Hillary: Obama Camp Tells Americans One Thing, Foreigners Another
Hillary addresses the resignation of Samantha Power and her comments about Obama's withdrawal plan, tying them to NAFTA-gate...
Well I think Sen. Obama did the right thing, but I think it’s important to look at what she and his other advisors say behind closed doors, particularly when they’re talking to foreign governments and foreign press. It raises disturbing questions about what the real planning and policy positions inside the Obama campaign happen to be.
"Particularly when they're talking to foreign governments and press." So Hillary, in seeking to tie Power's Iraq comments to NAFTA, is claiming, in effect, that the Obama camp tells Americans one thing and foreigners another, right?
Advertisement
Comments (158)
I'm guessing that at this point, with how successfully she manipulated the media coverage over the last week, she thinks the press is very credulous, and won't follow up on the whole "Nafta-gate". I'm hoping that she's in for a very rude surprise.
March 7, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the full quote. I think it's exactly the right approach to take to our withdrawal from Iraq.
"What he’s actually said, after meeting with the generals and meeting with intelligence professionals, is that you – at best case scenario – will be able to withdraw one to two combat brigades each month. That’s what they’re telling him. He will revisit it when he becomes president," Power says.
The host, Stephen Sackur, challenged her:"So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out in 16 months isn't a commitment isn't it?"
"You can’t make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009," she said. "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator. He will rely upon a plan – an operational plan – that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn’t have daily access now, as a result of not being the president. So to think – it would be the height of ideology to sort of say, 'Well, I said it, therefore I’m going to impose it on whatever reality greets me.'"
March 7, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw, will the media ask Hillary which part of this statement she disagrees with?
Never mind, I already know the answer.
March 7, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, OhioMeister, for providing a full quote.
I wonder why Greg Sargent couldn't have done the same?
Are there no journalists left in the world?
Monstrous.
Parenthetically, Ms. Powers also said this during her UK television interview:
Seems to me that all of the partisans complaining about how the "media" are so "unfair" to poor Senator Clinton ought be clamoring to extend Ms. Powers at least a small bit of graciousness. Or is she banned from the "Only Grrrls Allowed" clubhouse for being some sort of Gender Traitor?
March 7, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, providing the entire quote, since it tends to repudiate the Clintonian position, might be received as a non-objective, partisan assault. Better to just report the charge and the reply and leave thorny matters such as, y'know, the truth to historians. It's too messy to get into now and might be read the wrong way, you see.
March 7, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
God she's relentless. They're scheduling another call now to discuss this. I know negative campaigning worked for her, but she's going nuts.
March 7, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't make the mistake of assuming they aren't aware of what they're doing. The HRC campaign is trotting out the now-discredited NAFTA story once again simply to see if they can get away with it; essentially as a method of testing the 'adversarial' MSM. The calculation is relatively simple: If the press starts pointing out the bleeding obvious (that it was her campaign, not Obama's, which reassured Canada), then her operation will shut up about it for good and move on, thinking (with much justification) that the story will vanish into the ether after a couple of news cycles have passed.
If, on the other hand, the MSM finds they can repeat the lie with little-to-no comment, then they'll have a better sense of how thoroughly they can distort reality and come away unscathed.
The Clinton campaign, for those who may not be aware of it, is now the epicenter of political cynicism in the United States; and, like all things, it can only get worse.
March 7, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tom, you say, "The HRC campaign is trotting out the now-discredited NAFTA story once again simply to see if they can get away with it; essentially as a method of testing the 'adversarial' MSM."
Initial test is confirming Hillary's strategy at this point inasmuch as the MSM, [including TPM] are mostly repeating any Hilary attack memes without pointing out that she herself was the guilty one in the Nafta story.
I submit that Obama took is watching this testing to find out the extent to which the MSM [including TPM] will dishonor journalism by not correcting mistaken stenography. That would include updates on who won Texas, the fact that they each won two states on Tuesday, the fact that Obama picked up four delegates in CA.
Anyone else notice that Sargent on this posting provides the perfect example of what I just described? A new Hillary attack which again uses the Nafta story, with no clarity on where that story now stands vis a vis the purported Clinton campaign's behavior.
March 7, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, I should have written "trotting out the *spectre* of the NAFTA story", since they're doing it largely by inference here. My bad.
Second, it's hard not to notice the . . . delicacy . . . with which journalists are now writing about the Clinton camp's bare-knuckle tactics of late. I wouldn't chalk it up to any *fundamental* bias (not yet) in favor of Sen. Clinton; more a desire to avoid the hassle that could obtain from writing anything too, um, judgemental. As I say, they've been cowed by the prospect of being yelled at by Howard Wolfson into what is essentially a posture of retreat; falling back to the kind of journalistic objectivity that, as the late Hunter Thompson observed, permitted people like Richard Nixon to slither their way to the center of American life.
We all know how it works: Just report the substance of the latest charge (thereby implying that said charge has any substance to it in the first place); maybe, while the campaign is taking a minute to reload their weaponry, do an analytical piece on purely tactical matters; maybe with a paragraph expressing surprise that the Clinton's negative stragegems are being taken seriously by the electorate.
But you can only go so far with such flagrant editorializing. I mean, whatever one does, one must never be *seen* to be too critical of a major party candidate. That is an appearance to be avoided at all costs, even the cost of the truth.
I think we can agree the MSM (and those in the blogosphere who aspire to it) are now upholding that standard with real and steadfast dedication.
March 7, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did she really want to redirect this back to the Nafta-gate issue? Especially after the story has been corrected? I think she might be overreaching here, but it will take the Obama campaign and possibly a reporter doing more than transcribing her words to put 2 and 2 together.
We'll see if this is shiny enough for the MSM.
March 7, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Here is what I hope he says (very soon, in the next hour or so):
"I am surprised and disappointed that Sen Clinton would wish to stoop to such distortions. I was opposed to this war from the start and my opposition is just as firm now as it has ever been. Just like Sen Clinton, I reserve the right to change my approach to our problems in Iraq in response to emerging realities on the ground, but that is merely a matter of means, not ends. The end I seek is firmly fixed - I wish to end our useless and illegal occupation of a sovereign nation. Neither I nor my advisors have ever said anything to the contrary.
"Now, as regards the charge that I say one thing to Americans and another to foreign governments and the foreign press - I am somewhat startled that Sen Clinton, of all people, would wish to make this charge. I gather that she refers to the now discredited story that I gave some sort of sly wink to the Canadian government about NAFTA while telling the voters of Ohio that I wished to renegotiate the deal. This was never true and the documentary evidence proves it. Meanwhile, however, it has since come out that Sen Clinton's own campaign was making exactly those sorts of overtures to Canada while talking a good game to the voters of Ohio. This sort of deceptive double-speak and do-or-say-anything dirty campaign trickery is exactly the sort of thing that the American people are tired of, and the success of my own campaign is a testimony to that fact. I would hope that Sen Clinton would not continue to insult the intelligence of the American people by trying to prolong the silly season in American politics with these frivolous nonsense tricks."
March 7, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the "subtext" is a bit much, but I suppose I shouldn't put anything past Hillary.
On the other hand, it's totally hypocritical, since she is just as implicated in NAFTA-Gate as he is.
March 7, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not "just as" - he isn't, she is.
March 7, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
But you're not supposed to point out that Sen. Obama's "involvement" in the Canada/NAFTA contretemps this last week is a fiction invented by the Clinton campaign. That would be demonstrating bias, you see. Journalists in the MSM are supposed to serve the interests of those who employ them (the public is secondary, even tertiary); which means maintaining order and stability, keeping it neutral. That's been their standard for the last 60+ years, and the best (translation: most renowned) among them achieve it instinctively; with all the ease of drawing breath.
After all, any fool of a reporter can know what the boundaries are; what questions he or she isn't supposed to raise. It's only the really 'responsible', highly skilled journalists who can perform their institutional function in automatic, total, blissful ignorance of them.
Fortunately, since the United States is a meritocracy, the best of her journalists are generously compensated for their services.
March 7, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has no business bringing this topic up. She's the Queen of double-speak.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06EFD61E31F93AA1575BC0A9669C8B63
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-03-06-clinton-library-foia_N.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOLEK2lr3CM
March 7, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hill... you're hurting me here. You're like a kitchen sink warehouse. What gives?
March 7, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
All right, here is his chance to show us that he learned the lesson from a the CTV imbroglio. Get out ahead of this and nail it for the nonsense that it is. Show the world that you can deal with this sort of thing, Sen Obama.
March 7, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton's campaign announced that it had formed a state steering committee that includes several well-known Wyoming Democrats. Most prominent is Mike Sullivan, Wyoming governor from 1987 to 1995 and U.S. ambassador to Ireland from 1999 to 2001.
"Hillary is committed to solving the problems facing so many in Wyoming, from a health care plan that covers everyone to a plan creating greater opportunity in rural America," Sullivan said in a release from the Clinton campaign.
"I know Hillary to be someone who seeks solutions that create change, and we will be working hard to spread her message here in Wyoming."
The steering committee also includes former Wyoming Secretary of State Kathy Karpan and state Sen. Rae Lynn Job, D-Rock Springs.
And in mississippi insider advantage poll has the race tight.... obama: 46%... clinton 40%
March 7, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forming a Wyoming Steering Committee the day before the Wyoming Caucus?
And we though Bush was incompetent.
March 7, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Note that Bill Clinton appointed this guy Ambassador to Ireland. Are we supposed to be surprised he decided to support Hillary?
I'm sure he's got tons of support, given how he was last elected in Wyoming in 1991 and hasn't been in office for 13 years.
March 7, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Earn my vote. I could care less about some damned committee.
March 7, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said before, I find your entheusiasm altogether admirable. I find your proposed scenarios very unconvincing, but your commitment to Sen Clinton is a credit to her and to yourself.
March 7, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have finally had it with her. I not only will I not vote for her, I will actively campaign against her. I am saying this as someone who would have been happy to vote for her at the begining of this campaign. Now I understand why Nader got into the race - if Hillary is the nominee he might just have a chance of winning. I for one will actively campaign for him and I have had a whole lot of practice campaigning lately. I will do anything I can to stop her for getting back in the whitehouse.
March 7, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
She just opened herself up to attack NAFTAgate-gate. If they don't hit her hard, and not just in a effing conference call, on her vast hypocricy on this topic, I'm asking for my money back.
March 7, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
she put her end of nafta-gate to rest when she asked for the names and no one could come up with a name including keith o when he tried to expand the dtory with his unamed sources story if she hit him like this early in the campaign his con artist theme would have been seen thru by the voters who arent a member of his cult
March 7, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does your particular cult forbid the use of punctuation, capitalization, and grammar?
March 7, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has said that he can transcend partisan bitterness by inspiring "hope".
Let's see if he can even transcend intra-partisan bitterness, shall we? Kinda funny how we haven't heard a lot of talk of late about all the people fainting in his crowds, isn't it?
Isn't it a good thing that the Clinton campaign is kicking the wheels of this car before we drive it out of the lot?
March 7, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
..And if we buy the older used-up model, we have 4 more years to look forward to crap like this:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080307/NATION/15653289/1001
March 7, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I think it's just wonderful that she's running commercials that the Republicans are chortling about and saying "keep doing that" and saying that McCain is more fit to be president than Obama. Given that she now has no chance of getting the nomination under circumstances that would allow her to win the general, I think she is doing the country and the party a great service by kneecapping the probable nominee. I know I, for one, am just going to glow with gratitude when McCain starts running 30 second ads featuring quotes from her and mentioning her in the debates.
March 7, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm absolutely disgusted. Of course, I am an Obama supporter.
However, I abhor that political leaders actually think this sort of tripe really matters. This is simplistic garbage (these attacks), and have only made me HATE her as a politician.
You see, I have always said that I would vote for the Democratic nominee, no matter what. However, I think I would rather lose than 'play the game' like a Republican. If she were to win the nomination, Hillary would have to earn my vote. McCain would never get my vote, but Hillary would definitely have to earn it, no doubt.
Who gives a damn if my vote is "thrown away?" Screw divisiveness, screw identity politics, and screw the baby boomers.
I understand why voter turnout is always around 50% during General Elections. Why would anyone want to be associated with such bile.
Pretty pissed, eh? Well, I'm saying it so an Obama advisor doesn't have to.
March 7, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm absolutely disgusted. Of course, I am an Obama supporter.
However, I abhor that political leaders actually think this sort of tripe really matters. This is simplistic garbage (these attacks), and have only made me HATE her as a politician.
You see, I have always said that I would vote for the Democratic nominee, no matter what. However, I think I would rather lose than 'play the game' like a Republican. If she were to win the nomination, Hillary would have to earn my vote. McCain would never get my vote, but Hillary would definitely have to earn it, no doubt.
Who gives a damn if my vote is "thrown away?" Screw divisiveness, screw identity politics, and screw the baby boomers.
I understand why voter turnout is always around 50% during General Elections. Why would anyone want to be associated with such bile.
Pretty pissed, eh? Well, I'm saying it so an Obama advisor doesn't have to.
March 7, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Conflating ideas in accusations is right out of Rove's playbook. He must now consider her his star pupil as she is employing a whole array of his techniques to great effect.
Obama needs to take control of the media cycles. Maybe with a few things like these:
Photo ops with flags and generals does not make Senator Clinton a commander in chief any more than wearing a flight suit made "mission accomplished" a reality for president Bush.
Senator Clinton's solutions are about adding to government bureaucracy; I want to streamline government and make it user-friendly.
March 7, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary to Barack: Can I be on your ticket? I promise I will stop slandering you and making shit up about you.
Barack to Hillary: Get back to me after Wyoming and Mississippi and Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Meanwhile, stop making shit up about me, because you are only helping the Republicans.
Obama Supporters to Hillary: No. If he puts you on his ticket, we will demand a refund of our $55 million.
She is becoming a laughingstock, plaintively pandering to made-up voter(s) who allegedly told her "I wish I could vote for both of you," while pissing all over Barack's credentials, managerial ability and, now, I guess, even his patriotism.
Accusing Barack of having his people deliver a different message to foreigners than they do to Americans? That's calling him unpatriotic, right? Maybe even a traitor?
March 7, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a monster.
March 7, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't one of Clinton's generals say that Clinton would never withdraw from Iraq?
March 7, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is getting creamed in the media. Destroyed.
Clinton is just spewing non-stop and its working.
March 7, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is getting creamed in the media. Destroyed.
Clinton is just spewing non-stop and its working.
March 7, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is getting creamed in the media. Destroyed.
Clinton is just spewing non-stop and its working.
March 7, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, here's the chance to tie this NAFTA thing around her neck and push her overboard. Her campaign called the Canadians, not Obama's...
March 7, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barack Hussein Obama: He has a funny name, and his advisors say things to fur'ners. Can you really trust him?
March 7, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope your comment was pure snark. If not, it certianly doesn't speak well of you.
March 7, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, can Obama just ignore her? Not answer any questions about her ludicrous accusations and just go back to selling himself (which she seems incapable of doing)? Can we all just pretend she doesn't exist? it really seems to me that things started falling apart when we went negative (with the NAFTA and health care mailers). Is this a remotely viable strategy - just refuse to even say her name?
March 7, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Seriously, can Obama just ignore her? Not answer any questions about her ludicrous accusations and just go back to selling himself (which she seems incapable of doing)? Can we all just pretend she doesn't exist?"
It's an appealing idea, but wouldn't he still have to deal with the same issues from the press, for whom she lately is the great assignment editor in chief?
March 7, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know. I'm starting to agree with the person who pointed out that one of the reasons Obama is so appealing is because he stays above the fray and focused on the issues. He either needs to go completely nuclear on her, or ignore her entirely. Because this reactive, half-assed strategy we're using at the moment isn't working so well.
March 7, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
What he needs to do is point out as forcefully as possible that the way Hillary is running her campaign is EXACTLY the way she thinks she can run the government - by dividing people and playing on theirs fears - which is EXACTLY how George W. Bush has run the government for the last 7 years - and there is already a Republican nominee.
March 7, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I promise, no cuss words or misogynist personal insults.
But, otherwise, gloves are friggin' OFF.
March 7, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did she really want to redirect this back to the Nafta-gate issue? Especially after the story has been corrected?
Hillary's has given blanket immmunity to the Canadiens to reveal anyone from her camp talking to them.
Yer here at TPM facts are just secondary to the Clinton Rules. Just like Josh Marshall spreading this nonsense about Hillary asked MSNBC to fire Schuster. But yet, I hear this at my water cooler.
March 7, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Greg - How about covering some of her other comments. Like when the press calls shenanigans based on her campaign's earlier refusal to take quick action against Shaheen and Bob Johnson.
Or her lame effort to spin the "Ken Starr" dig as a "historical reference rather than an ad hominem attack.
March 7, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not Greg's job, that's Senator Obama's job (specifically Axelrod)
March 7, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is Greg's job to fairly report what's going on out there. This piece makes it sound like there is no downside, no pushback on Clinton's themes. That was also the point of Josh's front page piece earlier today. But there is at least some indication that this line of crap is even too much for the MSM. That's part of the story as well.
March 7, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless she (and the Dem establishment) subverts the nomination by winning it even though they lost the pledged delegate count, I'll still vote for her.
But what really pisses me off is that the media (and yes, I'm looking at you too, Greg Sargent) report this stuff as if it's actual news.
What would be news is if one time she didn't lie through her teeth trying to spin every single word out of the Obama camp's mouth into an attack on him.
Hillary telling the truth. Now that's a hedaline. Talk about a "Man Bites Dog" story!
March 7, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry about the triple post. Not sure what happened there.
March 7, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
So they are still trying to smear Obama for what they, not Obama does (i.e. "NAFTA-gate")...?
What chutzpah.
March 7, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The press these days reminds me of the run-up to the Iraq War. They don't report the facts, ie, the latest on NAFTAgate or the comparison of the way the campaigns work (F*** you, etc. vs. Monster)
When the story broke against Obama, it was front page. When we find out that it's a lie, "Obama didn't handle that very well."
We're considered psychotic if we don't "like" Hillary, and we're groupies if we like Obama.
Is it in the vested interest of the press to keep things the way they are?
Is proving that you can sling mud as well as the next guy really a great test for a president?
Well, let's see, fur'ners....Canada and Scotland. Doesn't compare to Dubai and K***stan.
March 7, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Soooo...this doesn't apply to her own advisors who apparently said the same things to the Canadians why exactly...?
March 7, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because there is no, none, zilch evidence that her campaign did say the exact same things to the Canadians.
At its best the story goes "someone said they heard someone say the Clinton campaign said... " and that's it.
You will notice that unlike Goolsbee there has been no Clinton staffer named, no dates, no interlocutor.
And Obama has gone from saying (it was a statement without qualification on his web site before he caught on and pulled it) he would withdraw 1 to 2 battalions a month to a now very generalized commitment to bring the troops home.
Having said that his more "nuanced" position is identical to HRC's. He has moved to her more centrist stance.
Neither of them will end US military involvement in Iraq.
It is just like their "argument" over health care.
Both of them will deal with the same budgetary straightjacket and the idea of large new entitlements will not fly.
Wall Street will not allow it.
Both of them would expand healthcare to children and that is the most important battle for now because it can be won.
It is what HRC did after her plan went down in flames all those years ago. It'll work again.
March 7, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Other than this, you mean?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080307.NAFTA07/TPStory/TPNational/Politics/
Hardly,"no, none, zilch evidence that her campaign did say the exact same things to the Canadians."
The Prime Minister's chief of staff said Clinton's people had been offering assurances that the NAFTA-bashing was just poltics. Somehow, that transmogrified into Obama saying that, which in turn morphed into an unpaid advisor said something in response to a question from the Canadians and there was a dispute about what that might have been.
This thing is snowballing into a pretty big deal up North.
March 7, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
We may not have the name of a specific Clinton staffer yet, but we do know that Mr. Brodie (the PM's Chief of Staff) said the Clinton camp called them. So this isn't as unsourced as you're implying and there certainly seems to be enough there to warrant more digging:
March 7, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
We should trust the word of woman who lambast her opponent as unqualified, say anything, empty suit, that she would love to be on the same ticket with in the fall? Does anyone find this odd?
Hello, Obama campaign, she's toss this bad boy over the plate . . . please knock it the hell out of the park!
March 7, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The sample size of the Insider Advantage Mississippi poll is only 412, which seems very low. It appears that the Rush Limbaugh effect might be part of the reason for the Mississippi #s.
The poll is 10% Republican, 80% of whom are white, 70% of whom are voting for Clinton.
Plus, 18% of African-Americans are undecided, compared with only 3.3% of the GOP crossover voters.
March 7, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
She is destroying her entire political career. She can't win this nomination, so she has decided to end in one glorious explosion, and that will be that.
March 7, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hoost at 3:47, great photo! hahahaha
March 7, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Hillary, in seeking to tie Power's Iraq comments to NAFTA, is saying, in effect, that the Obama camp tells Americans one thing and foreigners another, right?
Not necessarily - probably sometimes the Obama camp doesn't tell Americans anything at all.
March 7, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the MSM, the facts don't matter. It's all about perception.
You can't affect what the MSM does. You can't affect what the Clinton's do.
Howard Wolfson and the whole Clinton gang can't sell propaganda if voters don't want to buy it.
Obama has his own bullypulpit--20,000 people gather just to see
him speak.
He should stop addressing the Clintons and the press and get back to addressing voters. He can respond to every allegation one by one, but he has to present this as "Who are you going to believe?" "There are those who want to drive a steamroller over the democratic process. And drive a steamroller over me. But I stand strong and resolute and every bit as passionate as I was when I started. They want to drive a steamroller over all of you too. Will you stand? Or will you fall?
March 7, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with "Who you gonna believe?" is that Goolsbee did speak to the Canadians and Obama did deny it, Obama has changed his position on Iraq, he hasn't held hearings in his subcommittee, etc.
Don't get me wrong. I think all of these things either don't matter or are changes for the good. And are not very different from HRC's stances.
But to the average voter who lives on 30 second sound bites Obama was caught out not telling the truth. And the "Who you gonna believe" then invites derision.
The fact is that HRC had a great week and put Obama pretty soundly on the defensive; not with his fans but with the blue collars and women that Obama has to retake.
Given Obama's backstory his simply saying "Nah Nah Nah! You did it too!" isn't good enough.
March 7, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
But there is a substantive difference: the Clinton campaign reached out to the Canadians and the Obama campaign did not. And that's what she accused hin of and is still accusing him of, so there's the whole hypocrisy thing.
As to having a good week, she certainly did.
March 7, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The problem with "Who you gonna believe?" is that Goolsbee did speak to the Canadians and Obama did deny it"
The other problem is that Goolsbee was sought out and asked a question, and gave an answer that Obama probably wishes he hadn't. You are arguing that Obama himself would necessarily have given the same answer, which is the only way that his later denial could be called a lie.
On the other hand, the Clinton organization made calls to the Canadian government of its own accord, and is currently denying that that happened.
Obama was rightly called to task to clarify his subordinate's remarks, but Clinton is seriously digging her grave here. She is quite frankly counting on the Prime Minister covering his employee's ass. If Harper throws Brodie under the bus, Clinton is going with him.
March 7, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, what does Hillary think she is accomplishing? Is this some kind of two-step extortion/intimidation racket?
"I shall crush you with insults -- and fart in your general direction. You must bow down to me and appoint me your VP. Beware the catapulted cow, you steenking Eeenglish kniggit!"
March 7, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
This outrage is so contriveded. I got a completely unhinged email this morning sent to all members of my local dem listerv. Get a load of what this Clinton supporter said. And they accuse Obama people of crossing a line? It is in response to someone suggesting writing to superdelegates telling them to step up and stop the craziness. I believe the sender is a NY state committee member but I might be in error.
--------
It is telling that you did not care to stop Obama, the other candidates and the media from Attacking Clinton! She has suffered an onslaught of sexists abuse. Obama has been given a pass. Who couldn't win when the media gushes all over them and fails to scrutinize their words?
Obama, himself, has been lying about her Health care plan, her position on Nafta and more. Since none of Obama's supporters see fit to complain when he is negative and attacking her, it is obviously not about being negative, this is more nobody can critisize Obama!
She has many generals supporting her. She is ready to go up against McCain. He is not! That is her point. That is the point! Electibility! I think it is a very valid point to make. If he can't respond to this now, how will he respond to this against McCain?
He accused her of "whining" when she protested against his unfair representation of her health care plan (that was feeding into the Republican campaign), her position on NAFTA and others. Frankly, I am tired of his campaign's "whining" everytime he faces an attack. I think we should know Obama's real position's on issues (i.e. NAFTA, campaign financing). Because he has a lack of voting record and actually passing any legislation to effect change we have to go on his word, which may not mean much (if his converstaion with the Canadians is typical). It is also important to note that while he doesn't take money from lobbyists, he takes goo-gobs of money from the groups/people who hire the lobbyists. He is still as "beholden" as if he had taken it from a lobbyist. He is parsing. For all his talk about a new style of politics- there are many reports of cheating-and bullying by Obama supporters at the Texas Convention. One report came from a family member of a friend.
He should be scrutinized before he is the Democratic Candidate.
I and many women, who are concerned that sexism (which has allowed the assault of Hillary, while propelling a totally unprepared unknown ahead of her) is deciding this race, will also be sending messages to the super delegates.
Lori
March 7, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is on the path to single-handedly ruin the chances of a Democrat winning the presidency.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=ba30ff16-a5af-4035-a883-cf15ffee406c
March 7, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCAIN-CLINTON 2008!!!
March 7, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo. But she would want to be on the top of that ticket, too.
March 7, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
All you Obama supporters are missing the point - again. You are frustrated because the playing field isn't all men. Obama is a typical stupid man falling into every trap that Hillary sets.
Instead of wising up and staying on message - he walks into the trap again and again. Then all you men whine and cry and call Hillary names. "Oh that Monster - she beat us at our own game again! How dare she be smarter than us! Oh, she can't win! She should just quit! What terrible tactics!"
Grow up already. The problem with you men and Obama is that you don't know how to bob and weave. You just stand there and get belted. Then you whine. This is why Hillary will beat the pants off of little Barracky.
March 7, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Then all you men whine and cry and call Hillary names. "Oh that Monster ..."
From what I've heard, Samantha Powers is not a man at all.
March 7, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do realize it was a woman that called Hillary a monster right?
March 7, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am certainly not a man, and I am absolutely disgusted by her. She is a discredit to our gender and she needs to be taken down, and quickly.
March 7, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
wow. i feel so much better now. i just read your profile and want to apologize profusely for my negative words towards you. i know that most mental institutions request that their patients not get worked up and overly excited, and i'm sorry if your little female brain was confused by the logic of my response.
fifty-five years old and still not human enough to move beyond your shallow and dead identity politics. sad. allow me to explain to you exactly what is happening in this primary. you, hillary and the rest of you selfish baby-boom assholes are being politely pushed out of the public face and sent to the corner to continue your ridiculous culture wars from the sixties. a new generation has finally reared its head and has left tired and jaded people like you on the outside looking in.
for me, it's a wonderful development that people of your generation are being kicked to the side. you have proven yourselves time and time again to be the most selfish generation in the histroy of the country. global warming? fuck it. my grandkids can take care of that. deficits? i dunno. can't someone else do that? war in vietnam and growing presence of a police state? i know. i'll smoke weed, drop acid and fuck unitl all the badness goes away. and you have the audacity to criticize younger voters for the hope and optimism.
hillary's political career is now over. you will never see another woman running for president in your lifetime. and it is all your fault. people around the country have been listening to the shrill and whiny voices of feminists around the country since hillary started off on her long track toward mediocrity two years ago. we have roundly rejected you. your entire party no longer recognizes voices like yours as relevant.
go buy a fucking book by gloria steinham. lament the fate of ophelia. cry about the bell curve. shut the fuck up and bake a pie. i don't care what it is that you do. politics have passed you by. haven't you noticed the percentage of obama supporters on tpm? three months ago there were more hillary supporters than obama supporters. now it is approximately 95%-5% in favor of obama.
keep on talking and crying about the ignorance of men. go and ponder on why it is that women can't seem to get their shit together long enough to win a national campaign. every time you and people like you open their mouths or pound away on your keyboards, more people gravitate away from your camp.
take care. there will be a reward for you in heaven. i think god prefers the meek and the ignorant. but bitch, you will not inherit the presidency, much less the earth...
March 7, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Josh Marshall:
"You need to look at the larger picture the engagement is telling people. And right now this one's saying that Obama won't fight back, that he's easy to fluster, that he's weak."
No, Josh YOU are the one telling people that.
In a sane world, you media types wouldn't get so hot and bothered over baseless attacks, and instead report the real news: that a candidate for President is taking the high road and not lying about his opponent's every utterance, even if it costs him a few percentage points in the polls.
Principle in a politician. I know it's so new to you that you may have a hard time gettign your head around it. But maybe try reporting that sometime, instead of the latest flailing, desperate distortions from a campaign whose only hope of success is by exploiting the dysfunction of the media.
March 7, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm more concerned about that poll in the upper right-hand corner that has Obama ahead in Mississippi by only 6 points!
WTF?
March 7, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would not make too much of it. If you look back at the polls coming in the weeks before SC his margins jumped all around. Just a few days before the election Mason-Dixon had his lead down to a mere 8 pts. Of course we all know how that ended; he won by 28.9%, more than even his widest poll results ever predicted. I am not saying that I expect him to win by 30% again, but I would not worry that his margins jump around a lot. That is just a testament to the inexact science of polling.
March 7, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Does she really think she can keep this up for the entire seven weeks til Penn. Its been under a week and she is bordering on cartoonish self parody.
March 7, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is my full "NAFTA-gate" hillpocrisy tribute:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/post/28132958
March 7, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
NEWSFLASH for all the women out there. It's ok not to like Hillary. We've all met her type before, and the male-dominated press doesn't know how to fight back against her. When Hillary whines, the press file into the hall. Why is all the junk her campaign spews out always at the top of the fold?
She's not strong, she's dependent on her husband. Is she a fighter? Oh, yeah, but to what purpose? To what purpose.
March 7, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
She can keep yammering away and spew the most vile things as much as she wants, I guess.
As I see it, she will eventually kill herself with her own words.
March 7, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, don't address the specific charges, per se, but mock her as someone saying any and everything hoping that something sticks. One day he's not qualified to be president. The next she's hinting at being on the same ticket it with him.
It's not that hard and I'm surprised that it hasn't happened yet. Maybe Obama is waiting to do when he has the stage all to his self....
March 7, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tuesday night, after Hillary has lost both Wyoming and Mississippi, nobody will remember any of this.
March 7, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, what were the results of the Texas caucus?
March 7, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
No kidding. If the media had quoted one of Clinton's advisers out of context like that, Greg would have been all over it as an example of bias. This is yet another example of him doing exactly what he criticizes others for doing, if not worse.
March 7, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Self parody is the word. Applies to Hillary but also to her Hillarybots who say men don't get it, we think it's unfair for a woman to say negative things about Barack.
No, we don't think it's unfair, we think it's stupid, it is directly assisting the Republicans. Instead of hysterically ranting on about Barack's mean people and his traitorous communications with foreign govts., Hillary should be explaining how this asshole incumbent GOP president and his puppet McSame are going to continue another four years of endless war, endless deficits, deep job losses, horrendous home foreclosures, disintegrating roads & bridges, and collapsing health care systems.
I think we can explain Hillary's descent into self-parody by the the polls that slam her in the face on the eve of most primaries and her guilty knowledge that there is no way she wins on elected delegates.
Speaking of which, where are the Wyoming poll numbers? Meanwhile, I will try to click through to the ARG and InsiderAdvantage polls in MS to try to understand their contradictory results.
March 7, 2008 4:12 PM |