« Canadian News Station Stands By Obama-NAFTA Story, Names Aide | Home | Obama Foreign Policy Ad: It's The Judgment, Stupid »
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
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
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
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
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
Yep, between Obama and McCain, I would take McCain at this stage any day. I would definitely prefer him to take that phone call to Obama. I'm not a gambler. I value security above anything else.
February 29, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose you would have voted for GHW Bush over Clinton in '92 then. Right?
February 29, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, there was no bigger support of Clinton than I. When Clinton was running, he was a succesful governor of AR for 10 years and he founded DLC. He has much executive experience than Obama could dream of. In 1992, at time of peace, we need someone to take care of the economy. Therefore we chose Clinton. If Clinton were running against the elder Bush in today's environment, he might not have won, period!
February 29, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Obama has an equivalent amount of experience. He was an Illinois state senator from '96-'04, and will have been a US senator from '04-'08. 12 years experience in government, and that's not including all of the experience he had prior that outside of government (experience which is actually quite pertinent).
Remind us: what's Hillary's vaunted experience again?
February 29, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
o.k., without going through her whole resume that includes long experience as a democratic activist working on behalf of women, children, the poor and disenfranchised, or work outside of gov't (and don't give me the walmart b.s. unless you want to recognize what she did to promote women's rights in that organization and what she did to get walmart to improve their environmental footprint)... she worked on multiple policy issues as AR first lady (education, healthcare, etc)... SHE WAS PRESIDENT CLINTON'S CLOSEST CONFIDANTE AND MOST INFLUENTIAL ADVISOR FOR 8 YEARS (that's real experience, is it not? it gives her arguably the best insight to the job of president than any candidate... and please don't compare it to Laura Bush or other first ladies, since we all know that Hillary broke the mold for first ladies, like it or not.) She has been a U.S. senator for 7 yrs... this, is experience... real experience. if you want to diminish it, go ahead, but 35 yrs of passionately working for democratic issues and advocating on behalf of human rights and civil rights of the underprivileged and the discriminated people of our country (and the world) is not something to make light of...
it's one thing to advocate on behalf of Obama, but it's ridiculous to denigrate hillary's experience unless you are a conservative republican (and you know that you're lying, but just don't care.)
February 29, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, yes, and yes. Well said. This whole debate over Hillary has gotten way out of balance.
The general election is gong to be a different shooting match.
Though I admire Obama's early stand against the war, I don't find it dispositive. What would he have done had he truly been in her shoes? The fact is, he is marginally more bi-partisan in his instincts than she is. That is, marginally to the RIGHT of her. So his claim that he's about changing the mindset that got us into Iraq is open to debate.
The base's demand that Hillary say she was sorry for her votes was and is ridiculous. She was right to reject that siren song, even though her vote, IMO, was wrong. What would it have gotten her or us? The damage was already done.
Edwards had a whole passel of votes he said were wrong and he was sorry for. Message: When the pressure is on and real consequences loom, he made choices he's now retracting. And how did Dems repay him repenting--not well.
Obama's reliance on the 2002 speech and the one time he was right is going to tire early. And it really only works with Dems.
That said, Plouffe's comment was very astute and on target politically. The problem though is that Obama has yet to have the phone, red or otherwise, by his bed.
February 29, 2008 1:59 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 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then get going. Haul you shrill arse down to the Bus Depot, and get aboard The Crazy Talk Express.
February 29, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you are willing to overturn Roe v. Wade, bomb Iran, not even try to get UHC and the list goes on.
And you claiming to support Clinton?
You are promising to vote for someone (if Clinton is not in the race) who stands opposed to everything Clinton does. Way to go dumb-fuck.
February 29, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Because the Iraq War took away our attention from Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, in fact making us less safe and secure, so clearly you must be for Obama who criticizes it on those grounds?
February 29, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
First Read says Obama08 is re-release this ad in response:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag8gOXZulXg
February 29, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
With analytical and critical thinking skills like that, I can see how you came to the conclusion that Hillary is the best candidate. I especially loved the edge of hysteria when you explained to us that when she said X therefore she really meant Y.
And wow, this post was right on topic, too.
February 29, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a very good response. They can also bring up Obama's comments in regards to Pakistan. Obama is the only one who won't hesitate to strike bin Laden and those responsible for attacking us. That may be something to save for the general election though.
February 29, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, I know the Kool-Aid has damaged my brain, but could you please explain to me exactly HOW this statement relates to the topic at hand, which is a campaign ad about national security?
February 29, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anyway, yesterday John McCain called himself a liberal in a speech during one of his many campaign stops of the day. He quickly corrected himself, but as much as I admire him, McCain sounded tired and old, I'm afraid he wont be able to much against a vigorous and energetic Obama
February 29, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
jtk
that ad may do in a pinch since it was already part of their stockpile ads
but it is worth it to invest in an ad that strikes at the heart of this type message for the general.
The mushroom ad this was made to parallel WAS a winner for LBJ...much to Hillary's 'goldwatergirl' chagrin.
Obama is going to to have to take on this fearmongering with an ad that instills hope and courage that demonstrates or implies how tough and 'experienced' he is to make the RIGHT judgments.
I wish I was creative enough to think of a good scenario.
He needs to show a contrast with the MY PetGoat of Bush and pre-emptive strike reasction of McCain.
February 29, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
!!!HILLMENTUM™!!!!
February 29, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's even more funny, is that the Clinton campaign didn't create the "red phone moment" ad... It was originally used by Walter Mondale against Gary Hart.
I'm not sure recycling political ads counts as a "green collar job".
Another Hussein for Obama...
February 29, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks russdev
Aimey May
How do you define luck?
My definition is that luck is when preparation and hard work meet opportunity.
No matter what opportunities present if you have not done the hard work and preparation essential to take advantage of it...it's nothing more than another lost opportunity.
Folks call it luck, because they weren't around when the individual was doing all the hardwork and prepartion to avail them of the opportunity.
So, it LOOKS like LUCK to them...but ain't nothing happenstance about luck...there is always hardwork and preparation on the back end of luck.
BTW, Rezko pales in comparsion to the largest contribution in the history of politics (damn near $1M) that Hillary had to return from Hsu and youthful experimentation with drugs pales in comparsion to the biggest healthcare debacle that set back the rights of ALL Americans to have universal healthcare for 20 some odd years because Hilliary had such poor judgment that she was fighting with the very Democrats she needed to pass the legislation in the Senate and House.
February 29, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Luck could also be defined as having married a person who became a governor and a president, which then allow you to not have to work your way up through the ranks, and prove yourself, like Senator Obama has, but instead get to jump to the head of the line, and scream experience, experience, experience.
February 29, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think one of the most refreshing things about the Obama campaign is the competence and crispness of it all after 7 years of Bush and the wussiness and ineptness of Kerry.
February 29, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shout out, Louise.
February 29, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only thing missing was a minor chord played on a synthesizer for background mood music.
February 29, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
3:00 a.m. next Wednesday morning can't come soon enough!
February 29, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm gonna guess that this was carefully tested with focus groups and that a key identified group (not necessarily "security moms") identified this exact issue as the strongest reason to vote for Hillary or against Barack.
Turn it around and ask if Obama could run the same ad to good effect. The answer is probably not.
He could run an add that showed a bunch of scared advisors telling him to go to war, while he calmly said "When corporate and military leaders are running scared and in a panic, who can you count on to exercise good judgment on question of war and peace?" That would work, say I.
Or he could run one with himself consulting soberly with men in uniform while the narrator/title says .... "Obama: Because national security means knowing when to fire... and when to hold your fire."
Damn, I should be a political consultant.
February 29, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm guessing they should have had Bill in that focus group
"Now, one of Clinton's laws of politics is this. If one candidate is trying to scare you and the other one is try get you to think, if one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope."
-Bill Clinton, 2004
Got this from DailyKos. Don't want to be accused of plagiarizing.
February 29, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is my complete point by point analysis of her ad, my response, and a preview of Hillary's next fearmongering ad:
http://thepersonalispolitical.tumblr.com/post/27622528
February 29, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
MIke2 those were good scenarios, I especially like the last one.
Perhaps, the last one should include a fadeaway to McCain on the stump doing his BOMB, bomb, Bombbomb Iran...and then the narrator says knowing when to fire and when to hold your fire...
THAT would be a real winner.
After all, it is McCain's judgment that is questionable.
February 29, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks... yeah, the last one is better, and I like your suggestion too.... although simple and minimalist is sometimes best.
February 29, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is rather weak, if you know that BO said he would have to think about it when asked how he would vote. Of course, it doesn't mean the response won't be effective.
BO is a manufactured candidate from the word go. And a neophyte at that.
February 29, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee. Great Point. Who would want a Senator who actually would think about something before voting on it.
Great Ad for Senator Hillary Clinton:
Unlike Senator Obama, I did not have to think about it, I just voted for the Iraq War, the way George W. Bush duped me into doing.
I am Hillary Clinton, and I approve of this message.
February 29, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point being that BO didn't have to make the choice, claims about what he may have done are convenient and not necessarily so, and that those who insist there is a whiskers difference between the two concerning use of force are selling wolf tickets. Its wishful thinking, nothing more.
February 29, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
What exactly is Hillary Clinton's "foreign policy experience"? The question is asked in good faith, not snidely, and I'd very much like to have someone who believes that Sen. Clinton does have superior experience in foreign policy to answer in the same spirt. Thanks.
February 29, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair question. I can answer it this way: HRC is a smart, ambitious, interested policy wonk. The fact that she was in the WH is not insignificant. It may be for some, like Laura Bush or whomever, but not for someone like HRC. She was exposed to how the power game is played at a world class level, in on dealings with the Pentagon and including some heavy world class political chess players from around the globe, not to mention domestically. Don't think she wasn't paying attention or part of the discussion, even if not on an official level. She viewed up close the secrets of the pyramids, so to speak. How power in the most powerful nation of earth is directed. (policy correctness aside)
Anaolgy: Its like a young Hebie Hanckock being allowed to hang with and play alongside Oscar Peterson for an extended period of time. Now, before people blow their minds, I mean this in a specific sense. HH, being talented and interested in the exact same discipline as those with whom he was --in my hypothetical example-- immersed, would obviously walk away from the experience far richer for it, and with a more mature, seasoned sense of how to play with and like the big dogs. In that narrow sense is my only analogy. Don't waste time gathering hay, please.
Agree or not, I can't see how people can dismiss her time in the WH as inconsequential, and definitely something she has over BO. That kind of experience does count for something.
February 29, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
to repeat my answer from above (pardon the caps): SHE WAS PRESIDENT CLINTON'S CLOSEST CONFIDANTE AND MOST INFLUENTIAL ADVISOR FOR 8 YEARS...
ww, you are exactly right and i think everyone gets it. it's just that it is the favorite sport of hillary's detractors to try to pretend that her years in the WH don't count.
certainly, HRC's supporters get it, and the 70-80 pct plus of all dems who say that they would be happy if she were the nominee get it.
it's only the hardcore hillary-haters in both parties (a small minority of dems, but apparently well represented on TPM) that refuse to admit that Hillary has incredibly relevant experience for the job of president.
February 29, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Teh problem ww is that for all that '35yearsofworldclassexperience' when it came time to make a decsion she made the wrong one based on the data she had available.
It is notable that not only did she make the wrong decsision she opposed the GOOD judgment of that very upclose world class power sitting next to her in the form of the Senate ranking Chairs of the Intelligence and Armed Svc committee, Graham and Levin, respectively...who BTW did their DUE DILIGENCE and read the NIE report.
So, it seems to me for all the proximity she has had to power and all the dialogue with world class leaders she STILL doesn't know how to exercise GOOD JUDGEMENT.
Her decision making ability is less than brilliant no matter how many policy wonk details she can spew and recite.
The bottomline is she lacks vision and imagine to be able to apply her deductive reasoning such that when given all the essential parts she could tell you that ...it is forest...once the trees had been provided as data points.
Nothing wrong with that...it is just that she has a different type of intelligence...she is a rat fact person...not a a visionary one...she lacks the imagination that takes one from intelligent to brilliant.
So, she needs to remain int he Senate and NEVER ever answer the redphone!!!!!!!!!!!!
February 29, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think in the main this is fair and understandable argument to make. Hillary cast an important vote that amny people don't like, including me. You see, many seem to forget that part. I wish she had voted differently as well. Thats what seems to be the crux of the case against her for BO folks.
Here is where we part, however. Hillary has examples of of less than perfect voting, because she was actually there to vote. When I consider the woman's positions, policy papers, and track record in total, I just don't see how an unknown, never been under the gun or real pressure contender like BO stacks up. The stakes are too high.
Also, people tend to forget that it wasn't the slam dunk (perhaps poor choice here) that it appears to be now, looking back. Many pretend to have known all along that Bush was going 'F' things up so hard, which is far from true. Yano, even though WMD were never found, -which no one has been called to account for properly, ever-- had the Bush regime been just a tad more competent in their war execution none of those votes would be so relevant. No one, and I mean no one, predicted the complete disaster Iraq has become. It unfolded before our very eyes.
By over emphasizing HRC's authorization to use force vote the real responsibilty --which is Bush's, and Bush's alone, he unnecessarily sent our troops in to occupy Iraq-- never gets laid squarely where it belongs. In a cold sense HRC's vote didn't matter one whit. It would have happened the way it did anyhow.
IOW, people are voting against a mistake made, and trading it for what's behind door number two. Virtually a complete unknown. It makes no sense to me. There are many, many very important issues at stake for the next President, of which Iraq will be only one.
Its a fair point to bring up that vote and make it count for something. I just think it is enabling people to choose poorly, not informing them to choose wisely.
BO will not renounce the use of mercenaries in Iraq. Hillary Clinton has. This begins to speak to my point in real time.
February 29, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
What exactly is Hillary Clinton's "foreign policy experience"? The question is asked in good faith, not snidely, and I'd very much like to have someone who believes that Sen. Clinton does have superior experience in foreign policy to answer in the same spirt. Thanks.
February 29, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't hold your breath on getting an answer to that one.
February 29, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
hillary has real foreign policy experience with regard to Africa (check out joe wilson's piece at HuffPo "The Real Hillary I Know...")
Hillary has real foreign policy experience with regard to the Northern Ireland peace process: John Hume wrote, "I can state from firsthand experience that she played a positive role for over a decade in helping to bring peace in Northern Ireland."
Hillary has real foreign policy experience with regard to fighting for women's rights in China. Lets recall her words: "human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights." Her work went beyond her words, however, as she was under tremendous pressure to retract or soften those words. She fought with the Chinese behind the scenes to make them understand that her resolve would not end and that they had to make changes.
Hillary has real foreign policy experience with regard to Kosovo. She played a key role in getting President Clinton to recognize that the u.s. had to intervene to stop ethnic cleansing. her role was pivotal in the words of bill clinton, madeleine albright, wes clark, and richard holbrooke.
Hillary has real foreign policy experience with regard to Israel and Palestine. she has both defenders and critics on both sides as she has spoken out on behalf of a palestian state and worked to get hate speech out of palestinian textbooks used to teach children. she is also, generally considered strongly pro-Israel. you can find numerous article by both israelis and palestinians that praise Hillary's efforts.
i guess i could go on... but if you aren't convinced that Hillary has real foreign policy experience yet, then i don't think i'm going to be able to convince you with more proof.
February 29, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am one of those Dallas suburban moms. I have watched the last 7+ years in horror. I am not about to turn this mess over to a rookie. Especially one that is running on what he did not do while in Ill. and when he finally has a chance to do something, he decides to advance his own career. I'll pass.
February 29, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillery turned her vote over to Bush to create the mess that you are horrified by.
February 29, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well put:
Running on what he DIDN'T do.
Worse: running on what he didn't do because he wasn't in a position to do it.
That's a real confidence builder.
February 29, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the circle jerk continues...
February 29, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
it is mushroom clouds all over again. Maybe Clinton thinks it will work because it worked on her then, and she was ready on day one to give in to Bush.
February 29, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a strong response, but without it being in a response ad with as wide (or wider) reach, this strong rebuttal will not be as effective as the ad itself (though I think the ad is somewhat lame on the merits).
February 29, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama didnt make a good judgement when he "Answered" the phone about the war.
Obama was not home when the vote was made.
It is like folklore now amongst Obamam fans that Obama voted against the "WAR, which that vote was not a vote for anyway.
Anyone who says it was a vote for war was not paying attention and was not listening to Hillary on the senate floor that day either. I am sick of the convenient rewrite of history.
I hope Texas and Ohio stop the madness.
February 29, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
furthermore, HRC represents NY... schumer (no war hawk) voted the same as she did. can you imagine the shit storm that HRC would have faced if she had not voted in favor of AUMF? she was clearly voting the way that her constituency demanded. i remember very well all of the local coverage of friends and family of the victims of 9/11... New Yorkers wanted action!
the bush machine was in full force, the NYT was printing hawkish articles everyday, colin powell put his credibility on the line, the american people supported the AUMF by an overwhelming majority...
none of this makes the iraq war o.k., but i put the blame on GWB, not HRC... at every turn GWB lied and escalated, lied and escalated. could HRC have stood up and said, "stop the madness?" yes, she could have... but it is not a fair comparison to say that obama's speech against the war was the same as if he were a sitting senator representing the state that had taken the brunt of damage from 9/11.
o.k., unleash the hounds... i'm ready for a stoning as i have committed the ultimate sin at TPM by defending HRC (once again)...
February 29, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kensdad, as an Obama supporter, I value hearing defenses of HRC, because I want to be sure I'm supporting the best candidate. This particular defense only confirms my feeling that HRC is a follower, not a leader. She followed GWB, she followed the polls, she followed public hysteria.
Not what I want in a President, sorry.
February 29, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
a real leader? like GWB? he certainly likes to deride the polls and public opinion! now that's leadership!
sorry, avo, i hear what you're saying... i just don't agree with your conclusion.
i hate the war in iraq, but i don't think HRC's vote in 2002 disqualifies her in any way.
GWB took us into iraq. period.
March 1, 2008 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm afraid that if Hillary answered the phone and it was someone who she labeled an enemy, that she would simply hang up.
February 29, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is that not only has Hillary shown bad decision making in the past (failed health care reform, the Iraq vote). she is STILL showing bad judgement by parroting the same thing Bush /McCain are saying: "Don't talk to your enemies, we need someone with "experience" to make the right decisions."
Obama has experience too. He's LIVED in countries like Indonesia. He has passed good legislation in both the Illinois Senate and the Congress.
The bottom line is: I trust Obama more than Hillary. Is he perfect? No, of course not, no one is.
But when a tough decision has to made, I trust Obama more than Hillary.
February 29, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"He's LIVED in countries like Indonesia."
he lived in Indonesia when he was 10 years old... that's about as relevant as the kindergarten essay.
"Don't talk to your enemies..."
huh? that's not Hillary's position at all.
as for "failed health care," i give Hillary credit for having tried, having gained "experience" (there's that word again) and for developing a new health care proposal that is more likely to get passed this time. having been through the wars (of health care) is a good thing!
as for the iraq vote, see my answer above.
February 29, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree about Health care. I think her past failures will make it harder to pass Congress, especially if she demands that it's mandated.
Hillary and Bush sound exactly alike: "We will not talk to our enemies without preconditions."
My point about experience is that Obama has experienced alot in his life. Reading his books, you realize how much those experiences make up who he is.
I also think Hillary exaggerates her "35 years experience of fighting for people". That includes her working for Wal-Mart, for example.
February 29, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it does include her tenure on the Board of Walmart where she fought on behalf of female employees to receive equal treatment in pay and promotions as men. It also includes her success in getting Walmart to improve its environmental footprint.
February 29, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, Obama realized that his "no preconditions" position was not a good one, so he has modified it to say that he would not meet without "considerable preparation"...
he realized that Hillary made him look naive in that early debate on this issue, so he's inching closer to her position in order to blur the difference here.
Hillary's position is not GWB's position. GWB does not talk to "enemies" and that goes for his whole administration. only recently has Rice dragged him (meaning his administration) to the negotiating table (e.g. North Korea)... Hillary has always been a proponent of aggressive diplomacy, just not at the executive level unless all the necessary work has been done.
Sorry, but you are just wrong on this one. Hillary had the only good answer. Obama is on the wrong side of this one and he knows it. That is why he is inching closer to Hillary's position on this one.
It's o.k. though, at least he realizes that he was wrong. That's a lot better than GWB...
February 29, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for being here. Difficult to see a Clinton supporter still hangling around here. This place aggregates Obamabots. Keep up the good work,man! I'm going to make another donation to Hillary now that I did not lose money on day trading Goog!
February 29, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the obama supporters have congregated at TPM. Some have reasonable views and some don't. Many view things so myopically that it is hard to believe that these are actually the informed voters (as compared to those who don't read blogs or follow the news very much!)
i admit that i am an HRC partisan, but i try hard to see both sides and not hurl invectives at the obama supporters, since they are my fellow democrats and i realize that i actually will agree with them on most things (just not a preference for Obama over Hillary!)
February 29, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess we'll agree to disagree.
Nice to have a civilized conversation in any case.
March 1, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amen!
February 29, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ringing phone ploy (not sure if it was red or not) was earlier used in the Gary Hart v. Walter Mondale primary contest. If memory serves, it was the brainchild of the same flack who recycled it this time for Hillary.
Guess it's only plagiarism if you steal from someone other than yourself, hmmm?
P.S. Would love to see a spoof along these lines:
[sfx: ringing phone. cut to visual of red handset.]
HRC: Hello? Situation Room? Hang on a sec...
[to sleeping body next to her in bed}: Bill? Honey? Call for you.
March 1, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
In October 2002, the month of Obama's famous speech and Clinton's famous vote, the U.S. was already engaged in a campaign of bombing southern Iraq from June 2002 to March 2003 in an attempt to "soften" (provoke) Saddam Hussein. Operation Southern Focus wasn't revealed publicly until after the invasion. However, Tony Blair was onboard with "regime change" in April 2002, a mere 7 months after 9/11.
The war in Iraq, therefore, had technically begun 4 months before Congress voted to allow it. Both Obama and Clinton were impotent to stop it.
So knock yourselves out, Obama fans: Hang Clinton from the rafters for her useless vote, and exalt Obama's useless speech to the heavens. According to polls, about half of the country still believes Saddam had WMD. Your argument about Clinton's war vote is, at this late date, depressingly academic.
March 1, 2008 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shout out to kensdad and Michael A from last weekend. I wanted to thank you both for the compliments, but the thread got archived before I had the chance. So, thanks!
March 1, 2008 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
shout out right back at you! hope to see you around more often.
March 1, 2008 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink