The Clinton camp's remarks made little sense to me. It seemed to be complaining that a contributor to Obama doesn't like her. Not a staffer and former blogger, but a source of money. The tone of the reply felt a little petty to me, so the whole exchange doesn't have me cheering the way it does MJR, but the initial note from Clinton seemed somewhere between puzzling and stupid. Next they'll be asking that Obama tell people who hate Clinton to stop voting for him. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

MJ:

Few among us would argue with your central premise that a hard-fought primary is a good thing, but my question is whether the standard we should rally behind is one in which anything goes.

BTW, for the most part those GOPers who have stressed party unity have done pretty well electorally over the last 40 or so years. Electorally that is, not as a matter of governance, but we are talking about electoral politics.

I agree. Imo starting in 2000 the repubs have been better (and dirtier) fighters than the dem candidates. I want to see how the respective candidates respond to an attack before I vote for one.

MJ

You are backing a loser. This contremps probably is the deathknell for both Barak and Hillary. That Geffen was allowed to have a hissy fit, not just attacking Hillary, but the most popular President in my lifetime, Bill Clinton, shows Obama is not ready for primetime.

Suggesting that Hillary is ambitious was greeted by every woman I know as outrageous. Is Obama not ambitious? Hillary striking back though necessary only perpetuated the fight.

It is probably time to stop dreaming of the first woman or Black Preisedent look into Edwards or Richardson or some other Democrat.

These two are toast.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I have to disagree. I think we should reserve all our anger, resentment and general pissedoffness for the Republicans, and I think we should be using it now. The election is in 2008 but the crisis is right now.
It's obvious Bush will continue to wage the Iraq war as he pleases regardless of public opinion or Congressional resolution. There's also a high risk of Bush getting us into a full-scale war with Iran, whether by intent or reckless stupidity.
Public pressure and simple fear are going to force Congress to pass funding caps, personnel caps, draw-down schedules and don't bomb Iran (unless we specifically tell you) acts. How much do you want to bet that Bush/Cheney will ignore any and all of these acts and do as it pleases? Then the matter will go to the Supreme Court, which will split: one side arguing Bush is the Decider and can do whatever he pleases (however the opinion is dressed up in legal language); the other that Bush is a dictator and has no legitimacy (again, it doesn't matter how it is put legally).
And it won't matter which opinion is the majority. What it will mean is that the political system is broken. What then? Would it even matter if there is an election in 2008?
What I worry is that the Democratic Party can't bring (and a lot of Republicans) simply can't bring themselves to really believe it's that bad or that slowly stepping on the brakes (which is what Congress tried to do in Vietnam - not that it mattered; the decision to bail on South Vietnam as a loser was Nixon's and all the anti-war opposition just gave him political cover) isn't going to help.
I don't think it's much better on the blogosphere. Either they assume normal politics will work as long as it's done right or they're content with the strategy of the Left since the 1970s - write bitter and snarky books (nowadays blogs) without actually trying to do anything. And I'm not exempting myself, I signed up for this blog so I could make bitter and snarky posts without having to do something.
I guess I can't blame anyone. Since 9/11 we've been in a car going a hundred miles an hour toward a cliff. Now we have to slam on the brakes and probably roll the car a dozen times. I understand why people don't want to see this. It's one thing to pick the lesser of two evils; its another thing to have to pick between two catastrophes.
My God, do I hope I'm wrong.

I like them all.

A snotnosed, self-centered Hollywood billionaire pitching a hissy fit about the Clintons to a neurotic wacko from the NYT is not my idea of legitimate fighting. Geffen paid for his access to the White House during the Clinton years and I don't remember him complaining.

Go after the Clintons for leaving the Democratic Party in shambles after eight years in office. The Democrats were so weak, they could not go after crooks like Tom Delay for years. It took an unpopular war and blatant corruption for the Democrats to win Congress.

Forget the Marc Rich pardon. The one I'd want to know about it is the pardon of the four Hasidic Jews from New Square in Rockland County in upstate NY. If you remember, l400 residents which was most of the residents in New Square voted for Hillary Clinton in 2000.

The Republicans made a big deal about the votes being an exchange for the pardon. Since Hillary Clinton won by more than 2 million votes, those 1400 New Square votes meant nothing on the face of it.

Everyone knows the Hasidic Jews vote are very conservative and would never support a Democrat and especially a woman.

I think the residents of New Square doublecrossed the Clintons by making it look like their votes were bought for the pardon. Don't forget that New York was governed by Republicans who could do a lot for New Square as a way of thanks.

Another thing everyone knows about Hasidic Jews is that they deal strictly in cash. If any cash changed hands over those pardons, that is guaranteed to come out next year.

I'm not saying cash did change hands, just that if it did, we will all know about it at the height of the presidential election campaign.

I've been keeping my eye on what's been going on in NYC and I'd bet the rent that Richard Johnson of PageSix at the NY Post is on someone's payroll. Johnson has been keeping track of every move made by the Clintons including Chelsea.

Stories about Rupert Murdoch and Al D'Amato making nice-nice with the Clintons is just so much crap. They will go after the Clintons tooth and nail when and if the time comes.

The Bush administration has had six years to investigate every aspect of the Clinton administration and the every bit of dirt that has been dug up will be flung at the Clintons.

The Republicans have been planning for Hillary Clinton's run at the White House ever since Bill Clinton left office. They will do everything they can do to destroy her and the Democratic Party.

If Hillary Clinton runs, you all better be sure you have all of the dirt on the Clintons and know what you might come up against.

I would like to see Hillary Clinton finally have to answer some of the questions that she was allowed to avoid. The $100,000+ that she made on cattle futures is a legitimate issue. That was as corrupt as anything Duke Cunningham was up to.

She should be asked about the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy." Thats one of the ways the Clintons polarized the country: that she'd come out with a lie to deny her husband's behavior and Democrats sort of "invest" in that lie, as though she's really got a point even though its a self-serving lie.

Maybe this "infighting" is because many people are disappointed that Clinton and Obama are the two top candidates, even though both would lose a general election badly. I'd like to see both of them cleared away so a better candidate could emerge.

Delete

J. McCutchen

Shouldn't everybody just place nice in the name of party unity?

NO! Not until Obama returns the 1.3 million he raised and publicly denounces David Geffen.

PLease do not tell Hill's shill Wolfson about the 25 bucks I raised over the weekend before I finish bundling it. I'd hate to embarrass Sen Obama

Can't we all just get along?
Rodney King

I think what the Clinton campaign wanted to do here was two-fold:

1) Attempt to make Geffen's money off-limits to all of her competitors - not just Obama. Given her, or rather her husband's, history with Geffen, she knew the money was not coming her way. Knowing that Geffen can deliver huge amounts of money, she would certainly be happier for the other nominees to NOT have that cash.

2) Poke the other front-runner and see how he reacts. The only way to find out how much the other guy is willing to push-back is to, well, push him.

No, I am saying this won't stop here. Geffen attacking Bill Clinton will not be forgotten by Clinton supporters. Hillary's firing back at Obama will alienate his supporters from her. This the beginning of the usual Democratic slaughter of the Presidential front runners.

Liberman isn't much of a Democrat. However, Geffen gave a gift to John Edwards and to all those who are in the race who ultimately need to push Obama out of the way and become the alternative to Hillary.

I will vote for any Democratic nominee over any likely Republican one but it seems to me that Geffen was an idiot and hurt his candidate more than anything else.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Bush has set the "qualified to be President" bar so low, really, anyone qualifies.

Maybe you have other reasons why Obama may not win an election, but "qualified" certainly isn't one of them.

In fact, winning the Presidency is all about media likability, and I see no one more qualified in terms of how their mediated personality is presented and perceived. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Obama had been marketing himself as a different kind of politician, a Messiah who will transform politics, usher in an era of civility.

Hillary camp saw an opportunity to portray him as a hypocrite and took it.

Obama made the mistake of walking into Hillary camp's trap. He should have simply issued a statement saying he disagreed with Geffen. Instead he went on the attack with Lincoln Bedroom stuff. Now he looks like any other politician who says one thing and does another.

John Edwards and to all those who are in the race who ultimately need to push Obama out of the way and become the alternative to Hillary.

I will vote for any Democratic nominee over any likely Republican one but it seems to me that Geffen was an idiot and hurt his candidate more than anything else.

Agree completely. Geffen story makes Obama look like any other slash and burn politician. This helps Edwards position himself as the real alternative to Hillary.

Geffen donates money to Dems. Asks Clinton to pardon Peltier, convicted of killing two FBI agents. Clinton refuses. Geffen turns on Clinton. Geffen's ego must be massive to think he can get the president to pardon someone convicted of murdering FBI agents.

Filp: "Their best chance is to leave things so screwed up that the Dems haven't a chance to straighten them out in four years." I have been so scared of that and, as you say, the public's short memory and gullibility. I worry, as I realize I've commented before, that the next president will be in the position of Carter, stuck with the aftermath of Nixon's war spending, wage/price controls, stagflation, Kissinger's "realism," and public disillusionment after Vietnam and Watergate, all just waiting for disasters like the oil cartel's little show of assertion and the shah's ouster. So the GOP just then wants to be the next smiling parental figure after Reagan.

It's one reason that the Democrats shouldn't pick needless fights over mere image, however, unless they define a candidate clearly as a change from Bush, too. Only that will keep hammering home who's responsible and who's about to have to clean it up.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

I dunno. I've read a number of stories that Clinton is not merely trying to raise more money than anybody else, but that the campaign is also trying to shut off donations to other campaigns. This exchange may be taking place above our heads--Geffen serving as a proxy for anti-Clinton donors, Clinton showing what she'll do if her campaign gets crossed. She's running a very traditional, top-down, controlled message, presumably media centric campaign. If she can keep the money from flowing anywhere else, she will have a huge advantage in such a campaign.

This may not be a two day story, but a leviathan struggle where we occasionally see a tentacle flung clear of the water.

The special prosecuters spent 100 million investigating the Clinton administration and couldn't find one damned thing.

I don't think he is talking about marcos himself, but rather the type of people that tend to hang out there.

(shrill just ain't in it)

That makes even less sense. When Markos posts an item where he's looking for analysis in commentary, he asks people to kindly refrain from pushing their candidates.

And, just today, he tosses Vilsack and Clinton off the train.

Hillary is in trouble in Iraq. She has no out. The time to change her position in Iraq should've been when it wouldn't look like clear pandering, before she stubbornly dug in her heels. Which is why she now has no choice but plow ahead while trying to blur the distinctions on Iraq (blame Bush, not those who give Bush his blank check).

I don't want people who do the right thing for political expediency. I want people who do the right thing because it's the right thing to do.

Part of my equation when looking at the presidential candidates is their judgment. I know supporters of candidates who fucked up on Iraq want to gloss that over. But I don't want people who find religion before their presidential bids. I want people who got it right the first time.

And if that's not possible, then I want people who used their positions of authority to acknowledge their mistakes and actively work to limit the damage.

Vilsack led an organization which has mocked and attacked anti-war Democrats for years and did nothing. Then seven months ago (or so), headlining the DLC's national convention, he still did nothing. And as the DLC put out official decree after official decree deriding Murtha and other anti-war Demcorats, he did nothing.

Where was the leadership?

Vilsack ain't going anywhere, so it's essentially a moot point when it comes to him. But leadership means doing the right thing even when it isn't popular. And while Vilsack may have turned against the war last year, he didn't do anything about it because it would've been unpopular with his DLC patrons. Nothing he says now can change that. The die is cast. He failed to show leadership when it mattered.

Same with Hillary (who, remember, is still part of that DLC leadership). Though to her credit, she has told that those of us like me who demand good judgment and clear leadership from our elected officials to look elsewhere. At least she's honest that she won't be providing those things.

The point, of course, is that Markos echoes the blogosphere in this one fundamental way--he wants elected officials to lead. Tester or Feingold. Either way. Take clear positions and defend them. Don't try to have it both ways. That's not an 11th commandment for Democrats. That's a shout out to principle.