You Think Hillary Said What?

The reality-based community died a little bit last night when two diaries on the dailyKos rec list, not to mention post after post around the blogosphere, asserted that (or at best wondered whether) Hillary Clinton "picks McCain over Obama." The concern trolling over Hillary Clinton's true partisan allegiances were based on a response she made to reporters about whether she or Obama would be best to go up against John McCain. While clumsy to be sure, her response is revealed to be merely the same electability argument she's been advancing in various forms since McCain became the presumptive GOP nominee.

Hillary Clinton told reporters that both she and the presumtive Republican nominee John McCain offer the experience to be ready to tackle any crisis facing the country under their watch, but Barack Obama simply offers more rhetoric. "I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say," she said. "He's never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002."

We can argue whether her words were well-chosen and whether she should be advancing arguments against Obama in the primary that McCain can use against him in the general if he's the nominee, I get that, but the idea that this is somehow Clinton betraying Democrats and expressing a preference for the Republican over the Democrat is ridiculous. Of all things one can say about Hillary Clinton, questioning where her partisan leanings lie isn't one of them, as many speeches she's given have made clear.

Here's just one of them, Hillary Clinton's speech to the Iowa Jefferson Jackson dinner in November:

You know, on January 20th, 2009, someone will stand on the steps of the Capitol and raise his or her hand - [Applause] - to take the oath of office as the 44th President of the United States of America. And we are here tonight to make sure that that next president is a Democrat. [Applause] Because, we know, after seven years of George W. Bush, seven years of incompetence, cronyism, and corruption, seven years of a government of the few by the few and for the few. We, as a nation cannot afford any other choice.

We have to have a Democratic president because we have big challenges to meet. We have a war to end. We have an economy to revive. We have a 47 million Americans to insure. We have an energy crisis to solve. We have a homeland to protect, we have alliances to rebuild and we have a world to lead. So, we are ready for change. [...]

You know, you listen to the Republicans who are running this year, they see eight more years of George Bush. They see a nine trillion dollar debt and say let's spend trillions more. They see that we had one rush to war and then say, wait, wait, why have one more? Well, I think we are going to tell them, in the course of this campaign, that they do not have any more time. America is done with the Republicans and their failed policies and their refusal to give America back the future that we deserve. But we Democrats, we have to decide what we are for. We Democrats believe that the middle class is the backbone of our country and the guarantor of the American dream. so, when the Republicans stand by and watch rising gas prices and rising health care costs and increase in college tuition and falling housing prices, and struggling families, and they have turned china into our banker, what are we going to do?

Turn up the heat!

And we Democrats, we believe that every child has a god-given potential that we want to help unlock. So, when the Republicans cut Head Start, and refuse to fix No Child Left Behind? What do we do?

Turn up the heat!

And when we Democrats fight for universal health care and the Republicans veto health care for child and the let the insurance companies and the drug companies undermine health care for the rest of us, what do we do?

Turn up the heat!

And we Democrats, we believe in labor rights and women's rights and gay rights, and civil rights.

[Applause]

And we believe in a department of labor that is actually pro labor, and a Department of Justice that delivers justice. So, when the Republicans tried to turn the clock back on women's rights, when they tried to stomp out labor unions, when they try to undermine civil rights, what do we do?

Turn up the heat!

And we Democrats, we believe in protecting the environment and we believe in solving the energy crisis. So, when the Republicans turn over our energy policy to the oil companies and deny global warming, what do we do?

Turn up the heat!

And we Democrats, we believe in a government that works for all Americans again. We actually believe in appointing qualified people to do the jobs in the United States Government. So, when the Republicans stock the government with their cronies, when they give no-bid contracts to Halliburton and legal immunity to Blackwater, what do we do?

Turn up the heat!

And we Democrats, we believe in the power of science and innovation. We know it can lift up lives and grow the economy, so when President Bush declares a war on science, when he bans stem cell research, when he tries to turn Washington into an evidence free zone and put ideology in front of facts. What do we do?

Turn up the heat!

And finally, we believe that our country is both great and good. And as president, I will end the war in Iraq, end the era of cowboy diplomacy and restore America's standing and leadership in the world.

[editor's note, by Todd Beeton]Edited to make my own post more consistent with reality. Sorry for carelessly jumping to conclusions, JEDReport.



Display:


Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (1.66 / 3)

Well, I would be mad about it if Obama supporters had not excused Obama for talking up Ronald Reagan and the Republicans.

I guess you can call it a wash now.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:07:31 PM EST

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (2.00 / 1)

First of all talking up a dead President regardless of party affiliation is nowhere near as damaging to our party as talking up the opponent we have RIGHT now.

You can argue whether or not she is "choosing McCain," and I don't think she is...but saying what she said was stupid and could not only hurt Obama but could also hurt her in a GE.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:09:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (2.00 / 1)

Nope, I consider either equally as bad. Obama reinforced the GOP myth that people like McCain are running on.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:15:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (2.00 / 1)

Wow... to be blunt I thought you were smarter than that.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:18:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (2.00 / 1)

McCain is running on the Reagan myth is he not? Isn't he hauling Nancy Reagan around with him? Buying into that myth only helps McCain with his narrative.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:23:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

But you know that these are nowhere near the same thing...furthermore you strike me as someone who, under normal circumstances, would never advocate the idea that two wrongs make a right... so either I was wrong about you OR you are letting your belief in Hillary cloud your common sense.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:33:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (2.00 / 1)

I'm certainly not saying that two wrongs make a right. Obama was wrong to praise Reagan and Hillary was wrong to praise McCain. I see praising Republicans, whether living or dead, as equally bad. Both of them help the GOP.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:45:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

Then if you believe that you should be as incensed by this as you likely were during the Obama flap, instead of simply saying "its a wash."

IF the situations were reversed I don't think you would be calling it a wash; I think you'd be calling for Obama's head.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:00:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (2.00 / 2)

Ugh!!!!

Hillary is not praising McCain.  She is saying he has much more experience than Obama.  Watch Obama try to turn that in the general and say, "Washington is where good ideas go to die" sort of BS.  Obama does not disagree with the assertion that he has far less experience than either Clinton or McCain.  If he does, he is an idiot - and he is suggesting that the 95% of people voting for Hillary for the "expeerience" factor are idiots as well.


by mikes101 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:23:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (2.00 / 1)

She is PRAISING McCain. Just because she is praising him with something we already know doesn't mean it isn't praise. She also, in the same setence, denigrated Obama when comparing him to McCain- it doesn't matter if it is true you don't do that to fellow Democrats.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:32:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

The HRC campaign has been throwing the kitchen sink all along.

They were the ones pushing the fake madrassa story.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/o bama.madrassa/


--1jphusseinb-- she's not a monster, as far as I know--diplomat Sinbad, making the world safe--all bluster, no cattle--
by 1jpb on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:53:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

and Obamabots pushed the "Elizabeth is dying" lie.


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:26:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

If you actually found the exact text of what Obama said about Reagan, you'd realize he wasn't praising him. He was merely discussing the role that Reagan played in American politics - accomplishments in energizing an electorate that none of us can deny.

Get your facts straight and then we forego the useless bickering about things like this.


by desertjedi on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:20:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (2.00 / 1)

You are aware that HRC listed Ronald Reagan among the former Presidents whom she admires, correct?


by goodnbad on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:09:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (2.00 / 1)

She's allowed to...but if Obama does it is undemocratic...I got the memo- didn't you?


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:13:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (1.00 / 1)

I remember that. It's not the same.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:15:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Because (none / 0)

Clinton's been vetted, right?

She's "perfect" and can do no wrong because she's been "vetted" already...

Do I win a prize?


by zonk on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:20:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because (none / 0)

Huh? Seems like this is a gaffe more than anything. I don't think Obama's statement about Reagan had anything to with "vetting".


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:25:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because (none / 0)

Obamas statement about Reagan was praising his POLITICAL skills, not his...

ya know what,nevermind,  you're a concern troll. I'm not bothering dignifying your feigned ignorance with a response...


Two riders were approaching......the wind begins to howl!
by John in Chicago on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:37:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (2.00 / 1)

That's debatable.

Obama never praised Reagan, he merely pointed out the fact that Regan fundamentally changed the direction of American politics.

Not to Godwin here, but were I to say that Adolf Hiter significantly changed the course of world history, am I praising him?  Or stating a fact?

Clinton, on the other hand, said that she admired Reagan.

Disclaimer: I have no problem with HRC's remarks.  Just trying to debunk hypocrisy.


by goodnbad on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:24:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (2.00 / 1)

Didn't Obama say that the GOP is the party of ideas?

Like I said upthread, call it a wash between the two on this issue.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:26:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

Ideas that he made clear he disagrees with, but who cares about context...


by HSTruman on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:34:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

Well he didn't say that in the interview. He said that they were bad later on.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:46:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (2.00 / 1)

Actually, he DID say that in the interview if you listen to the whole thing.  But again, who cares about context.  


by HSTruman on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:33:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (2.00 / 1)

he said that they were the party of ideas AT THAT TIME not that they ARE the party of ideas. Again, two different things.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:35:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not about Regan (2.00 / 1)

He said the Republicans were the party of ideas for the last 10-15 years.  That doesn't cover Reagan.  Of course, it is saying that Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay and George Bush were the party of ideas while Bill Clinton and the rest of our party didn't for the last 10-15 years.

There were two separate comments from Obama -- one praising Reagan as a transcendent figure and one praising Republicans as the party of ideas for the last 10-15 years (which was really meant as an attack on Bill).

In the South Carolina debate, Hillary attacked the comment about ideas. She distorted his words by saying he had said he liked their ideas or said they were the party of good ideas or something like that.

But then Obama gave an equally distorted answer by replying that he never praised Regaan, just said he was transcendent.  Hillary tried to say "I never said anything about Ronald  Reagan", but Obama's rhetorical sleight of hand conflated the two and successfully confused many Democrats about what he actually (and why it was so harmful).


by dcg2 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:35:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes but (none / 0)

Hillary should have destroyed Obama after that Reno Gazette interview and she did not.  Instead, her team took the phony race card hits from the Obama team.  I would not have sat back and let Obama lie about what Bill Clinton said regarding the South Carolina voting pool.  All Clinton did was tell the truth that blacks are almost all voting for Obama and Hillary didn't have a chance there.  If Obama would have said that about my team, I would have shoved his words back down his throat.  He had a team ready to parse every word that came out of everyone that like Hillary just so he could play the race card and Hillary let him do it.  

They were just inept, like Kerry was inept.  Why am I not mad at Obama for doing that...?   Because politicians are assholes and those are the things they do, until they are stopped.  If Obama said that McCain is a much better person than Hillary and that McCain was not a racist, implying Hillary is, then I would have gotten angry.  


by cpa1a on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:40:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

If Obama had said: "This election is about openness in government, John McCain can put forward his achievements, I can put forward my achievemens, Hillary can put forward her campaign promises." You'd be cool with that?


by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:48:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, I await her strong statement (2.00 / 4)

that Barack Obama would be a better President and keep the country safer than John McCain would.

Bottom line is that she praised John McCain at Barack Obama's expense.  That is simply not done.


by CarolinaNumber23 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:07:50 PM EST

Re: Well, I await her strong statement (none / 0)

Why is it not done ?


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:12:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, I await her strong statement (2.00 / 3)

Because they are members of the same party and both Senators and should have more respect for one another than that...furthermore it is damaging to her as well as Obama and even more importantly it is damaging to her party.

The bottom line is the Democratic party gains nothing from a McCain Presidency- but I am not sure Hillary doesn't personally gain from it.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:14:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If you need it explained to you. (2.00 / 1)

you are truly and completely blind.


by neutron on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:33:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, I await her strong statement (none / 0)

Go away concern troll.
Two riders were approaching......the wind begins to howl!
by John in Chicago on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:38:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, I await her strong statement (2.00 / 1)

For the same reason that Barack ended the last debate by saying either he or Hillary would make a much better president than McCain-- you don't help your common enemy at the expense of your allies. Seriously, Mcain will cut the Hillary part out and then play the soundbite saying "John McCain can put up his life, etc. and Obama can bring up his speech." Then say even Hillary Clinton thinks John McCain is ready to protect America, while finding Obama lacking or some such.


by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:51:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, I await her strong statement (1.00 / 1)

Obama is lacking!  That's why we should not nominate him!


by mikes101 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:26:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, I await her strong statement (2.00 / 1)

Hillary has no integrity that's why we shouldn't nominate her, gee this non-sequiter game is fun.


by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:16:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, I await her strong statement (2.00 / 1)

I agree, but what has pushed me over the limit with Hillary is her belittling of Obama's anti-war stance.  Had she and other Senators given similar anti-war speeches, instead of choosing political expedience, more than 100,000 people might be alive today.  I've defended Hillary before (her 3 am ad, though ludicrous, wasn't over the line, and her comments on 60 minutes were misinterpreted by many), but after what she said yesterday, I'd likely not vote for her in the general (since I'm in Georgia, the Supreme Court doesn't factor into my decision).  She's well into Lieberman territory now.


by maconblue on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:18:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (2.00 / 9)

The reality based community dies a little death every time MyDD comes on my screen with its inflated Hillary delegate count.

The reality based community died a little death when MyDD bashed Obama for praising a dead Republican and is now not upset that Hillary is praising a live one.


by Bob Beard on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:12:05 PM EST

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (2.00 / 3)

amen. couldn't believe hearing those words from someone who's gotten it wrong consistently through this primary season.


!
by alex100 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:32:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary wins 16 straight and still looses (none / 0)

http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240/output /print

Mathematics is a reality that doesn't lie. The above Newsweek link is a reality-based check.


by ImpeachBushCheney on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:51:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (2.00 / 1)

I don't think she was throwing her support to McCain...that being said I wouldn't expect her to do anything to help Obama win the presidency if she loses the nomination.

A.) the fight has been to ugly and
B.) she can't run legitimately in 8 years, but I think she could in 4


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:12:29 PM EST

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

She's not running in 4; she's running tonight.


by Zeitgeist9000 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:16:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

Yes but if McCain wins the presidency she will be running again in 4 years...if Obama wins the Presidency she will never again get even a whiff of the oval office.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:20:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

Oh, I'm sure she can come when Bill gets appointed to the UN.


by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:12:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

Obama himself has made it impossible for the Clintons to help him. He has consistently trashed them and their record. And it's unlikely that Obama would be willing to help them either from what I've seen.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:18:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh really... (2.00 / 1)

Care to provide the evidence?

I bet for every Obama attack you can name against Clinton -- I can give 3 Clinton attacks on Obama.

Wanna bet?


by zonk on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:21:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh really... (none / 0)

Well, he was on the TV last night blaming Clinton for his problems. And he was trashing Bill and Hillary both with his defense of his NAFTA problem. He tries to blame the Clintons for every mistake he makes.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:27:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh really... (2.00 / 2)

Sooo....

What do those count as?

Is that 2?

Is that zero?

Whatever - just because, unlike Clinton supporters, Obama supporters can magnanimous - I'll say 2.

Here's are six in response:

-yesterday's gaggle raising her AND McCain above Obama

- the false mailers in New Hampshire attacking Obama on pro-choice (you know - the one's that caused 3 of her NH legislature supporters to write the WaPo decrying the tactic).

- the false mailers now going out saying "we can't afford Obama" because he's received so much money from the energy industry.... never mind that it turns out Hillary has received MORE

- The mocking hysterics because Obama's speeches play better than hers

- The silly plagiarism charge (ahh... the good old days, I remember when that one was going to sink Obama!)

- And for my 6th... how about the silly attack on an Obama "present" vote because he had privacy concerns on a vote that sailed through the IL senate 58-0-1?   What's the implication there, Obama was too cowardly to vote against sexual predators?


by zonk on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:48:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh really... (2.00 / 1)

Um, Is Hillary trashing Bill by attacking NAFTA? Seriously, you kind of have to let that go.


by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:13:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

From a purely strategic standpoint Obama would be willing to help her once she won the nomination regardless of how he feels personally. Eight years of a Clinton Presidency elevates the party AND elevates Obama...depending on who her VP choice was there would be a good chance that he could position himself as the presumptive nominee for 2016 (when he would still EASILY be young enough to run.)


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:24:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

Well, I hope you are right but I would think that his supporters wouldn't like it much. What do you think?


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:28:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (2.00 / 1)

I am one of his supporters and I will be VERY upset if he does not support Hillary in the GE (if she wins the nomination.) It would probably change my mind about supporting him in the future.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:36:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

Hardly. Look, to us political junkies, these attacks seem  quite vicious, but to be honest this has been a pretty civil campaign. Hillary's swipe at Obama over his speech contrasting him to herself and McCain is pretty weak tea by most standards. (And yes, Todd, it is a swipe. "Reality-based community" indeed.) But there has been nothing in this campaign that matches the viciousness and loathsomeness of Bush Sr.'s Willie Horton ad or Jr's attack on John McCain in S. Carolina or even the debate hostility between Romney and Giuliani. Those are the sort of attacks that create longterm animosity.

The kind of stuff that is giving us the vapors--OMG! endorsing McCain! O noes! 3AM ad!--are standard fare in any competitive campaign. Noses get bloody. Candidates get over it. In short, they'll get over it and endorse the other.


by Copley on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:36:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I mostly agree (2.00 / 1)

The bogus race-baiting allegations against the Clintons are about as nasty as it can possibly get in a Democratic primary.  

Really, the only mitigating thing is that it hasn't happened in TV ads, but only in the press.


by dcg2 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:39:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I mostly agree (none / 0)

Not really. We forget because it was over so fast, but the tag-team on Dean pre-Iowa was much worse. Remember the Osama ad?


by Copley on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:57:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I mostly agree (2.00 / 1)

To some extent, that's what I mean about the fact that the race-baiting allegations weren't on TV.

But which do you think turns off more Democrats?  TV ads comparing them to Osama or allegations that someone is a racist/race-baiter?  To some degree, I think the latter is the worse charge because people don't buy the former.


by dcg2 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:13:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (1.66 / 3)

It's clear by now that people will assign whatever ridiculous meaning to Hillary's words that they damn well please.  Hillary can say 10 different ways that she doesn't believe Obama is a Muslim, and the talking point will be that she hedged.  There's no point in wasting time fighting against this sort of irrationality; let people think Hillary is the devil if they choose.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:13:44 PM EST

It's equally clear (none / 0)

that many folks will, under no circumstances, admit that she said or did something "wrong" simply because she's been "vetted" or something.

It's patently ridiculous that just because she's been attacked by the GOP for 16 years, suddenly any pecadilloes from her past or her actions are somehow 'off limits' or 'old news'.


by zonk on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:18:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's equally clear (2.00 / 1)

You'll have to explain to me how that has anything to do with this post.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:28:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's equally clear (2.00 / 2)

It's got everything to do with your post.

You're positing that Clinton's simply the victim (yet again) of having her words twisted... that Obama supporters think only ill of what she says.

I'm positing the converse - that Clinton supporters seem patently unwilling to admit ANY misspeaks or mistakes ever escape her lips.

I don't get your confusion....


by zonk on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:50:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I wasted too much time last night (1.50 / 2)

in the comment thread below JedReport's diary at Kos.

Some of those Obama supporters have really gone off the deep end.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:20:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (2.00 / 1)

Both of these recent incidents, the 'as far as I know' Muslim characterisation and the remarks comparing McCain favourably to Obama, are marginal and you know it.  If you wan't to give her the benefit of the doubt that is your business but you can't reasonably get self-righteous about them attracting criticism from others.


by Shaun Appleby on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:23:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

But you are certainly 'on message:'


When asked about the concerns of some Democrats that an increasingly negative race could damage the party's prospects in November, Clinton disagreed. "Maybe it's just because I've been involved in a lot of elections going back a long time. This is one of the most civil and positive campaigns that I can remember.

Mark Murray - HILLARY CALLS DEM RACE CIVIL AND POSITIVE MSNBC First Read 4 Mar 08

A case of saying it making it so?  It's breathtakingly cynical, you have to admit.


by Shaun Appleby on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:04:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (2.00 / 1)

In November she was supposed to have this thing wrapped up.  Good to know her opinion of Obama is not effected at all by the fact that he's been kicking her ass for a month.


http://www.yawnmccain.com
by enozinho on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:13:53 PM EST

Come on... (2.00 / 5)

That's spin central, Todd.

Did she out and out endorse McCain over Obama?

No... but she damn sure went further than a Democrat should.   She directly contrasted the 3 remaining Presidential contenders and placed both herself and the GOP candidate above her party colleague.

I've been pretty consistent about saying Clinton should stay in the race as long as she wants, but if she's going to be pulling shit like this -- well, then she needs to be exited from the race.

I'm with Avarosis on this one... She needs to get herself back across the line she crossed right quick - and if she stays in the race, make sure that she stays on the right side of that line.

Otherwise - it's open season.  I've no doubt that deploying a "nuclear option" would probably get me banned here, but it's a pretty big blogosphere.... and to the best of my knowledge, there is NO Obama-backing equivalent of something like "hillaryis44.org".


by zonk on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:14:46 PM EST

Re: Come on... (2.00 / 2)

Please.  Time and time again, Obama offers reasons why Hillary would have a tougher time against McCain in a GE than he would, as reasons why primary voters should prefer Obama over Hillary.  Now when Hillary offers a reason why Obama would have a tougher time against McCain, suddenly she's crossed some invisible line.

Let's not pretend that none of Obama's arguments against Hillary could be picked up and used by a Republican running against Hillary in the GE.  Moreover, everyone on the planet knows that McCain has a lot more experience than Obama; if Obama defeats McCain in November, it might be by convincing people that experience doesn't matter, or that McCain has the wrong kind of experience, but it won't be by convincing people that McCain actually isn't any more experienced than Obama.  You might want to think over these issues before making threats about a "nuclear option."


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:24:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on... (none / 0)

She can say whatever she wants, but don't act as if it's crazy for Obama supporters to be upset about the statement.  Politics is a contact sport and that's fine, but implying that the republican is better prepared to be CIC is a big deal and different than other issues.  

Obama's a big boy and can handle this, but her comments were poorly chosen and bad for the party.      


by HSTruman on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:30:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on... (2.00 / 1)

This is nothing more than a special Election Day version of the outrage machine.  Oh no, how dare she acknowledge that McCain has more experience than Obama, something that everyone on the planet already accepts!

If you started counting up all the arguments Obama has made that take the form "Hillary would have a tough time making a favorable contrast against McCain on issue X" you probably would not stop counting before the polls close tonight.  Big deal.

If you really think the question of whether McCain or Obama is more experienced is an open one that we could have debated before Hillary gave away the game, I'm not sure what I can say to you.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:42:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on... (none / 0)

Please.  Time and time again, Obama offers reasons why Hillary would have a tougher time against McCain in a GE than he would, as reasons why primary voters should prefer Obama over Hillary.  Now when Hillary offers a reason why Obama would have a tougher time against McCain, suddenly she's crossed some invisible line.

There's a difference between these:

A) I'm better suited to fight McCain than Obama.
B) McCain and I are strong on issue X, Obama is weak.

The former is perfectly fine, both candidates have been doing it throughout the campaign.  The latter is quite obviously different in that it's expressing a preference for McCain OVER Obama.

You can't see the difference?  Really?


by EvilCornbread on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:44:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (2.00 / 4)

Sorry Todd, but I disagree.

The implication is that--since experience is the most important quality for a candidate to have--John McCain would be better than Obama because John McCain has experience.

And she didn't even think to clarify that statement with any assertion that Obama would be better than McCain.  Her statement was that McCain has experience and Obama is all talk.  And the voting public who hears that will come to that exact same conclusion.

And despite all the reporting on those comments, she still hasn't clarified it like Obama did with the "party of ideas" comment--he clarified to say that they weren't good ideas.


by hekebolos on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:18:44 PM EST

I think you're wrong (2.00 / 1)

Obama's Harry and Louise mailer, complete with Republican talking points attacking Hillary's health care plan, was basically a blueprint for a GOP general-election ad against Hillary.

I didn't hear too many Obama supporters complaining.

Come to think of it, I almost never see Obama supporters at Kos take their fellow travellers to task when they say they would vote for McCain over Hillary.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:23:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think you're wrong (2.00 / 1)

Did Obama ever say that McCain's plan was better than Hillary's?  I don't think so -- in fact he's said the opposite many times.

Disagreement and criticism is fine.  The problem is clearly and unequivocally preferring your GE opponent to your in-party opponent.


by EvilCornbread on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:46:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

of course she NEVER said (none / 0)

that she preferred McCain to Obama.

Obviously, she is going to support Obama in the general.

You are willfully distorting what she said.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:08:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

well, then you seem to be saying that Hillary can never make the experience argument against Obama vis a vis her fitness to go up against McCain in the general. That's really off limits? Really?

I mean, say Romney were the presumptive nominee, Obama would be perfectly within his rights to say "look, Mitt Romney claims he's a change agent because he hasn't been in Washington, so you need me to go up against him in the general because this country wants change and all Hillary represents is Washington business as usual." Would that be off limits too because it essentially says Romney offers more change than Clinton?


by Todd Beeton on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:03:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (2.00 / 3)

Todd, you're the one not being real.

By delineating what she believes to be their respective arguments for being ready to lead, she plainly implied that either she or McCain would be a better president than Obama.

as Chris Orr said over at TNR:
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank /archive/2008/03/04/the-mccain-clinton-t icket.aspx

There are certain lines that you do not cross in a primary campaign. And one of those is suggesting that your primary opponent, the likely nominee, is so unfit that that the Republican nominee might be preferable to him. This is spoiler territory, and Clinton should be ashamed.


by along on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:20:01 PM EST

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

when did she say McCain would be preferable?


by Todd Beeton on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:04:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (1.33 / 3)

The reality based community has died on DailyKos a long time again, and I mourn its passing.  That whole site went from pro-Edwards to pro-Obama in an erase-the-past Orwellian phase change that is the hallmark not of reasoned discourse, but of fundamentalism.  

Seriously--can't you support Obama without all of the echo chamber weirdness?  I have an automatic allergy to that behavior.  It doesn't cover any of Hillary's faults, but it is off-putting.

I love that Obama people suddenly think praising Republicans is off limits.  To my knowledge, Obama has done that, and wants Hagel or Lugar as his SecDef--that's ok with you?

I guess Wes Clark isn't qualified because he's pro-Hillary, and pro-Hillary is worse than Republican.


by attorney at arms on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:22:47 PM EST

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (2.00 / 3)

it should be painfully obvious that we're not talking about any Republican, we're talking about THE ONE WE'RE RUNNING AGAINST FOR PRESIDENT.


by along on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:25:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

Wes Clark would make a great Sec. of Defense and I am sure Obama knows that...but part of Obama's strategy for governing appears to be reaching across the aisle. I am not surprised at all that he once to throw a major cabinet post their way... do I think it is a good idea? I am honestly not sure, but it fits in with his philosophy.

And there is a huge difference between "praising republicans," and praising the guy we have to fight RIGHT NOW. I guess by your standards I shouldn't have anything nice to say about my fiance or her family.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:28:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

One the sec ef thing is an unsourced rumor,
two Wes Clark's not qualified because he legally cannot hold the office (too recently removed from the service).  
by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:43:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (2.00 / 2)

"We can argue whether her words were well-chosen and whether she should be advancing arguments against Obama in the primary that McCain can use against him in the general if he's the nominee, I get that, but the idea that this is somehow Clinton betraying Democrats and expressing a preference for the Republican over the Democrat is ridiculous."

Ridiculous?

She is most definitely expressing a preference of McCain over Obama in her statement! You would have to be somewhat myopic not to see that. She and McCain offer experience, Obama not.


Click on Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land and learn the truth about the I/P conflict.
by shergald on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:23:58 PM EST

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (2.00 / 1)

Really?

Was Obama expressing a preference for Republican ideas when he said that Republicans had been the party of ideas for the last 10-15 years?

I don't think so, just like I don't think that Hillary saying McCain would try and make an experience argument against Obama means she prefers McCain's experience.  


by dcg2 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:42:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

No, Obama stated that he does not agree with those Republican ideas, only with the fact that Reagan had ideas. He was correct. After all didn't Hillary and Bill Clinton attempt to model the Democratic party, via the DLC, on Reagan's politics, including, sorry to say, its racism.

But if you really want to hear what Hillary, in desperation actually said, click on:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ou4JnWQsx Kw

And yes, Hillary and Bill will use racism if they need to in order to achieve their career goals.


Click on Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land and learn the truth about the I/P conflict.
by shergald on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:29:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

Yeah, Bill Clinton's presidency was nothing but racism.  He might as well have been Strom Thurmond.  LOL -- you lost a lot of credibility with that post.

You also lost credibility by conflating two things.  The thing about Reagan was a completely different comment from the one about the Republicans being the party of ideas for the last 10-15 years.  Do you need me to look them up and get you links or will you take my word for it that there were two separate comments and, because of that, your response makes no sense?


by dcg2 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:02:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

She'll Support the Dem... (none / 0)

I have no doubt HRC will support Senator Obama if he wins the nomination, so in that sense this is overblown.  That being said, it was a nasty remark that will -- without question -- end up in a McCain ad during the General if Obama wins the nomination.  

Also, it's worth noting that a recent poll showed that 25% (!) of HRC primary supporters would vote for McCain over Obama.  In comparison, only 10% of Obama supporters said the same thing.  I suspect a lot of that will fade over time, but the remark we're talking about does need to be considered in light of this kind of polling data.  


by HSTruman on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:27:03 PM EST

Re: She'll Support the Dem... (2.00 / 3)

Do you honestly think McCain will need a quote from Hillary Clinton in order to make the case that he's more experienced than Barack Obama?

You could ask a guy in a hut in Mongolia for his opinion and he'd say that McCain is more experienced than Obama.  Obama is not going to beat McCain by hypnotizing people into believing McCain is the less experienced candidate.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:30:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She'll Support the Dem... (2.00 / 1)

Do you honestly think that kind of statement, from another Democrat, isn't more harmful than McCain simply making his own experience argument?  Also, the comment isn't just about "experience."  She's arguing that Obama, unlike both her and the GOP candidate for POTUS, is not qualified to CIC.  Call me crazy, but I don't like Democrats making that argument about other Democrats.    


by HSTruman on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:33:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She'll Support the Dem... (2.00 / 1)

Hillary should have broached the CIC issue much earlier.   If Obama can't handle it from Hillary, he surely won't be able to handle the much more brutal and sustained attack that will come from McCain.  

If Obama gets the nomination, I will vote for him, but with fingers crossed for luck because I'm one of those who don't think he is both naive and not qualified to be CIC...any more than George Bush.

As for the argument itself, it's a valid argument, no matter who it comes from.  


by InigoMontoya on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:38:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She'll Support the Dem... (2.00 / 1)

I'd like for McCain to spend his own money on saying it.  Obama can counter with his "better judgement" argument.  It's an argument that's been fairly effective too (see 11 straight wins over Hilary in the face of the same argument).

Obama doesn't need to hypnotize to win.  You said it yourself:

"You could ask a guy in a hut in Mongolia for his opinion and he'd say that McCain is more experienced than Obama.  Obama is not going to beat McCain by hypnotizing people into believing McCain is the less experienced candidate."

Even though Hilary is "more experienced", she has lost to Obama over and over and over and over (I'm not typing out eleven overs, but you get the point).  Or can dudes in huts in Mongolia only see the experience thing where McCain is concerned?


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:38:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She'll Support the Dem... (2.00 / 1)

Uh, I don't disagree with you.  Obama will beat McCain by arguing that experience is not the most important thing, not by arguing that he is more experienced than McCain.  So why it's somehow a big deal that Hillary admitted McCain is more experienced than Obama - something Obama himself wouldn't even try to argue - is beyond me.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:45:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She'll Support the Dem... (none / 0)

Because a democratic candidate who is not realistically in a position to win the nomination just spent money saying what McCain now doesn't need to spend money trying to say.    He is at a big disadvantage on money.  She helped just a little to make up the difference.  Also, McCain can now say: "See, even another prominent democrat said it."

That's why it's a big deal.  


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:53:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She'll Support the Dem... (2.00 / 3)

Oh, please.  McCain's experience advantage over Obama is obvious to everyone, there's not going to be a debate over it.  Stop acting like Hillary just saved McCain a million dollars.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:02:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She'll Support the Dem... (none / 0)

will you retract that the moment McCain spends a dime going public with exactly that message?  Hell, he may even do it by playing video of Hilary saying it.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:16:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She'll Support the Dem... (2.00 / 1)

Your argument is basically incoherent.  First it was that McCain has now been saved from having to spend money making the experience argument, now it is that he has now been given license to spend money making the experience argument.

There is not a person on the planet who would be like "Gosh, I really wasn't sure whether John McCain had more experience than Barack Obama, but now that HILLARY says so..."


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:21:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She'll Support the Dem... (none / 0)

Does context mean nothing to you ever?!

First, I said that she is saving him money by making the argument for him.  (that was the first part.  remember?  you can scroll up if need be)  I never said that he McCain wouldn't eventually spend his own money repeating the point.

Then you said essentially that it was so obvious a point that McCain would never have to make it.

Then I asked if you'd retract that when he does say it and possibly through the use of video from Hilary's gaffe.

Got it?  Coherent as can be.

Now, will you retract your statement when McCain does, in fact, make the experience argument?  You haven't said whether you would yet.  You chose to divert the conversation by pretending you didn't understand it.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:30:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She'll Support the Dem... (2.00 / 1)

I still don't understand it.  Of course McCain will make an experience argument, it's like his best argument.  Because it's his best argument, I feel confident in saying that Hillary has hardly given him additional ammunition on this score.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:37:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She'll Support the Dem... (none / 0)

I'm not talking ammo.  The fact that he was going to make the argument doesn't change the fact that his money trouble gives him an itty bitty bull horn with which to pound those words into people's heads.  

Hilary did it for free for him even after the math has begun to get pretty damned improbable for her!  She may not have saved him money per se.  She did give him messaging gold though.  So it's more like giving it to him rather than saving it for him.  The point is, you take what you can get when your ass is underfunded.  

McCain is underfunded badly.  I didn't need to say that again.  It's just so fun.

Underfunded... ha! Ah ha ha ha  underfunded GOP... chuckle...


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:56:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She'll Support the Dem... (none / 0)

Yes!  Right!  Exactly!!  The experience thing is not even debatable.  That is what makes it exactly what McCain wants everyone to hear as often as possible!  Only right now the guy can't afford the advertising bucks to keep it in everyone's ear whole.  It's not as if the GOP has never stooped to fear mongering in order to win elections before.  I imagine later, when McCain still won't have the money he'd like to have, it'll be pretty cheap to just grab the footage and add a voice over and maybe some text.  Who better to be making his point for him too?

He's pretty much got this primary sewn up.  He'd love to be aggressively campaigning against Obama right now, but he's got money trouble (breaking his own law kind of trouble, yay!).  Might as well have done a McCain ad buy for him.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:48:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She'll Support the Dem... (none / 0)

I agree, its like arguing that CLinton would win on integrity over McCain and Obama.


by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:07:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She'll Support the Dem... (none / 0)

She's implicitly arguing that Obama, unlike her and McCain, is unprepared to be CIC.  She's been arguing Obama doesn't have "experience" the entire election.  This is different, and I find it really interesting that you're denying that fact and labeling it "feigned outrage" by Obama supporters.  

Again, Obama's a big boy and can handle this.  But it actually is different to criticize your opponents health care plan (as both have done) or to argue you have more experience (HRC's whole campaign) than to contend that your opponent is unqualified to be CIC.  


by HSTruman on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:02:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She'll Support the Dem... (2.00 / 1)

I find that Obama supporters are good at locating "implicit" messages in everything Hillary says.

Of course she's been arguing all along that voters should prefer her because of experience.  If that somehow "implies" that Obama isn't experienced enough to be President, well gosh, another Clinton argument that's magically been ruled off limits.  Color me surprised.

Too bad no one ever calls foul on Obama when he "implicitly" argues that Clinton isn't honest enough to be President or "implictly" argues that Clinton doesn't have good enough judgment to be President.

Look, you and I could probably list a million reasons why John McCain should not be President, but a lack of experience wouldn't be one of them.  Both candidates have pointed to McCain's strong suits in the course of arguing that they and they alone would be the best choice to counteract that strong suit.  In this case, since the strong suit in question (experience) is something no one will dispute that McCain possesses, why all the fuss?


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:07:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She'll Support the Dem... (none / 0)

It's hard for me to believe that you think this is simply the same "experience" argument she's been making the entire campaign (which I have no problem with), but to each their own.  I would add, however, that it's not just Obama supporters who thought this was a noteworthy thing to say.  Also, I'm unaware of Obama EVER saying John McCain was better than HRC on ANY issue.

On the plus side, can I assume from your comments about McCain that you are not one of the 25% of HRC supporters planning to vote for McCain over Obama in the GE?    


by HSTruman on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:31:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She'll Support the Dem... (2.00 / 1)

Can we not play the loyalty oath game?  Of course I'd never vote for John McCain, my daughter has no interest in fighting his wars.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:39:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She'll Support the Dem... (none / 0)

My final comment was probably too snarky and I apologize for that.  But the 25% number really is insane to me.  I just can't understand ANY Democrat preferring John "hundred years in Iraq" McCain over either Obama or HRC.  As much as I prefer Obama to Clinton, I will work like a dog to ensure Hillary wins in November if she gets the nomination.  


by HSTruman on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:47:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She'll Support the Dem... (2.00 / 1)

There are, of course, problems with racism and sexism no matter who the nominee is.  Putting that aside, I see Obama having a major problem retaining senior Democrats based upon his experience problem and the tone of his campaign against Hillary.  I know I'm going to have to work very, very hard to persuade my grandfather to vote for Obama, and he's voted for every single Dem since FDR.

Maybe I'll have to play the guilt card because, of course, it's my daughter and not him who would have to fight those wars.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:11:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She'll Support the Dem... (none / 0)

I hear similar stories from time to time and I just really don't get that perspective at all.  John McCain's "experience" has lead him to support GWB's foreign and economic policies.  The same policies the folks we're talking about presumably despise just as much as you and me.  Even if Obama isn't one's preferred candidate, I simply can't comprehend DEMOCRATS voting for the guy who wants to "bomb, bomb bomb Iran," stay in Iraq for 100 years, just said he supports Bush's plan to privatize SS, and is virulently anti-choice.  


by HSTruman on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:20:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She'll Support the Dem... (none / 0)

"tone of his campaign" gets to me.

Have you been listening? Hillary has gone bonkers and her unwillingness to give up has taken her into racism, pandering to the Republican candidate, and making claims about her experience that do no conform to what she has actually done.

Does her 35 years of experience include her years as a Republican?


Click on Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land and learn the truth about the I/P conflict.
by shergald on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:37:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She'll Support the Dem... (none / 0)

When I say "tone of the campaign" I do, in fact, include the completely outrageous suggestions that Hillary has run a racist campaign.

Since you do, in fact, believe that Hillary has run a racist campaign, I don't expect you to be similarly offended.  But that doesn't change the fact that many people disagree with you and, accordingly, find it very difficult to support the candidate who has sponsored these smears of the Clintons.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:08:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She'll Support the Dem... (none / 0)


I find that Obama supporters are good at locating "implicit" messages in everything Hillary says.

What's implicit about what she said?  She put herself and McCain in the "qualified to be President" category, and Obama in the other.  It was a clear, unequivocal statement of preference of McCain over Obama.

I don't think it's the end of the world, but it's definitely not the kind of comment she should be making.


by EvilCornbread on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:56:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She'll Support the Dem... (none / 0)

I think you'll find that this "qualified to be President" business is nowhere in her actual quote.  That's what makes it implicit.  She certainly has never said that Obama isn't qualified to be President, but if you're a Hillary-hater that "implicit" meaning apparently drips from every word.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:10:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She'll Support the Dem... (none / 0)

One can read that in this comment without being a "hater."  Although it's often forgotten during the silly season, reasonable people actually can and do disagree about who is the better candidate.  You konw, since determination is inherently subjective.  


by HSTruman on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:32:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She'll Support the Dem... (none / 0)

I think anyone who believes Hillary is saying "Obama isn't experienced enough to be President," but doesn't believe Obama has been saying "Hillary isn't honest enough to be President," isn't exactly someone I would consider reasonable in the context of this election.

It is common, of course, for candidates to argue "I have more of quality X than my opponent."  If you take a look around, I think you will find that they very, very rarely volunteer the additional comment, "but my opponent certainly has enough of quality X to be President."  That's simply not how the argument is framed, by anyone, and I'd be surprised if you could find many examples to the contrary.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:41:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She'll Support the Dem... (none / 0)

Maybe we should just let this one go.  I read this as a comment by Clinton that Obama is not qualified to be CIC, but their shared GOP opponent is.  You seem to think that's not a "reasonable" view.  OK, at the very least I am now clear on your opinion.  I couldn't disagree more, but to each their own.    


by HSTruman on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:59:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She'll Support the Dem... (none / 0)

I think he'll find a quote of another Democratic implicitly contending that Obama's not qualified to be CIC quite useful, yes.  


by HSTruman on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:03:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She'll Support the Dem... (none / 0)

Yes, she will: begrudgingly.

This couple, the Clintons, are not interested in Democratic politics as much as they are interested in careerism. I suspect that sometime early in their relationship, Bill promised that Hillary would be the first woman president. So it got him a lay. What more does he really think he can get out of it?


Click on Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land and learn the truth about the I/P conflict.
by shergald on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:31:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

Stupid,

She is not as well versed as Obama is.
But she tried to say what Obama keeps on saying, that if HE will go against McCain, with all of McCain's alleged National security experience, he, Obama, will be the only one that could win McCain and not Clinton.

So HRC tried the same the other way around, that only she can go against McCain and win.
 


by rolnitzky on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:27:24 PM EST

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

Funny, not once but twice the BO crowd has taken the word of Drudge and used it to smear HRC without even trying to find out if it was true or not.  Remember the first was the Novak HRC has something on BO.  Which of course was nonsense and Novak later admitted it was not true.  But that did not stop BO from Smearing HRC.  Then there was the picture of BO.  The BO crowd went nuts and blamed HRC campaign with ZERO evidence.  Dems dont do this.  Whatever.

BO should be ashamed.  And lets talk about words.  At the OH debate BO was asked about this and do you know what he said "I take her at her word that she did not do this".  Funny how he parses words and it is cool but HRC every sentence is parced by partisans who hate her and we are to believe that but not our candidate.

david


by giusd on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:27:44 PM EST

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

It's a conspiracy!


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:55:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (2.00 / 2)

Spin all you want.  She said it.  

This is why so many people keep saying that she should drop out.  The math is growing prohibitive unless she win BOTH Ohio and Texas by LARGE MARGINS.  All she accomplishes by staying in is to save McCain money on opposition research and attack adds.  That's money he desperately needs to save too.

We actually have a few advantages over the republicans this time around.  At the moment she is offsetting those advantages because she is more ambitious than she is loyal to our party (and indirectly the nation).

She's the new Nader.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:28:25 PM EST

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (2.00 / 2)

Look... I am an Obama supporter. I love the guy and can't wait for him to be President...but I am soooo sick and tired of these attacks. Both by Clinton and Obama supporters.

Calling her "the new Nader" denigrates the good she has done as first lady, Senator, and Candidate. It should be beneath you AND you should retract it. What an awful thing to say!


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:31:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

wrong, honk!  

I appreciate the things Nader did too.  He's been one of the most successful consumer advocates in the history of our country, but his ego did damage to our party in the 2000 presidential election.  He just refuses to see it and won't acknowledge that his insistence on competing even when he cannot win only helps the bad guys win.  This recent gaffe out of Hilary, who will not gain the nomination, but will allow her ego to keep her in the race even if it does mean helping the bad guys makes my comment uncannily accurate.  She is, in fact, the new Nader.  The parallel fits.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:47:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

It doesn't fit, at all... and I really hope you weren't personally attacking me in some way at the beginning of this comment. I think you were though; and will be, in the future, treating you as though you were.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:02:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

Why doesn't it fit?  She didn't just do damage to our party in the GE in an effort to stay in a contest that she is extremely unlikely to win even though her ego won't allow her to see it for what it is?  Or that's not what Nader did?

You think I was attacking you by saying "wrong, honk"?!  Only insofar as I was saying that I disagree.

She IS the new Nader or call her nadir in primary politics.  That fits too.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:10:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (2.00 / 0)

I am not an Obama fan and I was an Edwards supporter.  I don't even know if I like Barack Obama, however, Hillary stepped over the line for a comment so late in the game.

Here is what I wrote on the Dailykos last night.


You know, I agree with Hillary but
not now.  I have been saying for close to a year that all Obama has is a speech and that he was never responsible for the security of the United States, as was John Kerry, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and many of the Obama supporters who voted to authorize war.

I think Hillary should have exposed Obama months ago, before he became the front-runner.  He deserved it then because he was Mr. Political Coward and she could have buried him.

Her campaign was inept almost on the scale of John Kerry's, except Hillary wasn't running against a slug.

To say what she said about McCain being ready for the presidency now and Obama is not, was another stupid stab in the dark, typical of her campaign.  

Oh how I long for John Edwards, the genuine article, as we baby boomers would say.  

If I had to vote again in NY I don't think I would have voted for Hillary, as I did a few months ago.  I want John Edwards as my president but I will hold my nose and vote for Obama and hope he surprises me.  I said hold my nose, not my breath because I have some really strong fears about Obama.

Then I wrote this earlier this morning:


CW,
I never shook off the Reno Gazette interview.  I think Obama is either a coward or two cute by a half.  I believe that without super energized Blacks (which ultimately is a great thing), young kids and their stupid parent "teenager wannabees" (like Claire McCaskell and the "mommy please" vote) Obama would have lost every primary.

After the McCain remark, I don't care anymore.  I think she was out of line and perhaps exposed what we feared about her.  Hillary should have been the nominee and all she had to do is say that voting to authorize the war wasn't the wrong thing but giving that authority to war criminals was.  She also could have said that she and her husband were the real agents of change as they made real change doing triage on our economy after Reagan and Bush destroyed it.

She should have continued the attack on Obama for giving Patrick's speech and then smacked him down for the thing in Canada.  She also could have clobbered him with his friendships with Farrakhan and his anti-Semitic preacher.  No, I would never go to a church or a temple where the preacher or rabbi was a racist.

Hillary never excited me and I only went to her because I couldn't stand Obama.  Neither Hillary or Obama should be the nominee.  I can't trust either of them but any attacks on him now are too little too late.

My fantasy is still a bitter war at the convention where the only way to save the party is to draft Edwards.  Obama never had the time to prove his character to be president.  I kind of think it could be there and he's been lying to everyone but that's too much of a leap of faith for the most powerful position in the world.  So for me, Hillary is out, I am praying for Edwards and if it's Obama, I'll pray that he's not as much of a delusional coward as I really think he is.  

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

by cpa1 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:32:43 AM EST

I think if Hillary loses a major state tonight, she's history and we need to get behind Obama and not let her degrade him against any Republican.  I don't think a speech makes a president but as Jim Bakker (former Sec'y of State and a Man I cannot stand) says, the only experience to be president, is being president.  McCain is a jerk and I wouldn't want him anywhere near that red phone.  I don't think I want Hillary to answer it either.  She seems politically constipated like John Kerry was.  I am hoping I misjudged Obama and that he won't be just a bag of impressive rhetoric.


by cpa1a on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:30:05 PM EST

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

Same with the Muslim thing.
She is asked if BO is Muslim she said NO, the reporter presses on, she said "no, as far as I know"
Wow, Clinton just said Obama is Muslim.
-----
A friend of mine had no idea about the recent Obama-Canadian lie, but everyone knows about the Drudge picture.

HRC is being treated very unfriendly by the MSM.


by rolnitzky on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:31:08 PM EST

Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

I'm still waiting for someone to lay out a realistic scenario where Hillary can go into the convention with a lead in pledged delegates.  I've read various analyses from the brightest pundits in the business, and they all come to the same conclusion-  it ain't gonna happen.  She would have to sweep all the remaining primaries by huge margins.

The only way she can win the nomination is if the superdelegates give it to her.  I think it's past time that Hillary's supporters admit that is the reality.  And after you've done that, please explain how we are going to hold the Democratic Party together and go on to defeat McCain in November.

Thank You.


by global yokel on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:32:00 PM EST

Yokel, (none / 0)

I don't think she thinks she can win in delegate counts but perhaps she thinks she can spoil it for Obama on the first ballot and the time from now till the convention is an eon, where anything can happen that might cause super-delegates to rethink and once there is a second vote, I believe the pledged delegates can vote for anyone.

If I were Hillary I would not give up until Obama has the votes to win on the first ballot.  However, Hillary's hot and cold bi-polar political performances are only losing her votes and the things she comes up with know, that have always been there against Obama, are too little too late.


by cpa1a on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:48:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank god for the sanity! (2.00 / 1)

I am beside myself, I don't know what my beloved dkos is turning into...


by linc on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:32:36 PM EST

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (2.00 / 3)

The reality based community left the MyDD building a long, long time ago. 'nuff said.


Two riders were approaching......the wind begins to howl!
by John in Chicago on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:39:05 PM EST

Good post (1.00 / 2)

and I note that the Obamamaniacs scare me.  They scare me because they post stuff like this about Hillary.  I mean way to turn off other Democrats, at least that's what's happening here.

I'm glad you're calling it out frankly because this "cut and paste" for "added effect" is truly out of line.  


NoSlaves.com | The Economic Populist
by Robert Oak on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:42:32 PM EST

Tailor-made for a McCain ad (none / 0)

Sounds like great video for McCain's ad.


by AdrianLesher on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:43:09 PM EST

HRC will do anything for ambition. (none / 0)

It isnt about position or issues or speeches, when she is feeding republican framing and hurling poop. I have had enough of this ugly ugly race and it serves no one to continue it.

Here is your math and research.
March 4th Polling, At A Glance
State Date Polls Obama Clinton P. Delegates
Ohio Mar 04 8 42.8% 51.0% 141
Rhode Island Mar 04 4 38.8% 49.0% 21
Texas C Mar 04 0 -- -- 67
Texas P Mar 04 7 45.9% 48.1% 126
Vermont Mar 04 3 56.7% 35.3% 15

These polls lead to the following delegate projections:
Delegate Projections, Based On Current Polling
State Date Obama Clinton P. Delegates
P. Delegates Jun 07 1,193.5 1,033.5 2,258
Ohio Mar 04 64 77 141
Rhode Island Mar 04 9 12 21
Texas P Mar 04 62 64 126
Texas C Mar 04 38 29 67
Vermont Mar 04 9 6 15
Sub-Total Mar 04 182 188 370
Grand Total Jun 07 1,375.5 1,221.5 2,628
This stolen from the excellent Chris Bowers. As you can see in this table she wins 3 states, and picks up how many delegates?

From 160 behind to.... 154 behind Obama.

A grand total of 6 delegates picked up. I predict more SD's than that will declare their endorsement of Obama, before the paper hits your porch in the morning.
by inexile on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:45:17 PM EST

Re: HRC will do anything for ambition. (2.00 / 1)

Quelle Horror.  You think the Republican's just found out yesterday that Mr. Obama, with less than one term in the Senate, actually has less experience than McCain and Clinton...SERIOUSLY?

Give me a break!  You're going to have to come up with more than that, and you've got stop with all this pearl clutching.  If you get the nomination, you're going to be eaten alive.  Toughen up...okay?


-----------

Blog: http://fitnessnerd.blogspot.com/

by FitnessNerd on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:51:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRC will do anything for ambition. (none / 0)

cough, it is not a good to feed the republican machine. There is no point in continuing the fight. HRC has demonstrated she is willing to poison the well. The poison so far won't hurt Obama, but as desperation increases, it seems more poo is hurled and more republicans are fed. Pointless, damaging ego stroking. The piont of the post is not the poisoned well, but the pointlessness of it. If for argument three wins are granted, and the latest poll are accurate, she gains six delegates. There aren't enough states left to win. See? Pointless damage to our campaign to retake the WH, the House of representatives and the Senate by 60. We need every single democrat possible to be ready to fight tooth and nail for our Nominee after the convention. None of this hurts Obama, but it hurts our activists and volunteers. Pointless damage.
by inexile on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:01:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRC will do anything for ambition. (none / 0)

I'm an activist and a volunteer.

Nope...no pain.

Thanks for your concern though.

No, the real pain is all this fake horror.  It's a campaign.  Get over it!


-----------

Blog: http://fitnessnerd.blogspot.com/

by FitnessNerd on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:18:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (2.00 / 1)

Sigh.  I'm sorry people, but you're frankly grasping at straws.  This is just as intellectually embarrassing as the people who jumped on "as far as I know."

She was CLEARLY making a statement about her ability to counteract McCain, and the fact of the matter is that she IS saying she's more qualified than Obama.  That is kind of the point of this election.  

If we all walked around and said we were all the same, then what is the point of a primary.  This is isn't the elementary school field day, where everyone gets a trophy.

Toughen up....If Obama gets the nomination, you're going to need to weather a lot more than this.


-----------

Blog: http://fitnessnerd.blogspot.com/

by FitnessNerd on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:46:25 PM EST

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (2.00 / 1)

She mocked an authentic anti-war stance (last time I checked, an anti-war stance shared by mydd) and contrasted it negatively with the experience of two Senators who voted for the war, one of whom yet champions it to this day.  

I don't care that she draws distinctions on her supposed 35 years of experience.  I care that she's triangulating again, mocking those who opposed the war as lacking her kind of courage.  Disgusting stuff.


by maconblue on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:26:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

two Senators who voted for the war, one of whom yet champions it to this day.

She's not a champion of the war anymore, never was really.  She just went along.  Hanging tough with the war would take guts.  John McCain has guts for sticking with his positions and Obama has guts for and advocating an unpopular choice at the time.

See how that's done?  That's exactly what Clinton did.  I can say it because nobody cares what I think, but if a US Senator said something along these lines about another Senator from the same party, we would call that person what they are... Joe Leiberman.


http://www.yawnmccain.com
by enozinho on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:44:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (2.00 / 2)

Sorry Todd, not the only time she said it.

I agree the context is better there, as it is basically talking about a general election contest.

But have you checked your own Breaking Blue post about it?  The video and context is a lot worse there.

She doesn't talk about what will be going on during a general election, but specifically what they HER AND JOHN MCCAIN would bring to the presidency (their experience) over Obama (his speech).

Now, maybe you want to rationalize this away and just say that she was really just using this to point out what will be done during a general election campaign, but her wording still sucks, and you can pretty much guarantee it'll be used by John McCain against Obama in the general election.


by leshrac55 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:48:13 PM EST

Turn up the heat on Global Warming (none / 0)

This was my favorite part of the JJ speech:

And we Democrats, we believe in protecting the environment and we believe in solving the energy crisis. So, when the Republicans turn over our energy policy to the oil companies and deny global warming, what do we do?

Turn up the heat!


We in the Obama section got quite a laugh from that part.


by Meng Bomin on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:49:33 PM EST

Thank you for covering this (1.50 / 2)

and what I consider one of the lowest points in the blogger community to make such a lie of an accusation and for other bloggers to further that lie.

I wrote a diary on this late lastnight, but most were sleeping at the time I posted it.


by LindaSFNM on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:03:21 PM EST

Todd, you're smarter than that (none / 0)

OF COURSE she's going to go rah rah, we're all Democrats, WHEN SHE THOUGHT SHE WAS GOING TO BE THE NOMINEE.

General question for anyone that cares to answer.

Do you believe that Hillary would rather that Obama beats her and then goes on to win the presidency, or if he beats her lose to McCain so she can run in 2012? Honestly, what do you think?


by highgrade on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:05:17 PM EST

Re: Todd, you're smarter than that (2.00 / 2)

Suggesting that Hillary wants the Democrats to lose unless she is the nominee is pretty much in derangement territory.

Yet again, the fact that Hillary is undeniably ambiguous is used to obscure the fact that she is hardly unique among politicians in this respect.  If you're willing to entertain the idea that Hillary might be rooting for a Democratic loss in November because it might benefit her personal prospects for 2012, you should be equally open to entertaining the same hypothesis with respect to Obama.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:13:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My only beef with your hypo (none / 0)

that Obama is just as willing to do the same, is that he hasn't gone nearly as negative against Clinton as she against him. Look at the ads the campaigns have run, there is a noticeable difference. He never goes after her personally, whereas according to Hillary, your children aren't safe if Obama is President.  

Point to me where Obama has ever compared McCain favorably to Hillary.


by highgrade on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:35:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

died a lot (2.00 / 1)

The reality-based community died a lot this primary season. I've pretty much written off DKos; I've un-bookmarked looney-bin AmericaBlog; and I'm about practically in complete agreement with Bob Somerby as to the current sorry state of affairs over at Josh marshall's TPM. My love affair  with the blogosphere is over -- many splendored thing my ass...


by JohnS on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:07:35 PM EST

Yeah...sorry (2.00 / 1)

I got no dog in this fight and even with your added context, that's the way it still comes across.

I have been turned off towards the Clinton campaign (not the person herself) the longer this campaign goes on.

Her willingness to invoke fear and suggesting that the Republican candidate has more experience to be president suggest to me a campaign more interested in winning than actually running on merit or ideas.

And we have had just enough of that kind of "experience."


by Nazgul35 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:16:20 PM EST

Re: Yeah...sorry (none / 0)

trying spending some time at talkleft, corrente, and noquarter for a change.  i bet you that neither candidate is who you think s/he is.  the more you get to know the real obama, the less impressed you are by him (that is an understatement).  the more you get to know the real hillary, the more you like her.


by nance on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:23:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah...sorry (none / 0)

That's certainly how I feel!


by Montague on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:07:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah...sorry (none / 0)

I see, it's because I am ill-informed.

And you have all the answers.

My response was from a neutral observer on what the statement looks like.

Besides, as it turns out, the video was not in fact messed with, as was shown on Kos.

Now will we have orgasms of outrage over that fact?

I hope it ends tonight so the silly season ends...candidate supporters on both sides are doing more to piss people off than Republican trolls ever could.


by Nazgul35 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:31:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

obama has yet to give this kind of partisan speech.  i'm not surprised at the hysterical obamagroupthink in the blogosphere today; it must be so traumatic to have just one morning's worth of real media scrutiny, right?  sheesh.


by nance on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:19:58 PM EST

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

High grade she wants to win now, even if she loses in the general.


by nzubechukwu on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:20:53 PM EST

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (2.00 / 1)

This has truly been an interesting primary election. I would have never thought the gender bashing would be such a greater part of these discussions but , BOY, was I wrong. I go to many so-called progressive blogs to read comments that contain BS charges against Hillary that I can't believe they truly are Democrats. One person did ask a pertinent question about the bogus  "Iraq war vote charge" that Obama has tried to be effective with. The question was " Are you a Democrat and voted in the last General Election?"
Did you vote for John Kerry?  If you did, then I remind you that John Kerry voted for the same Bill. Why is the Iraq War Vote such a litmus test for Hillary and it wasn't, in your mind, for John Kerry? It really makes me wonder who most of these BS anti-Hillary comments are coming from.
by fillphil on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:52:35 PM EST

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

Well said.  Why is it okay for Kerry but not for Hillary?  It goes to show that there's a higher standard for Hillary.


by Montague on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:00:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

It wasn't ok from Kerry for a lot of people, and indeed I voted for Kerry and would vote for HRC, but that's not the point-- Voting in the General and the Primary are different things.


by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:13:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

1. There was another candidate vying for the nomination that was against the war.  Dean remember?  The wise old folks of Iowa and New Hampshire thought they knew better.

2.  I'm sure President Kerry would fully support your position.


http://www.yawnmccain.com
by enozinho on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:13:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, I remember Dean (none / 0)

Met him, supported him.  Changed later to Clark, but whatev. The second Kerry took Iowa, I knew we were in trouble.


by Montague on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:41:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This kind of crap, i.e., raging (2.00 / 1)

anti-Hillary shriek-fests, is what made me leave the Big Orange Satan.

Wow, I feel a lot better, having been gone for a few days from that site!


by Montague on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:56:40 PM EST

Groupthink (none / 0)

always produces a certain level of calm.

I thought it was the right that always sought to hear only the news that agreed with their world view...

Hmmm.

BTW: The entire premise of this diary was undermined on Kos, dare everyone Ahmening in the diary go back and read it?


by Nazgul35 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:33:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

This is another example of Hillary's supreme arrogance. She thinks we should just give her her coronation because it's her turn, dammit, and to hell with party loyalty. After yesterday, I'm so done with her. She's sunk to Bushco. levels.


by Oregonian on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:03:57 PM EST

No way (none / 0)

HRC has ambition, but Obama is the arrogant one.  Both have ambition, which one expects in a politician.  At this point, Obama thinks he should be crowned, while Hillary knows she has to fight hard.  By no means does she think it is her turn.  That said, she certainly deserves it far more due to being a vastly better choice for president.


by Montague on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:43:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

McCain/Clinton 08


The choice is simple: A President who voted for the worst of Bush's odius agenda, or one who didn't.
by Liberal Avenger on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:20:01 PM EST

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

Senator Obama merely spoke of Reagan's effect on the psyche of the American people; how his rhetoric galvanized and helped restore American's faith in itself. He never suggested that Reagan was then, or would be better now than a potential, Democratic nominee. C'mon. Build a bridge, please.

While attempting to say that the McCain will be an experienced commander in chief and she's the better opponent to run against him, belittling Obama says in effect that it would be better to have McCain as Commander in Chief. She clearly gives fodder to the Republicans for the general. The fact is that neither candidate will make life or death decisions in a vacuum, at 3:00 AM or anytime, without seasoned advisers in the Democratic party and DOD.

However, I think it's fair for her campaign to make the assertions now; it will come up in September. With the Democratic Party enthusiastically united behind its nominee, sanity would prevail if the Repubs do make the argument. Somehow, it's easier to believe that she thinks it's her turn and she isn't having some upstart getting in the way, than endorsing McCain over Obama.


Pottery
by Pottery on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:42:29 PM EST

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (none / 0)

This is why I've abandoned dKos.  People open to reasonable, rational discourse are ridiculed into silence, and things like the above are promoted unquestioningly.


by aggieric on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:20:54 PM EST

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (2.00 / 3)

Jed has responded in Daily Kos, and demonstrates quite decisively that he did not misrepresent Hillary. Go there and read it.


by clawed on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:19:45 PM EST

Re: You Think Hillary Said What? (2.00 / 2)

"Sure, if you splice the video just so, as JEDReport did in his ridiculously manipulative video, it sure looks bad" Todd, this is simply a false accusation against Jed. Go to Daily Kos, he swiped the video RIGHT from a CNN video feed, with everything that CNN reported about Clinton. Now, perhaps CNN dishonestly edited the video, cutting out something relevant, but Jed didn't.
by jc on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:58:29 PM EST

Let's just be frank (2.00 / 1)

It was not a spliced video; it was taken from a live CNN feed.  Before spreading overzealous outrage around the community, it would be more responsible to do some research.

We're entitled to an opinion about Hillary's statement.  We aren't entitled to rewrite history. Now there are a few innocent posters who have had their credibility tainted.  I sincerely hope to see a forthcoming apology.


by Tenafly Viper on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:09:25 PM 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.