« Dean To Florida Senator Bill Nelson: Sorry, We're Not Funding A Revote | Home | Hillary: "I Would Not Accept A Caucus" In Florida And Michigan »
Report: Obama Adviser Calls Hillary A "Monster"
From the passions-are-running-high deparment comes this report from The Scotsman:
HILLARY Clinton has been branded a "monster" by one of Barack Obama's top advisers, as the gloves come off in the race to win the Democrat nomination.In an unguarded moment during an interview with The Scotsman, Samantha Power, his key foreign policy aide, let slip the camp's true feelings about the former First Lady....
Ms Power told The Scotsman Mrs Clinton was stopping at nothing to try to seize the lead from Mr Obama.
"We f***** up in Ohio," she admitted. "In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio's the only place they can win.
"She is a monster, too -- that is off the record -- she is stooping to anything," Ms Power said, hastily trying to withdraw her remark.
The rest here.
Advertisement
Yes he should be on the attack, but his campaign has got to stay on message. This doesn't help.
March 6, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
looks like that wasnt off the record afterall.
March 6, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't put it off the record after you say it. Bush league stuff.
March 6, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you can, if you're talking to a serious and ethical journalist. If you're talking to a hack desperate for attention, then you can't. I guess you can fault Power for not realizing which one she was talking to.
March 7, 2008 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Never...ever talk to a reporter about anything you don't want to see on the front page of a newspaper. I think this episode makes the point. She should've known better. OTOH, didn't Wolfson compare Obama to Ken Starr, which is much worse than a reference to an imaginary, generic monster in my book.
March 7, 2008 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, at least she didn't call Hillary a c*nt. I can't imagine the stress these people (on both campaigns) are under.
March 6, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the shoe fits...
March 6, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
They called him Ken Starr, George Bush and Karl Rove. She called her a monster. I'd say they are just about breaking even on this one.
March 6, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. I'm glad she said it. Samantha Power is a smart cookie, and she will be a huge asset as an adviser to President Obama.
March 6, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
They didn't say he *was* Starr, they said he was *imitating* Starr in their knd of attacks (getting all worked up over tax returns etc).
Here Obama's camp are saying she *is* a monster - there's a big difference between a simile and a metaphor, and the Obama camp screwed up royally here. Samantha Power needs to be fired, immediately.
March 7, 2008 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
IMHO, the Clinton camp's reference to Sen. Obama's tax return memo "attack" as reminiscent of Ken Starr wasn't simply because they were, as you say, "getting all worked up over tax returns. I think the Starr analogy was brought up (and, perhaps, rightly so) because of the accusation-without-basis nature of the memo, i.e., the "what is she hiding" part of it. Pressing Clinton to pony up with her tax returns as her opponent has already done is one thing, accusing her of hiding something is something else entirely(especially when it seems to have been the Clintons' custom and practice of disclosing their returns at or about filing time in April).
March 7, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her tendency to describe the world in black and white terms seems a bit at odds with the Obama approach. This alliance is a gamble for her and while she has demonstrated great physical courage and intelligence in her journalistic career, she hasn't shown that she can handle pressure well in a high stakes political game.
March 7, 2008 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
The crazy comes out.
March 6, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
actually I believe that saying she and McCain are qualified to be commander in chief and that Obama has only a speech may qualify her as just that...
March 6, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, we've already seen that Barack and his child army have trouble handling the truth. "Ooohhh, the mean bad woman called Barack unqualified. She's horrible! He's more than just a speech! He's at least 4 different speeches! Oh, that meany!!!"
March 6, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm really starting to question people's intelligence. The point wasn't that she said he's "unqualified"; the point was that she essentially endorsed McCain over Obama using her "experience" paradigm, which she clearly values. You don't endorse the Republican challenger during a Democratic primary. That makes you look like a treacherously selfish jerk and gives said challenger more ammunition than he should get. Also, if experience is the only criterion we're using, McCain wins hands-down. Why don't people understand that? It's lose-lose.
March 6, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to try to run through the logic of this "endorsed McCain" meme. If we can reason together, I think I can show you that she is not hurting Obama vis a vis McCain.
Who do you believe is better qualified to be Commander In Chief, McCain or Clinton?
If you believe McCain is more qualified, and you believe Obama is more qualified than McCain, she hasn't done any harm. By selecting Obama, the Dems will have gotten rid of the least qualified CIC candidate, Clinton, and Obama can go on to take on the second most qualified candidate, McCain.
If you believe Clinton is more qualified than McCain and Obama more qualified than Clinton, she won't have harmed Obama either. By beating Clinton, Obama will have beaten the second most qualified candidate and will have no trouble beating the least qualified, McCain.
On the other hand, if Clinton beats Obama, it doesn't matter how qualified he was vis a vis McCain.
So, while it may put a burr under your saddle, as it is no doubt intended to do, it won't harm Obama or the Party.
March 6, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about a 527 using video clips of her against Obama in the gen election, saying his own party doesn't think he is qualified.
Point is (which you seem to have missed) this isn't about our psychological feelings about the relative merits of the three candidates, it's about how her comments can be used to influence swing voters.
But, after setting up that staw man, I have to say your application of logic was impeccable. Next time go for some symbolic logic....that would be totally radical.
March 6, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for reasoning through that with me. Suppose you tell me how she hurt either Obama or the Party if Obama can beat her. Of course, the real problem is not what she's saying about McCain, it's what she's saying about Obama. And, in fact, she is beating Obama with the meme. You should try not to whine. It doesn't help.
March 6, 2008 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pointing out that your argument is based on flawed premises isn't whining. Neither is acknowledging that Clinton's comments are hurtful to the party, not just Barack. Tone it down buddy; have a warm cup of milk and get some rest.
March 6, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
BillyGladhand - really? are you seriously referring to obama supporters as whiners? after each state that clinton loses, she goes and stands awkwardly at her podium and offers two or three reasons why that state's results are irrelevant. sometimes the state is too small and therefore beneath her to actually attempt to win. sometimes it bothers her that a state has a caucus system in place rather than a primary. now she has a problem with the rules (with which she agreed) that prohibit the seating of delegates from florida and michigan. of course, commander hillary didn't have the slightest problem with the way the primary system was set up when she looked at the election as more of a coronation.
do us all a favor and at least give the appearance of thought before posting something as wrong and misleading as your little whining comment.
March 7, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who do you believe is better qualified to be Commander In Chief, McCain or Clinton?
You lost me at "Commander in Chief."
That is to say, this is framing the debate in GOP and specifically McCainian terms.
When you accept their frame, you lose.
HRC said, by way of preface, that now that McCain was the nominee, this election would be about "national security."
Bullshit. GOP frame.
No, what this election needs to be about, respecting foreign matters, is 1) ending the war in Iraq, 2) keeping America safe, and 3) restoring our standing, our respect in the world and our alliances.
That's not HRC's theme. Her little Rasputin Mark Penn is whispering in her ear that she needs to be a hawk, a la Thatcher. And she's bought it hook, line and sinker.
Feh.
March 6, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. And that should be Obama's answer.
March 6, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you make a very good point.
The Constitution does not envision our making a military person Chief Magistrate. Its ideal is that the Executive, a civilian, will be over the Armed Forces and be Commander in Chief by virtue of being the President -- not the other way round. Eisenhower was careful never to wear any insignia of his unprecedented rank once he aspired to be Head of State. (You'll note that I'm purposely using as many images and titles as I can think of for that non-military office.) Nor did he ever allow himself (as is customary for retired officers) to be addressed as General Eisenhower.
No military qualifications are specified for the Presidency, nor are they called for.
March 7, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point Gee;
You have touched on the central point of this campaign.
Hillary is not a leader, she follows.
Obama IS a leader and a leader does not look behind him all the time. He gathers in all the information, and then applies his own vision.
In one of the debates Obama said that he would not get into tit-for-tat arguments about the war in Iraq, rather he would go after the (improper) premise that got us there in the first place.
This is an example of his leadership.
I hope that he can find the right balance between going after Clinton and staying on message.
It's about time Obama went after Clinton's specious argument about her experience. I feel that not doing so months ago has been the single greatest error in Obama's strategy. This should have been put to rest months ago.
