Clinton is now. She hasn't been manipulated or tricked into that response.
February 23, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's just that she let him frame the narrative. He's the candidate of change, she's the fighter. So everytime she tries to fight him, it reinforces the notion that politics is all argument and no resolution. What can she do?
February 23, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desperation isn't becoming.
February 23, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
how come hillary never brings this stuff up in a debate? she always waits until after the debate.
is she afraid to take him on face to face, cuz thats the impression i get from this type of behavior.
Not to mention, a mandate by definition would force people to buy insurance whether they can afford it or not. thats what a MANDATE is. somebody should explain that to her campaign.
If you force EVERYONE to buy it, its safe to say that not EVERYONE can afford it (or they'd have it already). So you make people who cant afford it, buy it. Thats called a mandate.
If i wanted to get snarky, i'd call it an "unfunded mandate" because there are lots of people who wont be able to afford it.
February 23, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a nice lil' quote from today:
Shame on who???
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-clinton24feb24,0,3494226.story
February 23, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dont see how his "big crowds" would have anything at all to do with these mailers shes attacking.
I mean, if you want to attack him for those things, fine. But what do the size of his crowds have to do with it?
Hillary should be careful. Her resentment of his success is seeping through.
February 23, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
rallies, not crowds.
whatever. you know what i mean.
February 23, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I thought that was an odd criticism..."You and all your stoopid supporters at your stoopid rallies and your stoopid enthusiasm and your stoopid cool ads from stoopid cool celebrities...what was I talking about?"
February 23, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could it also be because she's not bringing in the kinds of numbers that Obama does?
Case in point. Obama had a 17,000 person rally at Reunion Arena in Dallas on Wednesday, and Clinton had a 1,000 person rally at the world's saddest Bank of American parking lot in Oak Cliff (section of Dallas, south and west of downtown) on Friday. It's a little disparate to say the least.
February 23, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
BO said in his response interview liken this race to a boxing match where you cant win on points, but rather you have to get a "knock out"...
The Obama camp smell blood in the water and they want March 4th to be the knock out punch...I think the Clinton camp knows they are going to loose one of those 2 states and at this point its about not getting blown out in either one...
Todays antics by the Clinton camp was about one thing, LAYING THE SPIN GROUNDWORK FOR A LOSS IN TX, PERIOD. If she looses TX, she will use the suppose distortion of her record as the reason, i can see the spin now...
February 23, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shame on Barack Obama? That dog's not gonna hunt.
It's a little late for the Clinton campaign to be aghast about a tough mailer. They ceded that high road a LONG time ago.
Lest we forget what we've seen from the Clintons this cycle:
* dabbling in drug hysteria (Sheehan, Robert Johnson)
* dabbling in Giulianiesque fear-mongering (the Gordon Brown, Al Qaeda quote; "only one of us is ready on Day 1")
* The pro-Reagan distortions (in Nevada and SC)
* the misleading abortion/present-vote mailer in NH
* the misleading social security cap mailer in NV
* the oppo research involving Obama in kindergarten days
* trying to change the rules after the fact in FL and MI
* trying to make hay about Ben Smith's goofy Ayers story (while conveniently forgetting FALN)
* trying to muddy the waters on Obama's obviously anti-war Iraq position in 2002
* all the permutations of the race card ("imaginary hip black friend," Jesse Jackson, et al)
* union-busting rhetoric in NV (WJC: "They think they know better than you")
* voter suppression in NV (the casino lawsuit)
Did I miss anything? I'm sure I did. Rather than make a case for Sen. Clinton's strengths as a potential president, they went the Mark Penn bottom-feeder route, and have left no ugly tactic untried. In so doing, they've left an indelible scar on the Clinton legacy.
So, really, shame on you, Sen. Clinton. Shame on you.
February 23, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Add the new, illegal 527 in Texas.
February 23, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about leaving herself on the ballot in Michigan and Florida even though other candidates withdrew as per party rules so that she could position herself to later call for protection against their disenfranchisement and thus claim their delegates in virtually uncontested elections?
February 24, 2008 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was so proud of Hillary at the end of last debate for taking the high road. Now we see it was just an act.
Those flyers have been out for weeks. She planned this. She can now pretend that she tried to be gracious-but Obama doesn't fight fair and now she has no choice but to go after him. She is going to tear the democratic party apart - but it isn't her fault?
February 23, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shame???? Everytime I think she can't sink lower!! -- everytime I start to want to give her the benefit of a doubt!!! I feel like Charlie Brown with Lucy holding (and then taking away) the football, time and time and time again.... This has to be deliberate, accusing Obama of using Karl Rove tactics so that it will just seem that he's whining if/when he, with GREAT justification, says the same of her. (Actually, attacking someone on their strengths and your weaknesses IS straight out of the Rove manual - think Kerry's war record and Bush's cowardice.)
I urge anyone who wants to know the real difference between these to two candidates to take the absolutely factually true statements on the mailer's she's holding up and compare them to the factually UNtrue and fear-mongering statements on two mailers she has been sending out before (I belive) every primary - do your own factcheck - and then tell me whether it is Clinton or Obama who lacks integrity. Here are her flyers, and I know they were used in NH and NEV, possibly elsewhere:
on Social Security:
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/on_eve_of_primary_hillary_drops_negative_mailer_hitting_obama_on_taxes.php
on Pro-Choice:
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/hillary_mailer_hits_obama_on_abortion.php
(hope those links work)
If you can't figure out the lies of each of those, I'll be happy to point them out. The first was sent out the day before the NH primary, and the second 3 days before (but then they stopped Obama's effort to launch a calling campaign to correct the lies with *false* charges of election law violation.) They were used again in Nev.
What is worse and to my mind utterly unforgiveable is that in NH Clinton got prominent women in the community to sign a letter containing the same misinformation about pro-choice that was on the flyer .... WITHOUT TELLING THEM THE TRUTH!! Here's what those women had to contend with after she left NH riding on the crest of her "victory"
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/18/trying_to_heal_a_rift_in_new_h_1.html
And another article on the NH tactics:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/12/taken_for_granite.html#more
It was at that point that I made the surprising decision that I could not - ever - support her again. This was difficult: she is my senator, for whom I had proudly voted twice, and I had assumed that I would be supporting her once my first choice, Joe Biden, had to drop out. Since then, truly, I have been waiting for a 48 hour period of time during which she or her campaign does not do something *shameful* so that, perhaps, I could back away from my vow to vote for anyone, even a Republican, rather than Clinton. It has not happened and, in fact, has only gotten worse. She will never have my vote again .. not even for dog-catcher!
I'm sorry, but she has no right to even utter the word "shame" ... except when looking at herself in a mirror. How Sen Obama and his campaign have managed to maintain dignigty and keep focusing on the issues, without ripping her and her totally unethical techniques to shreds in some highly public way, is beyond me. But they have been right to do so. My admiration for the man and for his leadership style has become deep and heartfelt.
February 23, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Next weeks debate won't be boring! LOL!
February 23, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is always touting her White House experience.That means that she must own the NAFTA agreement, as part of that experience. Her husband signed that horrible anti labor, and anti environmental standards trade bill.
Hillary always tries to have it both ways: She wants to claim the eight years of her Husband's administration as proof of her experience level, but she wants to also claim that she had nothing to do with anything that her husband screwed up on.
Hillary is the Queen of Doublespeak.
February 23, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has really tried to convert her tenure as First Lady into a freebie of sorts. She wants to hold it up against experience in elected public office. It's not the same thing. Then she wants to claim distance from a cornerstone of the Clinton economic policy.
It's not that she doesn't deserve any credit for that experience whatsoever, but neither should she be expect to be able to tout that record without it being criticized.
February 24, 2008 2:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh-huh. And the mailers giving out false info about his social security plan? There's no shame in that?
I mean, it's easy to say one thing in politics and do another (see: plagiarism kerfuffle) but I'm going to be seriously surprised if she doesn't send out these mailers in TX and OH. So, someone could hear her saying, "Shame on you," holding their mailer.
Unless, I guess, she can't afford it.
February 23, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh Blue Smurf Girl - I love it when you say "plagiarism kerfuffle."
February 23, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Link to Hill's comments re: garnishing wages
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=4235448
February 23, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
She has finally lost it! I never thought a "vetted" politician, with 35 years of experience in politics, could lose it so bad in public. She obviously has trouble deciding which personality she wants to display on any given day: one day she is nice and feels honored to compete against Obama and the next she is comparing him with Bush and raising hell about some pamphlets that have been around since Iowa. How much can you trust someone like that?
And the funny thing, she wants to meet Obama to discuss his behavior. I guess it''s her maternal instinct shinning through finally but the tone is highly inappropriate for a presidential primary.
February 23, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it appears that the link was incorrectly pasted. This works:
http://blog.hillaryclinton.com/blog/main/2008/02/22/143137
February 23, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can just see it in November, if she gets the nomination.
Shame on you, Rush Limbaugh!
Shame on you, Ari Fleisher!
Shame on you, John McCain!
Shame on you, red state Democrats!
Shame on you, 60 Minutes for that story you did that one time!
Shame on you, Paul Johnson of Topeka!
Shame on you, America!
Shame on ALL OF YOU!
But remember, she's a fighter. She's been vetted.
February 23, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hill is caught between a rock and a hard place. Legislative experience is not that remarkable. Her most significant experience is as First Lady. But she was not the Commander in Chief, so that experience is linked to Bill. America is getting squeamish over the idea of Bill having a second chance at being President. And there are some things that did not work, like NAFTA. Liam was right on. She wants to claim her experience as First Lady during the Clinton administration, but wants to remove those portions that could prevent her from being elected. Gotta admit, this is a new and difficult challenge that no other candidate has had to face.
February 23, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, she's caught between a Barack and a hard place.
February 23, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
yep, she's trapped between Barack and a hard race
McCain is trapped between Iraq and a hard base
February 23, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very nicely played!
February 24, 2008 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton's plan is not about providing Affordable Health Care for all.
Hillary Clinton's plan is about forcing every person to pay High Health Care Coverage Premiums to the Insurance Industry.
Hillary got burned by the Insurance Lobby in 1993 so now she has surrendered to them. Her plan will not provide affordable health care coverage. It is not designed to do so.
It is designed, just the like Tom Delay's Medicare Prescription Drug Bill, to reward the Robber Barons of The Health Care Insurance Cartel.
February 23, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear hear! As someone who works in health care, I've experienced and understood firsthand what an enormous scam on the American taxpayer that the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Plan turned out to be.
February 23, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hope while reporting on this tactic that reporters dredge up the recent memory of her last-minute attack mailers that contained flat out un-truths and distortions of Obama's record (the false and discredited claim that his strategic "present" votes means he is weak on pro-choice; the false claim that raising the payroll tax on wealthy is a "trillion $ tax hike"). Pot calling kettle black. Manufactured outrage as a desperate last minute attempt.
February 23, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think attacking Hillary because she says she supported NAFTA during Bill's presidency, but couldn't publicly oppose him is hypocritical, Obama supporters.
Obama says he supports green technology. He says he wants development of renewable clean energy sources. He says he doesn't support lobbyists writing legislation in "behind closed doors" settings. But he supported the 2005 Energy Bill that was written by Cheney's lobbyist buddies in a series of closed door meetings. Obama knew the bill expanded tax breaks and giveaways for oil companies and funded additional coal power plants. The argument by Obama supporters is that he couldn't oppose the bill and publicly speak against it because of the coal and agriculture lobby in Illinois. It sounds to me like he is speaking out of both sides of his mouth and avoiding opportunities to stand up even if its politically inconvenient.
www.greenpieceblog.com
February 23, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn right she opposed it, and Obama knows it!
February 23, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, no she didn't. She was not only a supporter but she praised it over & over again including her book.
Nice try.
She's 'questioning' it now, becuase she's running for Pres.
February 23, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you realize that Obama is supposed to know everything that Hillary opposes in private? Who cares what she wrote in her book, those are just words.
February 23, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
if you want to tag Hillary with NAFTA (she could not speak out while her husband was president), then how is that any different from when Obama could not speak out against the war in 2004 at the democratic convention where he was the keynote speaker? although he gave a speech opposing the war earlier, he said that he didn't know how he would have voted had he been in the senate at the time. by his own admission, he had to say that when both kerry and edwards (the nominees) had voted for the war resolution.
politics are messy. if you would think about it for one minute, how can you expect hillary to speak out against NAFTA while bill was still in office, and how could you expect the keynote speaker of the democratic convention to criticize the nominees? seems pretty similar to me. not everything is black and white.
February 23, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's actually a good point and I'll buy that explanation, but why didn't she say this when it first came out? Why not mention it to his face on a nationally televised debate? That would've definitely have reached a large number of people to get your side of the story out. Why wait to challenge his integrity when she could've done it face to face? It just seems like manufactured outrage to me.
February 23, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
i don't know why she didn't cite the flyers in the debate, drosz... but there was a fairly substantive debate on healthcare where the 2 candidates really got into it... one possible explanation is that after getting booed on the xerox comment she realized that any negativity would be booed loudly by half the audience who supports obama and that doesn't play well on t.v. this is why there should be no audience reactions allowed (applause, standing ovations, or booing) if you want to have a real debate.
February 23, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't that they way they do it on debates on public television? I seem to remember Jim Lehrer laying down the no applause/reaction law in the past. Not that anyone could really try to boo in Lehrer's presence.
I've been pretty annoyed with most of the debates. Wolf Blitzer is a horrible moderator. And while Campbell Brown was good Thursday night, she wasn't firm enough to wrest back control when they got off into the health care mire.
February 23, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama spoke about Iraq in the 2004 speech:
(Emphasis mine.)
Full text here.
February 23, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because Obama wasn't running on Kerry's experience? I'm not even sure that makes sense. Hillary is claiming credit for Bill's presidency.
February 25, 2008 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary accuses Obama of killing baby seals!
Hillary accuses Obama of not putting enough quarters in the parking meter!
Hillary accuses Obama of winning too many primaries and caucuses!
Media takes the bait and leads with exclamatory! and sensational! and entirely too credulous! headlines.
February 23, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shreiking like a fishwife is hardly the way to look Presidential. Lecturing Obama like a grade school teacher doesn't look Presidential. Whining about distorting her record doesn't look Presidential. If Hillary has "re-taken the reins" of her campaign, she needs to give them back. This is that moment in every Western where the girl trying to be the "cowboy" loses control of the wagon and it goes careening through the canyon and winds up dangling precariously over the edge ready to plummet to canyon bottom below. Just a push is all it takes.
Buh-bye Hillary...
February 23, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a research that shows that when men get angry they are perceived as strong. When women get angry at the same things, they are viewed as out of control. You are a walking cliche. But thanks for illustrating the point so well.
February 23, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You clearly missed the Howard Dean era. Lots of anger that the media did NOT treat as "presidential." In Dean's case, he was angry about Iraq. In HRC's case, she's angry that her mandate proposal is being called out for what it is: yup, a mandate.
Dean Scream, anyone? Perhaps we have another.
February 23, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct in your observation about the research on how anger in women is often perceived.
However, I think what people are responding to is the patently manufactured "anger", over mailers that have been out for some time.
Hillary is back under the control of her handlers it seems. They've opted for attack mode and this is the way she/they think she will win Ohio. Bad strategy, worse tactics.
I wonder how much of this is related to depleted campaign funds? Every network covered her outburst. Free advertising.
I have to be honest that as a feminist I have hoped to see the day when this country elects a woman as President, but only if that woman is a feminist. Barak Obama embodies far more feminist principles than does HRC.
Denise
February 23, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, not exactly.
http://www.now.org/press/03-07/03-28.html
February 23, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read the petition signed by many Feminists for Obama
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/NYfeministsforpeace/
February 24, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this will be a coordinated attack. I suspect tomorrow, we'll see a deluge of editorials talking about how Hillary has "come out swinging" and other similar garbage. This was so patently phony that I've got to believe it's Act I, Scene I. This is Hillary's last stand.
February 23, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"When women get angry at the same things, they are viewed as out of control."
And when Hillary does it, she's viewed as a phony, opportunistic harridan. Tough shit for her, eh?
February 23, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
YAAAAARRRRRGH!
February 23, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the wagon goes sailing over the cliff.
Maybe HRC is bipolar?
February 23, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the Clinton's website, howard wolfson provides a link to an article that has this headline:
"Obama once visited 60s radicals"
But Wolfson took the liberty to change that in his post:
“Obama once visited '60s ‘terrorists’.”
I've posted this before, and tpm "Carol" originally cited the article, but it certainly deserves mention here.
I certainly don't advocate these attacks, but this is politics.
I'm glad I'm on Obama's side.
February 23, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry if I overlooked it, but... does someone have a link to Obama's response? Video or text? Thx!
February 23, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
More recently, at the Las Vegas Democratic Debate on November 15, 2007, she offered the following, more concise declaration: "NAFTA was a mistake to the extent that it did not deliver on what we had hoped it would."
That is what Hillery said about NAFTA just this past November. In her own words she took ownership of NAFTA.
"NAFTA was a mistake to the extent that it did not deliver on what we had hoped it would."
She said "that it did not deliver what we had hoped it would". If she had been opposed to it, she would not have ever hoped it would deliver.
She is a brazen liar, and her own words in last Vegas, in November 2007 expose what a bare faced liar she is.
She is the Queen of Doublespeak. She was hopeful that NAFTA would deliver, but she opposed it. That is what she wants you to believe. She thinks the American people are dumb enough to swallow her totally contradictory claims about where she stood on NAFTA.
February 23, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's hard to see how this drama really helps HRC. I have to think it hurts her, reinforces the view that her outrage and the histrionic display is over her losing the nomination to this upstart, demolishing her sense of entitlement.
February 23, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
And just imagine the screen caps of unbecoming facial expressions that will be featured in anti-HRC vids, coming to a YouTube near you soon!
February 23, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
She'll probably get a bump in the polls as the press breathlessly reports on Hillary the tough, Hillary the angry, Hillary the fighter. But to make it stick she's going to have to make her healthcare mandate and NAFTA the prime issues. on Tuesday night Let's see how that flies. I'm betting Osama will calmly deflect the blows and methodically build his case.
February 23, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure is easy to get lost when you are old eh? The exact reason you must insure everyone is because if you continue to group only the sick in the Obomb plan and let the presently healthy get a free pass .....until they get sick .... which they will .... then the premiums are higher for everyone who does the responsible thing and buys insurance. The Obomb makes the republican argument for them that everything is free as long as you can get away with making someone else pay for it so ....WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO BUY INSURANCE BECAUSE I AIN'T SICK RIGHT NOW ...... great argument Obomb, thanks a lot, that will really help solving this problem.
February 23, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I view the UHC issue between both of them as pretty much a red herring. Anyone who thinks that we will get a working UHC system in this country that is not single-payer is smokin' some goooood stuff. Obama knows it, of course, he ain't stupid, but he also knows that the American public doesn't get it and won't for a long time. Perhaps as President, however, he'll be able to push it in the right direction. With Hillary all you're ever going to get is something that's corporation-centric.
K
February 23, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
He is “genuinely torn” about any endorsement, he said, adding that he might offer one next week or perhaps not at all.... Statement made by Bill Richardson.
If You are a Hillary Supporter.... lets start e-mailing and calling Mr. Richardson to endorse Hillary Clinton:)
February 23, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
hollywood, i agree with you but you undermine your own argument by calling Obama "obomb"...
in a recent debate, obama suggested that people who show up at emergency rooms without insurance could be made to pay back premiums (and a penalty, i think)... so how is that any different from what he criticizes hillary's plan on? it only encourages people who are young, healthy, or otherwise not inclined to join to put off the day when they will eventually have to pay up...
February 23, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
No question that there is a weakness to O's health care proposals in allowing non-participants to sign up when they become ill. But I'm confident it will be worked out after O is president, and am hopeful HRC will be a driving force in the Senate in 2009 to craft a real, workable, universal health care plan.
But that's not relevant to the many questions raised here about HRC's tactics right now, or her hypocrisy in suggesting only O's campaign has sought to divide the Dem electorate over universal health care. HRC has been just as active in ripping on O as he has on her on this issue. And it's an ISSUE debate, not a personal slam, and hardly Rovian.
February 23, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why does TPM always rush to post what ever comes out of the Hillary camp, but rarely posts what comes out of Senator Obama's campaign.
An example: Senator Obama said the following yesterday. You never heard a word about it from TPM, but every time Hillary burbs or farts, TPM elevates those Hillary noises to the level of Stop The Presses Revelations.
Read what Senator Obama said yesterday, and do not expect to hear about him from TPM.
February 23, 2008
Obama: I'd quit if I lost like Clinton
Posted: 05:20 PM ET
Obama said Saturday he would drop out if he had lost as many times as Clinton.
Obama said Saturday he would drop out if he had lost as many times as Clinton.
COLUMBUS, Ohio (CNN) – Hillary Clinton's campaign says it remains upbeat about the New York senator's White House chances, but rival Barack Obama said Saturday he would drop out of the presidential race if he had lost as many primary contests in a row as she has.
Asked in Ohio by a reporter if he would have conceded the presidential race by now with a similar string of losses, Obama said flatly, "Yes."
But Obama said he understands why Clinton has yet to abandon her White House bid, saying it would require a knockout blow because she's "part of the Democratic network in Washington."
"Look, I'm the challenger, I'm the upstart," he said. "I'm the insurgent — she's, she's the champ. She's part of the Democratic network in Washington and, you know, if you're the title holder then you don't lose it on points. You got to be knocked out."
After essentially tying Obama in the string of states that voted February 5, Clinton has suffered 11 straight losses to the Illinois senator, most recently in the Democrats abroad contest earlier this week.
In a conference call with reporters earlier Saturday, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson denied reports some Clinton backers feel Obama has all but locked up the nomination, and said voters in the March 4 primary contests won't base their vote on his string of victories.
The mood is upbeat, Sen. Clinton is working hard everyday," he said. "Momentum is a media storyline, but that is not an issue on which voters vote
February 23, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point... you should do a blog post on this so it can be discussed independently. :-)
February 23, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course he would quit, wouldn't you? He is just starting his national career. She isn't. Momentum this early in the game doesn't make him a sure winner and he knows that as well as she does. She has a lot going for her and if the public decides that he's too egotistic, unelectable or not up to the job for some reason, choosing Hillary at the convention will not be the travesty that people at this point might think it to be.
He needs to be careful and he knows it. He can't control the minority of his supporters who are irrationally aggressive and childish. If she starts to look like the wise mom ("Shame on you!") and he like the opinionated, rebellious son who is too full of himself, then he's in trouble. We are lots of news cycles away from Labor Day.
February 23, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, HRC has zero momentum at this point. Perhaps reverse momentum, when you consider her SD tallies from the last week. Grant her a run through March 4. If she cannot cut O's delegate lead in half in TX/OH and generate some real momentum for her campaign, then the longer she remains in the race the more she hurts the Dems chances in November. Or does that not matter to you, domerask? There is no excuse for an HRC supporter to want her nomination so badly that it undermines the Dems chance as a whole to win in November. O's numbers being what they are, he has an excellent chance in the GE. HRC's supporters, especially the plurality that are "irrationally aggressive and childish" need to face the reality and move their support to Obama way before August.
February 23, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you think that a fight for the nomination will tear the party apart then the party isn't worth saving. If people refuse to support the Democratic nominee then they will elect a Republican. I personally think Obama would be fine candidate,
I just won't support him unless he wins the nomination, or unless he, or Hillary, convinces me that he'd be a better president.
February 23, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't just a fight... every nominating contest is a "fight" between candidates. It's the tenor and manner of the fight and the kind of fight HRC is waging, if it were happening on the Repub side, would be just as destructive for them. Why does HRC need to overturn the DNC ruling about FL/MI? I don't need to hear more arguments about disenfrachisement, just simply why HRC cannot commit to following the established rules. I don't hear Huckabee bitching about how votes in MI/FL are only netting the candidates half of those states delegates.
Any committed democrat should be sickened and agonizing over what is happening in the party and the potential for a protracted fight to lose them the election this fall. Precisely because the party is worth saving is why we need the discord to end and for the nomination to be decided before August. If the roles were reversed I'd be abhorred at O's behavior and calling for him to step down ASAP.
February 23, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does Hillary sense the end is near?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/us/politics/24mood.html?ei=5065&en=06a043feebf21a71&ex=1204434000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
February 23, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
the quintessential Rovian strategy is to falsely accuse your opponents of doing what you yourself have done to muddy the waters. the only way this case is circumvented is by the media actually doing it's job and reporting on the half-dozen mailers Hillary dropped in the days immediately before the elections in New Hampshire, Nevada, and on Super Tuesday.
the difference is that Obama's mailer isn't even comparable in terms of its "distortions" of her positions to the mailers she threw out. she is quickly becoming a bad joke, and really needs to quit the race. the sooner, the better.
February 23, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
And who can forget Bill Clinton telling people that he was always against the War in Iraq, but that Senator Obama wasn't.
February 23, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only would he drop out, he would be hounded to the gates of hell by the media if he, like Hillary, had lost 11 in a row, was behind on both popular vote and pledged delegates, lagged in fundraising, owed $$$ to vendors both small (delis) and large (Penn's firm) and dared to stay in the race.
As for momentum not being something voters consider in their decision to vote, how does Wolfson keep a straight face when spinning like this? Do the reporters giggle while they write it down?
February 23, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't that "Bush negotiated NAFTA but Clinton only signed it" sound like the kind of parsing we have resented in the Clintons for fifteen years (meaning of is) ?
I mean even if it is true, Bill Clinton (and I am not talking about Hill although David Sirota says she cheered on NAFTA for years after it was signed including in Living History) was a big big supporter of NAFTA, fought for it big time and actually postponed the health care reform so he could get NAFTA signed first.
By being that misleading instead of seperating herself from her husband, she is muddying what could be a solid defense.
And I have to say ... while on paper I kinda shrugged the story off, the video is ... very very very unappealing. I am not sure her behavior there is going to play well AT ALL.
February 23, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
As the Bard said, "methinks the Lady doth protest too much".
This is a lot of hot air over nothing. These flyers have been out for weeks and only now does she become enraged over them? This is certainly "tactical" as Obama so eloquently put it. And her statement that he's using "Karl Rove" tactics? That's a scream! Karl Rove tactics are intimating about Obama's drug use; Karl Rove tactics are intimating about Obama's supposed "ties" to terrorists; Karl Rove tactics are digging up some ridiculous kindergarten story that he wrote about wanting to be President. Really, this kind of righteous indignation in the face of everything her campaign has done is ludicrous.
She just wants to generate controversy in order to get face time in front of the cameras - the true sign of a desparate campaign in its last throes.
You know, I was originally a staunch Edwards supporter and was disconsolate when he dropped out. It didn't take long for me, however, to come to support Obama because of the kind of ruthless and low-ball tactics the Clinton campaign was using, and I'm even more sure of my choice now. This is demeaning to her as a brilliant politician and a damned good Senator. I'm sad to see her go down this road.
February 23, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
If there is going to be a debate about campaign tactics then perhaps John Edwards can join and discuss Hillary's South Carolina robocalls, in which she made unfair (read inaccurate) attacks on Edwards' hedge fund investments.
She is going out screechy and shrill. I look forward to watching Obama win Texas and come close enough in Ohio.
February 23, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
toady's events just prove that the Clinton camp is feeling the pressure and the sense that the dream is about to be over...
February 23, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the light of these histrionics, what does it mean that Hillary and her campaign are being sued by merchants in Iowa because they aren't paying their bills. They must be flat broke. Either that or they are a bunch of crooks, refusing to pay a small deli owner their two thousand dollar bill. Is this all desperation or what?? Sheesh..
link:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/23/16429/3827/66/462663
February 23, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anybody else think that Hillary would have a MUCH more difficult time getting her health care plan through Congress because of what happened in 93/94? I think about that a lot - no matter how great her plan is, the bad taste left in the mouths of many Congresspeople (and Americans) after the "HillaryCare" debacle has lingered and would make certain people very reluctant to go down that road again. Conversely, there is no history vis-a-vis Obama and universal health care; that may make it easier to push something through. Just a thought...
February 23, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
dropping out is not necessarily a good thing for anyone. the democratic primary race has captured the attention and imagination of the media and the american public. as long as it keeps going, the democrats will continue to get big coverage.
also, as long as we have this ridiculous primary season with some states getting the early attention, i feel like the later states should get to have their say... i don't care anymore about IA, NH, SC, NV than i do about PA, NC, IN, and VT...
if hillary wants to run until the very end, then that's her right. she has earned it. her supporters (fellow democrats) still want it. short circuiting it here could piss off a lot of people, so obama is smart not to call for it. either you want all the states to have their say and all the voters to have a chance to weigh in, or you are happy to call the game at the end of the 3rd quarter because your team is winning.
February 23, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary sat there beside Senator Obama and called him a Xeroxing plagiarizer, to his face.
And now she turns around and starts whining about how Senator Obama should never question any of her words and actions.
What a complete hypocrite she is. The Clintons engaged in prolonged campaign to destroy Senator Obama's good name, and now they are whining because he challenged them on their Health Care and NAFTA positions.
February 23, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just saw this on Youtube. As a kid would say, she's flipping her s*. Now I know what people meant when they said she terrified people as First Lady. He point was well taken, but the execution made her look like (I hate to say this)
a harridan rather than someone in command.
February 23, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
If she's decrying campaign tactics, I expect her to disavow and apologize for:
(1) the abortion mailer
(2) the Social Security mailer
(3) claims that Obama LEAVES OUT (or any other language suggesting that he's EXCLUDING) people from his health care plan
(4) pushing bs stories because Republicans MIGHT (youthful drugs, Rezko, Weather Underground)
Until she does that, then she has no reason to cry foul. Even then, she has no reason to cry foul since she did support NAFTA (and spoke well of it on several occasions) and she did say on "This Week" that she would garnish folks wages who didn't sign up.
February 23, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that's two minutes of political tv people will recall in horror for a long long time;
She was scary...I can't see how it's going to help her...this is not helping her find new support..I can see this two minutes of freak show played and replayed on networks...LOL
I couldn't stop laughing...it was like a freak show....a weekend edition of jerry springer, if you will..."Shame on you....."
From SNL to Colbert...they're going to a have a field day....LOL....No wonder 51% of the Country says they'll not vote for her....
No one will remember the mailers....and no one will forget her going nuts..LOL
Thursday PM: "I'm proud of you Barack Obama..."
Saturday AM: "Shame on you Barack Obama..."
Politics is one funny business
February 23, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
SEXISM????? I can barely stop from laughing long enough to respond. Man or woman, when you go off on a rant and "shame" your opponent you sound desperate, plain and simple....And by the way, in case you forgot, Barack Obama is a BLACK man for Chrisakes. Should we really get into the historical prejudices in America against African Americans? Give me a frigging break, you sound as shrill and annoying as your favored candidate.
February 23, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's running on the Clinton record. She can't just say that she was against NAFTA but was overruled; if she's going to tie her whole campaign to what her husband did, she has to take the whole package, not just the good stuff.
Personally, I supported NAFTA and I think it's done more good than harm.
February 23, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the light of these histrionics, what does it mean that Hillary and her campaign are being sued by merchants in Iowa because they aren't paying their bills. They must be flat broke. Either that or they are a bunch of crooks, refusing to pay a small deli owner their two thousand dollar bill. Is this all desperation or what?? Sheesh..
link:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/23/16429/3827/66/462663
Posted by cmpnwtr
I just love the irony in this. Hillary is not paying her own bills, but she is going to make everyone pay for Health Insurance.
Hands On, Do As I Say, Not As I Do Hillary, at her finest.
February 23, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think all of this is a stunt to distract away from attempts to steal delegates in Las Vegas.
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=734
February 23, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy Glad writes:
Um... Bill Clinton looked pretty out of control in SC.
Unless you are claiming I'm perceiving him as a woman.
For what it's worth 2 of my friends, who both donated $2.3K to HRC (each), have left her camp because she has become "a walking embarrassment."
One of these friends of mine is a woman. I'm sure you would call her a cliche as well.
February 23, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
so, according to posts on this thread, hillary clinton is "...shrill, harridan, freak show, screechy, unbecoming facial expressions, histrionics, shreiking like a fishwife..."
doesn't anyone see a problem? what if equivalent expressions of derision were used for barack obama?
February 23, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is so besides the point. The real action is out in Las Vegas.
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=734
February 23, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
those, are strong words indeed, but this is a scary video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9CRgFO2mnM
if I wouldn't have seen it, I would agree with you
but I saw it.
February 23, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
There certainly would be... if any of those things applied to his behavior.
February 23, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Scary black man beating up on a white woman. That's what would be said. The fact is, she was over-the-top today in a way that, even if such a display were part of Obama's personality, he would be unable express.
Yes, I wish people wouldn't use the terms "shrill" and "hysterical" and "fishwife." I also wish she hadn't (yet again) crossed the line of decency and called Obama "Karl Rove" and "shameful."
And now at this moment she is sitting with Tavis Smiley saying that the judgment of superdelegates is more important than the judgment of voters. Senator Clinton is the one who is shameful.
February 23, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
i seem to remember bill being called a red-faced, hysterical, blowhard after SC. What's good for the goose.....
February 23, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like calling him and his supporters thugs? Seen it.
February 23, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I realize I am biased, but this who thing comes across like a Jekyll and Hyde incident. Hours ago, she gushed (in "the moment") about sitting next to Barack Obama. Today, she calls him Karl Rove and shameful in the same breath. If there had been a bit of distance between the two events, perhaps it wouldn't be so jarring, but she really looks like she has two completely different personalities.
Up or down, attacked or praised, Obama has stayed pretty consistent both in his message and in his temperament.
And now, I'm watching her live at the Black State of the Union with Tavis Smiley. Good Hillary is back. Her pride in Obama is back. But what will tomorrow bring?
February 23, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way- "Harvard Intellectuals"- who are defending her on NAFTA & Health Care
We call know her freak show this morning was nothing to do with the issues. She just wants to bring the theatre down to ugliness, to levels of her comfort. Nothing wrong- but please don't pretend her fith show this morning has anything tp do with the "issues."
I have to say I still admire the fighter in her; but her desperation is unhealthy for our politics.
February 23, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not want any angry type A personalty, regardless of gender, in charge of the Nation or possibly the planet's future.
I think John McCain is too hot headed for that position, and it looks like Hillary may also be.
We need some one who remains calm and collected when the heat is turned up. That is one of the big reasons I have supported Senator Obama. He has demonstrated that he remains cool and is not quick to anger. I want someone who stays calm and rational like JFK did during the Missile Crisis, even when a bunch of hotheads around him were urging him to attack Cuba.
I do not want some hot head who is alway spoiling for a fight to have their hands on the nuclear trigger.
Hillary has become addicted to confrontation and fighting.
That is all she talks about. She keeps bragging about how she is the one who is the most experienced in fighting.
I am afraid that she honestly believes that her way is the only way. That is why her foreign policy approach about not talking to foreign leaders until after they have already done what she ordered them to do, is too much like George W. Bush's failed arrogant foreign policy for my liking.
February 23, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the media shows the two clips side by side - her rage, her anger, her spewing invectives vs. his calm, rational, slightly bemused approach - I think more people (whether rightly or not) will see a hysterical, out-of-control, desperate candidate who can't control her temper (something John McCain is frequently accused of, by the way). He can get passionate and spirited during his rallies, but he has never "lost it" in front of the cameras. I really don't think this will do her any good - I think it will be viewed negatively by a good majority of people. And bringing up his NAFTA flyer in Ohio is just going to remind voters who signed NAFTA into law in the first place.
February 23, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh dang. How cringe inducing is that drama? She reeks of desperation and accuses him of using the same tactics she used as early as New Hampshire. No wonder there are rumors of her staff closing up shop at 9pm and downing bottles of wine to console themselves.
It's not the economy, it's the candidate. Get a grip and show some dignity Hillary. Please.
February 23, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh my God...She needs to stop this nightmare. I really like her, but this is not the solution to save her sinking ship.
February 23, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way her "anger" was also calculated- She wants to make sure "Feminists" like Billy Glade on this post act as her agents to play the Gender Card.
I don't blame her. She has lost 11 eleven contest in a row and I don't see a reason why she'd give any S**t about the Democratic politics. She has to win, if not it's over for Hillary.
But somehow I have a feeling she went too far.
BTW.....They are playing the clip again- I couldn't stop laughing.
February 23, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen! Shame on HER!
February 23, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone knows: CLINTON = NAFTA!
February 23, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Liam makes a fun connection to her in the video and McCain's known "temper" (a topic few have a problem bringing up about why he shouldn't be prez...and he is male).
Personally, the most jaw-dropping aspect for me is her claim that Obama cannot attack her on a policy she proposed.
Since when?
In fact, I *prefer* attacks on policy rather than
a) middle names
b) drug use
c) kindergarten papers...
shall I go on?
Note to HRC: Political campaigns *are* about attacks on your opponents' policies. Perhaps you've been campaigning too long with other expectations that you forgot this simple fact.
February 23, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now, THAT is clear thinking.
February 23, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clintons = NAFTA...Don't ever forget!
February 23, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Davidv writes, "the lady has some obvious anger management issues."
Ya think?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/81600/output/print
February 23, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone, let's not forget that HRC rage is based on the premise that Barack Obama "didn't wait his turn" to run for President, but instead threw her presumed nomination in 2008 off schedule. Afterall, she assumed the Democratic Party would automatically award her the "prize" on February 5th (Super Tuesday.) At least she didn't throw her chair at BO in the debates!
Hillary feels cheated and unappreciated by the American public who she apparently believes should recognize her great "experience" and ability to "take on the Republicans".
Obviously, reality is only now beginning to sink-in. Bill Clinton is the wild card in this race.
People either admie him or detest him. Which group do you think most Americans belong?
February 23, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
so carol soprano says that her anger was "hysterical and out-of-control" and kash79 says her anger was "calculated"...
personally, i think it will fire up her supporters. she has the edge on obama when it comes to healthcare and this will put that issue back front-and-center for the debate next tuesday.
i am not saying that hillary can change the momentum of the race, but i think it's clear that she hasn't given up... see my post above as to why she shouldn't exit the race.
February 23, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The healthcare issue has been beat to death in every debate. The new stuff will be NAFTA. And I don't think she wants to have that discussion in public.
February 23, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me just ask you a simple question, kensdad... How does HRC's performance in today's news conference help the Dems win the election in November? Yes, I'd like to read your answer.
As a general observation, your continual focus on the adjectives used to describe HRC do not in any way address the substantive questions raised about why HRC did not bring this up in Thursday's debate, or how it is acceptable for her to overlook her own negative mailers while decrying Obama's. You'd be much better served to argue on the issues, and not on the "attitude" of those opposed to your POVs.
February 23, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
GMan08, i have been trying to focus on the isssues, not on the candidates personal traits. i already addressed why i think hillary didn't bring up the flyers during the debate (see above)... as to how it helps dems in november, it shows that hillary is a fighter for the issues that she cares about most passionately (i.e. healthcare)...
addressing the "attitude" and denigrating choice of adjectives to describe hillary is legitimate. i won't stop pointing out what i see as unfair bias against hillary. i don't have to do that for obama (though i did mention one case to Hollywood above), since there are plenty of people here to defend him (so he certainly doesn't need me!)
February 23, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to say, we really differ on what we think will succeed in the GE. It does HRC no good to play into the horrendous stereotypes that the right has been spewing about her for years. If her performance today does so much to show she's a fighter, where has this HRC been up to now? (I'd argue that her campaign has been very careful to modulate away from the fighter pose because of how polarizing it is.)
And what makes you think the HRC we saw today will endear her to undecideds, independents and disillusioned Repubs this fall? If anything, we're sick of bluster from our political leaders. I simply disagree that HRC losing her temper can possibly net her votes in the GE. There are more effective ways to show one's compassion in support of an issue. Let's see how this plays out in days to come. I suspect, if it gets continued attention, her behavior here will hurt her in the polls (read= in the actual voting in TX/OH).
February 23, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary did not even have the common decency to thank those people who came out to vote for her in the last ten states. She did not even mention them or their states, because she had lost in each of them.
Those who came out in five degree weather in Wisconsin, and all those who came out in the nine other states to vote for her, will not forget that she did not even bother to thank them for having done so. I know a number of people who voted for her, that that no longer admire her, and feel snubbed. Several of them have told me, that should Hillary win the nomination, they are not going to come back out to support her again. They feel like she really did not show even the slightest bit of appreciation for they having come out to support her.
February 23, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
She does not have an edge on health care. You want to ask people who know a thing about health care? Ask me, I'm a physician - and I don't like her health care. It IS a mandate, no matter which way she cuts it. And mandates do not work. We can't even get people to quit smoking when they're dying of lung cancer. Patients see any thing health care as an imposition on their normal lifestyles, and I don't blame them - it is. The last thing they want is the government forcing health care down their throats.
Not every single person wants to pay for the health care you and I value so much. Universal access is a better proposition and one that I think is more important. Obama's plan isn't the greatest either, but its better to me as a physician and much more palatable to patients.
February 23, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yikes! We've got ten more days to go of this screeching to endure? March 4 couldn't get here soon enough.
Definitely needs to switch to decaf -- I wonder if she'll be wagging her finger in Obama's face when she scolds him (again) in person at the debate?
February 23, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
ChrisO,
Your mistake here is in assuming I care about "if tables were turned," etc. You have to be careful about lumping people into groups and then forming broad, generalized conclusions about them.
"The excuses you guys make for Obama are really annoying." Here you assume that (1) I'm a member of some group that has members who hold identical thoughts and opinions, and (2) that I am "making excuses" for Obama. Neither of those assumptions is true.
I explain how I arrived at my own decision and I don't presume that anyone else will agree with my own analysis. I'm just throwing it out there for interested and thoughtful readers to consider. Perhaps a few of them will find the points supporting my opinion persuasive; perhaps not.
I don't feel the need to "make excuses" for either candidate--both have their own talents to offer and our job is to make our own evaluations and make a judgment as to which one we think will be the best candidate. That's all I mean to imply here. I think anything else you infer from my post must be the result of your own projections.
February 23, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is paying a faithless, hired-gun, Mark Penn, 2 million dollars to give her bad advice. "Ready on day one"? I think not. Experience without wisdom is just a burden.
February 23, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary needs to do more than fire up her supporters. She needs to demonstrate why she should be the nominee. Looking unhinged and sounding indignant dilutes her case.
February 23, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really thought before I used the word harridan to describe Senator Clinton's outburst. She was acting like "a vicious scolding woman." That pretty well describes what I saw on Youtube. The gender thing doesn't work when it's true. It is no different than me calling Chris Matthews a bullying thug when he acts like one.
February 23, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The best quote of all was
"That is what I expect from you. Meet me in Ohio..."
If this doesn't turn off voters in Texas, Ohio, Vermont & Rhode Island, then nothing will.
What it reminds me of is behavior that I guarantee every person who reads this blog has engaged in. You know how sometimes deep down you are wrong about something, but because you are defensive, you lash out at the other person? I know it is something I have done.
February 23, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Clinton -as a NEW YORKER- I'm embarassed to see you embarass the state you represent.
But thank you for making sure you remain our nation's No. 1 passtime.
Go Girl!!!!!!
February 23, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too too funny. The citizens of New York, who have subsidized Mrs. Bill Clinton's campaign, would like their empty seat in the Senate back, Hillary!
February 23, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is right. The crowds, the speeches, the excitement, the votes - plumb disgusting.
Obama is the luckiest politician alive in his choice of opponents. And they are funny besides.
Looks like Republicans will be nearly extinct after the general. That's one bunch of dinosaurs few will mourn despite the comedy.
Best, Terry
February 23, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
A post I sent in earlier didn't go up - possibly too many links. But for anyone who would like to compare the "shameful" (if absolutely true) mailers that Obama sent out and the type that Clinton has distributed 1-3 days before primary votes, please look at these.
1) Pro-Choice mailer:
TPM Election Central
Hillary Mailer Attacks Obama On Abortion
By Greg Sargent - January 5, 2008, 7:11PM
2) Social Security mailer
TPM Election Central
On Eve Of Primary, Hillary Drops Negative Mailer Hitting Obama On Taxes
By Greg Sargent - January 7, 2008, 6:46PM
And for a *really* interesting account of Clinton's NH tactics, including duping her own supporters into signing letters for which they had to later apologize, check this out:
Washington Post, "The Trail"
Trying to Heal a Rift in New Hampshire
By Alec MacGillis
Posted at 4:06 PM ET on Jan 18, 2008
If anyone has trouble spotting the lies in the two mailers, I'll be happy to point them out. I sincerely hope that someone asks HRC to point out the lies in the mailer to which she is objecting ... because there are none.
I've always wondered how she would expect to win in the general election after treating her own supporters that way, insulting as 'insignificant' any state in which she subsequently lost, never bothering to publicly thank those who worked for her in those states (tho she flew to Florida to thank *those* supporters), and - apparently - leaving bad debts in her wake. In contrast, think about the 'fired up and ready to go' and well-organized volunteers Obama has left behind in *every* state in which there has been a contest.
February 23, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mortally wounded and bleeding, the beast lashes out. I can hear the death rattle...
February 23, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary says Obama is like Bush? This is may be more Rove than Rove: attack your enemy on his strength and your weakness.
Hillary Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton, vote for war in Iraq and attack on Iran, embrace every corporate lobbyists agenda, campares Obama to Bush.
February 23, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. I just watched the clip on YouTube. Just wow. It's really pathetic. She can't even do outraged believably. She's such a phony.
February 23, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
For Hillary.
From In America; Some advice for Hillary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Krqy0JP-qEM
February 23, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is wrong, this is a tactical move, the outrage is acting, and she'll lose this one, too.
I really like the way Obama keeps his cool and just flicks her desperate onslaughts away. It is a strength that will come in handy against McCain and the equally desperate GOP.
He is right: he's the challenger and it'll take a knockout, he can't win on points. That's fine. Now I want to see him knock her out, and I think we're getting very, very close. It's got to be decisive so that the Clintons will never be able to run again. Ever.
February 23, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another thing that intelligent voters are sur beginning to notice is that, when she is facing him, she doesn't try any of this nonsense. She's all leeches and cream when he is there to answer her. She pulls these tricks only when he is not present, then she comes to the debate and recites something Edwards or Bill has already proved works and gets many (yes, even me) to believe in her a little for a moment.
But she is a two-faced person with an alarming lack of discernible principles. She has never attacked the depredations on basic liberties that have been the daily project of a two-term Bush administration, but when a popular new voice rises in the Democratic party, you'd think she was fighting Satan. And we know why. Bush didn't threaten her throne. Obama does. And America be damned: this is about her and her imagined prerogatives.
February 23, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aw, Dirk... you're probably one of those folks who believes she ran for the Senate only as a stepping stone for the White House instead of wanting to serve the people of NY....
February 23, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
How CAN you be so cynical? You must be one of those deluded Obama supporters.
February 23, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
"She has never attacked the depredations on basic liberties that have been the daily project of a two-term Bush administration, but when a popular new voice rises in the Democratic party, you'd think she was fighting Satan."
It seems rather contradictory to her "it' not about me" claim doesn't it?
February 23, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leeches and cream???
February 23, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure. She seems pretty confrontational and she not being honest on the issue.
She was the one who told ABC's "This Week" that she thought that "I think there are a number of mechanisms" to handle her mandates, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment".
See http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4235304
Mandated healthcare means mandates... and mandates mean forcing people to pay for healthcare. Even Barack Obama -- in a surprisingly direct manner -- admitted that his plan would require that parents pay for their children to be fully insured in the last debate.
Hillary says that her mandated healthcare will cover everyone.
Hillary also attacks Barack Obama for saying that her plan won't force people to pay who might otherwise choose not to.
And yet, when forced, she admitted that she will go after people's wages, either on their paycheck, or automatically through their place of work.
It sure would be nice if *SHE* clearly stated her position on healthcare, rather than attacking Obama for daring to call her plan into question. These things *SHOULD* be openly discussed before an election, right?
February 23, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with Hillary's plan is that it's completely unrealistic. It's pie-in-the-sky. The Republicans are never going to allow a mandated health care bill to pass. I mean, let's get real. If they can't stop it in Congress, they'll block it in the courts. It will NEVER become law.
February 23, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
An excellent analysis here.
http://jaydiatribe.blogspot.com/2007/12/obamas-and-clintons-health-care-plans.html
February 23, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is pretty funny. If you go to Hillary's website now, the index.html page is a plea for cash. They're not even bothering to say hello anymore; they just forward you straight to their "Contribute" page. "Hi. Gimme some money. Love, Hillary"
Dear God, she's a loser.
February 23, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
She also has a radio button for a $10 donation. I don't recall this being there before.
Good call, hrebendorf... the websites do reflect the candidates.
February 23, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just when I thought I was starting to like Clinton, she does this. Even my wife, an ardent Hillary supporter, can't stomach this. She is going to tear up this party on the way out, and its sad none of the DNC leadership has done nothing to stop it.
We'll see on March 4th, but I think this just made scores of independents look resolutely towards Obama for leadership.
February 23, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Shame on you"! It's Hillary's version of Bill's red-faced, finger wagging.
Hillary's Authentic Voice Version 12.3
February 23, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton08: "We're in the 21st Century Shaming Business"
February 23, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
hmmmm ...you and your huge numbers of enthusiastic citizens and VOTERS excercizing their rights in a democracy.... shame on you Obama!!!!
February 23, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do her policy contemporaneous policy communications with President Bill Clinton say? Oops. Currently SEALED in the Clinton Library.
February 23, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
This reaffirms what someone recently said:
Sen Obama is a statesman.
Sen Clinton is a politician - a nasty one at that.
Politicians got us into a big mess.
It will take a statesman to clean it up.
February 23, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Political Stunt" - That's what Sen. Obama calls it.
His response to the outburst:
From NBC/NJ's Aswini Anburajan
Obama vigorously defended two negative mailers dropped in Ohio that Hillary Clinton says came “straight out of Karl Rove’s playbook.”
The mailing, one on NAFTA and the other on health care, raised the ire of the New York senator, who forcefully pushed back against them at a press conference earlier today.
Saying that the mailers had been out for weeks, Obama suggested that Clinton’s fiery reply this morning may be a political stunt rather than a genuine reaction. “I am puzzled by the sudden change in tone. Unless these were just brought to her attention, it makes me think that there’s something tactical about her getting so exercised this morning."
He added: “And unlike some of the attacks that have been leveled about me that have been debunked by news organizations, these are accurate. Sen. Clinton, as part of the Clinton Administration, supported NAFTA. In her book, she called it one of the Administration’s successes. And we point that out in a state that has been devastated by trade and has been deeply concerned about the position of candidates on trade.”
Obama was pressed on his health-care mailer, which when it appeared weeks earlier had been compared to the Harry and Louise ads that scuttled Clinton’s attempt to pass universal health-care in 1993. The ad that Clinton held in her hand and emphatically gestured with during her press conference was the health-care mailer.
“I have seen the mailer and I completely dispute that characterization. There are many people who support Senator Clinton who support health-care mandates who didn’t like the characterization of it. But there wasn’t anything inaccurate in what was said,” Obama said.
He went on to say that there was nothing “factually inaccurate” about the mailer.
“What think Senator Clinton would argue is that she doesn’t like how the mandate is characterized, because she wants to characterize it as universal health care. Just like I don’t like her characterizing my plan as leaving 15 million people out. But there’s nothing in that mailing that is inaccurate. When she says she’s going to mandate health care, and her own experts have indicated this a mandate does not work unless you propose harsh stiff penalties on those who don’t purchase it and that’s what we point out in this mailer.”
February 23, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember Lynne Cheney calling John Edwards a "bad, bad man!" after the 2004 election VP debate, because he made reference to Elizabeth Cheney's sexual orientation? Hillary was channeling Lynne Cheney with her contrived outrage over Obama's dated campaign fliers. This might have helped galvanize her most loyal supporters, but it will do nothing to attract new voters to her. See http://roadkillrefugee.wordpress.com/2008/02/23/election-2008-hillary-rant-channels-lynne-cheney/
February 23, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
oops... my comment 7:33 pm about contemporaneous policy statements was meant to reply to a comment above about Hillary waffling on NAFTA.
February 23, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Bill Clinton's NAFTA was a failure and her mandates don't have an enforcement mechanism? Is that what I'm supposed to take from this?
Is she really running against part of her 35 years of experience?
February 23, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have a lot to add, so I'll just say
1. As others have noted, this tone just does not make sense two days after she was so honored to be in this race with Senator Obama, and I see no way such a shift can be effective, and
2. The number of times she refers derisively or dismissively to the size and enthusiasm of Obama's crowds is starting to pile up, and I suspect that that's telling. These aren't bad things -- on the contrary, they're great. But they're for the other candidate, and they seem to make her mad, so she throws them into her list of things that are wrong with Obama.
No big insight here, I just find it an unappealing personality trait.
February 23, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't particular care - and I support Obama - for the Harry and Louise mailer but then again I see one of HIllary's mailer
http://www.wispolitics.com/1006/080217ClintonMailer.pdf
And I am reminded the chutzpah and hypocrisy that ooze every of her pores.
February 23, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is far from over. Tomorrow's Sunday. Expect a coordinated attack from every Clinton surrogate in the MSM. Tomorrow's gonna be a big day for Hillary's worker bees.
February 23, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh.. the Obama campaign are shivering in their shoes. Perhaps the Clintonites can all get real histrionic and red faced, led by Mr. Bill, and start waving their fingers in the air. Oh.. the insolence, oh... the outrage.. the utter indignity of these two mailings...!
February 23, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Three words that describe Obama 08
"Yes We Can."
Three words that describe Hillary 08
"Shame on You."
LOL.
February 23, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the kettle calling the pot black.
The Clintons of all people giving direction on fair play and politics is like Osama Bin Laden leading peace talks.
Do we