Clinton on Obama Actions

by Jerome Armstrong, Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 11:49:04 AM EST

Clinton unloaded on Obama today, going after how his actions differed from his speech, over invading Iraq, and then funding the war:

I would say that she's going after Obama's strength, but all of this is pretty well known-- there's more to it. What she is doing is partly pre-emptive; Obama's gonna have to go after Clinton in some way soon, and she'd like to take Iraq off the table (or at least get out a 'both sides' angle to the media by putting Obama on the defensive over the issue); but this is also further establishing the negative narrative against Obama-- one that has to acknowledge his ability to give an exciting speech (his strength) before challenging Obama. Clinton concedes his speech (in this case about Iraq in 2002), but then asks 'what about the actions' after the speech?




Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 186 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: Clinton on Obama Actions (none / 0)

Placing myself in the shoes of say Howard Wolfson, I'd view her performance on MTP as, frankly, tour-de-force. Taking myself back out of Howard Wolfson's shoes, the most important takeaway is that HRC & co is going right up to the line of accusing Obama of playing the race card.

South Carolina is turning into a high-stakes game of political Chicken.


by blueflorida on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 11:53:32 AM EST

Re: Clinton on Obama Actions (none / 0)

"South Carolina is turning into a high-stakes game of political Chicken."

That was great! LOL


by lonnette33 on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 11:54:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary has lost the black vote. (none / 0)

She can bait Obama all she wants. The damage is done. She's going to lose South Carolina.


by nerdoff on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:22:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary has lost the black vote. (none / 0)

HRC doesn't have to win SC; Obama does.


by lonnette33 on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:31:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary's voter suppression efforts in Nevada (none / 0)

will fail too. She's going to lose Nevada and South Carolina back to back. Momentum is a factor.


by nerdoff on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:35:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's voter suppression efforts in Nevada (none / 0)

I'll hold you to that prediction sir/madame.


by lonnette33 on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:43:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz (none / 0)

oh i truly expect both.

nev, cause obama obviously does better in caucus conditions - which are really volunteer rallies - than hillary does.

sc,  cause of the AA vote that won that state for jesse and cause the only white dems in sc are yuppie professionals who are obama voters too.

hell if obama doesnt win both - he might as well stop wasting his rich supporters dough!!!!


Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!
by Seymour Glass on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:19:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton on Obama Actions (none / 0)

Grant you, it may have been a tour-de-force on her part but the fact still remains, she voted for that war.  I don't care if Russert gives her 24 hours exclusively.  If Obama let's her get away from taking Iraq of the table in the primaries, he deserves to lose.  You can bet your election ballot the GOP candidate won't let it anywhere near being pulled of the table.

TrumanDem

Truman's Conscience


by DuvalDem on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 02:12:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: GOP response (none / 0)

Indeed the GOP will be hard pressed to win that one -- especially with McCain's idiotic "1000 years" position. Let's see how that one hold up in the General.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 02:30:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton on Obama Actions (2.00 / 1)

Was Obama a Senator when the vote was taken?

I fail to understand WHY he votes yes on funding, yet decries Clinton's yes vote on the war.

Seems contradictory.


by Marsha1 on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 03:00:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton on Obama Actions (none / 0)

I could not agree more.


by Pacifist on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 04:10:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton on Obama Actions (none / 0)

Obama has a history of taking the easy way out, when faced with a controversial votes he may have to defend:
 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/pol itics/20obama.html

This is apparent, it has been a pattern with him since he entered public office. (I'm beginning to wonder if he ducked out on key exams in college, too, claiming illness.)

To imply, somehow, he showed courage by opposing the war, from the start, is a disingenuous attempt to sell Obama as a courageous maverick -- he's a coward, really, who, if I understand correctly, was not even a Senator when the vote was taken.

It's offensive that his supporters campaign for him as fresh, a change -- I see a weak leader, the triangulator who wants to be friends with criminal Republicans, at the expense of the people.

Yes, yes, this is the man who will take on the status quo politicians, the lobbyists, why, they're already supporting him...

And no, Americans dont need to placate more corrupt Republican politicians, those who failed to defend them, or their interests, those who have, in fact, stripped them of their rights, and jobs.

But, really, it's nice to know the change nothing democrat Ben Nelson endorses Obama.

Ben Nelson is more DNC than Hillary.


by Marsha1 on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 03:17:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton on Obama Actions (none / 0)

I think this is an oversimplification/mischaracterization. It didn't take a great deal of courage to take a stand that many Democrats held, but it was taking issue with his fellow Democrats and their votes on AUMF.


by Pacifist on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 04:12:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

how about because (none / 0)

anyone who knows about cuomos background would know that from 82 on he has been an activist fighting for and providing for low income housing for mostly poor african americans..

and anybody who would say or think he is a racist is a stupid fxcking fool!


Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!
by Seymour Glass on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:25:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: how about because (none / 0)

Cuomo has been good on housing issues for years but this is not the first time he has gotten in the gutter on race/prejuidice issues.  

It is well known that during his father's 1977 Mayoral campaign against Ed Koch, he was behind plastering parts of Queens with vote for "Cuomo not the Homo" posters.  It still causes him problems with NY gay community as evidence in last year's Attorney General run.

Cuomo, despite his fine positions on issues, is a well known hatchet man.


by John Mills on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 07:54:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton on Obama Actions (1.33 / 3)

This was great TV Jerome. I just put up a diary about this. I'm going to remove it. Hillary kicked Tim's and BO's ass. LOL


by lonnette33 on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 11:53:37 AM EST

Hillary talk is pure (none / 0)

Demagoguery - Her saying the Obama said that He had no problem with the way Bush was running the war was taken out of a context in which it meant the exact opposite - she knows it - she is lying.  That is exactly why many of us can not vote for Hillary -Rove lite


Listening comes first
by Moonwood on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 02:40:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton on Obama Actions (2.00 / 2)

I highly doubt that many watched this event, and frankly it looks like clintonism may return. she probably will not be beat by anyone in the primary.

sigh for the future of the democratic party ...


by tom32182 on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 11:57:57 AM EST

I hate Hilldog but (none / 0)

she did well in this interview. I think Tim is a terrible interview btw. The problem is that his shtick is to try and corner people into admitting some sort of inconsistency, no matter how unimportant.

Did he ask her why her campaign is using some of the same GOP tactics from 2004 that we considered so terrible when they were used against Kerry?


by highgrade on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 11:58:31 AM EST

Re: The war and the interview (none / 0)

what Dick Durbin said:

I really think it is unfortunate to question Barack's sincerity on the war. He has been there from the start, opposing this war.I really had hoped ... that it wouldn't become too personal or too negative... I don't think that's good for either of the candidates or for our party. There may be clear some clear differences on some issues.

and then Dick Durbin continued:

"If President Clinton had opposed that war as strongly as Barack Obama at the time, it would have helped a lot of us who had voted against authorizing an invasion.

That is reality.  Bill Clinton did nothing to actively oppose the war, but he now blames Obama.  Hillary voted for the war and still has not regretted her vote.  She even voted  again recently for something very similar, the Iran resolution.  But the Clinton campaign blames Obama.  Who knows, sooner or later we may hear that it was Obama's fault that Hillary voted for the war and for the Iran resolution.  It is really amazing how far cleap politics and tricks can take you.  Hopefully the voters in the
 The fact that she is on the attack, show's that they are very fearful of Obama. If they were not then she would have spent most of the program talking about her program,

I don't think it is a good idea for her to have to explain her vote for the Authorization for the use of military force in Iraq.(AUMF)


by BDM on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:03:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The war and the interview (none / 0)

She is totally discounting the fact that she didn't speak out! She is totally discounting the fact that virtually no one spoke out. Case closed.


Dare to be free.
by misscee on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:20:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Phony moralizing from Durbin (2.00 / 2)

He had nothing to say about Obam's distortions on Kyl Lieberman when he accused Dems LIKE Durbin of fomenting war with Iran. He is in campaign mode. Stop pretending there is anything but cynical politics behind it.
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:30:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The war and the interview (2.00 / 0)

"Hillary voted for the war and still has not regretted her vote.  She even voted  again recently for something very similar, the Iran resolution."

That is rich.  You are making THIS statement in the same post in which you actually quote Dick Durbin on the war, you know, the SAME guy who voted FOR Kyl/Lieberman himself?   Will the self-contradiction ever stop from camp Obama?  This is a perfect example where Obama supporters want to have it both ways of every issue every single time.  


by georgep on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 01:52:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The war and the interview (none / 0)

Contradiction seems to be central to the Obama campaign. But the central contradiction was best put in a post article:

"The bipartisan uniter who would bring us together by transcending ideology is at every turn on every policy an unwavering, down-the-line, unreconstructed, uninteresting, liberal Democrat."
by devil on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 03:00:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton on Obama Actions (2.00 / 1)

Hillary certainly held her own on MTP and showed up Tim Russert for trying to put a racist slant on what Bill Clinton had said when he changed the facts by taking a segment out of context....


by my nickle on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:00:44 PM EST

Re: Clinton on Obama Actions (2.00 / 1)

Fine let's have this debate. Tell me how Clinton diminished King's role in the civil rights movement? Please. Let's have this debate. I want you to refer to the specific part of the speech and tell me.


by world dictator on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:55:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton on Obama Actions (2.00 / 0)

I'm sorry, but I've got to say this. Shut up the whining rssrai.


by lonnette33 on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:56:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton on Obama Actions (2.00 / 2)

So, the Clinton's are racist and have pushed back race relations a generation? Yes, let's have this debate. Your comments are idiotic and an embarrasment to yourself.  I'm ashamed for you. Obamafans, you should tell your compatriots that these tactics wil lonly kill you in the longrun...


by StrongDem08 on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 01:01:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton on Obama Actions (2.00 / 0)

This person has not been an Obama supporter, but an Edwards supporter.  However, it seems that her dislike for Hillary guides her first and foremost, so the candidate opposite her is probably not important here.

  I agree with the rest of your post.  :-)


by georgep on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 01:57:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton on Obama Actions (2.00 / 0)

I would think both campaigns would want this dustup to go away.  But the cat is out of the bag.  I don't understand why Obama camp keeps pushing it. Makes me think they are seeing some discomfort in thier internal polling, or they are extremely spooked from the NH experience.  


by StrongDem08 on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 02:03:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton on Obama Actions (none / 0)

While I am reluctant to accuse the Obama people of taking cheap shots, I think this has been safe territory, for them. Characterizing Obama rhetoric as sexist has received no traction, whereas the racism charge hadn't yet been tried.


by Pacifist on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 04:15:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton on Obama Actions (none / 0)

As Professor Wilentz of Princeton wrote yesterday in the New Republic it is bad history to think  that LBJ and King did not work hand to secure civil rights.  It does not diminish Martin Luther King to know history - he may be an icon now but  reality is  still reality.   That does not make Hillary a racist  - even if this is a political campaign


by NYMARJ on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 04:22:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton on Obama Actions (none / 0)

The difference between voting for a War of preemption and what to do once our soldiers are there is a difference that most people in this country understand very well.   I wouldn't be surprised if this pushes some more Senators off the endorsement fence.  Not only is Clinton's contention a lie, it attacks him for a) being a good democrat during the 2004 campaign and b) working behind the scenes in the Senate and not grandstanding.  Both are valued by Democratic Senators.  Her win at all costs strategy is exactly what will hurt downticket races if she gets the nomination.  I don't care which one says the word Democrat more, one cares about the Party, one only cares about herself.


by Piuma on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:01:21 PM EST

So once we were there (2.00 / 2)

Obama did NOt oppose the Iraq Debacle? Thjat seems to be what you are saying. I agree. It is the problem the Clintons are highlighting. Let Obama run on that.
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:31:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So once we were there (none / 0)

Would you have suggested he had done so during the 2004 presidential campaign, for example?  He would have been undermining our nominee, who also voted for the AUMF.


by Shaun Appleby on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 02:33:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No (none / 0)

I clearly argued that he needed to do something AFTER the 2006 election. As for rhetoric, he needed to amp it up the MOMENT he became a Senator. this was a failure of leadership by Obama and I am sick and tired of people pretending it was not. That Hillary failed too is NO EXCUSE.
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 02:53:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

Whoa, this is recent history.  The party was critically divided on this, you didn't see a lot of seated Democrats aligning with our more outspoken advocates, did you?  Just cast your mind back to the  situation we were in prior to the 2006 mid-term election.

Please read the full context of the statement that is being used to relegate his opposition to 'fairy tale' status, that 'There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.':

...Obama, the U.S. Senate candidate from Illinois, said he believes the Bush administration has lost too much credibility in the world community to administer the policies necessary to stabilize Iraq.

"On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago," Obama said during a luncheon meeting with editors and reporters of Tribune newspapers. "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute."

Chicago Tribune 24 Jul 04

Hello?  And the next day he said this:


OBAMA: You know, I didn't have the information that was available to senators. I know that, as somebody who was thinking about a U.S. Senate race, I think it was a mistake, and I think I would have voted no.

BLITZER: You would have voted no at the time?

OBAMA: That's correct.

BLITZER: Kerry, of course, and Edwards both voted yes.

OBAMA: But keep in mind, I think this is a tough question and a tough call. What I do think is that if you're going to make these tough calls, you have to do so in a transparent way, in an honest way, talk to the American people, trust their judgment.

CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer Transcript 25 Jul 04

And that was when his party's leaders had largely voted for it before they voted against it.  Until the 2006 mid-term, can you describe a coherent Democratic policy or platform for dealing with the war which attracted anything remotely resembling a majority of sitting Democrats?  


by Shaun Appleby on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 03:39:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So once we were there (none / 0)

I think this is exactly the point.

He was against the war, then he was unsure if he was for or against it during the 2004 election, then he was ambivalent and then he was for it.

I appreciate that in 2004 he was unsure because that was politically expedient and that he was subsequently for it because it's all about 'supporting our troops' (which has no real political alternative).

This all says he is a politician like any other. No one blames him for this.

It's just his attempt to make it seem like he was always categorically against the war that riles people.


by kristoph on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 04:22:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton on Obama Actions (2.00 / 1)

I don't know about the candidates but I will tell you what the supporters - like you - say about your opponents and their candidates speaks (to me at least) volumes about the Obama 'candidacy of inclusion'.


by kristoph on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:46:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Completely Rovian (1.66 / 3)

Does anyone else around here find that recent Clintonian rhetoric reminds you of Orwell's 1984?

1) BC distorts Obama's position on the war by pulling one sentence, of one statement, entirely out of context, and now HRC does the same this is a profoundly disengenuous distortion;

2) Team Hillary sends out a mailer and an e-mail attack, in NH, totally distorting Obama record on Choice.

3) Team Hillary has sent out a mailer in Nevada completely distorting Obama proposal to raise the cap on SS contributions. The piece lies about who will pay (the top 4%) and the amount of money.

4) BC and HRC make statements that many AAs find offensive. When two prominent AA leaders, Brazile and Clyburn express these concerns, the Clinton camp tries to flip it around and accuses the Obama camp of "playing the race card" and "distorting her remarks."

5) Clinton allies in Nevada go to court to try a little Republican style voter suppression.

The Clintons appear to have gone completely over to the "dark-side." I think almost any neutral observer would find these actions troubling.

I know that the rabid HRC supporters will continue to deny it, but it seems to me that the Clintons' own actions are confirming many of our worst fears. They are damaging the party and the prospects of whoever wins the nomination.

How do you defend this pattern of behavior?


by upper left on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:02:13 PM EST

1984 (none / 0)

Just began rereading it. Amazing book. Absolutely everything that's happened politically in the last 8-10 years reminds me of 1984, include Dennis Kucinich's proposal to rename (or replace?) the Defense Department the Department of Peace.


by Coral on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:28:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Completely Rovian (2.00 / 2)

I think the Clintons are doing very real and lasting damage to the party.  Dems need intellectuals, working class dems, AAs, Asian Americans and Hispanics all coming together to build a majority coalition capable of actually driving change.  The Clinton's actions are going to lead to increasing divisions and bitterness among the Dem coalition.

The Clintons seemed to have convinced themselves that they are the only Dems who can beat the Repubs, from this they seem to have concluded that all tactics are justified.

The bottom line is simple:

Clintons believe change is top down.

Obama believes that change comes from the bottom up.

If we want change we have to stop supporting candidates that act like Republicans.


by upper left on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:29:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh the melodrama (2.00 / 0)

Puhleeaze.
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:32:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh the misdirection (none / 0)

Why don't you try addressing the substance of my post?  Are you willing to defend voter suppression and race baiting? Puleeze yourself.


by upper left on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:36:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No (2.00 / 1)

I do not defend Jesse Jackson Jr's comments at all nor do I defend Bill Burton's remarks. Yes, the FREAKING melodrama from you is pathetic.
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:38:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh the misdirection (none / 0)

I listed a set of actions taken by the Clintons.  Are you willing to dispute the validity of my list or willing to defend these actions?


by upper left on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:55:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh the misdirection (none / 0)

I'm an Edwardian, but this is silly:

1) Did Bill Clinton distort Obama's position on the war by pulling one sentence, of one statement,  out of context, and is Senator Cliton doing the same?

2) Did Clinton's team distorting Obama's record on choice in NH?

3) Did Clinton's team distort Obama proposal to raise the cap on SS contributions in Nevada?

4) Are the Clintons making statements that many (well, I'd say 'some', but that's OP's statement) AAs find offensive?

5) Are Clinton allies in Nevada trying a little Republican style voter suppression?

At least three of these seem perfectly reasonable questions.


by BingoL on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 01:28:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh the misdirection (none / 0)

1. No.  If anything, they should have gone further and pointed out (as I have done numerous times) that Obama actively opposed strongly "setting a date certain" in 2006, and reaffirmed that strong opposition in 2 Senate floor speeches.   He helped defeat that measure, instead choosing to a wishy-washy nothing of a resolution that basically asked Bush to do the right thing.

2. Obama's voting record is marked by strategic "present" votes, including when it came to some choice votes.  It is fair to point at that history.

3. How did the Clinton team distort Obama's proposal to raise the cap on SS?   Proof please.  I have not seen a thing, so it just seems like BS to me (unless proof is brought to this placE)

4. We shall see.  I think a lot of AA's find the yelps of racism offensive for what ridiculously is called "code" on staements like FAIRYTALE, INEXPERIENCED.  

5. From what I can tell, Edwards' supporters are included in the group of plaintiffs.  Are Edwards allies engaging in Republican-style voter suppression?

I don't see any "there" here, but you obviously do.  It is cool.  Let the voters decide.  (

BTW, as someone who is from Florida the charges of voter suppression are a hoot, coming from Obama and Edwards supporters.  The reason you all howled so hard that the DNC dish out major penalties (above and beyond the penalty the rules provided for, which was a loss of HALF of all delegats) was because Clinton showed far, far ahead in both Florida and Michigan, and you feared that those two states would ice the election for her.  Talk about massive voter suppression.


by georgep on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 02:19:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh the misdirection (none / 0)

"2. Obama's voting record is marked by strategic "present" votes, including when it came to some choice votes.  It is fair to point at that history."

That lie which continues to be repeated by the Hillaryites is bs.  and You know it.  


Listening comes first
by Moonwood on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 02:50:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is demonstrably true (none / 0)

Indeed, the STRATEGIC part is what Obama argues.
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 02:54:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh the misdirection (2.00 / 0)

Honestly, I don't see substance in your post.  If there were, it would be addressed.   Seems more like a smear to me.  


by georgep on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 01:59:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

uh huh.....right..... (none / 0)

and you is one of them-thar "intellectuals", right?

Right...


Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!
by Seymour Glass on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:36:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: uh huh.....right..... (none / 0)

It is no wonder you support Clinton.  

Her personality and political style seem to be a perfect fit for you.


by upper left on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:52:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Completely Rovian (2.00 / 0)

I think the Clintons are doing very real and lasting damage to the party.  Dems need intellectuals, working class dems, AAs, Asian Americans and Hispanics all coming together to build a majority coalition capable of actually driving change.  The Clinton's actions are going to lead to increasing divisions and bitterness among the Dem coalition.

So anyone who runs for president is dividing the country? Because anyone who runs for president has different factions of the party backing them.

Obama, for example, doesn't have the support of working class blue collar workers,or most of the major unions that represent the democratic base.


by world dictator on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:39:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Completely Rovian (none / 0)

It is about the tactics that the Clintons use.

Legitimate policy debates are fine.  Consistently distorting your opponents positions is Rovian.  When you get called out by neutral observers who are not supporting any candidate for questionable comments about race, it is divisive to blame your opponent rather than just clarify that no offense was intended.

Must you defend everything the Clintons do?  Are you capable of acknowledging that your candidate does anything wrong?  I posted at TPM that I thought the JJ jr's comments were offensive and stupid.  I don't see many in the Clinton camp who are willing to hold her accountable for anything she or BC say.  


by upper left on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 01:03:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Completely Rovian (2.00 / 0)

I have never seen you taken Obama or his wife to task for their MANY, MANY offensive and Rovian-like comments.  In your mind he can't do wrong, but in reality has done wrong plenty.  

Frankly, this RACISM crap you are on is offensive, and if I were on the fence between the two, you would push me squarely into Clinton's camp.  I guess we'll see, but I think a lot of people find the sour grapish behavior from the Obama team and his supporters equally offensive, and are being pushed away from him more and more.    


by georgep on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 02:27:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Completely Rovian (none / 0)

I just said that I think JJ Jr's comments were offensive. Do you need my link to my comment over at TPM?

I did not accuse the Clintons of racism.  What I said is that if the offense, taken by AA community leaders like Brazile and Clyburn, was unintended, then Team Hillary should have simply clarified that no offense was intended.

Instead, they tried a little political jujitsu and are claiming that they have been attacked.  IMHO, that is disengenuous and Rovian.  I do not think that the Clintons are racists.  But I do think it quite possible that they would be willing to raise racial issues if they thought it would help HRC win the Presidency.  Claiming that "Obama played the race card" when Obama's campaign has not even commented on HRCs statement about King and Johnson seems highly suspicious to me.  Obama has been running an almost entirely race neutral campaign.  I think HRC is trying to turn him into a "black candidate"  rather than "a candidate who happens to be black."

I think if you are honest with yourself, you will be forced to admit that it appears that the Clintons are trying to play this to HRC advantage.  I find that very unfortunate and very divisive.


by upper left on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 07:47:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Completely Rovian (none / 0)

Legitimate policy debates are fine.  Consistently distorting your opponents positions is Rovian.  When you get called out by neutral observers who are not supporting any candidate for questionable comments about race, it is divisive to blame your opponent rather than just clarify that no offense was intended.

Okay lets have this debate. Obama's health care plan, as reporterd by neutral observers, point out that he leaves 15 million people uncovered and leaves open the insured population to high health care costs.

I win.


by world dictator on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 04:10:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Completely Rovian (none / 0)

Actually, no you don't.  I have been a health policy professional for twenty years.  I was advocating for single payer over two decades ago.  I agree with Obama that although single payer would be a much better system, it is not politically feasible at this time.  I also agree with him, as do many others, that individual mandates are questionable public policy and almost certainly bad politics.

The 15 million figure is highly questionable, it assumes that no one will "choose" to buy individual policies unless they are forced to.  Obama's point is that if you impose stringent cost control measures, and make policies more affordable, many of the uninsured will be able to afford coverage.

Health policy is more about the politics than the policy.  I think mandates are a sop to the insurance industry and a political loser.


by upper left on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:01:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Completely Rovian (none / 0)

you haven't made one argument. For someone in the health profession you don't seem to know much. Furthermore, working in the health industry doesn't make you qualified to argue the politics or policy of insuring all. Try using supporting materials and maybe I'll believe you.


by world dictator on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:47:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is the one who is damaging (none / 0)

The concerns were expressed by Brazile and Clyburn, neither of whom is supporting any candidate.

Rather than accepting responsibility and clarifying that no offense was intended, Clinton tries to blame Obama.  This is Orwellian.


by upper left on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 01:06:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is the one who is damaging (2.00 / 0)

According to CNN this morning, Obama had a conference call with the press and said "he would not say if the Bill and Hill remarks offended him but that some, including Clinton supporters, were offended." Obama is playing the race card for political gain. Obama is unbelievable. How dare he accuse Hillary Clinton of being a racist.


by lonnette33 on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 01:11:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is the one who is damaging (none / 0)

It's politics as usual.

He needs SC desperately and the playing the race card is effective in SC.

Personally I think this will have a very negative impact on him on 2/5 but I guess his team figures people will have short memories.


by kristoph on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 04:37:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is the one who is damaging (none / 0)

Your missing the point.  HRC is not a racist, but it may be in her interest to inject the issue of race into the battle for the nomination.  Keep your eye on the ball, observe your candidate's strategy and tactics.  It is deeply troubling.


by upper left on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:15:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is the one who is damaging (none / 0)

Obama's campaign did not distribute this memo at all.  The memo, if genuine, appears to have been an internal document only intended to get his staff up to speed on the controversy. Obama had not made any comment in response to HRC's comments about King and Johnson.  


by upper left on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:07:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is the one who is damaging (2.00 / 0)

MAJOR damage to the party.  Then again, the party has never been that important to Obama, as he transcends parties anyway.  


by georgep on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 02:28:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is the one who is damaging (none / 0)

Obama is transcendent. Any day now Chris Mathews will claim that it's fact that Obama walks on water.


by kristoph on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 04:38:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Completely Rovian (none / 0)

Because race baiting is, you know, the epitome of inclusive politics.

Seriously, you need to look past your bias. They are both politicians, they will do what they need to win the nomination.


by kristoph on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 04:25:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton on Obama Actions (2.00 / 0)

She was extremely effective today.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:02:18 PM EST

Re: Clinton on Obama Actions (none / 0)

If that's the tone she is going to use against her critics, it is very unpleasant to listen to and watch. She's just an unpleasant person at times, and at other times she is very personable.


Dare to be free.
by misscee on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:19:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton on Obama Actions (2.00 / 0)

its sad that people like you are so partisian that you can't even say she had a good appearance.


by world dictator on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:40:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton on Obama Actions (none / 0)

you all need to get real. I DON"T HAVE TO LIKE HER, OR THINK HER APPEARANCE WAS ANYTHING BUT MORE CRAP. THIS IS AMERICA. Got it?


Dare to be free.
by misscee on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 04:00:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton on Obama Actions (none / 0)

... you only need to read this thread to determine who is less then civilized against their critics.


by kristoph on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 04:40:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton Smart and Competent (2.00 / 0)

Clinton kicked ass!


by BigBoyBlue on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:11:37 PM EST

Re: Clinton positively Orwellian (none / 0)

If you don't mind distortion, misrepresentation and a constant stream of negativity....


by upper left on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:15:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you are talking about GE's Russert (none / 0)

Right?


Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!
by Seymour Glass on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:27:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think one of the main arguments before 2/5... (none / 0)

that they will use is electability.  Risk of losing.  The combination of Obama's appeal to independents, lower negatives and wins in Nevada and South Carolina, showing wide geographic appeal, is a pretty good argument.


Our Moment Is Now
by mboehm on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:12:08 PM EST

Re: (none / 0)

You are ALREADY putting Nevada in the WIN column for Obama?  Amazing.  NH has not taught anything.   Hubris before the fall.


by georgep on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 02:30:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton on Obama Actions (2.00 / 0)

Obama's negatives are not lower than Clinton's.
by americanincanada on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:21:28 PM EST

Russert ALWAYS (2.00 / 0)

cherry picks polls that make hill look bad. {hey -just like Obamaites!} The last time she was on that show - he ignored the latest nbc poll - to quote from one that was weeks old to make her look bad.

In many polls,Obama s negatives are equal to Hillrys and he has gotten nothing but a fawning press.  Where would he be after a GOP campaign?

Why are so many people so dense about this?


Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!
by Seymour Glass on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:33:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russert ALWAYS (2.00 / 1)

If you looked closely at the poll numbers Russert showed you would have seen they were from mid December for god's sake.
by americanincanada on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:46:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton on Obama Actions (2.00 / 3)

I love that all the Clinton supporters can say is that she was effective. Karl Rove was one of the most effective political operatives we've seen in a long time. Big deal. It's an amoral judgment. As BO says, we have to start focusing on, not just how to win, but why we should. Clinton's tactics are so depressing. Not just for the Democratic party, but for the country. I am so tired of politicians saying things that they themselves know are not true.
by larichardson73 on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:24:51 PM EST

Re: Clinton on Obama Actions (2.00 / 1)

You accuse her of being immoral without pointing out what she did that is immoral. I think Obama's actions of using right wing talking points and attacking the democratic base have a lot more damage to the party then "right wing tactics"


by world dictator on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:42:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton on Obama Actions (2.00 / 1)

No, you misread my post. I didn't say she was immoral. What I said was this: To say that she was "effective" on MTP is an amoral judgment. It is not enough for someone to be "effective". The tactics that they are using matter. The ends do not justify the means. Karl Rove was effective too. But his tactics further divided this country. Oh, and speaking of right wing talking points. How about Clinton running an anti-tax campaign against Obama in Nevada. Telling voters that Obama will raise their taxes to save social security. Sounds pretty right wing to me. Or, how about her playing the "what if we had another terrorist attack" card in New Hampshire. Right out of the right wing play book.
by larichardson73 on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 01:56:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton on Obama Actions (none / 0)

Proof please.  Where has Hillary Clinton telling voters that Obama will raise THEIR taxes to save social security.  I have seen what she has said in Nevada so far, and not a single statement matches what you claim here.   Isn't that what you are railing against?  Making stuff up?  Why are you doing it then?  Get the EXACT QUOTES instead of cheap innuendo, then we'll talk about it.   I have seen no shred of proof that Clinton has stated that Obama would raise taxes on ALL citizens to fix SS, yet here you claim she did.   That is what I would call "making stuff up."


by georgep on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 02:35:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton on Obama Actions (2.00 / 0)

Right, so you must be depressed with Obama's campaigns suggestions that the Clintons are racist.


by StrongDem08 on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:44:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton on Obama Actions (none / 0)

Lovely. If one person is effective, then she is the same as another person who was effective.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 03:48:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

its not like it wasnt 100% expected (2.00 / 2)

but it still was AMAZING to watch russert perform completely as an obama campaign surrogate instead of as an unbiased quizzer.

it was like he was sitting in for Obama in a one on one debate, except that only he got to use scipted attacks, a pile of notes and quotes and only he got ask ALL the questions -

and STILL she bested him every turn.

Amazing.

These GE/MSNBC/MSM clowns think that they can destroy her, while in truth, they only make her seem stronger.


Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!
by Seymour Glass on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:25:56 PM EST

Re: its not like it wasnt 100% expected (none / 0)

Have you ever watched MTP? That's how he always is ....


by tom32182 on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:35:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: its not like it wasnt 100% expected (2.00 / 0)

Russert is a tough questionaer, but this was like a police interrogation. Obama got kid glove treatment on MTP. This was not the usual Russert.  This was Russert bringing every gun and bomb he had.  On the other hand, he brought his peashooter to the Obama interview.


by StrongDem08 on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:45:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not even close (none / 0)

He obviously treats some subjects as friends and some as enemies.


by Trickster on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:50:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's the way he always is (none / 0)

when his guest is a Democrat. His major bias is toward economic royalists. His most impassioned moment was challenging Clinton on "polarization," when, from the context, you could tell that his real concern was that she can effectively combat Republicans.


by Pacific John on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:51:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton on Obama Actions (2.00 / 1)

Obama's response:


What we saw this morning is why the American people are tired of Washington politicians and the games they play. But Senator Clinton made an unfortunate remark, an ill advised remark, about King and Lyndon Johnson. I didn't make the statement. I haven't remarked on it and she I think offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King's role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act. She is free to explain that, but the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous.

I have to point out that instead of telling the American people about her positive vision for America, Senator Clinton spent an hour talking about me and my record in a way that was flat out wrong. She suggested that I didn't clearly and unambiguously oppose the war in Iraq when it is absolutely clear and anyone who has followed this knows that I did. I stood up against the war when she was voting for it, at a time when she didn't read the intelligence reports or give diplomacy a chance. She belittled the most sweeping ethics reform since Watergate despite the fact that she stood on the sidelines during that negotiations on that bill.

I have to say that she started this campaign saying that she wanted to make history and lately she has been spending a lot of time rewriting it. I know that in Washington it is acceptable to say or do anything it takes to get elected but I really don't think that is the kind of politics that is good for our party and I don't think it is good for our country and I think that the American people will reject it in this election. What I want to do is spend talking about how we are going to make sure that people who are losing their jobs get work. How are we going to make sure that our young people are going to afford college? How are we going to make sure that the sub-prime lending crisis does not lead to an all out recession? How are we going to create the kind of foreign policy that allows us to bring our troops home and makes us safer and goes after a genuine terrorist threat? Those are the issues that we are going to spend time talking about in this campaign and if Senator Clinton wants to be distracted by the sorts of political point scoring that was evident today then that is going to be her prerogative.


by Piuma on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:40:36 PM EST

give me a break, Piuma (2.00 / 4)

Are you telling me that the Obama campaign is not trying to make political hay out of HRC's LBJ remark and several other comments the Obama camp views as racist?


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:42:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: give me a break, Piuma (none / 0)

Give me a break, Piuma?  I posted Obama's response without comment, without editorialization and you say give me a break?

But to answer your question, I think many people gave their honest response to the Clinton statement and undoubtedly some campaigners have tried to use those responses toward political gain.  But certainly Obama himself has not and that's the big difference here - the candidates themselves. And as far as the responses go, Donna Brazelle is not an Obama supporter.  If anything she is a natural Clinton supporter.  When she says she finds the tone of the Clinton campaign to be "depressing", this is an honest remark, not one done out of partisanship.  When they start pushing aside Donna Brazelle, then they are doing something we should all sit up and take notice of.  I agree with Donna, I find the tone depressing.  I'm not an Edwards supporter but I have no problem with how he has run his campaign.  I do with Clinton, not just her operatives, but her comments and the comments of her husband.  


by Piuma on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:58:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bwahahahaha (none / 0)

So NOw surrogate and the campaign DO NOT COUNT? Now there is a flip flop from you.
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 01:11:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: give me a break, Piuma (none / 0)

The comments came from Clyburn and Brazile not the Obama camp.  Someone released an internal document that may or may not have been from the campaign but no public accusation has been made.


by upper left on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 01:12:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It was FROM the campaign (2.00 / 0)

No may or may not.
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 01:38:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton on Obama Actions (2.00 / 0)

Even if you disagree with Clinton, an even slightly charitable interpretation of her comments would show that she wasn't MLK bashing. I'm tired of people playing the race card in politics and really thats what it is.

There's no reason why saying, we need a president with political skill and courage to pass legislation is racist or king bashing. When I cast my vote it won't just be for Clinton, it will be against Obama. I'm sorry but  I really am tired of it.


by world dictator on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:45:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton on Obama Actions (none / 0)

Please continue down this road Obama.  This comment will be the death of Obama! Mark my words.


by lonnette33 on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:48:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What a weak statement (none / 0)

This is utterly misleading:
I haven't remarked on it
His CAMPAIGN has day after freaking day. hell HE did too in New Hampshire. Actually it is more than misleading, it is a lie.
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:49:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What a weak statement (2.00 / 0)

And it is a particularly weak statement given that the Obama campaign is clearly responsible for putting out memos and talking points, fanning the flames on this issue.  For some reason, they must be worried about SC, because once this issue goes national (outside of SC) it is the death knell for Obama.


by StrongDem08 on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:54:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Where are the memos? (none / 0)

Where are the talking points? You made an accusation back it up


Listening comes first
by Moonwood on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 03:03:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where are the memos? (none / 0)

I think this sufficiently backs up the proposition:

MARTIN LUTHER KING / LYNDON JOHNSON COMPARISON

Clinton, Criticizing Obama For Promising "False Hope" Said That While MLK Jr. Spoke On Behalf Of Civil Rights, President Lyndon Johnson Was The One Who Got Legislation Passed: "It Took A President To Get It Done." Clinton rejoined the running argument over hope and "false hope" in an interview in Dover this afternoon, reminding Fox's Major Garrett that while Martin Luther King Jr. spoke on behalf of civil rights, President Lyndon Johnson was the one who got the legislation passed. ... .. [Politico, 1/7/08; Video]

Clinton Introducer Said JFK Gave Hope, But Was Assassinated. Clinton introducer: "If you look back, some people have been comparing one of the other candidates to JFK and he was a wonderful leader, he gave us a lot of hope but he was assassinated and Lyndon Baines Johnson actually did all his work and got the republicans to pass all those measures." [HRC, Dover, NH, 1/7/08] AUDIO ATTACHED

NELSON MANDELA

Bill Clinton Implied Hillary Clinton Is Stronger Than Nelson Mandela. "I have been blessed in my life to know some of the greatest figures of the last hundred years. [...] I go to Nelson Mandela's birthday party every year and we're still very close. [...] But if you said to me, 'You've got one last job for your country but it's hazardous and you may not get out with life and limb intact and you have to do it alone except I'll let you take one other person, and I had to pick one person whom I knew who would never blink, who would never turn back, who would make great decisions [...] I would pick Hillary.'" [ABC News, 1/7/08; Audio]

DRUG USE

Clinton's NH Campaign Chair Raised The Youthful Drug Use Of Obama And Said It Would "Open The Door To Further Queries On The Matter." Clinton's Campaign Issued A Statement Distancing Themselves From Shaheen's Comments And Shaheen Issued A Statement Saying That He "Deeply Regret[s] The Comments." ... .. "There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. ... .. Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer had issued a statement asserting that "these comments were not authorized or condoned by the campaign in any way." And Shaheen himself issued a statement: "I deeply regret the comments I made today and they were not authorized by the campaign in any way." [ABC News, 12/12/07]

... ... --snip-- ... ...

Amaya Smith
South Carolina Press Secretary
Obama for America
803-------- x ---
cell: 803--------

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12 /obama-camps-memo-on-clin_n_81205.html


by StrongDem08 on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 03:43:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Interesting transition (none / 0)

From spending the first 1/3 of his statement jumping on HRC for her innocuous MLK/LBJ remarks to spending the last 1/3 of it excoriating her for "political point scoring."


by Trickster on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 12:52:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama telegraphs his game plan (none / 0)

There you see it. He's elevating race as an issue for SC in that first paragraph. He's not playing it down, he's not defusing it, he's not setting it aside.

My theory is that he is making this Hail Mary pass for SC because of what NH exposed. In NH, his team saw that women will quietly retaliate against commonplace misogyny in the secrecy of the voting booth. This is, to be sure, identity politics that strongly support Clinton, and are probably insurmountable without major destabilizing events.

One of the few things that Obama has under his control is activating his own identity politics in SC. It's damn dangerous, because it's a one-state strategy that will sink him with white centrists if it is echoed elsewhere.


by Pacific John on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 01:04:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama telegraphs his game plan (none / 0)

I think Obama's had a relatively free ride for a long time, but we should be careful not to overstate matters. Having gone door-to-door canvassing for Clinton in New Hampshire, I can say that I was personally stunned by how many people hadn't made up their minds, even 01/08/2008. Personally, I made up my own mind in support of Hillary about thirty years ago as a resident of Arkansas, but there are still people out there who haven't made up their minds (incomprehensible though this may be to political junkies like us).


by Pacifist on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 04:30:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not to overstate things... (none / 0)

After IA, I'm not about to bet on anything. I don't think the ground gives Clinton an insurmountable advantage, just a good advantage.

But the behavior of Obama's campaign shows they see things more pessimistically. They act deeply shaken. They may be over-reacting, but their gamble to elevate racial polarization shows that they are willing to jettison their entire strategy of transcending divisions. They act like SC is do or die, like Hillary's advantages are otherwise insurmountable.


by Pacific John on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 07:16:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton on Obama Actions (2.00 / 0)

I'm calling you on it. You are a disgr