But better late than never.
One last point, I think Hillary's mentioning of McCain like she did may help Obama with some swing voters and undecideds, because to anyone but a partisan it wreaks of ego and scorched earth campaigning.
March 7, 2008 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
On the question of commander-in-chief (CIC) we have to be careful that we do not emphasize it too much. It should definitely be a dimension that we have to measure against for Presidential candidates.
However, by any stretch of the imagination, it is not the only or the most important dimension we should use. If we give it undue weight and importance it would lead us to ruling out more qualified candidates and choose only those who have extensive military experience or who have worked closely with the military for a long time. If we push this to the extreme the best qualified would be career two-star or above generals who can provide the military leadership across the various armed forces services.
If I would take a quick stab on what are the important qualities of a commander-in-chief it would be: good judgment, a good understanding of world politics and dynamics, courage, cool-headedness, and a deep understanding and care about the potential consequences and costs of decisions one is making.
This is by no means a complete list. However, I believe coming up with such a list is something that we should generate so that we can move beyond meaningless "Life Experience" labels that don't help shed any light on this topic.
March 7, 2008 5:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy Glad,
Your argument here makes no sense.
And the conditionals you're using are really, really weird.
What bearing do my beliefs have on whether HRC has done harm? Am I to believe that, somehow, some way, my believing certain things will magically prevent her statement from having its presumptive effect? If only things were so easy!
Bottom line: the unmistakable suggestion is that McCain is more qualified for the office than is Obama. And no amount of slipshod reasoning will change that, I'm afraid.
March 6, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if that's true, and certainly she believes that, it does no harm if Obama can beat her. On the other hand, if he can't, what difference does it make except to upset you.
Look. Clearly, she is saying Obama is not qualified. Clearly she believes that. And clearly she doesn't care what you think of her saying it. It's a big fuck you to Obama and his base. But you're not the Democratic Party yet.
If Obama beats Clinton, do you think the rest of the country will give a rat's ass if McCain says Hillary Clinton says I'm more qualified to be CIC than McCain? Why would they? Are you afraid that there are some swing voters out there who will listen to Clinton? Those people aren't going to vote for Obama.
Get on with your campaign and give the hurting the Dem party in the Fall meme a rest. Sounds too much like whining.
March 6, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a baseless, utterly counterintuitive assertion.
You started out trying to give an argument for the claim in question, which turned out quite badly, and now you're simply begging the question.
It's fine if you want to shill for your candidate, even if you don't do it very well. But, man, have some pride.
March 6, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. It's the same argument. Haven't changed it at all. Your turn. Show how it hurts the Party for her to say McCain is more qualified than Obama. You don't like it. But you're not the Party.
March 6, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
One way it could hurt the party would be if Clinton gets the nomination but has pissed off so many Democrats along the way that they stay home. Identifying with McCain sends the message that she is not a good Democrat.
March 7, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
And if Obama gets the nomination, but (with the help of his very vocal followers) has pissed off so many women and baby boomers along the way that they stay home...?
March 7, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy Glad, I won't call you a moron, but you'll suffice until one comes along. It hurts the party because it makes McCain's case for him. And it undermines both Obama AND Hillary. But she doesn't care at this point because she knows she can't win, and her only goal is to insure that Obama can't win either. She's a selfish cunt. Haven't you figured that out yet?\
PS: I use the word "cunt" strictly in the British sense.
March 7, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's not a word out there that more enrages women. Stop using it. It's offensive and wrong and I swear to God you will drive more people to HRC's camp out of sheer disgust.
March 7, 2008 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Show how it hurts the Party for her to say McCain is more qualified than Obama. You don't like it. But you're not the Party."
I'll take a whack at it.
Along with this emphasis on the status of Commander-in-Chief (a more-than-omplicit military designation), her enthusiasm for *the idea* that John McCain is more worthy of the Presidency than Sen. Obama has the elementary effect of moving the spectrum of discussion still further to the right, to the point where the entire debate on US foreign policy will become restricted to purely tactical matters.
We won't, for example, have a debate this fall on the underlying *assumptions* behind the War on Terror, or whether the United States has any right to invade sovereign nations. Questions of that sort . . . the kind that a truly opposing party ought to raise organically . . . simply won't materialize. What we'll have instead is a debate on which candidate can more effectively achieve a victory that we have long ago surrendered any right to.
By advancing the notion that the only reponsible choice in this election is between her and Sen. McCain, she narrows the options of an already depoliticized electorate. This is not a direction the Democratic party should be going in if it's to have any meaningful distinction from its Republican counterpart.
March 7, 2008 6:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy Glad will always be with us. His smug, self-satisfied head resting on his smug, arrogant hand. He's a thinker. And intellectual. A legend in his own mind. Just ignore him. He won't go away, but ignore him anyway.
March 6, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I were an intellectual, I'd be voting for Obama.
March 6, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect you'll probably write in Trotsky. Or Ann Magnuson. Or some such shit. You're so above us all. Personally, I think the reason you play the Devil's advocate so often is because you have yet to grow a spine. Form an opinion, you pathological equivocator. It will hurt like hell, but you'll it will be a truly liberating experience.
March 6, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you smelling his pit in that picture?
March 6, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's John McCain, not me. Smelling the pit of every establishment politician on the planet. Hillary included.
March 6, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I won't. I'll be gone as soon as the nomination is settled. I was hoping to leave Tuesday, but Obama couldn't pull it off, so I have to stay until Pennsylvania. Believe me, it's hard on me, too. Seeing you hug that guy every time you post. Gross.
March 6, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, that pic is your candidate's new BFF hugging the current commander in chief. Now there's two guys who have crossed the ever illusive CIC threshhold, right Billy?
March 6, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
For further proof that Mac and Hill are more than just BFF, take a look at this disgusting photo of them sharing an intimate "all is proceeding according to plan" moment:
http://noveltimes.com/2008/03/06/ive-got-a-bad-feeling-about-this/
Seriously, I'm sick of the slime.
March 6, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obfuscatory crap. It doesn't matter how this impacts people who already have formed their opinions, as you imply. She's trying to convince undecided voters that Obama doesn't belong on the same stage as her and McCain. She said so. She practically endorsed McCain over Obama. She's beneath contempt.
March 6, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think she believes he doesn't. What's wrong with saying what she believes?
March 6, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a primary campaign. What you do in a primary is try to convince undecided voters that your opponent doesn't belong on the same stage with you. Obama just needs to convince them that he does. Problem is, we know from Ohio and Texas that most Democratic voters don't think he does. He should run as the peace candidate who is ready to rise to the CIC role if events demand it.
March 6, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're awfully smug. The reason he doesn't go negative is that he is trying to hold the party together and he doesn't want to alienate women.
March 7, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that if qualifications to be CIC was the most important criteria we would be nominating someone like Wesley Clark. He has relevant experience.
McCain only very slightly more qualified than Clinton and Obama because he was actually in the military. But that's like saying since I have owned a cat for years, I'm more qualified to be a lion tamer than someone who has never owned a cat.
March 6, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that Obama is better all around. But my beliefs aren't the ones that are going to be impacted by the general election McCain ad that will surely come from Hillary's statements. If they were, I'd say no harm done. But no such luck.
March 6, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the logic is that hard:
1. Clinton proposes (but does not define) a criterion for the presidency that trumps the party platform, since it puts her last remaining primary opponent on the other side of "the threshold" from herself and the Republican nominee
2. The evidence we have from the Clinton campaign rhetoric to date is that this criterion is her "experience"
3. Since this criterion trumps party platform, and Clinton is less "experienced" than McCain in CiC matters, it's a de facto blow to the Democratic party
If your confusion on the issue is sincere, it's because you're thinking that "endorses McCain" leads to "hurts Obama against McCain," and thus to "hurts party." The progression is simply that this argument frames both remaining Democratic candidates as an inferior choice to McCain, and thus inevitably hurts the party.
What Obama would do in the general against is irrelevant, since he doesn't define his candidacy in terms of CiC experience. What Clinton will do in the general after defining herself as a lesser version of McCain is less clear.
March 7, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, we are just noting that she sided with republicans on foreign policy.
What's up with this "child army" nonsense anyway. Can't you make an lucid argument without name calling? Who's acting the child?
March 6, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
crickets...
March 6, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
A question, EastWest (and this is not a prelude to an ambush; it really is a quest for information:
When you use a term like 'child army' in referring to supporters of Sen. Obama (of who, I hasten to add, I am not one), exactly what do you mean?
March 6, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
"child army" is a vicious, disgusting, racist reference to the marauding gangs of machete wielding African boys who butchered innocent women and children during the civil war between the Tutsi and Hutu tribes of Rwanda. Wiki it.
March 6, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, silly me. The image the phrase "children's army" brought to mind for me was that of the medieval Children's Crusade. Never thought of Africa at all. And after considering it, I think my impression better fits what Billy Glad probably had in mind: a band of starry-eyed youths convinced that they are on a mission from God and that their innocence and purity can save the world where their sinful elders have failed. Unfortunately for them, God apparently didn't stick around, and innocence and youth proved no match for treachery.
March 7, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, it wasn't Billy Glad who used the phrase, it was another commenter, but that doesn't change what I took away as the intent behind the use of that phrase.
March 7, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's experience as First Lady (which position by the way involves no security clearance) qualifies her as CIC, right? Just like it qualifies Laura Bush? Give me a break!
March 6, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Chelsea. Don't forget Chelsea! And the twins!
March 7, 2008 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really not the point at all. If we decided elections on who could "take it" better, all the candidates would just get up and make nasty remarks about their opponents' mothers, and we'd hand the suitcase to the last man standing. The point(s) are:
1. If Obama is unqualified in foreign policy, then Hillary is only marginally more qualifed, and
2. Hillary's weird recent proclivity for casting the race as the Qualified (Clinton and McCain) against the Unqualified (Obama) really has to give pause to those of us who care more about undoing the damage the GOP has done in the last eight years than we do about WHICH Democrat wins.
March 6, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Attn Readers- the rest of the article is a must read. You ignore it at your peril.
Peace.
March 6, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
What did you find so earth shattering in the rest of the article?
March 6, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The article was none too exciting as far as I could tell. Obama's inexperienced, Samantha Powers has a book, Hillary's a monster. No new info. They all freely admit to it...except Hillary, I guess.
March 6, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I found it to be a lot of nothing.
March 6, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hehe, I love Samantha Power. It doesn't matter if she said that, Hillary's people accused Obama of being a drug dealer, I mean c'mon, a little perspective people.
A monster is being nice, Hillary is most definitely despicable, and I'd use much more colorful language to describe her. And she is right, Hillary will stoop to anything.
March 6, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would you like to tell us who called Obama a drug dealer please?
March 6, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Shaheen and Bob Johnson are two examples to start with...
March 6, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bob Johnson said Obama was doing what he said in his book. Did Obama say he was dealing drugs in his book? Where do you get your information? Is it fourth, fifth, what hand?
March 6, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You really just refuse to see her for her true motives. Unbelievable.
March 7, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bob Johnson said that, when Hillary was out gaining her vaunted experience, Obama was doing "something in the neighborhood" -- code for doing drugs and for dealing them.
In fact, at the time in question, Obama was a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, and Hillary was a corporate lawyer at Rose.
Johnson went so far over the line with these reemarks that he was eventually made to apologize, but he said it. He is typical of the pack of scorched-earth idiots HRC has surrounded herself with. Penn, Wolfson, Dershowitz, not to mention the warmongers O'Hanlon and Pollock.
The people she chooses reflect her judgment. Her judgment reflects what she has learned, or hasn't, from her experience. As Aldous Huxley said, experience is not what happens to you, experience is what you do with what happens to you.
Gosh, it sure is lucky we had an experienced fella in the White House like President Nixon during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and not some inexperienced young guy.
Oh, wait.
March 7, 2008 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Drug dealer" comments links please. Thanks in advance.
March 6, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/12/post_235.html
Clinton N.H. Official Warns Obama Will Be Attacked on Drug Use
DOVER, N.H. -- Billy Shaheen, the co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign in New Hampshire, raised the issue of Sen. Barack Obama's past admissions of drug use....
Billy Shaheen contrasted Obama's openness about his past drug use -- which Obama mentioned again at a recent campaign appearance in New Hampshire -- with the approach taken by George W. Bush in 1999 and 2000, when he ruled out questions about his behavior when he was "young and irresponsible."
Shaheen said Obama's candor on the subject would "open the door" to further questions. "It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" Shaheen said.
*************************
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/bet-chief-raps-obama-in-sc/
January 13, 2008, 2:39 pm
BET Founder Slams Obama in South Carolina
By Katharine Q. Seelye
"COLUMBIA, S.C. — Robert L. Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, who is campaigning today in South Carolina with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, just made a suggestion that raised the specter of Barack Obama’s past drug use...
He then added: “And to me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood – and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book – when they have been involved.”
March 6, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice work!
March 6, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy Shaheen called Obama a drug dealer in NH -- and Bob Johnson implied Obama was a drug dealer in SC
of course they all always apologize AFTER they plant the mud
March 7, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's the problem: she is a monstrous person. Her heel to me attitude about Obama and black voters in general is highly offensive.
I know it's hard for you to understand, but just imagine you're black and a politician and her campaign were going around calling you nigger every other minute in word and emails. You'd probably feel a little like I do that the politician in question is not such a good person AND not such a good politician. There are 20-30 million black voters in this country who will have a problem voting for you after this. I'm one of them. I may or may not vote for McCain, but I won't vote for HRC under any circumstances today.
I can honestly say that before the 60 minutes interview I couldn't have said that. After it, it became clear to me the she DID launch the madrassa smear, every surrogate WAS acting under orders, all intimations by WJC were INTENTIONAL, and she plans to continue it. Go ahead, then ready yourself for a brawl at the convention. At this point, if Obama put her on his ticket I couldn't vote for it. She just went too far. All those 50+ white women who think they're going to force this shit down our throats are mistaken.
March 6, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is bad. Profanity and name calling. This does not help Obama.
March 6, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Saying Hillary is being a monster is going easy on her.
March 6, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right. It is just fuckin' dreadful, isn't it!
March 6, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not any worse than Ickes and Penn using profanity at each other. She did not refer to Hillary in a profane way. But I'm sure this will get all twisted around and obviously this reporter doesn't care to get another interview.
March 6, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, the reporter was clear about why she used it. And I don't think it's any worse than Wolfson calling Obama Ken Starr. Actually, I'd much rather be called monster.
March 6, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since when is "monster" profane? I think you need a dictionary.
And anyway, it's no worse then calling someone "Ken Starr"
March 6, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's the big deal? I don't think it hurts Obama at all. Samantha Power is a woman with her own pulitzer prize and an impressive knowledge of international affairs, who also has first-hand knowledge of Clinton campaign tactics. If she is calling Clinton a monster, I believe her. She knows better than I do.
I think people would wonder how exactly Clinton has "stooped" so low, as Power has said.
It didn't hurt Hillary to decry "Shame on you!" to Obama. People suddenly assumed he had something to be ashamed of.
Samantha Power might be on to something. Don't forget Wisconsin and the Obama message of "Clinton will do anything to get elected." People believed that, and he won.
This may also highlight Samantha Power who I think is an impressive female advocate of Obama's.
March 6, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
She just needs more political experience. This campaign is a good way to get it.
March 6, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michigan to revote with a CAUCUS:
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/03/06/michigan_plans_revote.html
March 6, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is huge news. So of course there's nothing on TPM about it. They'd rather talk about nonsense like this in order to divide Democrats.
March 6, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh The Scotsman using a slip to get more hits for there story. I guess the scotsman is pretty low on the standing of journalism in the UK.
March 6, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
She immediately tried to retract her comment, so I can't imagine anyone other than Hillary partisans and Republicans will try to make much of this. It's not like the comment from the Clinton campaign comparing Obama to Ken Starr which was actually planned and thought out and not retracted.
March 6, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Juvenile.
March 6, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Own it, Sam. If the Clintons call you out on this, go on every show that will have you. Say that monster was something you said in the heat of the moment, but that you stand by the opinion that Hillary will stop at nothing to capture the nomination. Don't call her a monster - tell anyone who will listen WHY she is a monster. Then talk at length about how what a refreshing change of pace your boss, Barack Obama, is. Say that even though you, Sam Power, lost your cool, Obama never does.
OWN IT.
March 6, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. I think you are on to something. Samantha Power speaks the truth. I like your tack on this, step up, own it and lay out the reasons...
March 6, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is exactly what should be done. Great point. This is how real people accept responsibility for their actions. It would do wonders to show the contrast with the current administration who wouldn't own their mistakes/misjudgements if someone paid them.
This is what I AM LOOKING FOR...enough of the dodging.
March 7, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
i fully respect Samantha Power and her ability to express herself. i'd rather her tell us what she actually thinks than give a sugar-coated answer she doesn't believe. that goes for opinions of opponents as much as foreign policy.
:on another note: journalism question...
doesn't "off the record" mean the journalist told is obligated in some way to not put the source's name in print at the very least?
March 6, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama radio ad targets Clinton’s Mississippi comments
Posted: 04:50 PM ET
(CNN) – Barack Obama’s campaign has debuted a new radio ad in Mississippi called "Respect," highlighting what they call “derogatory” remarks Hillary Clinton made about the state late last year.
The ad also argues that Obama will “practice his Christian faith by respecting us” — an apparent push-back against the false Muslim rumors that have dogged him throughout the campaign.
In the 30-second spot, former Mississippi Governor Ray Mabus, an Obama supporter, derides Clinton for comments she made last fall singling out the state’s record of electing female politicians.
"I was shocked when I learned Iowa and Mississippi have never elected a woman governor, senator or member of Congress," Clinton told the Des Moines Register in October. "There has got to be something at work here. How can Iowa be ranked with Mississippi? That's not the quality. That's not the communitarianism, that's not the openness I see in Iowa.'"
Mabus accuses the Clinton campaign of calling Mississippi voters “second class.”
“Now I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of people putting us down,” Mabus says in the ad. “Tired of politicians trying to divide our nation instead of lifting it up.”
Mississippi voters head to the polls next Tuesday, March 11, with 33 Democratic delegates at stake.
March 6, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well if it makes Mississippi feel better Hillary thinks Iowa is a a low quality state as well since it didn't vote for her.
March 6, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that's a good ad. Attack her with her own stupidity.
March 6, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mississippi is hardly the most progressive state in the union. I can't believe you would be very proud to win it. If they would educate their children and elect women and blacks to office, it would be a better place. But, the Obama base is the Obama base. He has to win where he can. If the governor of Mississippi wants to do something constructive, let him deliver Mississippi for the Democratic candidate in the Fall.
March 6, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
ok, c'mon Billy Glad, now you are REALLY not making sense. I thought your earlier logical syllogisms made a lot of sense, analytically, it was just your factual premises which were totally cockeyed, as jed757 pointed out.
But to ask the Gov. of MS to do ANYTHING to help a Dem reveals that you have no clue who or what Hailey Barbour is and was in the GOP. Think, Abramoff in sheep's clothing; Rove in a petroleumdrilling-coalmining, waterdefiling-sheepfuckin' lobbyist's sheep's clothing. Fact check before blogging, please. (I really love how the 'in takes the sting out of that eff word, don't you?)
March 6, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess you're saying he doesn't want to do anything constructive.
March 6, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're a superior cunt, just like Hillary. She insults an entire state as if it's an entity, just like you do. You claim to live in NYC, yet I have a hard time believing anyone with your small-minded bigotry could survive there without getting knifed. You must take cabs to work...
March 6, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is Mississippi worse than, say, Ohio? True, it has been poorer ever since it was on the losing side in a devastating war and bore much of the brunt of Reconstruction. But it is part of the Union at the insistence of others, and anyone who wants to be President has to learn how to respect its people.
March 7, 2008 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama respects Mississippi? Did the ad say what for?
March 6, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
love her, always have. THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!!!
March 6, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well... Your name is 'idiotic'...
March 7, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
At TPM Obama staffers who say "bad" things are ADVISORS - Clinton staffers who say "bad" things are FLACKS ...
TPM = OPM
OBAMA POINTS MEMO
Time to succumb ... O is the VP.
March 6, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
And would you mind enlightening us all on how, mathematically, she's going to win the nomination? I mean in actuality. I'm curious.
March 6, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
jed757 - this sums it up, but it's not nearly as a "long shot" or complicated as it sounds ... once PA falls for HC everything will ...
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/03/06/politics/horserace/entry3913620.shtml
March 6, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the Democrats will be the new Whigs.
March 6, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, but do you really think she will get an Edwards endorsement after siding with McCain on foreign policy? Anyway, this article still doesn't give any info on how, mathematically, she can take the pledged delegate lead. At the end of the day, she can only count on a super delegate coup. That would be almost as good for the party as her crossing the threshhold comment.
March 6, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You make a very good point -- how can Edwards hitch his wagon to Hillary after she has tried to kneecap Obama and fluff up McCain the way she has been doing over the past few days? I thought it was fairly unlikely before all of this, but now I just don't see that has a snowball's chance in hell of happening.
March 7, 2008 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Someone's changing the goal posts again. If the party let's this BS continue they are going to lose the GE.
March 6, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are clearly out of your mind.And I certainly think Obama can field a better VP than the monster.
Hillary is the new Lieberman.
March 6, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
you meant eakboyeak was out of his mind, not the fast-times-at-ridgemont-high or the ted-and-al's-excellent-adventure kid. But this "reply" function is kludgy. So, we should name who we are responding to in every comment.
March 6, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, I have never appeared in Bill and Ted's excellent adventure. How are you going to confuse Spicoli with Keanu?
March 6, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama-Biden.
That should cut into McCain's foreign policy advantage.
March 6, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we should imitate you (and Ms. Powers) and from here on out refer to her as The Monster.
March 7, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a late middle-aged woman who is supposed to a member of Clinton's base, I agree with Ms. Powers. Hillary Clinton's behavior in the past few weeks has been monstrous. Her (and her campaigns') triangulation, parsing, false accusations and unfounded attacks all define monstrous political behavior in my book. There is a reason that Molly Ivins wrote before she died that she would never vote for Hillary Clinton for president. Ever. Hillary Clinton is now reminding me on a daily basis why I always felt that Molly Ivins spoke for me.
Enough, Bill and Hillary. You are quickly becoming an embarrassment to the party you claim to love so much.
March 6, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The circular firing squad continues.....
March 6, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
She is. Just like Lieberman. Will say & do anything to get elected and then say fuck you to those who got them elected.
If anyone really thinks this horror of a freak show is going to fix healthcare whne she take more healthcare money from lobbyist then all other candidates combined. You're delusional.
Clinton did the wink & nod on NAFTA to the Canadians, NOT the Obama campaign. She'd going to fix NAFTA After years of saying glowing things abaout it?? Again, you're delusional if you believe that.
Make no mistake about it, we will be staying firming on the ground in Iraq if HRC somehow wins in November. It's good for military business and that's why the military loves her.
Oh and... the only people who should "chill" Greg, are people like you who continue to excuse and make light of each and everything MONSTER does.
If she can't win the nomination, she intends on doing EVERYTHING possible to ensure Obama doesn't while she waits until 2012.
FUCK HER.
March 6, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: Greg didn't say chill. It was David Kurtz on the front page.
Sorry, Greg.
March 6, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like how they said they f****d up. That's what I was thinking Tuesday night. Oh well, the show goes on!
March 6, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has been saying some rather monstrous things. Obama's camp has been more than generous in deflecting her sleazy attacks, while trying to avoid getting dragged into a party splitting fight.
But enough is enough.
March 6, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael's Mom,
I'm black and don't see how the hell you can vote for anyone but the Democratic nominee. How can you do it? Don't let your hurt feelings cost us all for the next 50 years. In the Congress. In the Supreme Court. In Iraq. Afghanistan. Pakistan.
I'm not buying all of this "nigger" talk, but okay.
Black people don't get any respect now because we typically do one of two things: we vote democrat WITHOUT thinking. Or we don't vote at all. But mostly, we don't vote, and we've sunk a number of candidate that thought we would.
Without question, this is a time to think about it, and then vote Democrat. No matter what.
Unless you think the Republicans think you're less of a "nigger".
March 6, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the Repubs think any better, but they don't expect me to vote for them after they say it: she does.
Secondly, you apparently are among the 'black' people who work for HRC 'cause anyone who'd been to Jack and Jill Politics or BlackAmericaWeb knows that what I'm saying is now pervasive in the 18-50 black community.
We have suffered a lot in this country, and what we've learned is: we know how to survive, and no McCain administration can change that. We lose this year and wait four: that's all.
March 6, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to say. Of all the f***ups from the campaigns happening lately, I think this one is actually going to help Obama. I don't think Hillary's a monster, but I think a lot of people want to hear that she is. Kind of like when Kerry called Bush Co a bunch of crooks. People enjoyed that.
March 6, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
People like it for the same reason they fell for Hillary's tears: It's honest. A moment of actual, unabashed honesty is very rare in a political campaign and it endears people to know the person running is actually a person, not a machine. It's something they can identify with.
It's always a positive emotional response, even if the sentiment itself is negative. Funny how that works, but that's human psychology for you.
March 6, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Samantha, and thanks Obama, if you don't fire her.
Forever more, you will be unable to claim the high road when it comes to negative campaigning. Whenever the Clinton campaign is accused of negative campaigning, it can always point to Samantha Power as representing only a far, far worse case of it.
You do realize, of course, that that's what it will entail, right?
I hope all Obama supporters are cool with that.
This will be the gift that keeps on giving. The venom of which Krugman has spoken is now fully out in the open.
March 6, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the whole point is that this wasn't part of the campaign. This comment indicates how nice the campaign has been when compared to how the campaigners feel about each other. I'm sticking with "it works". They can't do more of it (obviously), but it gets it out there that these are real people trying to be good, no matter how much they don't wanna.
March 6, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somebody needs to remind Barack and his child army of kool-aid drinkers that it's not productive to curse in adult company. All it does is show off their narrow, sophomoric world view.
What's this "top advisor" going to do next? Chug a keg of Bud and puke on a reporter's shoes? Flash her boobs off a beach-front balcony? Grow up?
Maybe it's time to stop whining about the meany and get ready for the real thing. If Barack does manage to win this primary, he'll be facing the Repug hate machine. If you people seriously believe this soft-ball stuff is so horrible, you'll pee all over yourselves once he runs into the real thing.
What happens if he does get the White House and Putin or Medvedev give him a hard stare? If Clinton saying he's unqualified is such a horrible thing, do you really think he's qualified to face up to actual evil? The answer, of course, is no. He'll wet himself and hide behind his VEEP. If, that is, Clinton's observations are really all that bad.
March 6, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You call them "repugs" but support a candidate that sides with the Republicans and their nominee on national security, while throwing her own party's frontrunner under the bus.
Obama supporters aren't crying about her Rovian tactics because they are mean. We are merely pointing out that she is willing to knee-cap her own party, through dirty tricks, in her pursuit of personal power...and believe that this makes her completely unfit to be the Democratic candidate for president.
March 6, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure beats Hillary crying.
March 6, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course we're concerned about him being able to deal with the noise machine. I'm concerned about Hillary dealing with it too. But if you're trying to imply that this f'up is any worse than what might be done by any other candidate, I beg to differ.
March 6, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. If you think 'monster' is a curse word, you must have been raised in a 4x4 room with no running water.
March 6, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
And whining during a nationally televised debate about how mean the media are IS adult behavior?
March 7, 2008 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sargent and Kurtz need to stop their bullshit.
A campaign spokesperson saying one exasperated thing and then having TPM front page it as though it has larger meaning, is just totally obnoxious yellow journalism.
Where's the real journalism on TPM these days? where's the intelligent commentary?
The vast majority of posts are just tabloid garbage, fluff, churn, and poll tracking.
TPM has really gone down the series of tubes.
March 6, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
They report. You decide.
March 6, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Josh & co. are better than this. I can't wait until the supers can this nonsense.
March 6, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
shut up. you suck. run your own goddam blog, you idiot. go away, troll.
March 6, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
that was for kozmik, the dickhead.
oops, broke my own rule!
No, he really is a dickhead, my rule was we should always name who we are responding to, because the reply function is so kludgy right now.
March 6, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
What kind of Democrat describes his or her true opponent ready to be commander in chief? Once again Hillary has proven she is just as bad as the Republicans. Clinton is not solution. She is part of the problem that is plaguing progress in Washington. Old Washington has to go. A new generation of Americans deserve a new generation of leadership.
March 6, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you really not get it? She can beat McCain a dozen ways. She's going to stipulate that he's qualified to be CIC then kill him on the occupation.
March 6, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton cannot win in the GE now, no matter what. Count on it.
March 7, 2008 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The commentators on this post would forgive Obama anything, and would not give Clinton the benefit of the doubt in any scenario.
Would these posts be the same if Mark Penn (whom I, personally, despise) called Obama something similar? Obamaphiles get angry if Mark Penn coughs funny, but his senior staffers from Obama can call Hillary names and its all in good fun from people under pressure. Right.
March 6, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem you have there is that people would assume that Mark Penn did it on purpose. That he was purposely trying to convey a negative message. That wouldn't sit well.
In this case, people assume that Samantha Powers was just speaking her mind. People like that.
I can't think of anyone in the Hillary camp whose motives wouldn't be questioned. That's one of the problems that comes with having experience.
March 6, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
And of course the opposite is true as well. Hillary supporters would be defending this slip and attacking the source if it had come from one of Hillary's advisers. That's politics.
On balance, I think most nonpartisan observers would see that this was something that slipped out in the heat of the moment that she immediately tried to take back and wouldn't make too much of it.
March 6, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like what? Suggesting that he might have been a drug dealer? Or that he maybe a manchurian candidate? Or that he's Karl Rove/ken starr? Or that he represents slum lords? Or that he doesn't stand for a woman's right to choose? Or that McCain is more qualified to be president?
Not sure what your point was, but Clinton and her surrogates crossed the line several months ago. So spare us your hand wringing.
March 6, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't get it. How is this worse than anything the Clinton camp has done? Why is it now time to chill (as suggested on the front page)?
March 6, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton supporters want to believe her claims about how "tough" she is. Toughness, beyond a certain point, is monstrosity. She's so tough she'd rather tear down the whole party than not be its nominee; she'd rather campaign for McCain if she can't campaign for herself.
Maybe she's not a monster. Maybe she's just the Republican she was raised as. Maybe the Republicans who despise her are the monsters, for turning against someone so truly one of their own. But for someone basically a Republican - someone who would recommend McCain over Obama as she did today - to run as a Democrat, to strive even to smash the whole candy shop if she can't get the best sweets for herself ... monstrous.
March 6, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with advisers speaking their minds is that, even if it's in another country and independent of the campaign, people don't make that distinction in their minds. The message boils down to "Obama's adviser called Hillary a monster".
We can practically write Clinton's response already. "These comments by Obama's top adviser against Hillary Clinton are shameful. They show that all of Obama's talk about bringing the country together and running a positive campaign is just that: talk. We call upon Barack Obama to show he really means what he says and fires Ms. Powers."
And what is Obama to do? Fire her immediately and make his senior staff think he'll throw you overboard at the slightest inconvenience? Keep her on board and take days of negative, damaging press? Wait a few days to see if it becomes a big story, then fire her, making it look like he caves into political pressure?
He's screwed no matter what he does. That's why it's so important for a campaign's advisers to stay on message. In light of this and Goolsby's huge goof, Obama needs to bring all his advisers in a room and say: "I appreciate all the work you have done. But we're in a critical phase of the campaign. If you do something to damage the campaign while acting independently, I'm going to have to fire you."
For the record, I'm disgusted by Ms. Powers' comment. Hillary has done plenty of things that are valid for criticism. That doesn't mean anyone should lower themselves and get into name calling. We can't denounce the tactics the Clinton campaign uses if we are going to accept them when they come from the Obama campaign.
March 6, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not necessariliy. He can reinforce the statement - that her behavior over the past couple of weeks has been monstrous, that Democrats do not campaign for the other party, that Hillary said in November 2007 that she would not stoop to personal attacks and yet once she started losing, she decided that personal attacks were her best chance at winning and what kind of person is this to be electing to the nation's highest office?
He can point out that Clinton's behavior IS monstrous, and that this is exactly the kind of behavior he wants to rise above, and that's why it's worth pointing out. You can't fix things if you don't expose them.
Can't say I disagree with that part, though.
I'm not. Nice guys finish last. Always. You can take the offense without being negative. I'd say this comment pretty much hits that line, but I wouldn't say it crosses it.
And it brings a moment of much needed candidness to the campaign which has become increasingly tight lipped as it comes under deeper attack.
To see it come out and fight back is a good thing.
Now, I'll agree Obama has to tread carefully. His message is inherently positive and it's HIS message he'll damage if they do too much of this name calling. But a one-off from an advisor I don't think is terribly important.
March 6, 2008 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK how about this. She would rather see McCain in the White House than Obama. Margret Carlson Said basically the same thing on Olbermann tonight. Is that enough for you. SHE WOULD RATHER SEE McCAIN WIN THEN OBAMA!!! That is bad.
March 6, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary Clinton said that it would be very bad.
March 6, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iraq. Iran. Clusterbombs. Keeping "those" people in jail. Deporting immigrants. Seems like a monster to me.
March 6, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds more like Samantha Bee than Samantha Power.
March 6, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure what adjective best describes Hillary Clinton, but after watching her on television a couple of hours ago "potential republican VP candidate" seems appropriate.
She said that both she and John McCain had worlds of experience but all Obama had was a speech in 2002. Well, her husband did say that a contest between Hillary and McCain would be very civil because they are such good friends. Evidently friendship trumps party in this case because she certainly is working for the republicans.
March 6, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did somebody say "triangulation?" The word exclusively directed at Clinton when she does the same thing they hail Obama for when he's being "bipartisan."
Joshs blog has morphed into Drudge, but I guess MONSTER was too much for even him? WOW.
Obamaniacs want to play by the rules...unless those rules allow Clinton 2025 delegates!
DOOOOOO OVER!!!!!! THAT one doesn't COUNT...I CALLED IT!
March 6, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you talking about doing over the one where he wasn't on the ballot or the one where he wasn't allowed to campaign?
Anyway, calling for a do over is a far more decent thing to do than a post-hac rationalization for changing rules and seating delegates under the auspices of voter disenfranchisement, when it is apparent to all (but some inane supporters) that your real motivation is blatant power grab.
March 6, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
He voluntarily took his name off the ballot. He wasn't asked to, and it wasn't something the DNC requested.
He took his name off the ballot so he could avoid a public ass-whipping. By your deft logic, you are implying (if we extend it) that Obama could have won the nomination just after IOWA...if only he'd taken his name off all the other 49 ballots.
Chicken-chit strategy...run and hide?
March 7, 2008 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh dead god, make it stop. This is quickly becoming the nightmare scenario a lot of us were worried about.
March 6, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is Drudge your new assignment editor?
Leaking an off-the-record conversation. Hmmm, only if we had some off-the-record leaks from Hillary saying she knows McCain is qualified to be commander in chief, but not Obama. Oh yeah, that is on the record.
March 6, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
It wasn't off the record. Power tried to take it off the record after the fact, but that's not the way it works, and she certainly knew that.
March 7, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey TPM, here's an idea...
Maybe you should come correct on the LIES you helped spread during the Canadian/NAFTA hoax before carrying Hillary's water with another fishy-sounding report from a foriegn paper.
Just a thought, whores.
On the bright side, more and more of the Dems I know who used to chastise me for saying I'd never vote for Hillary have begun to come around to my way of thinking. The effects of Operation Kitchen Sink are going to have some consequences that Lieberman in a pantsuit didn't intend.
March 6, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You and Samantha Powers should join forces and start a consulting firm. You could call it "Anyone who disagrees with me is a whore, a monster, and furthermore f*ck you."
Stop lowering the level of discourse. You don't like Hillary. This does not make you unique, nor does calling ANYONE a whore make a valid point for anyone.
March 6, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
NEWS ALERT
Yahoo News of all things calls out Clinton for being equally implicated in NAFTA-gate.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080306/pl_afp/canadausdemocratsvotediplomacy
March 6, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
She IS a monster. Everything the Republicans have accused her of, she has verified. She is a monster.
March 6, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not even a tiny fraction of the things Republicans have been saying about her have been verified. That's very wrong.
That said, she's playing some old-school campaign games that make it hard to like her sometimes.
March 6, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, at this point, I am not an apologist for Obama, I think Powers is right:
1) Jesse Jackson comment by Bill
2) Making Obama darker in the ads in Ohio
3) "As far as I know he's not a Muslim."
4) "I love John McCain so much, I plan on getting revenge on Bill with him"
Monster.
March 6, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Ms. Powers was way off base. Calling Hillary a monster is an insult to monsters.
Ms. Powers is just lucky monsters hate lawyers, otherwise she might get sued.
March 6, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Factcheck.org has concluded that this may be simply an artifact of video compression and format changes, and that if indeed the video was deliberately darkened, there is no evidence to suggest that there was anything more behind it than the normal darkening of tone that is a common technique in attack ads. The Factcheck.org analysis includes an image from a high-quality version of the ad recorded by the Campaign Media Analysis Group in which the skin tone is significantly lighter than the YouTube version of the same ad.
March 7, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
BO needs more surrogates out there. Send out the DOGS!
Hillary has had all sorts of ugly henchman grousing around for months.
BO keeps his hands clean, while Powers tells us what she thinks.
And monster is right on. HRC is not even human.
March 6, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do think she's a monster. Hers is the zombie campaign. Undead but in constant forward motion, draining the life out of all of us.
I think it's absolutely brilliant that a woman said it, too. Having a woman call her out on her behavior, which I do think has been monstrous, makes the victim tack less tenable. I'm sure she'll manage to cast herself as a victim immediately, but it's not the big, bad men who came to get her this time.
March 6, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hah! That's "new politics" for you. The politics of hope, not fear!
Samantha Power is a brilliant woman and an incredibly accomplished professor, writer and advocate for human rights. However, given Power's groundbreaking work on genocide, it's interesting that she would stoop to demonizing and de-humanizing Senator Clinton. Dehumanization of one's enemy, the ability and willingness to turn tone's perceived opponent into a less-than-human monster through rhetoric, policy, and action are crucial to the genocidal process. Only by doing so can one extinguish the possibility of empathy, one of the few antidotes to genocide.
Senator Clinton is Power's candidate's opponent in a democratic contest for the Dem nomination. Democratic political contests get nasty, dirty, and tough. Politicians say things that aren't quite true, or are not true, or that spin the truth in ways that make their opponents look bad. They also highlight TRUE truths that make their opponent look bad, to their opponent's consternation! That's how it works. It's always been like that, here in the US anyway.
That doesn't make Clinton, or anyone, a monster.*
*exception made for Dick Cheney, of course.
March 6, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect the writer was lying. She probably never said this at all.
March 6, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
F****** A right, she's a monster.
March 6, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, the politics of hope alright.
I've never seen a worse bunch of sore winners or sore losers.
It's totally despicable, but completely unsurprising.
March 6, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ever look in a mirror Clintonista?
March 7, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can the campaigns PLEASE stop talking to the foreign press? They have the standards of Drudge and a tabloidy need to get involved with the American market.
March 6, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
3) "As far as I know he's not a Muslim."
4) "I love John McCain so much, I plan on getting revenge on Bill with him"
Monster.
>>Is this the best you got??? Intentional misquotes? Gore said he invented the internet, right? I smell...desperation.
March 6, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any chance TPM is going to talk about Hillary's blatant hypocrisy and obstruction with her tax returns?
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/post/28166757
I know the MSM will never do it...but I'd hope the online media would point out the obvious contradictions between what she is saying and her past.
March 6, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, muckraking apparatus currently off-line. Excess power is required for gossip machine.
March 6, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sad. We can ad this to the list of vile names Hillary has been called publicly. Obama is coming apart at the seems. He is to inexpredienced and it is getting worse for him by the day. His name was mentioned in the opening statesments in Rezko's trial today. This is going to sink him. They are frustarated and it is showing. Go Hillary!!!!!
March 6, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, here we go -- Obama can really take the heat, sure. Using the guy's middle name seems pretty tame about now. What next? McCain is the devil?
March 6, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beelzebub himself.
March 6, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've always been a big fan of Power. Her first book was a masterpiece.
Let's see how she stands up to the Wurlitzer starting tomorrow. I wish her well.
March 6, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't Hillary just say NO to any caucuses? Will she litigate this if she doesn't like it? What am I saying? Of course she will.
March 6, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is gonna boomerang big time on the Obama campaign.
They just don't get it.
"Monster" is the new black.
March 6, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
frankly0
Calling a monster "a monster" for the monstrous acts she commits is not inconsistent with the politics of hope and transparency. Time to pull off Clinton's mask and your blinders.
March 6, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama needs to destroy this woman. It's not good enough to simply beat her. She's like one of those creatures in a horror film, where you chop off her head and she comes back, you chop off her arms and she comes back. Nothing will stop her besides driving a stake through her black heart.
Seriously--she's evil. She's the beast in the Book of Revelations that was mortally wounded but recovers. She's Darth Vader. She's a minion of Mordor. She's a demon from Hell.
March 6, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen.
March 7, 2008 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Comparing Hillary to Lieberman is actually a little unfair.
Lieberman had the decency to leave the party before fluffing McSame.
March 6, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's an awesome comment. Hillary is exactly that: a fluffer for the Republican Party.
March 6, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
How else would you expect a British paper to treat the Irish?
March 6, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a meaningless bit of hyperbole at worst . . . but it's also eminently exploitable.
Get ready for an epithet-laden Howard Wolfson conference call denouncing 'name calling' by the Obama campaign.
March 6, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I would be interested in specifically what type of monster Hillary is?
Vampire, alien, ghost, dragon, demon, or zombie?
Is there any clarification on this point?
March 6, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it that anyone can say anything they want about Hillary but almost go apoplectic if Obama is mentionned in anything other than glowing terms? I am also tired of being told how anybody who supports Clinton must support Obama if he gets the nomination yet I read all the comments in this site and others who say they will never support her if she gets the nomination. So, just what goes here? I am getting to the point I hate visiting most sites anymore for the double standard that seems to exist in this party and to be very honest I am getting tired of seeing Obama on the TV. I am getting turned off him by his supporters, plain and simple. Sure, I'll support the dem nominee, but I am getting to the point I won't enjoy it if it's Obama as much as I could have.
March 6, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, good for her. I know she'll catch a lot of shit for it, but I support this outburst!
March 6, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I've noticed that Obama looks "whiter" in all of the pics here @ TPM!
At TPM Obama staffers who say "bad" things are ADVISORS - Clinton staffers who say "bad" things are FLACKS ...
TPM = OPM
OBAMA POINTS MEMO
This think is over any way ...
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/03/06/politics/horserace/entry3913620.shtml
Trippi is on board w/ HC.
March 6, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good for her. I believe this campaign should be tough and nasty. If she wants to call Hillary a monster, so be it. And I say she's advising a wuss.
March 6, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I say you're a bullet-headed Republican.
March 6, 2008 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
MsJane at ___ PM, said
"This may also highlight Samantha Power who I think is an impressive female advocate of Obama's."
If I had to choose between Samantha Powers shooting off her (justifiably) angry mouth at a reporter for a British Commonwealth newspaper about how unscrupulous Clinton is, or Austan Goolsbee shooting off his (naive) mouth to a diplomat for a British Commonwealth government about NAFTA, I would far prefer the former.
March 6, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
But the fact is, it was the CLINTON campaign that attempted to reassure the Canadians that the NAFTA talk was merely rhetoric:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wharpleak0305/BNStory/National/home#
Hillary is a liar, a hypocrite, a liar and a hypocrite. AND she's a liar and a hypocrite.
March 6, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't get mad at Hillary for the MSM taking Ian Brodie at his word. No one in Canada does.
But if we want to direct criticism at someone for the NAFTA leak, blame PM Harper, who is positively a lying hypocrite.
March 6, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Journalists will respect statements made off the record, for purposes of background or to provide anonymous quotes, IF the off-the-record status of the statements is established BEFORE the interview, and if the journalist agrees before the statements are made. You can't say something and then say "Off the record" without such a prior agreement and then expect the journalist to abide.
March 6, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I guess these are the ground rules. Still, jumping on a slip-up would seem to be a bad way to develop good sources. I would think most reporters would not print it.
March 6, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooooo. I heard Suzy Q. called Janey a monster. She's so trashy! She's like, totally a burnout. Wait until Howie hears about this, he'll call Barry something really nasty.
March 6, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's kind of like that old adage. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and sh*ts like a duck, it's a duck.
Like hello, they just figured out that she is a pathological, lying monster. Where have they been for the last 35 years?
March 6, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Love all the class acts here among the Obama supporters who are applauding Power's words.
What can I say?
You are who you are.
March 6, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
you can't even spell her name correctly, you redundant troll, get a day job
March 7, 2008 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
frankly0 is still a redundant troll, but I was wrong about how Samantha's last name is spelled: here is her bio from Harvard's website:
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/about/faculty-staff-directory/samantha-power
Just another dipshit, loose-lipped academic let loose among the political wolves. C'mon Barack, put a muzzle on these clowns!
March 7, 2008 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
The next name you haters will be calling her is President Clinton. I have never seen such hatred for one person in my life. Most of it stems from her having the nerve to reach for the highet office in the land, and be a woman. We are not even supporse to call Obama by his name, but the Obama supporters call her whatever they want. She will be the one laughing next January.
March 6, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, no kidding. She's a despicable, hateful person. No wonder so many people hate her. It used to be just Republicans. Now Democrats hate her too.
She has no chance of winning.
March 6, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bret, none of the anger at the Clintons is because Hillary is a woman. The anger is because after 8 years of supporting the couple during the 90's people are starting to realize Bill and Hillary are just a couple of amoral narcissists.
March 6, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it absolutely amazing how some of you are ready to throw President Clinton under the bus over this.
March 6, 2008 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I, for one, never liked Bill. I voted for him in '92, but I voted Nader in '96. He was an ineffective President, who allowed his personal issues to interfere with the cause.
March 6, 2008 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was ready to throw President Clinton under the bus long ago. He sucked. He was a shitty president. He committed perjury. He sullied the party. He caved to the Republicans. He is responsible for the existence of the DLC. He sucked.
March 6, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Narcissists. Solipsists. In short, the Clintons suck.
March 6, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me get this straight: obama supporters are misogynest haters, but xenophobia couched in "its just his middle name" is cool. OK, makes sense dude.
March 6, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your avatar is from practically my favorite scene in any movie ever made (right up there with Daryl Hannah's "then we're stupid and we'll die" line from Blade Runner and Michael Douglas' "Push yourself, son; finish the game" line from Wall Street. I believe Penn's line is: "You dick!"
Dude.
March 6, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
what other line are you supposed to deliver when someone jacks your double cheese and sausage pizza?
March 6, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"So this Jefferson dude said, 'We left this England place 'cause it was bogus. And if we don't get some cool rules, PRONTO, then we'll be bogus too.'"
Obama offers cool rules. Hillary is Mr. Hand.
March 7, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Hillary haters will be eating their words as early as Pennsylvania. Apparently the amateurs' heads at Obama headquarters are spinning.
I love the way she hit him hard Tuesday and while he was still staggering made her call to her base. She is way out in front in a new direction and he is still trying to figure out what's going on. Who said it? The bloom is off the rose. He's looking shopworn and she's looking -- how shall I put it -- inevitable.
March 6, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, take your meds and go to bed.
March 6, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe her call can only be heard by real women.
March 6, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Am I to understand that you're hearing it? Interesting.
March 6, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's looking like what children wake up to at 3 am - the monster in the closet.
March 6, 2008 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, in the event Hillary somehow slimes her way to the General, I want you to go to into your booth knowing that I will be nullifying your vote.
And I'll be doing it in a swing state.
March 6, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy Glad: do you ever get so fucking sick of your superior yet essentially gutless attitude that it just makes you want to puke?
Just wondering.
March 6, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
a new Direction? Wow maybe a new war with her compadre President McCain? Sounds good. Since she'll be back in the Senate then she can vote for another war.I think that the coutry could stand another 5 to 10 billion in outgo and more deaths on her hands?
yeah, no worries, mate.
March 6, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy Glad--how shall I say it? You are looking... delusional.
March 7, 2008 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, Billy Glad. And you're looking like you've had a little too much Scotch. Go to bed. You're drooling.
March 7, 2008 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The next name you haters will be calling her is President Clinton."
You mean President McSame won't run for a second term?
How do you know the old geezer won't pick Lieberman as his running mate? Joe was in line first.
March 6, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh balony, Brett. My ovaries and I would gladly support a woman for president if she were qualified.
March 6, 2008 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, bullshit. I always liked Hillary and Bill and defended him back when. Now, she is way beyond the pale. Most of the things coming out of her mouth are banal insults to anyone's intelligence. Her "35 years of experience" (which apparently began at Yale Law School), her rolled-up sleeves, her "actions not words" (where have we heard that before? hint: Mussolini), her nonexistent solutions (name a problem she's solved), her "experience" which includes numerous negligent mistakes, capped off by her failure to read the NIE report before voting for Bush's War, her gross nepotism, her many cynical triangulations (how about that vote for criminalizing flag-burning?), and to cap it all off, she all but endorses McCain over Obama. She's a traitor to her party and, really, to herself.
She deserves to lose and to lose badly. I always thought, well, she'd be a good president, but based on the way she's run her campaign--which is by far the largest organization she's ever run--convinces me she would be just awful at being president. She doesn't really rise to being a "monster", but her public life has degenerated into a Bush-like display of contempt for the intelligence of the voters, cynical appeals to their fears and prejudices, and a series of childish insults directed at her opponent. Hopefully this noxious road show will be closing down soon.
March 6, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's cut to the core of the problem: women have no sense of honor.
Women aren't trained in the masculine arts of good sportsmanship and fair play. Which is why Hillary wasn't ashamed to completely ignore Obama when she gave her capitulation speeches after eleven straight losses. She is a very poor sport, and a poor loser. And Obama is a very good sport and a very good winner AND loser. Which is why men vote for him.
There are very few women in America who could possibly understand...
March 7, 2008 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really? How's she gonno do that with 10% of the black voters left in a much-reduced Democratic party?
March 6, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her campaign has sometimes reminded me more of the knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail. They have a devastating loss and "it's just a flesh wound."
Seriously, we have to get past this meme that HRC just won't die -- like a zombie.
This primary is over, it is no more, it has gone to the sweet hereafter. If you look at the delegate allocations and the number of odd numbered remaining districts or districts with a lot of delegates, she will be miles behind in the pledged delegate count, even with huge victories. The Slate delegate counter doesn't even capture the direness of her situation. Alter and others talking to the supers confirm what any reasonable person would expect: that the supers are highly, highly unlikely to veto the pledged delegates en masse, which is what it would take for HRC to win.
So, if she can't win, why is she being something of a "monster" to Obama and his supporters? I think she wants to sabotage Obama's chances in the general election. It's not that she has a serious (i.e., more than 5%) chance of winning. It's that she knows she couldn't beat an Obama incumbent in 2012.
Using the term "monster" isn't profane and isn't all that bad, imo. (It would be different if it was a sexist term like bitch or c*nt.) Is it professional? No. But it reflects a candid, honest assessment of the situation, and one that was obviously was supposed to be off-the-record. I'm sure HRC's people have some nasty terms that they use to refer to their nemesis in this campaign.
March 6, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The primary is most certainly not over. Obama cannot reach the number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination, either. There is not, nor has ever been, a requirement that superdelegates give their votes to the pledged delegate leader. There has been several times in the party's history where the delegate leader did not take the nomination at the convention.
I support Obama, but I don't think it's doing us any good to continue claiming that Clinton can't catch up. The fact is, we can't close the deal either with pledged delegates alone.
March 6, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You miss my point. My point is that it is exceedingly unlikely. Anything is possible, but there are few scenarios in which it is politically acceptable for the super delegates to veto the pledged delegates. The only thing that comes to mind is a major scandal of some kind. (Live boy, dead girl.) But, so far there is nothing along those lines.
March 6, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Clinton gains some sort of significant momentum in the next few months, I wouldn't doubt it happening.
I also believe that it is important to consider which states were won, and by what margins.
Either way, I will stand behind the eventual nominee. I don't have as much hope for some other Democratic voters, however...
March 6, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
With respect, you should check out the numbers. She'll probably need more than 130 delegate spread among remaining supers, even with a super strong showing in PA and the remaining states. It just isn't going to happen. Can you imagine the outrage in the black community if the super-delegates vetoed? Can you imagine what happens to the youth vote -- the next generation of Dem voters? It doesn't happen just because of perceived "momentum." There needs to be a devastating reason to do it.
I don't agree with either HRC or Obama on a number of things. I happen to like Obama bc -- among other things -- he taught me in law school and I think he's a very smart, decent, sincere person. But, I'd have no reason to vote for HRC, if she was the nominee. There's probably a lot of people who are drawn as much to Obama as what he stands for.
March 6, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
well said.
March 7, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, as far as I know, the current pledged / super delegate set up was established in the early 1980s, and there has never been a super-delegate veto under this regime.
March 6, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm uncertain as to why you keep using the word "veto."
Superdelegate votes are included in the count from each state. They're not intended to be "winner-take-all" votes that are required to go the pledged delegate winner of that state.
Some of those states voted several weeks ago, and the convention will occur several months after some of the early votes.
While I don't expect them to wait that long, I also would not expect the superdelegates to base their votes on the opinions of those who voted much earlier in the campaign. Things change.
March 6, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a veto bc it would overrule public will. (BTW, I misspoke in my previous post. I think the spread in pledged will be 120-190, so she'll need a delta of roughly that many superdelegates, not "remaining" delegates.)
March 6, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is all of this nastiness going to do us any good in November?
I really don't understand this behavior (and I'm talking about the individuals posting here and in countless other places online).
Do I have a preference? Certainly...I voted for Obama in the Texas primary. However I am quite certain that either one of our candidates would be a much better president than McCain.
All of this nonsense is playing right into the Republicans' hands.
March 6, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you get the feeling that the Obama campaign is rather convinced that the Muslim smear email is coming from the Clinton campaign?
March 6, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you get the feeling that the Obama campaign is rather convinced that the Muslim smear email is coming from the Clinton campaign?
I don't know how the campaign feel about that but I think the email is coming from Hillary's campaign. That answer she gave on 60 minutes convinced me I was correct. I am so disappointed in her. I was once a huge fan.
March 6, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have a lot of nerve, David, suggesting it's "time to chill" when Clinton's camp has been saying the things it has.
Hillary is the new Lieberman.
March 6, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I prefer Ogre...it matches her gigantic arse better.
March 6, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
why are all the Hillary supporters who frequently comment here completely batshit insane?
March 6, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
to blackstar @ 10:06 they are not "all" insane, only some of them are. EmmaP and Richmond are quite rational, actually. But, there is at least one paid Clintonista blogotron who is allowed to post here, who is just a troll. Always remember, when the trolls strike, Hit the Bat! Give money to your favorite candidate, don't waste time on the trolls, people.
March 6, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whether she is a monster or not is immaterial. Her campaign will go ballistic and do everything they can to add this to their "Ken Starr" meme. The only saving grace for Obama might be it was a woman who said it (and that the press knows it's true).
March 6, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Scotsman certainly took an interesting slant on a book promotion interview. I think there's a total of two sentences devoted to the book.