Hillary And Obama Camps Duke It Out Over Her Alleged "Screw 'Em" Comment
On a Clinton campaign conference call this morning, Hillary's advisers were asked directly what their basis is for denying outright that she said "screw 'em" about white working class southerners in a meeting in 1995, as author Benjamin Barber alleges.
In response, the Hillary campaign floated the name of a new witness who hasn't yet been mentioned: Bruce Reed, the domestic policy adviser at the time.
As best as we can determine, he hasn't been quoted publicly on this yet.
Right now, as the Obama campaign points out, three eyewitnesses are alleging that she made the comment: Barber, Harry Boyte, the director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Democracy and Citizenship, and Alan Wolfe, who said flatly that "Barber and Boyte have it right."
Who is saying she didn't make it? Don Baer, a Clinton speechwriter at the time, and, now, Reed, who obviously isn't a neutral observer.
We'll let you know if Reed speaks out.
Late Update: Baer, it turns out, is now chairman of Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates.
Late Late Update: I should have made it clearer that the Obama campaign is pushing this issue with reporters, sending out links proving that the three witnesses have confirmed that she made the remarks. Hence the headline. I've edited the above to reflect this.
To be fair, this shouldn't be news either.
But, it's hard to feel sorry for Hillary who spent so much time bashing Obama for a much less severe "misspeech."
April 17, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly my thought. This is a trivial non-issue, but given that she has been making hay for the better part of a month out of nothing but trivial non-issues, there is a certain poetic justice here.
April 17, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reality Check:
I think a lot of people are debating if we should be making an issue out of Hillary saying "screw 'em. If you just view those words, in a stand alone manner, then of course they are not worth making much of. However if you view them in context, they have great significance, and reveal what Hillary's Leadership approach has been, and will be.
After the Democrats got slaughtered in 1994, President Clinton talked about how to regrow the party, and about how to find some way to win back White Working Class voters. Bill wanted to rebuild the Democratic Party.
What was Hillary's immediate vindictive snarling response: "Screw 'em". That meant Hillary was then saying Screw the Democratic Party. We are not going to reach out any groups in order to restore the party.
That is Hillary in a Nutshell. All she boasts about is fighting. All she does is act spiteful and petty. You have seen it full display on the campaign trail.
That is why what she said is a big deal. It clearly reveals that she is by nature a trench warfare divider. The nation can not afford four more years of that approach.
Here is what she said and the context in which she said it. Read it, and tell me that she was not only saying "Screw 'em' about the voters that we lost, but then also to the notion of restoring a Democratic majority.
In January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach.
"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."
April 17, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, if everyone is going to parse every comment for some deeper meaning about worldview, then Hillary's "Screw 'em" comment is certainly fair game.
Given the fact that there are also multiple witnesses, it's also obviously something that she said, and she's lying about it now.
Go check out "When President's Lie" by Eric Alterman and see what the consequences are of having Presidents of either party who are willing to lie.
April 17, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Greg. Things like this are trivial, and might, dare I say, harm our chances in the upcoming election. We should, I firmly believe, reach out to Hillary supporters, not torment them with things that she is alleged to have said by silly people who are trying to be mean. This is just, to coin a phrase, silly stuff.
However, as an Obama supporter, I would appreciate it if he would explain his interesting choice of the word "cling."
April 17, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry but Hillary saying "screw 'em" is a reflection of the deep seated problem in the devisive way in which politics has been carried on in the past, especally 16 years. When you become President, you are suppose to be President of the whole country and not just the corporate sponsored or the special interest group President. The "they don't vote for you so don't do anything for them" doesn't make sense in the long run. In then end everyone gets hurt from that kind of politics. Just look at where we are now.
April 17, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
how is it a trivial non-issue? it goes to the core of clinton's argument against obama, she says blue collar voters won't support him because he's "elitist and condescending and out of touch" for a throwaway line he said at a party fundraiser, when its actually Hillary Clinton who is out of touch and doesn't want to help the "folks" because they didn't do anything for her husband politically.
thats how the clintons operate: you help us, and we'll help you. but if you oppose us or even disagree with us "screw you".
it goes to her authenticity, or lack there-of. I think its a perfectly legitimate issue to bring up.
April 17, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. I agree with you. My point is that Clinton's argument against Obama is itself a trivial non-issue. All time spent debating this point is a waste of time. That said, given that Sen Clinton is intent upon wasting our time, I am resigned to the fact that Sen Obama must take this approach (beneath him though it might be) in order to end the distraction and get the conversation back on track.
April 17, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't mind that Obama is sending out talking points about an alleged quote from Hillary back in 1995. If that's his campaign's way of deflecting attention from comments he made last week, fine. All fair game in my view, let Obama throw his kitchen sink.
However, you can't seriously tell me that this isn't Obama, yet again, playing the "same old Washington politics" and delving into the "politics of division and distraction" that he pretends to be against. Is this the "new approach" that will "lower the price of gas or help our struggling economy"?
Come on people. You like Obama? Fine. You want to have his babies? No worries. Just open your eyes and stop trying to pretend that his campaign takes the high road, and that he doesn't play exactly the same kind of dirty games as everyone else. He talks the talk, but his campaign sure as hell doesn't walk the walk.
nb: quotes here come from his PA ad released all of two days ago, attacking Hillary for attacking him over his small town comments.
April 17, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Humourous aside: In that ad he also says he wants to "start actually focusing on what we have in common".
One might argue that he is doing that here, focusing on him and Hillary's supposedly shared derision of white working class southerners ;-)
April 17, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nowhere in what Obama said did he express derision for anyone, let alone White working-class southerners. Even if offense could be taken...you're equating that to "Screw 'em"? That's really the tack you're taking?
April 17, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinging to religion out of bitterness and economic hardship? Hard to imagine someone being more derisive about their faith.
April 17, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'd think that if you thought clinging to religion was a bad thing. My grandfather went into surgery this morning, and I'll tell you, I was clinging to some religion this morning. (Thankfully, he's OK.)
Besides, it seems apparent that strangely enough, Clinton and her supporters were much more offended than the people he was speaking about. I've spoken to every PA relative (all working-class and/or retired) I have about this since it came out, and none - NONE - of them disagree with an iota of what Obama said. They all just agreed that he could've worded it a little better so as to avoid the spin of folks like you, who are a little too delighted to tell working-class folks what they should and shouldn't be offended by.
April 17, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guess your purported family isn't too representative of the country, then, as 56% of Americans disagree with his comments
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/56_disagree_with_obama_s_comments_on_small_town_america
As for clinging to religion out of economic hardship, I do think it's incredibly offensive to make such sweeping statements about people's faith. Your grandfather argument is a complete non sequitur. Relgion can provide solace, yes, but people worship because they believe, not because of their bank accounts.
April 17, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
We'll agree to disagree here. The point of my grandfather's story, as I thought would be evident to you, is that in times of hardship - whether they be financial or otherwise - people do tend to cling to their faith a little tighter. I say this as a churchgoer, and I see nothing wrong with it.
As for the polls, I'll trust my "purported" family, thanks. That was a nationwide poll; I'm speaking specifically about PA residents...again, as if that wasn't clear enough.
April 17, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I merely think they're doing what the moderators should've done last night - question Hillary on this quote, and ask publicly why she was the one playing the holier-than-thou role after Obama made a comment that anyone with any sense and without a pro-Clinton agenda understood perfectly. I'm a Pennsylvania resident, and have family in the small (and large) towns he was referring to, and he was dead-on correct. If people don't want to confront the truths about their own lives and that makes it politically inconvenient for him, that's an entirely different issue. I think it's fair for the Obama campaign to challenge Clinton's denial of this alleged statement, place her comment alongside his and ask voters to judge.
That said...look, ALL of us know Obama's a politician. We could really do without the lectures from guys like you who think we Obama supporters all have our heads in the clouds or something. Enough talk about worship; it's blasphemous and it pisses me off. Enough talk about Kool-Aid. You're for your candidate, we're for ours. Let's have a debate on the issues without demeaning each other.
April 17, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Blasphemous? Don't worry, once the economy picks up you won't have to cling to those religious views anymore ;-)
"we Obama supporters all have our heads in the clouds"
I don't think there's a single breed of Obama supporter, and I've said before that it's quite possible to rationally support Obama. Most of the pro-Obama/anti-Hillary posts I read on this site don't fall into that category. Rather, they're people reading the news like they would a horoscope, picking up on the things they like, and forgetting about the events that don't fit their view. Dangerous stuff, and I don't feel bad about pointing it out.
April 17, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't really consider that bit about blasphemy to be funny in the least. Cheap political jokes about my faith aren't cool.
Now...
I'm so glad people like you are here to save us from ourselves, but two things:
Remember that when you generalize about Obama supporters as you did above. Generalizing, then trying to backtrack and be rational when someone calls you out on your crap isn't fooling anyone. Doing that is as dangerous, just from the cynical, lazy point of view on American politics.
And dude, you can't tell me that some of the stuff Clinton (or to be more pointed, anti-Obama) posters have done on these boards is equally, if not more, "dangerous". You can't be that one-sided on the issue, and if you're going to call out one side, be prepared to do the same to your own. I do, and I know many others do as well from the Obama side. I rarely see any Clinton supporters reigning in the zealots who at times say really offensive stuff. What's good for the goose...
April 17, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh please, what a load of sanctimonious rubbish; this is now getting very tedious.
And Blasphemy? Really? Are you trying to resurrect the Spanish Inquisition or something? What happened to free speech, brother? The line that you called 'blasphemous' wasn't even in a post directed at you, not that I'd apologise if it were. There are strong idolatrous overtones from some of Obama's supporters. If you find that so blasphemous, go talk to them about it.
April 17, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then you must not know what "sanctimonious" means. If it means "a characteristic of someone who calls you out on your crap and asks you to be fair to everyone" in your world, then maybe you'd be close.
Don't be such a drama queen. Speaking as if Obama supporters "worship" the guy is really insulting. How about we settle for that so you stop bitching about it?
Oh, yeah - now I'm a censor? You've lost it.
Of course you wouldn't. From all appearances, you seem to be quite the dick, so I wouldn't expect it. That said, the comment criticized (or should I say, criticised?) Obama supporters, of which I am one.
I have. See, unlike you, I actually call out people who screw up on my side as well as yours. Try it sometime.
April 17, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed Foreigner,
The seemingly constant accusation from you and other Hillary supporters is that Obama are so dazzled by his fine oratory and inspiring rhetoric that they don't see his not more than an "empty suit" (not your words, but ones that have been used on the site before).
I for one support Obama for his policy position, which I think reflect an understanding for pragmatic solutions and compromise that are the reality of getting legislation passed. I also have deep respect for his organizing background, which says something to me about his commitment to social justice and as a city girl, so real understanding of urban issues, which given all the talk and attention paid to small-town, rural voters, really don't get much traction at all in the public debate.
The fact that Obama IS inspiring and gives a mighty fine speech are simply additional pluses and says something to me about his potential to rally people to his side, something that will be necessary if we want to pass major healthcare initiatives and pull out of Iraq.
April 17, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps this just stands as a testimony to the gallons of Kool-Aid that I have drunk, but your argument sounds to my ear like a rather strained sort of moral equivalence. The man who walks around throwing punches willy-nilly is not well liked; he is called a "bully." The man who, having been unprovokedly punched by the bully, turns around and belts him one back is rarely considered just as bad as the bully himself. Quite the contrary, he is regarded as something of a gentleman for putting the bully in his place and serving as a deterant against continued and unwarranted aggression.
Obama did not want to have a debate about "elitism" or the Weather Underground or the comparitive patriotism of each candidate. These are nonsense distractions which he has made clear he considers to be beneath us as democrats. If the only way that he can raise the discourse above this gutter sniping is to show her that there is a price to be paid for it, then that is what must be done. That said, in so doing, Sen Obama is not showing that he is just as bad as she is; he is showing that he is much better than her.
April 17, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh huh. So if Hillary does something, it's because she's bad. If Obama does the same thing, it's because he's good. Sending out talking points on this alleged comment of 13 years ago is really the only way of lifting the dialogue out of the gutter and onto substantive issues. Right. By your logic, perhaps Clinton should follow suit, and try to raise the dialogue onto issues as well - maybe by releasing talking points on Wright?
I suppose Obama didn't want to have a debate about the issue of "tax returns" either? Those repeated demands of his that she release hers aren't another example of the "nonsense distractions which he has made clear he considers to be beneath us as democrats"?
So many of you Obama people seem to think that Clinton is always the aggressor, and he's always retaliating. The truth, is that they've been fighting each other since they both got into the ring. Obama was very happy to make the nomination about character, rather than issues. Hillary's part of the old, corrupt system who bows to lobbyists and won't stand up for you because she accepts donations, while he's a new, pure, incorruptible person who'll bring "change". It's a character assassination, though rather clever because it doesn't seem like one unless you think about it. If I were Hillary, I'd be furious if a fellow democrat went around saying that I wouldn't really try to bring universal healthcare, or invest in green energy.
I have no problem with Obama being the nominee, though he's not my first choice. I do have a problem with people deluding themselves into thinking he got there by using any kind of "new politics".
April 17, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough. I do not think I am deluding myself, but then nobody ever does, so I will not argue the point. That said, when Sen Clinton "misspoke" about her landing in Bosnia, no series of ominous grey commericals sprang up in PA making hay out of the nonsense in order to score cheap points. That is a new approach to politics, and one that stands in rather stark contrast to the typical style on display in Clinton's recent "real Pennsylvanians are insulted" ad. The evidence speaks for itself.
April 17, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
There were no ads from Clinton about Wright, either.
It brings up a good point, though, that may partially explain our different opinions. You seem to be looking at all the times he *didn't* go into the gutter, to re-affirm your belief that he is a new type of politician. I look at all the times he has gone into the gutter to re-affirm my belief that he isn't.
April 17, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really don't care one way or the other - except for the fact that she has been stabbing him in the back for 3 weeks at least and I'd like to see a little bloodletting on our part for a change.
April 17, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Funny little aside:
From The Page link by Mark Halperin:
Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson says Clinton can drink Obama “under the table.”
April 17, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll bet W could out-drink both of them, but it's hardly a useful metric for president.
April 17, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
My bad, misread the The Page.
Apparently, Wolfson said that Hillary could drink him (Wolfson) under the table.
Not sure that's any better, but there you go.
April 17, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not a shocker, either. And that's meant as a compliment to her.
April 17, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is nothing in this article to suggest the Obama campaign is making an issue of this. I think a little clarification, or perhaps a brand new headline, is in order.
April 17, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously. I generally think all the bloviating about TPM headlines is pretty silly, but what exactly in this piece (or anything in the whole silly story) has anything to do with the Obama campaign or it's "duke(s)"?
In any case I agree with everyone else. I'd be tempted to jump in and argue that this, er, "scandal" was hollow and pointless if Hillary hadn't been jumping on Obama with such unrestrained glee the last few weeks. I hope she twists in the wind on this.
April 17, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quite in contrast: Obama supporters did not feel sorry. They got into action.
I guarantee he raised a buttload of money last night, today there are announced defections of PA superdelegates from Clinton to Obama and new ads.
Sorry? I don't think so.
April 17, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where are you getting that superdelegate defection news? I want to see that link. That would just make my day!
April 17, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
DC Superdelegate defection.
D.C. City Council Member Harry Thomas Jr. says he will withdraw his support for Clinton in favor of Obama.
Says he must follow the 83 percent of his constituents who backed the Land of Lincolner.
Plus: Oklahoma superdelegate announces for Obama Thursday.
April 17, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I am just tickled. Poor debate performance, my aunt Sally...
April 17, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. I'm not of the mindset that this site (or any of the others) needs to be 100% objective, but this is just shoddy.
April 17, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Hey, we're just bringing this up because you know the Republicans are going to do it in the general election..."
April 17, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Last night when I went to bed I felt really sorry for Obama supporters. I imagine many of you felt after last night's terrible pile-on debate how Hillary supporters have felt for months. While I was glad to see most of the gotcha questions off of Hillary, it's pretty uncomfortable still to see them instead aimed at Obama.
April 17, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I realize this has nothing to do with this thread, I just wanted to say it.
April 17, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm an Obama supporter, but you don't need to feel sorry for me. The fact is, Obama should have been better, even if the questions were dumb. I'm reminded of the Bill Clinton of 1992. He was just so much better at the theatrics of politics than either his wife or Obama.
April 17, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hm, I am an Obama supporter, and I agree that nobody should feel sorry for me, but I disagree with your assessment. I thought that Obama did just fine; sure, most of the questions he fielded early on were just nonsense on stilts, but I thought that he parried them effectively. I will be surprised if his performance last night did not help him win over a goodly sized chunk of the hitherto undecideds.
April 17, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree that Obama's performance will help win over undecideds. Unless, of course, they did not watch the debate and instead read the write-ups. I noticed that his answers seemed better on paper. Live, though, I think he seemed tired, frustrated, and stammered way too much. Also, when he was asked direct questions he didn't give direct answers and it paled next to Clinton's effective, concise answers.
I'm sure we're both seeing it through our own lenses, but I really just think it was his worst performance since before Iowa.
April 17, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough. I guess we will see in a few days time who is right here.
April 17, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I saw was Obama put under the pressure and was calm and forcused at least. Have seen her under pressure? well, 'nuff said.
April 17, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also don't think Obama did badly at all. Especially when he brought up Tom Coburn while being asked about his associations with William Ayers. It really drove home the point that all this guilt by association finger pointing isn't what we should be focusing on at a presidential debate.
April 17, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
well, thanks, I guess.
Don't feel too bad though, Obama can handle it, just like he can handle it in the general.
Honestly, I think the overreaction to the "debate" is an example of the left looking like pussies.
If we can't answer a nonsense question about The Weathermen, how are we going to answer the question about "protecting America from Al Qaeda."
(for the record, I think Obama can handle either question very well).
The worst thing for Obama is to have these issues in the dark, where they circulate, underground.
The best way to defeat a lie is to expose it.
April 17, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I feel badly because I know he's better than that performance. I've been impressed in the past by his ability to expose spin for what it is, or as you say to expose lies (I would call them distortions). Last night he seemed tired and lost to me. It's not like he couldn't afford a bad performance. As I read every day by commenters here, people think he has this thing locked up already. I just think the early onslaught really threw him off so when it came to policy questions, he wasn't very concise. It's OK, though. Debates are Hillary's thing and campaign speeches are Obama's. It just sucks that ABC seemed biased against him almost to the degree MSNBC seemed biased against Hillary.
Where can we get a fair debate?
April 17, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
PBS and NPR always do a fine job. Why they get repeatedly shafted in favor of the network stooges on CNN, MSNBC and ABC is beyond me.
April 17, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Hillary's been taking debate questions for 50+ minutes straight on her associations with Hsu or The Family or Bosnia "misspeaking" or any of the other barely relevant things that make her look bad?
I must have missed those debates.
Let's be real. No matter who you you support, Hillary has never been mugged for near an hour like that in ANY debate. And even as Obama supporter, I wouldn't want her to. NO candidate should have to endure such an abysmal set of questions from the national news media, much less for that length of time.
April 17, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Get serious. Hillary was mugged for 2 months straight. Why is it everytime I try to extend sympathy or understanding to Obama supporters, there's always someone who has to respond with fantastical outrage?
April 17, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I feel for you.
I agree, the "debates" were bad for BOTH candidates, and mostly, bad for the American people.
You know we've entered in Twilight Zone territory when pundits ask not general questions that both candidates can answer, but gotcha questions phrased to shed the WORST light on both candidates.
And that is unfair, and damaging to Dems in particular, because McCain does not face the same negative airtime.
I think we can all agree that League of Women Voters should be allowed back in, and maybe have an actual debate, you know, between candidates rather than just a question and answer pony show.
April 17, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
As an Obama supporter, I appreciate your comments. They were well thought out and more than reasonable. It's a refreshing change from the name-calling, insult-trading and LOLs from both sides. I appreciate you calling it what it was - an Obama pile-on that did very little to address the issues that are going to affect the lives of voters in PA and around the country.
Cheers to another_reader! :)
April 17, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I second AR. I hope others watching the debate were as astute as you. If this were a Fox news debate, people would have expected it. But from ABC? It is just sick and sad. There are very few news outlets that respect the intelligence of the American people. I appreciate your comments.
April 17, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am confused as to why the campaigns are duking it out. Is this an issue that Obama's campaign is pushing?
It seems like the Clintons are duking it out with people who heard her make the comment, not with the Obama campaign.
April 17, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Although this is just more "gotcha" crap, it is worth recalling that it was Hillary who wore the "elitist" label for many years before reiventing herself as a booze drinkin', back slappin' friend of the workin' man.
April 17, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot “gun totin’”.
April 17, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary spent a lot of time in
Arkansas. She knows quite well whom
the working man and woman is and what
they do!
95% of the friggin state are working folk.
Seriously, get a grip folks.
April 17, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
And she must have come across a lot of those working folks in the Wal-Mart Board Room.
April 17, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
And where is the evidence of the Obama camp "duking it out" over this?
April 17, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, I know you take a lot of heat for a lot of things on this site, but you're just making it too easy here.
You use "Obama Camp" in the article title, yet his name nor his camp appear anywhere in the article? The height of misleading, no?
April 17, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
*sigh*
And this is a good thing, how?
Does Wolfson realize that both Bush and Cheney are alcoholics? They make just grand presidents.
April 17, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
They seriously said that? That's just...disgusting. Yes, I know they are trying to make Obama look like a girlie man and shot-sipping Hillary look tough. Both the project and the way they are going about it is absolutely disgusting. We're electing a president and we're bragging about who can drink someone under a table? They understand "drinking someone under a table" is actually dangerous, right? I thought it was Hillary's supporters who were whining on and on about how Obama supporters were just electing someone they wanted to have a beer with. I guess we will have beers with Obama and the Hillary people will be off in a corner doing shots and drinking themselves under a table. WOO-HOO! DEMOCRACY MUTHAF@##@%$#S!!!!!
Dammit. That's disgusting.
April 17, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I dare say that in my day, I could have drunk both Hillary-Joe and Wolfson under the table. It's not that hard when you're an alcoholic.
If you can't drink everyone under the table, well, you're just wasting the whole experience of being an alcoholic.
April 17, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great quote. I'd like to use it for my sig on Usenet, if you don't mind.
April 17, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, Greg. The body of the article makes no mention of the Obama campaign. Please change this misleading headline. I have refused to join the chorus of your critics who claim that you have a pro Hillary bias. But this doesn't really counter that perception.
April 17, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have to admit I'm a little confused about this headline, too.
April 17, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is incorrect. Wolfson was asked on Morning Joe on MSNBC if Hillary could out drink him (Wolfson) and he said yes. Obama's name did not come up. I saw it myself.
April 17, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ahh, my bad.
Here's the whole quote:
Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said Obama flopped in debate, was “very much on his heels” and didn’t have answers to questions that will come up if he’s the nominee. Assured there’s no truth to reports Clinton said “screw ‘em” when referring to working class whites in ‘95. Reiterated his argument that Obama is fighting hard in Pennsylvania so it would be telling if he loses. Sure Clinton can drink him “under the table.”
I assumed "him" meant Obama, but it could mean Wolfson.
Not very good notes, Mark!
April 17, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
still not sure how that makes Hillary look good...
April 17, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Late Update: Baer, it turns out, is now chairman of Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates.
Well go fucking figure.
April 17, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Additionally, per Huffington Post, Baer has not denied that she said it, he said he simply doesn't recall anything like that having been said. There is an important distinction.
April 17, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
You betcha just ask Alberto Gonzalez.
April 17, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yepper, she sounds perfect for a Cabinet position, doesn't she?
April 17, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are many statements on the net that Hillary was sipping shots, she wasn't downing them.
Plus I even seen someone here who have photo of it in their avatar.
Wolfson was on full defense of the 'screw 'em' comment saying it never happened on this morning news shows.
This is a serious offense in my opinion, that I think she be looked into deeper.
April 17, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
They had video of her throwing a shot of Crown Royal back. I saw her do it in one gulp. Stupid issue anyway. Obama and Casey were sipping beer in a bar for a photo op the week before.
April 17, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
which polls in pennsylvania should we believe in.....
I would have to say SurveyUSA & ARG...here is why.
SurveyUSA has had Hillary Clinton staying around 53% to 56% for the Months of March & April, with Barack Obama staying around 36% to 41% for the Months of March & April....SurveyUSA has not been jumping around all over the map, like the other polls have been doing... Take PPP(D) it had clinton winning by 26 points at one time and then turn around and had her losing by 2% and then winning by 3% etc...Others have done the same, with her winning by double digits and then single digits and back to double digits and then single digits again and again again, the back & forth...ARG has had Hillary Clinton staying around 45% to 57% for the Months of March & April, with Barack Obama staying around 37% to 45% for the Months of March & April..... however, Insider Advantage (though its been jumping around) and Morning Call (though its been jumping around too) agree own there last polling info.... Clinton: 48% to 49% and Obama: 38%, however i would be more incline to believe SurveyUSA and ARG...since they haven't been all over the place for the months of march & april.
SurveyUSA was right known when forcasting Ohio & Texas.
April 17, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
ARG has shown wild swings in April. It had Sen Clinton go from 51% on Mar 28 to 45% on Apr 6 then back up to 57% on Apr 14. Meanwhile it had Sen Obama start at 39% on Mar 28, rocket to 45% on Apr 6 then plummet back down to 37 on Apr 14. In other words, it showed a 12 pt race shrink to a dead-even-tie, then swing back into a 20 pt race. In other words, if stability is your criterion, you should be touting Quinnipac, not ARG. I agree with you, however, that Survey USA has earned our respect, so when in doubt we should probably treat its results as the more reliable approximation.
April 17, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I think this is stupid, and I'd rather discuss the issues, but since she has been dragging his very correct and non-elitist "bitter" comments all over the place for the last few days, included the "debate" last night, I say game on. If she wants to accuse Obama of being condescending and out of touch, she has to reap what she sows.
She deserves this, and now she is lying about it, which makes it a question of trustworthiness, so now it is officially germane.
April 17, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Alas, yes. It's incredibly stupid. And I'm tired of it all. But she's been hammering this stuff, and so it's an issue.
April 17, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not at all - take it with my pleasure and thanks for the compliment.
:)
April 17, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Word straight up.
Cause I just watched some of that shit on the front page and I had to stop the vid.
I'm going to burn this silly bitch in effigy before this is done. I'm also going to have a 3 day long party when the bitch is gone.
April 17, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
ack, Tena, don't go there, please....
April 17, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Classy. Have you ever stopped to think that your inflammatory language and statements of rumors as truth on here is actually a worse style of tactics than Hillary employs. You complain all the time, but you act worse. Why is that?
April 17, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's with the headline? The article makes no mention of the Obama camp getting involved in this whatsoever.
April 17, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama Camp? Misleading headline much?
or atleast illustrate how the Obama Camp is duking it out with Hillary Camp over this.
April 17, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Clintons have always cared about White Working Class Voters. Nothing says "Screw You" with love, like pushing for and implementing NAFTA and other job stealing Trade Deals.
April 17, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Greg - time to either explain the headline or change it. This is Journalism 101 calling you back to class.
April 17, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please change the headline, there is nothing in this article that even mentioned the Obama campaign or add content to the article that supports the idea that they have a roll in this at all.
April 17, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
sorry guys, headline is accurate. original text should have mentioned relevant fact. please see update
April 17, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
SCMadden - I'm WYSIWYG and I don't mince words and I'm damn mad.
If it bothers everyone, I'll go hang out with some people who can handle it.
April 17, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
You stay right here. I love you.
April 17, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't go, babe! We love you just the way you are.
Serve it up!
April 17, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
TenaX,
If you leave here, I'm comin' down to Texas to kick your a$$.
You stay put, girlfriend!
April 17, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Although I'm tired of non-issues dominating the media and being pushed by the campaigns, I do feel that there is a substantive difference between Hillary's "screw em" comment and the "bitter" flap. Obama's unartfully expressed ideas about the origins of discontent of those who are struggling in our society were used in the context of how to best reach out and make his (Obama's) value proposition tangible to this group.
In contrast, Hillary's "screw em" comment was about NOT reaching out or trying to incorporate this group since they had betrayed Bill in the elections. In essence, she was abandoning them because they had the audacity to perceive that their interests would be better served by someone other than Bill.
I do think this is a qualitative difference which is worth highlighting (as long as it is done in the right way.) While it doesn't bring anything new to light about the candidates, it is another example of their different approaches to addressing divides in our society. And it is of direct interest to many going to the polls next week to register their choice for which candidate they feel will better serve them.
April 17, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another false Clintonian piece of crap parroted by TPM.
C'mon, i thought you guys were better than this.
April 17, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
If we were seeing a decent campaign on issues, this comment would have no place in it. But, that's not the campaign Hillary Clinton has chosen to run. She has repeatedly pushed the bitter Nontrovery, deliberately distorting Obama's words. She digs deep into the pig slop, even voluntarily bringing up Farrakhan in last night's debate.
This is where she has taken the campaign, therefore the questions become legitimate. And this comment will resonate with people because it fits with the attitude of her campaign. Her campaign has said over and over again that certain states and certain groups of people DON'T MATTER. Her campaign's attitude is that the only people who are significant are the ones who have voted for Hillary.
We've also seen her campaign's attitudes about loyalty after the Bill Richardson endorsement of Obama. These people value loyalty, and they are willing to smear those who are not loyal.
Which is why it's perfectly legitimate, in imagining a Clinton II White House, to assume that there will be payback for those who weren't loyal, that a Clinton II administration will be all about rewarding their friends and screwing their "enemies," even when those enemies are fellow Democrats.
April 17, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce Reed: President of the DLC and Hillary debate prepper who recently had the unwelcome spot light shined on him for feeding Hillary the cringe-worthy "Change you can Xerox" line. This guy has been a ultra-loyal, tight-lipped servant to the Clintons for 25 years. There will be no candor from him.
April 17, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tabloid journalism.
Pure garbage.
She should sue for this crap.
I remember you howling about this type of questions last night but then we have this crap.
Pathetic.
Stop linking to the obama post, it is not credible only pitiful.
April 17, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aaww, whats the matter? Does Hillary finally being held to account for something she said make you uncomfortable?
April 17, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not clear to me what Obama's crew is doing on this, so maybe this post is off base.... but I really wish they wouldn't fan the flames on things like this "screw em" comment too much.
This issue has very reasonable legs of its own, and will likely be a top story through at least Monday (we know how this goes: a few days of Clinton camp complete denials, more eye witnesses confirming it popping out of the wordwork, an interview over the weekend where Clinton is asked directly and won't say "no", instead opting for "I can't remember, people like me say a b'zillion words over the course of 16 years, yada yada", then the Sunday talk shows and crazy Mr. Russert (who is drooling over this one), and then finally the stories based off the talk shows on Monday).
Anyway, I think one of the big reasons that the "bitter" comment didn't result in a boost for Hillary (besides that it was a stupid non-issue) is that she attempted to play it for all she could, rather than just watch and smile. Let's hope Obama plays this one right.
April 17, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to beat a dead horse but did the TPM guys even bother to read their own text or did they forget to add a link or two?
The biggest problem that I have with this headline is that it further feeds into the GOP/MSM narrative that each campaign is going negative and that the Dems are spending all their time bickering over issues that do not effect the voters' welfare. Which BTW, seems to be the main GOP spin today after that crap excuse for a debate last night. This sure looks like a Clinton problem and that Obama has "duked" anything. I don't doubt that the Obama camp would be pushing this story, but show us the proof or fix the headline.
April 17, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is not pushing this issue at all. Once again, misleading headlines and for what purpose? You guys need to be honest and factual if not in your reporting at least in the construction of your headlines!
April 17, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I'm furious because I've spent 8 years in hell, watching this country go fascist; watching the constitution, which I fell in love with totally in law school, trashed. I have even spent a considerable amount of time, for an American, scared to death of my government and convinced they were going to knock on my door.
THERE IS A CONCENTRATION CAMP IN THE MIDDLE OF MY STATE WITH CHILDREN IN IT.
And the last thing I thought we'd see is a Democrat trying to tear down yet more of what is already in ruins.
I'm mad and I have every reason to be.
April 17, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for posting this. Too many people are unaware the feds literally have babies in Orange onesies in JAIL.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/concentration_camps_tx_prison_camp_future_american_gulag.htm
April 17, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
bravo!
people even here i am afraid, do not see how serious things really are.
one fake "incident' away from a police state and blackwater goons policing the streets.
the economy is going to get much worse!
i can feel the tension in the air as i speak to people .
even reading others online one can sense the coming tragedy.
yet all we have to do is love our country and destroy everything else in site.
its a horror.
April 17, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that the State of Texas is actually invoking the "Tim Gunn Statute". It requires that the state take action when crimes against fashion and hair styles are committed.
April 17, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please God, do not let them go rummaging through Hillary's Luggage until they find that some one wrote, about what she said, on 9/11. Hiilary could not tolerate some one having wrote about it on 9/11 and she would have to walk out on herself.
April 17, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Referring to NYC as "my city" struck me as quite the load of shit.
April 17, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not that it matters, but TPM has the Republican Rasmussen polls bass-ackwards.
It should be:
McCain (R) 49%, Clinton (D) 41%
McCain (R) 47%, Obama (D) 43%
April 17, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, Quinnipiac we can trust too... here is why?
from March to April, Hillary has stayed around 50% to 53%, Obama has stayed around 41% to 44%...no jumping around.
SurveyUSA
ARG
Quinnipiac .... all 3 have not been jumping around trying to guess who is going to win pennsylvania....they have stayed about the same for march & april, with an agreement that hillary is going to win.
All other polls have been jumping around like crazy....those are the polls that the news people are using to try to say that the race is "tight" I would believe that, if they would stop going up and down, up and down... got my head hurting.
April 17, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
ARG has been jumping around just as much as the ones you disparage. I agree that Survey USA and Quinnipac look good, but I just do not see how you conclude that ARG is stable and reliable. It is neither.
April 17, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt the Obama campaign considers it to be relevant except by virtue of the Clinton campaign considering such topics relevant. In other words it is the hypocrisy of the Clinton campaign rather than Clinton's remark that is of any serious interest.
April 17, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? Was this really intended as a response to my post? I do not understand at all what you are saying.
April 17, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't America get it, it's only offense when Hil-liar-y doesn’t say it? What's the matter with you people, you all didn't get the memo?
April 17, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting aside:
WaPo gave Schoen space on the OpEd yesterday:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041502664.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Can you believe it?
April 17, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
this greg sargent is low on the integrity meter.
shame.
where is the point that Obamas people are duking this oput??
April 17, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg - Thank you so much for the clarification that the Obama camp is pushing this as well as the current employment status (probable conflict of interest) of Mr. Baer.
I know you get a lot of crap about posts like this and I for one greatly appreciate your work in getting this information out and your best effort to set the record straight on issues like this.
April 17, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reality Check:
I think a lot of people are debating if we should be making an issue out of Hillary saying "screw 'em. If you just view those words, in a stand alone manner, then of course they are not worth making much of. However if you view them in context, they have great significance, and reveal what Hillary's Leadership approach has been, and will be.
After the Democrats got slaughtered in 1994, President Clinton talked about how to regrow the party, and about how to find some way to win back White Working Class voters. Bill wanted to rebuild the Democratic Party.
What was Hillary's immediate vindictive snarling response: "Screw 'em". That meant Hillary was then saying Screw the Democratic Party. We are not going to reach out any groups in order to restore the party.
That is Hillary in a Nutshell. All she boasts about is fighting. All she does is act spiteful and petty. You have seen it full display on the campaign trail.
That is why what she said is a big deal. It clearly reveals that she is by nature a trench warfare divider. The nation can not afford four more years of that approach.
Here is what she said and the context in which she said it. Read it, and tell me that she was not only saying "Screw 'em' about the voters that we lost, but then also to the notion of restoring a Democratic majority.
In January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach.
"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."
April 17, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
News Update: Sources who attended the meeting now confirm that Hillary actually said:
"Let them eat cake."
We now resume our usual programming.
April 17, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
This new clip shouldn't be news either except that she is claiming Obama is unelectable. Picture this clip being run in the Fall and tell me who is unelectable. Wait for the big ending!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exsmFDYyK4U
April 17, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Giving time to the "screw 'em" comment and the Weather Underground pardons may be crap, but now that they're out there...the Republicans have two new golden turds to smear Hillary with from now until general election day.
Unlike Obama, she's not teflon coated.
April 17, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where's the proof? Where's the audio tape? There's no way Hillary supporters are going to believe this bogus stuff. Obama got caught with his pants down in San Francisco, and so he needs to limit the damage by hitting Hillary with the same kind of claim. Where's the proof? When the Huffington Post broke the Obama story, there was audio tape. Where's the tape of Clinton?
April 17, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you agree that it IS an issue as long as there is an audio tape of it.
I'm sure the author who wrote what she said will be providing the audio of it shortly.
Again, be careful what you ask for.
April 17, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Otto de Fe
Details
* Location: San Francisco, Ca
* Age: 59
* Politics: liberal
* Party: Democrat
Looks like you fit the profile of some one who is an expert on being caught with your pants down in San Francisco.
April 17, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's been corroborated by a couple of witnesses. I don't think we need tape.
I suspect that at least some Clinton supporters are capable of believing people who were there regardless of how bad it looks. Not all of them are mindless acolytes.
April 17, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not about stubborn Hillary supporters.
it's about undecided voters.
April 17, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least she didn't say bitter!!
April 17, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Karma is a b****. Obama should stay on the high road though. And I think that this brings up the bigger issue of Republicans winning red states, while doing jack sh** for people in those states. If Clinton did say this, well she was ignorant in realizing that these folks have to be engaged, mobilized, educated etc. Why have Democrats let these folks and states go Red? Maybe because Dems are sell-outs too....Obama brings in new voters and independents and moderates and I really think he is more of a faith-candidate than Clinton. I think Obama is right in that we have to bridge the gap and stop the division. We can't stick to one-issue votes at the polls. Abortion cannot divide this nation. Faith is about many things, not just abortion. I think Dems should use faith as a bridge (maybe personal) all while maintaing ofcourse the division with church and state. There is no reason those states should be red, when, hello, they have been forgotten about, economic conditions are bad, education is bad, etc. Affirmative Action should also be based on class.
April 17, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm an Obama supporter, but I think his campaign is going down the wrong road. They need to leave this story alone. The MSM talking heads thought he did horribly last night. But I think he did wonderfully because he didn't take the bait George and Charlie were giving him. He needs to at least pretend to be on the high road.
April 17, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think most important part of the 1995 quote is being overlooked here:
"You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."
Once again, Hillary is showing her true colors. She doesn't care about anything except herself. If she's elected, her priorities will be paying back the lobbyists and donors that have "done for her" during the election.
April 17, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barack Obama has said that he is running a positive campaign and he struggles with how to respond to attacks. Obama has shaped an image as someone who tells the truth, who is looking to unite and to go beyond labels and the old divisions. There is reason to brand himself that way. It worked for George W Bush in 2000, who was to be a "uniter" and "bring integrity and honor" to the Whitehouse. Bush ran against Washington, against Al Gore, the old way of doing business. The sales pitch sold enough of America to get Bush in office. We can see what it got America.
Whatever the Obama brand, the campaign that has been run has not been all syrupy sunshine and Barney and Friends. The myth that poor Barack has to struggle with how to respond to attacks, as if it were not for Hillary we'd be seeing just Hope and Change and not a discouraging word is really laughable were it not so well bought into. Hillary will do anything to win and Barack is stuck having to fend off the wicked witch while trying to stay on the Yellow Brick Road to Happiness. The real fairy tale is that Barack Obama's campaign would be positive if not for Hillary. When Barack Obama wiped his three primary opponents off the slate by having a legal team pour over their petitions and had them invalidated, it gave us a nice window to Florida and Michigan. We hear about delegate math. As for the innocent Democratic voters in Florida and in Michigan, including those in Iraq and in Afghanistan serving our country, Barack thinks it would be nice that we split their votes 50-50 and let their voices count for nothing. The Iraqi people get to lift a purple finger. To the voters of Florida and Michigan, well, they can have the middle one. For a candidate talking about bottom up, what he did with Florida and Michigan voters is moon them.
April 17, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
DISENFRENCHFRY!
April 17, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check out the article “Barack’s “Underground” Friends” http://savagepolitics.com/?p=291
http://www.savagepolitics.com
brilliant writing plus it offers a great community in which to discuss. The editor actually takes time to answer and the political humor section is awesome!!!
April 17, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink