MyDD :: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton

Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton

by Todd Beeton, Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 09:16:46 PM EST

Rudy Giuliani has launched both a web and a print ad (h/t TPM) attacking Hillary Clinton for "joining with the radical group MoveOn.org in attacking American General Petraeus."

As for this so-called complicity with MoveOn, the best Rudy could do was:

Clinton stood silently by as MoveOn.org ran this venomous ad in The New York Times.

Ooooh, she said nothing!? Direct hit, there, Rudy.

And as for her attack on "General Petraeus's honesty," the reference is to Clinton's questioning of Petraeus in the senate on Tuesday when she said:

"The reports that you provide for us really require the willing suspension of disbelief."

Who's Rudy's target audience with this ad, English majors? This attack is a real stretch, not only because it seeks to turn the relatively esoteric phrase "suspension of disbelief" into a stinging indictment, but also the way in which it dredges up the old anachronism that questioning a member of the military is somehow out of bounds -- isn't that so 3 years ago...ya know, when Rudy himself criticized the troops for not finding weapons in Iraq:

This whole line of attack is amateur hour and Clinton treats it as such, swatting it away like the little gnat that it is.

TPM has her campaign's response:

Rudy Giuliani is dropping in the polls and is unable to defend his own support for George Bush's failed war. Instead of distorting Senator Clinton's record in the campaign's first attack ad, the Mayor should tell voters why he thinks sticking with the Bush Iraq strategy makes sense. The country wants change and while Hillary Clinton is focused on ending the war, Mayor Giuliani is playing politics.

But the point of the ads was probably less about the content than it was about establishing a general election dynamic, a sort of front-runner v. front-runner battle to build the aura of inevitability on both sides. Unfortunately for Rudy, if he wanted to burnish his bona fides among the Republican base as a credible opponent to Hillary Clinton, these ads failed miserably.

Tags: rudy giuliani, hillary clinton (all tags)

Permalink :: 63 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (none / 0)

Moveon.org is also going to premier a Rudy ad, attacking him for ducking out on his position on the Iraq Study Group where he would have had an opportunity to do something about Iraq.

by hwc on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 09:21:24 PM EST

Re: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (none / 0)

Right on -- Rudy is not a deep thinker. I didn't know that Moveon.Org took their marching orders from Hillary Clinton.

by changehorses08 on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 01:53:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (none / 0)

Rudy is trying to salvage his dying campaign. After Thompson jumps into the race, Rudy's national polling numbers are in free fall. With early states IA and NH out of reach, he's in a deep hole. The only trump card keeps him alive is the elusive `electability' argument. Many GOPers believe he's the only candidate who can beat Hillary. However, his head-to-head matchup #s vs Hillary have been sliding at an astonishing pace. That's why he has to lash out at Hillary in order to cement his withering support among GOPers.

What Rudy wants is some overreaction from Clinton campaign, I doubt Clinton will fall into his trap.

Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?

by areyouready on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 09:24:36 PM EST

Re: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (none / 0)

I'm really going to enjoy watching Rudy go down like the Hindenburg.

by nerdoff on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 04:57:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (none / 0)

Rudy is a clown. He's just going to bury himself with this baseless attack.

by bookgrl on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 09:44:05 PM EST

Re: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (none / 0)

yeah it's a very silly attack.

It's also one of the worst link between someone's record and a 3rd party's ad I've ever seen.

'She said nothing' Really? thats it?!

by MrMacMan on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:37:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (none / 0)

Its all about LLLLLLLLLLLLLLiberals. Rudy's base are not Rocket Scientists. He has to remind them lest anyone forget that Hillary might be one of those LLLLLLLLLLLLLiberals. Never mind that Bush has screwed up 2 wars and on the Domestic side foreclosures are at a record high and we might be in a Recession by the end of the year. Rudy still thinks that the L word is all you have to say to the idiots who will still vote Republican.

by changehorses08 on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 02:02:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (none / 0)

What else can Rudy say? 9/11's anniversary is over. Santa Claus has Christmas and Rudy has 9/11.

by changehorses08 on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 01:57:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (none / 0)

What happened to the Right Wing Family Values? I hear that they have forgiven Rudy for his 3 marriages and extramarital affairs, because he said he was sorry and that he is only human. Amazing, how hypocritical those people are.

by changehorses08 on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 02:07:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (none / 0)

Great response by Hillary there. I like how she doesn't just say "I never said that! You're distorting my record!" but goes all the way through to "Instead of distorting my record, why don't you explain why you don't want to end this insane war the way I do?"

by tjekanefir on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:24:18 PM EST

Re: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (none / 0)

Brilliant.

by changehorses08 on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 02:03:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (none / 0)

This is a win for Rudy, since he is attacking the GOP's worst nightmare, Hillary, because they know that our Hill knows how to win, and not just win, but beat them at their own game. No stealing votes via Diebold in OH or influencing justices on the SCOTUS.

Rudy is going down, losing to Hillary by 7 points in the most recent NBC/WSJ poll and this idotic attack will be forgotten in 3 days. Trust me! Fred, John and Mitt will not let him get all that attention!

by American1989 on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:26:18 PM EST

t's all about setting up the dream matchup (none / 0)

both for the tabloids and the Republican party becuase it's about the only one the GOP actually can win.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:44:00 PM EST

Re: t's all about setting up the dream matchup (none / 0)

Right, Hillary wanted to be associated with the MoveOn ad...Come on, show some brain cells.

by bookgrl on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:46:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: t's all about setting up the dream matchup (none / 0)

Carl Bernstein says that Clinton insiders have told him they are salivating at the prospect of getting Rudy in the general election.

by hwc on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:49:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I much rather would face (none / 0)

Fred or Mitt, Rudy will get all the wingnut vote because they so personally dislike Hillary it doesn't matter about his social issues stuff. McCain is by far the strongest GOP nominee so lets hope he doesn't make a come back.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:54:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I much rather would face (none / 0)

I agree McCain would be the strongest candidate in the General Election.

by changehorses08 on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 02:05:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: t's all about setting up the dream matchup (none / 0)

Of course they are salivating over Rudy. Once the sheen of 9/11 has been removed and it will be by the time the primaries are done, you have Rudy's prickly personality, Bernie Kerik and other corruption problems from his Mayoralty, his announcement of his divorce to the press before his wife, Amadou Diallo, mocking a constituent suffering from Parkinsons Disease, etc. His polling numbers in his home state of NY suck - he can't break 43% against any Dem candidate. Does that sound like a winning candidate?

by John Mills on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 12:28:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: t's all about setting up the dream matchup (none / 0)

Didn't most of us believe that Bush could not be elected? He made fun of Carla Fay Tucker just before he had her executed. Who would vote for Bush when he didn't even know who the world leaders were? Ok so we didn't vote him in but damn it was close enough for him to steal.

by changehorses08 on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 02:11:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

no, Bush was leading Gore (2.00 / 2)

by double-digits for most of the year. A lot of Bradley supporters were concerned that Gore could not beat Bush.

Bush was ahead by so much that he felt he could afford to choose Cheney instead of a VP candidate who would bring something to the ticket electorally.

It was only after the Democratic national convention that Gore started surging in polls against Bush. He took the lead in September 2000.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 07:06:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no, Bush was leading Gore (none / 0)

Exactly. Bush always worried me. He was an extremely popular Gov of one of the most populous states in the nation when he ran for Prez. As a NYCer Rudy doesn't because he can't ride 9/11 forever. On 9/10/01, Rudy's poll numbers were in the tank and NYCers were glad to be moving on from him. I have no doubt that view of him will return as the campaign wears on.

by John Mills on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 11:20:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no, Bush was leading Gore (none / 0)

Gore really blew it when he picked Lieberman as his VP. Lieberman showed his true colors even then. The debate with Cheney was more like a love fest. Of all the good people out there why oh why would he pick Lieberman?

by changehorses08 on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 01:04:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (none / 0)

Giuliani is the only Republican that puts blue states in the play for the red team. The ONLY one!!

Grandfather Fred and Beaver's dad would get destroyed in the general election. Would the super staunch conservative republicans vote for a moderate Republican.

Who by the way has a stance on illegal immigration that makes any hard core republican lose his mind.

by Djneedle83 on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:46:45 PM EST

I think the republican party (none / 0)

and more importantly some of thier conservative supporters to believe the only matchup they can wpossably win is the RUDY v/s Hillary one, it puts our most polarizing candidate against thier most favorably viewed person among indies and non political types.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:52:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think the republican party (none / 0)

Can you say something, anything fresh?? Reality is sinking in, and I feel bad for you...

http://video1.washingtontimes.com/dinan/ 2007/09/all_those_republicans_who_say.ht ml

All those Republicans who say they are begging for Hillary Rodham Clinton to be the Democrats' presidential nominee? Don't believe 'em.

National Journal asked its panel of Republican insiders and found more than half (52 percent) think Clinton would be the "strongest general election candidate" Democrats could put up. Trailing well behind, former Sen. John Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama were the choice of 18 percent each.

Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?

by areyouready on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:56:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think the republican party (none / 0)

the insiders are Hillary's biggest fan base I was aware if that.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:58:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think the republican party (none / 0)

I already said that that poll means zilch.
We only have the numbers and without what questions were asked, who 'insiders' are, how questions were phrased, etc -- the poll means nothing.

82 Republican insiders -- who are insiders? Where do they get them from, are they staffers, think tanks, etc.

If I go to my friends and ask them a bunch of questions can i say thats a poll?

by MrMacMan on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 11:03:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (2.00 / 1)

"Giuliani is the only Republican that puts blue states in the play for the red team. The ONLY one!!"

This is a myth being perpetuated by the Giuliani campaign. Rudy can't break 43% against any Dem in NY, his home state. If he isn't putting NY into play, what state is he putting into play? Massachusetts? California?

by John Mills on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 12:31:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (none / 0)

I'm pretty sure the author of that was joking around, we know Rudy is no good.

by MrMacMan on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 12:42:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (none / 0)

If you think Nevadadem was just "joking around" with this, you have not been reading here at all for a lengthy period of time. Nevadadem is DEAD SERIOUS. He has forever claimed that everytime Clinton is attacked by a GOPer it is reverse psychology at work. They KNOW that the blog left is not too fond of Hillary Clinton, so when she is attacked by the right the effect is that the left rallies around her, defends her, therefore she gains. Presto, the right gets the candidate they WANT in the general election. Nevadadem is ALWAYS dead serious with that (flawed) logic of his.

by georgep on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 08:22:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (none / 0)

Right now, I don't know if any Republican can put any Blue states into play, Hilary or no Hilary.
Maybe the guy running in the Massachusetts special election, but I can't think of anyone else.

by spirowasright on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 04:14:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (2.00 / 1)

What blue states does the Crossdresser put in play?

He's actually the Republican's nightmare candidate. Not only does he get clobbered by Clinton in the blue states, but the evangelicals would rather sit on their hands than vote for a crossdressing, gay loving abortionist.

by hwc on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:51:08 PM EST

against Hillary (none / 0)

they will vote, I will say this though, I do think Hillary will probably beat him. However the best shot of any matchup the GOP has is a RUDY?HILLARY race if you think McCain is toast.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:57:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (none / 0)

Absolutely right. "Rudy puts blue states in play" is a myth perpetuated by the Giuliani campaign. I have seen no polling numbers that prove this idea. In fact, he gets killed in his home state of NY against all the Dems. Shouldn't this be the first state he puts into play?

by John Mills on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 12:39:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (2.00 / 1)

MoveOn was wrong to claim Petraeus was a Betrayer. They crossed a line. Now they are putting out an ad saying Bush is the Betrayer. While I agree with what they say they can take their ad and their request for money to air it and shove it where the sun don't shine. And keep it there.

by DoIT on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:59:20 PM EST

you are right (none / 0)

the ad was stupid not becausse it wasn't true but because it was so easily turned into foil. They should have known it.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 11:02:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you are right (none / 0)

THATS EVERYTHING MOVEON TOUCHES!!!!

GOLD TURNS TO SHIT

vote blue in 2008

by sepulvedaj3 on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 11:14:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you are right (none / 0)

moveon is just like every other outside organization...

Are you going to call the Unions that run ads crappy?
I doubt it.

The moveon ad was spinned, it was an easy spin, but the message got across because of all of the news about it.

by MrMacMan on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 11:18:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (none / 0)

The old ad was stupid, and the new ad is very good. It's also dumb for Hillary to express any opinion on moveon's ads though. Rudy is a drowning man, he can't even find the last straw...

Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?

by areyouready on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 11:06:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (none / 0)

How did she respond?

by bookgrl on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 11:08:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (none / 0)

She did not. Clinton was questioned in the 'Mashup' interview, she immediately shift the focus on George W. Bush's war.

Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?

by areyouready on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 11:11:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (none / 0)

Oh, ok, I thought you said her response was dumb.

by bookgrl on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 11:15:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (none / 0)

she said the focus should be on bush in the yahoo debate

vote blue in 2008

by sepulvedaj3 on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 11:14:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, I know and I agreed with her. (none / 0)

by bookgrl on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 11:15:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Aorry, I misunderstood areyouready. (none / 0)

by bookgrl on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 11:17:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (2.00 / 1)

Rudy's ad was so stupid. If Hillary suffers a weakness with the Democratic base it might be that she had not distanced herself enough from the War. This ad makes her look to be more in line with the concerns of those who want her to be stronger about bringing the troops home. And Hillary didn't even have to pay for it!

by cwilcox on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 11:54:11 PM EST

Re: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (none / 0)

Yeah. And she instigated the whole thing knowingly with her comment during Armed Services Committee question time to Petraeus rather than falling in line with the stated objectives of Congressional Democrats not to drag Senate Republicans into a food-fight over the testimony so we could encourage them to vote for legislation which would bring the war one teensy-weensy step closer to ending. Brilliant politics and totally self-centred policy, just the kind of thing we have come to expect from Hillary.

One more news cycle for Hillary duking it out with her Republican nemesis, cementing her front-runner status, and one less for Congressional Democrats trying to stitch together a strategy to reach a cloture vote. Thanks, Hillary, you go girl!

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 12:30:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (2.00 / 1)

Actually, Sen Clinton's round with Petraeus cited questions from (by name) Senator Warner and Senator Collins.

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statement s/details.cfm?id=282410&&

by hwc on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 01:02:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Uh, huh... (none / 0)

Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.

Clinton Remarks Armed Services Committee Hearing - Sep 11, 07

Can you see any other translation of that into plain English other than You are trying hard to lie to us?

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 01:28:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uh, huh... (2.00 / 1)

Oh, she was definitely busting his chops. Notice that his answer to her question was that policy is set at one end of 1600 Penn Ave with advice and consent from the other. Basically, he was saying, "don't blame me, I'm just following orders".

Hey, it isn't the first time Petraeus has been chewed out. His boss, Admiral Fallon, reportedly said to him in their first meeting, "You are an ass-kissing little chicken shit and I hate that."

Petraeus is known as one of the top ass kissers in the US Army.

The Wa Post reported that he's been in daily communications with the White House communications office for a month, coordinating the sales job.

by hwc on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 02:09:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uh, huh... (none / 0)

All true stuff. I think Petraeus is an ambitious tool too. But that's not my point. I am suggesting that Hillary took the opportunity to do a bit of electoral show-boating rather than whatever she could to assist the efforts of Congressional Democrats to attack Bush and past policies and not give wavering Republicans the willies about voting with us on Webb or whatever comes next. I have enough respect for Hillary's acumen to assume that the Giuliani/Clinton dust-up in the next day's news cycle was a mission accomplished. Good for her. I can imagine a handful of Republican Senators re-assessing their positions with every combative, partisan exchange since.

Do you think we should just have at 'em or go through the difficult, frustrating process of extracting some Senate Republicans from the fold and get some kind of binding legislation past cloture? We can't do both. We have been waiting for months to twist a few arms and this fracas is not helping. Neither is Dodd, really, though I admit I am sympathetic to both of their views. From where I sit Obama subsumed his electoral ambitions to sound Congressional strategy in this case, merely providing more ammunition to his critics because he didn't use the opportunity to score a few empty rhetorical points, no doubt. What was the purpose of attacking Petraeus and not Bush anyhow?

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 02:31:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uh, huh... (none / 0)

The best thing that Hillary Clinton can do to end the never-ending war in Iraq is get elected President.

I figured out along time ago that there is NOTHING that will stop George Bush from kicking the can down the road, one Friedman Unit at a time, until he runs the clock out. Everyone in Washington understands that. You need 67 votes in the Senate to keep Bush from kicking the can.

The idea that Republicans are going to break with the President in any meaningful way is pure folly.

by hwc on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 03:07:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uh, huh... (none / 0)

Well I kind of suspected that was really your point of view. You know, I respect your honesty but that notion runs counter to a lot of the expectations of voters and statements of politicians, don't you think? I should also point out that the earliest that could possible have an impact is in January 2009, give or take a Friedman Unit or two, and that at the rate we are going a significant number of our forces and, Lord knows, Iraqis could, and undoubtably will, die in the meantime.

The idea that we couldn't get a meaningful number of Republicans to vote with us seems based more on partisan mythology than the current political situation. My point is that we are never going to achieve it if we are more interested in sky-writing our animosity for everything Republican than doing something pragmatic to remedy the damage we do ourselves daily with this war.

From where I sit the Republicans are the ring-leaders but the responsibility for this war extends to everyone who thought it seemed a good idea at the time or didn't even bother to think about it much or carefully. This is a democracy, after all.

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 03:44:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uh, huh... (2.00 / 1)

I can imagine a handful of Republican Senators re-assessing their positions with every combative, partisan exchange since.

Let them reassess all they want. They will run out of Friedman Units in November 2008.

From where I sit Obama subsumed his electoral ambitions to sound Congressional strategy in this case, merely providing more ammunition to his critics because he didn't use the opportunity to score a few empty rhetorical points, no doubt.

Oh, puhleeze. Half of Obama's grandstanding statement was lifted from his stump speech. I've heard that "bad options and worse options" line in every C-Span stump speech for six months. He didn't even ask a coherent question.

Clinton asked two very strong questions. If nothing is different in 12 months and if you would be hardpressed to recommend staying, then why the hell would you recommend staying NOW and getting another 1000 US troops killed at a cost of another $100 billion?

And, if diplomacy is so important, then why are you, Mr. Lowly Ambassador, the highest ranked State Department official involved in the process?

She exposed the dog and pony show for what it was. BS from an ass kissing little chicken shit.

by hwc on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 03:14:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uh, huh... (none / 0)

From some of your statements it seems like your anger and frustration, as much as I share them, might be getting more latitude than your better judgement. I have absolutely no problem with Republicans who might vote their conscience, or even their constituencies, on this issue. I believe that there are times when partisanship is counter-productive and this may well be one of them. There is a moral responsibility here too.

As for Obama's statements, I liked them a lot, but then I like subtle ideas, fat history books with lots of footnotes and lattes so I don't expect to find myself in the majority and I won't try to argue their merits here. I have no problem with any of the questions Hillary asked either, not that we got to read about them given her comments attacking Petraeus, but I thought the best, and politically most useful, exchange of the day was from our venerable Senator Byrd:

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: I don't think it's a coincidence that this important hearing is taking place on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. There seems to be another attempt to link in the mind of a confused public the war in Iraq to the attacks perpetrated on us on 9/11 by al-Qaeda. Is this just a big sales job? Please answer this clearly and succinctly, so that the American people can understand: is there and was there any connection between the attacks of September 11, 2001 and Iraq?

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: Not that I am aware of, Senator.

That was worth the price of admission alone and the wily old Senator knows exactly what he is doing and why. We are all Democrats, my friend.

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 04:11:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (none / 0)

Collins and Warner were already skeptical of Petraeus and Crocker's report. ABC News:

"Success in Iraq for Iraqis as well as our own goals centers around a successful national reconciliation process," Crocker said.

"That's what's been said at this table for a long time sir," Warner said, "and with respect it hasn't happened."

Clinton reinforced what Warner and Collins said, that was no food fight.

by souvarine on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 01:23:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (none / 0)

I respectfully disagree, which is more than Hillary did.

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 01:32:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (none / 0)

Sorry but i don't see how she would have known that "suspension of disbelief" would really be a lightning rod. It's more like what her response said, Giuliani is falling in the polls and he needed to get that front runner thing going again.

by Justify My Vote on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 12:53:09 AM EST

Re: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (none / 0)

No sale. She basically used big words to say that Petraeus was a liar no matter how you slice it. In the nuanced phrasing of Congressional testimony that is a departure and she knew it. Contrast her comment with Obama's careful introduction to his criticisms of the strategy, not the messengers:

Number two, I think that both of you gentlemen are doing the absolute best that you can, given an extraordinarily difficult situation. And so I appreciate the work that both of you are doing. I would say that the mission that's been given to you is what's at issue here in the Senate.

Obama Remarks to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing - September 11, 2007

Congressional Democrats had specifically stated that they were attempting to find common ground with wavering Republican Senators at this critical juncture which we have been awaiting for months. Nobody expected Senate Republicans to jump the gun until this report was made. Hillary took the opportunity to start a food-fight, in her admirable combative style, which pitched her into a nationally televised confrontation with one of her expected opponents. Brilliant politics for a candidate, lousy strategy for a Senator. And her previous letters to the Pentagon and more recently Bush had the same intent and result. She is positioning herself at the expense of the efforts of her own colleagues in Congress to convince wavering Republican Senators to join us in ending this war, even by tiny incremental steps. Polarising doesn't even say it all.

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 01:10:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (2.00 / 1)

Shaun, you are on some weird "Nevadadem" trip here. Your attacks are out of bounds. CLINTON used the hearing for showboating? Did you see Obama's appearance? Electioneering, nothing else. Even the one question he got in before time ran out was one already asked verbatim by Chris Dodd. And to claim that this Giuliani reaction to Clinton's "suspension of disbelief" comment (she was 100% correct with that, btw.) was a wanted and expected one is ridiculous. It is not all a conspiracy, Shaun. I realize that you have a deep and IMO irrational dislike for Clinton, but to spin everything that is thrown at her from the right as calculated down to the T is a theme that is unfortunate for you to take, but not unexpected in the face of nothing else working.

by georgep on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 08:34:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (none / 0)

If you want to respond to the substance of my comment, please do. Otherwise keep your ad hominem spluttering to yourself, if you don't mind. In one comment you have attempted to conflate what I said with that of another poster and belittle us both, authoritatively judged my comment inappropriate, accused me of being a conspiracy theorist, given me your unwelcome amateur psychological analysis and attacked me for spinning right-wing talking points without ever considering a word I wrote. That's pretty impressive.

I don't expect you to agree with me but my argument was that Hillary's motives in this incident were self-aggrandising at the expense of the legislative prospects for the passage of the Webb Amendment or a similar significant first step towards ending the war in Iraq. I stated earlier that I have considerable respect for her political savvy and the outcome of this clash with Petraeus was self-evident in the following day's news. You don't mean to suggest that she doesn't realise that such an attack on the messenger bearing the surge progress report wouldn't provoke a response from some Republican leader? Why did she attack Petraeus and not Bush?

It is in both her and Rudy's interests to authenticate one another with this kind of public dispute but it could have been any Republican leader and it would have suited her purpose just as well. She, or I should say her campaign, have already demonstrated this tactic with her very public confrontations surrounding letters to the Pentagon and more recently the White House. You can't tell me those incidents were not intentional. This is not the kind of climate which invites bipartisan support in the Senate for binding legislation on the war in Iraq and that is my point. Do you dispute that statement?

I notice your faux self-righteousness didn't distract you from taking the opportunity to attack Obama's performance. If you are going to be a hypocrite, George, at least try and not do it in a single comment.

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 09:32:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (none / 0)

Republicans do not waver they march like lemmings over a cliff. Thank God I am a Democrat and a Hillary supporter. I don't have to wake up ashamed.

by changehorses08 on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 02:19:58 AM EST

Re: Giuliani Goes Negative Against Clinton (none / 0)

I agree with the Clinton camp (although no surprise there)- this is about Fred Thompson more than Hillary. Rudy said weeks ago he was only candidate who could beat Hillary and I guess he is trying to stir that up with this.

He was acting VERY strange on Larry King the other night. It did not seem like a "natural" state. Rudy is such a "joke"- if elected, I see it being a four-year vacation for him, leaving everything to be decided by others.

by reasonwarrior on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 03:34:11 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.