There They Go Again
"But in an interview on Friday, Mrs Clinton appeared to raise it again. “I’ve been tested, I’ve been vetted,” she said on Iowa television. “There are no surprises. There’s not going to be anybody saying, ‘I didn’t think of that. My goodness, what’s that going to mean?’"
How exactly was Mrs. Clinton vetted or tested? She has been attacked and embarrassed in the press to a degree that is grossly unfair and similar only to the treatment typically dished out to Presidents. But that's not the same as a vetting or testing of beliefs and opinions; besides, she would be the first to say that victimhood is not a credential for high office. Nor is she running a martyr's campaign, or appealing for pity as a basis for votes.
Perhaps what Mrs. Clinton believes is that there are no new personal attacks that can be made against her or her husband, but that Obama is more vulnerable to unfair charges. If that is what she means, she is sadly in error. Neither the Clintons nor Barack Obama nor any other Democrat is immune from a negative campaign launched against them in the general election. Ever since Nixon, and certainly since Lee Atwater, that's been what every Democrat must expect and it's what any Democratic nominee will get in 08. The other side will always have some new way of ginning up hatred. Indeed, it is precisely the wildly irrational hatred of the Clintons that caused Mrs. Clinton to run a centrist campaign to begin with. She has in effect admitted by her political actions over the last seven years that the "testing and vetting" of the 90's moved her away from progressive policies. That's no asset in the Democratic primaries: hope is a better theme.
Possibly Mrs. Clinton, like her husband on the Charlie Rose show, her ex-campaign head in New Hampshire in the interview that led to his resignation, or her other operatives fanning out on the circuit, is insinuating that her chief opponent has skeletons in the closet. The Clintons spent the 90s justifiably arguing against the politics of personal destruction. They know more than anyone the toil taken on the country by public mud-slinging. They should not take our discourse down the path of insinuation, insidious accusation, and indecent suggestion. They should rise above that temptation and if they win this election, win it with honor. I know politics ain't beanbag, but this sort of subtle but transparent accusation isn't good for the country, or for that matter, for the Clintons themselves.
Comments (53)
Haven't Americans had enough of entitlement under Bush II? That's no way to present a convincing case for a progressive agenda. Not that Hillary is going to even try to present a convincing case for a progressive agenda.
Meanwhile, we have the Des Moines Register endorsing Clinton because Edwards isn't corporate friendly enough. What happened? Did the DMR turn into the Manchester Union Leader?
December 16, 2007 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
December 16, 2007 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one is safe from the "help" of aides. I was writing about Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, not their aides.
December 16, 2007 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You were also writing about the "help" of aides: "Billy Shaheen Goes Too Far".
To fair, it seems that Obama's aides went much farher than Clinton's aides.
December 16, 2007 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've asked today what's so progressive about Obama. Nobody seems to have an answer. Krugman thinks that the answer is nothing:
Which brings me to a big worry about Mr. Obama: in an important sense, he has in effect become the anti-change candidate.
December 16, 2007 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is just rank speculation by Krugman, who sounds like Bob Shrum here, always fighting the last campaign and looking for a bigger populist.
I actually think that someone who sounds less partisan but who has progressive policies has the chance to win big by attracting Republicans and independents and then govern progressively. Sort of the anti-GWB compassionate conservative.
"So what happens if Mr. Obama is the nominee?
He will probably win — but not as big as a candidate who ran on a more populist platform. Let’s be blunt: pundits who say that what voters really want is a candidate who makes them feel good, that they want an end to harsh partisanship, are projecting their own desires onto the public."
How does he know that it's not the opposite:
pundits who say that what voters really want is a populist candidate are projecting their own desires onto the public.
December 17, 2007 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
December 17, 2007 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
"How exactly was Mrs. Clinton vetted or tested?" For rabies.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
December 16, 2007 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is largely missing from this discussion about the negative attacks to come is the recognition that the MSM will be in the forefront of the assault. The response to your comments yesterday about Cafferty's resurrection of the "pompous jerk" canard against Gore shows just how much damage the MSM is/are able to inflict on Dem candidates. And make no mistake, despite occasional criticism of a Republican once in a while, the really vociferous and untruthful vituperation the MSM reserves for Democrats. What is troubling is that so-called Dems and Liberals get taken in and give credibility to the assault. The Right Wing seldom if ever attacks their own candidates. Why is it that Dems and Liberals, especially in the elite MSM, seem to think that attacking our candidates proves they are ???? objective? Please.
Someone asked what we can do about the MSM. We should stop trying to reform them; it's useless given media ownership and how grossly overcompensated and smugly entrenched in the life of the rich and famous most MSM figures are--print included.
The remedy is our own media empire, including a cable outlet and national and/or regional newspapers. Have done with the notion that the MSM should or even can be objective or impartial. By and large, the European privately owned media follow this pattern. True, public media like the BBC at least approximate objective reporting.But the private media reflect a known ideological/party orientation. Yet they still have to get their facts right to be persuasive. Not so here. The MSM pursues its elitist/plutocratic agenda disguised as unbiased, objective reporting and commentary, etc. And there is no source of impartial reporting to corect them. Even PBS with the likes of Gwen Awful is becoming less and less distinguishable from the MSM gong show. Time to stop the game and call them out with our own institutions.
This requires money, of course. I wonder if Soros, the Hollywood community,the sage of Omaha, and other wealthy progressives would provide some seed capital. The rest of us could help underwrite the progressive voice through subscriptions and contributioons. Might be more effective as a means of advancing a really progressive agenda (i.e., adopting elements of the European social democratic model that have proved their value and adapting them to conditions here)than campaign contributions to ideologically and politically suspect Dems.
December 16, 2007 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
We shouldn't reform the media we should smash it!
First, break up the huge media conglomeration racket. Limit media moguls and corporations to a handful of flagship stations and severely limit their ability to have control of all medai facets via radio, tv, cable, newspapers and magazines. Even the right wing understands the importance of doing this because while "their" side controls most of the media today the tables could easily turn in the future and thus, the best and most fair way to establish rules for this industry is not to look out for the interest of the industry itself, but to look out first and foremost for the public interest. The public interest is clearly best served by eliminating corporate ownership in all forms of media, and to maintain lots of independent news operations.
Second, return to the Fairness Doctrine which served our people very well until it was cast aside by the Reaganites.
Third, quit keeping public broadcasting on life support and instead of annual appropriations of limited amount ad infinitum, establish a program of large amounts over a period of time (say 10 years perhaps) to create significant endwoments for public radio and television news operations.
December 16, 2007 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the policy merits of your assertions. Unhappily, I don't think they stand a reasonable chance of enactment, barring an overwhelming Democratic victory in 2008. At a minimum, we would have to have a solid 60 votes in the Senate as well as control of the White House. And 60 solid votes means something like 65 Democrats, give our conservative/business oriented outliers. That is a highly unlikely outcome. And the more I read the bikebiting and attacks on fellow Dems here, the less likely I think winning the
White House becomes. Especially when comments reflect the talking points of the RNC and the stupid and mertricious narratives of the MSM. "Gore is a pompous ass, etc" Besides, the kind of reforms you envision would take years to put into effect, even if we could get them passed the Congress, given FCC rulemaking, court challenges, etc.
So let's play realpolitic for once. The right wing has their propagandada organ (Faux News) and has used it to intimidate and control the agenda of the MSM by beating the old horse about "liberal bias." They of course are fair and ballanced. We need a means to push back, if only to force social problems and issues important to the left onto the agenda by making it impossible for the MSM to ignore or divert attention from them.
December 17, 2007 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope TFMcafe charges you for this commercial for Obama by the inch. By the way, I am not a Hillary supporter, but I hate corruption, which is what you do!
December 16, 2007 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh please. I haven't hid my support for Obama. And "corruption" is a little harsh given the compensation for blogging at this estimable site, which is zero or on occasion negative.
December 16, 2007 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hiliary is tested for what? Obama certainly has more years experience as an elected official than has Hiliary and he gained his offices through his own hard work. Her only advantage is that she has lived through more scandal and most of that she earned on her own.
December 16, 2007 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct. Obama is a carrier politician and not an agent of change. So if you want the change vote for Clinton or Edwards, if you want the same, vote for Obama.
December 16, 2007 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, hinting at unspecified skeletons in one's opponent's closet is about the unclassiest generic personal attack I can think of. Don't worry though, Hillary Clinton's advisors will soon rein her in, shifting any heavy smear lifting to those (like Sheehan) with some plausible deniability.
Incidentally, although this is a LITTLE bit off-topic, the structuring of the primaries, PARTICULARLY including the situations in MI and FL, where Obama can't campaign without alienating the Democratic Party apparat, seem peculiarly helpful to HRC. (Remember how George McGovern came to control the Democratic Party rules committee and guess who got the nomination ...) At any rate, Obama's strength as a candidate may show brilliantly in Iowa, then New Hampshire, and then South Carolina. But MI and FL carry a HUGE press impact, likely helping Hillary, and then 'Tsunami Tuesday' (TT for short) seems DESIGNED to make it virtually impossible for a political 'upstart' like Obama, to win.
Of course, in the context of TV and the internet, etc., who knows? I may have to eat those words, because the candidate I am backing (Obama as clearly the strongest of the possible Democratic nominees) might somehow overcome what I see as an enormous hurdle.
December 16, 2007 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
So sick of all this stupid backbiting among the Dems. It's ridiculous.
If Obama wants to differentiate himself from Clinton, he could try listing three or four Bush atrocities that he will try to roll back on Day 1 of his administration. Same goes for Hillary, for Edwards too for that matter, although he has done a little of that.
Bill Clinton rolled back virtually none of Reaganism. I don't want to see that again in the next Democratic administration.
Let's see this as a competition among the Democrats instead of this he-said she-said bullshit.
December 16, 2007 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
She was tested by enduring the disclosure of her husband inserting his penis in a young intern’s mouth, and the wonderful imagery of Monica’s cum stained blue dress. Then, she had to endure Bill denying and perjuring himself about it.
And the mother of all corruption: the Pardon for Cash program she and Bill executed as they were leaving office. Where is their corrupt sole mate, Marc Rich these days anyway?
With Bills outrageous attacks on Charlie Rose, Obama should run an ad with a montage reminding the votes of the Clinton/Bush connections and similarities:
Corruption, Arrogance, Deception (“CAD”?)
December 16, 2007 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoah, whoah! Victimhood? That's unfair.
Hillary Clinton was unfairly treated by the press for the better part of a decade but she did not play the victim over it. Indeed, she was the first to point out the existence of a "vast right wing conspiracy" that was later shown to actually exist (just ask David Brock, who was part of it).
She was not victim. She fought back. And became a Senator in spite of it all.
Now, if you want to debate whether or not her going through all of that is relevant to her being president, I'm fine with that. I say yes. People might reasonably disagree. But don't call her a victim. She was more like a target that the snipers after her were never quite able to hit and some of them even lost their reputations and careers in the pursuit of her.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
December 16, 2007 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
She was undoubtedly the victim of numerous vicious, unfair attacks, even if she did not "play the victim."
See the difference? Reed is saying that she is not running on her victimhood, which I think most people would think was a good thing.
December 17, 2007 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton says Obama will be a risk? I’m betting a President Obama would not “risk” an effective second term by doing things like getting involved with interns and spoon feeding rabid opponents exactly what they are looking for (not to suggest that any of his actions compared with the spectacular display of hypocrisy and negligence on the part of his invasive attackers).
True. We have no guarantee Obama is the man he appears to be. But perhaps the other candidates are even more risky since most have been on duty in Congress where they have already proven their inability to lead and do much that is meaningful about the most fundamental issues like healthcare, education, import safety, foreign policy, renewable energy, campaign finance etc.
For example, the energy bill that just passed and seemed to come out of nowhere after decades of negligence on the subject? The key provisions were removed before it passed (A little collusion to make the status quo and status quo candidates look like they are actually doing something before the primaries in an election where the voters are demanding change?)
If Obama is as noble as he is smart, he’ll find a way to mobilize the public to do what’s necessary to reinvigorate our democracy. If he is what he appears to be and wins, we wouldn’t have a new Kennedy on our hands, we’d have the next best thing to George Washington.
I haven’t made up my mind on Obama or any other candidate, but it seems clear that the biggest risk voters can take is to allow this government to continue on its wayward path by supporting the status quo.
December 16, 2007 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ouch, I disagree with you but you still get a 5. Your point about Bill Clinton and risk is fair even if (like me) you don't think his transgression was public business, it is fair to say that it played into the hands of his enemies.
The whole thing about Obama having "surprises" that will be uncovered is unfair and unsubstantiated.
But I don't think that's what Bill meant by "risk." I think he meant that Obama might not be effective. That he might speak well enough and be passionate enough but that he won't be clever enough or innovative enough. I think that's the issue that Bill is raising.
You might think it's a bunk argument but I think it's clear that Bill didn't mean "unknown scandal" and that he did mean "less ready than he might appear." Remember, Bill put it in context of his own decision not to run in 1988.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
December 16, 2007 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yikes. Meant to post this on "Too True." I agree with your argument that Bill meant the risk of inexperience (not unknown scandal). I wanted to point out that the candidates with more experience carry their own type of risk.
I did not mean to suggest anything about surprises being uncovered with respect to Obama. I will judge Obama based on results and we won't know what he (or any candidate) will do with the power of the presidency until elected.
Will go post my previous words where they were meant to go in the hopes they will be more clear in that context.
December 16, 2007 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and we can judge how "risky" certain candidates will be based on their past actions. Voting for the Iraq War (and not the Levin Amendment) lacked political courage.
If you lack political courage, then you will be an EXTREMELY RISKY candidate for Dems to vote for.
December 17, 2007 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
And while we're on the subject, don't forget HRC's vote for the Flag Burning Amendment she knew had no chance to pass. That was the last little bit of pandering I could stomach from her. It was so clear that she did it just so she could bring it up in a Presidential Debate in 3 years. I might agree with her core beliefs if I had a clue what they were or if she had any.
December 17, 2007 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Remember, Bill put it in context of his own decision not to run in 1988."
The claim that Bill Clinton decided not to run in 1988 because he realized he was note experienced enough has been thoroughly debunked.
Once again, Bill Clinton is shown to have problems telling the full truth.
Oh, and this argument that Hillary, the candidate of the DLC, "liberal hawk" wing of the Democratic foreign policy establishment and multinational corporations, is the "change agent" in this election, is absurd on its face.
Anyone who has followed politcs for the last two or three decades knows that the Clintons represent accommmodation of the conservative status quo. Not once did they succeed in passing truly progressive initiatives; they merely succeeded in taking off the sharpest edges of Reaganism.
December 16, 2007 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct about Hillary moving away from progressive politics and policies. You correctly point out that is not going to be popular in the Democratic primaries, but there are two things you are leaving out.
First, though he has not been the subject of the all out slime assault as the Clintons have, he has still run a centrist campaign. Centrism is the definition of running away from progressive policies and politics.
Second, given that Obama has been every bit as willing as Hillary to sacrifice principle for craven political gain (rationalized by claiming it is "smart" politics)how is voting for Obama's rhetorical mantra of hope any less worthless than Hillary's absurd claim to being a change agent?
I think both of them and their choice of centrism compromises not only progressive politics and policies, but it compromises the very future of the nation. How is it that Obama's centrism is okay with you, but hers is not? Seems a bit of a double standard from where I sit.
December 16, 2007 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair dinkum, mate. This is what bothers me about both of them. And I think they both have serious liabilities the right will exploit to the hilt in the general election.
December 16, 2007 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is not a scared centrist like Hillary, and it is incorrect to suggest that he is.
December 17, 2007 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
We differ on this question friend. He may not be a "scared" centrist, but he's a centrist all the same whether scared or not won't make a bit of difference to the people of the nation who want and desperately need substantive change in our corrupt, sick system.
I see absolutely nothing in the way of policy positions where there is a distinguishable, qualitative difference between what Obama proposes vs what Hillary proposes. It's true he was against the war at the beginning, but with few exceptions his voting record in the US Senate on the war has rarely been any different from hers and that's indisputable.
Obama's rhetoric about change and hope, etc... is empty and this is because his positions are centrist and foreshadow no fundamental change in the way the system of corruption and servicing the interests of the wealthy are carried out. His "let's all get along" generalities about bringing people together won't be enough to successfully fight corporate interests and anyone who thinks so, including Obama, is just kidding themselves if they think so.
Like Hillary, he offers nothing even approaching substantive change. The only change either would bring to the White House would be gender in her case and race in his case: pure symbolism and nothing else because their policies are centrist which means subservient to corporate interests and defnitely not progressive.
Sorry, but hoping won't change the facts as they are.
December 17, 2007 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you insinuating that she meant anything other than what she said?
Don't take this personally, but this is exactly, and I mean EXACTLY the kind of shit that reporters do all the time. They think they're mind readers who can intuit what the candidate is thinking and really means and what the candidate is insinuating and why the candidate is insinuating it. But what is really happening is that the reporter is insinuating and inferring and assuming and suggesting, based on his own bias and prejudice - he's not telling you what the candidate thinks, because he doesn't know what the candidate thinks - he's telling you what he, the reporter, thinks.
The reporter ascribes such ulterior motives to the candidates because that is what the reporter is doing - he's implying and insinuating and interpreting thoughts and motivations that he couldn't possibly know but because he thinks it, therefore the candidate must think it too. Now the claim will be that Hundt is just offering his opinion of what the candidate said, but that isn't what he is doing at all - he's creating an entirely different context for the candidate's comments and then implying to the reader the candidate's "meaning", which unless he's the Amazing Kresgin he would have no way of knowing. It's manipulative and it is wrong and it is insulting to the reader.
December 16, 2007 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Bill Clinton says Obama is a "risk" and Billy Shaheen says Obama will be criticized for youthful misdeeds and Hillary Clinton says that as opposed to others apparently, she is "vetted." Doesn't this seem like an orchestrated campaign? I agree you should draw your own conclusions.
December 17, 2007 5:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am surprised that no one saw what I saw in the Rose interview . But I'll get to that below . Last summer at a barbeque ( I was the only adult male) I was asked ( as a male) about Hillary . I said then that while she shopuld get the nomination , Bill would screw it up . They all laughed and agreed that his extra curricular sexual activities were a potential liability but I was quick to correct that impression . I said that it was not the sex that would sink Hillary although that too was a problem , it would be the fact that Bill would not be able to control himself politically , would impose his hugeness on the scene and deminish Hillary in so doing . They did not get that at all and all said that he would be an asset in that regard . Then we have the Rose interview . It was so clear in this interview that Bill was saying : ' Vote for me , I have experience and better yet , I'm the best politician in the Democratic party. So who ya gonna choose ...me or that kid Obama ? " Hillary who
December 17, 2007 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
December 17, 2007 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I report, you decide :-)
December 17, 2007 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot Krugman's columns lately, but yeah, looks coordinated to me, too.
Not that there's anything wrong with coordinating things, only in trying to make them look 'spontaneous.'
I'm only surprised that the Clinton Machine is proving to be so inept at the slime game. You're not supposed to be able to see the puppet strings so easily, are you?
December 17, 2007 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
It does look like an orchestrated campaign - by you. The very thing the Obama campaign is complaining that the Clinton administration is doing, the Obama campaign is doing to the Clinton campaign.
December 17, 2007 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I won't go as far as to say Obama is empty. Some of the rhetoric is meaningful in itself, and some of the foreign policy stances have been great. But his voting record has been moderate, and his positions aren't that distinct otherwise. (To be fair, Clinton's not as far right as people say once one goes to policy proposals apart from rhetoric, and all the Dems are drastically unlike the GOP.) And I think Krugman's got a real point that (a) change isn't at all the same thing as an end to partisanship and (b) anything outside the nonconfrontational Clinton vs Obama spectrum is sidelined because it annoys insiders. I know Edwards still has a good chance in Iowa even with his media invisibility. But I still feel like somehow my own voice got excluded.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
December 17, 2007 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Choose your candidate:
December 17, 2007 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here are the winning tickets-
Hillary/Richardson in 2008
Edwards/Obama in 2016
Dr. Rick Lippin
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com
December 17, 2007 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ken Star spent $43M investigating all things Clinton, including Hillary. I don't think Mrs Clinton is referring to news articles or opposition research when referring to being vetted. I hear it as a reference to Starr's investigation, which was protracted, thorough, unlimited, and inconclusive.
I think it's accurate to suggest she's more vetted
based on the Starr investigation. It's fair to ask that if by making this a distinction if it's appropriate to play scare tactics about what may lurk in Edwards or Obama's closets. It wreaks of muddy tactic.
Still the media is looking into the public cost for the Rudy/Judy affair, the undocumented landscapers at the Romney compound, and the "never seen a gift I did not like" meme of Mike Huckabee. Are Obama and/or Edwards immune to such scrutiny? I think not, and I'd prefer to find out before the candidate is a nominee.
The Clinton angle is tasteless, alarmist, and transparent. But then again it's a campaign for the nomination, which I expect will be tame in comparison to the general election with the Republicans afraid of losing big time.
You can call be a Clintonite, which would be convenient enough to ignore my point. Or you can be pragmatic: yuck! that's nasty insinuation slime coming from camp Clinton, but don't we need to know if any of it sticks before we lose an easy election to a candidate who employed undocumented sex slaves to manufacture and distribute meth, to underwrite gay porn production, and who smoked crack by lighting the fetus-shaped pipe with a burning american flag?
May not be a fair question, or maybe it is. Doesn't matter if the Huckabee campaign plans to feature it on the covers of TIME and NEWSWEEK.
/c
In the blogosphere every one is an expert, so no one is an expert.
December 17, 2007 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pragmatic or surrendering before the fight? The Republicans will smear anyone and everyone who opposes them. Obama might well be too naive to know what lies ahead and his naivete might well be a sufficient reason to oppose him, but don't oppose him because you aren't willing to fight back.
As to the Clintons, they are willing to fight but they are willing to fight battles for THEMSELVES. They will smear Obama as throughly as Karl Rove so they can get THEMSELVES back in the White House, but that doe nothing for me or any policy I support and does nothing to turn back all the policies I oppose.
I agree with Krugman's column today. Edwards is the populist. Edwards is the only one in the race willing to fight for ME and YOU and anyone who is not a member of the elite establishment running the country in their own interests and in the interests of no one else. To change that will require a long fight against very powerful interests. It's a fight we may lose. But voting for the centrists is voting to lose without a fight.
December 17, 2007 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
May I humbly suggest that Chris Dodd is fighting for you and me and everyone who has a telephone! Maybe it's time to give life to his campaign like Jesus has given Huckabee a boost!
Dodd plans to do an old-fashioned filibuster against the FISA bill,(the same bill that is just FINE WITH HARRY REID --- A DEMOCRAT?????) which gives RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY to communications companies that violated their own standards to play nice with the Bush junta----->
Here are the Dems who voted to let the bill go forward:Akaka, Hawaii
Baucus, Montana
Bayh, Indiana
Bingaman, New Mexico
Byrd, West Virginia
Cantwell, Washington
Carper, Delaware
Casey. Pennsylvania
Conrad, North Dakota
Dorgan, North Dakota
Durbin, Illinois
Feinstein, California (BIG SURPRISE HERE!)
Johnson, South Dakota
Kennedy, Massachusetts (??????)
Klobuchar, Minnesota
Kohl, Wisconsin
Landrieu, Louisiana
Leahy, Vermont
Levin, Michigan
Lincoln, Arkansas
McKaskill, Missouri
Mikulski, Maryland
Murray, Washington
Nelson, Florida
Nelson, Nebraska
Pryor, Arkansas
Reed, Rhode Island
Reid, Nevada
Rockefeller, West Virginia
Salazar, Colorado
Schumer, New York
Stabenow, Michigan
Tester, Montana
Webb, Virginia
Whitehouse, Rhode Island
Here are the ten who voted against (all Dems):
Boxer, California
Brown, Ohio
Cantwell, Washington
Cardin, Maryland
Dodd, Connecticut
Feingold, Wisconsin
Harkin, Iowa
Kerry, Massachusetts
Menendez, New Jersey
Wyden, Orgen
And here are the very, very special senators who didn't bother to vote at all:
Biden, Clinton, McCain, ObamaYes, our brave senators are there for all of us! Which one would be the best president?How about Richardson/Dodd, or Dodd/ Richardson?Anyone else sick of the "inevitable" candidate? I amJan
December 17, 2007 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about Feingold/Dodd or Dodd/Feingold?
How about a third party!
Hillary is just a ruthless opportunist but I have a hard time getting excited about Obama. I can't think of a single difficult vote he's cast in the Senate and he hasn't been a leader on any issue either. I just can't tell if there is any there, there.
December 17, 2007 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ken Star spent $43M investigating all things Clinton, including Hillary. I don't think Mrs Clinton is referring to news articles or opposition research when referring to being vetted. I hear it as a reference to Starr's investigation, which was protracted, thorough, unlimited, and inconclusive.
I think it's accurate to suggest she's more vetted
based on the Starr investigation. It's fair to ask that if by making this a distinction if it's appropriate to play scare tactics about what may lurk in Edwards or Obama's closets. It wreaks of muddy tactic.
Still the media is looking into the public cost for the Rudy/Judy affair, the undocumented landscapers at the Romney compound, and the "never seen a gift I did not like" meme of Mike Huckabee. Are Obama and/or Edwards immune to such scrutiny? I think not, and I'd prefer to find out before the candidate is a nominee.
The Clinton angle is tasteless, alarmist, and transparent. But then again it's a campaign for the nomination, which I expect will be tame in comparison to the general election with the Republicans afraid of losing big time.
You can call be a Clintonite, which would be convenient enough to ignore my point. Or you can be pragmatic: yuck! that's nasty insinuation slime coming from camp Clinton, but don't we need to know if any of it sticks before we lose an easy election to a candidate who employed undocumented sex slaves to manufacture and distribute meth, to underwrite gay porn production, and who smoked crack by lighting the fetus-shaped pipe with a burning american flag?
May not be a fair question, or maybe it is. Doesn't matter if the Huckabee campaign plans to feature it on the covers of TIME and NEWSWEEK.
/c
In the blogosphere every one is an expert, so no one is an expert.
December 17, 2007 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Vetting" doesn't matter. Being found innocent of the mud-slinging is not enough for the crowd that requires "faith" rather than "facts." I live in a relatively liberal enclave in Virginia, but there are plenty of right-wingers who have a voice. In our local newspaper we routinely get letters to the editor using the terms: Whitewatergate, Travelgate, Monicagate, Fostergate, etc. It makes no difference to the republican base that Starr's investigations came to naught. They use the "-gate" nomenclature because it works. These people don't care about the facts! I wrote a rebuttal to the last such letter, with references to the fact that all the "gates" cited, the Clintons were exonerated from. It was not published, although the original, accusitory letter was.
Whatever the Clintons were accused of, they were guilty of as far as the repub base is concerned. That is not the Clintons' fault, but it is a fact. Republicans, even educated ones will NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY.
Hillary Clinton cannot win a national election.
Jan
December 17, 2007 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ken Star spent $43M investigating all things Clinton, including Hillary. I don't think Mrs Clinton is referring to news articles or opposition research when referring to being vetted. I hear it as a reference to Starr's investigation, which was protracted, thorough, unlimited, and inconclusive.
I think it's accurate to suggest she's more vetted
based on the Starr investigation. It's fair to ask that if by making this a distinction if it's appropriate to play scare tactics about what may lurk in Edwards or Obama's closets. It wreaks of muddy tactic.
Still the media is looking into the public cost for the Rudy/Judy affair, the undocumented landscapers at the Romney compound, and the "never seen a gift I did not like" meme of Mike Huckabee. Are Obama and/or Edwards immune to such scrutiny? I think not, and I'd prefer to find out before the candidate is a nominee.
The Clinton angle is tasteless, alarmist, and transparent. But then again it's a campaign for the nomination, which I expect will be tame in comparison to the general election with the Republicans afraid of losing big time.
You can call be a Clintonite, which would be convenient enough to ignore my point. Or you can be pragmatic: yuck! that's nasty insinuation slime coming from camp Clinton, but don't we need to know if any of it sticks before we lose an easy election to a candidate who employed undocumented sex slaves to manufacture and distribute meth, to underwrite gay porn production, and who smoked crack by lighting the fetus-shaped pipe with a burning american flag?
May not be a fair question, or maybe it is. Doesn't matter if the Huckabee campaign plans to feature it on the covers of TIME and NEWSWEEK.
/c
In the blogosphere every one is an expert, so no one is an expert.
December 17, 2007 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ken Star spent $43M investigating all things Clinton, including Hillary. I don't think Mrs Clinton is referring to news articles or opposition research when referring to being vetted. I hear it as a reference to Starr's investigation, which was protracted, thorough, unlimited, and inconclusive.
I think it's accurate to suggest she's more vetted
based on the Starr investigation. It's fair to ask that if by making this a distinction if it's appropriate to play scare tactics about what may lurk in Edwards or Obama's closets. It wreaks of muddy tactic.
Still the media is looking into the public cost for the Rudy/Judy affair, the undocumented landscapers at the Romney compound, and the "never seen a gift I did not like" meme of Mike Huckabee. Are Obama and/or Edwards immune to such scrutiny? I think not, and I'd prefer to find out before the candidate is a nominee.
The Clinton angle is tasteless, alarmist, and transparent. But then again it's a campaign for the nomination, which I expect will be tame in comparison to the general election with the Republicans afraid of losing big time.
You can call be a Clintonite, which would be convenient enough to ignore my point. Or you can be pragmatic: yuck! that's nasty insinuation slime coming from camp Clinton, but don't we need to know if any of it sticks before we lose an easy election to a candidate who employed undocumented sex slaves to manufacture and distribute meth, to underwrite gay porn production, and who smoked crack by lighting the fetus-shaped pipe with a burning american flag?
May not be a fair question, or maybe it is. Doesn't matter if the Huckabee campaign plans to feature it on the covers of TIME and NEWSWEEK.
/c
In the blogosphere every one is an expert, so no one is an expert.
December 17, 2007 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am still undecided, aside from knowing that I detest HRC's record as a senator and would prefer she not be the nominee. Not that my vote matters, since I am in NC and the nomination has always (at least since my first presidential vote in 1980) been determined long before I got a say.
But let us be very clear here about playing hardball in the primaries. There is nothing our candidates would stoop to that comes close to the depths of moral bankruptcy we will face from the GOP in the fall. As I said, I am from North Carolina, and I worked my ass off for every opponent Jesse Helms ever ran against starting with Nick Galifinakis in 1972 when I was 12 and handed out cards at the polls.
I have seen the heart of darkness in the GOP soul. Helms' Congressional Club is the model for all of the worst these weasels will do to roll back, not just The Great Society and The New Frontier, but FDR's Fair Deal. Social Security is their bete noir, income redistibution their antichrist. And they will stop at nothing to win.
So if there is anything the Republican swift boat pros might bring up in October, let's get it out there now. Insinuation, guilt by association, crazy cousins, good ol' boy network financial deals, anything that might look bad, we need to know about right now.
Because, trust me, those bastards will find things that are totally innocent and twist them into some kind of scandal. If there's anything that really calls into question the character of a candidate, better we see it now. So, to all of those running, I say have at it.
December 17, 2007 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm curious how to explain this stats:
A huge majority of Democratic voters like Clinton but huge majority of blogger hate her.
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/weak_field_1.php
December 17, 2007 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
This post by Reed is wrong in several important ways. First of all, what the hell does "vetting or testing of beliefs and opinions" mean?
Second, while it's true that the Republicans will run a smear campaign against the Dem nominee,it's also true that Hillary has been the object of their vilification for so long that new charges are just going to seem like old news.She WILL inspire the righties, but I can't see a campaign of vilification against her making new conversts after 15 years of it.
Third, there's no way Clinton or Hillary were pushed to the middle by right wing hate politics. They were pushed, if at all, by Republican electoral success in 1994, which isn't the same thing at all. The other force pushing them to the middle is the inevitable centripetal force of American politics that pushed EVERY serious national politician to the middle.
December 18, 2007 3:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
it has always fascinated me. i knew hillary when she was at wellesley. as did most of my girlfriends.
none of us could understand how it was that she captured the school. she was really a second rate mind. and unattractive.
but, she was keen on seizing control of that student body political mechanism. no one else was.
and never forget this, she did that then as a right winger..a fascist bastid. and quite frankly, nothing has changed...she is still a fascist bastid.
when she tells you that she has been tested, she has no more been tested than most of the candidates. she has never met a payroll, never managed a for-profit entity. she has always been a parasite. as are most of the candidates.
the only candidates that might be considered as real human beings are ron paul, john edwards.
December 18, 2007 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apologies for the multi-post. Lats time I use a blackberry for a TPMCafe post.
/c
In the blogosphere every one is an expert, so no one is an expert.
December 19, 2007 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink