Obama Campaign Hits Back Hard Against Hillary's "Security Mom" Ad
The Obama campaign is striking back hard against Hillary's new ad asking who people want answering the phone in the White House when "it's 3 A.M. and your children are safe and asleep."
On a conference call with reporters just now, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe issued a withering reply:
"We don't think the ad is going to be effective at all. Senator Clinton already had her red phone moment -- to decide whether to allow George Bush to invade Iraq. She answered affirmatively. She did not read the National Intelligence Estimate. She still, curiously, tries to suggest that it wasn't a vote for war, but it most assuredly was..."This is about what you say when you answer that phone. What judgment you show...She, John McCain and George Bush gave the wrong answer."
Tough stuff indeed.
Advertisement
Comments (161)
I really like the 'redphonemoment' line.
That makes a good sound bite...Hillary had hers and she demonstrated the WRONG judgment.
Obama was RIGHT on day one when the call came to take this country to war.
Obama should do a SERIES of red phone moments where he shows Hillary excercising poor judgment on a range of issues including:
NAFTA, Healthcare and Iraq.
TRIFECTA!!
February 29, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot to attribute "on day one" to HRC, you plagiarizer. ;)
February 29, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Snap. Ouch. Bam.
I'm not sure this is excellent news for Hillary.
February 29, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Now one of Clinton’s laws of politics is this: If one candidate’s trying to scare you and the other one’s trying to get you to think, if one candidate’s appealing to your fears and the other one’s appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope."
-Bill Clinton, 2004
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/25/pzn.01.html
February 29, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
WEAK
Is the iraq vote all that the Obama camp got agains Hillary?
February 29, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a biggie, and it's a pertinent response to the ad.
February 29, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pertinent? Does anyone here believe that Bush followed the letter and the spirit of the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" (AUMF) when he invaded Iraq? I seriously doubt it. The situation in March 2003 did not meet the criteria set forth in the AUMF for the actual use of force against Iraq. Yet, Bush invaded anyway. Bush exceeded his authority under the AUMF - and that's Sen. Clinton's fault how? That's like saying it's the Department of Motor Vehicle's fault when you plow into a school bus full of kids because the DMV authorized you to drive.
February 29, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh come on, EVERYONE knew that that vote was a vote for war
February 29, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You haven't been paying attention, have you? No, it's not all he has (as alluded to by vicissitudes on post one, and others wrt the environment), but it's a piece of very low hanging fruit when Hillary put on that "red phone" ad. Do be sure you remember who started this discussion…
February 29, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok. Well point to another situation where Clinton's judgment in foreign policy was on the line and we'll talk. Don't worry, we'll wait.
February 29, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about the idea that you can only meet with foreign officials that are either already on good terms with us, or that are willing to submit to all of our demands before the meeting. Its a pretty common, but pretty rediculous idea in a post Unilateral Iraq invasion world.
February 29, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, KevinQ, "the idea that you can only meet with foreign officials that are either already on good terms with us, or that are willing to submit to all of our demands before the meeting...[is] pretty common [and a] pretty rediculous idea in a post Unilateral Iraq invasion world." But it is NOT Sen. Clinton's idea/position on diplomacy. Get your facts straight, please.
February 29, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
kyl-lieberman.
could potentially be a worse vote for hillary than the aumf.
February 29, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only thing?
It's a pretty big thing - 4,000 dead servicepeople (and probably that many American contractors), tens of thousands of seriously wounded servicepeople, and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis - not to mention the millions that have left the country. It's not weak - it's dead on and absolutely accurate with regard to Hillary's judgment (not to mention that it took her 5 years to admit that we wished she'd had that vote back).
February 29, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is a hell of a lot more than the Clinton Camp has on Obama.
Hillery asked the "who do you want answering the phone?" question".
She deserved the answer: Not you Hillary since you voted for a Reckless and Catastrophic War, without even taking the time to read the Intelligence Report First.
Not you Hillary, because you keep explaining that you were deceived by George W. Bush.
Not you Hillary because your best excuse is that you were duped by a Dope.
February 29, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's enough for me, but you could add:
Joe Lieberman's '06 re-election
Kyl-Lieberman
A thin legislative record, especially considering that part of her platform in 2000 was, she wasn't really a carpetbagger b/c a NY Senate seat is a quasi-national office.
The absence of any significant leadership on any significant issue in the seven-plus years she has held that quasi-national office.
The fact that the "fighting" she's always bragging about has yielded no victories (unless you count her and her husband's undercutting of Ned Lamont... I guess you could call that a sort-of victory).
The fact that when she does finally release her tax returns, we're all gonna think it's 1997 all over again.
February 29, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
..And BINGO was his name-o.
B.I.N.G.O.
February 29, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gotta give it to the Obama campaign. They strike back with skill whenever they get hit. Now it's up to the press to frame the arguments correctly. Unfortunately, the accusation usually gets the headline, so I suppose we'll learn this fall if the citizenry can use its listening ears.
February 29, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. At first I thought they were too slow, but that's changed. They have been excellent hitting back seemingly within 15 minutes. (If only John Kerry had done the same.)
But "Official A's" point is dead on. I am totally amazed and thrill how skillfully they hit back as well. I love it. Who's the head of their war room? I want to write him/her a fan letter.
February 29, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is the truth. It is lies that make Truth seem hard!
Why is The Truth being called "tough stuff"?
February 29, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great response from Obama team.
Hillary's playing the little girl plucking flower stems off while a nuclear bomb goes off Ad.
Perhaps Obama should do a video of a little girl in Iraq sleeping -- when the U.S. does our Shock and Awe show?
February 29, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.
Now this much is undisputed."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton, floor speech on A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. October 10, 2002 http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
February 29, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that holds up pretty well.
February 29, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really? held up well?
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members,
You must have agreed with Bill Clinton the other day, when he said her AUMF vote was justified by the fact that she was the Senator from New York.
February 29, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I had assumed Merle was being sarcastic. Merle, please tell us you were being sarcastic.
February 29, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
D'oh!
February 29, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oy vey, I was being sarcastic.
I'll be sure to emoticon any future attempts to be snakry.
February 29, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Snarky, nor snakry
February 29, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lets see, how many other countries have to go down before Mark Penn and Hillary will agree that they have made her tough enough?
February 29, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
They were all insignificant countries.
February 29, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
DAAAYYYYUUUUUUMMMMMMM!
February 29, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree Coonsey...the first thing that came to mind when I say this ad was the little girl picking the petals off the daisey and the mushroom cloud in the background...wasn't that '68 with LBJ and Goldwater?
Being as how Hillary was a Goldwater girl, she probably recalls it too.
February 29, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
The question is not weather there are folks in the world that threaten the security of the United States.
The question is how we choose to deal with them.
February 29, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
'64, not '68. '68 is Nixon/Humphrey.
February 29, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perfect response. Just like Obama said back in 2007 - you strike back fast, strike back hard, strike back TRUTHFULLY. And then repeat so that your response sticks.
February 29, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suggest that Obama should do a video of a little girl in Iraq sleeping -- when the U.S. does our Shock and Awe show -- then show Hillary saying YES TO WAR IN IRAQ.
February 29, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently this Red Phone Moment wasn't the only thing talked on the call. Plouffe added some more color to the Clinton lawsuit. Check out Rural Votes:
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=797
February 29, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps that TV AD I mention should also include Bush and McCAIN?
February 29, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jayson1414 commented on the last thread that her ad isn't even original - McCain's already come out with an ad remarkably similar to this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPadP7eAO9Y
Isn't this plagiarism? SHAME ON YOU, HILLARY! ;)
If anybody still thinks that Clinton would be any different than McCain (or for that matter, the current administration) with regard to the war, I suggest that they look at these 2 ads side by side. The similarities are undeniable.
February 29, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
My husband's immediate response:
Who?
bill? or me?
February 29, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, I hope for a spoof on the ad.
Phone rings... bill answers... they have a fight over the who gets to answer... then another fight over what to do!
February 29, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know the red phone ad was used before but my senioritis does not allow me to recall when. Unlike the girl picking the flower ad that was shown only once the red phone ad was aired many times. Perhaps Johnson used it against Goldwater?
February 29, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
For anyone who still wonders whether Obama and his campaign are tough enough to handle the right-wing slime machine, I think this answers the question emphatically.
February 29, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow.... on point, timely, focused.
If this man stays on form, and i've seen no indication to assume otherwise, we'll look back at these months and wonder what all this primary hullabaloo was about.
OBH- TX by a dozen point, OH by a handfull
February 29, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is important to note that Bill was exactly the same age when he ran for president as Obama is now. At that time bill had exactly 12 years of Gubernatorial experience. This means that the man (generally speaking) lauded for his foreign policy acumen while President had exactly NO foreign policy experience whatsoever upon entering the White House.
The Obama experience argument is a sham.
February 29, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the add was bad, really bad for Hillary. Who is she targeting, the republican party? The public in general, and the Democrats in particular, are really tired of this fearmongering, that is why all jumped into the "Hope" message. So. the answer to the add is really easy. Put her together with Bush and McCain, where she is putting herself, by the way. With and add like that, it is really hard not to look like you are really Bush/Cheney lite. And right now, the American people really like that, right?...
February 29, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
It amazes me that there are Clinton staffers who actually believe that Obama isn't "tough enough" to run a campaign
February 29, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
The irony is they are the ones who are proving he is tough enough.
February 29, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
A conference call ain't gonna cut it. The average voter doesn't listen in on conference calls to reports. The Obama campaign has to push back on the air with an explicit warnings that Clinton means four more years of Bush fear-mongering. This really pisses me off!
February 29, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. That is what I responded down-thread before I read through and saw your comment. This needs to be on the air, not to reporters.
February 29, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
i am a Hillary supporter (as most of you know already), and i don't like this ad.
you must admit, however, this is exactly the type of ad that obama will face (more than hillary) from john mccain.
it is likely to backfire on hillary in a democratic primary, but the dynamics will be very different in a GE. anyone who disagrees is already forgetting 2004 (yes, things change, but the more they change, the more they stay the same... people may have turned on GWB, but this issue is still a live wire, imho.)
so, i feel like this type of attack will allow obama to fine tune his response. if/when he gets the nomination things will turn much uglier than they have been to date.
politics is dirty. politics is ugly. dems aren't doing themselves any favors by calling "foul"... you have to respond effectively and in a way that doesn't backfire on you (think of john kerry's lame response's to bush!)
February 29, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
So now you want to use the McCain scare as a reason not to vote for Obama. McCain would not have to even bother trying to keep Moderates from supporting Hillary. She will never have them in the first place.
February 29, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like Obama knows it to.
Notice how he conveniently links Hillary, Bush and McCain all together.
Now, that's a little risky. As bad as her judgement it, she is NOT Bush. Some Democrats might get riled up by that.
BUT, then again, her statements "We will not talk to enemy states"; "You want to bomb Pakistan" exactly mirror Republican attack ads.
All the talking heads talk about how Obama is fighting a 2 front war between Hillary and the Republicans. But the more the attacks look the same, the more he can unify is front line, and at the same time, have a defense ready for the General.
In short, keep it up, Hillary!
February 29, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you see McCain's version of this ad? It was crap. I will say this - as much crap as they get in the press and on this board, Hillary's crew is doing a much better job than McCain. Probably in part because they've collected three times what he has.
Yes the Republicans will be vicious. But it's a clown-show over there.
February 29, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well having an unsettled Democratic race tends to draw more press attention than McCain whose campign is a forgone conclusion on the GOP side.
February 29, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Publicus
You were asking for another foreign policy issue where Obama's judgement was on the line?
You do recall that he made his statements about the war during his US Senate campaign? Well if you watched the Presidential debates, you may recall that during Obama's US Presidential campaign he stated that 'if he had actionable intelligence that Al-Q was in the hills of Pakistan he would strike with or without Mushareff's go ahead'?
Those remaks were skewered in the press they were used to claim he lacked the experience and judgement to lead that he was naive and Hill just went on and on even using her surrogate Albright to denounce those remarks along with the other foreign policy neo-con experts and pundits who distorted Obama's remarks and claimed he should not say we were going to bomb an 'ally'.
Hillary even claimed it was against policy..and Obama said no, it was CURRENT USA policy to do precisely what he stated and in fact it was part of the AUMF that Hillary voted for!! She gave Bush carteblanche to wage war and track down terrorists and strike them anywhere on the globe. You see Obama knew what he had opposed even if Hillary seems to think she voted for 'diplomacy' despite the legislation being titled AUTHORIZATION to USE MILITARY FORCE.
Well, guess what...PUblicus, who did we just tkae out in Pakistan but the #2 guy in AL-Q
and how did GWBush do it?
He did by striking without Mushareef's permission because he had actional intelligence.
Obama has the RIGHT experience and JUDGEMENT to lead.
He is more than willing to fight the RIGHT fights the RIGHT way.
BTW, in that speech he gave at the time he also said he is not opposed to all wars just DUMB wars and Iraq was and continues to be a DUMB war.
February 29, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm ardent Obama supporter and I was RESPONDING to an earlier post that was questioning why Obama only referenced the 2002 AUMF vote.
February 29, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
What you seem to be talking about is the 2001 AUMF not the 2002 AUMF (i.e. Iraq War Vote)
February 29, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome! The people at the Obama campaign sure know how the game is played. I don't think we're going to have any John Kerry moments in the general.
February 29, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Vici,
I believe it was 1964, LBJ v Goldwater.
February 29, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Big Mouth Strikes again - A would be First lady we shall all be so proud of!!!
M. Obama to Youth: “Don’t Go Into Corporate America”
Senator’s wife, a former corporate lawyer, says she urges people to pursue jobs like teacher or social worker instead.
Laments in Ohio that “many of our bright stars are going into corporate law or hedge-fund management.”
OH, big mouth, we should just disolve American corporations and ask everybody go back to farming or flip burgers for each other. Oh, no. Big corps are selling Burgers out there. They must be stopped!!!
February 29, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Senator’s wife, a former corporate lawyer, says she urges people to pursue jobs like teacher or social worker instead.
THE HORROR!!!!!!!!!!!!
February 29, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice, the big mouth woman has successfully become a career conselor!
February 29, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
It also seems to me that any supporters of Hillary who refer to a potential first lady as "big mouth woman" are, well, let's see, lacking in any sense of irony, grotesquely hypocritical, feeding the stereotype of Hillary supporters as vicious, angry, shrill, and desparate, engaging in self-caricature . . . let's see, what else? Oh, did I mention hypocritical?
Where did all the Hillary supporters with whom one could have an intelligent argument go? DCShungu? Colonpowow? I'm actually missing you now.
February 29, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Way to go. Get that Hillery message out there. Worship Corporations just like the Republicans do. No wonder Hillery has been bought and paid for by Corporate Washington Lobbyists.
Glad to see that she delivered their message to you and your ilk. Nice to see that you do not want bright young people to become teachers and prepare the nations' children for the future.
Keep up the good work. Hillary loves all who do the bidding of the big corporations.
February 29, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some people choose to be teachers, others to be lawyers, and some to sell burgers. I'm not sure on what basis Obama is giving advice for people not to get into corporate America.
February 29, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm not sure on what basis Obama is giving advice for people not to get into corporate America."
Wild guess: Corporations promote bribery in Congress, corrode democracy, poison our food supply, deceive the public, impoverish the economy, manipulate labor, tax, and environmental laws, build rat-infested buildings that leak water, take $5 life-saving pharmaceuticals and fix the price at $100, play games with dying people's insurance policies, benefit from pitting people against one another and destroying communities down to the nuclear family, treat human beings the way they treat the cows they pump full of antibiotics and hormones, and have turned Americans into fat consumers of worthless, colorful garbage around whom the world revolves, because "We're here for YOU," doncha know.
And that's just the short list.
And it's supposed to be a mystery why anyone would recommend a life of service to the community instead of one spent preying on the community? Right, one big, gigantic mystery, like the origin of the cosmos or the existence of the Loch Ness monster.
To me, the more Hillary supporters use under-handed, Rovian tactics, the clearer it becomes just how--not--different Clinton is from Bush: same corporate-controlled robot, except if you pull the string, it cries.
February 29, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, is there something wrong with becoming a teacher or a social worker? What's your point here? Corporations in this country have more rights than individual citizens, thanks to the Republicans (the administration's insistence on FISA telecom immunity is just the most egregious example of this). I think it's refreshing that she's trying to encourage people to get things back in balance in the U.S. This isn't a call to do away with corporations - don't be ridiculous. Really, Aimey, you have to do better here with your arguments in favor of Hillary.
February 29, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Blue Skies - I agree. You've got millions of people seeing the ad, and possibly a tenth of that many, most of whom already support Obama, reading about a news conference response. I don't call that a great response. I think they need to get an ad up fast.
February 29, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Gen. Tony McPeak response Ad will be running parallel to the red phone Ad as I understand it.
February 29, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Marie, the ad is running tomorrow, you'll love it--it's already aired on CNN...
February 29, 2008 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kyl-Lieberman is the real redphonemoment. At that point she KNEW that Bush would take ANY excuse to go into IRAN. She knew Bush's mentality by that time, how he would push or violate the envelope of any authorization for the use of force, there are no excuses or justifications for that vote. She voted for the Iranian Red Army to be classified as terrorists and for the AUMF against IRAN. That was a redphonemoment, and her decision was unpresidential.
February 29, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll add that I'm sure Kerry is thanking Obama for not taking such a principled stand against him on '04.
February 29, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Totally different situations.
Obama could have torpedoed Kerry in 2004... but what would have been the point?
Kerry was the nominee. Obama wasn't running.
Now it's 2008. When Hillary runs Republican attacks ads against Obama, what do you expect him to do? Take it?
Remember: You are talking about Obama, our likely Democratic nominee.
February 29, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
obama could not have torpedoed kerry in '04. if he had intended anything like that, then he would not have been given the opportunity to speak at the democratic convention (which was his big opportunity for a national stage and stature.)
any other torpedo that you are referring to would not have been noticed since he was only a state senator from IL at the time.
the fact of the matter is that obama did the politically correct thing by saying that he "did not know whether or not he would have voted for AUMF if he were in the senate" (pardon my loose use of quotations) in order to preserve his opportunity to make the keynote address.
i'm not taking away credit from obama for speaking out against the war, but it does show that he has made political decisions that were not based on principle alone. he's a good politician but let's not get too drunk on the hype.
February 29, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
But that's just the point. The "I didn't have the same classified briefings the Senate had access to" quote was in response to press questions the day before Obama's keynote. You think him attacking Kerry's position the day before he gave the keynote would not have been a colossal shit-storm in the media at the height of the convention and right out of the gate?
Obama played his response as best he could given the circumstances and didn't compromise his position at all.
February 29, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillery asked the "who do you want answering the phone?" question".
She deserved the answer: Not you Hillary since you voted for a Reckless and Catastrophic War, without even taking the time to read the Intelligence Report First.
Not you Hillary, because you keep explaining that you were deceived by George W. Bush.
Not you Hillary because your best excuse is that you were duped by a Dope.
February 29, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thankfully, she does not need your answer. She needs people who are not drinking Obama's Kool-Aid to make a decision whether this phone should be answered by her or your love boy. You bet a lot of people would prefer someone with experience to answer that phone call.
February 29, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess you're supporting McCain then, who has the most experience?
February 29, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
experience is a qualifier. When you apply for a job, you need to present a resume. If you are the boss, you may hire someone who talks great but you would never hire someone with no relevant experience to do a critical job.
February 29, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Obama has sufficient experience (unless you think that Bill Clinton didn't have enough experience when he took office in '92…) and judgment. Hillary doesn't have all of the prerequisites for the job.
February 29, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whether Obama has sufficient enough or not will determine the success of this ad! This Ad is not playing to you. It is being played to the people who have not made up their minds. Don't belittle the intelligence of American people. They can make up their own minds.
February 29, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not the one belittling anyone's intelligence here. I'm not the one making snide kool-aid comments.
February 29, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
And by "American people" Aimey means "American people in important states, like New York, California and Rhode Island." And superdelagates too. As long as they pledged their vote before February.
February 29, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush One. One of the greatest political resumes ever. A total failure.
Herbert Hoover. A great resume that gave us the great depression.
Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Resumes that must have you drooling.
Abraham Lincoln and JFK. Short on Resumes, so of course not for you.
Hillary Clinton Resume: In a Nutshell.
Every thing good that my Husband accomplished was because of my help.
Every thing that my Husband failed at, I, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton had nothing to do with.
February 29, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent rebuttal, Liam - but I don't think you're going to change Aimey's mind. She's the one drinking the Kool-Aid. Her arguments are not consistent (but, then again, neither are Hillary's).
February 29, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know you are not going to like this, but bush I was not a total failure. His foreign policy was probably the best in 50 years or so. Domestically he sucked because he followed the right-wing loonies as opposed to his brain and what he ran on in 1980. I would not grade him a total failure. Why his son didn't take his advice on foreign policy is truly unbelievable. I don't understand that one.
February 29, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
We want someone with sound judgment to answer the phone. Hillery is still claiming that George W. Bush is a Dope, but she is also claiming that she got duped into voting for War, by a Dope. What an Ultra Maroon!
February 29, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
save me this judgement stupidity. He gets lucky and had it right. A lot of people were against the war, do you believe they all have better judgement than the people for the war. You mean all Democrats have better judgement than Republicans? Life is complicated, do not have such a simplistic mind.
Ok, you want to talk about Obama's superb judgement, let me give you some examples:
His smoking habit - a good judgement to kill your life prematurely by smoking all the years into your late forties?
His association with Tony Rezko - a good judgment to buy a lot from a shady figure who's being investigated for bribing politicans for access;
His use of cocaine as a youth - yea, a lot of young men use cocaine, this is truly a good judgement
His voting the wrong ways in IL Senate - oh, yea, he has good judgement to push the wrong buttons.
February 29, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well he has the good judgment to push your buttons. Having loons like you against him, is clear proof that he is the best candidate for reality based voters.
February 29, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
do you have comments on my examples of his good judgement?
February 29, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, how about this for the clintons judgment:
1. Marc rich pardon for what 500 k. How much is a pardon going for nowadays?
2. Nights in the lincoln bedroom. What's the going rate?
3. 130 mill payment for uranium deal with kazakhstan dictator and dictator gets on human rights panel.
4. Travelgate.
5. Secret healthcare commission, with fait accompli delivered to an overwhelmingly dem controlled congress on take it or leave it basis.
6. Giving the king a blank check to invade a sovereign country based on lies resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of iraqis and americans and trillions of dollars.
7. Starting the ball rolling for war with iran.
8. Bankruptcy "reform" screwing the middle class.
9. Nafta.
10. Don't ask, don't tell.
11. Welfare "reform."
I'll think of somemore when I have a chance. It's hard to remember all the f'k ups from the clinton years, they were so long ago. I'm sure the republicans remember vividly.
There is this malady going around clinton people called the resko tourrette's syndrom. How did you catch it by the way? Kool aid?
February 29, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Man, you are against both Welfare reform and NAFTA. You are truly something. I'm speechless.
February 29, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Promises, promises.
February 29, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice to hear that you love NAFTA, and John McCain, but you hate Teachers.
February 29, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, and good judgment, and that's why we don't want clinton as the nominee. Simple.
February 29, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain? (After all he has more experience than Hillary.)
Cheney? (Ditto.)
February 29, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink