MyDD :: Speak for yourself

You seem more concerned about this gaffe than about Hillary Clinton actually voting IN FAVOR of NAFTA, and then lying about her pro-NAFTA votes, and then lying about her plans to reform NAFTA.

From the Toronto Globe & Mail:

Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton's musings about reopening the North American free-trade pact had caused some concern.

Mr. [Ian] Brodie [chief of staff to Canada's PM Stephen Harper] downplayed those concerns.

"Quite a few people heard it," said one source in the room.

"He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry."

If MYDD were truly a site for progressive Democrats, which I no longer believe it is, these pro-NAFTA votes by Hillary Clinton and her subsequent lies about her NAFTA position would get far greater exposure here, as they have at TPM and the Huffington Post.

If this site were taken over by the DLC-AIPAC crowd, it couldn't be any worse than it is now.

by CaptCT on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:44:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by MediaFreeze on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:08:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"He said someone from [Hillary] Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry."

Who? That's the difference here. This is simply not the same thing. This is a second hand reference to "somebody". It is an important difference. In Obama's case, what we had a story from a major TV network. There was a blanket denial by Obama himself, then someone (Goolsbee) was named and he denied it. Then the memo came out and they strugggled to spin it.

Here what we have is an unnamed source who says another person said something in a room at some point. Unless they can put more details to this, it is simply too flimsy.

Now I'll grant you that if further details do emerge then it will be very interesting and potentially very damaging to the Clinton campaign.

I have been all over the NAFTAgate matter as you may know, but when the revelations started to break last week you may also recall that I urged everyone to calm down and let the facts play out before jumping to conclusions. I'd urge the same thing here. Facts are sticky things if something like this did occur then the Obama campaign needs to flush out the facts. The most obvious thing is to ask Mr. Brodie some questions. Did he talk to someone in the Clinton campaign? Who? What was the substance of the conversation? Are there any notes?

Before you start making strong statements, something you may come to regret if nothing substantive comes out or it turns out that these accusations are proven false, I urge you to dig out the truth.

Regarding the accusations of DLC-AIPAC, I guess I'd have to say that that seems like another leap that is completely unsubstantiated. In fact, considering my personal views, I would say that it is completely off the mark. IMO the DLC has done terrible damage to the Democratic Party by moving the center closer to the Republicans and blurring the line between the two parties. I think this gross strategic blunder was responsible for getting Bush elected, but I won't bore you with the long winded version of this theory. In any case, that has nothing to do with my support for Clinton. It is, in fact, a negative in the whole equation.

The reason I support Clinton is because I believe that she has the best chance to win because she has been dealing with an opposition media for a long tiome and knows how to fight back against them. Obama has never been tested and he has demonstrated that he is not ready for the day once he becomes the nominee that they turn on him. You may regard this as unprincipled, but I am terrified of John McCain appointing two more "conservative" Supreme Court Justices, and for me, that trumps any other distinction between the two candidates.

That said, I also think Clinton will govern more to the left than her record. It's just a feeling, so it is worthless as an arguement. Also, I don't like Obama's speaking style. People say it is uplifting, but it just makes me frustrated to listen to him. Again just an opinion.

Clinton voted IN FAVOR of NAFTA. Then she lied about her pro-NAFTA position. She is no longer credible on this issue.

Obama has opposed NAFTA from the start, and has stated that the Canadian ambassador misconstrued (lied about?) Goolsbee's comments, or maybe it was DLC-er Goolsbee himself who misconstrued Obama's comments.

From David Sirota at the Huffington Post:

Not only did [Clinton] lie about her record, she actually went on the offensive attacking Obama over the very trade deal she has long championed, "rais[ing] doubts about whether he was committed to reworking NAFTA," as the AP noted.

Given that Obama has OPPOSED NAFTA from the start, and given that Clinton voted IN FAVOR of NAFTA and publicly supported it, and then lied about her public support for it, I'd tend to believe Obama has a stronger position on NAFTA than Clinton.

Wouldn't you? If you REALLY cared about NAFTA reform, who would you trust to reform it? Someone who voted IN FAVOR of NAFTA and lied about their public support for it, or someone who has always opposed it? Clinton is WRONG on this issue, just admit it.

by CaptCT on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:15:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Caro on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:57:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But Obama is supposed to be a new kind of politician.

Except that he's the old kind of politician.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

by cmugirl90 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:59:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Clinton camp also denied it and asked the Canadian government to show proof (you know, like they had the memo about the Goolsebee meeting?). The government to this date still has not named names.

This is a non-story.

by plf1953 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:18:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What a tool you are ...

"someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt"

If you have proof of this, produce it or cut out the crap.

No one - not even the source of this trash - has documented any such conversation or meeting by the Clinton campaign.

In fact, the Clinton campaign categorically denied this and challenged the Canadians to release whatever info and names they have.

Guess what? nothing was done or disclosed the implicates Hillary as it did Obama.

We do, however, have written proof that Obama is a liar and a hypocrite.

And guess what again?

The "she did it too" meme isn't going to save your "holier than thou" demagogue of a candidate.

Demagogue (none / 0)

Wow. More name calling. Has the school bell gone yet?

by brit on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:39:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh please.

Clinton voted in FAVOR OF NAFTA, then lied about her pro-NAFTA votes, then apparently lied about her desire to reform NAFTA.

Aren't you concerned about Clinton's pro-NAFTA votes, and the lies she told about those votes? Check out David Sirota's column in the The Huffington Post:

[Clinton's] direct quotes praising NAFTA repeatedly are not up for interpretation -- and neither are her absurd claims to "have been against NAFTA from the beginning." We're talking about pure, unadulterated lying here -- and lying with a purpose: To confuse enough voters into thinking she actually did oppose NAFTA and that her strong support for NAFTA is somehow the same as Barack Obama's longtime opposition to the pact.

Those lies by Clinton should scare the crap out of any NAFTA-reform-minded Democrat.

Obama, who opposed NAFTA from the start, is far more credible on this issue than Clinton is. Period. And anyone who tries to sell this story any other way is doing nothing more than trying to desperately salvage Clinton's campaign. Go read the Sirota column yourself.

Also, the guy who passed along Obama's alleged "rhetoric" on NAFTA to the Canadian Ambassador was a DLC-er named Austan Goolsbee. The DLC wants Obama to lose, and so it's no surprise that it was Goolsbee -- the DLCer -- along with the right-wing Canadian government who sandbagged the Obama campaign. Obama has long opposed NAFTA, and the DLC and the right-wingers want Obama to lose to keep NAFTA as is. You're helping them, and hurting progressive Democrats.

by CaptCT on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:01:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Shilling hour at MyDD (none / 0)

"Coming on the heels of the NAFTA-gaffe by his Senior Economic Advisor, Obama's foreign policy advisor lays another mess to be cleaned up."

Jerome, Now that myDD has fully evolved into a partisan disinformation site for Hillary Clinton, I can finally, in good conscience, remove your site from my bookmark bar.

From a friend in Canada:

Don't worry, Jack Layton is on looking after it...

Layton calls for RCMP investigation

But NDP Leader Jack Layton demanded that Harper investigate the source of the first leak as well, the alleged Brodie leak.

"What about the first leak, the leak that actually caused this entire international incident?" Layton asked during Question Period in the House of Commons.

Layton later told reporters that he wants the RCMP to investigate the matter.

"The Conservatives can't be trusted to investigate a leak inside their own organization," he said. "They'd be investigating themselves, and quite clearly this leak produced consequences that no doubt, they are celebrating."

Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae said on his blog Tuesday that it was clear the Tories were trying to help Republican friends at the expense of Canadian interests.

The controversy could play to the Republicans' advantage during the general U.S. election in November in Ohio, a potential swing state where job losses have made the 15-year-old free trade deal highly unpopular.

<http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/03/06/memo-leak.html>

by anothergreenbus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:50:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Make that self-deceiving idiots at MyDD (none / 0)

by kos
Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:10:58 AM PST

According to the Globe and Mail this morning, it was Clinton's campaign that called.

The conversation turned to the pledges to renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement made by the two Democratic contenders, Mr. Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing.

The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark.

The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign called and was "telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt."

Update: The CBC exonerates the Obama campaign:

According to CBC, all the details were wrong. Canada contacted the campaigns. Michael Wilson was not involved. And, most damning, they are now admitting that the memo at the heart of the controversy "may not accurately reflect what they were told".

by anothergreenbus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:57:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Make that self-deceiving idiots at Daily Kos (none / 0)

The latest from the Canadian government:

PMO: Officials only got briefing from Obama campaign (The Canadian Press)
OTTAWA -- Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton never gave Canada any secret assurances about the future of NAFTA such as those allegedly offered by Barack Obama's campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office said Friday. With the NAFTA affair swirling over the U.S. election and Canadian officials skittish about saying anything else that might influence the race, it took the PMO two days to deliver the information. After being asked whether Canadian officials asked for -- or received -- any briefings from a Clinton campaign representative outlining her plans on NAFTA, a spokeswoman for the prime minister offered a response Friday. "The answer is no, they did not," said Harper spokeswoman Sandra Buckler.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

by Caro on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:46:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Check077 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:08:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You, progressive have a number of sites, MyDD is site that is open to various democratic values, not just left-winged suppositions.

Re: amateur hour at MyDD (2.00 / 0)

It's about what's true and what isn't.

Clinton voted IN FAVOR of NAFTA and lied about her support for it, and the people here repeat those lies just like a DLC-AIPAC tool would.

If MyDD doesn't recommit itself to the truth, it's worthless.

by CaptCT on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:21:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Rules for Life: Do not annoy others; Do not be too easily annoyed.

Holy shit! Don't tell me the Jews are responsible for NAFTA, too!!!

(Man, I sure wish we had half the clout you guys seem to think we have.)

by Not the only Dem in KS on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:09:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Big difference between Jewish voters and AIPAC - DLC.

AIPAC doesn't represent the interests of the majority of Jewish Americans, yet they have an inordinate amount of clout, especially in the media and government.

Here's just one example: CanWest Global Communications, one of Canada's two major media conglomerates:

CanWest is often cited as an example of how the ownership of Canadian media has become concentrated in the hands of a few individuals and large corporations. CanWest founder Izzy Asper was known as a strong supporter of both Canada's Liberal Party and Israel's right-wing Likud party, and of many laissez-faire policies in both countries.

Read the rest the Wiki article linked above to learn more.

Look, I'm Italian and not a member of the mafia, but I'm not dumb enough to deny mafia infiltration of construction, carting and labor union operations (less now than in the past, thankfully).

I can separate the two -- being a proud Italian and anti-mafia. My Jewish friends who are progressive Democrats do the same -- being proudly Jewish and anti-AIPAC.

This is beside the point anyway. My point was that unless MyDD is upfront about Clinton's votes IN FAVOR of NAFTA and her lies about those votes, it begins to lose credibility and becomes a tool of whoever wants to use it to spread lies, rumors, etc., just as AIPAC and the DLC do.

by CaptCT on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:48:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: amateur hour at MyDD (none / 0)

NAFTA was signed into law in 1993.
Hillary Clinton was first Lady in 1993.
Hillary Clinton DID NOT VOTE FOR NAFTA in 1993.
Just as:
Iraq war resolution was passed in 2002.
Barack Obama was in the Illinois STATE senate in 2002.
Barack Obama DID NOT VOTE AGAINST THE IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION in 2002. He made a speech from the safety of the Illinois State Senate.

by CLK on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:01:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Must have been swept up in the passion of fighting off Obama-smearing lies by Hillary Clinton supporters.

However, there's no question of how Clinton WOULD have voted. In Ohio she claimed, "I have been against NAFTA from the beginning."

Yet here's what Clinton actually said about NAFTA:

I want to remind the folks who are claiming Hillary Clinton never praised NAFTA that, in fact, she did praise NAFTA - repeatedly. What follows is a list of direct quotes from Clinton on NAFTA.

According to NBC's Meet the Press, in 2004, Clinton said, "I think, on balance, NAFTA has been good for New York and America."

The Associated Press reported on 3/6/96 that she said, "NAFTA is proving its worth" and later praising NAFTA as "a free and fair trade agreement."

In her memoir, Clinton trumpeted her husband's "successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA."

In 1998, Bloomberg News reports that she praised corporations for mounting "a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA." Another direct quote.

In a 2002 speech to the Democratic Leadership Council, she said:

"We all know the record of the DLC, the Progressive Policy Institute and, of course, the Clinton-Gore Administration. The economic recovery plan stands first and foremost as a testament to both good ideas and political courage. National service. The Brady Bill. Family Leave. NAFTA.

Here's the bottom line:

Not only did she lie about her record, she actually went on the offensive attacking Obama over the very trade deal she has long championed.

Clinton lies shouldn't be tolerated by progressive Democrats who care about the truth and about real NAFTA reform.

by CaptCT on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:28:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)

"He voted for it before he voted against it"

Oh wait, that was another election... but, the lines of attack sound very familiar...

I didn't like them then, and I certainly don't like them now... There is no room for "gotcha" politics in a primary. We're all on the same team, or have people forgotten that?

by LordMike on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:06:55 AM EST

Re: Speak for yourself (2.00 / 2)

Has anyone told PA this thing is over? And WY, PR, and all the rest of the states that have not yet voted?

by Mar154 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:07:12 AM EST

Re: Speak for yourself (2.00 / 3)

That just isn't a smart comment to make. I don't know her background, but that's just not smart. She just gave McCain more ammunition than Clinton did with her ads. I mean, she's a surrogate, a key surrogate, that's claiming her candidate isn't ready. I understand the intent, but you'd think that someone in the campaign would have helped her word that comment better or, well, to think about things first.

by toonsterwu on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:09:14 AM EST

It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)

The Clinton campaign has plenty of their own gaffes.

"Being human is overrated" Mark Penn

"Those states don't matter" Mark Penn

"Obama's supporters don't work for a living"

"We are going to push the automatic delegate's to override the popular vote"

"John McCain is better than Barack Obama"

by LordMike on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:13:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by LakersFan on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:19:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Who said "John McCain is better than Barack Obama" and when? I know a lot of Obama supporters are trying to infer this, but it's dishonest to put something in quotes that was never actually said.

by brit on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:12:52 AM EST

With editing.... anybody can be made to say anything.

So this is how it's going to continue? Hillary attacking Barack from the right? Good luck with that strategy when it comes to the GE

by falcon4e on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:12:59 AM EST

Wow.. more ammo to use against Obama either now or in the general

1 commercial - the Chris matthews one.

1 commercial- "neither are ready to take the phone call" turns to "I'm John McCain and I'm ready to take that phone call"

stupid.. stupid.. stupid.

by MChav06 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:13:32 AM EST

NAFTA gaffe is nowhere near over, for the Clinton camp that is - seems they were the ones offering assurances - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/s tory/RTGAM.20080305.wharpleak0305/BNStor y/National/home

by mefck on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:40:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I am stunned at how low Clinton will travel in this campaign. Amazing.

Are you really that stunned ? (none / 0)

Are you really that stunned ?

Me thinks you had concluded a long time back that HRC was the incarnation of evil... and that she "would do anything, and say anything" to win... and that she was responsible for the 1994 fiasco, for the failure to pass health care reform, for Vince Foster, for travelgate, for WJC shagging Monica, for the Iraq war etc.

Are you really that stunned ?

Or am I mistaking you for a typical Clinton hater, and you are really just another open minded Obama supporter ?

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:05:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Safe at Home on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:18:40 AM EST

Susan Rice having input on foreign policy. What a scary thought. America is never going to accept Obamas "Pantywaist Diplomacy". Clinton proved that with the 3AM ad. Get a grip Obama supporters!

by marcotom on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:24:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you propose the US should continue to rely on conventional "wisdom" and invade whatever country we don't like? I call BS on this. His foreign policy advisers are some of the best the country has to offer and some major changes are needed here. Talking to foreign leaders we don't like is important to avoid unnecessary wars.

by Safe at Home on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:40:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I never called for invading any country we dont like. What a misguided thought. Name me 27 Flag officers that Obama has. You cant, can you? Obama has no Foreign Policy experience, according to Sen. Voinovich of Ohio.

by brit on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:45:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry. Is this a progressive blog, or have I entered an alternative universe?

Re: Speak for yourself (2.00 / 2)

This isn't DailyObama if that's what you're wondering.

The Kentucky Democrat

by kydem on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:06:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by brit on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:09:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What is it then... Daily Dirt.

C'mon. There are some good comments and pro Hillary diaries here. This is not one. And 'taunting points' like this do nobody any favours.

Re those 50 superdelegates (2.00 / 2)

me thinks they were lining up prior to Texas and OH. They thought Obama would deliver a knockout punch. Now that Hillary scored and took those two huge victories most those superdelegates will do the two-step back.

Clintonism is the kind of Government I could get used to...

by Mariel on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:19:24 AM EST

by marcotom on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:25:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Unless the big wins were not that big after all - once the media narrative returns to the pledged delegate counts.

by Marvin42 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:19:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No they were big. Delegate count notwithstanding.

It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)

One congressman says that he still has the commitment of the 50 and will be rolling them out soon...

He only lost 4 delegates Tuesday... considering that Tuesday is the ONLY day in this election that he lost delegates instead of gained, that's pretty good! Very few politicians go undefeated during the primary season.

by LordMike on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:29:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by Safe at Home on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:45:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh really. Obamas camp denies it. Click here for proof

by Becky G on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:21:05 AM EST

She was still talking when the video stopped. What was the rest of it? I suspect something like "no one is prepared for that when they first start and all new presidents have a learning curve, etc. That was a perfect example of lifting a remark out of context. Obama was right - we are into the "silly season".

Re: isn't the Obama campaign more discipline? (none / 0)

lol..isn't the Obama campaign more
discipline, more on massage, more
superior, more everything ?

the GOP propaganda machine hasn't even started
yet on Obama and now fast unraveling.

still figuring out the reasons for crashing the
Hillary conference call with reporters.

hot air meets reality

by toddy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:22:08 AM EST

by BklynDem on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:22:12 AM EST

Someone is not ready, and it's Susan Rice. Not ready to hold a senior post in the State dept. or NSC. Between her and Tony Lake, Obama has chosen the very worst from the Clinton administration to advise him.

No Way, No How, No McCain!

Susan Rice is brilliant. You can watch the entire clip at DU and will walk away with an entirely different point of view than from Jerome's sliced and diced version.

by GFORD on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:38:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by MChav06 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:52:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Full video always helps - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00lZ3ytNm VM

Re: I've seen the whole clip (2.00 / 1)

I've watched the whole thing too...

There is a slip up - they're BOTH not ready - qualified almost immediately by a pretty devastating rebuttal of Hillary's so-called foreign policy experience in Northern Ireland and Macedonia. And then she makes the point...

McCain hasn't taken the call at 3 a.m. either.

Perhaps the one liner above can be edited out into a video for McCain. I bet it doesn't happen. The sentence is hanging and unanswered, totally different to Kerry's self-defeating statement.

This won't play. Except as a 'taunting point' here

by brit on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:06:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Jerome is being pathetic (2.00 / 1)

First, Todd puts a front page story accusing an Obama supporter on DK of editing a video, that he never edited.

Todd apologized, like he should have. He gets a lot of credit for that from most people.

But then Jerome puts a video that is REALLY edited right before the caveat!

Pathetic!

by Dave Dial on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:47:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: The "Inevitability" Candidate (2.00 / 2)

Clay is overly arrogant and confident, which seems to be a pattern with Obama and his people.
Clinton won the vast majority of precincts in Missouri. Obama squeaked by with barely a point to win. So, Clay's confidence is bravado, which makes voters recoil. They ought to have learned that lesson by now. The more they claim inevitability, the more voters resist that meme.

Obama's campaign is going to overreach, and there will be a backlash.

He didn't think he needed to court Florida voters; his memo calling their votes "worthless" and "meaningless" which was published in the St. Petersburg Times, is still reverberating in the Sunshine State.

Exclude those delegates and Dems will lose Florida in November; re-vote for the delegates and Obama's "worthless" will count heavily against him in any new vote. Seat and Count those delegates, as Clinton's been supporting all along, and the numbers hurt Obama.

He has no good choices, and has backed himself into a corner on Florida.

Just as he did on the BLACKWATER issue. When Clinton took the lead and co-sponsored legislation to ban private contractors in military action, Obama waffled and said he wouldn't rule out continuing to use Blackwater and other private security contractors in Iraq.

"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman

by Tennessean on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:24:17 AM EST

by Kate Stone on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:27:14 AM EST

Will be interesting to watch Obama deal with the incoming once Hillary is out of the way. He won't know what hit him.

by marcotom on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:27:57 AM EST

No line of attack seems to be too cheap - let's start cutting and pasting and taking stuff out of context.

by Becky G on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:42:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly. It's interesting how no Hillary supporter has even questioned what was said after the clip ended. She was still talking and was stopped in mid sentence. Silly season, indeed!

by jeffs on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:28:26 AM EST

Clinton's scorched earth policy, taken from her new bff Rove, is frankly counter-productive for Dems and herself.

The revelation that it was the Clinton campaign that contacted Harper's Chief of Staff, and the fact that Clinton seems to favor McCain over Obama, will really come back to bite her. I'm sure it's causing more than a few Clinton supporters to reevaluate their support.

As far as Rice's statement goes: considering the nature of current big media reporting, it was a mistake, but if the question is who has more negative baggage going into the GE, Obama or Clinton, I think the answer is pretty clear.

by zane on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:38:09 AM EST

Rice is usually a good surrogate, this was stupid stupid stupid, and i believe another obama surrogate said something similar yesterday

in other new JEROME! i wish you would say something about he accusations markos is throwing around about Hilary being a racist

Re: where does kos say that? (none / 0)

He made the argument on CNN but he wordered it in a way that would be tougher for McCain to use (presumably). Something to the effect of "None of us are ready, that's the point"

Voices in the Wilderness

by Wiseprince on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:01:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

latest Clinton Camp strategy meeting (1.50 / 2)

"[Expletive] you!" Ickes shouted.

"[Expletive] you!" Penn replied.

"[Expletive] you!" Ickes shouted again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/03/05/AR2008030503621_ pf.html

Our Moment Is Now

by mboehm on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:46:00 AM EST

Re: so? (none / 0)

Hillary style leadership...not what the country needs.

by JoeCoaster on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:14:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: latest Clinton Camp strategy meeting (none / 0)

Wow, people getting pissed of in a heated and long campaign? Say it isn't so. I thought they were all animatronic robots...

Yeah, this is the silly season stuff alright (to quote Sen Obama).

This is as serious as you surrogate kind of admitting your own candidate is not ready on national tv.

by Marvin42 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:22:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Missing the important point (2.00 / 0)

Thirty comments and nobody has mentioned the quote from Clay. If it is true that Obama is going to unveil another 50 super-delegates, that should just about do it: game, set, match.

That would be eight times the number of delegates HRC netted on Tuesday. It would generate enormous momentum for Obama. Almost everyone would see the handwriting on the wall. If Obama got another 50 supers, HRC would probably need 80% of the remaining supers to overcome his lead in pledged delegates.

I think it would be great if it happened and happened soon. The party does not need another seven weeks of HRC throwing the kitchen sink and the toilet at Obama.

by upper left on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:47:39 AM EST

Re: no that won't just about do it (none / 0)

yeah right. hillary will never be president, whether she is the nominee or not.

sorry but i agree with nearly everything she says and someone i find myself wishing i didnt when she is the one to say it.

dont get me wrong, ill vote for the lesser of two evils. but i will still be voting for an evil.

by falseintellect on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:46:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your analysis is way off (2.00 / 0)

You equate the possibility of winning a primary in PAS to winning a nationwide GE. The correlation is fuzzy to non-existent.

Clinton and Obama would each face distinctly different challenges in a GE against McCain.

Hillary would have great difficulty winning independents and disaffected Repubs because McCain has strength with indies and in part because these groups already have hardened negative attitudes towards HRC. In addition, polls indicate that the race would become very gender polarized, McCain beats her among men by over twenty percent. It remains to be seen if she can pull significant number of Republican women. Finally, depending on how she came to win the nomination, Hillary is likely to have a very big problem turning out two important elements of the Dem base, AA voters and young voters. If Hillary wins the nomination by sweeping the remaining primaries and taking the lions share of the remaining supers, she should be OK. But if she wins by going even more negative on Obama and overturning a significant Obama lead in pledged delegates, I predict a lot of trouble.

OTOH, Obama already has substantial independent and disaffected Republican support, he just needs to hang on to it under the Republican onslaught. His struggle will be to bring home the down-scale, older blue collar white voters who still have doubts about him. It is difficult to determine how much of this reticence is simply based on not knowing him well enough and how much is based on underlying attitudes about race.

Bottom Line: the simple correlation you suggest is simply not true. Electability is very complex and given the historic nature of both Clinton and Obama's campaigns it is not completely knowable.

What is easy to discern is that most Republican analysts would prefer to run against HRC. She will help them unite and turn-out their base. On the other hand Obama is likely to increase turn-out among the Dem base (AA voters and youth voters) which will greatly help down ballot Dems.

by upper left on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:59:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Missing the important point (none / 0)

It would be impressive, and would have been decisive IF he had won one of the two states. Now it will be a good news day, but probably be viewed as this is the sum total of what he will get until PA (and probably FL and MI) are considered.

So no knock out punch.

by Marvin42 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:23:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Missing the important point (none / 0)

You sound like you are looking at it from a PR angle, I am talking about delegate math.

If he gets another 50 supers, she would need nearly 80% of the remaining unpledged supers, or she will need to start eroding Obama's base demographic groups and blowing him out in primary after primary the way he did in February.

by upper left on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:10:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by mikelow1885 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:56:57 AM EST

bye, bye Obama, Hello McCain....

Re: Obama would Lose NJ and PA (none / 0)

You're ripping selected data from a SUSA poll that shows Obama WINNING the electoral college to prove he can't win? Seriously? In that case, Hillary loses Michigan, Oregon, and Washington, Obama wins in November.

by Mullibok on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:13:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by MChav06 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:00:05 AM EST

Seriously post the whole clip and not your edited version, this is ridiculous. Watching the whole clip you will be impressed by this woman - she is extremely thoughtful.

by JoeCoaster on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:17:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No, we need another propagandist as president...NOT.

by Sensible on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:26:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL! Do you think when you ask the McCain campaign to do the same in their 1 minute advertisement, they'll do it!

They've got their meat, they aren't going to post the whole video.

Guess what, your candidate screwed the pooch on the foreign policy angle...So electable! NOT

by WellstoneDem on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:02:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Seeing as how Senator Clinton, a much more prominent Democrat, has already given McCain's campaign the same message (much more directly and not taken out of context) on a number of occasions, I wouldn't be so concerned about Susan Rice.

What a strange strategy (none / 0)

Is Obama's strategy now to claim that "this race is over" over and over and over? While it may be close to true, what a colossally stupid message point. It may be the only conceivable thing they can do to give Hillary a chance. How are they going to inspire their voters to come out in the coming states, as opposed to Hillary's voters who will be fired up to prove them wrong?

Jeez. I mean, the guy is a massively talented politician, but he and his team make some of the most god-awfully stupid strategic decisions.

by ColoradoGuy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:24:36 AM EST

Re: What a strange strategy (none / 0)

I think if he keeps making this assertion, that its over, and it isn't it may actually lose it for him. Its a bad tactical move. I would have guessed they would have continued with the "I will win anyway, but let the people decide" which would have been much more beneficial.

What was it? 2/3 of dem voters want Hillary to go on if she won OH/TX?

by Marvin42 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:25:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is a coordinated Obama strategy (none / 0)

Obama himself said the same thing on CNN yesterday morning (although Obama's quote at least included McCain in saying that none of them had the experience to answer the 3AM call).

This is just a terrible response. I mean, historically bad.

It reminds me of Kerry for whatever reason being unable to say about the $87billion, that there were two different votes on two different versions and simply put it to bed with that.

Obama just needs to say, "I'm ready for that call because I have demonstrated superior judgment. What you want is to know that a President who answers that call isn't going to react by launching a war that gets us bogged down in Iraq because they don't have the judgment to react well to intelligence and difficult situations".

But the whole "I'm not ready, but no one else is" will instead scare the bejeesus out of Americans. And that's not helpful at all.

by dcg2 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:32:25 AM EST

by poserM on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:47:11 AM EST

really no reason to use profanity . . . even when abbreviated.

Hillary aid brings up Ken Starr (none / 0)

Talk about a BAD move! This opens the door to the dark days of Bill's impeachment. Not something Hillary would want to remind Democrats of that's for sure.

HuffingtonPost

Aides to Sen. Hillary Clinton accused Sen. Barack Obama of adopting Republican talking points and acting like Ken Starr for launching a more aggressive campaign following his losses in Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island on Tuesday.

A reporter on the conference call brought up the obvious

a reporter reminded Lewis that many political observers had interpreted Clinton's "3 A.M." advertisement to be a derivative of the traditionally Republican use of fear for political purposes. Was it not Clinton who was parodying the GOP?

by JoeCoaster on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:48:30 AM EST

Re: Hillary aid brings up Ken Starr (none / 0)

Yeah, the Clinton campaign should send out a memo discouraging aides from making negative comparisons from the past in order to make a point. It only reminds people of the rough times it was and how enduring and harsh those times were for the American Public.

by Check077 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:15:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary aid brings up Ken Starr (none / 0)

Actually I thought if it works its pretty clever. If it remotely sticks it starts painting Obamas attacks as the same kind of unfair tactics that the democratic base hated when used against them. It may cripple Obamas campaigns attempt at going negative.

by Marvin42 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:26:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hmmmm.... (none / 0)

Some are saying that this is a cheap shot. Well, they are right. It is a cheap shot. Did Dr. Rice make a mistake? Yes. It was not smart to say those words. Was she taken out of context? Yes.

It would have been much better to make her point by saying. "None of the candidates have been President, so none of them has that experience blah blah blah..."

But still;, it is pretty clear in context what she means, and it is sort of a gotcha video.

That being said, what the big point here seems to be is that she left herself open to the gotcha game by not guarding her words more carefully. This is the big leagues and you have to be very very careful what you say.

So, is the accusation that she doesn't think Obama has the experience to be president fair? No. Is the concern that Obama's chief foreign policy expert is not ready for a bruising campaign against unprincipled opponents a fair criticism? I'd say it is.

by MediaFreeze on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:17:12 PM EST

Re: Hmmmm.... (none / 0)

No doubt some of his team are young - but let's not go down the whole experience thing again. Minor verbal slip up. It happens. But she corrected herself quickly to say what she had to say.

But on a wider point...

Do non Obama supporters have to trash EVERY ONE of his team? I would never trash Wes Clarke or Holbrooke - and they were young once. Isn't it to the advantage of the entire democratic party to have smart up and coming politicians?

Watch the whole video - forget the obligatory point scoring for a moment - and this woman is a credit to your party and your country

by brit on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:45:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Speak for yourself (2.00 / 1)

Here is the complete interview, very different when you hear the whole thing:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/dis cuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address =385x101660>Susan Rice complete interview

by Becky G on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:28:12 PM EST

OK, that didn't work so here: (none / 0)

I don't know how to make it a link so maybe y'all can copy and paste: http://www.democraticunderground.com/dis cuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address =385x101660

by Becky G on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:29:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK, that didn't work so here: (2.00 / 1)

Here is the LINK

by JoeCoaster on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:34:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Big Bad Negative Ads. (none / 0)

Jerome was only interested in the smear potential in the video. Not in the actual reality of the interview.

We all need to be very afraid of the big bad negative ads coming down the pipe. Only Hillary can protect us from big bad negative ads. </snark>

by JoeCoaster on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:39:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks for the whole interview (2.00 / 0)

Susan Rice is an incredibly bright and capable foreign policy mind. I very much hope she becomes Secretary of State or National Security Adviser in the coming Obama administration.

by WellstoneDem on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:59:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by WellstoneDem on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:43:21 PM EST

This is the alternative media that is supposed to be so much better than the MSM? The alternative media that is supposed to talk about issues and substance and get away from the 3 second soundbites?

And you edit the video so that the whole context of her remarks and the point she was getting at isn't covered?

At least the MSM let her give her full answer. This is turning into a crappier version of what's on TV 24 hours a day.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/4/14522 /93090#commenttop

Its interesting that the front page of this site found Hillary Clinton's direct claim that Senator Obama was not ready to be President while she and McCain were was no big deal

but being able to edit Senator Obama's foreign policy adviser's words to embarass him is a huge story.

Are you not worried about the McCain campaign using Clinton's actual words against Obama in the general election?

by WellstoneDem on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:31:19 PM EST

by hawkjt on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:26:22 PM EST

Susan Rice is a very smart and able foreign policy advisor. I would prefer her to Maddie Albright anyday.

This is yet another attempt to distort an Obama position a la the republicans.

Obama represents everything that was the ideal of Crashing the Gate and yet the author chooses to rip him at every chance a la the GOP.

What could explain such a contradiction?
It is baffling.