Hillary Defends Obama From McCain's Hamas Attack
CNN just sent me an advance chunk of transcript of an interview that Wolf Blitzer did with Hillary that will be airing today on The Situation Room.
In it, Hillary, who hit Obama for his association with Jeremiah Wright, defends Obama from McCain's bogus Hamas-endorsed-Obama attack...
BLITZER: Here is what McCain said about Barack Obama and I want to get your reaction. He said, "I think," this is McCain, "I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States. I think people should understand that I would be Hamas' worst nightmare. If Senator Obama is favored by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly." McCain was referring to a statement by the North American spokesman for Hamas endorsing, in effect, Barack Obama. Is McCain right?CLINTON: No, I think that that's really an overstatement, an exaggeration of any kind of political meaning and I don't think that anybody should take that seriously.
A sign that Hillary is taking a less harsh approach as the end of the campaign grows nigh?
In the interview, Hillary also concedes that her "white Americans" comment was a dumb mistake. We'll bring you video when it's available.
Advertisement
That's defending? That was pretty tepid if that's what she did to garner the headline of your post
May 14, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Similar to:
Barack Obama does not favor Hamas....as far as I know.
It was tepid. She has plenty of "shame on you" directed at Obama, but little of that directed toward McSame, who she said is ready to be C-I-C.
May 14, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I don't think anybody should take that seriously."
is that not a defense of Obama?
May 14, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's a defense.
I probably would prefer something along the lines of "that's ludicrous, and you should feel silly for trying to propagate that, Wolf".
May 14, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
What CT Voter said.
I suppose for Hillary, this is a big step, but she could have used a ridiculous/ludicrous line.
THAT would have been a head-turner and an unmistakeable olive branch to Obama.
May 14, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, give her a break. We should be rewarding good behavior when it happens. She defended him from a scurrilous attack, something she's never done before.
May 14, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
What he said.
May 14, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most definitely. I have been more impressed with her in the last week.
May 14, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or "I'm really disappointed in Sen. McCain's statement, since when do we let anyone from a foreign country meddle in our elections?"
May 14, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is, but it's a very tepid one. It's such an outrageous and scurrilous accusation that McCain is throwing out that she could easily have turned the tables on McCain.
I mean, suggesting that Obama is the candidate of a terrorist organization is the lowest of the low.
It deserves more than "I don't think anyone should take that seriously," which makes it sound like harmless silliness.
May 14, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, it is silliness.
And, in the end, probably harmless as well.
If anything, it makes McCain a complete hyprocrit.
(nothing new there)
May 14, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg: I think defense is a fair word to use.
May 14, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. If this happened a month or two ago I think her answer would have been very different.
May 14, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a defense of Obama. She, too, was endorsed by that same Hamas spokesperson.
May 14, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
For Hillary Clinton, that is goal line defense of presumptive nominee Barack Obama.
Thank you Hillary for softening the rhetoric and getting behind the Democratic nominee.
May 14, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm no fan of Hillary, but in terms of what she has said previously about Obama(Ayers, Farrakhan, "hard working white americans", McCain has crossed the "commander-in-chief" threshold) - I have to agree with Greg, that is a defense.
May 14, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a defense. But I hardly think we need to congratulate her for it with a whole thread. She decried the comment. Whoop-dee-doo. She damn well should have. It's fucking ridiculous.
May 14, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is... as far as I know.
;-)
May 14, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the words "overstatement" and "exaggeration" that makes it tepid. It's as though it's true to some smaller degree.
Sort of like the "as far as I know" bit. See what I mean?
May 14, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a much better statement from her (unrelated to Hamas):
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/14/clinton/index.html
This is good stuff.
May 14, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton has never engaged in the kind of
scorched earth campaign that Obama has.
She never hired a marketing firm with
PAID OPERATIVES to mingle in the democratic
blogs.
Obama's blog smear campaign against Clinton
has been breathtaking.
And its gone on without on under the radar
without a single murmer from MSM.
If these poor students who think they're being
so latte hip only knew they're being gulled into
supporting a Republican.
May 14, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm an Obama supporter, as many here know - and I have no idea what you're getting at. Enough of this semantic crap. That was pretty unequivocal.
Now, considering all the shit she's thrown in Obama's direction, she's hardly one to talk - but at least she didn't say that "Obama's not associated with Hamas...as far as I know."
May 14, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
What shit?
Let's see your link, big mouth.
May 14, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check him out, Sci. He challenges you, but sets up his account so he can't be called out.
That's like running up behind you, hitting you, and running away, isn't it?
May 14, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. You can't reply to him. That just shows how cowardly these swine are.
Expect more likely-Republican agents provocateur to come in the summer and fall.
May 14, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thursday Night: I'm proud of you Barack Obama
Saturday Morning: Shame on you Barack Obama
Supers have said to zip up, if they are to hold their endorsements for a week or two.
Get some perspective people. In her eyes, this race is not yet over.
Does number 2,210 ring a bell?
She has been forced to drop to her knees and that's a good news.
It's not about liking or disliking her, but we should know something about how she conducts herself by now.
One's she drops out without creating further rift- we all can write a love ode for Senator Clinton.
May 14, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. I think this is the kind of support we can expect from her in November. Lame.
May 14, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Senator Clinton. There is still hope that you will become a Democrat this election cycle.
It may be tepid, but it's a hell of a lot better than the last time she was asked about Obama being a Muslim....as far as I know.
May 14, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
All she said about Wright was that she would have not remained in his church. Maybe that's harsh. I think it was highly restrained.
Now let's all hate Hillary for coming to Obama's defense.
May 14, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
As far as you know....
May 14, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Otto - Hillary could have said, "I think that's a question for Senator Obama," or "I'd rather not discuss his personal relationship with his pastor."
Instead, she gave a long answer on how she would have left the church to Richard Mellon Scaife of all people!
Then, later, in a press conference, someone asked her, given the negative tone of the campaign, why she went there? In response, she said she was asked a question and then proceed to take a few minutes to completely repeat her answer even though it wasn't asked again!!
What admirable restraint.
May 14, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know that it was "highly" restrained, but I'll agree--it was restrained. It could have been significantly worse, and, Clinton could have run advertising with Wright in it, as Republicans did.
She didn't, and deserves credit for that.
May 14, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think she deserves credit for it. Just as I do not deserve credit for not punching old ladies in the face as I walk down the street.
May 14, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
And McCain said, I know Senator Obama and he does not believe those things.
Hardly a difference right?
Let's give her credit for trying. A month ago she would have said something like, 'Well his pastor published the Hamas manifesto in their church bulletin, so you'll have to ask him why. And did I mention farrakhan? Obama and Farrakhan, you have to wonder. I'm just saying."
We'll take whatever progress we can get.
May 14, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was she grinding her teeth and shaking uncontrollably while she said it?
May 14, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!!!!
May 14, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her comment that "white Americans" was a dumb mistake is a little late. Has she been not near a microphone in the last week where she could have addressed this?
May 14, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Give her a break. Maybe she was sleep-deprived again.
May 14, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I'm willing to give her a pass on that.
These people are exhausted and tend to say silly things from time to time. Obama as much as admitted it in the last debate when he refused to attack hillary on the Bosnia thing.
Besides, bringing it up only makes Hillary appear to be more relevant than she is. We should stop going after Hillary for her mistakes and start going after McSame.
May 14, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
We should stop going after Hillary for her mistakes and start going after McSame.
Amen to this.
May 14, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go after her for her progressive health care plan,
and her economic recovery plan.
Progressive Economists praise both, and say
Obama's are "safe" and almost Republican.
Some faux hipsters you are.
May 14, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love cowards like "present" who put their names in quotations so nobody can respond to them.
Oh, and Present, Hillary doesn't cast her lot with economists. She don't have no need for them, that is why her gas tax holiday is such a good idea; it makes no sense.
I'll give Hillary a pass for her stupid shit, but not for her stupid supporters.
May 14, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's with the "faux hipsters" theme, do you suppose?
That's a new one, introduced today, as far as I can tell.
May 14, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think even he knows. He just says stupid shit for no particular purpose. He might as well have said "purple pandas" for all the sense it makes.
He is a coward spammer troll, best to ignore him and he'll go back to LGF.
May 14, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some faux hipsters you are.
That sounds like a compliment to me.
"Present" accuses Obama of engaging in exactly the behavior that Clinton has caught doing (scorched earth tactics; wink wink nudge nudge dogwhistle bigotry; having campaign staffers ask softball questions of the candidate during campaign stops; belittling his experience and entrenched support, etc.), provides no substantiation for any of these accusations, and then replies with infantile "I know you are but what am I?" retorts.
I don't know if he's racist or not, but I strongly suspect that he's about 9 years old.
May 14, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will give her a pass on most things she said in this campaign once she conceeds- most not all. Stay on guard until she conceeds.
.
May 14, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
But if it's not about hating Clinton what will you have to talk about? 95% of the commentary in this community is Clinton-hating. Take that away and you folks will have nothing to say.
Reading this site does make me worry about the General in that I am half-convinced by the tenor here that most of the Obama enthusiasm is generated by Clinton hatred. Without that to animate you, what will bring you to the polls?
Will you vote McCain? After all, plenty of you are suggesting Republican Vice-Presidential candidates. Is Obama's support actually based on Republican crossover and will it go back by November?
May 14, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
As if the pro-Clinton rhetoric here has been all sunshine and rainbows. You must be joking.
Don't worry about this site. It is disproportionately represented by Obama supporters, many of whom are incredibly frustrated by the tactics the other candidate has employed. It's annoying, yes, but this will all be forgotten in a few weeks time.
I would have loved to have an honest debate about Hillary vs. Obama, but all I've seen are a bunch of unfounded accusations and unsubstantiated digs. I kind of expected more of people that have even heard of Josh Marshall, but I guess this kind of thing always seeks its own level.
May 14, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good for Hillary. This is really the a despicable kind of attack as candidates have no control over who endorses them. They do have control over who's endorsement they seek out though - like Hagee.
May 14, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's holding the levee that holds super delegates. Though not broken the levee cracked on the NC/IN night and the flood water has reached Hillary's nose.
One thing I learned this campaign season- never take Hillary's word on its face value. NEVER.
May 14, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for that. Honesty and/or sincerity ain't in it.
For god's sake people - this is a Clinton we're talking about. LOL!
May 14, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's auditioning for the coveted Veep position.
"See? I can be on Team Obama? No, really!"
May 14, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here we go.
Yes, it was a defense of BO. But, it left a slight door open so she can show her supporters that she's still fighting.
I think she sees the writing on the wall. I just truly hope she's not angling for VP. No...I'm praying that's the case.
May 14, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
From your lips to God's ear....but I'm afraid it's probably so.
May 14, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm glad she didn't fall back on "we'll let voters decide." I'll wait to see a video before I make a firm judgment, though. Given her behavior through this nomination process, I half-expect her to have worn a "Obama...Osama...hmm" t-shirt to the interview.
May 14, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
With suspenders covered in "I'm Not Bitter" pins so she looks like a neocon TGI Fridays waitress.
May 14, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK Hillary haters, calm down. She did defend Obama, and she obviously didn't take the bait to go on the attack. This is a clear shift. Could she have defended him more forcefully - sure. But that's not what's required of her, particularly while she's still 'campaigning' against him.
Take it easy. Give Clinton a chance to slowly move her supporters closer to Obama. I think she's doing that, a little bit at a time. Don't keep picking at the wounds - let em' heal when a healing opportunity presents itself.
May 14, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude - she's a lying politician - a Clinton.
Everything depends on what the meaning of is is with them.
Come on -that's why I don't support her candidacy. That's not hate - it's a fact. I don't believe one word out of her mouth. Never have.
sorry - that's just the way it is.
May 14, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, I get THAT. And I'm not even convinced that the change in tone isn't just a new campaign tactic... lull the Obama supporters to sleep while they somehow trounce him in all the remaining states. Or, some other tactic. Who knows? But, the fact is she did defend him. Two weeks ago she might've pounced on that.
Keep a wary eye on Clinton, for sure, but all I'm saying is that it's time to respond a little less violentlly when Clinton does something decent. Dems need to close ranks, and after all the nasty shrillness coming from the Clinton camp, we shouldn't find ourselves being the shrill ones as this thing winds down. There are a lot of pissed-off Clinton supporters out there who need time to settle down, need to see Clinton being conciliatory toward Obama, and need to see Obama and his supporters responding similarly.
Or, from the opposite angle, what is there to gain by responding nastily to a decent move by Clinton?
May 14, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time to walk it back folks. Clearly it was a defense of Obama, and hopefully one of many. As someone who started this process with a favorable view of Hillary, only to see it turn to disgust, I am more than ready to embrace her again if she does the right thing. At this point, I don't think she's done any irreparable damage to Obama. Some spirited campaigning on his behalf could more than make up for it. As for Bill, though, he's got a lot more work to do in my eyes.
May 14, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is an extremely reasonable response from Sen. Clinton.
May 14, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really like the way Hillary is speaking now that her campaign is closing down.
Check this article: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/14/clinton/
She really needs to keep that key message in her speech. No matter WHO you want to win the primary, one of us must be the President.
May 14, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time to walk it back folks. Clearly it was a defense of Obama, and hopefully one of many. As someone who started this process with a favorable view of Hillary, only to see it turn to disgust, I am more than ready to embrace her again if she does the right thing. At this point, I don't think she's done any irreparable damage to Obama. Some spirited campaigning on his behalf could more than make up for it. As for Bill, though, he's got a lot more work to do in my eyes.
May 14, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here here. While I feel Hillary is doing out as a way of pandering to Obama, I still appreciate the tone and messaging.
Bill has disgraced himself.
May 14, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. She may not have been quite as pugnacious in defending Obama as I would have liked, but then again Obama isn't always as pugnacious in his own defense as I would like. They're both politicians running for office, and delivering Lewis Black-style rants to the media won't advance their cause---no matter how badly the media might deserve it.
May 14, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a defense. The trouble is that it makes no sense. How is what McCain said an "exaggeration"? What would the unexaggerated version be?
What was wrong with McCain's comment is that the object of US policy should not be to make Hamas grind its teeth, but to achieve a stable and just peace between Israel and the Palestinians. It would be nice if Hillary showed some awareness of that.
May 14, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Hillary could have said something like this?
I'm sorry, I've been burned too many times before when I try to "let Hillary back in." Not saying it'll never happen, but this "defense" isn't even close to enough to do it.
Forget the "don't take it seriously" part. What about this:
An overstatement? An exaggeration? "Overstatement" implies there is a level of legitimate "statement" to be made. "Exaggeration" suggests there's truth to it, but McCain's just going a little overboard.
I'm sorry, I know we're hungry for unity right now, but this is a backhanded "defense" if I've ever heard one.
May 14, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
She still has some work to do. It's not an easy transition from antagonist to eventual ally, especially for someone as proud of her.
May 14, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
She could have used her air time to go into a succint, but thorough explanation of why this statement is ridiculous and intentionally misleading. She didn't do that. Why? Because it's not yet in HER best interests to do that. That's who she is. She's not a team player. She plays to win - for the personal win.
May 14, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or she could say something like,
"I think the Republican Party should stop giving terrorist organizations political influence in US elections."
May 14, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
OT: It turns out that it's not that Hillary is winning white people - she's winning neurotic people!
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/05/04/where_do_all_the_neurotics_live/
May 14, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
As much as I dislike her, I'd say this was a fairly clear defense of Obama and I applaud her for it. I can't imagine the difficult position she's in right now (albeit mostly caused by her own mismanagement and dirty tactics), so I'm glad to see that she's (hopefully) moving away from prevarication and innuendo. I give her credit (boy, I hope I don't eat those words LOL!) ;)
May 14, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, especially for Hillary's standards, it's a defense. But I suggest wait and see before you invest any of your credit.
How she'll play for FL and MI seatings will be the key.
May 14, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
She may well be taking a "less harsh approach", but let's not be fooled into thinking she is going to start attacking McCain on behalf of Obama. If that were the case, she would need to first give a "CIC" retest to Barack and announce he has passed with an A++. Then, perhaps she could acknowledge that he brings more than "a speech he gave in 2002" to the table.
And it is kind of a jabber-mouth response, "an overstatement, exaggeration of any kind of political meaning". I suppose it's better than "as far as I know", but you can see how she struggles with her equivocations and is reluctant to let go of any perceived advantage she gains by these negative attacks. That's precisely why it took her so long to say the "white americans" comments were divisive and and regrettable.
I cannot wait for this to be over. Too bad the goalposts have been moved (yet again) to the new metric of 2210 delegates, and a tortured interpretation of the popular vote that includes MI and PR, but not some caucus states.
With friends like these.........
May 14, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
What? Wha'd I say? Wha'd I say?...
If smear merchants are making the false claim that Wright and his Church are a community of black racist firebrands, evangalizing the overthrow of the Satanic US Government, then an appropriate defense might be to say it was 20 seconds out of 20 years, taken out of context. Obama wasn't there.
She might as well defend claims that Obama is a Muslim by offering that if she had been tapped by Al Quaeda to pilot planes into the WTC, She would have walked out of bin Ladens cave.
...As far as I know
May 14, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, better late than never.
May 14, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever happened to "shame on you, John McCain" ? That would have been a real defense.
This is a only "as far as I know" defense.
May 14, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well y'all are free to get all Kumbaya with Hill; I don't trust her. She does what she does for one reason: she thinks it's good for Hillary.
She isn't being nice to Barack in general - she's trying to keep the superdelegates happy. She has been told she was pissing them off with her attacks.
betcha.
;)
May 14, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm happy that she's not jumping on Obama on the Hamas crap but let's be realistic: Huckabee's defended Barack from more smears than she has.
May 14, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Huckabee has been for awhile.
Did you see him talking about Rev Wright?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN78Mu3TUV0
May 14, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena, I said I missed you....What you know speaky anymore...:) Jk.....
Your right though. I assume there is a great bit of calculation here and it has to do with the Supers. I'm going to say this again though, when the media reports she did this, and people like us who dont buy into her good intentions, she is going to say we are the one's wrong with the Dem party. I still say she's full of shit, but watch how she plays it.
May 14, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just in case anyone is wondering why there is so much suspicion on this issue, remember is was Mrs. Clinton who did the exact same thing to Obama during one of the debates, when she asked Obama why Farakhan had endorsed him. Logic is exactly the same.
May 14, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mike Morgan from OK JUST Endorsed Obama!
7pm MAJOR endorsement announcement from Obama!
Keith has a special comment tonight too!
May 14, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
My heart can't take so much at a time. ;-)
May 14, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are just an angel of glad tidings!
w00t!
May 14, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no life.
wink wink
May 14, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Atta girl!
May 14, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's hope McCain keeps up this desperate smear.
Because then Obama can point out that Hamas wouldn't be controlling the occupied territories if not for the political incompetence and blundering of McCain's political patron saint, George W. Bush.
I can picture a response now: "Perhaps instead of trying to divine some larger meaning from what some member of Hamas has said, Senator McCain should be asking how Hamas came to power. His good friend George W. Bush could explain to him how his meddling in the Palestinian elections put Hamas into power in the first place. Really, when you get down to it, the Republican Party has been Hamas' best friend. Because without Republican incompetence in foreign policy, Hamas would never have come to power."
May 14, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Note to Clinton dead-enders and trolls:
No need to wipe the egg off your faces.
After all, all that matters... is that your boss has wiped it off hers.
May 14, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah yes, any moment now the Clinton dead-enders and trolls will admit it too. ;-)
(crickets chirping)
May 14, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's a fine defense. She just dismisses the story as meaningless. Perfect.
May 14, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll take it. Thank you- for now. Don't make me eat me words again, Hillary.
May 14, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need a long thread in the Reader's Posts on what it would take for Hillary to win back the trust of Obama supporters.
I think for many of us, it's a pretty high threshold.
May 14, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Winning back trust might be possible, but not to the extent that I think she'd be a good VP pick. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the Republicans would just run clips of her spouting the "commander-in-chief threshold" nonsense if she were the veep.
May 14, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. And after I posted, I had to admit that my own comment was disingenous, because I've never really trusted her. I'm always wary of her intentions. Her conduct in this primary has just confirmed what I've always suspected about her character.
I don't think that there's anything really that she could do that would make me comfortable with her being in a leadership position in Obama's cabinet. Best for him to keep her at a comfortable distance.
May 14, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah - as in - no fucking way, AFAIC.
;)
May 14, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good on her, I say. This is what I've wanted to see out of her for a long time. If she had campaigned honorably instead of the constant kitchen sink attacks, I would have had more respect for her. My respect level for her is raised to a higher point now because of this.
May 14, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree!
May 14, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her comment was pitch perfect. Dismiss it as exageration rather than plead victim's rights. Let the audience come to their own conclusion, which for most of us is that McCain was being an ass.
I love her for this turn. She's onboard. We're in great shape.
May 14, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: McCain was being a total ass...
... again.
May 14, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was an unequivocal defense. To all the posters here who say, "she should have said X," get over it.
I've been just as angry at Team Clinton as the next guy, but I'll give credit where credit is due.
May 14, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great interview on CNN.
Clinton should be the President. Period.
May 14, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
GL is correct (500%!)
It makes me so angry that democracy is getting in the way of HRC (Clinton!) becoming the president. Truly, people need to just give up and let her win - because this is for the greater good.
GL - you've been mentioning a lot of "crap" today - but not in this post - please keep it up - but count me in on asst (assist).
I think Gotalife would agree - This is a load of crap kool aid - what a lousy country!
May 14, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Off topic, but I love your comments!
May 14, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stupid elections, can't we just proclaim her President?
May 14, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, well...shoulda, coulda, woulda.
At some point, you're going to have to deal with reality, GotALife. And we'll be here to help you get through that, K?
May 14, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is the harsher version that we're supposed to be so proud of her for not saying? "Yes, John McCain's right. There's some questions Barack Obama needs to answer here"? The superdelegate count for Obama tomorrow would be 240-0 if she said that at this point.
If anything should be categorically denounced by a Democrat it's this type of smear. How far has Clinton lowered our expectations for acceptable treatment from a fellow Democrat, primary opponent or not?
May 14, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Classic Clinton...
appearing to defend Obama, but not really doing it.
Overstatement? Exaggeration?
Her Meaning: Hamas doesn't love Obama, but they sure do like him. Of course, they don't like me, because I'll be ready on day one to wipe out Iran and any of its friends.
Good news: Someone has come to your defence.
Bad news: It's Hillary Clinton.
May 14, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously - how many times do the Clintons have to shit all over the truth before people get it? They are masters at this stuff - they are politicians to the bone and every word out of their mouths should be looked at with a lot of skepticism.
I'm glad the situation now dictates that she behave herself - finally. But whatever the reason she decided to disagree with McCain - this time - it was all about Hillary.
That much you can depend on.
May 14, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a defense but "Overstatement" is hardly a strong defense. "Despicable" or "Dishonest" would be strong.
Meanwhile, would someone please remind McCain (and that lying S.O.B. Lieberman) that Ronald Reagan was endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan in 1980 and 1984. If they think these endorsements are legitimate fodder then wouldn't it be fair to accuse McCain of having a history of supporting the Klan's candidate?
May 14, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Soooooo the fuck what she said this!
Let me see a pattern. Last night she was giving him backhanded compliments to in her speech.
I realize that some of you are searching for good things to say about her before she earns it, raising her up off bullshit only sets the table for laps around a race track and she will be the driver if you keep doing this.
May 14, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not defending! "an overstatement"? Are you kidding me? That doesn't mean it is false and outrageous, that means she wouldn't go quite that far, but there is still room to wonder. This is EXACTLY like her "he isn't a Muslim, as far as I know" crap. Did she happen to add "as far as I know" at the end??
May 14, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, You, I, tena, kash & sean669 seem to be minority with all the kumbaya dance (sorry tena for stealing your lovely line) about her "defense". Are the Obama supporters so gullible to be taken in by such a questionable, token defense ?
May 14, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Soooooo the fuck what she said this!
Let me see a pattern. Last night she was giving him backhanded compliments to in her speech.
I realize that some of you are searching for good things to say about her before she earns it, raising her up off bullshit only sets the table for laps around a race track and she will be the driver if you keep doing this.
May 14, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice bucket hat.
May 14, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for the double post, computer froze did this by itself
May 14, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Site is acting up for me today - when I try to post, everything hangs for an interval before the page loads and it finally posts.
May 14, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
HusseinTena....My queen, why do you forsake me...lol....I hope you see this one. I missed you Tena, lot went on while you were gone....would have liked to get your takes. My scary ass even attempted to post and run with the big dogs here.
May 14, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto - not just you - site problem?
May 14, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, we now know for sure what the price was for keeping (some) of the remaining superdelegates from declaring before the last primary.
May 14, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I too am slightly skeptical, but I'll reserve judgment until I can see the interview and not just read the transcript.
Inflection is important.
Based upon HRC's words, however, this appears to be different in kind, and not just degree from her previous "as far as I know" response to whether or not Senator Obama is a Muslim. That response was clearly intended to fan the flames of confusion.
Finally, JenOfArk's comments regarding the thanks Hamas owes the Bush Administration for their ascension to power are spot-on. I'd love to see Senator Obama take that argument head-on.
May 14, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton has never engaged in the kind of
scorched earth campaign that Obama has.
She never hired a marketing firm with
PAID OPERATIVES to mingle in the democratic
blogs.
Obama's blog smear campaign against Clinton
has been breathtaking.
And its gone on without on under the radar
without a single murmer from MSM.
If these poor students who think they're being
so latte hip only knew they're being gulled into
supporting a Republican.
Posted by "Present"
May 14, 2008 4:06 PM
"Present" is the Racist Scumbag that also posts under the name of "slumlord"
May 14, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone have any idea where the hell this "PAID OPERATIVES" on the blogs bullshit he's peddling is coming from? Is this the latest batshit insane conspiracy theory binging around in the Hillarite e-bunkers or is it just a product of his/her/its fetid imagination?
Also, does anyone know why "Reply" doesn't work on his/her/its posts?
May 14, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
That IS very weird, that Present reply button doesn't work. No one can respond directly to his BS.
How is that happening and can TPM managers do something about it?
May 14, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Others have said that Reply doesn't work with him because he has his name in Quotes.
May 14, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
NCSteve, It was discovered and widely reported early in the campaign season that Hillary was using her own campaign staffers to lob softball questions at her on campaign stops.
"Present" and his ilk are using a long storied tactic of accusing Candidate B of engaging in the behavior that Candidate A is engaging in, in an effort to muddy recollections. It's actually a Bushite tactic.
The way it works is that, months pass, and people's recollections get naturally fuzzy, and someone asks "did Hillary do x during the campaign?" And because of "Present's" bullshit obfuscation tactics, others will respond that "Yeah, but Obama did it too", which is untrue, but unfortunately, memory is short.
The Bush Administration has used this tactic time and again over the past 8 years, so the trolls come by it well.
May 14, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"And its gone on without on under the radar
without a single murmer from MSM."
MSM isn't going to say anything. The GE/Exelon deal sealed their lips.
You know, Exelon, one of Obama's BIG contributors.
You know, GE, who controls MSNBC, Newsweek and The Washington Post.
May 14, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you are trying to make the point that the coverage is slanted pro-Obama by GE owned media, wouldn't it make more sense for them to support the Republican who talks about unending war or the more hawkish Democrat?
From fighters, helicopters and transports to the next generation of unmanned aircraft, GE's military engines provide the necessary power and reliability. . .
http://www.geae.com/engines/military/index.html
May 14, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I'm suggesting that Exelon *owns* Obama and that GE owns MSNBC, the Washington Post and Newsweek. After Exelon/GE entered into a nuclear power contract in the fourth quarter of 2007, we became privy to the marriage of Obama/Exelon/GE being played out before our eyes on MSNBC, the Post and Newsweek.
It's harder to explain what dailyKos and Huffington are doing and the connections. As I wrote in an earlier post, chances are many Obama supporters are swept away with hope for change and haven't settled down to look at the reality of McCain, Obama, November, swing vote states, etc. Alas...
May 14, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are so pathetic. I kinda feel sorry for you.
Maybe it's just me, but somewhere along the line, Senator Clinton's campaign seems to have stopped functioning as an actual candidacy, sharing the same party and most of the same issues as Senator Obama's... and now it increasingly serves as a badge of pain, pride, entitlement, and self-victimization, frozen in time like a confederate flag on the back of a busted up pick-up truck.
Meanwhile, for people like me who strongly supported Gore's entry into the race, or others who favored Edwards, Kucinich, etc., well... we've already moved on long ago, to the point that most of us are pretty content with things as they stand.
Perhaps Hillary's diehards will decide they don't want to buy into the whole self-victimization thing, because there is, in fact, life after the Democratic primaries, even if your candidate loses.
May 14, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go look at archives for January-February on any Dem blog, and you'll see coordinated campaigns by HRC supporters around things like Obama's Reagan comment, etc. They each lasted for up to a week, took up every third or fourth posting and, a few days after appearing the blogosphere, became official HRC campaign talking points. That's who was getting paid.
May 14, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, the Obama operation must be really good because even HRC supporters (including West Virginia HRC voters) believe their candidate has been more negative and unfair.
May 14, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad Hillary is toning it down finally.
May 14, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
liam didn't get the memo.
May 14, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, Hillary didn't lash out with a childish expletive-laden tantrum in the style favored by the Obamabots here. She diplomatically rejected out-of-hand what McCain said, in a senatorial manner.
I think she's wrong though. It's a perfectly valid point for McCain to talk about. Unpleasant for the Obamabots, but all the better.
May 14, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure - it's politics. But it's pretty bogus. Do you vote based on what a terrorist organization says? Are you their puppet? No? Didn't think so. So why would any of us give a flip about what Hamas has to say about our internal politics? Maybe they're doing a little reverse psychology on you MC. I mean, really, Bush policies have been a boon for terrorist recruitment efforts... McSame just means more good times for them. Hamas really wants McSame, but wants America to think they prefer Obama so that they'll vote reflexively for McSame. Get it? Of course, we don't know what they really want, which is just another reason to ignore outsiders trying to meddle in our affairs. Or, do you really prefer that the USA quiver and shake at every silly little utterance a terrorist organization makes? Way to stand proud, dude.
May 14, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCitizen = McSame troll.
May 14, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Common sense usually serves as a good guide. I really doubt if Hamas, al-Qaeda and Iran are shaking in their slippers over an Obama presidency. Let alone that they came up with some TV sitcom scheme to throw us off the track by telling us the opposite of what they really want. This kind of convoluted reasoning is the sort of "BS On Demand" that Obama supporters produce to fit whatever occasion.
I think people should simply ask themselves why Hamas might think they'd be better off with Obama. Maybe their reasoning is completely haywire, and Obama will be one bad motherf*** to them. Or maybe they saw his swimsuit pix and just think he's the cutest thing. If so, then their endorsement is clearly irrelevant. But on the other hand, maybe they are making an informed decision, and it should cause people to pay closer attention to what Obama says regarding Israel, Iran, etc. Can't be too careful nowadays.
May 14, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
It sounds to me like denial is grudgingly giving way to acceptance.
May 14, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Weak. The problem isn't whether McCain talks about a Hamas statement praising Obama, it's that morons in the U.S. think it means something it doesn't. But Clinton just continues to disappoint. Of course she can't be too critical of McCain's strategy of distortion and jingoism since she has adopted it herself.
May 14, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, McCitizen it is not a valid point.
Israel receives and to a large extent relies upon bi-partisan support from Republicans such as Senator McCain and Democrats such as Senators Clinton and Obama.
For Senator McCain to attmept to use Israel as a wedge issue in this campaign is untenable and offensive to those who truly care about Israel's relationship with the United States.
If the standard is whether or not American presidential candidates stand to the right of Israel's own elected government than we are all going to be in a world of pain.
May 14, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
When we're electing the leader of the most powerful nation on earth, and our choice affects the entire world. Everything is a valid point for possible discussion. I know there is a growing laundry-list of things which Obamabots want taken off the table as far as discussion goes, but you know what? The heck with you. I've quickly grown tired of you telling us what we can and can't talk about.
May 14, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the hell do you Obama folks want her to do? Get down on her knees and lick his balls? Sacrifice herself on an altar? She defended him against it for the love of God.
May 14, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
No tea-bagging!
May 14, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, thank god! ^_^ I'm glad Sen. Clinton still has her decency.
May 14, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's probably cousins with Osama!
May 14, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dang! That's the closest thing to "class" by anybody in the campaign this year!
May 14, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
No Hillary ya fucktard. It isn't an overstatment, it is a lie.
May 14, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
She'll need to do better than that if she wants to be Vice President
Can she bake?
May 14, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Having trashed Hillary as a vile, racist witch (and worse—far worse) for the better part of a year and snarlingly dismissed myself and other Hillary supporters as racist, white-trash goons, how do you propose to convince us to vote for BO? Or do you believe, as does the essentially unemployable Ms. Brazile, that you can win without Catholics, blue collar whites and Latinos? And please, please, please in your response, don’t hesitate to be arrogantly self righteous and insulting (why change now?)
May 14, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink