In Fundraising Letter, Obama Attacks Hillary For "Standing Behind Bush's Policy Of Non-Engagement"
I've just obtained a copy of a new and rather voluminous fundraising letter that the Obama campaign sent out in Maryland, attacking Hillary for dirty politics and suggesting that she embraces President Bush's opposition to negotiating with hostile foreign leaders.
The letter says that Obama's pledged del lead is so big that she "has to win double-digit blowouts in every remaining state" to catch up. It repeats the Obama camp's frequent assertion that Hillary's campaign "will literally do and say anything to win this nomination." And there's also this...
Barack is now facing a two-front battle against Senators Clinton and McCain. Both are reading from the same political playbook as they attack Barack on foreign policy. They have both dismissed his call for renewed diplomacy as "naive" while mistakenly standing behind George Bush's policy of non-engagement that just isn't working.
Hillary's disagreement with Obama isn't over whether their administrations would conduct "renewed diplomacy" with foreign governments. Rather, it's over Obama's assertion that he would meet with the leaders themselves in his first year without precondition. That's what she attacked as "naive."
The fundraising letter also has lots of charts trying to demonstrate why Obama's basically got the race locked up. It's worth a look; you can view the whole thing after the jump.
Late Update: A commenter below notes that Obama assented when asked whether he "would be willing" to meet with hostile foreign leaders in his first year without precondition, and didn't say that he "would" do this. Fine -- I stand corrected. He "would be willing" to do this.
Nonetheless, the nature of the disagreement between Hillary and Obama on this precise question is as I characterized it above.
Click on the images below to enlarge:
Comments (189)
Wow, Greg, this post is not even close to neutral. Prepared to get flamed big time for this one.
April 2, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, greg... welcome to the club... anyone who says anything that isn't overtly pro-obama is going to get flamed! i know firsthand...
April 2, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, kensdad, that's your opinion. Personally I think the Greg tends to do a pretty good job of keeping bias out of his posts, but every once in awhile I feel it creep in. In this case, I think he steps pretty far over the line. Just my opinion, of course.
April 2, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, it is very clear he did.
April 2, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
i think greg does a very good job (incl. this post)... i hope that doesn't cause him undue harm by being defended by a Hillary supporter ;-)
April 2, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you kidding? Greg Sargent couldn't be more of a Hillary hack if he was on the campaign's payroll.
April 2, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Greg's been doing a noticeably better job lately. There's a polish to his posts that was missing earlier.
April 2, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, don't whine, kensdad. The online core of the Democratic Party has decided to support Obama. From MoveOn.org (which was created, by the way, to defend Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky/impeachment thing) to Blue Majority, which includes DailyKos, OpenLeft and The Swing State Project. You fight a losing battle when you come onto one of these boards and try to defend Hillary. You already know that. So don't whine.
April 2, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
this place wasn't always an obama echo chamber... it has always been josh's desire to make TPM "a broad church home for democrats... and extremely important that all readers feel comfortable being here even recognizing that they'll be supporting different candidates." (sorry i can't link to that because he emailed that to me.)
i'm not whining... but you certainly are acting like an arrogant (fill in the blank)...
April 2, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"this place wasn't always an obama echo chamber"
Like I said, stop whining. Times change. Deal with it.
April 2, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Bill Clinton who met privately with California's superdelegates at last weekend's state convention was a far cry from the congenial former president who afterward publicly urged fellow Democrats to "chill out" over the race between his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Barack Obama.
In fact, before his speech Clinton had one of his famous meltdowns Sunday, blasting away at former presidential contender Bill Richardson for having endorsed Obama, the media and the entire nomination process.
"It was one of the worst political meetings I have ever attended," one superdelegate said.
According to those at the meeting, Clinton - who flew in from Chicago with bags under his eyes - was classic old Bill at first, charming and making small talk with the 15 or so delegates who gathered in a room behind the convention stage.
But as the group moved together for the perfunctory photo, Rachel Binah, a former Richardson delegate who now supports Hillary Clinton, told Bill how "sorry" she was to have heard former Clinton campaign manager James Carville call Richardson a "Judas" for backing Obama.
It was as if someone pulled the pin from a grenade.
"Five times to my face (Richardson) said that he would never do that," a red-faced, finger-pointing Clinton erupted.
The former president then went on a tirade that ran from the media's unfair treatment of Hillary to questions about the fairness of the votes in state caucuses that voted for Obama. It ended with him asking delegates to imagine what the reaction would be if Obama was trailing by just 1 percent and people were telling him to drop out.
"It was very, very intense," said one attendee. "Not at all like the Bill of earlier campaigns."
When he finally wound down, Bill was asked what message he wanted the delegates to take away from the meeting.
At that point, a much calmer Clinton outlined his message of party unity.
"It was kind of strange later when he took the stage and told everyone to 'chill out,' " one delegate told us.
"We couldn't help but think he was also talking to himself."
When delegate Binah - still stunned from her encounter with Clinton - got home to Little River (Mendocino County) later in the day - there was a phone message waiting for her from State Party Chairman Art Torres, telling her the former president wanted him to apologize to her on his behalf for what happened.
Still, word of Clinton's blast shot all the way back to the New Mexico state Capitol, where Richardson spokesman Pahl Shipley reiterated Tuesday that his boss had never "promised or guaranteed" Bill and Hillary his endorsement.
April 2, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow!
Billary is really trying to taint the process. Especially with this 1% argument. Puhleeeze, one percent my butt. Who cares, it is just like any competition..and you learn as a kid...how many points does it take to lose? ONE!
Bill needs to STFU and go home Hill lost. And Obama's lead in pledged delegates and states is insurmountable. Give me a break.
The Clintons are just sore losers.
April 2, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. Thanks for sharing this, Mr Sargent.
April 2, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is it interesting?
He been saying that Hillary's foreign policy of not meeting with adversarial nations until they meet expectations was questionable for months now, and in at least 2 debates.
What's new is that rather than talking about Bill Clinton's blowup in California, or Hillary's shrinking lead (if at all) in Pennsylvania, Greg's chosen to parrot Clinton talking points regarding a piece of mail intended for a partisan audience.
If you don't think that Hillary fund-raising materials are similarly 'partisan', you're kidding yourself.
April 2, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly a distortion of Senator Clinton's position. She said she will not meet personally unless the diplomatic legwork is done and we know what the expectations are of the meeting. For Kim Jong Il et al, it is a coup to be seating face to face with a US President. Are you going to be used for propoganda or are you there for a specific purpose (like carrots/sticks negotiations)? Please find a quote where Hillary said she was against diplomatic engagement with our enemies. If you can't then you should just admit the obama campaign is lying.
April 2, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
For Kim Jong Il et al, it is a coup to be seating face to face with a US President. Are you going to be used for propoganda or are you there for a specific purpose (like carrots/sticks negotiations)?
is this lifted from a bush policy statement?
April 2, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Bush presidency totally disengages from it's enemies. They eventually came back to the Pres. Clinton North Korea policy after North Korea became a nuclear power. You've got to be EXCEPTIONALLY stupid if you don't see the distinction between a presidential meeting with no preparation or preconditions vs. diplomatic engagement at the state department level leading to normalized relations and face to face meetings with the president.
So let's all meet with our enemies with no preconditions. President Roosevelt should have invited Hitler to a state dinner, I suppose? If what you are saying is Obama wants to play pattycake with Castro on a worldwide level with no preconditions, you are welcome to argue that. I think that those arguing this extremist view needa serious refresher course in diplomatic relations.
April 2, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your sureness comes from your own bias.
Story Here
Clinton wants pre-conditions, Obama does not. Obama did not say he would hop a jet, when Kim Jong Il rings him up, but he is not holding out a direct meeting as some kind of carrot.
It should be noted, that Clinton has done her best to turn the line between the two positions into a gray area.
April 2, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
She wasn't for diplomacy and giving inspectors more time with Saddam. Here it from her own lips
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_KEWUU33Lg
She's trying to prove how kick ass she is. She has no interest in diplomacy. As we have seen from this campaign, her stance is "My way or the Highway"
Her approach is more like GWB than her supporters are willing to admit.
April 3, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess that I find it interesting that he is making a pitch to his supporters and donors based on his foreign policy cred. As it happens, one reason that I support Obama over Clinton is I trust his foreign policy judgment more than I trust hers, but I do not know that Obama has asked for money on this premise as much as he ought. Most of the fundraising pitches I have gotten have centered on 1) the closeness of the race and 2) the need for "change." This development strikes me as interesting. I grant that what one fellow finds interesting is not necessarily the same as what interests another, but I find it interesting and I am obliged to Mr Sargent for sharing it (non-Marylander that I am, I doubt whether I would otherwise have read of it).
April 2, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
In short, when it comes to foreign policy, Clinton = Bush.
We have now, officially (or maybe for the 80th time) come full circle in this primary fight.
April 2, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
TPM = Clinton campaign surrogate.
Greg, thanks for crapping out Clinton talking points.
April 2, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is just another lying politician.
There is the proof.
He punked you trolls
Admit it.
April 2, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The proof? Where?? What right wing website are you referring to again?
April 2, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Liar, liar, sniper-fire.
April 2, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, I really hope there's someone in your life who can do an intervention on this OCD thing you've got going with this "he lied" thing you've been on lately, 'cause you're approaching the point where a "long vacation" and some meds are in order.
April 2, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Hillary is the bastion of honesty in your world, I assume. I doubt she herself would actually respond to this memo, seeing as she's always busy protecting 8-year-old girls from sniper fire.
April 2, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Asserting anyone else is a liar isn't exactly the best way to make your point if you're a Hillary supporter. Or a McCain one, for that matter.
April 2, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
All well and good, but I'm more interested in hearing the latest from the Clinton campaign on those tax returns. It's been over a week since she said they would be released within the next week.
Can you give them a jingle and let us know their response? Thanks....
April 2, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, Greg.
I second this post. Seeing as how you have Harold Ickes phone number, why don't you call him up and ask where those tax returns are?
April 2, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, didn't Hillary say in a presser last week that the tax returns would be released this week? Greg?
April 2, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
they said "within a week".
that week was up yesterday. the same day Greg interviewed Harold Ickes and forgot to ask him about it...
April 2, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know Obamabots are not too knowledgable about math - so I will break this down really slowly. Ready everyone?
HRC's campaign said they would be released after 4/15 but no less than a few days before the PA primary. So today is April 2nd. April 22nd is the primary. 22 minus 2 is 20 days. She said at least a few days befor ethe primary. Let's be generous and say 5 days. 22 minus 5 is 17. So by April 17th she will release her tax records. Where are getting that they would be released this week from? *Crickets* Just ignorant Obamabots repeating lies in the hopes they become true.
April 2, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obamabots are not too knowledgable about math"
You sound like a nice person, would you like to come over for the "Hillary's concession speech party" I am throwing? It should be sometime between now and July 1st. I will have a box of tissues if you need it.
April 2, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
After Obama released his tax returns for 2000-2006, Clinton said she would release her's within the week. Here's her comment:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/25/obama.tax.returns/
I await your apology and retraction.
April 2, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You missed the subtle point of Hillary's comment: She was really demonstrating how she views hope as a hollow thing.
Clearly her hopes of releasing it within a week did not work out.
Ergo Obama is an empty suit filled with hollow hope.
April 2, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Grante don march 25th she said within the next week. Did she say by the end of the week? No she said within the next week. Which I (and other people with a 3rd graders grasp of the English language) would assume means by the end of this week April 4th.
I know you Obamabots like to jump the gun announcing phantom superdelegates who are about to be endorsing, but geez she has not missed the new deadline yet (given that before they had promised the returns after 4/15 but a few days before the primary.
On a separate note, your wives & girlfriends must be very unhappy given the Obamabots prediliction towards premature congratulations/condemnation and I'm so sure your overexuberence finds it way into other areas as well.
April 2, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"On a separate note, your wives & girlfriends must be very unhappy given the Obamabots prediliction towards premature congratulations/condemnation and I'm so sure your overexuberence finds it way into other areas as well."
First it was, understanding math is a good thing. Now when the math reality makes you sad, it is because of an overabundance of premature ejaculating men? You are somewhere between entertaining and tragic. I find myself actually feeling bad for you. If you truly believe any of what you are posting, you are in for a bad few months. I would encourage you to gradually aclimate yourself to reality, so it doesn't hit you so hard when it becomes unavoidable. Good luck.
April 2, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Granted I was wrong and unaware that Hillary said on March 25th that she'd expedite the release of her tax returns and they'd be ready "within the next week". (See I can admit when I am wrong unlike Obama supporters) But as to the larger point, she has not missed her new self-imposed deadline and you guys are screaming like she has. You don't want to know about her universal health care, foreclosure plan etc. You want to talk about her tax records which are GOING to be released anyway. The pathetic display of the Obama campaign eagerly awaiting her tax returns to look for anything to slam her with just doesn't sound like new politics to me. Ken Starr-esque? Absolutely. I am positive that nothing will be found and this silly ass argument will be exposed. Until then can we address the issues at hand? Thanks.
April 2, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just curious: In what universe does "within the next week" actually mean withing the next two weeks?
Is that a universe in which you have to be a Hillary hack to travel in, or can anyone stop by?
April 2, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Within the week = this week by Friday.
Within the NEXT week = by the end of the following week.
Basic English. 3rd graders know this. Anyone want to defy reality and claim that within the next week actually mean within the week or within this week, please be my guest.
These polls are totally off - I thought Obama supporters were supposed to be the Starbucks well off liberals and yet they don't get basic reading comprehension and grammar. Perhaps the Kool-aid has a negative impact on comprehension, logic, and facts.
April 2, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well what do you know. On The Today Show this morning, Andrea Mitchell confirmed HRC's campaign is expected to release her tax returns today AS PROMISED LAST WEEK. I guess Andrea knows the English language well enough toknow that "within the next week" does not equal exactly seven days or by the end of this week. The same can not be said for some Obamabots on this board. Get off the kool-aid and get back to remdial english classes.
April 4, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, your irony meter must be broken if you're saying Obama supporters can't do math.
Care to predict when Clinton is going to catch Obama in pledged delegates? Here's a link to Slate's delegate counter to help with the math.
April 2, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, but see, she has "the" math. like karl
April 2, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey there, wanna go grab a beer?
April 2, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
West Coast IPAs!
April 2, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a pity that Obama feels the need to lie and mislead voters over Hillary's policies.
April 2, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs
April 2, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lorna Brett is a phony - this is from the Illinois NOW website: http://www.illinoisnow.org/
"Much has been printed in both the mainstream and alternative media and many have watched videos of Lorna Brett’s comments on important votes that occurred while Barack Obama was serving in the Illinois State Senate (see article below). Ms. Brett continues to present herself as the President of Chicago NOW when IL State Senator Barack Obama was making decisions on votes that were critical for women and girls in Illinois. As the current Illinois NOW State President, it is essential that I clarify for the record that Ms. Brett’s assertions are not correct. Lorna Brett was president of Chicago NOW from 1996-1998. She was not, as she represents, the president of Chicago NOW at the time IL NOW activists were meeting and talking with legislators about the abortion bills in the early 2000s.
Five of those votes occurred in the 92nd General Assembly session in 2001. Our records indicate that Ms. Brett has not been a member of NOW since 1999. Ms. Brett was not involved with either Chicago NOW or IL NOW when we were fighting to stop these bills. Ms. Brett is misleading people and using her very old affiliation with NOW to help distance Senator Obama from his vote of present on key bills and as a platform for her personal criticism of Senator Hillary Clinton.
To be clear, voting “present” on those bills was a strategy that IL NOW did not support. At that time, we made it clear to the legislators that we disagreed with the strategy. We wanted legislators to take a stand against the harmful anti-choice bills being brought to the floor of the Illinois State Senate. Voting “present” does not demonstrate leadership and does not send the clarion signal that one is unwavering in their support of a woman's right to choose. IL NOW knew that those bills were unacceptable to women. Except for these present votes, Senator Obama’s record on choice has been excellent, but he has not taken leadership on the issue at the same level that Hillary has.
Ms. Brett asserts that the strategy to vote “present” was devised to give political cover to legislators in conservative districts. State Senator Barack Obama did not represent a conservative district and he could have voted “no” with little negative consequence in his district."
April 2, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You must be tired.
You said lie and mislead, when you clearly meant highlight and clarify
April 2, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
nope
April 2, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg...c'mon.
She's attacked him for saying that if there was actionable intelligence about Al Qaeda whereabouts in Pakistan that he'd strike them. She misrepresented his words saying he'd arbitrarily bomb Pakistan instead of wording it as a limited military strike against a terrorist target, not the country.
If she can say that, why is it out of line that he says that her foreign policy is in lock-step with Bush.
She hasn't proposed talking to Iran, has she? Cuba? Venezuela?
Everything else in the campaign mailer is undeniably true.
He DOES lead in the pledged delegate race and it WOULD take double-digit wins for her to close the gap.
He IS having to campaign against McCain and Clinton who both seem to be attacking him along the same lines.
I wonder, though, if perhaps the Obama camp should bring up Tuzla/Liar-gate with the Supers, seeing as she's trying to use Wright.
The day that she drops out should be made a national holiday.
April 2, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely not. Her pushing Wright with the SD's is a huge mistake. It's not like these people aren't paying attention to the news as obsessively as a, well, habitual blog comment. If a campaign has to talk to them about it, its tantemount to an admisison that it really isn't really a problem.
I mean, c'mon, can you imagine Ickes talking about Wright to Jane Dokes, who's been a Democratic Party activist since 1972, and suddenly she smacks her head and says "Wow! Shadowy 527's funded by obscenely rich right wing extremists running commercials about Wright! I totally hadn't even thought about that! That changes everything!"?
April 2, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, you're right. I just get pissed off when I see the tactics that her campaign will resort to in order to overturn the will of the people.
Thankfully, cooler heads run his campaign than mine.
Good points TCFKANCS
April 2, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, I'd encourage you to revisit the diplomacy debate. I think it's over the preconditions notion. Clinton is for it, as is Bush and McCain.
Preconditions vs Preparations.
So he's technically right.
April 2, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was reading too fast. I see that you note that the debate is over preconditions. I'd encourage you to revisit Bush and McCain's approach to preconditions. I think you'll find that all three share the same position which effectively prohibits any real discussion (i.e., before we negotiate you must concede to all of our meaningful asks otherwise no negotiations).
And before you start complaining or respond with some dismissive post about alleged bias, you brought this one on to yourself.
April 2, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
In all fairness to Hillary, she would allow the NY Philharmonic to go to Cuba, although she would not meet with Raúl Castro without pre-conditions.
April 2, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, did you just defend Hilary Clinton for her? If Obama is making an accusation then let her people whom you seem to have great access to, respond and post that!
Your comments:
Hillary's disagreement with Obama isn't over whether their administrations would conduct "renewed diplomacy" with foreign governments. Rather, it's over Obama's assertion that he would meet with the leaders themselves in his first year without precondition. That's what she attacked as "naive."
April 2, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg is 100 pct accurate in that statement, JohnAH... why should he perpetuate Obama's spin when it's completely obvious to anyone who pays attention that Hillary has repeatedly called for "renewed diplomacy"... if you recall that debate, the question specifically was about talks with NO preconditions... that's where Obama messed up and Hillary took him to the cleaners (on that issue.)
April 2, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glad you remember that. It's also why he ties her to Bush and McCain. So it's not an attack, but a true statement. Otto F, Gotalife, you two paying attention? It's a valid and accurate statement per Kensdad's comment.
April 2, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
um... i don't get your point... the charge of naive came when obama said that he would meet with no preconditions... he later "adjusted" his stance to include preparation...
in anycase, you are trying to spin things so that Hillary = Bush/McCain which no reasonable person would/should believe.
April 2, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you know the difference between a precondition and preparation?
If not, please educate yourself before you jump on this is as proof of Clinton "winning" this issue.
April 2, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, that issue exposed his inexperience.
Clinton does not need a learning curve.
Ready on day one.
April 2, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tested "under fire"*
* we reserve the right to change our assertions if videotape exists which runs contrary to the theme of our message.
April 2, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It was much better than 'Cats.' I would see it again and again and again."
April 2, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
She has never clarified her "preconditions" though so the only thing we have to go on are those from the Bush administration. It's not that he won't meet with those who oppose us, he won't meet with them until they agree to everything that we want.
I agree that if the debate is being phrased just around preconditions then it might be unfair to lump her in with Bush but since she has never articulated what those types of preconditions might be she leaves the door open to interpretation.
April 2, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
that's fair, JohnAH... it is perfectly legitimate to ask Hillary to clarify what preconditions she might be looking for.
April 2, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ken's Dad,
Did you really just say that Greg should debunk Obama spin? Do you feel he should do the same with Clinton spin? Because that is why there is such rancor with Greg - he generally on regurgitates Clinton spin.
And I generally feel like he improved his reporting as of late, although he slipped a bit (not much) on this one.
April 2, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
i don't think that greg should perpetuate the spin on either side... if we want to hear spin, then all we have to do is turn on any of the cable news channels.
April 2, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
i don't think that greg should perpetuate the spin on either side... if we want to hear spin, then all we have to do is turn on any of the cable news channels.
(sorry for the double post below... this comment system needs some tweaking.)
April 2, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Methinks Harold Ickes refused to talk with Greg unless some "preconditions" were met.
April 2, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
April 2, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if Hillary had any preconditions met before meeting with Scarife.
April 2, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes: Free publicity on her Wright Stance.
April 2, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's policy is similar to Bush's actually, because he does the same kind of crap with keeping leaders at arms length and only sending lesser officials to do the diplomatic work for him. Of course Hillary isn't likely to be as bad as Bush in this respect, but Hillary maintains many of Bush's feelings about the meaning and utility of diplomacy.
And today Lee Hamilton even praised Obama on that decision to engage world leaders.
Also, contrary to what Hillary likes to make it out to be, Obama never said he was going to run off to any foreign country to meet with any one that wants an audience, without discussion or without plans. The kinds of preconditions Obama was rejecting were the type of preconditions that Bush has supported, from refusing contact with world leaders until they start parroting the Washington line, or forcing them into other concessions, or subjecting them to years of lower level diplomatic chitchat before engaging in real diplomacy. Obama isn't stupid or naive like Hillary tried to make him out to be on this one, his position is principled and well-reasoned, hers was just unimaginative and calculated.
This was also the first negative attack of the campaign, courtesy of Hillary.
April 2, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lots of charts?
Where?
I don't see one chart on that mailer.
April 2, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know!
I was looking for the charts too.
The reproductions are so tiny though you can't even resd the text..sigh
April 2, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
When delegate Binah - still stunned from her encounter with Clinton - got home to Little River (Mendocino County) later in the day - there was a phone message waiting for her from State Party Chairman Art Torres, telling her the former president wanted him to apologize to her on his behalf for what happened.
See, I always have thought a good 1/2 of this campaign to get Hillary elected is personal with the Clintons. I swear to god, they want to get in Bush's face with another win.
I wish to hell these people who bring their personal vendettas with them to Washington would quit dragging them into my government.
April 2, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
greg: defender of clinton!
April 2, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw this at daily kos
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/2/12432/06181/264/488923
hillary could win the pop. vote and lose in delegates just like texas,
her best case win? she could net 17 delegates, wow 170 lead and at most she will knock it down 17
April 2, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Normally I find TPM to be moderate but wow what is with the major HRC slant? Yeh not talking to Iran etc is non engagement, HRC thinks its naive then let her campaign make that charge not need for you to spew out her TPs...Oh yeh not talkign to Iran that worked great in Afghanistan and has worked brilliantly in Iraq no? But hey screw lets talk to the Pakistani corrupt Gov because they are soooo much better than Iran. Yeh right! Or lets talk to China despite their disgusting acts in Tibet because they are so much better than Iran. This is a fair attack and to try and parse it with HRC's TPs is hardly the objective viewpoint...not impressed.
April 2, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama did not make an "assertion that he would meet with the leaders themselves in his first year without precondition."
He said "I would" in response to this question:
In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?
So, he would be "willing" which simply meant that it was a possibility, not that it was his specific plan to do so.
The Clinton campaign's intentional misrepresentation of this episode was the first clear indication that were A: scared of Obama's potential and B: they were willing to go negative on him to help stop his momentum.
The Clinton campaign was indeed successful in their attempts to attach the words "naive" and "irresponsible" to Obama. And it worked pretty damn well until Obama's surge in December of '07.
But, it also laid the foundation for the Clinton backlash which we're seeing on a daily basis.
April 2, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The statement in the letter is accurate. Campaign advocacy does not need to be precise to be truthful.
I've seen a lot of people attack Sargent for bias before, but his "clarification" of the dispute between the candidates shows no balance whatsoever. It's pure campaign shillery and inappropriate for a blogger with any pretension to objectivity.
April 2, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
See how long it takes for this to be spun as another negative attack by Hillary on Obama. Note how Obama equates Hillary with McCain. See how long it takes before this is offered as proof that Hillary is divisive. Two against one. Poor Obama.
April 2, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't feel sorry for him. He's whipping "the Fighter" without even breaking a sweat.
By contrast, gotalife is doing a better job of staying on message than their whole triangulated operation.
April 2, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not breaking a sweat?
He had to cut and run to the beach while Clinton fought on.
He was vetted on his radical adviser,
will cut and run in the general and lose.
April 2, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't that when Clinton committed hari kari by "misspeaking"? Good thing for her that he doesn't go on vacation more often.
April 2, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
This defense of Hillary Clinton's attack makes me wonder if Greg Sargent is gotalife. I realize this is a blog, but doesn't it purport to have some journalistic standards, like objectivity and balance?
Or am I just being Old School?
April 2, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is rich.
No, I am not Greg.
He is neutral but any bad news for Obama, he gets blamed.
Obama lies, blame Greg.
Obama praises God damn America, blame Greg.
Obama bowls a weak 37 like a child, blame Greg.
At some point, trolls will have to blame Obama when he loses the general but it will be easier to blame Greg. Don't shoot the messenger, shoot the lying message.
April 2, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink